Overview Information; Race to the Top Fund Assessment Program; Notice Inviting Applications for New Awards for Fiscal Year (FY) 2010, 18171-18185 [2010-8176]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 68 / Friday, April 9, 2010 / Notices
Maryland Avenue, SW., room 4W414,
Washington, DC 20202 or by e-mail:
readytolearn@ed.gov.
If you use a telecommunications
device for the deaf, call the Federal
Relay Service, toll free, at 1–800–877–
8339.
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.
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: April 5, 2010.
James H. Shelton, III,
Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and
Improvement.
[FR Doc. 2010–8168 Filed 4–8–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Overview Information; Race to the Top
Fund Assessment Program; Notice
Inviting Applications for New Awards
for Fiscal Year (FY) 2010
Catalog of Federal Domestic
Assistance (CFDA) Numbers: 84.395B
(Comprehensive Assessment Systems
grants) and 84.395C (High School
Course Assessment Programs grants).
Dates:
Applications Available: April 9, 2010.
Deadline for Notice of Intent To
Apply: April 29, 2010.
Date of Technical Assistance Meeting
for Prospective Applicants: April 22,
2010.
Deadline for Transmittal of
Applications: June 23, 2010.
Deadline for Intergovernmental
Review: August 23, 2010.
Full Text of Announcement
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
I. Funding Opportunity Description
Purpose and Overview of Program:
Authorized under the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
(ARRA), the Race to the Top Fund
Assessment Program provides funding
to consortia of States to develop
assessments that are valid, support and
inform instruction, provide accurate
information about what students know
and can do, and measure student
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:07 Apr 08, 2010
Jkt 220001
achievement against standards designed
to ensure that all students gain the
knowledge and skills needed to succeed
in college and the workplace. These
assessments are intended to play a
critical role in educational systems;
provide administrators, educators,
parents, and students with the data and
information needed to continuously
improve teaching and learning; and help
meet the President’s goal of restoring, by
2020, the nation’s position as the world
leader in college graduates.
Through the Race to the Top Fund
Assessment Program, the Department
expects to award two categories of
grants: (A) Comprehensive Assessment
Systems grants, and (B) High School
Course Assessment Programs grants. In
this notice, we are establishing
priorities, requirements, definitions, and
selection criteria for each grant category.
An eligible applicant (i.e., a consortium
of States) may apply for grants in both
categories, provided it meets the
eligibility requirements for each
category. The Department will score and
rank applications separately in each
grant category. Following is an overview
of the two grant categories:
(A) Comprehensive Assessment
Systems grants. Over the past decade,
State assessment results have brought
much-needed visibility to disparities in
achievement among different groups of
students and helped meet increasing
demands for data that can be used to
improve teaching and learning. To fully
meet the dual needs for accountability
and instructional improvement,
however, States need assessment
systems that are based on standards
designed to prepare students for college
and the workplace, and that more
validly measure student knowledge and
skills against the full range of those
standards and across the full
performance continuum. Further, States
need assessment systems that better
reflect good instructional practices and
support a culture of continuous
improvement in education by providing
information that can be used in a timely
and meaningful manner to determine
school and educator effectiveness,
identify teacher and principal
professional development and support
needs, improve programs, and guide
instruction.
This grant category supports the
development of such assessment
systems by consortia of States.
Comprehensive Assessment Systems
grants provide funding for the
development of new assessment systems
that measure student knowledge and
skills against a common set of collegeand career-ready standards (as defined
in this notice) in mathematics and
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
18171
English language arts in a way that
covers the full range of those standards,
elicits complex student demonstrations
or applications of knowledge and skills
as appropriate, and provides an accurate
measure of student achievement across
the full performance continuum and an
accurate measure of student growth over
a full academic year or course.
Assessment systems developed with
Comprehensive Assessment Systems
grants must include one or more
summative assessment components in
mathematics and in English language
arts that are administered at least once
during the academic year in grades 3
through 8 and at least once in high
school and that produce student
achievement data and student growth
data (both as defined in this notice) that
can be used to determine whether
individual students are college- and
career-ready (as defined in this notice)
or on track to being college- and careerready (as defined in this notice). In
addition, assessment systems developed
with Comprehensive Assessment
Systems grants must assess all students,
including English learners (as defined in
this notice) and students with
disabilities (as defined in this notice).
Finally, assessment systems developed
with Comprehensive Assessment
Systems grants must produce data
(including student achievement data
and student growth data) that can be
used to inform (a) determinations of
school effectiveness; (b) determinations
of individual principal and teacher
effectiveness for purposes of evaluation;
(c) determinations of principal and
teacher professional development and
support needs; and (d) teaching,
learning, and program improvement.
To be eligible for a Comprehensive
Assessment Systems grant, an eligible
applicant must include at least 15
States, of which at least 5 States must
be governing States (as defined in this
notice). An eligible applicant receiving
a Comprehensive Assessment Systems
grant must ensure that the summative
assessment components of the
assessment system (in both mathematics
and English language arts) will be fully
implemented statewide in each State in
the consortium no later than the 2014–
2015 school year.1 It is the expectation
of the Department that States that adopt
assessment systems developed with
1 By requiring that member States fully
implement the summative assessment components
of the assessment system no later than the 2014–
2015 school year, we believe that we are providing
an eligible applicant receiving a Comprehensive
Assessment Systems grant with an appropriate
amount of time to design and develop summative
assessments that meet the Absolute Priority and
other requirements for this grant category.
E:\FR\FM\09APN1.SGM
09APN1
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
18172
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 68 / Friday, April 9, 2010 / Notices
Comprehensive Assessment Systems
grants will use assessments in these
systems to meet the assessment
requirements in Title I of the ESEA.
In addition to meeting the need for
assessment systems that can be used to
determine whether students are collegeand career-ready, this grant category
seeks to ensure that the results from
those systems will, in turn, be used
meaningfully by institutions of higher
education (IHEs). Under this grant
category, we intend to promote
collaboration and better alignment
between public elementary, secondary,
and postsecondary education systems
by establishing a competitive preference
priority for applications that include
commitments from public IHEs or IHE
systems to participate in the design and
development of the consortium’s final
high school summative assessments and
to implement policies that exempt from
remedial courses and place into creditbearing college courses students who
meet the consortium-adopted
achievement standard (as defined in this
notice) for those assessments. An
application that addresses this priority
will receive competitive preference
points based on the extent to which it
demonstrates strong commitment from
the public IHEs or IHE systems (as
evidenced by letters of intent) and on
the percentage of direct matriculation
students (as defined in this notice) in
public IHEs in the States in the
consortium who are enrolled in those
IHEs or IHE systems.
(B) High School Course Assessment
Programs grants. In our nation’s high
schools, the rigor of courses offered
varies and, in many cases, is not
sufficient to prepare students for
success in college and careers. To
promote consistently high levels of rigor
in high school courses across a wellrounded curriculum, this grant category
supports the development of high
school course assessment programs by
consortia of States. High School Course
Assessment Programs grants provide
funding for the development of new
assessment programs that cover
multiple high school courses (which
may include courses in core academic
subjects and career and technical
education courses) and that include a
process for certifying the rigor of the
assessments in the assessment program
and for ensuring that assessments of
courses covering similar content have
common expectations of rigor. Each
assessment in the assessment program
must measure student knowledge and
skills against standards from a common
set of college- and career-ready
standards in subjects for which such a
set of standards exists, or otherwise
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:07 Apr 08, 2010
Jkt 220001
against State or other rigorous
standards; and must produce student
achievement data and student growth
data that can be used to inform (a)
determinations of principal and teacher
effectiveness and professional
development and support needs, and (b)
teaching, learning, and program
improvement. In addition, assessments
in the assessment program must be
designed to assess the broadest possible
range of students, including English
learners and students with disabilities.
To be eligible for a High School
Course Assessment Programs grant, an
eligible applicant must include at least
5 governing States. An eligible applicant
receiving a High School Course
Assessment Programs grant must ensure
that at least one course assessment
developed under the assessment
program will be implemented in each
State in the consortium no later than the
2013–2014 school year and that all
assessments in the assessment program
will be operational no later than the
2014–2015 school year.2 The
Department will not require that
assessments developed with High
School Course Assessment Programs
grants be used to meet the assessment
requirements in Title I of the ESEA.
We believe that States and high
schools will use the assessments in
these assessment programs as part of
coherent high school improvement
efforts that include aligned curricula,
instruction, and professional
development. In that context, these
assessments will play important roles in
providing teachers, principals, students,
and parents with the information they
need to determine whether high school
courses are sufficiently rigorous to
prepare students for success in college
and careers, as well as monitor student
progress, adjust instruction, and
ultimately improve student outcomes.
To ensure that these assessment
programs help students prepare for and
transition to college successfully, we
encourage eligible applicants to
collaborate with IHEs in their design
and development.
Within this grant category, the
Department also seeks to promote the
development of rigorous assessment
2 By requiring that at least one course assessment
developed under the assessment program be
implemented in each State in the consortium no
later than the 2013–2014 school year and that all
assessments in the assessment program be
operational no later than the 2014–2015 school
year, we believe that we are providing an eligible
applicant receiving a High School Course
Assessment Programs grant with an appropriate
amount of time to design and develop course
assessment programs that meet the Absolute
Priority and other requirements for this grant
category.
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
programs for particular courses of high
school study. To further the
administration’s goal of improving
teaching and learning in the science,
technology, engineering, and
mathematics (STEM) subjects, we are
establishing a competitive preference
priority for applications that include a
high-quality plan to develop, within the
grant period and with input from one or
more four-year degree-granting IHEs,
assessments for high school courses that
comprise a rigorous course of study
designed to prepare high school
students for postsecondary study and
careers in the STEM fields. To help
improve outcomes in career and
technical education, we are also
establishing a second competitive
preference priority for applications that
include a high-quality plan to develop,
within the grant period and with
relevant business community
participation and support, assessments
for high school courses that comprise a
rigorous course of study in career and
technical education that is designed to
prepare high school students for success
on technical certification examinations
or for postsecondary education or
employment.
As mentioned earlier, the Department
supports the development, under both
grant categories in this competition, of
common assessments by consortia of
States. We believe that States working
together in consortia benefit from
increased assessment resources and
expertise and, thus, can develop
assessments that are of higher quality
than assessments developed by an
individual State working on its own. In
addition, bringing States together in
consortia will improve the efficiency
and cost-effectiveness of projects funded
under this competition and ensure that
the assessments that this competition
supports are developed for as many
States as possible as quickly as possible.
Finally, the development of common
assessments will enable the production
of comparable data that can be used to
identify and promote effective
instructional strategies and practices
more reliably across States.
In addition, we are requiring that
eligible applicants receiving awards
under either category in this
competition develop assessment items
and produce student data in a manner
that is consistent with standards for
interoperability, and that they make all
assessment content (i.e., assessments
and assessment items) developed with
funds from this competition freely
available to States, technology platform
providers, or others that request it for
purposes of administering assessments,
consistent with States’ needs and with
E:\FR\FM\09APN1.SGM
09APN1
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 68 / Friday, April 9, 2010 / Notices
consortium or State requirements for
test or item security. We believe that
these requirements will ensure that
assessment content developed with
funds from this competition is widely
available, including to States that are
not part of consortia receiving funds
under this competition as well as to
commercial organizations wishing to
further develop, extend, and incorporate
the content into assessment products
intended for State use. Moreover, we
believe that making assessment content
freely available will spur innovation in
assessment technology and enable
technology providers to compete for
States’ business on the basis of their
developing efficient, effective,
economical, and innovative assessment
platforms.
The Department recognizes that there
are assessment needs—particularly for
alternate assessments based on alternate
academic achievement standards and
assessments of English language
proficiency—that we do not attempt to
address through this competition. We
wish to note that we have plans to
address these needs in other ways. For
students with the most significant
cognitive disabilities, alternate
assessments based on alternate
academic achievement standards are
critical components of a complete
assessment system. It is the
Department’s intent to support States in
developing new alternate assessments
based on alternate achievement
standards, in coordination with this
Race to the Top Assessment
competition, through a separate
competition that will be administered
by the Department’s Office of Special
Education and Rehabilitative Services;
we intend to issue a notice inviting
applications for this program later this
year. For English learners, new
assessments of English language
proficiency are also needed. The
Department intends to set aside other
funds in its FY 2011 budget to support
State efforts to develop assessments of
English language proficiency that are
aligned with the college- and careerready standards in English language arts
currently being developed and adopted.
For additional information on the
Race to the Top Fund Assessment
Program, see https://www2.ed.gov/
programs/racetothetop-assessment/
index.html.
Note about Public and Expert Input
Meetings: The design of this Race to the Top
Fund Assessment Program competition has
benefited significantly from a series of public
and expert input meetings held by the
Department. At these meetings, invited
experts and members of the public provided
input in response to questions, published in
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:07 Apr 08, 2010
Jkt 220001
the Federal Register (see 74 FR 54795–54800
and 69081–69084), in the following
programmatic areas: General and technical
assessment issues, technology and
innovation in assessment, high school
assessments, assessing English learners,
assessing students with disabilities,
consortium and project management, and
procurement. For information about these
meetings, including transcripts and
presentation materials, as well as other
written input provided for this program, see
https://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetopassessment/.
A. Comprehensive Assessment
Systems:
Priorities: For the Comprehensive
Assessment Systems grant category, we
are establishing the following priorities
for the FY 2010 grant competition only
in accordance with section 437(d)(1) of
the General Education Provisions Act
(GEPA), 20 U.S.C. 1232(d)(1).
Absolute Priority: This priority is an
absolute priority. Under 34 CFR
75.105(c)(3), we consider only
applications that meet this priority. An
eligible applicant should address this
priority throughout the application
narrative.
The priority is:
Comprehensive Assessment Systems
Measuring Student Achievement
Against Common College- and CareerReady Standards. Under this priority,
the Department supports the
development of new assessment systems
that will be used by multiple States; are
valid, reliable, and fair for their
intended purposes and for all student
subgroups; and measure student
knowledge and skills against a common
set of college- and career-ready
standards in mathematics and English
language arts. To meet this absolute
priority, an eligible applicant must
demonstrate in its application that it
will develop and implement an
assessment system that—
(a) Measures student knowledge and
skills against a common set of collegeand career-ready standards (as defined
in this notice) in mathematics and
English language arts in a way that—
(i) Covers the full range of those
standards, including standards against
which student achievement has
traditionally been difficult to measure;
(ii) As appropriate, elicits complex
student demonstrations or applications
of knowledge and skills;
(iii) Provides an accurate measure of
student achievement across the full
performance continuum, including for
high- and low-achieving students; and
(iv) Provides an accurate measure of
student growth over a full academic
year or course;
(b) Consists of assessment
components in mathematics and in
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
18173
English language arts that include, for
each subject, one or more summative
assessment components that—
(i) Are administered at least once
during the academic year in grades 3
through 8 and at least once in high
school; and
(ii) Produce student achievement data
and student growth data (both as
defined in this notice) that can be used
to determine whether individual
students are college- and career-ready
(as defined in this notice) or on track to
being college- and career-ready (as
defined in this notice);
(c) Assesses all students, including
English learners (as defined in this
notice) and students with disabilities (as
defined in this notice); and
(d) Produces data, including student
achievement data and student growth
data, that can be used to inform—
(i) Determinations of school
effectiveness for purposes of
accountability under Title I of the ESEA;
(ii) Determinations of individual
principal and teacher effectiveness for
purposes of evaluation;
(iii) Determinations of principal and
teacher professional development and
support needs; and
(iv) Teaching, learning, and program
improvement.
Competitive Preference Priority: This
priority is a competitive preference
priority. Consistent with 34 CFR
75.105(c)(2)(i), we award additional
points to an application as specified in
the priority.
The priority is:
Collaboration and Alignment with
Higher Education. The Department gives
eligible applicants competitive
preference points based on the extent to
which they have promoted collaboration
and alignment between member States’
public elementary and secondary
education systems and their public IHEs
(as defined in section 101(a) of the
Higher Education Act of 1965, as
amended (HEA)) or systems of those
IHEs. Eligible applicants addressing this
priority must provide, for each IHE or
IHE system, a letter of intent that—
(a) Commits the IHE or IHE system to
participate with the consortium in the
design and development of the
consortium’s final high school
summative assessments in mathematics
and English language arts in order to
ensure that the assessments measure
college readiness;
(b) Commits the IHE or IHE system to
implement policies, once the final high
school summative assessments are
implemented, that exempt from
remedial courses and place into creditbearing college courses any student who
meets the consortium-adopted
E:\FR\FM\09APN1.SGM
09APN1
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
18174
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 68 / Friday, April 9, 2010 / Notices
achievement standard (as defined in this
notice) for each assessment and any
other placement requirement
established by the IHE or IHE system;
and
(c) Is signed by the State’s higher
education executive officer (if the State
has one) and the president or head of
each participating IHE or IHE system.
All letters of intent must provide the
total number of direct matriculation
students (as defined in this notice) in
the partner IHE or IHE system in the
2008–2009 school year. An eligible
applicant must also provide the total
number of direct matriculation students
(as defined in this notice) in public IHEs
in the consortium’s member States.
The Department will award up to 20
competitive preference points based on
the strength of commitment
demonstrated in the letters of intent and
on the percentage of direct
matriculation students in public IHEs in
the member States who are direct
matriculation students in the partner
IHEs or IHE systems. To receive full
competitive preference points under
this priority, eligible applicants must
provide letters of intent that
demonstrate strong commitment from
each partner IHE or IHE system and that
represent at least 30 percent of direct
matriculation students in public IHEs in
member States. No points will be
awarded for letters of intent that
represent fewer than 10 percent of direct
matriculation students in public IHEs in
member States.
Requirements: For the Comprehensive
Assessment Systems grant category, we
are establishing the following
requirements for the FY 2010 grant
competition only in accordance with
section 437(d)(1) of GEPA, 20 U.S.C.
1232(d)(1).
Eligible Applicants: Eligible
applicants are consortia of States.3
Eligibility Requirements:
To be eligible to receive an award
under this category, an eligible
applicant must—
1. Include a minimum of 15 States, of
which at least 5 States must be
governing States (as defined in this
notice);
2. Identify in its application a
proposed project management partner
and provide an assurance that the
proposed project management partner is
not partnered with any other eligible
applicant applying for an award under
this category;4 and
3 Consistent with section 14013 of the ARRA, the
term ‘‘State’’ means each of the 50 States, the District
of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico.
4 In selecting a proposed project management
partner, an eligible applicant must comply with the
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:07 Apr 08, 2010
Jkt 220001
3. Submit assurances from each State
in the consortium that, to remain in the
consortium, the State will adopt a
common set of college- and career-ready
standards (as defined in this notice) no
later than December 31, 2011, and
common achievement standards (as
defined in this notice) no later than the
2014–2015 school year.
Application Requirements:
An eligible applicant’s application
must—
1. Indicate, consistent with 34 CFR
75.128, whether—
(a) One member of the consortium is
applying for a grant on behalf of the
consortium; or
(b) The consortium has established
itself as a separate eligible legal entity
and is applying for a grant on its own
behalf;
2. Be signed by—
(a) If one member of the consortium
is applying for a grant on behalf of the
consortium, the Governor, the State’s
chief school officer, and, if applicable,
the president of the State board of
education from that State; or
(b) If the consortium has established
itself as a separate eligible legal entity
and is applying for a grant on its own
behalf, a representative of the
consortium;
3. Include an assurance that—
(a) A competitive procurement
process based on a ‘‘best value’’
selection 5 will be used for tasks related
to assessment design and development;
and
(b) All applicable Federal
procurement requirements, including
the requirements of 34 CFR 80.36, will
be met;
requirements for procurement in 34 CFR 80.36. Due
to the limited time period that eligible applicants
have to select a proposed project management
partner, we remind eligible applicants that they
may, under 34 CFR 80.36, use informal procedures
to select a proposed contractor for this purpose. For
example, 34 CFR 80.36(d)(1) authorizes simple
informal procedures to select contractors under the
simplified acquisition threshold of $100,000; the
regulations only require that the eligible applicant
request offers from an adequate number of qualified
sources. In addition, even if the eligible applicant
expects that the proposed project management
partner would cost more than $100,000, the
regulations recognize special cases where a
contractor must be selected within a very limited
time period. Again, the eligible applicant must
request proposals from an adequate number of
qualified sources and select the contractor whose
proposal is most advantageous to the program,
considering price and other selection factors. In
these situations, if informal solicitation does not
result in an adequate number of proposals, the
eligible applicant may select a single bidder so long
as the eligible applicant documents the facts that
formed the basis for its decision. 34 CFR
80.36(d)(1), (d)(3), and (d)(4).
5 For example, section 2.101 of the Federal
Acquisition Regulation (FAR) defines ‘‘best value’’
as the expected outcome of an acquisition that, in
the Government’s estimation, provides the greatest
overall benefit in response to the requirement.
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
4. Include, consistent with 34 CFR
75.128, for each State in the consortium,
copies of all Memoranda of
Understanding or other binding
agreements. These binding agreements
must—
(a) Detail the activities that members
of the consortium will perform;
(b) Bind each member of the
consortium to every statement and
assurance made in the application;
(c) Include an assurance, signed by
the State’s chief procurement official (or
designee), that the State has reviewed its
applicable procurement rules and
determined that it may participate in
and make procurements through the
consortium; and
(d) Be signed by the Governor, the
State’s chief school officer, and, if
applicable, the president of the State
board of education;
5. Include—
(a) An executive summary of the
eligible applicant’s proposed project;
(b) A theory of action that describes
in detail the causal relationships
between specific actions or strategies in
the eligible applicant’s proposed project
and its desired outcomes for the
proposed project, including
improvements in student achievement
and college- and career-readiness;
(c) A plan for designing and
developing the proposed assessment
system;
(d) A plan for research and evaluation
of the proposed assessment system;
(e) A plan for implementing the
proposed assessment system; and
(f) A project management plan
(including a workplan and timeline);
and
6. Include a budget that—
(a) Describes in detail how funds from
this grant category and other resources
will be used to design, develop,
implement, and evaluate the proposed
assessment system;
(b) Identifies Level 1 budget modules
(as defined in this notice) that do not
exceed $150 million in total; and
(c) Identifies any Level 2 budget
modules (as defined in this notice) that
do not exceed $10 million each.
Program Requirements
An eligible applicant awarded a grant
under this category must—
1. Evaluate the validity, reliability,
and fairness of the summative
assessment components of the
assessment system, and make available
through formal mechanisms (e.g., peerreviewed journals) and informal
mechanisms (e.g., newsletters), and in
print and electronically, the results of
any evaluations it conducts;
2. Actively participate in any
applicable technical assistance activities
E:\FR\FM\09APN1.SGM
09APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 68 / Friday, April 9, 2010 / Notices
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
conducted or facilitated by the
Department or its designees, including
periodic expert reviews, collaboration
with other consortia that receive funds
under this program, and other activities
as determined by the Department;
3. Work with the Department to
develop a strategy to make student-level
data that result from the assessment
system available on an ongoing basis for
research, including for prospective
linking, validity, and program
improvement studies; 6
4. Ensure that the summative
assessment components of the
assessment system in both mathematics
and English language arts are fully
implemented statewide by each State in
the consortium no later than the 2014–
2015 school year;
5. Maximize the interoperability of
assessments across technology platforms
and the ability for States to switch their
assessments from one technology
platform to another by—
(a) Developing all assessment items to
an industry-recognized open-licensed
interoperability standard that is
approved by the Department during the
grant period, without non-standard
extensions or additions;7 and
(b) Producing all student-level data in
a manner consistent with an industryrecognized open-licensed
interoperability standard that is
approved by the Department during the
grant period;
6. Unless otherwise protected by law
or agreement as proprietary information,
make any assessment content (i.e.,
assessments and assessment items)
developed with funds from this grant
category freely available to States,
technology platform providers, and
others that request it for purposes of
administering assessments, provided
they comply with consortium or State
requirements for test or item security;
7. Use technology to the maximum
extent appropriate to develop,
administer, and score assessments and
report assessment results;
8. Use funds from this grant category
only for the design, development, and
evaluation of the assessment system. An
eligible applicant awarded a grant under
this category may not use funds for the
administration of operational
assessments;
6 Eligible applicants awarded a grant under this
program must comply with the Family Educational
Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and 34 CFR Part
99, as well as State and local requirements
regarding privacy.
7 We encourage grantees under this competition
to work during the grant period with the
Department and the entities that set interoperability
standards to extend those standards in order to
make them more functional for assessment
materials.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:07 Apr 08, 2010
Jkt 220001
9. Comply with the requirements of
34 CFR 75.129, which specifies that—
(a) The applicant (i.e., the State
applying on behalf of the consortium, or
the consortium if established as a
separate legal entity and applying on its
own behalf) is legally responsible for—
(i) The use of all grant funds;
(ii) Ensuring that the project is carried
out by the consortium in accordance
with Federal requirements; and
(iii) Ensuring that indirect cost funds
are determined as required under 34
CFR 75.564(e); and
(b) Each member of the consortium is
legally responsible to—
(i) Carry out the activities it agrees to
perform; and
(ii) Use any grant funds it receives
under the consortium’s Memoranda of
Understanding or other binding
agreements in accordance with Federal
requirements that apply to the grant;
10. Obtain approval from the
Department of any third-party
organization or entity that is responsible
for managing funds received under this
grant category; and
11. Identify any current assessment
requirements in Title I of the ESEA that
would need to be waived in order for
member States to fully implement the
proposed assessment system.
B. High School Course Assessment
Programs:
Priorities: For the High School Course
Assessment Programs grant category, we
are establishing the following priorities
for the FY 2010 grant competition only
in accordance with section 437(d)(1) of
GEPA, 20 U.S.C. 1232(d)(1).
Absolute Priority: This priority is an
absolute priority. Under 34 CFR
75.105(c)(3), we consider only
applications that meet this priority. An
eligible applicant should address this
priority throughout the application
narrative.
The priority is:
High School Course Assessment
Programs. Under this priority, the
Department supports the development
of new and adapted assessments for
high school courses that will be used by
multiple States and are valid, reliable,
and fair for their intended purposes and
students. To meet this absolute priority,
an eligible applicant must demonstrate
in its application that it will develop
and implement a high school course
assessment program that—
(a) For each course in the assessment
program—
(i) Measures student knowledge and
skills against standards from a common
set of college- and career-ready
standards (as defined in this notice) in
subjects for which such a set of
standards exists, or otherwise against
State or other rigorous standards;
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
18175
(ii) As appropriate, elicits complex
student demonstrations or applications
of knowledge and skills;
(iii) Produces student achievement
data (as defined in this notice) and
student growth data (as defined in this
notice) over a full academic year or
course that can be used to inform—
(A) Determinations of individual
principal and teacher effectiveness and
professional development and support
needs; and
(B) Teaching, learning, and program
improvement; and
(iv) Is designed to assess the broadest
possible range of students, including
English learners (as defined in this
notice) and students with disabilities (as
defined in this notice);
(b) Includes assessments for multiple
courses that will be implemented in
each member State at a scale that will
enable significant improvements in
student achievement outcomes
statewide; and
(c) Includes a process for certifying
the rigor of each assessment in the
assessment program and for ensuring
that assessments of courses covering
similar content have common
expectations of rigor.
Competitive Preference Priorities:
These priorities are competitive
preference priorities. Consistent with 34
CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i), we award additional
points to an application as specified in
these priorities.
The priorities are:
1. Focus on Preparing Students for
Study in STEM-Related Fields. The
Department gives 10 competitive
preference points to applications that
include a high-quality plan to develop,
within the grant period and with input
from one or more four-year degreegranting IHEs, assessments for high
school courses that comprise a rigorous
course of study that is designed to
prepare high school students for
postsecondary study and careers in the
STEM fields, including technology and
engineering. Any such course of study
may include cross-cutting or
interdisciplinary STEM courses (e.g.,
computer science, information
technology, bioengineering) and be
designed to address the needs of
underrepresented groups.
An eligible applicant addressing this
priority must, in addition to addressing
the priority throughout the application
narrative, provide a separate plan that
describes—
(a) The courses for which assessments
will be developed;
(b) How the courses comprise a
rigorous course of study that is designed
to prepare high school students for
E:\FR\FM\09APN1.SGM
09APN1
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
18176
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 68 / Friday, April 9, 2010 / Notices
postsecondary study and careers in the
STEM fields; and
(c) How input from one or more fouryear degree-granting IHEs will be
obtained in developing assessments for
the courses.
We will award points to eligible
applicants addressing this priority on an
‘‘all or nothing’’ basis (i.e., 10 points or
zero points). An eligible applicant may
not use the same course of study to
address both this priority and
Competitive Preference Priority 2 (Focus
on Career Readiness and Placement).
2. Focus on Career Readiness and
Placement. The Department gives 10
competitive preference points to
applications that include a high-quality
plan to develop, within the grant period
and with relevant business community
participation and support, assessments
for high school courses that comprise a
rigorous course of study in career and
technical education that is designed to
prepare high school students for success
on technical certification examinations
or for postsecondary education or
employment.
An eligible applicant addressing this
priority must, in addition to addressing
the priority throughout the application
narrative, provide a separate plan that
describes—
(a) The courses for which assessments
will be developed;
(b) How the courses comprise a
rigorous course of study in career and
technical education that is designed to
prepare high school students for success
on technical certification examinations
or for postsecondary education or
employment; and
(c) How relevant business community
participation and support will be
obtained in developing assessments for
the courses.
We will award points to eligible
applicants addressing this priority on an
‘‘all or nothing’’ basis (i.e., 10 points or
zero points). An eligible applicant may
not use the same course of study to
address both this priority and
Competitive Preference Priority 1 (Focus
on Preparing Students for Study and
Careers in STEM-Related Fields).
Requirements: For the High School
Course Assessment Programs grant
category, we are establishing the
following requirements for the FY 2010
grant competition only in accordance
with section 437(d)(1) of GEPA, 20
U.S.C. 1232(d)(1).
Eligible Applicants: Eligible
applicants are consortia of States.8
8 Consistent with section 14013 of the ARRA, the
term ‘‘State’’ means each of the 50 States, the District
of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:07 Apr 08, 2010
Jkt 220001
Eligibility Requirements:
To be eligible to receive an award
under this category, an eligible
applicant must—
1. Include a minimum of 5 governing
States (as defined in this notice); and
2. Identify in its application a
proposed project management partner
and provide an assurance that the
proposed project management partner is
not partnered with any other eligible
applicant applying for an award under
this category.9
Application Requirements
An eligible applicant’s application
must—
1. Indicate, consistent with 34 CFR
75.128, whether—
(a) One member of the consortium is
applying for a grant on behalf of the
consortium; or
(b) The consortium has established
itself as a separate eligible legal entity
and is applying for a grant on its own
behalf;
2. Be signed by—
(a) If one member of the consortium
is applying for a grant on behalf of the
consortium, the Governor, the State’s
chief school officer, and, if applicable,
the president of the State board of
education from that State; or
(b) If the consortium has established
itself as a separate eligible legal entity
and is applying for a grant on its own
behalf, a representative of the
consortium;
3. Include an assurance that—
(a) A competitive procurement
process based on a ‘‘best value’’
selection 10 will be used for tasks related
9 In selecting a proposed project management
partner, an eligible applicant must comply with the
requirements for procurement in 34 CFR 80.36. Due
to the limited time period that eligible applicants
have to select a proposed project management
partner, we remind eligible applicants that they
may, under 34 CFR 80.36, use informal procedures
to select a proposed contractor for this purpose. For
example, 34 CFR 80.36(d)(1) authorizes simple
informal procedures to select contractors under the
simplified acquisition threshold of $100,000; the
regulations only require that the eligible applicant
request offers from an adequate number of qualified
sources. In addition, even if the eligible applicant
expects that the proposed project management
partner would cost more than $100,000, the
regulations recognize special cases where a
contractor must be selected within a very limited
time period. Again, the eligible applicant must
request proposals from an adequate number of
qualified sources and select the contractor whose
proposal is most advantageous to the program,
considering price and other selection factors; in
these situations, if informal solicitation does not
result in an adequate number of proposals, the
eligible applicant may select a single bidder so long
as the eligible applicant documents the facts that
formed the basis for its decision. 34 CFR
80.36(d)(1), (d)(3), and (d)(4).
10 For example, section 2.101 of the FAR defines
‘‘best value’’ as the expected outcome of an
acquisition that, in the Government’s estimation,
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
to assessment design and development;
and
(b) All applicable Federal
procurement requirements, including
the requirements of 34 CFR 80.36, will
be met;
4. Include, consistent with 34 CFR
75.128, for each State in the consortium,
copies of all Memoranda of
Understanding or other binding
agreements. These binding agreements
must—
(a) Detail the activities that members
of the consortium will perform;
(b) Bind each member of the
consortium to every statement and
assurance made in the application;
(c) Include an assurance, signed by
the State’s chief procurement official (or
designee), that the State has reviewed its
applicable procurement rules and
determined that it may participate in
and make procurements through the
consortium; and
(d) Be signed by the Governor, the
State’s chief school officer, and, if
applicable, the president of the State
board of education;
5. Include—
(a) An executive summary of the
eligible applicant’s proposed project;
(b) A theory of action that describes
in detail the causal relationships
between specific actions or strategies in
the eligible applicant’s proposed project
and its desired outcomes for the
proposed project, including
improvements in student achievement
and college- and career-readiness;
(c) A plan for designing and
developing the proposed assessment
program;
(d) A plan for research and evaluation
of the proposed assessment program;
(e) A plan for implementing the
proposed assessment program; and
(f) A project management plan
(including a workplan and timeline);
and
6. Include a budget that—
(a) Describes in detail how funds from
this grant category and other resources
will be used to design, develop,
implement, and evaluate the proposed
assessment program; and
(b) Does not exceed more than $30
million in funds from this grant
category.
Program Requirements
An eligible applicant awarded a grant
under this category must—
1. Evaluate the validity, reliability,
and fairness of the assessments in its
high school course assessment program;
2. Actively participate in any
applicable technical assistance activities
provides the greatest overall benefit in response to
the requirement.
E:\FR\FM\09APN1.SGM
09APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 68 / Friday, April 9, 2010 / Notices
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
conducted or facilitated by the
Department or its designees, including
periodic expert reviews, collaboration
with other consortia that receive funds
under this program, and other activities
as determined by the Department;
3. Work with the Department to
develop a strategy to make student-level
data that result from the assessment
program available on an ongoing basis
for research, including for prospective
linking, validity, and program
improvement studies; 11
4. Ensure that at least one course
assessment developed under the high
school course assessment program will
be implemented in each State in the
consortium no later than the 2013–2014
school year and that all assessments in
the assessment program will be
operational no later than the 2014–2015
school year;
5. To the extent that technology is
used, maximize the interoperability of
assessments across technology platforms
and the ability for States to switch their
assessments from one technology
platform to another by—
(a) Developing all assessment items to
an industry-recognized open-licensed
interoperability standard that is
approved by the Department during the
grant period, without non-standard
extensions or additions; 12 and
(b) Producing all student-level data in
a manner consistent with an industryrecognized open-licensed
interoperability standard that is
approved by the Department during the
grant period;
6. Unless otherwise protected by law
or agreement as proprietary information,
make any assessment content (i.e.,
assessments and assessment items)
developed with funds from this grant
category freely available to States,
technology platform providers, and
others that request it for purposes of
administering assessments, provided
they comply with consortium or State
requirements for test or item security;
7. Use funds from this grant category
only for the design, development, and
evaluation of the assessment program.
An eligible applicant awarded a grant
under this category may not use funds
for the administration of operational
assessments;
8. Comply with the requirements of
34 CFR 75.129, which specifies that—
11 Eligible applicants awarded a grant under this
program must comply with FERPA and 34 CFR Part
99, as well as State and local requirements
regarding privacy.
12 We encourage grantees under this competition
to work during the grant period with the
Department and the entities that set interoperability
standards to extend those standards in order to
make them more functional for assessment
materials.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:07 Apr 08, 2010
Jkt 220001
(a) The applicant (i.e., the State
applying on behalf of the consortium, or
the consortium if established as a
separate legal entity and applying on its
own behalf) is legally responsible for—
(i) The use of all grant funds;
(ii) Ensuring that the project is carried
out by the consortium in accordance
with Federal requirements; and
(iii) Ensuring that indirect cost funds
are determined as required under 34
CFR 75.564(e); and
(b) Each member of the consortium is
legally responsible to—
(i) Carry out the activities it agrees to
perform; and
(ii) Use any grant funds it receives
under the consortium’s Memoranda of
Understanding or other binding
agreements in accordance with Federal
requirements that apply to the grant;
and
9. Obtain approval from the
Department of any third-party
organization or entity that is responsible
for managing funds received under this
grant category.
C. Definitions: For the Comprehensive
Assessment Systems and High School
Course Assessment Programs grant
categories, we are establishing the
following definitions for the FY 2010
grant competition only in accordance
with section 437(d)(1) of GEPA, 20
U.S.C. 1232(d)(1).
Accommodations means changes in
the administration of an assessment,
including but not limited to changes in
assessment setting, scheduling, timing,
presentation format, response mode,
and combinations of these changes, that
do not change the construct intended to
be measured by the assessment or the
meaning of the resulting scores.
Accommodations must be used for
equity in assessment and not provide
advantage to students eligible to receive
them.
Achievement standard means the
level of student achievement on
summative assessments that indicates
that (a) for the final high school
summative assessments in mathematics
or English language arts, a student is
college- and career-ready (as defined in
this notice); or (b) for summative
assessments in mathematics or English
language arts at a grade level other than
the final high school summative
assessments, a student is on track to
being college- and career-ready (as
defined in this notice). An achievement
standard must be determined using
empirical evidence over time.
College- and career-ready (or
readiness) means, with respect to a
student, that the student is prepared for
success, without remediation, in creditbearing entry-level courses in an IHE (as
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
18177
defined in section 101(a) of the HEA), as
demonstrated by an assessment score
that meets or exceeds the achievement
standard (as defined in this notice) for
the final high school summative
assessment in mathematics or English
language arts.
Common set of college- and careerready standards means a set of
academic content standards for grades
K–12 that (a) define what a student must
know and be able to do at each grade
level; (b) if mastered, would ensure that
the student is college- and career-ready
(as defined in this notice) by the time of
high school graduation; and (c) are
substantially identical across all States
in a consortium. A State may
supplement the common set of collegeand career-ready standards with
additional content standards, provided
that the additional standards do not
comprise more than 15 percent of the
State’s total standards for that content
area.
Direct matriculation student means a
student who entered college as a
freshman within two years of graduating
from high school.
English learner means a student who
is an English learner as that term is
defined by the consortium. The
consortium must define the term in a
manner that is uniform across member
States and consistent with section
9101(25) of the ESEA.
Governing State means a State that (a)
is a member of only one consortium
applying for a grant in the competition
category, (b) has an active role in policy
decision-making for the consortium, and
(c) is committed to using the assessment
system or program developed by the
consortium.
Level 1 budget module means a
budget module for which an eligible
applicant is seeking funds under the
Comprehensive Assessment Systems
grant category that (a) is necessary to
delivering operational summative
assessments in both mathematics and
English language arts no later than
school year 2014–2015, or (b) is
otherwise necessary to the eligible
applicant’s proposed project and
consistent with the eligible applicant’s
theory of action.
Level 2 budget module means any
budget module for which an eligible
applicant is seeking funds under the
Comprehensive Assessment Systems
grant category other than a Level 1
budget module. An eligible applicant
must prioritize Level 2 budget modules
in the order of importance to the
implementation of the proposed project.
Moderation system means a system
for ensuring that human scoring of
complex item types, such as extended
E:\FR\FM\09APN1.SGM
09APN1
18178
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 68 / Friday, April 9, 2010 / Notices
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
responses or performance tasks, is
accurate, consistent across schools and
States, and fair to all students.
On track to being college- and careerready 13 means, with respect to a
student, that the student is performing
at or above grade level such that the
student will be college- and career-ready
(as defined in this notice) by the time of
high school graduation, as demonstrated
by an assessment score that meets or
exceeds the achievement standard (as
defined in this notice) for the student’s
grade level on a summative assessment
in mathematics or English language arts.
Performance level descriptor means a
statement or description of a set of
knowledge and skills exemplifying a
level of performance associated with a
standard.
Student achievement data means data
regarding an individual student’s
mastery of tested content standards.
Student achievement data from
summative assessment components
must be reported in a way that can be
reliably aggregated across multiple
students at the subgroup,14 classroom,
school, LEA, and State levels.
Student growth data means data
regarding the change in student
achievement data (as defined in this
notice) between two or more points in
time. Student growth data from
summative assessment components
must be reported in a way that can be
reliably aggregated across multiple
students at the subgroup, classroom,
school, LEA, and State levels and over
a full academic year or course.
Student with a disability means, for
purposes of this competition, a student
who has been identified as a student
with a disability under the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act, as
amended (IDEA), except for a student
with a disability who is eligible to
participate in alternate assessments
based on alternate academic
achievement standards consistent with
34 CFR 200.6(a)(2).
13 The term on track to being college- and careerready is used in place of the term ‘‘proficiency’’
used in section 1111(b)(3) of the ESEA.
14 Eligible applicants receiving funds under this
competition must aggregate data using the student
subgroups in section 1111(b)(3)(C)(xiii) of the ESEA
(i.e., by gender, by each major racial and ethnic
group, by English proficiency status, by migrant
status, by students with disabilities as compared to
nondisabled students, and by economically
disadvantaged students as compared to students
who are not economically disadvantaged, except
that such aggregation is not required in a case in
which the number of students in a subgroup is
insufficient to yield statistically reliable
information or the results would reveal personally
identifiable information about an individual
student). When using the term ‘‘subgroup’’
throughout this notice, we mean these student
subgroups.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:07 Apr 08, 2010
Jkt 220001
Through-course summative
assessment means an assessment system
component or set of assessment system
components that is administered
periodically during the academic year.
A student’s results from through-course
summative assessments must be
combined to produce the student’s total
summative assessment score for that
academic year.
Waiver of Proposed Rulemaking:
Under the Administrative Procedure Act
(5 U.S.C. 553), the Department generally
offers interested parties the opportunity
to comment on proposed priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection
criteria. Section 437(d)(1) of GEPA,
however, allows the Secretary to exempt
from rulemaking requirements
regulations governing the first grant
competition under a new or
substantially revised program authority.
This is the first grant competition for the
Race to the Top Assessment Program
under section 14006 of the ARRA and
therefore qualifies for this exemption. In
order to ensure timely grant awards, the
Secretary has decided to forego public
comment on the priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection
criteria under section 437(d)(1) of
GEPA. (We note that, as discussed
earlier, the design of this grant
competition has benefited significantly
from a series of public and expert input
meetings held by the Department.)
These priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria will
apply to the FY 2010 grant competition
only.
Program Authority: American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Division A,
Section 14006, Public Law 111–5.
Applicable Regulations: The
Education Department General
Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) in
34 CFR parts 74, 75, 77, 79, 80, 81, 82,
84, 85, 86, 97, 98, and 99.
II. Award Information
Type of Award: Discretionary grants.
Estimated Available Funds:
$350,000,000.
Estimated Size of Awards:
A. Comprehensive Assessment
Systems: $160,000,000.
B. High School Course Assessment
Programs: $30,000,000.
Estimated Number of Awards
A. Comprehensive Assessment
Systems: 1–2 awards.
B. High School Course Assessment
Programs: 1 award.
Note: The Department is not bound by any
estimates in this notice. The Department will
determine the number of awards to be made
in each grant category based on the quality
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
of applications received consistent with the
selection criteria. It will also determine the
size of an award made to an eligible
applicant based on a review of the eligible
applicant’s budget. However, with respect to
Comprehensive Assessment Systems grants,
an eligible applicant may not submit Level 1
budget modules exceeding $150 million in
total, and with respect to High School Course
Assessment Programs grants, an eligible
applicant may not submit a budget exceeding
$30 million. Applications requesting budget
amounts that exceed these maximum
amounts will not be reviewed for funding.
An eligible applicant awarded a
Comprehensive Assessment Systems grant
will receive funding for the Level 1 budget
modules identified in its application, and
may receive funding for one or more Level
2 budget modules identified in its
application if those modules do not exceed
the maximum amount of $10 million each
and funds are available. The Department will
rank and fund separately applications under
each grant category. The Department may use
any unused funds designated for this
competition to make awards in Phase 2 of the
Race to the Top Fund Program (CFDA
Number 84.395A).
Project Period: Up to 48 months.
III. Application and Submission
Information
A. Address to Request Application
Package: Prospective applicants can
obtain an application package for either
grant category in this competition via
the Internet or from the Education
Publications Center (ED Pubs). To
obtain a copy via the Internet, use the
following address: https://www2.ed.gov/
programs/racetothetop-assessment/
index.html. To obtain a copy from ED
Pubs, write, fax, or call the following:
Education Publications Center, P.O. Box
1398, Jessup, MD 20794–1398.
Telephone, toll free: 1–877–433–7827.
FAX: (301) 470–1244. If you use a
telecommunications device for the deaf
(TDD), call, toll free: 1–877–576–7734.
Prospective applicants can also
contact ED Pubs at its Web site:
https://www.ed.gov/pubs/edpubs.html or
at its e-mail address:
edpubs@inet.ed.gov.
If requesting an application from ED
Pubs, be sure to identify this
competition as follows: CFDA Number
84.395B (Comprehensive Assessment
Systems grants) or CFDA Number
84.395C (High School Course
Assessment Programs grants).
Individuals with disabilities can
obtain a copy of the application package
in an accessible format (e.g., braille,
large print, audiotape, or computer
diskette) by contacting the person listed
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT in section VI of this notice.
B. Content and Form of Application
Submission: Requirements concerning
E:\FR\FM\09APN1.SGM
09APN1
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 68 / Friday, April 9, 2010 / Notices
the content of an application, together
with the forms an applicant must
submit, are in the application package
for each grant category in this
competition.
Page Limit: The application narrative
(Part I.G of the application for each
grant category) is where the applicant
addresses the selection criteria that
reviewers use to evaluate applications.
The Department recommends that
applicants limit the application
narrative for a Comprehensive
Assessment Systems grant to no more
than 60 total pages, and for a High
School Course Assessment Programs
grant to no more than 45 total pages,
using the following standards:
• A page is 8.5″ × 11″, on one side
only, with 1″ margins at the top, bottom,
and both sides.
• Each page is numbered.
• Line spacing is set to 1.5 spacing,
and the font used is 12 point Times New
Roman font.
An applicant must limit the executive
summary of its proposed project (Part
I.D of the application for each grant
category) to no more than two pages
using the standards above. We will not
read information on any pages that
exceed this page limit.
C. Submission Dates and Times:
Applications Available: April 9, 2010.
Deadline for Notice of Intent to Apply:
April 29, 2010.
The Department will be able to
develop a more efficient process for
reviewing grant applications if we have
a better understanding of the number of
applications we will receive. Therefore,
we strongly encourage each prospective
applicant to send an e-mail notice of its
intent to apply for funding under a grant
category in this competition to the email address
racetothetop.assessment@ed.gov by
April 29, 2010. The notice of intent to
apply is optional; an applicant may still
submit an application if it has not
notified us of its intention to apply.
Date of Technical Assistance Meeting
for Prospective Applicants: April 22,
2010.
To assist prospective applicants in
preparing an application and to respond
to questions, the Department will host a
Technical Assistance Meeting for
Prospective Applicants on April 22,
2010. Detailed information about this
meeting (including the meeting
location) will be posted on the
Department’s Web site at https://
www.ed.gov/programs/racetothetopassessment. Attendance at the meeting
is strongly encouraged. Announcements
of any other technical assistance
opportunities for prospective applicants
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:07 Apr 08, 2010
Jkt 220001
will also be available at the Web site
above.
Deadline for Transmittal of
Applications: June 23, 2010.
An applicant must submit an original
and one paper copy of its application for
either grant category under this
competition. An applicant may submit
its application by mail or hand delivery.
E-mailed applications will not be read.
For more information about how to
submit an application, please refer to
the Other Submission Requirements
later in this section.
The Department will not consider an
application that does not comply with
the deadline requirements.
Individuals with disabilities who
need an accommodation or auxiliary aid
in connection with the application
process should contact the person listed
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT in section VI of this notice. If
the Department provides an
accommodation or auxiliary aid to an
individual with a disability in
connection with the application
process, the individual’s application
remains subject to all other
requirements and limitations in this
notice.
Deadline for Intergovernmental
Review: August 23, 2010.
D. Intergovernmental Review: This
program is subject to Executive Order
12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR
part 79. Information about
Intergovernmental Review of Federal
Programs under Executive Order 12372
is in the application package for each
grant category in this competition.
E. Funding Restrictions: We reference
regulations outlining funding
restrictions in the Requirements and
Applicable Regulations in section I of
this notice.
F. Other Submission Requirements:
An applicant must submit an original
and one paper copy of its application for
either grant category under this
competition. An applicant may submit
its application by mail or hand delivery.
E-mailed applications will not be read.
If an applicant’s application includes
content that cannot be presented in a
paper copy, the applicant may submit
that content separately in one or more
electronic files on a CD–ROM or DVD–
ROM. The application content must
reside on the CD–ROM or DVD–ROM;
the Department will not review material
in external references or links. The files
may be in any of the following formats:
.DOC/.DOCX (Microsoft Word
Document), .PDF (Adobe Portable
Document Format), .PPT/.PPTX
(Microsoft Powerpoint), .HTML
(Hypertext Markup Language), .JPEG
(Joint Photographic Experts Group
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
18179
Image), .GIF (Graphics Interchange
Format), .PNG (Portable Network
Graphics), .TIFF (Tagged Image Format),
.XLS/.XLSX (Microsoft Excel), .XML/
.XSD (Extensible Markup Language/
XML Schema), .CSV (Comma Separated
Values), .TXT (Text File), and .ZIP
(Compressed Package). If an applicant is
submitting data files, it should include
in its application a description or
schema of the data elements within the
files. If an applicant submits a file type
other than the types specified in this
paragraph, the Department will not
review that material. Applicants should
not password-protect these files. Each
electronic file name should clearly
identify the part of the application to
which the content is responding. The
CD–ROM or DVD–ROM should be
clearly labeled with the applicant’s
name and any other relevant
information. An applicant must provide
10 copies of any CD–ROM or DVD–ROM
it submits with the original and paper
copy of its application.
The Department must receive all
applications by 4:30 p.m., Washington,
DC time, on the application deadline
date. We will not accept an application
for this competition after 4:30 p.m.,
Washington, DC time, on the
application deadline date. Therefore, we
strongly recommend that applicants
arrange for mailing or hand delivery of
their applications in advance of the
application deadline date.
(1) Submission of Applications by
Mail. An applicant for either grant
category may submit its application (i.e.,
the original and one paper copy of the
application and, if necessary, 10 copies
of an accompanying CD–ROM or DVD–
ROM with any electronic files of
application content that cannot be
included in the original or paper copy
of the application) by mail (either
through the U.S. Postal Service or a
commercial carrier). We must receive
applications no later than 4:30 p.m.,
Washington, DC time, on the
application deadline date. Therefore, to
avoid delays, we strongly recommend
sending applications via overnight mail.
Mailed applications for Comprehensive
Assessment Systems grants must be
mailed to the Department at the
following address: U.S. Department of
Education, Application Control Center,
Attention: (CFDA Number 84.395B), LBJ
Basement Level 1, 400 Maryland
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20202–
4260. Mailed applications for High
School Course Assessment Programs
grants must be mailed to the Department
at the following address: U.S.
Department of Education, Application
Control Center, Attention: (CFDA
Number 84.395C), LBJ Basement Level
E:\FR\FM\09APN1.SGM
09APN1
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
18180
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 68 / Friday, April 9, 2010 / Notices
1, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20202–4260.
If we receive an application after the
application deadline, we will not
consider that application.
(2) Submission of Applications by
Hand Delivery. An applicant for either
grant category may submit its
application (i.e., the original and one
paper copy of the application and, if
necessary, 10 copies of an
accompanying CD–ROM or DVD–ROM
with any electronic files of application
content that cannot be included in the
original or paper copy of the
application) by hand delivery (including
via a courier service). We must receive
applications no later than 4:30 p.m.,
Washington, DC time, on the
application deadline date. Handdelivered applications for
Comprehensive Assessment Systems
grants must be received at the following
address: U.S. Department of Education,
Application Control Center, Attention:
(CFDA Number 84.395B), 550 12th
Street, SW., Room 7041, Potomac Center
Plaza, Washington, DC 20202–4260.
Hand-delivered applications for High
School Course Assessment Programs
grants must be received at the following
address: U.S. Department of Education,
Application Control Center, Attention:
(CFDA Number 84.395C), 550 12th
Street, SW., Room 7041, Potomac Center
Plaza, Washington, DC 20202–4260. The
Application Control Center accepts
hand deliveries daily between 8 a.m.
and 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time,
except Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal
holidays.
If we receive an application after the
application deadline, we will not
consider that application.
(3) Envelope Requirements and
Receipt: When an applicant submits its
application, whether by mail or hand
delivery—
(a) It must indicate on the envelope
that the CFDA number of the
competition under which it is
submitting its application is 84.395B
(for Comprehensive Assessment
Systems grants) or 84.395C (for High
School Course Assessment Programs
grants); and
(b) The Application Control Center
will mail to the applicant a notification
of receipt of the grant application. If the
applicant does not receive this
notification, it should call Joyce Mays at
the U.S. Department of Education
Application Control Center at (202)
245–6288.
In accordance with 34 CFR 75.216(b)
and (c), an application will not be
evaluated for funding if the applicant
does not comply with all of the
procedural rules that govern the
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:07 Apr 08, 2010
Jkt 220001
submission of the application or the
application does not contain the
information required under the
program.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
The requirements and selection
criteria established in this notice require
the collection of information that is
subject to review by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(44 U.S.C. 3501–3520). An emergency
review has been requested in
accordance with the Act (44 U.S.C.
3507(j)), since public harm is reasonably
likely to result if normal clearance
procedures are followed. Approval by
OMB has been requested by April 5,
2010.
Burden Hour Estimates for
Comprehensive Assessment Systems
Grants: We estimate 4 applicants for
Comprehensive Assessment Systems
grants, and that each applicant would
spend approximately 502.25 hours of
staff time to address the application
requirements and criteria, prepare the
application, and obtain necessary
clearances. The total number of hours
for all applicants for Comprehensive
Assessment Systems grants is an
estimated 2,009 hours (4 applicants
times 502.25 hours equals 2,009 hours).
Burden Hour Estimates for High
School Course Assessment Programs
Grants: We estimate 2 applicants for
High School Course Assessment
Programs grants, and that each applicant
would spend approximately 363.25
hours of staff time to address the
application requirements and criteria,
prepare the application, and obtain
necessary clearances. The total number
of hours for all applicants for High
School Course Assessment Programs
grants is an estimated 726.5 hours (2
applicants times 363.25 hours equals
726.5 hours).
Total Cost Estimates: Across both
grant categories, we estimate the average
total cost per hour of the staff who carry
out this work to be $30.00 an hour. The
total estimated cost for all applicants
under both grant categories would be
$82,065 ($30.00 times 2,735.5 (2,009 +
726.5) hours equals $82,065).
IV. Application Review Information
A. Comprehensive Assessment
Systems:
Selection Criteria: For the
Comprehensive Assessment Systems
category, we are establishing the
following selection criteria for the FY
2010 grant competition only, in
accordance with section 437(d)(1) of
GEPA, 20 U.S.C. 1232(d)(1). Eligible
applicants may receive up to 200 total
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
points based on the extent to which
their applications address these
selection criteria. The number of points
that may be awarded for each criterion
is indicated in parentheses next to the
criterion.
(A)(1) Consortium Governance (up to
20 points). The extent to which the
consortium’s proposed governance
structure will enable the successful
design, development, and
implementation of the proposed
assessment system. In determining the
extent to which the consortium’s
proposed governance structure will
enable the successful design,
development, and implementation of
the proposed assessment system, we
will consider—
(a) The consortium’s vision, goals,
role, and key deliverables (e.g.,
assessment components, scoring and
moderation system, professional
development activities), and the
consistency of these with the
consortium’s theory of action;
(b) The consortium’s structure and
operations, including—
(i) The organizational structure of the
consortium and the differentiated roles
that a member State may hold (e.g., lead
State, governing State (as defined in this
notice), advisory State);
(ii) For each differentiated role, the
rights and responsibilities (including
the level of commitment to adopting
and implementing the assessment
system) associated with the role;
(iii) The consortium’s method and
process (e.g., consensus, majority) for
making different types of decisions (e.g.,
policy, operational);
(iv) The protocols by which the
consortium will operate, including the
protocols for member States to change
roles or leave the consortium and for
new member States to join the
consortium;
(v) The consortium’s plan, including
the process and timeline, for setting key
policies and definitions for the
proposed assessment system, including
a common set of college- and careerready standards (as defined in this
notice), a common set of performance
level descriptors (as defined in this
notice), a common set of achievement
standards (as defined in this notice),
common assessment administration
procedures, common item release and
test security policies, a common
definition of ‘‘English learner,’’ and a
common set of policies and procedures
for accommodations (as defined in this
notice) and student participation; and
(vi) The consortium’s plan for
managing funds received under this
grant category;
E:\FR\FM\09APN1.SGM
09APN1
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 68 / Friday, April 9, 2010 / Notices
(c) The terms and conditions of the
Memoranda of Understanding or other
binding agreements executed by each
member State, including—
(i) The consistency of the terms and
conditions with the consortium’s
governance structure and the State’s role
in the consortium; and
(ii) The State’s commitment to and
plan for identifying any existing barriers
in State law, statute, regulation, or
policy to implementing the proposed
assessment system and to addressing
any such barriers prior to full
implementation of the summative
assessment components of the system;
and
(d) The consortium’s procurement
process, and evidence of each member
State’s commitment to that process.
(A)(2) Theory of Action (up to 5
points). The extent to which the eligible
applicant’s theory of action is logical,
coherent, and credible, and will result
in improved student academic
outcomes. In determining the extent to
which the theory of action has these
attributes, we will consider the
description of, and rationale for—
(a) Each component of the proposed
assessment system and the relationship
of the component to other components
in the system;
(b) How the assessment results
produced by each component will be
used;
(c) How the assessments and
assessment results will be incorporated
into a coherent educational system (i.e.,
a system that includes standards,
assessments, curriculum, instruction,
and professional development); and
(d) How the educational system as a
whole will improve student
achievement and college- and careerreadiness (as defined in this notice).
(A)(3) Assessment System Design (up
to 55 points). The extent to which the
design of the eligible applicant’s
proposed assessment system is
innovative, feasible, and consistent with
the theory of action. In determining the
extent to which the design has these
attributes, we will consider—
(a) The number and types of
components (e.g., through-course
summative assessments (as defined in
this notice), end-of-year summative
assessments, formative assessments,
interim assessments) in mathematics
and in English language arts in the
assessment system;
(b) For the assessment system as a
whole—
(i) How the assessment system will
measure student knowledge and skills
against the full range of the college- and
career-ready standards, including the
standards against which student
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:07 Apr 08, 2010
Jkt 220001
achievement has traditionally been
difficult to measure; and provide an
accurate measure of student
achievement, including for high- and
low-performing students, and an
accurate measure of student growth over
a full academic year or course;
(ii) How the assessment system will
produce the required student
performance data (i.e., student
achievement data and student growth
data (both as defined in this notice) that
can be used to determine whether
individual students are college- and
career-ready (as defined in this notice)
or on track to being college- and careerready (as defined in this notice));
(iii) How the assessment system will
be accessible to all students, including
English learners and students with
disabilities, and include appropriate
accommodations (as defined in this
notice) for students with disabilities and
English learners; and
(iv) How and when during the
academic year different types of student
data will be available to inform and
guide instruction, interventions, and
professional development; and
(c) For each component in
mathematics and in English language
arts in the assessment system—
(i) The types of data produced by the
component, including student
achievement data (as defined in this
notice), student growth data (as defined
in this notice), and other data;
(ii) The uses of the data produced by
the component, including determining
whether individual students are collegeand career-ready (as defined in this
notice) or on track to being college- and
career-ready (as defined in this notice);
informing determinations of school
effectiveness for the purposes of
accountability under Title I of the ESEA;
informing determinations of individual
principal and teacher effectiveness for
the purposes of evaluation; informing
determinations of principal and teacher
professional development and support
needs; informing teaching, learning, and
program improvement; and other uses;
(iii) The frequency and timing of
administration of the component, and
the rationale for these;
(iv) The number and types of items
(e.g., performance tasks, selected
responses, brief or extended constructed
responses) and the distribution of item
types within the component, including
the extent to which the items will be
varied and elicit complex student
demonstrations or applications of
knowledge and skills (descriptions
should include a concrete example of
each item type proposed); and the
rationale for using these item types and
their distributions;
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
18181
(v) The component’s administration
mode (e.g., paper-and-pencil, computerbased, or other electronic device), and
the rationale for the mode;
(vi) The methods for scoring student
performance on the component, the
estimated turnaround times for scoring,
and the rationale for these; and
(vii) The reports produced based on
the component, and for each report, its
intended use, target audience (e.g.,
students, parents, teachers,
administrators, policymakers), and the
key data it presents.
(A)(4) Assessment System
Development (up to 35 points). The
extent to which the eligible applicant’s
plan for developing the proposed
assessment system will ensure that the
assessment system is ready for widescale administration in a manner that is
timely, cost-effective, and consistent
with the proposed design and
incorporates a process for ongoing
feedback and improvement. In
determining the extent to which the
development plan has these attributes,
we will consider—
(a) The approaches for developing
assessment items (e.g., evidence
centered design, universal design for
learning 15) and the rationale for using
those approaches; the development
phases and processes to be implemented
consistent with the approaches; and the
types of personnel involved in each
development phase and process (e.g.,
practitioners, content experts,
assessment experts, experts in assessing
English learners, experts in assessing
students with disabilities,
psychometricians, cognitive scientists,
IHE representatives, career and
technical education experts);
(b) The approach and strategy for
designing and developing
accommodations (as defined in this
notice), accommodation policies, and
methods for standardizing the use of
those accommodations for—
(i) English learners; and
(ii) Students with disabilities;
(c) The approach and strategy for
ensuring scalable, accurate, and
consistent scoring of items, including
the approach and moderation system (as
defined in this notice) for any humanscored items that are part of the
summative assessment components and
the extent to which teachers are trained
and involved in the scoring of
assessments;
(d) The approach and strategy for
developing the reporting system; and
(e) The overall approach to quality
control; and the strategy for field testing
15 ‘‘Universal design for learning’’ is used as that
term is defined in section 103(24) of the HEA.
E:\FR\FM\09APN1.SGM
09APN1
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
18182
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 68 / Friday, April 9, 2010 / Notices
assessment items, accommodations,
scoring systems, and reporting systems,
including, with respect to assessment
items and accommodations, the use of
representative sampling of all types of
student populations, taking into
particular account high- and lowperforming students and different types
of English learners and students with
disabilities.
(A)(5) Research and Evaluation (up to
30 points). The extent to which the
eligible applicant’s research and
evaluation plan will ensure that the
assessments developed are valid,
reliable, and fair for their intended
purposes and for all student subgroups.
In determining the extent to which the
research and evaluation plan has these
attributes, we will consider—
(a) The plan for identifying and
employing psychometric techniques
suitable to verify, as appropriate to each
assessment component, its construct,
consequential, and predictive validity;
external validity; reliability; fairness;
precision across the full performance
continuum; and comparability within
and across grade levels; and
(b) The plan for determining whether
the assessments are being implemented
as designed and the theory of action is
being realized, including whether the
intended effects on individuals and
institutions are being achieved.
(A)(6) Professional Capacity and
Outreach (up to 15 points). The extent
to which the eligible applicant’s plan for
implementing the proposed assessment
system is feasible, cost-effective, and
consistent with the theory of action. In
determining the extent to which the
implementation plan has these
attributes, we will consider—
(a) The plan for supporting teachers
and administrators in implementing the
assessment system and for developing,
in an ongoing manner, the professional
capacity to use the assessments and
results to inform and improve
instructional practice; and
(b) The strategy and plan for
informing the public and key
stakeholders (including legislators and
policymakers) in each member State
about the assessment system and for
building support for the system from the
public and those stakeholders.
(A)(7) Technology Approach (up to 10
points). The extent to which the eligible
applicant is using technology effectively
to improve the quality, accessibility,
cost-effectiveness, and efficiency of the
proposed assessment system. In
determining the extent to which the
eligible applicant is using technology
effectively, we will consider—
(a) The description of, and rationale
for—
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:07 Apr 08, 2010
Jkt 220001
(i) The ways in which technology will
be used in assessment design,
development, administration, scoring,
and reporting;
(ii) The types of technology to be used
(including whether the technology is
existing and commercially-available or
is being newly developed); and
(iii) How other States or organizations
can re-use in a cost-effective manner
any technology platforms and
technology components developed
under this grant; and
(b) How technology-related
implementation or deployment barriers
will be addressed (e.g., issues relating to
local access to Internet-based
assessments).
(A)(8) Project Management (up to 30
points). The extent to which the eligible
applicant’s project management plan
will result in implementation of the
proposed assessment system on time,
within budget, and in a manner that is
financially sustainable over time. In
determining the extent to which the
project management plan has these
attributes, we will consider—
(a) The quality, qualifications, and
role of the project management partner,
as evidenced by its mission, date of
founding, size, experience (including
past success in implementing similar
projects), and key personnel assigned to
this project (including their names,
curricula vitae, roles, percent of time
dedicated to this project, and experience
in managing similar projects);
(b) The project workplan and
timeline, including, for each key
deliverable (e.g., assessment component,
scoring and moderation system,
professional development activities), the
major milestones, deadlines, and
entities responsible for execution; and
the approach to identifying, managing,
and mitigating risks associated with the
project;
(c) The extent to which the eligible
applicant’s budget—
(i) Clearly identifies Level 1 budget
modules (as defined in this notice) and
any Level 2 budget modules (as defined
in this notice);
(ii) Is adequate to support the
development of an assessment system
that meets the requirements of the
absolute priority; and
(iii) Includes costs that are reasonable
in relation to the objectives, design, and
significance of the proposed project and
the number of students to be served; and
(d) For each member State, the
estimated costs for the ongoing
administration, maintenance, and
enhancement of operational assessments
in the proposed assessment system and
a plan for how the State will fund the
assessment system over time (including
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
by allocating to the assessment system
funds for existing State or local
assessments that will be replaced by
assessments in the system).
B. High School Course Assessment
Programs:
Selection Criteria: For the High
School Course Assessment Programs
category, we are establishing the
following selection criteria for the FY
2010 grant competition only, in
accordance with section 437(d)(1) of
GEPA, 20 U.S.C. 1232(d)(1). Eligible
applicants may receive up to 200 total
points based on the extent to which
their applications address these
selection criteria. The total number of
points that may be awarded for each
criterion and the number of points that
may be awarded for each factor within
a criterion are indicated in parentheses
next to the criterion or factor.
(B)(1) Consortium Governance (up to
30 points). The extent to which the
consortium’s proposed governance
structure will enable the successful
design, development, and
implementation of the proposed high
school course assessment program. In
determining the extent to which the
consortium’s proposed governance
structure will enable the successful
design, development, and
implementation of the proposed
assessment program, we will consider—
(a) The consortium’s vision, goals,
role, and key deliverables (e.g.,
assessments, scoring and moderation
system, certification system,
professional development activities),
and the consistency of these with the
consortium’s theory of action;
(b) The consortium’s structure and
operations, including—
(i) The organizational structure of the
consortium and the differentiated roles
that a member State may hold (e.g., lead
State, governing State (as defined in this
notice), advisory State);
(ii) For each differentiated role, the
rights and responsibilities (including
the level of commitment to adopting
and implementing the assessment
program) associated with the role;
(iii) The consortium’s method and
process (e.g., consensus, majority) for
making different types of decisions (e.g.,
policy, operational);
(iv) The protocols by which the
consortium will operate, including the
protocols for member States to change
roles or leave the consortium and for
new member States to join the
consortium;
(v) The key policies and definitions to
which all member States will adhere,
the rationale for choosing these policies
and definitions, and the consortium’s
E:\FR\FM\09APN1.SGM
09APN1
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 68 / Friday, April 9, 2010 / Notices
plan (including the process and
timeline) for developing them; and
(vi) The consortium’s plan for
managing funds received under this
grant category;
(c) The terms and conditions of the
Memoranda of Understanding or other
binding agreements executed by each
member State, including the consistency
of the terms and conditions with the
consortium’s governance structure and
the State’s role in the consortium; and
(d) The consortium’s procurement
process, and evidence of each member
State’s commitment to that process.
(B)(2) Theory of Action (up to 5
points). The extent to which the eligible
applicant’s theory of action is logical,
coherent, and credible, and will result
in improved academic outcomes for
high school students across the States in
the consortium. In determining the
extent to which the theory of action has
these attributes, we will consider the
description of and rationale for—
(a) How the proposed high school
course assessment program will be
incorporated into a coherent high school
educational system (i.e., a system that
includes standards, assessments,
curriculum, instruction, and
professional development);
(b) How the assessment program’s
rigor will be demonstrated and
maintained over time;
(c) How the assessment program will
cover diverse course offerings that
provide a variety of pathways to
students; and
(d) How the assessment program will
be implemented at a scale that, across
the States in the consortium, increases
access to rigorous courses for students
who have not typically had such access,
and broadly improves student
achievement and college and career
readiness (as defined in this notice).
(B)(3) Course Assessment Program
Design and Development (up to 60
points). The extent to which the design
and development of the eligible
applicant’s proposed high school
assessment program is feasible, scalable,
and consistent with the theory of action.
In determining the extent to which the
design has these attributes, we will
consider—
(a) The high school courses for which
the consortium will implement
assessments; the rationale for selecting
those courses, including a need to
increase access to rigorous courses for
students who have not typically had
such access; and the processes by which
new high school course assessments
will be added to the assessment program
over time and existing course
assessments will be updated and
refreshed;
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:07 Apr 08, 2010
Jkt 220001
(b) How the assessments will measure
student knowledge and skills against
standards from a common set of collegeand career-ready standards (as defined
in this notice) in subjects for which
such a set of standards exists, or
otherwise against State or other rigorous
standards;
(c) How the consortium will certify
the rigor of each assessment in the
assessment program, whether the
assessment is new or adapted; and how
the consortium will maintain consistent
and high levels of rigor over time; and
(d) The general design and
development approach for course
assessments, including—
(i) The number and types of
components (e.g., mid-term tests,
through-course summative assessments
(as defined in this notice), end-of-course
assessments) in a high school course
assessment;
(ii) The extent to which, and, where
applicable, the approach for ensuring
that, assessment items will be varied
and elicit complex student
demonstrations or applications of
knowledge and skills;
(iii) How the assessments will
produce student achievement data (as
defined in this notice) and student
growth data (as defined in this notice);
(iv) The approach and strategy for
ensuring scalable, accurate, and
consistent scoring of assessments, and
the extent to which teachers are trained
and involved in the scoring of
assessments; and
(v) How the course assessments will
be accessible to the broadest possible
range of students, including English
learners and students with disabilities,
and include appropriate
accommodations (as defined in this
notice) for students with disabilities and
English learners.
(B)(4) Research and Evaluation (up to
25 points). The extent to which the
eligible applicant’s research and
evaluation plan will ensure that the
assessments developed are valid,
reliable, and fair for their intended
purposes and for all students. In
determining the extent to which the
research and evaluation plan has these
attributes, we will consider—
(a) The plan for verifying validity,
reliability, and fairness; and
(b) The plan for determining whether
the assessments are being implemented
as designed and the theory of action is
being realized, including whether the
intended effects on students and schools
are being achieved.
(B)(5) Course Assessment Program
Implementation (up to 45 points). The
extent to which the eligible applicant’s
plan for implementing the proposed
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
18183
high school course assessment program
will result in increased student
enrollment in courses in the assessment
program (and therefore improved
student academic outcomes) in each
member State. In determining the extent
to which the implementation plan has
these attributes, we will consider—
(a) The approach to be used in each
member State for promoting
participation in the high school course
assessment program by high schools, by
teachers, and by students (e.g.,
voluntary participation, mandatory
participation, incentive programs); the
plan for implementing the approach,
including goals, major activities,
timelines, and entities responsible for
execution; and the expected
participation levels in each member
State and across the consortium overall,
including—
(i) The number and percentage of high
schools expected to implement at least
one of the assessments in the high
school course assessment program in
each of five consecutive years beginning
with the 2013–2014 school year;
(ii) For each assessment in the
assessment program, the number and
percentage of high schools expected to
implement the assessment in each of
five consecutive years beginning with
the 2013–2014 school year; and
(iii) The unduplicated number and
percentage of high school students
expected to take at least one assessment
in the assessment program in each of
five consecutive years beginning with
the 2013–2014 school year; and
(b) The plan for supporting teachers
and administrators in implementing the
high school course assessment program
and for developing, in an ongoing
manner, the professional capacity to use
the assessments and results to inform
and improve instructional practice.
(B)(6) Project Management (up to 35
points). The extent to which the eligible
applicant’s project management plan
will result in implementation of the
proposed high school course assessment
program on time, within budget, and in
a manner that is financially sustainable
over time. In determining the extent to
which the project management plan has
these attributes, we will consider—
(a) The quality, qualifications, and
role of the project management partner,
as evidenced by its mission, date of
founding, size, experience (including
past success in implementing similar
projects), and key personnel assigned to
this project (including their names,
curricula vitae, roles, percent of time
dedicated to this project, and experience
in managing similar projects);
(b) The project workplan and
timeline, including, for each key
E:\FR\FM\09APN1.SGM
09APN1
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
18184
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 68 / Friday, April 9, 2010 / Notices
deliverable (e.g., assessments, scoring
and moderation system, certification
system, professional development
activities), the major milestones,
deadlines, and entities responsible for
execution;
(c) The extent to which the eligible
applicant’s budget—
(i) Is adequate to support the
development of a high school
assessment program that meets the
requirements of the absolute priority;
(ii) Includes costs that are reasonable
in relation to the objectives, design, and
significance of the proposed project and
the number of students to be served; and
(d) For each member State, the
estimated costs for the ongoing
administration, maintenance, and
enhancement of operational assessments
in the proposed assessment program
and a plan for how the State will fund
the assessment program over time
(including by allocating to the
assessment program funds for existing
State or local assessments that will be
replaced by assessments in the
program).
C. Review and Selection Process: The
Department will screen applications
that are received in accordance with the
requirements in this notice and
determine which applications will be
reviewed for funding based on whether
the applicant has met the eligibility
requirements for the grant category and
has requested a budget amount that does
not exceed the maximum amount for the
grant category as discussed in the
Award Information section of this notice
(section II). Applications from
applicants that do not meet the
eligibility requirements for the grant
category or that request a budget amount
that exceeds the maximum amount for
the grant category will not be reviewed
for funding. Reviewers 16 will then
review and score applications using the
competitive preference priorities,
selection criteria and points included in
this notice, and determine whether
applications meet the Absolute Priority
for the grant category. Applications that
do not meet the Absolute Priority will
not be considered for funding. The
reviewers’ scores will be averaged for
each application that meets the
Absolute Priority for the grant category,
and those applications will be rank
ordered in each grant category. After the
review process is complete, the
Secretary will select, consistent with 34
16 The Department intends to use a panel of
expert, independent reviewers who have been
chosen from a pool of qualified assessment and
management experts. The Department will
thoroughly screen all reviewers for conflicts of
interest in order to ensure a fair and competitive
review process.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:07 Apr 08, 2010
Jkt 220001
CFR 75.217, the grantees for each grant
category after considering the rank order
of applications, the funding available,
and any other relevant information.
V. Award Administration Information
A. Award Notices: If an application is
successful, the Department will notify
the applicant’s U.S. Representative and
U.S. Senators and send the applicant a
Grant Award Notification (GAN). We
may also notify the applicant
informally.
If an application is not evaluated or
not selected for funding, we will notify
the applicant.
B. Administrative and National Policy
Requirements: We identify
administrative and national policy
requirements in the application package
and reference these and other
requirements in the Applicable
Regulations in section I of this notice.
We reference the regulations outlining
the terms and conditions of an award in
the Applicable Regulations in section I
of this notice and include these and
other specific conditions in the GAN.
The GAN also incorporates the
approved application as part of the
applicant’s binding commitments under
the grant.
C. Reporting: Grantees (i.e., applicants
that receive an award) under this
program must submit an annual
performance report that provides the
most current performance and financial
expenditure information as directed by
the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118. The
Secretary may require more frequent
performance reports under 34 CFR
75.720(c). At the end of the project
period, grantees must also submit a final
performance report, including financial
information, as directed by the
Secretary.
Grantees under this program must
also meet the reporting requirements
that apply to all programs funded under
the ARRA. Specifically, grantees must
submit reports, within 10 days after the
end of each calendar quarter, that
contain the information required under
section 1512(c) of the ARRA in
accordance with any guidance issued by
the Office of Management and Budget or
the Department (ARRA Division A,
Section 1512(c)).
In addition, for each year of the
program, grantees must comply with the
requirements of ARRA Division A,
Section 14008, and other performance
reporting that the Department may
require.
The Department will monitor
grantees’ progress in meeting project
goals, objectives, timelines, and budget
requirements; and may require grantees
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
to enter into a cooperative agreement
with the Department.
D. Performance Measures: We are
establishing the following Government
Performance and Results Act of 1993
(GPRA) performance measures for the
Race to the Top Assessment Program:
Comprehensive Assessment Systems
Grants
The performance measures for
Comprehensive Assessment Systems
grants are:
1. Number of States that have formally
adopted a common set of college- and
career-ready standards in mathematics
and English language arts;
2. Number of States that have fully
implemented the summative assessment
components of the assessment systems;
3. Number of IHEs that are working
with grantees to design and develop the
final high school summative
assessments in mathematics and English
language arts;
4. Number of IHEs that have
implemented policies that exempt from
remedial courses and place into creditbearing college courses students who
meet the achievement standard for the
final high school summative
assessments in mathematics and English
language arts and any other placement
requirements; and
5. Percentage of direct matriculation
students (as defined in this notice) in
public IHEs who are enrolled in IHEs
that are working with grantees to design
and develop the final high school
summative assessments in mathematics
and English language arts and/or have
implemented policies that exempt from
remedial courses and place into creditbearing college courses students who
meet the achievement standard for the
final high school summative
assessments in mathematics and English
language arts.
High School Course Assessment
Programs Grants
The performance measures for High
School Course Assessment Programs
grants are:
1. Number of courses for which
assessments have been developed under
the high school assessment programs;
2. Number of States implementing the
high school course assessment
programs;
3. Percentage of LEAs in each State
implementing at least one assessment in
the high school course assessment
programs;
4. Percentage of high schools in each
State implementing at least one
assessment in the high school course
assessment programs;
5. For each assessment in the high
school course assessment programs,
E:\FR\FM\09APN1.SGM
09APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 68 / Friday, April 9, 2010 / Notices
percentage of high schools in each State
implementing the assessment;
6. Percentage of students in each State
taking at least one assessment in the
high school course assessment
programs; and
7. Percentage of high schools in each
State that incorporate courses in the
high school course assessment programs
into requirements for high school
diplomas or certificates.
VI. Agency Contacts
For Further Information Contact:
James Butler, U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW.,
room 3C108, Washington, DC 20202–
6400. Telephone: (202) 453–7246 or by
e-mail: racetothetop.assessment@ed.gov.
If you use a TDD, call the FRS, toll
free, at 1–800–877–8339.
VII. Other Information
Accessible Format: Individuals with
disabilities can obtain this document
and a copy of the application package in
an accessible format (e.g., braille, large
print, audiotape, or computer diskette)
on request to the program contact
person listed under For Further
Information Contact in section VI of this
notice.
Electronic Access to This Document:
You can view this document, as well as
all other documents of this Department
published in the Federal Register, in
text or Adobe Portable Document
Format (PDF) on the Internet at the
following site: https://www.ed.gov/news/
fedregister. To use PDF you must have
Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is
available free at this site.
Note: The official version of this document
is the document published in the Federal
Register. Free Internet access to the official
edition of the Federal Register and the Code
of Federal Regulations is available on GPO
Access at: https://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/
index.html.
Dated: April 6, 2010.
Arne Duncan,
Secretary of Education.
[FR Doc. 2010–8176 Filed 4–8–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000–01–P
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
National Institute on Disability and
Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR)—
Disability and Rehabilitation Research
Projects and Centers Program—
Rehabilitation Engineering Research
Centers (RERCs)
Catalog of Federal Domestic
Assistance (CFDA) Number: 84.133E–1
and 84.133E–3.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:07 Apr 08, 2010
Jkt 220001
AGENCY: Office of Special Education and
Rehabilitative Services, Department of
Education.
ACTION: Notice of proposed priorities for
two RERCs.
SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for
Special Education and Rehabilitative
Services proposes two priorities for the
Disability and Rehabilitation Research
Projects and Centers Program
administered by NIDRR. Specifically,
this notice proposes two priorities for
RERCs: Universal Design in the Built
Environment and Technologies for
Children with Orthopedic Disabilities.
The Assistant Secretary may use these
priorities for competitions in fiscal year
(FY) 2010 and later years. We take this
action to focus research attention on
areas of national need. We intend these
priorities to improve rehabilitation
services and outcomes for individuals
with disabilities.
DATES: We must receive your comments
on or before May 10, 2010.
ADDRESSES: Address all comments about
this notice to Donna Nangle, U.S.
Department of Education, 400 Maryland
Avenue, SW., room 5142, Potomac
Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202–
2700.
If you prefer to send your comments
by e-mail, use the following address:
donna.nangle@ed.gov. You must
include the term ‘‘Proposed Priorities for
RERCs’’ and the priority title in the
subject line of your electronic message.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Donna Nangle. Telephone: (202) 245–
7462 or by e-mail:
donna.nangle@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:
This notice of proposed priorities is in
concert with NIDRR’s Final Long-Range
Plan for FY 2005–2009 (Plan). The Plan,
which was published in the Federal
Register on February 15, 2006 (71 FR
8165), can be accessed on the Internet
at the following site: https://www.ed.gov/
about/offices/list/osers/nidrr/
policy.html.
Through the implementation of the
Plan, NIDRR seeks to: (1) Improve the
quality and utility of disability and
rehabilitation research; (2) foster an
exchange of expertise, information, and
training to facilitate the advancement of
knowledge and understanding of the
unique needs of traditionally
underserved populations; (3) determine
best strategies and programs to improve
rehabilitation outcomes for underserved
populations; (4) identify research gaps;
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
18185
(5) identify mechanisms of integrating
research and practice; and (6)
disseminate findings. This notice
proposes two priorities that NIDRR
intends to use for RERC competitions in
FY 2010 and possibly later years.
However, nothing precludes NIDRR
from publishing additional priorities, if
needed.
Furthermore, NIDRR is under no
obligation to make awards for these
priorities. The decision to make an
award will be based on the quality of
applications received and available
funding.
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, we urge you to
identify clearly the specific proposed
priority that each comment addresses.
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. 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 in room 6030, 550 12th
Street, SW., Potomac Center Plaza,
Washington, DC, between the hours of
8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Washington,
DC time, Monday through Friday of
each week except Federal holidays.
Assistance to Individuals with
Disabilities in Reviewing the
Rulemaking Record: On request we will
provide an appropriate accommodation
or auxiliary aid to an individual with a
disability who needs assistance to
review the comments or other
documents in the public rulemaking
record for this notice. If you want to
schedule an appointment for this type of
accommodation or auxiliary aid, please
contact the person listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Purpose of Program: The purpose of
the Disability and Rehabilitation
Research Projects and Centers Program
is to plan and conduct research,
demonstration projects, training, and
related activities, including
international activities; to develop
methods, procedures, and rehabilitation
technology that maximize the full
inclusion and integration into society,
employment, independent living, family
support, and economic and social selfsufficiency of individuals with
disabilities, especially individuals with
the most severe disabilities; and to
E:\FR\FM\09APN1.SGM
09APN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 68 (Friday, April 9, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18171-18185]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-8176]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Overview Information; Race to the Top Fund Assessment Program;
Notice Inviting Applications for New Awards for Fiscal Year (FY) 2010
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Numbers: 84.395B
(Comprehensive Assessment Systems grants) and 84.395C (High School
Course Assessment Programs grants).
Dates:
Applications Available: April 9, 2010.
Deadline for Notice of Intent To Apply: April 29, 2010.
Date of Technical Assistance Meeting for Prospective Applicants:
April 22, 2010.
Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: June 23, 2010.
Deadline for Intergovernmental Review: August 23, 2010.
Full Text of Announcement
I. Funding Opportunity Description
Purpose and Overview of Program: Authorized under the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), the Race to the Top Fund
Assessment Program provides funding to consortia of States to develop
assessments that are valid, support and inform instruction, provide
accurate information about what students know and can do, and measure
student achievement against standards designed to ensure that all
students gain the knowledge and skills needed to succeed in college and
the workplace. These assessments are intended to play a critical role
in educational systems; provide administrators, educators, parents, and
students with the data and information needed to continuously improve
teaching and learning; and help meet the President's goal of restoring,
by 2020, the nation's position as the world leader in college
graduates.
Through the Race to the Top Fund Assessment Program, the Department
expects to award two categories of grants: (A) Comprehensive Assessment
Systems grants, and (B) High School Course Assessment Programs grants.
In this notice, we are establishing priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria for each grant category. An
eligible applicant (i.e., a consortium of States) may apply for grants
in both categories, provided it meets the eligibility requirements for
each category. The Department will score and rank applications
separately in each grant category. Following is an overview of the two
grant categories:
(A) Comprehensive Assessment Systems grants. Over the past decade,
State assessment results have brought much-needed visibility to
disparities in achievement among different groups of students and
helped meet increasing demands for data that can be used to improve
teaching and learning. To fully meet the dual needs for accountability
and instructional improvement, however, States need assessment systems
that are based on standards designed to prepare students for college
and the workplace, and that more validly measure student knowledge and
skills against the full range of those standards and across the full
performance continuum. Further, States need assessment systems that
better reflect good instructional practices and support a culture of
continuous improvement in education by providing information that can
be used in a timely and meaningful manner to determine school and
educator effectiveness, identify teacher and principal professional
development and support needs, improve programs, and guide instruction.
This grant category supports the development of such assessment
systems by consortia of States. Comprehensive Assessment Systems grants
provide funding for the development of new assessment systems that
measure student knowledge and skills against a common set of college-
and career-ready standards (as defined in this notice) in mathematics
and English language arts in a way that covers the full range of those
standards, elicits complex student demonstrations or applications of
knowledge and skills as appropriate, and provides an accurate measure
of student achievement across the full performance continuum and an
accurate measure of student growth over a full academic year or course.
Assessment systems developed with Comprehensive Assessment Systems
grants must include one or more summative assessment components in
mathematics and in English language arts that are administered at least
once during the academic year in grades 3 through 8 and at least once
in high school and that produce student achievement data and student
growth data (both as defined in this notice) that can be used to
determine whether individual students are college- and career-ready (as
defined in this notice) or on track to being college- and career-ready
(as defined in this notice). In addition, assessment systems developed
with Comprehensive Assessment Systems grants must assess all students,
including English learners (as defined in this notice) and students
with disabilities (as defined in this notice). Finally, assessment
systems developed with Comprehensive Assessment Systems grants must
produce data (including student achievement data and student growth
data) that can be used to inform (a) determinations of school
effectiveness; (b) determinations of individual principal and teacher
effectiveness for purposes of evaluation; (c) determinations of
principal and teacher professional development and support needs; and
(d) teaching, learning, and program improvement.
To be eligible for a Comprehensive Assessment Systems grant, an
eligible applicant must include at least 15 States, of which at least 5
States must be governing States (as defined in this notice). An
eligible applicant receiving a Comprehensive Assessment Systems grant
must ensure that the summative assessment components of the assessment
system (in both mathematics and English language arts) will be fully
implemented statewide in each State in the consortium no later than the
2014-2015 school year.\1\ It is the expectation of the Department that
States that adopt assessment systems developed with
[[Page 18172]]
Comprehensive Assessment Systems grants will use assessments in these
systems to meet the assessment requirements in Title I of the ESEA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ By requiring that member States fully implement the
summative assessment components of the assessment system no later
than the 2014-2015 school year, we believe that we are providing an
eligible applicant receiving a Comprehensive Assessment Systems
grant with an appropriate amount of time to design and develop
summative assessments that meet the Absolute Priority and other
requirements for this grant category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to meeting the need for assessment systems that can be
used to determine whether students are college- and career-ready, this
grant category seeks to ensure that the results from those systems
will, in turn, be used meaningfully by institutions of higher education
(IHEs). Under this grant category, we intend to promote collaboration
and better alignment between public elementary, secondary, and
postsecondary education systems by establishing a competitive
preference priority for applications that include commitments from
public IHEs or IHE systems to participate in the design and development
of the consortium's final high school summative assessments and to
implement policies that exempt from remedial courses and place into
credit-bearing college courses students who meet the consortium-adopted
achievement standard (as defined in this notice) for those assessments.
An application that addresses this priority will receive competitive
preference points based on the extent to which it demonstrates strong
commitment from the public IHEs or IHE systems (as evidenced by letters
of intent) and on the percentage of direct matriculation students (as
defined in this notice) in public IHEs in the States in the consortium
who are enrolled in those IHEs or IHE systems.
(B) High School Course Assessment Programs grants. In our nation's
high schools, the rigor of courses offered varies and, in many cases,
is not sufficient to prepare students for success in college and
careers. To promote consistently high levels of rigor in high school
courses across a well-rounded curriculum, this grant category supports
the development of high school course assessment programs by consortia
of States. High School Course Assessment Programs grants provide
funding for the development of new assessment programs that cover
multiple high school courses (which may include courses in core
academic subjects and career and technical education courses) and that
include a process for certifying the rigor of the assessments in the
assessment program and for ensuring that assessments of courses
covering similar content have common expectations of rigor. Each
assessment in the assessment program must measure student knowledge and
skills against standards from a common set of college- and career-ready
standards in subjects for which such a set of standards exists, or
otherwise against State or other rigorous standards; and must produce
student achievement data and student growth data that can be used to
inform (a) determinations of principal and teacher effectiveness and
professional development and support needs, and (b) teaching, learning,
and program improvement. In addition, assessments in the assessment
program must be designed to assess the broadest possible range of
students, including English learners and students with disabilities.
To be eligible for a High School Course Assessment Programs grant,
an eligible applicant must include at least 5 governing States. An
eligible applicant receiving a High School Course Assessment Programs
grant must ensure that at least one course assessment developed under
the assessment program will be implemented in each State in the
consortium no later than the 2013-2014 school year and that all
assessments in the assessment program will be operational no later than
the 2014-2015 school year.\2\ The Department will not require that
assessments developed with High School Course Assessment Programs
grants be used to meet the assessment requirements in Title I of the
ESEA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ By requiring that at least one course assessment developed
under the assessment program be implemented in each State in the
consortium no later than the 2013-2014 school year and that all
assessments in the assessment program be operational no later than
the 2014-2015 school year, we believe that we are providing an
eligible applicant receiving a High School Course Assessment
Programs grant with an appropriate amount of time to design and
develop course assessment programs that meet the Absolute Priority
and other requirements for this grant category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We believe that States and high schools will use the assessments in
these assessment programs as part of coherent high school improvement
efforts that include aligned curricula, instruction, and professional
development. In that context, these assessments will play important
roles in providing teachers, principals, students, and parents with the
information they need to determine whether high school courses are
sufficiently rigorous to prepare students for success in college and
careers, as well as monitor student progress, adjust instruction, and
ultimately improve student outcomes. To ensure that these assessment
programs help students prepare for and transition to college
successfully, we encourage eligible applicants to collaborate with IHEs
in their design and development.
Within this grant category, the Department also seeks to promote
the development of rigorous assessment programs for particular courses
of high school study. To further the administration's goal of improving
teaching and learning in the science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics (STEM) subjects, we are establishing a competitive
preference priority for applications that include a high-quality plan
to develop, within the grant period and with input from one or more
four-year degree-granting IHEs, assessments for high school courses
that comprise a rigorous course of study designed to prepare high
school students for postsecondary study and careers in the STEM fields.
To help improve outcomes in career and technical education, we are also
establishing a second competitive preference priority for applications
that include a high-quality plan to develop, within the grant period
and with relevant business community participation and support,
assessments for high school courses that comprise a rigorous course of
study in career and technical education that is designed to prepare
high school students for success on technical certification
examinations or for postsecondary education or employment.
As mentioned earlier, the Department supports the development,
under both grant categories in this competition, of common assessments
by consortia of States. We believe that States working together in
consortia benefit from increased assessment resources and expertise
and, thus, can develop assessments that are of higher quality than
assessments developed by an individual State working on its own. In
addition, bringing States together in consortia will improve the
efficiency and cost-effectiveness of projects funded under this
competition and ensure that the assessments that this competition
supports are developed for as many States as possible as quickly as
possible. Finally, the development of common assessments will enable
the production of comparable data that can be used to identify and
promote effective instructional strategies and practices more reliably
across States.
In addition, we are requiring that eligible applicants receiving
awards under either category in this competition develop assessment
items and produce student data in a manner that is consistent with
standards for interoperability, and that they make all assessment
content (i.e., assessments and assessment items) developed with funds
from this competition freely available to States, technology platform
providers, or others that request it for purposes of administering
assessments, consistent with States' needs and with
[[Page 18173]]
consortium or State requirements for test or item security. We believe
that these requirements will ensure that assessment content developed
with funds from this competition is widely available, including to
States that are not part of consortia receiving funds under this
competition as well as to commercial organizations wishing to further
develop, extend, and incorporate the content into assessment products
intended for State use. Moreover, we believe that making assessment
content freely available will spur innovation in assessment technology
and enable technology providers to compete for States' business on the
basis of their developing efficient, effective, economical, and
innovative assessment platforms.
The Department recognizes that there are assessment needs--
particularly for alternate assessments based on alternate academic
achievement standards and assessments of English language proficiency--
that we do not attempt to address through this competition. We wish to
note that we have plans to address these needs in other ways. For
students with the most significant cognitive disabilities, alternate
assessments based on alternate academic achievement standards are
critical components of a complete assessment system. It is the
Department's intent to support States in developing new alternate
assessments based on alternate achievement standards, in coordination
with this Race to the Top Assessment competition, through a separate
competition that will be administered by the Department's Office of
Special Education and Rehabilitative Services; we intend to issue a
notice inviting applications for this program later this year. For
English learners, new assessments of English language proficiency are
also needed. The Department intends to set aside other funds in its FY
2011 budget to support State efforts to develop assessments of English
language proficiency that are aligned with the college- and career-
ready standards in English language arts currently being developed and
adopted.
For additional information on the Race to the Top Fund Assessment
Program, see https://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop-assessment/.
Note about Public and Expert Input Meetings: The design of this
Race to the Top Fund Assessment Program competition has benefited
significantly from a series of public and expert input meetings held
by the Department. At these meetings, invited experts and members of
the public provided input in response to questions, published in the
Federal Register (see 74 FR 54795-54800 and 69081-69084), in the
following programmatic areas: General and technical assessment
issues, technology and innovation in assessment, high school
assessments, assessing English learners, assessing students with
disabilities, consortium and project management, and procurement.
For information about these meetings, including transcripts and
presentation materials, as well as other written input provided for
this program, see https://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop-assessment/.
A. Comprehensive Assessment Systems:
Priorities: For the Comprehensive Assessment Systems grant
category, we are establishing the following priorities for the FY 2010
grant competition only in accordance with section 437(d)(1) of the
General Education Provisions Act (GEPA), 20 U.S.C. 1232(d)(1).
Absolute Priority: This priority is an absolute priority. Under 34
CFR 75.105(c)(3), we consider only applications that meet this
priority. An eligible applicant should address this priority throughout
the application narrative.
The priority is:
Comprehensive Assessment Systems Measuring Student Achievement
Against Common College- and Career-Ready Standards. Under this
priority, the Department supports the development of new assessment
systems that will be used by multiple States; are valid, reliable, and
fair for their intended purposes and for all student subgroups; and
measure student knowledge and skills against a common set of college-
and career-ready standards in mathematics and English language arts. To
meet this absolute priority, an eligible applicant must demonstrate in
its application that it will develop and implement an assessment system
that--
(a) Measures student knowledge and skills against a common set of
college- and career-ready standards (as defined in this notice) in
mathematics and English language arts in a way that--
(i) Covers the full range of those standards, including standards
against which student achievement has traditionally been difficult to
measure;
(ii) As appropriate, elicits complex student demonstrations or
applications of knowledge and skills;
(iii) Provides an accurate measure of student achievement across
the full performance continuum, including for high- and low-achieving
students; and
(iv) Provides an accurate measure of student growth over a full
academic year or course;
(b) Consists of assessment components in mathematics and in English
language arts that include, for each subject, one or more summative
assessment components that--
(i) Are administered at least once during the academic year in
grades 3 through 8 and at least once in high school; and
(ii) Produce student achievement data and student growth data (both
as defined in this notice) that can be used to determine whether
individual students are college- and career-ready (as defined in this
notice) or on track to being college- and career-ready (as defined in
this notice);
(c) Assesses all students, including English learners (as defined
in this notice) and students with disabilities (as defined in this
notice); and
(d) Produces data, including student achievement data and student
growth data, that can be used to inform--
(i) Determinations of school effectiveness for purposes of
accountability under Title I of the ESEA;
(ii) Determinations of individual principal and teacher
effectiveness for purposes of evaluation;
(iii) Determinations of principal and teacher professional
development and support needs; and
(iv) Teaching, learning, and program improvement.
Competitive Preference Priority: This priority is a competitive
preference priority. Consistent with 34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i), we award
additional points to an application as specified in the priority.
The priority is:
Collaboration and Alignment with Higher Education. The Department
gives eligible applicants competitive preference points based on the
extent to which they have promoted collaboration and alignment between
member States' public elementary and secondary education systems and
their public IHEs (as defined in section 101(a) of the Higher Education
Act of 1965, as amended (HEA)) or systems of those IHEs. Eligible
applicants addressing this priority must provide, for each IHE or IHE
system, a letter of intent that--
(a) Commits the IHE or IHE system to participate with the
consortium in the design and development of the consortium's final high
school summative assessments in mathematics and English language arts
in order to ensure that the assessments measure college readiness;
(b) Commits the IHE or IHE system to implement policies, once the
final high school summative assessments are implemented, that exempt
from remedial courses and place into credit-bearing college courses any
student who meets the consortium-adopted
[[Page 18174]]
achievement standard (as defined in this notice) for each assessment
and any other placement requirement established by the IHE or IHE
system; and
(c) Is signed by the State's higher education executive officer (if
the State has one) and the president or head of each participating IHE
or IHE system.
All letters of intent must provide the total number of direct
matriculation students (as defined in this notice) in the partner IHE
or IHE system in the 2008-2009 school year. An eligible applicant must
also provide the total number of direct matriculation students (as
defined in this notice) in public IHEs in the consortium's member
States.
The Department will award up to 20 competitive preference points
based on the strength of commitment demonstrated in the letters of
intent and on the percentage of direct matriculation students in public
IHEs in the member States who are direct matriculation students in the
partner IHEs or IHE systems. To receive full competitive preference
points under this priority, eligible applicants must provide letters of
intent that demonstrate strong commitment from each partner IHE or IHE
system and that represent at least 30 percent of direct matriculation
students in public IHEs in member States. No points will be awarded for
letters of intent that represent fewer than 10 percent of direct
matriculation students in public IHEs in member States.
Requirements: For the Comprehensive Assessment Systems grant
category, we are establishing the following requirements for the FY
2010 grant competition only in accordance with section 437(d)(1) of
GEPA, 20 U.S.C. 1232(d)(1).
Eligible Applicants: Eligible applicants are consortia of
States.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Consistent with section 14013 of the ARRA, the term
``State'' means each of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eligibility Requirements:
To be eligible to receive an award under this category, an eligible
applicant must--
1. Include a minimum of 15 States, of which at least 5 States must
be governing States (as defined in this notice);
2. Identify in its application a proposed project management
partner and provide an assurance that the proposed project management
partner is not partnered with any other eligible applicant applying for
an award under this category;\4\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ In selecting a proposed project management partner, an
eligible applicant must comply with the requirements for procurement
in 34 CFR 80.36. Due to the limited time period that eligible
applicants have to select a proposed project management partner, we
remind eligible applicants that they may, under 34 CFR 80.36, use
informal procedures to select a proposed contractor for this
purpose. For example, 34 CFR 80.36(d)(1) authorizes simple informal
procedures to select contractors under the simplified acquisition
threshold of $100,000; the regulations only require that the
eligible applicant request offers from an adequate number of
qualified sources. In addition, even if the eligible applicant
expects that the proposed project management partner would cost more
than $100,000, the regulations recognize special cases where a
contractor must be selected within a very limited time period.
Again, the eligible applicant must request proposals from an
adequate number of qualified sources and select the contractor whose
proposal is most advantageous to the program, considering price and
other selection factors. In these situations, if informal
solicitation does not result in an adequate number of proposals, the
eligible applicant may select a single bidder so long as the
eligible applicant documents the facts that formed the basis for its
decision. 34 CFR 80.36(d)(1), (d)(3), and (d)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Submit assurances from each State in the consortium that, to
remain in the consortium, the State will adopt a common set of college-
and career-ready standards (as defined in this notice) no later than
December 31, 2011, and common achievement standards (as defined in this
notice) no later than the 2014-2015 school year.
Application Requirements:
An eligible applicant's application must--
1. Indicate, consistent with 34 CFR 75.128, whether--
(a) One member of the consortium is applying for a grant on behalf
of the consortium; or
(b) The consortium has established itself as a separate eligible
legal entity and is applying for a grant on its own behalf;
2. Be signed by--
(a) If one member of the consortium is applying for a grant on
behalf of the consortium, the Governor, the State's chief school
officer, and, if applicable, the president of the State board of
education from that State; or
(b) If the consortium has established itself as a separate eligible
legal entity and is applying for a grant on its own behalf, a
representative of the consortium;
3. Include an assurance that--
(a) A competitive procurement process based on a ``best value''
selection \5\ will be used for tasks related to assessment design and
development; and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ For example, section 2.101 of the Federal Acquisition
Regulation (FAR) defines ``best value'' as the expected outcome of
an acquisition that, in the Government's estimation, provides the
greatest overall benefit in response to the requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) All applicable Federal procurement requirements, including the
requirements of 34 CFR 80.36, will be met;
4. Include, consistent with 34 CFR 75.128, for each State in the
consortium, copies of all Memoranda of Understanding or other binding
agreements. These binding agreements must--
(a) Detail the activities that members of the consortium will
perform;
(b) Bind each member of the consortium to every statement and
assurance made in the application;
(c) Include an assurance, signed by the State's chief procurement
official (or designee), that the State has reviewed its applicable
procurement rules and determined that it may participate in and make
procurements through the consortium; and
(d) Be signed by the Governor, the State's chief school officer,
and, if applicable, the president of the State board of education;
5. Include--
(a) An executive summary of the eligible applicant's proposed
project;
(b) A theory of action that describes in detail the causal
relationships between specific actions or strategies in the eligible
applicant's proposed project and its desired outcomes for the proposed
project, including improvements in student achievement and college- and
career-readiness;
(c) A plan for designing and developing the proposed assessment
system;
(d) A plan for research and evaluation of the proposed assessment
system;
(e) A plan for implementing the proposed assessment system; and
(f) A project management plan (including a workplan and timeline);
and
6. Include a budget that--
(a) Describes in detail how funds from this grant category and
other resources will be used to design, develop, implement, and
evaluate the proposed assessment system;
(b) Identifies Level 1 budget modules (as defined in this notice)
that do not exceed $150 million in total; and
(c) Identifies any Level 2 budget modules (as defined in this
notice) that do not exceed $10 million each.
Program Requirements
An eligible applicant awarded a grant under this category must--
1. Evaluate the validity, reliability, and fairness of the
summative assessment components of the assessment system, and make
available through formal mechanisms (e.g., peer-reviewed journals) and
informal mechanisms (e.g., newsletters), and in print and
electronically, the results of any evaluations it conducts;
2. Actively participate in any applicable technical assistance
activities
[[Page 18175]]
conducted or facilitated by the Department or its designees, including
periodic expert reviews, collaboration with other consortia that
receive funds under this program, and other activities as determined by
the Department;
3. Work with the Department to develop a strategy to make student-
level data that result from the assessment system available on an
ongoing basis for research, including for prospective linking,
validity, and program improvement studies; \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Eligible applicants awarded a grant under this program must
comply with the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA)
and 34 CFR Part 99, as well as State and local requirements
regarding privacy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Ensure that the summative assessment components of the
assessment system in both mathematics and English language arts are
fully implemented statewide by each State in the consortium no later
than the 2014-2015 school year;
5. Maximize the interoperability of assessments across technology
platforms and the ability for States to switch their assessments from
one technology platform to another by--
(a) Developing all assessment items to an industry-recognized open-
licensed interoperability standard that is approved by the Department
during the grant period, without non-standard extensions or
additions;\7\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ We encourage grantees under this competition to work during
the grant period with the Department and the entities that set
interoperability standards to extend those standards in order to
make them more functional for assessment materials.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) Producing all student-level data in a manner consistent with an
industry-recognized open-licensed interoperability standard that is
approved by the Department during the grant period;
6. Unless otherwise protected by law or agreement as proprietary
information, make any assessment content (i.e., assessments and
assessment items) developed with funds from this grant category freely
available to States, technology platform providers, and others that
request it for purposes of administering assessments, provided they
comply with consortium or State requirements for test or item security;
7. Use technology to the maximum extent appropriate to develop,
administer, and score assessments and report assessment results;
8. Use funds from this grant category only for the design,
development, and evaluation of the assessment system. An eligible
applicant awarded a grant under this category may not use funds for the
administration of operational assessments;
9. Comply with the requirements of 34 CFR 75.129, which specifies
that--
(a) The applicant (i.e., the State applying on behalf of the
consortium, or the consortium if established as a separate legal entity
and applying on its own behalf) is legally responsible for--
(i) The use of all grant funds;
(ii) Ensuring that the project is carried out by the consortium in
accordance with Federal requirements; and
(iii) Ensuring that indirect cost funds are determined as required
under 34 CFR 75.564(e); and
(b) Each member of the consortium is legally responsible to--
(i) Carry out the activities it agrees to perform; and
(ii) Use any grant funds it receives under the consortium's
Memoranda of Understanding or other binding agreements in accordance
with Federal requirements that apply to the grant;
10. Obtain approval from the Department of any third-party
organization or entity that is responsible for managing funds received
under this grant category; and
11. Identify any current assessment requirements in Title I of the
ESEA that would need to be waived in order for member States to fully
implement the proposed assessment system.
B. High School Course Assessment Programs:
Priorities: For the High School Course Assessment Programs grant
category, we are establishing the following priorities for the FY 2010
grant competition only in accordance with section 437(d)(1) of GEPA, 20
U.S.C. 1232(d)(1).
Absolute Priority: This priority is an absolute priority. Under 34
CFR 75.105(c)(3), we consider only applications that meet this
priority. An eligible applicant should address this priority throughout
the application narrative.
The priority is:
High School Course Assessment Programs. Under this priority, the
Department supports the development of new and adapted assessments for
high school courses that will be used by multiple States and are valid,
reliable, and fair for their intended purposes and students. To meet
this absolute priority, an eligible applicant must demonstrate in its
application that it will develop and implement a high school course
assessment program that--
(a) For each course in the assessment program--
(i) Measures student knowledge and skills against standards from a
common set of college- and career-ready standards (as defined in this
notice) in subjects for which such a set of standards exists, or
otherwise against State or other rigorous standards;
(ii) As appropriate, elicits complex student demonstrations or
applications of knowledge and skills;
(iii) Produces student achievement data (as defined in this notice)
and student growth data (as defined in this notice) over a full
academic year or course that can be used to inform--
(A) Determinations of individual principal and teacher
effectiveness and professional development and support needs; and
(B) Teaching, learning, and program improvement; and
(iv) Is designed to assess the broadest possible range of students,
including English learners (as defined in this notice) and students
with disabilities (as defined in this notice);
(b) Includes assessments for multiple courses that will be
implemented in each member State at a scale that will enable
significant improvements in student achievement outcomes statewide; and
(c) Includes a process for certifying the rigor of each assessment
in the assessment program and for ensuring that assessments of courses
covering similar content have common expectations of rigor.
Competitive Preference Priorities: These priorities are competitive
preference priorities. Consistent with 34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i), we award
additional points to an application as specified in these priorities.
The priorities are:
1. Focus on Preparing Students for Study in STEM-Related Fields.
The Department gives 10 competitive preference points to applications
that include a high-quality plan to develop, within the grant period
and with input from one or more four-year degree-granting IHEs,
assessments for high school courses that comprise a rigorous course of
study that is designed to prepare high school students for
postsecondary study and careers in the STEM fields, including
technology and engineering. Any such course of study may include cross-
cutting or interdisciplinary STEM courses (e.g., computer science,
information technology, bioengineering) and be designed to address the
needs of underrepresented groups.
An eligible applicant addressing this priority must, in addition to
addressing the priority throughout the application narrative, provide a
separate plan that describes--
(a) The courses for which assessments will be developed;
(b) How the courses comprise a rigorous course of study that is
designed to prepare high school students for
[[Page 18176]]
postsecondary study and careers in the STEM fields; and
(c) How input from one or more four-year degree-granting IHEs will
be obtained in developing assessments for the courses.
We will award points to eligible applicants addressing this
priority on an ``all or nothing'' basis (i.e., 10 points or zero
points). An eligible applicant may not use the same course of study to
address both this priority and Competitive Preference Priority 2 (Focus
on Career Readiness and Placement).
2. Focus on Career Readiness and Placement. The Department gives 10
competitive preference points to applications that include a high-
quality plan to develop, within the grant period and with relevant
business community participation and support, assessments for high
school courses that comprise a rigorous course of study in career and
technical education that is designed to prepare high school students
for success on technical certification examinations or for
postsecondary education or employment.
An eligible applicant addressing this priority must, in addition to
addressing the priority throughout the application narrative, provide a
separate plan that describes--
(a) The courses for which assessments will be developed;
(b) How the courses comprise a rigorous course of study in career
and technical education that is designed to prepare high school
students for success on technical certification examinations or for
postsecondary education or employment; and
(c) How relevant business community participation and support will
be obtained in developing assessments for the courses.
We will award points to eligible applicants addressing this
priority on an ``all or nothing'' basis (i.e., 10 points or zero
points). An eligible applicant may not use the same course of study to
address both this priority and Competitive Preference Priority 1 (Focus
on Preparing Students for Study and Careers in STEM-Related Fields).
Requirements: For the High School Course Assessment Programs grant
category, we are establishing the following requirements for the FY
2010 grant competition only in accordance with section 437(d)(1) of
GEPA, 20 U.S.C. 1232(d)(1).
Eligible Applicants: Eligible applicants are consortia of
States.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Consistent with section 14013 of the ARRA, the term
``State'' means each of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eligibility Requirements:
To be eligible to receive an award under this category, an eligible
applicant must--
1. Include a minimum of 5 governing States (as defined in this
notice); and
2. Identify in its application a proposed project management
partner and provide an assurance that the proposed project management
partner is not partnered with any other eligible applicant applying for
an award under this category.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ In selecting a proposed project management partner, an
eligible applicant must comply with the requirements for procurement
in 34 CFR 80.36. Due to the limited time period that eligible
applicants have to select a proposed project management partner, we
remind eligible applicants that they may, under 34 CFR 80.36, use
informal procedures to select a proposed contractor for this
purpose. For example, 34 CFR 80.36(d)(1) authorizes simple informal
procedures to select contractors under the simplified acquisition
threshold of $100,000; the regulations only require that the
eligible applicant request offers from an adequate number of
qualified sources. In addition, even if the eligible applicant
expects that the proposed project management partner would cost more
than $100,000, the regulations recognize special cases where a
contractor must be selected within a very limited time period.
Again, the eligible applicant must request proposals from an
adequate number of qualified sources and select the contractor whose
proposal is most advantageous to the program, considering price and
other selection factors; in these situations, if informal
solicitation does not result in an adequate number of proposals, the
eligible applicant may select a single bidder so long as the
eligible applicant documents the facts that formed the basis for its
decision. 34 CFR 80.36(d)(1), (d)(3), and (d)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Application Requirements
An eligible applicant's application must--
1. Indicate, consistent with 34 CFR 75.128, whether--
(a) One member of the consortium is applying for a grant on behalf
of the consortium; or
(b) The consortium has established itself as a separate eligible
legal entity and is applying for a grant on its own behalf;
2. Be signed by--
(a) If one member of the consortium is applying for a grant on
behalf of the consortium, the Governor, the State's chief school
officer, and, if applicable, the president of the State board of
education from that State; or
(b) If the consortium has established itself as a separate eligible
legal entity and is applying for a grant on its own behalf, a
representative of the consortium;
3. Include an assurance that--
(a) A competitive procurement process based on a ``best value''
selection \10\ will be used for tasks related to assessment design and
development; and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ For example, section 2.101 of the FAR defines ``best
value'' as the expected outcome of an acquisition that, in the
Government's estimation, provides the greatest overall benefit in
response to the requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) All applicable Federal procurement requirements, including the
requirements of 34 CFR 80.36, will be met;
4. Include, consistent with 34 CFR 75.128, for each State in the
consortium, copies of all Memoranda of Understanding or other binding
agreements. These binding agreements must--
(a) Detail the activities that members of the consortium will
perform;
(b) Bind each member of the consortium to every statement and
assurance made in the application;
(c) Include an assurance, signed by the State's chief procurement
official (or designee), that the State has reviewed its applicable
procurement rules and determined that it may participate in and make
procurements through the consortium; and
(d) Be signed by the Governor, the State's chief school officer,
and, if applicable, the president of the State board of education;
5. Include--
(a) An executive summary of the eligible applicant's proposed
project;
(b) A theory of action that describes in detail the causal
relationships between specific actions or strategies in the eligible
applicant's proposed project and its desired outcomes for the proposed
project, including improvements in student achievement and college- and
career-readiness;
(c) A plan for designing and developing the proposed assessment
program;
(d) A plan for research and evaluation of the proposed assessment
program;
(e) A plan for implementing the proposed assessment program; and
(f) A project management plan (including a workplan and timeline);
and
6. Include a budget that--
(a) Describes in detail how funds from this grant category and
other resources will be used to design, develop, implement, and
evaluate the proposed assessment program; and
(b) Does not exceed more than $30 million in funds from this grant
category.
Program Requirements
An eligible applicant awarded a grant under this category must--
1. Evaluate the validity, reliability, and fairness of the
assessments in its high school course assessment program;
2. Actively participate in any applicable technical assistance
activities
[[Page 18177]]
conducted or facilitated by the Department or its designees, including
periodic expert reviews, collaboration with other consortia that
receive funds under this program, and other activities as determined by
the Department;
3. Work with the Department to develop a strategy to make student-
level data that result from the assessment program available on an
ongoing basis for research, including for prospective linking,
validity, and program improvement studies; \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Eligible applicants awarded a grant under this program must
comply with FERPA and 34 CFR Part 99, as well as State and local
requirements regarding privacy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Ensure that at least one course assessment developed under the
high school course assessment program will be implemented in each State
in the consortium no later than the 2013-2014 school year and that all
assessments in the assessment program will be operational no later than
the 2014-2015 school year;
5. To the extent that technology is used, maximize the
interoperability of assessments across technology platforms and the
ability for States to switch their assessments from one technology
platform to another by--
(a) Developing all assessment items to an industry-recognized open-
licensed interoperability standard that is approved by the Department
during the grant period, without non-standard extensions or additions;
\12\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ We encourage grantees under this competition to work during
the grant period with the Department and the entities that set
interoperability standards to extend those standards in order to
make them more functional for assessment materials.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) Producing all student-level data in a manner consistent with an
industry-recognized open-licensed interoperability standard that is
approved by the Department during the grant period;
6. Unless otherwise protected by law or agreement as proprietary
information, make any assessment content (i.e., assessments and
assessment items) developed with funds from this grant category freely
available to States, technology platform providers, and others that
request it for purposes of administering assessments, provided they
comply with consortium or State requirements for test or item security;
7. Use funds from this grant category only for the design,
development, and evaluation of the assessment program. An eligible
applicant awarded a grant under this category may not use funds for the
administration of operational assessments;
8. Comply with the requirements of 34 CFR 75.129, which specifies
that--
(a) The applicant (i.e., the State applying on behalf of the
consortium, or the consortium if established as a separate legal entity
and applying on its own behalf) is legally responsible for--
(i) The use of all grant funds;
(ii) Ensuring that the project is carried out by the consortium in
accordance with Federal requirements; and
(iii) Ensuring that indirect cost funds are determined as required
under 34 CFR 75.564(e); and
(b) Each member of the consortium is legally responsible to--
(i) Carry out the activities it agrees to perform; and
(ii) Use any grant funds it receives under the consortium's
Memoranda of Understanding or other binding agreements in accordance
with Federal requirements that apply to the grant; and
9. Obtain approval from the Department of any third-party
organization or entity that is responsible for managing funds received
under this grant category.
C. Definitions: For the Comprehensive Assessment Systems and High
School Course Assessment Programs grant categories, we are establishing
the following definitions for the FY 2010 grant competition only in
accordance with section 437(d)(1) of GEPA, 20 U.S.C. 1232(d)(1).
Accommodations means changes in the administration of an
assessment, including but not limited to changes in assessment setting,
scheduling, timing, presentation format, response mode, and
combinations of these changes, that do not change the construct
intended to be measured by the assessment or the meaning of the
resulting scores. Accommodations must be used for equity in assessment
and not provide advantage to students eligible to receive them.
Achievement standard means the level of student achievement on
summative assessments that indicates that (a) for the final high school
summative assessments in mathematics or English language arts, a
student is college- and career-ready (as defined in this notice); or
(b) for summative assessments in mathematics or English language arts
at a grade level other than the final high school summative
assessments, a student is on track to being college- and career-ready
(as defined in this notice). An achievement standard must be determined
using empirical evidence over time.
College- and career-ready (or readiness) means, with respect to a
student, that the student is prepared for success, without remediation,
in credit-bearing entry-level courses in an IHE (as defined in section
101(a) of the HEA), as demonstrated by an assessment score that meets
or exceeds the achievement standard (as defined in this notice) for the
final high school summative assessment in mathematics or English
language arts.
Common set of college- and career-ready standards means a set of
academic content standards for grades K-12 that (a) define what a
student must know and be able to do at each grade level; (b) if
mastered, would ensure that the student is college- and career-ready
(as defined in this notice) by the time of high school graduation; and
(c) are substantially identical across all States in a consortium. A
State may supplement the common set of college- and career-ready
standards with additional content standards, provided that the
additional standards do not comprise more than 15 percent of the
State's total standards for that content area.
Direct matriculation student means a student who entered college as
a freshman within two years of graduating from high school.
English learner means a student who is an English learner as that
term is defined by the consortium. The consortium must define the term
in a manner that is uniform across member States and consistent with
section 9101(25) of the ESEA.
Governing State means a State that (a) is a member of only one
consortium applying for a grant in the competition category, (b) has an
active role in policy decision-making for the consortium, and (c) is
committed to using the assessment system or program developed by the
consortium.
Level 1 budget module means a budget module for which an eligible
applicant is seeking funds under the Comprehensive Assessment Systems
grant category that (a) is necessary to delivering operational
summative assessments in both mathematics and English language arts no
later than school year 2014-2015, or (b) is otherwise necessary to the
eligible applicant's proposed project and consistent with the eligible
applicant's theory of action.
Level 2 budget module means any budget module for which an eligible
applicant is seeking funds under the Comprehensive Assessment Systems
grant category other than a Level 1 budget module. An eligible
applicant must prioritize Level 2 budget modules in the order of
importance to the implementation of the proposed project.
Moderation system means a system for ensuring that human scoring of
complex item types, such as extended
[[Page 18178]]
responses or performance tasks, is accurate, consistent across schools
and States, and fair to all students.
On track to being college- and career-ready \13\ means, with
respect to a student, that the student is performing at or above grade
level such that the student will be college- and career-ready (as
defined in this notice) by the time of high school graduation, as
demonstrated by an assessment score that meets or exceeds the
achievement standard (as defined in this notice) for the student's
grade level on a summative assessment in mathematics or English
language arts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ The term on track to being college- and career-ready is
used in place of the term ``proficiency'' used in section 1111(b)(3)
of the ESEA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Performance level descriptor means a statement or description of a
set of knowledge and skills exemplifying a level of performance
associated with a standard.
Student achievement data means data regarding an individual
student's mastery of tested content standards. Student achievement data
from summative assessment components must be reported in a way that can
be reliably aggregated across multiple students at the subgroup,\14\
classroom, school, LEA, and State levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Eligible applicants receiving funds under this competition
must aggregate data using the student subgroups in section
1111(b)(3)(C)(xiii) of the ESEA (i.e., by gender, by each major
racial and ethnic group, by English proficiency status, by migrant
status, by students with disabilities as compared to nondisabled
students, and by economically disadvantaged students as compared to
students who are not economically disadvantaged, except that such
aggregation is not required in a case in which the number of
students in a subgroup is insufficient to yield statistically
reliable information or the results would reveal personally
identifiable information about an individual student). When using
the term ``subgroup'' throughout this notice, we mean these student
subgroups.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Student growth data means data regarding the change in student
achievement data (as defined in this notice) between two or more points
in time. Student growth data from summative assessment components must
be reported in a way that can be reliably aggregated across multiple
students at the subgroup, classroom, school, LEA, and State levels and
over a full academic year or course.
Student with a disability means, for purposes of this competition,
a student who has been identified as a student with a disability under
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, as amended (IDEA),
except for a student with a disability who is eligible to participate
in alternate assessments based on alternate academic achievement
standards consistent with 34 CFR 200.6(a)(2).
Through-course summative assessment means an assessment system
component or set of assessment system components that is administered
periodically during the academic year. A student's results from
through-course summative assessments must be combined to produce the
student's total summative assessment score for that academic year.
Waiver of Proposed Rulemaking: Under the Administrative Procedure
Act (5 U.S.C. 553), the Department generally offers interested parties
the opportunity to comment on proposed priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria. Section 437(d)(1) of GEPA,
however, allows the Secretary to exempt from rulemaking requirements
regulations governing the first grant competition under a new or
substantially revised program authority. This is the first grant
competition for the Race to the Top Assessment Program under section
14006 of the ARRA and therefore qualifies for this exemption. In order
to ensure timely grant awards, the Secretary has decided to forego
public comment on the priorities, requirements, definitions, and
selection criteria under section 437(d)(1) of GEPA. (We note that, as
discussed earlier, the design of this grant competition has benefited
significantly from a series of public and expert input meetings held by
the Department.) These priorities, requirements, definitions, and
selection criteria will apply to the FY 2010 grant competition only.
Program Authority: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of
2009, Division A, Section 14006, Public Law 111-5.
Applicable Regulations: The Education Department General
Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) in 34 CFR parts 74, 75, 77, 79, 80,
81, 82, 84, 85, 86, 97, 98, and 99.
II. Award Information
Type of Award: Discretionary grants.
Estimated Available Funds: $350,000,000.
Estimated Size of Awards:
A. Comprehensive Assessment Systems: $160,000,000.
B. High School Course Assessment Programs: $30,000,000.
Estimated Number of Awards
A. Comprehensive Assessment Systems: 1-2 awards.
B. High School Course Assessment Programs: 1 award.
Note: The Department is not bound by any estimates in this
notice. The Department will determine the number of awards to be
made in each grant category based on the quality of applications
received consistent with the selection criteria. It will also
determine the size of an award made to an eligible applicant based
on a review of the eligible applicant's budget. However, with
respect to Comprehensive Assessment Systems grants, an eligible
applicant may not submit Level 1 budget modules exceeding $150
million in total, and with respect to High School Course Assessment
Programs grants, an eligible applicant may not submit a budget
exceeding $30 million. Applications requesting budget amounts that
exceed these maximum amounts will not be reviewed for funding. An
eligible applicant awarded a Comprehensive Assessment Systems grant
will receive funding for the Level 1 budget modules identified in
its application, and may receive funding for one or more Level 2
budget modules identified in its application if those modules do not
exceed the maximum amount of $10 million each and funds are
available. The Department will rank and fund separately applications
under each grant category. The Department may use any unused funds
designated for this competition to make awards in Phase 2 of the
Race to the Top Fund Program (CFDA Number 84.395A).
Project Period: Up to 48 months.
III. Application and Submission Information
A. Address to Request Application Package: Prospective applicants
can obtain an application package for either grant category in this
competition via the Internet or from the Education Publications Center
(ED Pubs). To obtain a copy via the Internet, use the following
address: https://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop-assessment/. To obtain a copy from ED Pubs, write, fax, or call the
following: Education Publications Center, P.O. Box 1398, Jessup, MD
20794-1398. Telephone, toll free: 1-877-433-7827. FAX: (301) 470-1244.
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call, toll
free: 1-877-576-7734.
Prospective applicants can also contact ED Pubs at its Web site:
https://www.ed.gov/pubs/edpubs.html or at its e-mail address:
edpubs@inet.ed.gov.
If requesting an application from ED Pubs, be sure to identify this
competition as follows: CFDA Number 84.395B (Comprehensive Assessment
Systems grants) or CFDA Number 84.395C (High School Course Assessment
Programs grants).
Individuals with disabilities can obtain a copy of the application
package in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape,
or computer diskette) by contacting the person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT in section VI of this notice.
B. Content and Form of Application Submission: Requirements
concerning
[[Page 18179]]
the content of an application, together with the forms an applicant
must submit, are in the application package for each grant category in
this competition.
Page Limit: The application narrative (Part I.G of the application
for each grant category) is where the applicant addresses the selection
criteria that reviewers use to evaluate applications. The Department
recommends that applicants limit the application narrative for a
Comprehensive Assessment Systems grant to no more than 60 total pages,
and for a High School Course Assessment Programs grant to no more than
45 total pages, using the following standards:
A page is 8.5'' x 11'', on one side only, with 1'' margins
at the top, bottom, and both sides.
Each page is numbered.
Line spacing is set to 1.5 spacing, and the font used is
12 point Times New Roman font.
An applicant must limit the executive summary of its proposed
project (Part I.D of the application for each grant category) to no
more than two pages using the standards above. We will not read
information on any pages that exceed this page limit.
C. Submission Dates and Times:
Applications Available: April 9, 2010.
Deadline for Notice of Intent to Apply: April 29, 2010.
The Department will be able to develop a more efficient process for
reviewing grant applications if we have a better understanding of the
number of applications we will receive. Therefore, we strongly
encourage each prospective applicant to send an e-mail notice of its
intent to apply for funding under a grant category in this competition
to the e-mail address racetothetop.assessment@ed.gov by April 29, 2010.
The notice of intent to apply is optional; an applicant may still
submit an application if it has not notified us of its intention to
apply.
Date of Technical Assistance Meeting for Prospective Applicants:
April 22, 2010.
To assist prospective applicants in preparing an application and to
respond to questions, the Department will host a Technical Assistance
Meeting for Prospective Applicants on April 22, 2010. Detailed
information about this meeting (including the meeting location) will be
posted on the Department's Web site at https://www.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop-assessment. Attendance at the meeting is strongly
encouraged. Announcements of any other technical assistance
opportunities for prospective applicants will also be available at the
Web site above.
Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: June 23, 2