Head Start Program, 70010-70032 [2011-28880]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
• Administration for Children and Families

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 217 (Wednesday, November 9, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 70010-70032]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-28880]



[[Page 70009]]

Vol. 76

Wednesday,

No. 217

November 9, 2011

Part VII





Department of Health and Human Services





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





 Administration for Children and Families





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





45 CFR Part 1307





 Head Start Program; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 76 , No. 217 / Wednesday, November 9, 2011 / 
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 70010]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Administration for Children and Families

45 CFR Part 1307

RIN 0970-AC44


Head Start Program

AGENCY: Office of Head Start (OHS), Administration for Children and 
Families (ACF), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This final rule amends the Head Start Program regulations to 
implement statutory provisions of the Improving Head Start for School 
Readiness Act of 2007 to establish a system of designation renewal to 
determine if Head Start and Early Head Start agencies are delivering 
high-quality and comprehensive Head Start and Early Head Start programs 
that meet the educational, health, nutritional, and social needs of the 
children and families they serve and meet program and financial 
management requirements and standards. This system of designation 
renewal will determine which grantees must compete for on-going 
funding. This final rule is consistent with Executive Order 13563 and 
in particular its requirement, in section 6, of ``periodic review of 
existing significant regulations.''

DATES: This regulation is effective on December 9, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Colleen Rathgeb, Office of Head Start, 
(202) 205-7378 (not a toll-free call). Deaf and hearing impaired 
individuals may call the Federal Dual Party Relay Service at 1-(800) 
877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 7 p.m. Eastern time.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Statutory Authority

    This final rule is published under the authority granted to the 
Secretary of Health and Human Services by sections 641, 645A(b)(12), 
645A(d) and 644(c) of the Head Start Act (the Act) (42 U.S.C. 9801 et 
seq.), as amended by the Improving Head Start for School Readiness Act 
of 2007 (Pub. L. 110-134).

II. Background

    The Head Start program is a national program administered by the 
Office of Head Start (OHS), Administration for Children and Families 
(ACF), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which promotes 
school readiness of children from low-income families by enhancing 
their cognitive, physical, social, and emotional development through 
the provisions of health, educational, nutritional, social, and other 
services determined necessary based on family needs assessments.
    The Head Start program provides grants to local public and private 
non-profit and for-profit agencies to provide comprehensive child 
development services to economically disadvantaged children and 
families, with a special focus on helping preschoolers develop the 
necessary skills for school success. The Early Head Start program 
established in FY 1995 serves families of economically disadvantaged 
children from birth to three years of age and pregnant women from such 
families based on the mounting evidence that indicate the great 
importance of the early years of a child's growth and development.
    On December 12, 2007, the Improving Head Start for School Readiness 
Act of 2007 (Public Law 110-134) amended the Head Start Act (the Act) 
to direct HHS to recompete certain Head Start grants. The Head Start 
Act, as amended, establishes that Head Start grantees will be awarded 
grants for a five-year period and only grantees delivering high-quality 
services will be given additional five-year grants non-competitively. 
Section 641 of the Act requires the Secretary of HHS to develop and 
implement a system for designation renewal (e.g., Designation Renewal 
System (DRS)) to determine if a Head Start agency is delivering a high-
quality and comprehensive Head Start program that meets the 
educational, health, nutritional, and social needs of the children and 
families it serves. This regulation defines, for purposes of the 
Designation Renewal System, what comprises delivering a high quality 
comprehensive Head Start program--if a program does not meet any of the 
seven conditions, they are de facto a high quality program for purposes 
of the Designation Renewal System.
    Section 641(c)(1) of the Act requires that the DRS be developed to 
determine whether a grantee is providing high-quality services and 
meets the program and financial management requirements and standards 
described in section 641A(a)(1) of the Act, based on:
    (A) Annual budget and fiscal management data;
    (B) Program review conducted under section 641A(c);
    (C) Annual audits required under section 647;
    (D) Classroom quality as measured under section 641A(c)(2)(F); and
    (E) Program Information Reports.
    The Act also requires that the system is fair, consistent and 
transparent and that the Secretary periodically evaluate whether the 
criteria of the system are being applied in a manner that is 
transparent, reliable and valid.
    This final rule responds to those requirements and was developed 
after consideration of public comments received in response to the 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) issued September 22, 2010, in the 
Federal Register [75 FR 57704]. This final rule is also consistent with 
Executive Order 13563, section 6, which calls for ``periodic review of 
existing significant regulations,'' and which directs agencies to 
engage in ``retrospective analysis of rules'' in order to improve them 
``in accordance with what has been learned.'' In brief, the NPRM 
proposed seven conditions that would signal that a Head Start or Early 
Head Start agency was not delivering high-quality and comprehensive 
services and ``trigger'' the grant for competition. The conditions in 
the NPRM were: one or more deficiencies under section 641A(c)(1)(A), 
(C), or (D) of the Act; failure to establish school readiness goals; 
failure to meet minimum thresholds on CLASS: Pre-K domains; revocation 
of a license to operate a center or program; suspension from the 
program; debarment from receiving Federal or State funds or 
disqualified from the Child and Adult Care Food Program; or, one or 
more material weaknesses or at risk for failing to function as a going 
concern. The NPRM also proposed adding an eighth criterion to ensure 
that a minimum threshold of 25 percent of grants would be subject to 
competition.
    Head Start is the largest federal investment in early childhood 
education, serving nearly one million of our nation's most vulnerable 
young children and their families. It is the federal government's 
responsibility to make sure that these children and families get the 
highest quality services possible. This final rule makes structural 
changes in Head Start that will drive significant improvements in 
program quality. Specifically, for the first time in the history of 
Head Start, individual grantees whose programs fall short of certain 
standards will be required to compete with other organizations to 
continue receiving funding. Funds will be awarded to the organization 
that can best meet the needs of Head Start children and families.

[[Page 70011]]

III. Summary Description of Regulatory Provisions

    The following is a summary of the most significant regulatory 
changes included in this final rule resulting from public comment. The 
Section-by-Section Discussion of the Regulations (Section IV) provides 
a detailed listing of the comments and responses. We considered each 
comment and where appropriate made amendments in this final rule. 
Specifically, changes include:
    In Sec.  1307.3 of the NPRM, ACF proposed that a minimum of 25 
percent of grantees reviewed in each cycle would be required to compete 
and proposed adding an eighth condition to achieve this. In response to 
comments, this threshold is replaced in the final rule. The final rule 
retains the seven criteria for recompetition in section 1307.3 with 
some modification, and adds a second sub-part to the CLASS: PreK 
condition, but does not add an eighth criterion. Most significantly, 
with respect to the third criterion at Sec.  1307.3(c), the final rule 
provides that, in addition to grantees that will be required to compete 
based on CLASS: Pre-K scores below minimum quality thresholds, those 
grantees reviewed by ACF in the same year that score in the lowest 
decile in any of the three domains of the Classroom Assessment Scoring 
System: Pre-K (CLASS: Pre-K) will also be required to compete. Taken 
together, these changes ensure rigorous competition in the Head Start 
program and provide an approach that is transparent and based on the 
most valid and reliable indicators of performance currently available 
to ACF. Current data from Head Start monitoring and CLASS reviews 
suggest that roughly a third of grantees would have been designated for 
competition based on the revised criteria. While there are limitations 
on the precision of estimates with current data, it is clear that this 
approach will hold grantees to high standards and lead to rigorous 
competition.
    As discussed in the Section-by-Section Discussion that follows, in 
response to comments this final rule also revises definitions included 
in the NPRM; modifies the timeframe for the school readiness criteria; 
and modifies reporting requirements.

IV. Section-by-Section Discussion of Comments and Regulatory Provisions

    This section provides a detailed discussion of the comments 
received on the proposed rule and describes changes made to the 
proposed rule. We received approximately 16,000 comments on the NPRM 
from Head Start grantees, parents, teachers and State associations; 
national organizations; and some academic institutions and legal 
entities. Most comments focused on: the proposed 25 percent minimum 
requirement for recompetition; retrospective review criteria; proposed 
conditions related to licensing, deficiencies, and audits; and, the 
proposed timing and method for using CLASS: Pre-K. Many respondents 
submitted comments in support of competition, stating that requiring 
grantees to compete would ensure that Head Start and Early Head Start 
children across the country receive high-quality services and that 
dollars invested are spent well.

General Comments

    Comments not attributable to specific sections of the regulation 
are discussed below.
Concerns Over Competition
    1. Comment: Many respondents endorsed the principle that grantees 
not conducting high quality programs should be required to compete for 
further funding. However, others opposed competition among Head Start 
and Early Head Start grantees for a variety of reasons, including costs 
vs. benefits; hardship and stress for staff resulting from the loss of 
jobs and loss or disruption of employee benefits; disruption of 
services; and the possibility that grantees required to compete will be 
stigmatized. Some commenters stated that to avoid potential stigma it 
would be better to compete all programs. Additionally, commenters 
expressed concerns that recompetition could be a disincentive for 
organizations to collaborate with Head Start because of the potential 
instability of the funding.
    Response: We appreciate the concerns expressed by commenters and 
the suggestions provided (discussed more specifically later in this 
section) to utilize alternative means of holding grantees accountable. 
However, the 2007 reauthorization of the Head Start Act required the 
establishment of five-year grants and a Designation Renewal System by 
which grantees would compete for renewed funding if they were not 
determined to be providing high quality services. We can assure 
commenters that we intend to make every effort to ensure continuity of 
services to children and families, although we acknowledge that it is 
possible that some short-term disruption of services might occur if and 
when service providers change.
    We think it is important to note that requiring a Head Start or 
Early Head Start grantee to compete for continued funding is not the 
same as taking a grant away or defunding a grantee. Requiring a grantee 
to compete means that if a grantee wants to continue to provide Head 
Start or Early Head Start services to the community, it must apply, 
along with any other entities that choose to do so, for on-going 
funding and demonstrate that it is the most capable entity to do so.
Use of Retroactive Data
    2. Comment: We received many comments regarding the provision that 
most of the DRS conditions would be based on data regarding grantee 
performance starting on June 12, 2009. Commenters claimed that by 
considering pre-regulation events, ACF was imposing the DRS 
retroactively and in a manner inconsistent with Congressional intent, 
that ACF's delay in proposing the regulation should disqualify ACF from 
imposing retroactive requirements, and that the statute did not require 
ACF to consider events between June 12, 2009, and the effective date of 
the regulation. Some commenters objected to the consideration of 
performance beginning on June 12, 2009 for only certain conditions, 
such as the establishment of school readiness goals.
    Response: In the NPRM we proposed, with one exception, application 
of data collected starting on June 12, 2009, because that is the date 
specified in the Act before which the system for designation renewal 
cannot apply. We have maintained in the final rule that data collected 
beginning on June 12, 2009, may be considered for all of the 
conditions, with the exception of the condition related to school 
readiness goals, as discussed later in this preamble, and the CLASS: 
Pre-K condition that we already proposed in the NPRM to apply after the 
effective date of the rule. The five conditions for which data 
collected prior to the effective date of the regulation will be 
considered are based on Head Start requirements that pre-date this 
regulation, and were known to grantees as requirements for which they 
would be held accountable.
    Failure to comply with these requirements, even before this 
regulation was effective, could lead to adverse consequences, such as 
termination or suspension. Specifically with respect to licensing, 
Section 641A(a)(D)(i) requires that ``facilities used by Head Start 
agencies for regularly scheduled * * * classroom activities shall meet 
or exceed State and local requirements concerning licensing for such 
facilities.'' These requirements to meet state and local licensing

[[Page 70012]]

standards are echoed in Head Start regulations 1306.30(c). Clearly the 
revocation of a license to operate--a licensing entity actually 
shutting down a center--is clear and direct evidence that a program is 
not meeting or exceeding state and local licensing requirements. With 
respect to disqualification from USDA to participate in the CACFP, Head 
Start regulations at 1304.23(b)(i) require that all programs ``must use 
funds from the USDA Food and Consumer Services Child Nutrition Programs 
as the primary source of payment for meal services.'' A program 
disqualified from CACFP would be unable to comply with this long 
standing requirement. With respect to audit findings potentially 
jeopardizing a Head Start grant pre-dating this regulation, the Act and 
existing Head Start regulations at Sec.  1301.12 require an annual 
audit of all programs to ensure that statements are accurate, that they 
are complying with the terms and conditions of the grant and that 
financial and administrative procedures and controls have been 
installed and are operating effectively. On the ``one deficiency'' 
condition, the concept of a ``deficiency'' and the process for 
correcting a deficiency have been part of the Head Start Act (section 
641A(e)) and the Head Start Performance Standards (45 CFR 1304.60) for 
many years. Deficiency was defined in Section 637 of the Act and a 
process for identifying and correcting deficiencies clarified and 
revised in Section 641A. Therefore, grantees reasonably had notice that 
a deficiency finding was important and could jeopardize their grant. 
Grantees also had notice before the adoption of the Designation Renewal 
System regulation that both debarment and suspension were evidence of 
programming that was not high quality because debarment is defined in 
section 637(2) of the Head Start Act as a deficiency and suspension was 
associated with violations of Head Start requirements under 45 CFR 
1303.10(a). In addition, the Federal Uniform Administrative 
Requirements at 45 CFR 74.13 clearly states that ``Federal agencies 
shall not award assistance to applicants that are debarred or 
suspended, or otherwise excluded from or ineligible for participation 
in Federal assistance programs under Executive Order 12549.''
    We also believe that the Act gave grantees clear and sufficient 
notification of the potential consequences of failing to deliver a high 
quality and comprehensive Head Start program and that their performance 
beginning on June 12, 2009, could be considered under the DRS to 
determine whether a grantee must recompete for a five-year grant. We 
believe that not considering important performance data as soon as 
allowable by the Act would delay this important mechanism for ensuring 
grantee accountability and could result in re-awarding grants non-
competitively to entities that are not the best equipped to provide 
high-quality services in that community.
Designation Renewal System Final Decision
    3. Comment: A number of commenters also expressed concern that the 
decision that a grantee must compete for renewal of funding would be 
final and suggested that grantees should have the ability to appeal the 
determination. Other commenters suggested that each condition should be 
appealable or correctable. Other comments stated that the requirement 
to compete could injure grantee's reputation which could result in a 
loss of funding from other sources and therefore due process rights 
should be afforded. (Condition-specific comments are discussed more in 
the Section-by-Section Discussion below.)
    Response: Congress did not require that grantees designated to 
compete for further funding be given an opportunity to appeal. Congress 
did require appeals for grantees that are terminated or suspended for 
more than 30 days and for delegate agencies that are terminated or who 
have their applications rejected. Because Congress did not require 
appeal rights for grantees required to compete for further funding, 
apparently Congress did not believe that the requirement that a grantee 
compete for further funding was on a par with termination or other 
actions for which Congress did require appeals.
    Additionally, all eligible entities that have not been terminated 
from providing Head Start or Early Head Start services in the preceding 
five years--including the grantees designated for competition--are able 
and encouraged to apply through that competition. Unlike a grant 
termination, a requirement to compete provides a mechanism for a 
current grantee to demonstrate its capacity to provide a high quality 
program while providing ACF the ability to shift funding to more 
capable entities if such entities exist in the community. Further, a 
grantee that competed and lost a competition would remain eligible for 
future competitions. Because of this the grantee that is required to 
compete for further funding is one whose level of compliance is 
sufficient to justify continuance in the Head Start program, provided 
that there is no other organization in the same community that 
establishes, via a competitive process that it is better able to 
provide a high quality and comprehensive program. Thus the decision to 
require competition cannot reasonably be expected to damage the 
grantee's reputation in such a way as to deprive it of funding from 
another source.
    In response to the suggestions for training and technical 
assistance for those grantees that meet one of the seven DRS 
conditions, we note that all grantees already receive training and 
technical assistance on a variety of related topics and grantees also 
may request special assistance as needed.
Large Grantees and Delegate Agencies
    4. Comment: A number of commenters raised concerns about 
designation renewal as it relates to supergrantees (e.g., grantees that 
serve over 5,000 children or administer grants that cover a large 
geographic region) or large grantees that have a great number of 
programs or agencies that provide Head Start services on behalf of the 
grantee. Concerns were raised that large grantees are more likely to be 
required to compete because they have more classrooms and provide 
services to a greater number of families. Several commented that ACF 
should limit competition to only the service area found to have met one 
of the seven conditions, rather than requiring the grantee to recompete 
for its entire service area. Concerns that the problems of a single 
delegate agency would cause an entire grantee to compete were raised by 
a number of respondents.
    Response: All grantees are responsible for ensuring that all 
children and families participating in the program receive high-quality 
services, regardless of how many children are served, where the 
children are served or by whom the children are directly served. 
Section 1304.51(i)(2), a longstanding regulation, requires grantees to 
establish and implement procedures for the on-going monitoring of their 
programs, regardless of the size or structure of that grantee. A 
grantee's failure to ensure high quality services are being provided to 
children that are served in any of their locations indicates that the 
grantee has failed to maintain a high-quality Head Start program 
through their on-going monitoring. Thus, we have made no changes in 
response to these comments.
    Specifically with respect to deficiencies identified through Head 
Start monitoring, a deficiency reflects a very serious program 
violation. In a large grantee a deficiency would not be

[[Page 70013]]

cited for an isolated incident unless it is very severe or was not 
corrected when identified as a non-compliance. Since the statutory 
definition includes that a deficiency is a ``systemic or substantial 
material failure,'' it accounts for differences in the size of grantees 
in that an issue that might be material or systemic in a very small 
grantee may not meet the thresholds of material or systemic in a very 
large grantee. For example, ten child health records being incomplete 
in a program serving 20 children could indicate substantial material 
and systemic problems; however, ten child health records being 
incomplete in a program serving 10,000 children would not indicate 
substantial material and systemic problems.
Migrant and Seasonal Head Start Programs
    5. Comment: A number of comments mentioned that the NPRM was silent 
on Migrant and Seasonal Head Start (MSHS) programs and questioned 
whether the rule applied to MSHS. Some thought that MSHS programs 
should be subject to competition under the same rules in place for non-
MSHS programs while others requested special considerations for MSHS 
programs because of the unique challenges MSHS programs face delivering 
services to children of migrant and seasonal farm workers.
    Some respondents expressed concern with the reliability and clarity 
of the seven conditions proposed in the NPRM for MSHS programs such as 
whether the CLASS: Pre-K conditions are culturally and linguistically 
appropriate for MSHS programs or other dual language learner children.
    Response: The statute is clear that the length of all grants 
awarded under the Act is five years and that all Head Start grants 
should be subject to the DRS to determine if they are required to 
compete for their grants. Congress did not include an exception for 
MSHS programs. As a result, this entire rule applies to MSHS programs 
and we have not established separate conditions or a different standard 
for any program type. However, under Sec.  1307.3(b)(2)(i), we allow 
programs operating less than 90 days, as many MSHS programs do, to 
aggregate and analyze their child-level assessment data at least two 
times within their operating program period, rather than at least three 
times per year as is required for other Head Start programs. ACF 
encourages programs facing difficulties with requirements where waivers 
are authorized under statute or current regulations to submit a request 
for a waiver.
Alternatives to the Proposed DRS
    6. Comment: Some commenters offered alternative methods to 
determine which grantees should be required to compete. For example, 
several recommended an external review process similar to that used to 
review hospitals and healthcare organizations by the Joint Commission 
on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO). Others 
recommended alternative systems such as (1) Alternate criteria and an 
alternate timeline over the five-year grant period, (2) using a tiered 
system to rate grantees, (3) considering additional information such as 
national accreditation and (4) randomly assigning some grantees to 
competition.
    Response: We appreciate the alternatives suggested by commenters. 
However, ACF does not believe that any of the systems proposed could be 
implemented in a fair, consistent and reliable manner within the 
parameters of the Act. We continue to believe the system for 
designation renewal proposed in the NPRM, with the adaptations made in 
this final rule, provides a fair, transparent and evidence-based 
approach for determining whether Head Start and Early Head Start 
agencies are delivering high-quality and comprehensive programs that 
meet the educational, health, nutritional, and social needs of the 
children and families they serve and meet program and financial 
management requirements and standards.

V. Section-by-Section Discussion of Comments and the Final Rule

Proposed Sec.  1307.1--Purpose and Scope

    1. Comment: Some commenters questioned the authority to apply the 
Designation Renewal System to Early Head Start grantees.
    Response: HHS has the authority to establish requirements for the 
scope and design of Early Head Start programs under section 645A(b)(12) 
of the Act and to establish requirements for the time, manner, and 
content of applications under section 645A(d) of the Act. ACF believes 
that requiring Early Head Start grantees that are not providing high-
quality, comprehensive services to compete for further funding is 
necessary to assure that all children receive high-quality services 
under the program.

Proposed Sec.  1307.2--Definitions

    1. Comment: A number of comments were received on definitions 
proposed in the NPRM. Commenters requested modification of the proposed 
definitions of ``agency'' and ``material weakness.'' Others requested 
that we add new definitions including: ``aggregate child assessment 
data,'' ``child-level assessment data,'' ``Migrant and Seasonal Head 
Start,'' ``redesignation assessment,'' and ``school readiness goals.''
    Response: Based on the comments received, we have added definitions 
of the following terms to the rule: ``aggregate child-level assessment 
data,'' ``child-level assessment data,'' and ``school readiness 
goals.'' For the reasons explained below, we also have removed the 
proposed terms: ``designated ACF official'' and ``material weakness.'' 
We also made a minor technical change to the definition of ``transition 
period'' to conform to other changes in the final rule.
    2. Comment: Commenters stated that the proposed definition of 
``agency'' is inconsistent with the definitions of ``Head Start 
agency'' in 45 CFR part 1301 and the definition of ``Head Start 
agency'' in the proposed regulation. Commenters stated that ACF should 
add the word ``local'' to the definition of ``agency'' to make it 
correct.
    Response: We have not modified this definition because the term 
``agency'' is being adopted in part 1307 to refer to both Head Start 
and Early Head Start grantees. Inserting the term ``local'' in the 
definition would make the term inapplicable to Early Head Start 
grantees. Under section 645A(d) of the Act, an organization does not 
have to qualify as a ``local'' organization in order to be funded under 
the Early Head Start program. The definition of ``agency'' in 45 CFR 
part 1301 was adopted in 1979, before establishment of the Early Head 
Start program in 1995. In future regulations, ACF will be proposing 
changes to that definition and several other provisions of Part 1301 
that are now obsolete.
    3. Comment: Commenters suggested that, for the sake of consistency, 
ACF use the term ``responsible HHS official,'' which is used in other 
Head Start regulations, instead of ``designated ACF official.''
    Response: As suggested, ACF has changed the term used throughout 
this final rule to ``responsible HHS official'' to be consistent with 
other regulations. As such, we also have deleted the definition of 
``designated ACF official'' proposed in the NPRM.
    4. Comment: Commenters suggested adopting the definition of 
``material weakness'' in the Government Accountability Office 
``Government Auditing Standards,'' in place of the definition proposed 
in the NPRM.

[[Page 70014]]

    Response: In the final rule, we are deleting the proposed 
definition of material weakness since, as discussed below, we are 
modifying Sec.  1307.3(g) to remove a finding of material weakness as a 
condition for recompetition, as had been proposed in the NPRM.
    5. Comment: Commenters also suggested that ``redesignation 
assessment'' be a defined term in the final regulation. Commenters 
expressed confusion about the process of the designation review or 
assessment.
    Response: We have modified Sec.  1307.7 to clarify what the 
designation review entails, i.e., that it is a review by ACF of grantee 
data to determine if one or more of the conditions specified under 
Sec.  1307.3 were met by the agency's program during the relevant time 
periods also described in that section.
    6. Comment: Commenters asked for a definition of ``school readiness 
goals'' as used under proposed Sec.  1307.3(b)(2).
    Response: We have added a definition to the rule to specify that 
``school readiness goals'' mean the expectations of children's status 
and progress across domains of learning and literacy development, 
cognition and general knowledge, approaches to learning, physical well-
being and motor development, and social and emotional development that 
will improve their readiness for kindergarten. This definition is 
consistent with guidance from the Office of Head Start, section 641A(g) 
of the Act, and draws from comments.
    7. Comment: Some commenters asked about what constituted ``child-
level assessment data'' as the term was used in proposed Sec.  
1307.3(b)(2). Specifically, commenters asked if the term includes only 
data gathered through direct standardized assessment of children.
    Response: The definition added in the final rule clarifies that 
``child-level assessment data'' means ``the data collected by an agency 
on an individual child from one or more valid and reliable assessments 
of a child's status and progress, including but not limited to direct 
assessment, structured observations, checklists, staff- or parent-
report measures, and portfolio records or work samples.'' This 
definition is intended to make it clear that we are not imposing a new 
requirement to use only direct standardized assessment data; rather, 
agencies may use any one of a number of different methods to gather 
child-level assessment data (including but not limited to the methods 
identified in the definition). This is consistent with long standing 
Head Start regulations at Sec.  1304.20(b), (d) and (e) on on-going 
assessment of children.
    8. Comment: Some commenters requested that ``aggregate child-level 
assessment data'' be defined to understand the term as it was used in 
proposed Sec.  1307.3(b)(2).
    Response: In response to comments, we have added a definition of 
``aggregate child-level assessment data'' to mean ``the data collected 
by an agency on the status and progress of the children it serves that 
have been combined to provide summary information about groups of 
children enrolled in specific classrooms, centers, home-based or other 
options, groups, or setting, or other groups of children such as dual 
language learners or to provide summary information by specific domains 
of development.'' This definition will help programs understand how to 
utilize this data to understand the status and progress of children in 
their program and implement appropriate program improvements. It is 
consistent with best practices in the early childhood education field.
    9. Comment: Some respondents requested that ACF include a 
definition of Migrant and Seasonal Head Start (MSHS) and proposed the 
following definition: ``A MSHS agency is an entity of a local public or 
private not-for-profit organization, which is designed by ACF to 
operate programs that serve children from birth to compulsory school 
age.''
    Response: The term ``Migrant or Seasonal Head Start Program'' is 
defined in section 637(17) of the Act and therefore we do not have the 
authority to change the definition of this term through regulation.
    Proposed Sec.  1307.3--Basis for determining whether a Head Start 
agency will be subject to an open competition. (Note that proposed 
Sec.  1307.3(a) and (c) have been removed in the final rule. As a 
result, proposed Sec.  1307.3(b)(1) to (7) have been redesignated as 
final Sec.  1307.3(a) to (g).)

Proposed Sec.  1307.3(a)--Minimum of 25 Percent

    1. Comment: The vast majority of comments received on the NPRM 
pertained to the proposed criterion to ensure that a minimum of 25 
percent of grantees are required to compete each year. Respondents 
stated that the 25 percent requirement is arbitrary, capricious, and 
unfair. Many of these respondents claimed the minimum percent results 
in an unfair quota system. Some expressed concern that the quota itself 
rather than the quality of programs would drive decisions. Others 
stated that quotas in almost any setting generally are perceived as 
leading to unfair and inappropriate determinations and are inconsistent 
with the intent to identify individual low-performing grantees for 
competition. Respondents also stated that the approach is not 
transparent because it fails to articulate a specific standard of 
quality that programs can aim to meet. Some respondents stated that 
they may be inclined to support the 25 percent or some minimum percent 
if it was demonstrated using relevant data how this percent was 
derived.
    Other respondents expressed concern that the standards for running 
a successful program could change during the school year to meet the 25 
percent minimum. Commenters noted that Congress specifically required 
the development of a merit-based system, and that competing 25 percent 
of all grantees reviewed in a given year regardless of the quality of 
those programs does not meet the statutory requirement for a program-
by-program determination of whether ``a Head Start grantee is 
successfully delivering a high-quality and comprehensive Head Start 
program.''
    The most frequently expressed consequence of the 25 percent minimum 
is that it could cause high-quality programs to be required to compete 
for continued funding.
    Other respondents requested more clarification on this provision. 
Specifically, a number said it is not clear from the NRPM whether the 
proposed 25 percent minimum is a national figure or whether it would be 
applied equally across all twelve Federal regions. Others offered 
alternatives to the minimum 25 percent provision. Some recommended ACF 
use standard, objective, absolute measures only. Others suggested that 
ACF establish a new review system that would recognize high quality and 
innovation and ``weed out'' the lowest performing programs.
    Respondents also offered suggestions if the 25 percent minimum 
remains in the final rule. Some asked that high performers be exempt 
from competition and that the remaining 25 percent of grantees be 
chosen by lottery. Others suggested creating a tiered system of 
quality, which would identify programs along a quality spectrum rather 
than drawing a single line between high- and low-quality programs. 
There were also a number of comments in favor of the 25 percent minimum 
noting it would ensure robust levels of competition and drive all 
programs to strive for excellence. A few commenters suggested a higher 
percentage requirement.
    Response: ACF carefully considered all the comments received and we 
have

[[Page 70015]]

replaced the 25 percent minimum provision in the final rule with a 
revised CLASS: Pre-K condition. The revised two-part condition will 
ensure robust competition and guard against potential score inflation, 
using this valid, evidence based classroom evaluation tool. As 
discussed further below, under the final rule, in addition to those 
programs that score below a minimum threshold, programs that score in 
the bottom ten percent in any of the three domains of classroom quality 
measured by CLASS: Pre-K will be required to compete for further 
funding. This will ensure that standards remain high, but that grantees 
are held to objective, meaningful standards. Furthermore, to respond to 
comments received that the 25 percent provision could result in high-
performing programs being required to compete, the CLASS-based criteria 
further stipulates that in the unlikely event that a program that 
scores in the bottom decile in a domain but whose score in the domain 
meets the ``standards of excellence'' will not be required to compete.
    Taken together, the revised CLASS-based criteria and the other six 
conditions meet the same goal of ensuring high standards and driving 
continuous quality improvement, which was specified in the NPRM. 
Namely, these criteria ensure robust competition and, based on 
currently available data, will result in roughly a third of all 
programs being designated for competition. Additionally these criteria 
are transparent and guard against potential score inflation while 
addressing legitimate concerns raised by commenters.

Proposed Sec.  1307.3(b)(1)--Deficiency (Note that proposed Sec.  
1307.3(b)(1) has been changed to Sec.  1307.3(a) in the final rule.)

    1. Comment: A significant number of comments received related to 
the proposed condition that an agency that has been determined by ACF 
to have one or more deficiencies on a single review conducted under 
section 641A(c)(1)(A), (C), or (D) of the Act would be required to 
compete. Some commenters shared support for the proposal, while other 
respondents stated that there is insufficient data on monitoring 
findings available to evaluate the merits of this condition.
    Many respondents stated that the definition of deficiency is 
unclear. A number of these respondents said ACF should publish a list 
of deficiencies on its Web site annually.
    Response: In response to concerns that there is insufficient data 
on monitoring findings available and suggestions that ACF should 
publish a list of deficiencies on an annual basis, we note that we 
publish an annual report that provides a description of the monitoring 
review process, a summary of findings of the monitoring reviews 
conducted in each fiscal year (including a list showing the number of 
noncompliances and deficiencies by Head Start requirement), the 
outcomes of follow-up actions on grantees with required corrective 
actions, and any recent steps taken regarding monitoring and program 
integrity. The annual report on Head Start monitoring can be found at 
the following link: https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/hslc/.
    2. Comment: Other respondents noted that there are inconsistencies 
in the OHS monitoring review system and process for determining 
deficiencies. As a result, they believe the criteria for determining a 
deficiency finding is subjective and varies among on-site monitoring 
teams or the ACF official. ACF received nearly 5,000 comments related 
to monitoring reviews. A number of Tribes noted that many reviewers do 
not understand the concept of Tribal sovereignty.
    Response: ACF stands behind the integrity of the monitoring review 
process used for all Head Start and Early Head Start grantees. As 
required by the Act, OHS consistently reviews and revises its 
monitoring process and protocol. Each year, OHS makes some changes to 
its monitoring protocol and trains all reviewers on the changes. In 
order to ensure interrater reliability, OHS annually trains reviewers 
before the monitoring year begins. The determination that a finding 
constitutes a deficiency is not made on-site by monitoring review 
teams, but rather is made after OHS and ACF experts and senior staff 
conduct a deliberative and rigorous review of the evidence. The results 
of the monitoring process are tested when grantees that have been 
terminated based on a failure to correct deficiencies appeal their 
terminations. In the overwhelming majority of these appeals, ACF's 
judgment that a deficiency existed, and that the grantee had failed to 
correct the deficiency, have been upheld by the Departmental Appeals 
Board. These rulings have often been made without the necessity of 
conducting a hearing because the grantee has not challenged ACF's 
factual findings. When a program is cited for a deficiency, it is an 
indication of a significant failure to meet program requirements. We 
believe that when a program fails to meet these standards, it is 
entirely appropriate to require them to compete for funding to 
determine if children would be better served by a different entity.
    3. Comment: Other comments objected to the standard of one 
deficiency triggering competition. Some respondents stated that ACF has 
not articulated clearly its rationale for using a single deficiency 
condition.
    Response: As stated in the preamble to the NPRM, ACF firmly 
believes that a grantee determined to have one or more deficiencies in 
a single review has demonstrated that it does not meet the requirement 
of being a high-quality program. ACF believes it is a reasonable 
standard that programs identified as having a deficiency, which, in 
summary, is defined as a systemic or material failure to meet program 
performance standards, a systemic or material failure of the governing 
body of an agency to fully exercise its legal and fiduciary 
responsibilities, or an unresolved area of noncompliance, should be 
required to compete for funding to determine if they are the most 
capable entity to provide Head Start or Early Head Start services to 
that community. This condition also is grounded in the Secretary's 
Advisory Committee's recommendations related to ``Key Quality 
Indicators.'' It is important to note that as stated in the NPRM, ACF 
will consider data from triennial reviews, follow-up reviews, and other 
reviews--and not first-year reviews.
    It is ACF's position that grantees should have systems in place to 
avoid the types of failures that constitute deficiencies as defined in 
the Act, including the ability to resolve a noncompliance in the 
specified corrective action timeframe before it is considered a 
deficiency.
    4. Comment: Some respondents stated that different deficiencies do 
not represent problems of equal severity; some are more serious or 
systemic issues than others. These respondents argued that establishing 
a specific number of deficiencies to trigger competition is 
inappropriate because of differences in the severity of problems 
identified as deficiencies. Some respondents stated that only matters 
that present a systemic threat to health and safety or acts of 
financial irresponsibility should be considered deficiencies for 
purposes of competition.
    Response: While it is true that deficiencies can reflect problems 
of varying levels of severity, all deficiencies represent a significant 
failure to provide services consistent with Head Start Program 
Performance Standards and therefore it is appropriate to require a 
competition to determine if

[[Page 70016]]

the current grantee or another entity is the most qualified provider in 
that community.
    5. Comment: A large number of respondents stated that grantees 
should have the opportunity to appeal deficiencies before a grantee is 
required to compete.
    Response: The Act does not provide for an appeal of deficiency 
findings, unlike terminations and suspensions lasting more than 30 
days. Although there is no statutory right to an appeal, grantees 
currently have the opportunity to discuss the progress of the 
monitoring review while the review team is on site. Although the final 
determination is not made during the on-site review, grantees 
consistently are informed of the opportunity to provide additional 
input when concerns are identified while the team is on-site.
    6. Comment: Some respondents recommended that a weighting system be 
applied for findings from unannounced visits versus those found during 
announced monitoring reviews. Some respondents recommended that ACF 
revise the condition to focus on a pattern of deficiencies, 
deficiencies based on their severity, deficiencies that directly impact 
services to children and families, or multiple deficiencies in a single 
review.
    Response: In 2007, Congress specifically added authority in section 
641A(c)(1)(D) of the Act for ACF to conduct unannounced site 
inspections and consistent with this the number of unannounced reviews 
has increased as an added quality assurance measure. Programs should 
always be following Program Performance Standards and be ready for a 
review at any time. Grantees are always required to follow requirements 
of the Act and regulations and can be cited for not complying with 
regulations at any time during the year.
    While we appreciate the comments received on this provision, the 
final rule maintains the provision as proposed. As stated above, a 
deficiency is by definition a ``substantial or systemic material 
failure.'' ACF firmly stands behind the integrity of the monitoring and 
review process through which deficiencies are established and this has 
been consistently validated by rulings supporting ACF findings in the 
appeals process. ACF strongly believes that a grantee found to have a 
deficiency should compete to determine if it or another entity is the 
strongest provider in the community.

Proposed Sec.  1307.3(b)(2)--School Readiness Goals (Note that proposed 
Sec.  1307.3(b)(2) has been changed to Sec.  1307.3(b) in the final 
rule.)

    1. Comment: Many comments were received related to the 
establishment of goals and utilization of data on children's school 
readiness. While the majority of commenters expressed support for this 
requirement, numerous commenters raised concerns about how the 
condition will be implemented. For example, nearly all of the comments 
received on this condition requested that ACF issue guidance to clarify 
the requirements and explain how grantees' adherence to those 
requirements will be measured (discussed in further detail below). Many 
of the commenters also recommended that ACF not implement the condition 
until after such guidance has been issued and training and technical 
assistance has been provided to grantees.
    Response: We agree with these concerns and have revised the date of 
implementation of the condition to be after the effective date of the 
final rule. Therefore, in evaluating whether a grantee has met this 
condition, we will not rely on data beginning on June 12, 2009, as had 
been proposed in the NPRM, but rather beginning on the effective date 
of this final rule. In the NPRM, ACF proposed that grantees would be 
evaluated on establishing school readiness goals (Sec.  1307.3(b)(1)) 
at the June 2009 date, and on the steps to achieve school readiness 
(Sec.  1307.3(b)(2)) after the effective date of the regulation. We 
have changed the final rule to reflect that all of Sec.  1307.3(b) 
related to school readiness will be considered after the effective date 
of this regulation. Since the publication of the NPRM in September 
2010, there has been steady communication with Head Start grantees 
about school readiness goals through webcasts, two national institutes 
in February and October of 2011, training and technical assistance 
materials (including The Guide to Resources for Developing School 
Readiness Goals) and other material created by the National Center for 
Quality Teaching and Learning (https://eckkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/hslc/tta-system/teaching). We also will continue to provide technical assistance 
and other supports for implementation of this condition.
    Establishing and using school readiness goals are central to 
providing high-quality services to children and families, and the high 
quality implementation of activities to meet this requirement will be 
the focus of training, technical assistance and on-going oversight by 
federal staff. However, compliance with the requirements and 
determinations about whether grantees meet the school readiness goals 
condition of the DRS will only be measured by evidence collected in 
reviews conducted under section 641A(c) of the Head Start Act. Evidence 
in these reviews is collected by monitoring teams, including regional 
staff, but determinations regarding evidence collected in any reviews 
are made only by the responsible HHS official.
    2. Comment: Numerous commenters requested that ACF issue guidance 
on the implementation of the requirement to establish and take steps to 
achieve school readiness goals. For example, many of these comments 
requested clarification on the definition of ``school readiness 
goals,'' what they should look like, how to determine what they should 
look like, and how to measure children's progress against them. Some 
commenters suggested that ACF establish national goals and benchmarks 
for children's school readiness that would be applied to all grantees. 
Other commenters stated that there should not be a uniform definition 
because what it means to be ready for school may vary by State, 
community, or population.
    Response: In response to these comments on the need for a 
definition, we have added a definition of ``school readiness goals'' to 
the final rule. The definition clarifies that school readiness goals 
are expectations of children's status and progress across domains of 
language and literacy development, cognition and general knowledge, 
approaches to learning, physical well-being and motor development, and 
social and emotional development that will improve their readiness for 
kindergarten. This definition is consistent with section 641A(g) of the 
Act and guidance provided by the Office of Head Start and draws on 
comments received. With respect to comments on national goals, in 
section 641A(g)(2)(A) the Act requires that school readiness goals be 
``agency determined.''
    3. Comment: Some commenters were unclear about whether the goals 
for improving the school readiness of children were meant to be 
individual plans for each child or global goals for all children in a 
program. Some commenters misinterpreted this section in the NPRM as 
requiring grantees to meet benchmarks for children's outcomes and 
progress, rather than requiring grantees to demonstrate how child-level 
assessment data is used to individualize children's experiences and 
inform continuous quality improvement. Others asked for guidance

[[Page 70017]]

around how to analyze school readiness data and requested that training 
and technical assistance be provided to increase grantees' capacity for 
analyzing child-level assessment data. Some also asked for ACF to 
provide a schedule that includes when grantees should analyze child-
level assessment data within the year (e.g., within the first 45 days 
of the program year).
    Response: In response to these comments on program or individual 
child goals, we have clarified in the final rule that the School 
Readiness Goals are for improving the school readiness of children in 
their program and are global or program goals for all of their 
children. We also reorganized the provision in the final rule to make 
it clearer that individual child-level data is critical in how programs 
take steps to help each individual child to make progress and to 
achieve overall program school readiness goals. Specifically for 
individual children, programs must analyze individual child-level data 
in order to determine each child's status and progress on those goals 
in order to individualize instruction for those children and to inform 
parents and families. Furthermore, we clarify in the final rule that 
aggregated child-level assessment data must be used to inform 
curriculum, instruction, professional development, program design, and 
other program decisions.
    4. Comment: Some commenters requested guidance on the process for 
aligning school readiness goals with the Head Start Child Outcomes 
Framework (Framework). In particular, commenters were concerned about 
the requirement to align with the Framework because, at the time the 
NPRM was open for public comment, the Framework was undergoing revision 
by ACF.
    Response: ACF since has published the revised framework (now called 
the Head Start Child Development and Early Learning Framework 
(available at https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/hslc/tta-system/teaching/eecd/Assessment/Child%20Outcomes/HS_Revised_Child_Outcomes_Framework.pdf)). We also have addressed these concerns in the OHS 
training and technical assistance, which discusses grantees' 
responsibilities and processes for ensuring alignment between agency-
established school readiness goals and the revised framework.
    5. Comment: Other commenters had concerns about using the Early 
Head Start Performance Measures Framework in determining children's 
status on the child competencies. In particular, there were questions 
about whether grantees need to set goals and measure progress on 
``parents as the primary nurturer'' and ``parent-child relationships'' 
as described in the Framework.
    Response: In response to these comments, the final rule clarifies 
that children's progress on the five essential domains is what should 
be measured by both Head Start and Early Head Start grantees. While the 
Framework is comprehensive and includes many elements, it is organized 
so that all the elements fit under the five essential domains of child 
development. Programs will continue to be instructed on using the 
essential domains as a framework for their goals and assessment of 
meeting the goals.
    6. Comment: Some commenters misinterpreted the language in the NPRM 
as requiring grantees to conduct a formal assessment of children three 
times per year (or two times per year for programs operating less than 
90 days), rather than requiring them to aggregate and examine child-
level assessment data regardless of the method of assessment three 
times each year.
    Response: In response to these concerns, ACF has added a definition 
of ``child-level assessment data'' to the final regulation. We also 
have addressed these comments in the training and technical assistance 
ACF provides by including information about the methods and types of 
assessment, assessment instruments, and other strategies for 
understanding children's development and learning that grantees should 
utilize in meeting the requirements to establish and take steps to 
achieve school readiness goals. Training and technical assistance also 
included a clear distinction between the process of child assessment 
and the process for collecting, aggregating, and analyzing child-level 
assessment data.
    7. Comment: Numerous comments were received related to how programs 
are to show compliance with the requirement to establish and take steps 
to achieve school readiness goals and utilize data for 
individualization and program improvement. Specifically, commenters 
requested guidance on what information needs to be documented and 
maintained to demonstrate compliance; how programs can self-assess; and 
what criteria ACF will use to evaluate compliance.
    Response: We appreciate these suggestions and drew on them in 
preparing technical assistance for grantees, which includes information 
regarding how grantees can self-assess, how they can examine school 
readiness goals as part of ongoing monitoring and use that information 
to guide program improvements to curricula and professional 
development, and how grantees can document and demonstrate compliance 
with these requirements for the triennial monitoring review. Additional 
information is available to grantees in the monitoring protocol.

Proposed Sec.  1307.3(b)(3)--Classroom Assessment Scoring System 
(CLASS): Pre-K (Note that proposed Sec.  1307.3(b)(3) has been changed 
to Sec.  1307.3(c) in the final rule.)

    Section 641A(c)(2)(F) of the Act requires the Secretary to include 
as part of the Head Start monitoring review process ``a valid and 
reliable research based observational instrument, implemented by 
qualified individuals with demonstrated reliability, that assesses 
classroom quality, including assessing multiple dimensions of teacher-
child interactions that are linked to positive child development and 
later achievement.'' Section 641(c)(1)(D) requires that such an 
instrument be used as part of the system for designation renewal. 
CLASS: Pre-K, a system that uses observation to rate the interactions 
between adults and children in the classroom as high-, middle- or low-
quality, meets the statutory requirements for ``a valid and reliable 
research-based observational instrument.'' Before selecting an 
instrument to fulfill this requirement, ACF consulted with leading 
early childhood assessment experts who all advised that the CLASS: Pre-
K was the instrument that best met the statutory requirement. The 
Conference Report accompanying the Act also suggested that ACF consider 
using the CLASS: Pre-K (H.R. Conference Report No. 220-439 at 111 
(2007), as reprinted in 2007 U.S.C.C.A.N. 442, 462). Ultimately, ACF 
selected the CLASS: Pre-K instrument because, as discussed in the 
``CLASS Implementation Guide: Measuring and Improving Classroom 
Interactions in Early Childhood Settings'' CLASS: Pre-K has been 
validated by over ten years of research in educational settings.
    1. Comment: ACF received a large number of comments related to 
CLASS: Pre-K. While there was general support for the tool, some 
commenters raised a range of concerns related to using CLASS: Pre-K for 
program accountability purposes.
    Response: As discussed in the CLASS: Pre-K manual, the purpose of 
CLASS: Pre-K is to measure ``the quality of the classroom environment'' 
and uses of CLASS: Pre-K include research, accountability efforts, 
program planning and evaluation, and professional development and 
supervision. ACF recognizes that while CLASS: Pre-K was developed for a 
range of purposes, it has been used primarily for research and 
professional development purposes. It is

[[Page 70018]]

also being used in some state accountability and quality improvement 
efforts in Quality Rating and Improvement Systems, in which CLASS 
scores are used as a measure in rating the quality of an early 
childhood program. ACF is working closely with the developers to ensure 
CLASS: Pre-K is used in ways that inform programs and accurately 
reflect classroom quality.
    2. Comment: A number of respondents requested that ACF delay the 
inclusion of CLASS: Pre-K in the Designation Renewal System. 
Respondents stated that CLASS: Pre-K has not been in use long enough 
with Head Start grantees to elevate scores to such high importance and 
that the science has not provided a basis yet for selecting the 
threshold for competition. Others said it should not be implemented 
until after the transition period in order to hold all grantees to the 
same standard.
    Response: While we appreciate the public comments received on the 
timing for considering CLASS: Pre-K, ACF has decided not to delay the 
inclusion of CLASS: Pre-K as a condition for designation renewal due to 
the critical importance of classroom quality. As was included in the 
NPRM, the CLASS: Pre-K condition will be implemented in the second year 
of the transition period using data from observations conducted after 
the effective date of the final rule. However, no grantees will be 
awarded non-competitive extensions without being evaluated against the 
two-part CLASS criterion. We based the decision to utilize CLASS in the 
Designation Renewal System on the following: (1) Research has shown 
that teacher-child interaction is critical for children's social and 
academic development, (2) a measure of classroom quality is critical to 
ensuring that children are in high quality programs, and (3) there is 
an extensive research base for CLASS: Pre-K. ACF notified grantees in 
August 2008 that CLASS: Pre-K would begin to be used in Head Start 
monitoring reviews (see ACF-IM-HS-08-11). In addition, ACF has provided 
all grantees the opportunity to be trained on the protocol and grantees 
have been monitored on CLASS: Pre-K instrument for two years. Moreover, 
ACF-IM-HS-08-21 provided further information regarding the importance 
of child-teacher interaction. ACF also provides training resources to 
each Head Start grantee as part of its annual funding, consistent with 
requirements in the Act. Finally, ACF's inclusion of a relative 
threshold, as well as a minimum threshold of quality and a standard of 
excellence, are responsive to comments about the current state of the 
science. While research has not yet identified a specific CLASS score 
necessary to impact positive outcomes, research has shown, (1) That low 
levels of quality are not related to children's outcomes, and (2) that 
there is no ``good enough'' level of quality above which additional 
quality improvements do not matter for children's outcomes (i.e., 
higher levels of quality are related to better outcomes for children) 
(Burchinal, M., Xue, Y., Tien, H., Auger, A., & Mashburn, A. (March, 
2011)).
    3. Comment: A number of respondents raised concerns with the use 
and reliability of CLASS: Pre-K with culturally and linguistically 
diverse classrooms. Some respondents commented that CLASS: Pre-K is 
inappropriate with specific populations or programs, such as American 
Indian/Alaska Native, Migrant and Seasonal Head Start, or dual language 
learners.
    Response: Research consistently shows that children in classrooms 
with higher CLASS: Pre-K scores demonstrate more positive social and 
early academic development.(Burchinal, M., Vandergrift, N., Pianta, R., 
& Mashburn, A. (2010), and Burchinal, M., Xue, Y., Tien, H., Auger, A., 
& Mashburn, A. (March, 2011)). While the CLASS: Pre-K was not designed 
to measure specific practices in multi-lingual classrooms, the tool has 
been used in classrooms with diverse populations. For example, findings 
from the National Center for Early Development and Learning (NCEDL)'s 
research conducted in nearly 700 pre-kindergarten classrooms and 700 
kindergarten classrooms, including linguistically diverse classrooms, 
suggest that CLASS: Pre-K functions well as an assessment of the 
quality of teacher-child interactions in classrooms with language 
diversity, and that CLASS: Pre-K predicts gains in dual language 
learners children's school readiness skills (Downer, 2011). ACF will 
continue to examine concerns regarding the use of CLASS: Pre-K in 
culturally and linguistically diverse classes. ACF is providing 
additional cross-cultural training to CLASS: Pre-K reviewers to ensure 
reviewers are familiar with the culture of the families served and that 
they are fluent in the predominant teaching language used in the class 
where they conduct observations.
    4. Comment: Some respondents raised other concerns with the CLASS: 
Pre-K instrument itself, aside from culture