Applications for New Awards; Race to the Top-District, 48005-48023 [2013-18708]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 151 (Tuesday, August 6, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48005-48023]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-18708]



[[Page 48005]]

Vol. 78

Tuesday,

No. 151

August 6, 2013

Part VI





Department of Education





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





Applications for New Awards; Race to the Top--District; Notice

Federal Register / Vol. 78 , No. 151 / Tuesday, August 6, 2013 / 
Notices

[[Page 48006]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION


Applications for New Awards; Race to the Top--District

AGENCY: Office of the Deputy Secretary, Department of Education.

ACTION: Notice.

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

    Overview Information:
    Race to the Top--District
    Notice inviting applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 
2013.



Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 84.416.DATES:  
Applications Available: August 6, 2013.
    Deadline for Notice of Intent to Apply: August 23, 2013.

    Note:  Submission of a notice of intent to apply is optional.

    Date of Application Webinar: Please refer to the Department's Race 
to the Top--District Web site (https://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop-district/) for webinar details.
    Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: October 3, 2013.

Full Text of Announcement

I. Funding Opportunity Description

    Purpose of Program: The purpose of the Race to the Top--District 
program is to build on the lessons learned from the State competitions 
conducted under the Race to the Top program and to support bold, 
locally directed improvements in learning and teaching that will 
directly improve student achievement and educator effectiveness.

Background:

The Statutory Context and Program Overview

Race to the Top
    The Race to the Top program, authorized under the American Recovery 
and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) (Pub. L. 111-5), as amended, is centered on 
four core educational reform areas:
    (a) Adopting standards and assessments that prepare students to 
succeed in college and the workplace and to compete in the global 
economy;
    (b) Building data systems that measure student growth and success 
and inform teachers and principals about how they can improve 
instruction;
    (c) Recruiting, developing, rewarding, and retaining effective 
teachers and principals, especially where they are needed most; and
    (d) Turning around the Nation's lowest-achieving schools.
    In 2010, the Department conducted Race to the Top State 
competitions, which provided incentives to States to adopt bold and 
comprehensive reforms in elementary and secondary education and laid 
the foundation for unprecedented innovation. A total of 46 States and 
the District of Columbia put together plans to implement college- and 
career-ready standards, use data systems to guide teaching and 
learning, evaluate and support teachers and school leaders, and turn 
around their lowest-performing schools. The Race to the Top State 
competitions provided States with incentives to implement large-scale, 
system-changing reforms designed to improve student achievement, narrow 
achievement gaps, and increase graduation and college enrollment rates.
    The Race to the Top Assessment program, also authorized under the 
ARRA, supports consortia of States in developing new and better 
assessments aligned with high standards.
    In 2011, the ARRA was amended by section 1832(b) of Division B of 
the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 
2011 (Pub. L. 112-10), which added an additional education reform area: 
Strengthening the quality of early learning and development programs 
and increasing access to high-quality early learning programs for all 
children, including those with high needs. As a result, the Department 
had the authority to use a portion of the FY 2011 and FY 2012 
appropriations for Race to the Top on the Race to the Top-Early 
Learning Challenge program, which is jointly administered by the 
Departments of Education and Health and Human Services. The Race to the 
Top-Early Learning Challenge supports 14 States' efforts to strengthen 
the quality of their early learning programs.
Race to the Top--District Competition
    On May 22, 2012, the Secretary announced the Race to the Top--
District program, which is designed to build on the momentum of other 
Race to the Top competitions by encouraging bold, innovative reform at 
the local level. This district-level program is authorized under 
sections 14005 and 14006 of the ARRA, as amended. Congress appropriated 
approximately $550 million for Race to the Top for FY 2012. Of these 
funds, the Department awarded approximately $383 million to 16 Race to 
the Top--District grantees representing 55 local educational agencies 
(LEAs), with grants ranging from $10 to $40 million. The amount of an 
award for which an applicant was eligible to apply depended upon the 
number of students who would be served under the application.
    The Race to the Top--District competition is aimed squarely at 
classrooms and the all-important relationship between educators and 
students. The priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection 
criteria in this document are almost identical to those used in the FY 
2012 competition. The competition will again support applicants that 
demonstrate how they can personalize education for all students in 
their schools.
    In that regard, through this competition, the Department will 
encourage and reward those LEAs or consortia of LEAs that have the 
leadership and vision to implement the strategies, structures, and 
systems needed to implement personalized, student-focused approaches to 
learning and teaching that the Department believes will produce 
excellence and ensure equity for all students. The priorities, 
definitions, requirements, and selection criteria are designed to help 
LEAs meet these goals.
    Under Absolute Priority 1, applicants must design a personalized 
learning environment that uses collaborative, data-based strategies and 
21st-century tools, such as online learning platforms, computers, 
mobile devices, and learning algorithms, to deliver instruction and 
supports tailored to the needs and goals of each student, with the aim 
of enabling all students to graduate college- and career-ready. 
Implementation of a personalized learning environment is not achieved 
through a single solution or product but rather requires a multi-
faceted approach that addresses the individual and collective needs of 
students, educators, and families and that dramatically transforms the 
learning environment in order to improve student outcomes.
    The Secretary believes that teacher and student classroom 
interaction, supported by strong principals and engaged families, is 
crucial to educating students. Teacher and student interactions are 
strengthened when an effective teacher has useful information about 
students' particular needs, support from his or her principal or 
leadership team, a quality curriculum aligned with college- and career-
ready standards, and the other tools needed to do the job.
    Too often, however, these supportive conditions have not existed in 
our schools or districts, and the results are painfully predictable: 
Students fall behind or drop out, achievement gaps remain or widen, 
teachers get frustrated and leave the field, and stakeholders become 
polarized and divided under pressure to perform.

[[Page 48007]]

    That is why--for more than four years--the Department has supported 
bold reforms at the State and local levels in order to reduce barriers 
to good teaching and help create better conditions for learning.
    There is no single approach or boutique solution to implementation 
of personalized learning environments. An LEA or consortium of LEAs 
receiving an award under this competition will build on the experience 
of States and districts in implementing reforms in the four core 
educational assurance areas (as defined in this notice) through Race to 
the Top and other key programs. A successful applicant will provide 
teachers the information, tools, and supports that enable them to meet 
the needs of each student and substantially accelerate and deepen each 
student's learning. These LEAs will have the policies, systems, 
infrastructure, capacity, and culture to enable teachers, teacher 
teams, and school leaders to continuously focus on improving individual 
student achievement and closing achievement gaps. These LEAs will also 
make equity and access a priority and aim to prepare each student to 
master the content and skills required for college- and career-
readiness, provide each student the opportunity to pursue a rigorous 
course of study, and accelerate and deepen students' learning through 
attention to their individual needs. As important, they will create 
opportunities for students to identify and pursue areas of personal 
academic interest--all while ensuring that each student masters 
critical areas identified in college- and career-ready standards or 
college- and career-ready high school graduation requirements.
    Educators want a way to inspire and challenge those students who 
are furthest ahead, provide targeted help and assistance to those 
furthest behind, and engage fully and effectively with the students in 
the middle. To accomplish this objective, educators across the country 
have created personalized learning environments and used strategies 
that involve such elements as technology, virtual and blended learning, 
individual and group tasks, partnering with parents, and aligning non-
school hours with the educational needs of students.
    Personalized learning environments enable students to: understand 
their individual learning goals and needs; access deep learning 
experiences that include individual and group tasks; and develop such 
skills and traits as goal setting, teamwork, perseverance, critical 
thinking, communications, creativity, and problem solving across 
multiple academic domains. In order for students to do this 
successfully, we believe both students and educators need opportunities 
to build their individual and collective capacity to support the 
implementation of personalized learning environments and strategies.
    The Race to the Top--District program does not create new stand-
alone programs or support niche programs or interventions. Nor is it a 
vehicle for maintenance of the status quo. Rather, the Race to the 
Top--District program supports LEAs that demonstrate their commitment 
to identifying teachers, principals, and schools with a vision and the 
expertise to personalize education and extend their reach to all of 
their students. The Department believes that the successful 
implementation of personalized learning environments will lay a 
foundation for raising student achievement, decreasing the achievement 
gap across student groups, and increasing the rates at which students 
graduate from high school prepared for college and careers.
    The Department will also continue to support high-quality proposals 
from applicants across a varied set of LEAs in order to create diverse 
models of personalized learning environments for use by LEAs across the 
Nation. For this reason, the Department has established four additional 
priorities--Absolute Priorities 2 through 5--through which the 
Department will support efforts to expand the types of reform efforts 
being implemented in LEAs in States that have received a Race to the 
Top award and LEAs in other States. Moreover, these priorities will 
also help ensure that LEAs of varying sizes, both rural and non-rural, 
and with different local contexts are able to implement innovative 
personalized learning environments for their students that can serve as 
models for other LEAs and help improve student achievement widely.
    Finally, we have established one additional priority--the 
competitive preference priority--to support applicants that propose to 
extend their reforms beyond the classroom and partner with public or 
private entities in order to address the social, emotional, and 
behavioral needs of students, particularly students who attend a high-
need school. This priority aligns with other Department programs, such 
as the Promise Neighborhoods program, and further amplifies the 
Department's commitment to improve education as well as family and 
community supports. We believe that this priority will help children 
and youth in communities with these partnerships access great schools 
and the complementary family and community supports that will help 
prepare them to attain an excellent education and successfully 
transition to college and a career.

Changes From the FY 2012 Competition

    These priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria 
maintain the overall purpose and structure of the FY 2012 Race to the 
Top--District competition, and include almost identical language to the 
FY 2012 competition. As stated in the notice of proposed priorities, 
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria (NPP) (published in 
the Federal Register on April 16, 2013 (78 FR 22451)), most changes 
from the FY 2012 competition reflect minor language clarifications. The 
two substantive changes are the removal of the opportunity to apply for 
an optional budget supplement and the reduction of the minimum and 
maximum grant amount for which an applicant may apply. We believe these 
changes enable the Department to maximize the number of grantees that 
would receive funding under a competition, while still awarding grants 
of sufficient size to support bold improvements in learning and 
teaching.
    We invited public comment on the NPP from April 16, 2013 to May 16, 
2013. Forty-three parties submitted comments reflecting the viewpoints 
of a variety of individuals and organizations, which we considered in 
the development of this notice. Changes that resulted from public 
comment are described in the Analysis of Comments and Changes section 
in the notice of final priorities, requirements, definitions, and 
selection criteria (NFP) for this program, published elsewhere in this 
issue of the Federal Register. One key change beyond those previously 
mentioned is the removal of selection criterion (B)(5), which we 
believe applicants can address in a more integrated way in their plans 
and responses to other selection criteria. Most other changes are edits 
made to clarify or streamline the selection criteria and definitions 
for the program.
    Priorities: This competition includes five absolute priorities and 
one competitive preference priority. These priorities are from the FY 
2013 Race to the Top--District NFP, published elsewhere in this issue 
of the Federal Register. We may apply one or more of these priorities 
in any year in which this program is in effect.
    Absolute Priorities: These priorities are absolute priorities. 
Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(3) we consider only applications that meet 
Absolute Priority 1 and one of Absolute Priorities 2 through 5.

[[Page 48008]]

    Absolute Priority 1--Personalized Learning Environments. To meet 
this priority, an applicant must coherently and comprehensively address 
how it will build on the core educational assurance areas (as defined 
in this notice) to create learning environments that are designed to 
significantly improve learning and teaching through the personalization 
of strategies, tools, and supports for students and educators that are 
aligned with college- and career-ready standards (as defined in this 
notice) or college- and career-ready graduation requirements (as 
defined in this notice); accelerate student achievement and deepen 
student learning by meeting the academic needs of each student; 
increase the effectiveness of educators; expand student access to the 
most effective educators; decrease achievement gaps across student 
groups; and increase the rates at which students graduate from high 
school prepared for college and careers.
    Absolute Priority 2--Non-Rural LEAs in Race to the Top States.\1\ 
To meet this priority, an applicant must be an LEA or a consortium of 
LEAs in which more than 50 percent of participating students (as 
defined in this notice) are in non-rural LEAs in States that received 
awards under the Race to the Top Phase 1, Phase 2, or Phase 3 
competition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Race to the Top Phase 1, 2, and 3 States are: Arizona, 
Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Kentucky, 
Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, North 
Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and the 
District of Columbia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Absolute Priority 3--Rural LEAs in Race to the Top States. To meet 
this priority, an applicant must be an LEA or a consortium of LEAs in 
which more than 50 percent of participating students (as defined in 
this notice) are in rural LEAs (as defined in this notice) in States 
that received awards under the Race to the Top Phase 1, Phase 2, or 
Phase 3 competition.
    Absolute Priority 4--Non-Rural LEAs in non-Race to the Top States. 
To meet this priority, an applicant must be an LEA or a consortium of 
LEAs in which more than 50 percent of participating students (as 
defined in this notice) are in non-rural LEAs in States that did not 
receive awards under the Race to the Top Phase 1, Phase 2, or Phase 3 
competition.
    Absolute Priority 5--Rural LEAs in non-Race to the Top States. To 
meet this priority, an applicant must be an LEA or a consortium of LEAs 
in which more than 50 percent of participating students (as defined in 
this notice) are in rural LEAs (as defined in this notice) in States 
that did not receive awards under the Race to the Top Phase 1, Phase 2, 
or Phase 3 competition.
    Competitive Preference Priority: This priority is a competitive 
preference priority. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i), we award up to an 
additional 10 points to an application, depending on how well the 
application meets this priority.

Competitive Preference Priority--Results, Resource Alignment, and 
Integrated Services

    To meet this priority, an applicant must demonstrate the extent to 
which the applicant proposes to integrate public or private resources 
in a partnership designed to augment the schools' resources by 
providing additional student and family supports to schools that 
address the social, emotional, or behavioral needs of the participating 
students (as defined in this notice), giving highest priority to 
students in participating schools (as defined in this notice) with 
high-need students (as defined in this notice). To meet this priority, 
an applicant's proposal does not need to be comprehensive and may 
provide student and family supports that focus on a subset of these 
needs.
    To meet this priority, an applicant must--
    (1) Provide a description of the coherent and sustainable 
partnership to support the plan described in Absolute Priority 1 that 
it has formed with public or private organizations, such as public 
health, before-school, after-school, and social service providers; 
integrated student service providers; businesses, philanthropies, civic 
groups, and other community-based organizations; early learning 
programs; and postsecondary institutions;
    (2) Identify not more than 10 population-level desired results for 
students in the LEA or consortium of LEAs that align with and support 
the applicant's broader Race to the Top--District proposal. These 
results must include both (a) educational results or other education 
outcomes (e.g., children enter kindergarten prepared to succeed in 
school, children exit third grade reading at grade level, and students 
graduate from high school college- and career-ready) and (b) family and 
community supports (as defined in this notice) results;
    (3) Describe how the partnership would--
    (a) Track the selected indicators that measure each result at the 
aggregate level for all children within the LEA or consortium and at 
the student level for the participating students (as defined in this 
notice);
    (b) Use the data to target its resources in order to improve 
results for participating students (as defined in this notice), with 
special emphasis on students facing significant challenges, such as 
students with disabilities, English learners, and students affected by 
poverty (including highly mobile students), family instability, or 
other child welfare issues;
    (c) Develop a strategy to scale the model beyond the participating 
students (as defined in this notice) to at least other high-need 
students (as defined in this notice) and communities in the LEA or 
consortium over time; and (d) Improve results over time;
    (4) Describe how the partnership would, within participating 
schools (as defined in this notice), integrate education and other 
services (e.g., services that address social-emotional and behavioral 
needs, acculturation for immigrants and refugees) for participating 
students (as defined in this notice);
    (5) Describe how the partnership and LEA or consortium would build 
the capacity of staff in participating schools (as defined in this 
notice) by providing them with tools and supports to--
    (a) Assess the needs and assets of participating students (as 
defined in this notice) that are aligned with the partnership's goals 
for improving the education and family and community supports (as 
defined in this notice) identified by the partnership;
    (b) Identify and inventory the needs and assets of the school and 
community that are aligned with those goals for improving the education 
and family and community supports (as defined in this notice) 
identified by the applicant;
    (c) Create a decision-making process and infrastructure to select, 
implement, and evaluate supports that address the individual needs of 
participating students (as defined in this notice) and support improved 
results;
    (d) Engage parents and families of participating students (as 
defined in this notice) in both decision-making about solutions to 
improve results over time and in addressing student, family, and school 
needs; and
    (e) Routinely assess the applicant's progress in implementing its 
plan to maximize impact and resolve challenges and problems; and
    (6) Identify its annual ambitious yet achievable performance 
measures for the proposed population-level and describe desired results 
for students.
    Definitions:
    These definitions are from the FY 2013 Race to the Top--District 
NFP, published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register. We may 
apply one or

[[Page 48009]]

more of these definitions in any year in which this program is in 
effect.
    Achievement gap means the difference in the performance between 
each subgroup (as defined in this notice) within a participating LEA or 
school and the statewide average performance of the LEA's or State's 
highest-achieving subgroups in reading or language arts and in 
mathematics as measured by the assessments required under the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended.
    College- and career-ready graduation requirements means minimum 
high school graduation expectations (e.g., completion of a minimum 
course of study, content mastery, proficiency on college- and career-
ready assessments) that are aligned with a rigorous, robust, and well-
rounded curriculum and that cover a wide range of academic and 
technical knowledge and skills to ensure that by the time students 
graduate high school, they satisfy requirements for admission into 
credit-bearing courses commonly required by the State's public four-
year degree-granting institutions.
    College- and career-ready standards means content standards for 
kindergarten through 12th grade that build towards college- and career-
ready graduation requirements (as defined in this notice). A State's 
college- and career-ready standards must be either (1) standards that 
are common to a significant number of States; or (2) standards that are 
approved by a State network of institutions of higher education, which 
must certify that students who meet the standards will not need 
remedial course work at the postsecondary level.
    College enrollment means the enrollment of students who graduate 
from high school consistent with 34 CFR 200.19(b)(1)(i) and who enroll 
in a public institution of higher education in the State (as defined in 
section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, 20 
U.S.C. 1001) within 16 months of graduation.
    Consortium governance structure means the consortium's structure 
for carrying out its operations, including--
    (1) The organizational structure of the consortium and the 
differentiated roles that a member LEA may hold (e.g., lead LEA, member 
LEA);
    (2) For each differentiated role, the associated rights and 
responsibilities, including rights and responsibilities for adopting 
and implementing the consortium's proposal for a grant;
    (3) The consortium's method and process (e.g., consensus, majority) 
for making different types of decisions (e.g., policy, operational);
    (4) The protocols by which the consortium will operate, including 
the protocols for member LEAs to change roles or leave the consortium;
    (5) The consortium's procedures for managing funds received under 
this grant;
    (6) The terms and conditions of the memorandum of understanding 
(MOU) or other binding agreement executed by each member LEA; and
    (7) The consortium's procurement process, and evidence of each 
member LEA's commitment to that process.
    Core educational assurance areas means the four key areas 
originally identified in the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act 
(ARRA) to support comprehensive education reform: (1) Adopting 
standards and assessments that prepare students to succeed in college 
and the workplace and to compete in the global economy; (2) building 
data systems that measure student growth and success, and inform 
teachers and principals with data about how they can improve 
instruction; (3) recruiting, developing, rewarding, and retaining 
effective teachers and principals, especially where they are needed 
most; and (4) turning around lowest-achieving schools.
    Digital learning content means learning materials and resources 
that can be displayed on an electronic device and shared electronically 
with other users. Digital learning content includes both open source 
and commercial content. In order to comply with the requirements of the 
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and Section 504 of the 
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, any digital learning content 
used by grantees must be accessible to individuals with disabilities, 
including individuals who use screen readers. For additional 
information regarding the application of these laws to technology, 
please refer to www.ed.gov/ocr/letters/colleague-201105-ese.pdf and 
www.ed.gov/ocr/docs/dcl-ebook-faq-201105.pdf.
    Discipline means any disciplinary measure collected by the 2009-
2010 or 2011-2012 Civil Rights Data Collection (see https://ocrdata.ed.gov).
    Educators means all education professionals and education 
paraprofessionals working in participating schools (as defined in this 
notice), including principals or other heads of a school, teachers, 
other professional instructional staff (e.g., staff involved in 
curriculum development or staff development, bilingual/English as a 
Second Language (ESL) specialists, or instructional staff who operate 
library, media, and computer centers), pupil support services staff 
(e.g., guidance counselors, nurses, speech pathologists), other 
administrators (e.g., assistant principals, discipline specialists), 
and education paraprofessionals (e.g., assistant teachers, bilingual/
ESL instructional aides).
    Effective principal means a principal whose students, overall and 
for each subgroup, achieve acceptable rates (e.g., at least one grade 
level in an academic year) of student growth (as defined in this 
notice) as defined in the LEA's principal evaluation system (as defined 
in this notice).
    Effective teacher means a teacher whose students achieve acceptable 
rates (e.g., at least one grade level in an academic year) of student 
growth (as defined in this notice) as defined in the LEA's teacher 
evaluation system (as defined in this notice).
    Family and community supports means--
    (1) Child and youth health programs, such as physical, mental, 
behavioral, and emotional health programs (e.g., home visiting 
programs; Head Start; Early Head Start; programs to improve nutrition 
and fitness, reduce childhood obesity, and create healthier 
communities);
    (2) Safety programs, such as programs in school and out of school 
to prevent, control, and reduce crime, violence, drug and alcohol use, 
and gang activity; programs that address classroom and school-wide 
behavior and conduct; programs to prevent child abuse and neglect; 
programs to prevent truancy and reduce and prevent bullying and 
harassment; and programs to improve the physical and emotional security 
of the school setting as perceived, experienced, and created by 
students, staff, and families;
    (3) Community stability programs, such as programs that: (a) 
Provide adult education and employment opportunities and training to 
improve educational levels, job skills, and readiness in order to 
decrease unemployment, with a goal of increasing family stability; (b) 
improve families' awareness of, access to, and use of a range of social 
services, if possible at a single location; (c) provide unbiased, 
outcome-focused, and comprehensive financial education, inside and 
outside the classroom and at every life stage; (d) increase access to 
traditional financial institutions (e.g., banks and credit unions) 
rather than alternative financial institutions (e.g., check cashers and 
payday lenders); (e) help families increase their financial literacy, 
financial assets, and savings; (f) help families access transportation 
to education and employment opportunities; and (g) provide supports

[[Page 48010]]

and services to students who are homeless, in foster care, migrant, or 
highly mobile; and
    (4) Family and community engagement programs that are systemic, 
integrated, sustainable, and continue through a student's transition 
from K-12 schooling to college and career. These programs may include 
family literacy programs and programs that provide adult education and 
training and opportunities for family members and other members of the 
community to support student learning and establish high expectations 
for student educational achievement; mentorship programs that create 
positive relationships between children and adults; programs that 
provide for the use of such community resources as libraries, museums, 
television and radio stations, and local businesses to support improved 
student educational outcomes; programs that support the engagement of 
families in early learning programs and services; programs that provide 
guidance on how to navigate through a complex school system and how to 
advocate for more and improved learning opportunities; and programs 
that promote collaboration with educators and community organizations 
to improve opportunities for healthy development and learning.
    Graduation rate means the four-year or extended-year adjusted 
cohort graduation rate as defined by 34 CFR 200.19(b)(1).
    High-minority school is defined by the LEA in a manner consistent 
with its State's Teacher Equity Plan, as required by section 
1111(b)(8)(C) of the ESEA. The LEA must provide, in its Race to the 
Top--District application, the definition used.
    High-need students means students at risk of educational failure or 
otherwise in need of special assistance and support, such as students 
who are living in poverty, who attend high-minority schools (as defined 
in this notice), who are far below grade level, who have left school 
before receiving a regular high school diploma, who are at risk of not 
graduating with a diploma on time, who are homeless, who are in foster 
care, who have been incarcerated, who have disabilities, or who are 
English learners.
    High-quality plan means a plan that includes key goals, activities 
to be undertaken and the rationale for the activities, the timeline, 
the deliverables, and the parties responsible for implementing the 
activities.
    Highly effective principal means a principal whose students, 
overall and for each subgroup, achieve high rates (e.g., one and one-
half grade levels in an academic year) of student growth (as defined in 
this notice) as defined under the LEA's principal evaluation system (as 
defined in this notice).
    Highly effective teacher means a teacher whose students achieve 
high rates (e.g., one and one-half grade levels in an academic year) of 
student growth (as defined in this notice) as defined under the LEA's 
teacher evaluation system (as defined in this notice).
    Interoperable data system means a system that uses a common, 
established structure such that data can easily flow from one system to 
another and in which data are in a non-proprietary, open format.
    Local educational agency is an entity as defined in section 
9101(26) of the ESEA, except that an entity described under section 
9101(26)(D) must be recognized under applicable State law as a local 
educational agency.
    Low-performing school means a school that is in the bottom 10 
percent of performance in the State, or that has significant 
achievement gaps, based on student academic performance in reading/
language arts and mathematics on the assessments required under the 
ESEA, or that has a graduation rate (as defined in this notice) below 
60 percent.
    Metadata means information about digital learning content such as 
the grade or age for which it is intended, the topic or standard to 
which it is aligned, or the type of resource it is (e.g., video, 
image).
    On-track indicator means a measure, available at a time 
sufficiently early to allow for intervention, of a single student 
characteristic (e.g., number of days absent, number of discipline 
referrals, number of credits earned), or a composite of multiple 
characteristics, that is both predictive of student success (e.g., 
students demonstrating the measure graduate at an 80 percent rate) and 
comprehensive of students who succeed (e.g., of all graduates, 90 
percent demonstrated the indicator). Using multiple indicators that are 
collectively comprehensive but vary by student characteristics may be 
an appropriate alternative to a single indicator that applies to all 
students.
    Open data format means data that are available in a non-
proprietary, machine-readable format (e.g., Extensible Markup Language 
(XML) and JavaScript Object Notation (JSON)) such that they can be 
understood by a computer. Digital formats that require extraction, data 
translation such as optical character recognition, or other 
manipulation in order to be used in electronic systems are not machine-
readable formats.
    Open-standard registry means a digital platform, such as the 
Learning Registry, that facilitates the exchange of information about 
digital learning content (as defined in this notice), including (1) 
alignment of content with college- and career-ready standards (as 
defined in this notice) and (2) usage information about learning 
content used by educators (as defined in this notice). This digital 
platform must have the capability to share content information with 
other LEAs and with State educational agencies.
    Participating school means a school that is identified by the 
applicant and chooses to work with the applicant to implement the plan 
under Absolute Priority 1, either in one or more specific grade spans 
or subject areas or throughout the entire school and affecting a 
significant number of its students.
    Participating student means a student enrolled in a participating 
school (as defined in this notice) and who is directly served by an 
applicant's plan under Absolute Priority 1.
    Persistently lowest-achieving school means, as determined by the 
State, consistent with the requirements of the School Improvement 
Grants (SIG) program authorized by section 1003(g) of the ESEA,\2\ (1) 
any Title I school in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring 
that (a) is among the lowest-achieving five percent of Title I schools 
in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring or the lowest-
achieving five Title I schools in improvement, corrective action, or 
restructuring in the State, whichever number of schools is greater; or 
(b) is a high school that has had a graduation rate as defined in 34 
CFR 200.19(b) that is less than 60 percent over a number of years; and 
(2) any secondary school that is eligible for, but does not receive, 
Title I funds that (a) is among the lowest-achieving five percent of 
secondary schools or the lowest-achieving five secondary schools in the 
State that are eligible for, but do not receive, Title I funds, 
whichever number of schools is greater; or (b) is a high school that 
has had a graduation rate as defined in 34 CFR 200.19(b) that is less 
than 60 percent over a number of years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The Department considers schools that are identified as Tier 
I or Tier II schools under the SIG program (see 75 FR 66363) as part 
of a State's approved applications to be persistently lowest-
achieving schools. A list of these Tier I and Tier II schools can be 
found on the Department's Web site at https://www2.ed.gov/programs/sif/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To identify the lowest-achieving schools, a State must take into 
account both (1) the academic achievement of the ``all students'' group 
in a school in terms of proficiency on the State's assessments under 
section 1111(b)(3) of the ESEA in reading or language arts

[[Page 48011]]

and in mathematics combined; and (2) the school's lack of progress on 
those assessments over a number of years in the ``all students'' group.
    Principal evaluation system means a system that: (1) Is used for 
continual improvement of instructional leadership; (2) meaningfully 
differentiates performance using at least three performance levels; (3) 
uses multiple valid measures in determining performance levels, 
including, as a significant factor, data on student growth (as defined 
in this notice) for all students (including English learners and 
students with disabilities), as well as other measures of professional 
practice (which may be gathered through multiple formats and sources, 
such as observations based on rigorous leadership performance 
standards, teacher evaluation data, and student and parent surveys); 
(4) evaluates principals on a regular basis; (5) provides clear, 
timely, and useful feedback, including feedback that identifies and 
guides professional development needs; and (6) is used to inform 
personnel decisions.
    Rural local educational agency means an LEA, at the time of the 
application, that is eligible under the Small Rural School Achievement 
(SRSA) program or the Rural and Low-Income School (RLIS) program 
authorized under Title VI, Part B of the ESEA. Eligible applicants may 
determine whether a particular LEA is eligible for these programs by 
referring to information on the Department's Web site at https://www2.ed.gov/programs/reapsrsa/eligible13/.
    School leadership team means a team that leads the implementation 
of improvement and other initiatives at the school and is composed of 
the principal or other head of a school, teachers, and other educators 
(as defined in this notice), and, as applicable, other school 
employees, parents, students, and other community members. In cases 
where statute or local policy, including collective bargaining 
agreements, establishes a school leadership team, that body shall serve 
as the school leadership team for the purpose of this program.
    Student growth means the change in student achievement for an 
individual student between two or more points in time, defined as--
    (1) For grades and subjects in which assessments are required under 
ESEA section 1111(b)(3): (a) A student's score on such assessments; and 
(b) may include other measures of student learning, such as those 
described in (2) below, provided they are rigorous and comparable 
across schools within an LEA.
    (2) For grades and subjects in which assessments are not required 
under ESEA section 1111(b)(3): Alternative measures of student learning 
and performance, such as student results on pre-tests, end-of-course 
tests, and objective performance-based assessments; performance against 
student learning objectives; student performance on English language 
proficiency assessments; and other measures of student achievement that 
are rigorous and comparable across schools within an LEA.
    Student-level data means demographic, performance, and other 
information that pertains to a single student.
    Student performance data means information about the academic 
progress of a single student, such as formative and summative 
assessment data, information on completion of coursework, instructor 
observations, information about student engagement and time on task, 
and similar information.
    Subgroup means each category of students identified under section 
1111(b)(2)(C)(v)(II) of the ESEA and any combined subgroup used in the 
State accountability system that is approved by the Department in a 
State's request for ESEA flexibility.
    Superintendent evaluation means a rigorous, transparent, and fair 
annual evaluation of an LEA superintendent that provides an assessment 
of performance and encourages professional growth. This evaluation must 
reflect: (1) The feedback of many stakeholders, including but not 
limited to educators, principals, and parents; and (2) student 
outcomes, including student growth for all students (including English 
learners and students with disabilities).
    Teacher evaluation system means a system that: (1) Is used for 
continual improvement of instruction; (2) meaningfully differentiates 
performance using at least three performance levels; (3) uses multiple 
valid measures in determining performance levels, including, as a 
significant factor, data on student growth (as defined in this notice) 
for all students (including English learners and students with 
disabilities), as well as other measures of professional practice 
(which may be gathered through multiple formats and sources, such as 
observations based on rigorous teacher performance standards, teacher 
portfolios, and student and parent surveys); (4) evaluates teachers on 
a regular basis; (5) provides clear, timely, and useful feedback, 
including feedback that identifies and guides professional development 
needs; and (6) is used to inform personnel decisions.
    Teacher of record means an individual (or individuals in a co-
teaching assignment) who has been assigned the lead responsibility for 
a student's learning in a subject or course.
    Application Requirements:
    These application requirements are from the FY 2013 Race to the 
Top--District NFP, published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal 
Register. We may apply one or more of these application requirements in 
any year in which this program is in effect.
    (1) State comment period. Each LEA included in an application must 
provide its State at least 10 business days to comment on the LEA's 
application and submit as part of its application package--
    (a) The State's comments or, if the State declined to comment, 
evidence that the LEA offered the State 10 business days to comment; 
and
    (b) The LEA's response to the State's comments (optional).
    (2) Mayor (or city or town administrator) comment period. Each LEA 
included in an application must provide its mayor or other comparable 
official at least 10 business days to comment on the LEA's application 
and submit as part of its application package--
    (a) The mayor or city or town administrator's comments or, if that 
individual declines to comment, evidence that the LEA offered such 
official 10 business days to comment; and
    (b) The LEA's response to the mayor or city or town administrator 
comments (optional).
    (3) Consortium. For LEAs applying as a consortium, the application 
must--
    (a) Indicate, consistent with 34 CFR 75.128, whether--
    (i) One member of the consortium is applying for a grant on behalf 
of the consortium; or
    (ii) The consortium has established itself as a separate, eligible 
legal entity and is applying for a grant on its own behalf;
    (b) Be signed by--
    (i) If one member of the consortium is applying for a grant on 
behalf of the consortium, the superintendent or chief executive officer 
(CEO), local school board president, and local teacher union or 
association president (where applicable) of that LEA; or
    (ii) If the consortium has established itself as a separate 
eligible legal entity and is applying for a grant on its own behalf, a 
legal representative of the consortium; and
    (c) Include, consistent with 34 CFR 75.128, for each LEA in the 
consortium,

[[Page 48012]]

copies of all MOUs or other binding agreements related to the 
consortium. These binding agreements must--
    (i) Detail the activities that each member of the consortium plans 
to perform;
    (ii) Describe the consortium governance structure (as defined in 
this notice);
    (iii) Bind each member of the consortium to every statement and 
assurance made in the application; and
    (iv) Include an assurance signed by the LEA's superintendent or 
chief executive officer (CEO) that--
    (A) The LEA, at a minimum, will implement no later than the 2014-
2015 school year--
    (1) A teacher evaluation system (as defined in this notice);
    (2) A principal evaluation system (as defined in this notice); and
    (3) A superintendent evaluation (as defined in this notice);
    (B) The LEA is committed to preparing students for college or 
career, as demonstrated by--
    (1) Being located in a State that has adopted college- and career-
ready standards (as defined in this notice); or
    (2) Measuring all student progress and performance against college- 
and career-ready graduation requirements (as defined in this notice);
    (C) The LEA has a robust data system that has, at a minimum--
    (1) An individual teacher identifier with a teacher-student match; 
and
    (2) The capability to provide timely data back to educators and 
their supervisors on student growth (as defined in this notice);
    (D) The LEA has the capability to receive or match student-level 
preschool-through 12th-grade and higher education data; and
    (E) The LEA ensures that any disclosure of or access to personally 
identifiable information in students' education records complies with 
the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA); and
    (v) Be signed by the superintendent or CEO, local school board 
president, and local teacher union or association president (where 
applicable).
    Program Requirements:
    These program requirements are from the FY 2013 Race to the Top--
District NFP, published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal 
Register. We may apply one or more of these program requirements in any 
year in which this program is in effect.
    (1) An applicant's budget request for all years of its project must 
fall within the applicable budget range as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Number of participating students (as
        defined in this notice)                    Award range
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2,000-5,000............................  $4-10 million.
or
Fewer than 2,000, provided those
 students are served by a consortium of
 at least 10 LEAs and at least 75
 percent of the students served by each
 LEA are participating students (as
 defined in this notice).
5,001-10,000...........................  $10-20 million.
10,001-20,000..........................  $20-25 million.
20,001+................................  $25-30 million.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department will not consider an application that requests a 
budget outside the applicable range of awards.
    (2) A grantee must commit to participate in any national evaluation 
of the program and work with the Department and with a national 
evaluator or another entity designated by the Department to ensure that 
data collection and program design are consistent with plans to conduct 
a rigorous national evaluation of the program and of specific solutions 
and strategies pursued by individual grantees. This commitment must 
include, but need not be limited to--
    (i) Consistent with 34 CFR 80.36 and State and local procurement 
procedures, grantees must include in contracts with external vendors 
provisions that allow contractors to provide implementation data to the 
LEA, the Department, the national evaluator, or other appropriate 
entities in ways consistent with all privacy laws and regulations.
    (ii) Developing, in consultation with the national evaluator, a 
plan for identifying and collecting reliable and valid baseline data 
for program participants.
    (3) LEAs must share metadata about content alignment with college- 
and career-ready standards (as defined in this notice) and use through 
open-standard registries.
    (4) LEAs in which minority students or students with disabilities 
are disproportionately subject to discipline (as defined in this 
notice) and expulsion (according to data submitted through the 
Department's Civil Rights Data Collection, which is available at https://ocrdata.ed.gov/) must conduct a district assessment of the root causes 
of the disproportionate discipline and expulsions. These LEAs must also 
develop a detailed plan over the grant period to address these root 
causes and to reduce disproportionate discipline (as defined in this 
notice) and expulsions.
    (5) Each grantee must make all project implementation and student 
data available to the Department and its authorized representatives in 
compliance with FERPA, as applicable.
    (6) Grantees must ensure that requests for information (RFIs) and 
requests for proposal (RFPs) developed as part of this grant are made 
public, and are consistent with the requirements of State and local 
law.
    (7) Within 100 days of award, each grantee must submit to the 
Department--
    (i) A scope of work that is consistent with its grant application 
and includes specific goals, activities, deliverables, timelines, 
budgets, key personnel, and annual targets for key performance 
measures; and
    (ii) An individual school implementation plan for participating 
schools (as defined in this notice).
    (8) Within 100 days of award, each grantee must demonstrate that at 
least 40 percent of participating students (as defined in this notice) 
in participating schools (as defined in this notice) are from low-
income families, based on eligibility for free or reduced-price lunch 
subsidies under the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act, or 
other poverty measures that LEAs use to make awards under section 
1113(a) of the ESEA.
    Program Authority: Sections 14005 and 14006 of the American 
Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Pub. L. 111-5), as amended by section 
1832(b) of Division B of the Department of Defense and Full-Year 
Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 (Pub. L. 112-10), and the 
Department of Education Appropriations Act, 2012 (Consolidated 
Appropriations Act, 2012) (Title III of Division F of Pub. L. 112-74).
    Applicable Regulations: (a) The Education Department General 
Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) in 34 CFR parts 74, 75, 77, 79, 80, 
81, 82, 84, 86, 97, 98, and 99. (b) The Education Department suspension 
and debarment regulations in 2 CFR part 3485. (c) The notice of final 
priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria for this 
program, published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.

    Note:  The regulations in 34 CFR part 79 apply to all applicants 
except federally recognized Indian tribes.


    Note:  The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 apply to institutions 
of higher education only.


    Note:  Nothing in this notice shall be construed to alter or 
otherwise affect the rights, remedies, and procedures afforded 
school or school district employees under Federal, State, or local 
laws (including applicable regulations or court orders) or under the 
terms of collective bargaining

[[Page 48013]]

agreements, MOUs, or other agreements between such employees and 
their employers.

II. Award Information

    Type of Award: Discretionary grants.
    Estimated Available Funds: $120,000,000.
    Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of 
applications, we may make additional awards in FY 2013 or subsequent 
fiscal years from the list of unfunded applicants from this 
competition.
    The Department may use any unused funds from the FY 2013 Race to 
the Top-Early Learning Challenge program in the FY 2013 Race to the 
Top--District competition. Conversely, we may use any unused FY 2013 
funds from the Race to the Top--District competition in the FY 2013 
Race to the Top-Early Learning Challenge competition. The FY 2013 Race 
to the Top-Early Learning Challenge competition will be announced in a 
separate notice published in the Federal Register.
    Estimated Range of Awards and Maximum Awards: The following chart 
illustrates the range for awards based on the number of participating 
students (as defined in this notice):

------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Number of participating students
     (as defined in this notice)                  Award range
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2,000-5,000.........................  $4-10 million.
or
Fewer than 2,000, provided those
 students are served by a consortium
 of at least 10 LEAs and at least 75
 percent of the students served by
 each LEA are participating students
 (as defined in this notice).
5,001-10,000........................  $10-20 million.
10,001-20,000.......................  $20-25 million
20,001+.............................  $25-30 million.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department will not consider an application that requests a 
budget outside the applicable range of awards.
    The Secretary may change the maximum amount through a notice 
published in the Federal Register.
    Estimated Number of Awards: 5-10.

    Note: The Department is not bound by any estimates in this 
notice.

    Project Period: Up to 48 months.

III. Eligibility Information

    These eligibility requirements are from the FY 2013 Race to the 
Top--District NFP, published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal 
Register. We may apply one or more of these eligibility requirements in 
any year in which this program is in effect.
    (1) Eligible applicants: To be eligible for a grant under this 
competition:
    (a) An applicant must be an individual LEA (as defined in this 
notice) or a consortium of individual LEAs from one of the 50 States, 
the District of Columbia, or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
    (i) LEAs may apply for all or a portion of their schools, for 
specific grades, or for subject-area bands (e.g., lowest-performing 
schools, secondary schools, schools connected by a feeder pattern, 
middle school math, or preschool through third grade).
    (ii) Consortia may include LEAs from multiple States.
    (iii) Each LEA may participate in only one Race to the Top--
District application. Successful applicants (i.e., grantees) from past 
Race to the Top--District competitions may not apply for additional 
funding.
    (b) An applicant must serve a minimum of 2,000 participating 
students (as defined in this notice) or may serve fewer than 2,000 
participating students (as defined in this notice) provided those 
students are served by a consortium of at least 10 LEAs and at least 75 
percent of the students served by each LEA are participating students 
(as defined in this notice). An applicant must base its requested award 
amount on the number of participating students (as defined in this 
notice) it proposes to serve at the time of application or within the 
first 100 days of the grant award.
    (c) At least 40 percent of participating students (as defined in 
this notice) across all participating schools (as defined in this 
notice) must be students from low-income families, based on eligibility 
for free or reduced-price lunch subsidies under the Richard B. Russell 
National School Lunch Act, or other poverty measures that LEAs use to 
make awards under section 1113(a) of the ESEA. If an applicant has not 
identified all participating schools (as defined in this notice) at the 
time of application, it must provide an assurance that within 100 days 
of the grant award it will meet this requirement.
    (d) An applicant must demonstrate its commitment to the core 
educational assurance areas (as defined in this notice), including, for 
each LEA included in an application, an assurance signed by the LEA's 
superintendent or CEO that--
    (i) The LEA, at a minimum, will implement no later than the 2014-
2015 school year--
    (A) A teacher evaluation system (as defined in this notice);
    (B) A principal evaluation system (as defined in this notice); and
    (C) A superintendent evaluation (as defined in this notice);
    (ii) The LEA is committed to preparing all students for college or 
career, as demonstrated by--
    (A) Being located in a State that has adopted college- and career-
ready standards (as defined in this notice); or
    (B) Measuring all student progress and performance against college- 
and career-ready graduation requirements (as defined in this notice);
    (iii) The LEA has a robust data system that has, at a minimum--
    (A) An individual teacher identifier with a teacher-student match; 
and
    (B) The capability to provide timely data back to educators and 
their supervisors on student growth (as defined in this notice);
    (iv) The LEA has the capability to receive or match student-level 
preschool-through-12th grade and higher education data; and
    (v) The LEA ensures that any disclosure of or access to personally 
identifiable information in students' education records complies with 
the FERPA.
    (e) Required signatures for the LEA or lead LEA in a consortium are 
those of the superintendent or CEO, local school board president, and 
local teacher union or association president (where applicable).
    (2) Cost Sharing or Matching: This competition does not require 
cost sharing or matching.

IV. Application and Submission Information

    1. Address to Request Application Package: You can obtain an 
application package via the Internet or from the Department of 
Education. To obtain a copy via the Internet, use the following 
address: www.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop-district. To obtain a copy

[[Page 48014]]

from the Department of Education, write, fax, call, or email the 
following: James Butler, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland 
Avenue SW., Room 7e214, Washington, DC 20202-4260. Telephone: (202) 
453-6800. FAX: (202) 401-1557. Email: racetothetop.district@ed.gov.
    If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text 
telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-
800-877-8339.
    Individuals with disabilities can obtain a copy of the application 
package in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, 
or compact disc) by contacting the program contact person listed in 
this section.
    2. a. Content and Form of Application Submission: Requirements 
concerning the content of an application, together with the forms you 
must submit, are in the application package for this competition.
    Deadline for Notice of Intent to Apply: August 23, 2013. We will be 
able to develop a more efficient process for reviewing grant 
applications if we know the approximate number of applicants that 
intend to apply for funding under this competition. Therefore, the 
Secretary strongly encourages each potential applicant to notify us of 
the applicant's intent to submit an application for funding by 
completing a Web-based form. When completing this form, applicants will 
provide (1) the applicant's name and address; (2) whether the applicant 
is applying as an individual LEA or as a consortium of LEAs, including 
a list of the names of expected participating LEAs; (3) expected budget 
request; and (4) contact person (and phone number and email). 
Applicants may access this form online at https://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop-district/. Applicants that do not complete this form may 
still apply for funding. In addition, the Secretary encourages LEAs 
that submit a notice of intent to apply to also notify relevant local 
stakeholders so that such stakeholders are aware of the applicant's 
intent to apply and can engage in the application process as 
appropriate.
    Page Limit: The application narrative is where you, the applicant, 
address the selection criteria and priorities that reviewers use to 
evaluate your application. We strongly recommend you limit the 
application narrative to no more than 200 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 has a page number.
     Line spacing for the narrative is set to 1.5 spacing, and 
the font used is 12 point Times New Roman.
    The recommended page limit does not apply to the appendices; 
however we strongly recommend that you limit appendix length to the 
extent possible. The Department strongly requests applicants to follow 
the recommended page limits, although the Department will consider 
applications of greater length.
    b. Submission of Proprietary Information:
    Given the types of projects that may be proposed in applications 
for the Race to the Top--District program, an application may include 
business information, generally commercial or financial information, 
that the applicant considers proprietary. The Department's regulations 
define ``business information'' in 34 CFR 5.11.
    Following the process used with our previous Race to the Top 
competitions, we plan to post applications on our Web site, so you may 
wish to request confidentiality of business information.
    Consistent with Executive Order 12600, please designate in your 
application any information that you feel is exempt from disclosure 
under Exemption 4 of the Freedom of Information Act. In an attachment 
in Appendix A, titled ``Disclosure Exemption,'' please list the page 
number or numbers on which we can find this information. For additional 
information please see 34 CFR 5.11(c).
    3. Submission Dates and Times:
    Applications Available: August 6, 2013.
    Deadline for Notice of Intent to Apply: August 23, 2013.

    Note:  Submission of a notice of intent to apply is optional.

    Date of Application Webinar: Please refer to the Department's Race 
to the Top--District Web site (https://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop-district/) for webinar details.
    Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: October 3, 2013.
    Applications for grants under this competition must be submitted in 
electronic format on a CD or DVD, with CD-ROM or DVD-ROM preferred, by 
mail or hand delivery. For information (including dates and times) 
about how to submit your application by mail or hand delivery, please 
refer to section IV.7. Other Submission Requirements of this notice.
    We do 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 VII 
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.
    4. Intergovernmental Review: This competition is subject to 
Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. However, 
under 34 CFR 79.8(a), we waive intergovernmental review in order to 
make awards by December 31, 2013.
    5. Funding Restrictions: We reference regulations outlining funding 
restrictions in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice.
    6. Data Universal Numbering System Number, Taxpayer Identification 
Number, and System for Award Management: To do business with the 
Department of Education, you must--
    a. Have a Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number and a 
Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN);
    b. Register both your DUNS number and TIN with the System for Award 
Management (SAM) (formerly the Central Contractor Registry (CCR)), the 
Government's primary registrant database;
    c. Provide your DUNS number and TIN on your application; and
    d. Maintain an active SAM registration with current information 
while your application is under review by the Department and, if you 
are awarded a grant, during the project period.
    You can obtain a DUNS number from Dun and Bradstreet. A DUNS number 
can be created within one business day.
    If you are a corporate entity, agency, institution, or 
organization, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service. 
If you are an individual, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal 
Revenue Service or the Social Security Administration. If you need a 
new TIN, please allow 2-5 weeks for your TIN to become active.
    The SAM registration process may take five or more business days to 
complete. If you are currently registered with the SAM, you may not 
need to make any changes. However, please make certain that the TIN 
associated with your DUNS number is correct. Also note that you will 
need to update your SAM registration annually. This may take three or 
more business days to complete. Information about SAM is available at 
SAM.gov.

[[Page 48015]]

    7. Other Submission Requirements: Applicants for a grant under this 
competition must submit: (1) An electronic copy of the application; and 
(2) signed originals of certain sections of the application. Applicants 
must submit their application in electronic format on a CD or DVD, with 
CD-ROM or DVD-ROM preferred. We strongly recommend that the applicant 
submit three CDs or DVDs. Each of these three CDs or DVDs should 
include the following four files:
    (1) A single file that contains the body of the application 
narrative, including required budget tables, that has been converted 
into a searchable .PDF document. Note that a .PDF created from a 
scanned document will not be searchable;
    (2) A single file that contains all application appendices in a 
.PDF format;
    (3) A single file in a .PDF format that contains all of the 
required signature pages. The signature pages may be scanned and turned 
into a PDF. Consortia applicants should also include all signed MOUs or 
other binding agreements for each LEA in the consortium; and
    (4) A single, separate file of the completed electronic budget 
spreadsheets (e.g., .XLS or .XLSX formats) that includes the required 
budget tables and budget justifications (the spreadsheets will be used 
by the Department for budget reviews).
    Each of these items must be clearly labeled with the LEA's or lead 
LEA's name, city, State, and any other relevant identifying 
information. Applicants also must not password-protect these files. 
Additionally, please ensure that: (1) All three CDs or DVDs contain the 
same four files; (2) the files are not corrupted; and (3) all files 
print correctly. The Department is not responsible for reviewing any 
information that is not able to be opened or printed from your 
application package.
    In addition to the electronic files, applicants must submit signed 
originals of certain sections of the application. An individual LEA 
applicant must submit signed originals of Parts IV, V, and VII of the 
application. An application from a consortium of LEAs must include 
signed originals of Parts IV, VI, and VII of the application as well as 
a signed MOU from each LEA in the consortium (as described in Part XIII 
of the application). The Department will not review any paper 
submissions of the application narrative and appendices. All 
applications must be submitted by mail or hand delivery. Whether you 
submit an application by mail or hand delivery, you must indicate on 
the envelope the CFDA number, including suffix letter, if any, of the 
competition under which you are submitting your application. The 
instructions for each delivery method are provided below. The 
Department must receive the application by 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC 
time, on or before October 3, 2013. If we receive an application after 
the application deadline, we will not consider that application.
    a. Submission of Applications by Mail.
    If you submit your application by mail (through the U.S. Postal 
Service or a commercial carrier), we must receive your three CDs or 
DVDs containing the four application files, and the signed originals of 
the appropriate Parts (Parts IV, V, and VII for an individual LEA 
applicant, or Parts IV, VI, and VII and MOUs for a consortium 
applicant) on or before the application deadline date and time. 
Therefore, to avoid delays, we strongly recommend sending the 
application via overnight mail. Mail the application to the Department 
at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application 
Control Center, Attention: CFDA Number 84.416, LBJ Basement Level 1, 
400 Maryland Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20202-4260.
    If we receive an application after the application deadline, we 
will not consider that application.
    b. Submission of Applications by Hand Delivery.
    If you submit your application by hand delivery, you (or a courier 
service) must deliver the three CDs or DVDs containing the four 
application files, and the signed originals of the appropriate Parts 
(Parts IV, V, and VII for an individual LEA applicant, or Parts IV, VI, 
and VII and MOUs for a consortium applicant, on or before the 
application deadline date and time, to the Department at the following 
address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, 
Attention: CFDA Number 84.416, 550 12th Street SW., Room 7041, Potomac 
Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-4260. The Application Control Center 
accepts hand deliveries daily between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., 
Washington, DC, time, except Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays. 
In accordance with EDGAR Sec.  75.216 (b) and (c), an application will 
not be evaluated for funding if the applicant does not comply with all 
of the procedural rules that govern the submission of the application 
or the application does not contain the information required under the 
program.
    Note for Mail or Hand Delivery of Applications: When you mail or 
hand deliver your application to the Department--
    (1) You must indicate on the envelope the CFDA number, including 
suffix letter, if any, of the competition under which you are 
submitting your application; and
    (2) The Application Control Center will mail to you a notification 
of receipt of your grant application. If you do not receive this 
notification within 15 business days from the application deadline 
date, you should call the U.S. Department of Education Application 
Control Center at (202) 245-6288.

V. Application Review Information

    1. Selection Criteria: These selection criteria are from the FY 
2013 Race to the Top--District NFP, published elsewhere in this issue 
of the Federal Register. We may apply one or more of these selection 
criteria in any year in which this program is in effect.

    Note: Peer reviewers will use the scoring rubric that can be 
found in Appendix A of this notice when scoring the selection 
criteria.

A. Vision

    (1) The extent to which the applicant has set forth a comprehensive 
and coherent reform vision that--
    (a) Builds on its work in four core educational assurance areas (as 
defined in this notice);
    (b) Articulates a clear and credible approach to the goals of 
accelerating student achievement, deepening student learning, and 
increasing equity through personalized student support grounded in 
common and individual tasks that are based on student academic 
interests; and
    (c) Describes what the classroom experience will be like for 
students and teachers participating in personalized learning 
environments.
    (2) The extent to which the applicant's approach to implementing 
its reform proposal (e.g., schools, grade bands, or subject areas) will 
support high-quality LEA-level and school-level implementation of that 
proposal, including--
    (a) A description of the process that the applicant used or will 
use to select schools to participate. The process must ensure that the 
participating schools (as defined in this notice) collectively meet the 
competition's eligibility requirements;
    (b) A list of the schools that will participate in grant activities 
(as available); and
    (c) The total number of participating students (as defined in this 
notice), participating students (as defined in this

[[Page 48016]]

notice) from low-income families, participating students (as defined in 
this notice) who are high-need students (as defined in this notice), 
and participating educators (as defined in this notice). If 
participating schools (as defined in this notice) have yet to be 
selected, the applicant may provide approximate numbers.
    (3) The extent to which the application includes a high-quality 
plan (as defined in this notice) describing how the reform proposal 
will be scaled up and translated into meaningful reform to support 
district-wide change beyond the participating schools (as defined in 
this notice), and will help the applicant reach its outcome goals 
(e.g., the applicant's logic model or theory of change of how its plan 
will improve student learning outcomes for all students who would be 
served by the applicant).
    (4) The extent to which the applicant's vision is likely to result 
in improved student learning and performance and increased equity as 
demonstrated by ambitious yet achievable annual goals that are equal to 
or exceed State ESEA targets for the LEA(s), overall and by student 
subgroup (as defined in this notice), for each participating LEA in the 
following areas:
    (a) Performance on summative assessments (proficiency status and 
growth).
    (b) Decreasing achievement gaps (as defined in this notice).
    (c) Graduation rates (as defined in this notice).
    (d) College enrollment (as defined in this notice) rates.
    Optional: The extent to which the applicant's vision is likely to 
result in improved student learning and performance and increased 
equity as demonstrated by ambitious yet achievable annual goals for 
each participating LEA in the following area:
    (e) Postsecondary degree attainment.

B. Prior Record of Success and Conditions for Reform

    The extent to which each LEA has demonstrated evidence of--
    (1) A clear record of success in the past four years in advancing 
student learning and achievement and increasing equity in learning and 
teaching, including a description, charts or graphs, raw student data, 
and other evidence that demonstrates the applicant's ability to--
    (a) Improve student learning outcomes and close achievement gaps 
(as defined in this notice), including by raising student achievement, 
high school graduation rates (as defined in this notice), and college 
enrollment (as defined in this notice) rates;
    (b) Achieve ambitious and significant reforms in its persistently 
lowest-achieving schools (as defined in this notice) or in its low-
performing schools (as defined in this notice); and
    (c) Make student performance data (as defined in this notice) 
available to students, educators (as defined in this notice), and 
parents in ways that inform and improve participation, instruction, and 
services.
    (2) A high level of transparency in LEA processes, practices, and 
investments, including by making public, by school, actual school-level 
expenditures for regular K-12 instruction, instructional support, pupil 
support, and school administration. At a minimum, this information must 
include a description of the extent to which the applicant already 
makes available the following four categories of school-level 
expenditures from State and local funds:
    (a) Actual personnel salaries at the school level for all school-
level instructional and support staff, based on the U.S. Census 
Bureau's classification used in the F-33 survey of local government 
finances (information on the survey can be found at https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/f33agency.asp);
    (b) Actual personnel salaries at the school level for instructional 
staff only;
    (c) Actual personnel salaries at the school level for teachers 
only; and
    (d) Actual non-personnel expenditures at the school level (if 
available).
    (3) Successful conditions and sufficient autonomy under State 
legal, statutory, and regulatory requirements to implement the 
personalized learning environments described in the applicant's 
proposal;
    (4) Meaningful stakeholder engagement throughout the development of 
the proposal and meaningful stakeholder support for the proposal, 
including--
    (a) A description of how students, families, teachers, and 
principals in participating schools (as defined in this notice) were 
engaged in the development of the proposal and, as appropriate, how the 
proposal was revised based on their engagement and feedback, 
including--
    (i) For LEAs with collective bargaining representation, evidence of 
direct engagement and support for the proposals from teachers in 
participating schools (as defined in this notice); or
    (ii) For LEAs without collective bargaining representation, at a 
minimum, evidence that at least 70 percent of teachers from 
participating schools (as defined in this notice) support the proposal; 
and
    (b) Letters of support from such key stakeholders as parents and 
parent organizations, student organizations, early learning programs, 
tribes, the business community, civil rights organizations, advocacy 
groups, local civic and community-based organizations, and institutions 
of higher education.

C. Preparing Students for College and Careers

    The extent to which the applicant has a high-quality plan (as 
defined in this notice) for improving learning and teaching by 
personalizing the learning environment in order to provide all students 
the support to graduate college- and career-ready. This plan must 
include an approach to implementing instructional strategies for all 
participating students (as defined in this notice) that enable 
participating students to pursue a rigorous course of study aligned to 
college- and career-ready standards (as defined in this notice) and 
college- and career-ready graduation requirements (as defined in this 
notice) and accelerate his or her learning through support of his or 
her needs. This includes the extent to which the applicant proposes an 
approach that includes the following:
    (1) Learning: An approach to learning that engages and empowers all 
learners, in particular high-need students (as defined in this notice), 
in an age-appropriate manner such that:
    (a) With the support of parents and educators, all students--
    (i) Understand that what they are learning is key to their success 
in accomplishing their goals;
    (ii) Identify and pursue learning and development goals linked to 
college- and career-ready standards (as defined in this notice) or 
college- and career-ready graduation requirements (as defined in this 
notice), understand how to structure their learning to achieve their 
goals, and measure progress toward those goals;
    (iii) Are able to be involved in deep learning experiences in areas 
of academic interest;
    (iv) Have access and exposure to diverse cultures, contexts, and 
perspectives that motivate and deepen individual student learning; and
    (v) Master critical academic content and develop skills and traits 
such as goal-setting, teamwork, perseverance, critical thinking, 
communication, creativity, and problem-solving;
    (b) With the support of parents and educators (as defined in this 
notice), each student has access to--

[[Page 48017]]

    (i) A personalized sequence of instructional content and skill 
development designed to enable the student to achieve his or her 
individual learning goals and ensure he or she can graduate on time and 
college- and career-ready;
    (ii) A variety of high-quality instructional approaches and 
environments;
    (iii) High-quality content, including digital learning content (as 
defined in this notice) as appropriate, aligned with college- and 
career-ready standards (as defined in this notice) or college- and 
career-ready graduation requirements (as defined in this notice);
    (iv) Ongoing and regular feedback, including, at a minimum--
    (A) Frequently updated individual student data that can be used to 
determine progress toward mastery of college- and career-ready 
standards (as defined in this notice), or college- and career-ready 
graduation requirements (as defined in this notice); and
    (B) Personalized learning recommendations based on the student's 
current knowledge and skills, college- and career-ready standards (as 
defined in this notice) or college- and career-ready graduation 
requirements (as defined in this notice), and available content, 
instructional approaches, and supports; and
    (v) Accommodations and high-quality strategies for high-need 
students (as defined in this notice) to help ensure that they are on 
track toward meeting college- and career-ready standards (as defined in 
this notice) or college- and career-ready graduation requirements (as 
defined in this notice); and
    (c) Mechanisms are in place to provide training and support to 
students that will ensure that they understand how to use the tools and 
resources provided to them in order to track and manage their learning.
    (2) Teaching and Leading: An approach to teaching and leading that 
helps educators (as defined in this notice) to improve instruction and 
increase their capacity to support student progress toward meeting 
college- and career-ready standards (as defined in this notice) or 
college- and career-ready graduation requirements (as defined in this 
notice) by enabling the full implementation of personalized learning 
and teaching for all students, in particular high-need students (as 
defined in this notice), such that:
    (a) All participating educators (as defined in this notice) engage 
in training, and in professional teams or communities, that supports 
their individual and collective capacity to--
    (i) Support the effective implementation of personalized learning 
environments and strategies that meet each student's academic needs and 
help ensure all students can graduate on time and college- and career-
ready;
    (ii) Adapt content and instruction, providing opportunities for 
students to engage in common and individual tasks, in response to their 
academic needs, academic interests, and optimal learning approaches 
(e.g., discussion and collaborative work, project-based learning, 
videos, audio, manipulatives);
    (iii) Frequently measure student progress toward meeting college- 
and career-ready standards (as defined in this notice) or college- and 
career-ready graduation requirements (as defined in this notice) and 
use data to inform both the acceleration of student progress and the 
improvement of the individual and collective practice of educators (as 
defined in this notice); and
    (iv) Improve teachers' and principals' practice and effectiveness 
by using feedback provided by the LEA's teacher and principal 
evaluation systems (as defined in this notice), including frequent 
feedback on individual and collective effectiveness, as well as by 
providing recommendations, supports, and interventions as needed for 
improvement.
    (b) All participating educators (as defined in this notice) have 
access to, and know how to use, tools, data, and resources to 
accelerate student progress toward meeting college- and career-ready 
graduation requirements (as defined in this notice). Those resources 
must include--
    (i) Actionable information that helps educators (as defined in this 
notice) identify optimal learning approaches that respond to individual 
student academic needs and interests;
    (ii) High-quality learning resources (e.g., instructional content 
and assessments), including digital resources, as appropriate, that are 
aligned with college- and career-ready standards (as defined in this 
notice) or college- and career-ready graduation requirements (as 
defined in this notice), and the tools to create and share new 
resources; and
    (iii) Processes and tools to match student needs (see Selection 
Criterion (C)(2)(b)(i)) with specific resources and approaches (see 
Selection Criterion (C)(2)(b)(ii)) to provide continuously improving 
feedback about the effectiveness of the resources in meeting student 
needs.
    (c) All participating school leaders and school leadership teams 
(as defined in this notice) have training, policies, tools, data, and 
resources that enable them to structure an effective learning 
environment that meets individual student academic needs and 
accelerates student progress through common and individual tasks toward 
meeting college- and career-ready standards (as defined in this notice) 
or college- and career-ready graduation requirements (as defined in 
this notice). The training, policies, tools, data, and resources must 
include:
    (i) Information, from such sources as the district's teacher 
evaluation system (as defined in this notice), that helps school 
leaders and school leadership teams (as defined in this notice) assess, 
and take steps to improve, individual and collective educator 
effectiveness and school culture and climate, for the purpose of 
continuous school improvement; and
    (ii) Training, systems, and practices to continuously improve 
school progress toward the goals of increasing student performance and 
closing achievement gaps (as defined in this notice).
    (d) The applicant has a high-quality plan (as defined in this 
notice) for increasing the number of students who receive instruction 
from effective and highly effective teachers and principals (as defined 
in this notice), including in hard-to-staff schools, subjects (such as 
mathematics and science), and specialty areas (such as special 
education).

D. LEA Policy and Infrastructure

    The extent to which the applicant has a high-quality plan (as 
defined in this notice) to support project implementation through 
comprehensive policies and infrastructure that provide every student, 
educator (as defined in this notice), and level of the education system 
(classroom, school, and LEA) with the support and resources they need, 
when and where they are needed. This includes the extent to which--
    (1) The applicant has practices, policies, and rules that 
facilitate personalized learning by--
    (a) Organizing the LEA central office, or the consortium governance 
structure (as defined in this notice), to provide support and services 
to all participating schools (as defined in this notice);
    (b) Providing school leadership teams (as defined in this notice) 
in participating schools (as defined in this notice) with sufficient 
flexibility and autonomy over factors such as school schedules and 
calendars, school personnel decisions and staffing models, roles and 
responsibilities for educators and noneducators, and school-level 
budgets;
    (c) Giving students the opportunity to progress and earn credit 
based on

[[Page 48018]]

demonstrated mastery, not the amount of time spent on a topic;
    (d) Giving students the opportunity to demonstrate mastery of 
standards at multiple times and in multiple comparable ways; and
    (e) Providing learning resources and instructional practices that 
are adaptable and fully accessible to all students, including students 
with disabilities and English learners; and
    (2) The LEA and school infrastructure supports personalized 
learning by--
    (a) Ensuring that all participating students (as defined in this 
notice), parents, educators (as defined in this notice), and other 
stakeholders (as appropriate and relevant to student learning), 
regardless of income, have access to necessary content, tools, and 
other learning resources both in and out of school to support the 
implementation of the applicant's proposal;
    (b) Ensuring that students, parents, educators (as defined in this 
notice), and other stakeholders (as appropriate and relevant to student 
learning) have appropriate levels of technical support, which may be 
provided through a range of strategies (e.g., peer support, online 
support, or local support);
    (c) Using information technology systems that allow parents and 
students to export their information in an open data format (as defined 
in this notice) and to use the data in other electronic learning 
systems (e.g., electronic tutors, tools that make recommendations for 
additional learning supports, or software that securely stores personal 
records); and
    (d) Ensuring that LEAs and schools use interoperable data systems 
(as defined in this notice) (e.g., systems that include human resources 
data, student information data, budget data, and instructional 
improvement system data).

E. Continuous Improvement

    Because the applicant's plans represent the best thinking at a 
point in time, and may require adjustments and revisions during 
implementation, it is vital that the applicant have a clear and high-
quality approach to continuously improve its plans. This will be 
determined by the extent to which the applicant has--
    (1) A high-quality plan (as defined in this notice) for 
implementing a rigorous continuous improvement process that provides 
timely and regular feedback on progress toward project goals and 
opportunities for ongoing corrections and improvements during and after 
the term of the grant. The plan must address how the applicant will 
monitor, measure, and publicly share information on the quality of its 
investments funded by Race to the Top--District, such as investments in 
professional development, technology, and staff;
    (2) A high-quality plan (as defined in this notice) for ongoing 
communication and engagement with internal and external stakeholders; 
and
    (3) Ambitious yet achievable performance measures, overall and by 
subgroup (as defined in this notice), with annual targets for required 
and applicant-proposed performance measures. For each applicant-
proposed measure, the applicant must describe--
    (a) Its rationale for selecting that measure;
    (b) How the measure will provide rigorous, timely, and formative 
leading information tailored to its proposed plan and theory of action 
regarding the applicant's implementation success or areas of concern; 
and
    (c) How it will review and improve the measure over time if it is 
insufficient to gauge implementation progress.
    The applicant should have a total of approximately 12 to 14 
performance measures.
    The chart below outlines the required and applicant-proposed 
performance measures based on an applicant's applicable population.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Applicable population                 Performance measure
------------------------------------------------------------------------
All.........................  (a) The number and percentage of
                               participating students (as defined in
                               this notice), by subgroup (as defined in
                               this notice), whose teacher of record (as
                               defined in this notice) and principal are
                               a highly effective teacher (as defined in
                               this notice) and a highly effective
                               principal (as defined in this notice);
                               and
                              (b) The number and percentage of
                               participating students (as defined in
                               this notice), by subgroup (as defined in
                               this notice), whose teacher of record (as
                               defined in this notice) and principal are
                               an effective teacher (as defined in this
                               notice) and an effective principal (as
                               defined in this notice).
PreK-3......................  (a) Applicant must propose at least one
                               age- appropriate measure of students'
                               academic growth (e.g., language and
                               literacy development or cognition and
                               general learning, including early
                               mathematics and early scientific
                               development); and
                              (b) Applicant must propose at least one
                               age-appropriate non-cognitive indicator
                               of growth (e.g., physical well-being and
                               motor development, or social-emotional
                               development).
4-8.........................  (a) The number and percentage of
                               participating students (as defined in
                               this notice), by subgroup, who are on
                               track to college- and career-readiness
                               based on the applicant's on-track
                               indicator (as defined in this notice);
                              (b) Applicant must propose at least one
                               grade-appropriate academic leading
                               indicator of successful implementation of
                               its plan; and
                              (c) Applicant must propose at least one
                               grade-appropriate health or social-
                               emotional leading indicator of successful
                               implementation of its plan.
9-12........................  (a) The number and percentage of
                               participating students (as defined in
                               this notice) who complete and submit the
                               Free Application for Federal Student Aid
                               (FAFSA) form;
                              (b) The number and percentage of
                               participating students (as defined in
                               this notice), by subgroup, who are on
                               track to college- and career-readiness
                               based on the applicant's on-track
                               indicator (as defined in this notice);
                              (c) Applicant must propose at least one
                               measure of career-readiness in order to
                               assess the number and percentage of
                               participating students (as defined in
                               this notice) who are or are on track to
                               being career-ready;
                              (d) Applicant must propose at least one
                               grade-appropriate academic leading
                               indicator of successful implementation of
                               its plan; and
                              (e) Applicant must propose at least one
                               grade-appropriate health or social-
                               emotional leading indicator of successful
                               implementation of its plan.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (4) A high-quality plan to rigorously evaluate the effectiveness of 
Race to the Top--District funded activities, such as professional 
development and activities that employ technology.

F. Budget and Sustainability

    The extent to which--
    (1) The applicant's budget, including the budget narrative and 
tables--
    (a) Identifies all funds that will support the project (e.g., Race 
to the Top--District grant; external foundation support; LEA, State, 
and other Federal funds);

[[Page 48019]]

    (b) Is reasonable and sufficient to support the development and 
implementation of the applicant's proposal; and
    (c) Clearly provides a thoughtful rationale for investments and 
priorities, including--
    (i) A description of all of the funds (e.g., Race to the Top--
District grant; external foundation support; LEA, State, and other 
Federal funds) that the applicant will use to support the 
implementation of the proposal, including total revenue from these 
sources; and
    (ii) Identification of the funds that will be used for one-time 
investments versus those that will be used for ongoing operational 
costs that will be incurred during and after the grant period, as 
described in the proposed budget and budget narrative, with a focus on 
strategies that will ensure the long-term sustainability of the 
personalized learning environments; and
    (2) The applicant has a high-quality plan (as defined in this 
notice) for sustainability of the project's goals after the term of the 
grant. The plan should include support from State and local government 
leaders, financial support, and a description of how the applicant will 
evaluate the effectiveness of past investments and use this data to 
inform future investments. Such a plan may address how the applicant 
will evaluate improvements in productivity and outcomes to inform a 
post-grant budget, and include an estimated budget for the three years 
after the term of the grant that includes budget assumptions, potential 
sources, and uses of funds.
    2. Review and Selection Process: In selecting grantees, the 
Secretary may consider high-ranking applications meeting Absolute 
Priorities 2 through 5 separately to ensure that there is a diversity 
of winning LEA applications from within States that have and have not 
previously received awards under Race to the Top, and from both non-
rural and rural LEAs (as defined in this notice).
    We remind potential applicants that in reviewing applications in 
any discretionary grant competition, the Secretary may consider, under 
34 CFR 75.217(d)(3), the past performance of the applicant in carrying 
out a previous award, such as the applicant's use of funds, achievement 
of project objectives, and compliance with grant conditions. The 
Secretary may also consider whether the applicant failed to submit a 
timely performance report or submitted a report of unacceptable 
quality.
    In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary 
also requires various assurances including those applicable to Federal 
civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or 
activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department 
of Education (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
    3. Special Conditions: Under 34 CFR 74.14 and 80.12, the Secretary 
may impose special conditions on a grant if the applicant or grantee is 
not financially stable; has a history of unsatisfactory performance; 
has a financial or other management system that does not meet the 
standards in 34 CFR parts 74 or 80, as applicable; has not fulfilled 
the conditions of a prior grant; or is otherwise not responsible.

VI. Award Administration Information

    1. Award Notices: If your application is successful, we notify your 
U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators and send you a Grant Award 
Notification (GAN). We also may notify you informally.
    If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, 
we will notify you.
    2. 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 section of this notice.
    We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of 
an award in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice and 
include these and other specific conditions in the GAN. The GAN also 
incorporates your approved application as part of your binding 
commitments under the grant.
    3. Reporting: Each grantee receiving Race to the Top--District 
funds must submit to the Department an annual report that must include 
a description of its progress to date on its goals, timelines, 
activities, deliverables, and budgets, and a comparison of actual 
performance to the annual targets the grantee established in its 
application for each performance measure. Further, a grantee receiving 
funds under this program is accountable for meeting the goals, 
timelines, activities, deliverables, budget, and annual targets 
established in the application; adhering to an annual fund drawdown 
schedule that is tied to meeting these goals, timelines, activities, 
deliverables, budget, and annual targets; and fulfilling and 
maintaining all other conditions for the conduct of the project. The 
Department will monitor a grantee's progress in meeting its goals, 
timelines, activities, deliverables, budget, and annual targets and in 
fulfilling other applicable requirements. In addition, the Department 
may collect additional data as part of a grantee's annual reporting 
requirements.
    To support a collaborative process between the grantee and the 
Department, the Department may require that applicants that are 
selected to receive an award enter into a written performance agreement 
or cooperative agreement with, or complete a scope of work to be 
approved by, the Department. If the Department determines that a 
grantee is not meeting its goals, timelines, activities, deliverables, 
budget, or annual targets or is not fulfilling other applicable 
requirements, the Department will take appropriate action, which could 
include a collaborative process between the Department and the grantee, 
or enforcement measures with respect to this grant, such as placing the 
grantee in high-risk status, putting it on reimbursement payment 
status, or delaying or withholding funds.
    An LEA that receives a Race to the Top--District grant must also 
meet the reporting requirements for the Federal Funding Accountability 
and Transparency Act (FFATA) for subaward and executive compensation 
data. Grantees, referred to as ``prime awardees,'' must report using 
the FFATA Subaward Reporting System (FSRS) and must, therefore, 
register in FSRS. More specific information regarding the FFATA 
reporting requirements will be provided after the grants are awarded.
    4. Continuation Awards: The Department may provide full funding for 
the entire project period to successful applicants from the FY 2013 
funds currently available or may provide funding for an initial budget 
period from the FY 2013 funds. Depending upon the amount of funding 
provided in the initial awards and the availability of funds, the 
Department may make continuation awards for subsequent fiscal years in 
accordance with 34 CFR 75.253. In making such continuation awards, the 
Secretary may consider, under 34 CFR 75.253, the extent to which a 
grantee has made ``substantial progress toward meeting the objectives 
in its approved application.'' This consideration includes the review 
of a grantee's progress in meeting the targets and projected outcomes 
in its approved application, and whether the grantee has expended funds 
in a manner that is consistent with its approved application and 
budget. In making a continuation grant, the Secretary also considers

[[Page 48020]]

whether the grantee is operating in compliance with the assurances in 
its approved application, including those applicable to Federal civil 
rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities 
receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR 
100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).

VII. Agency Contact

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Butler, U.S. Department of 
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 7e214, Washington, DC 20202. 
Telephone: (202) 453-6800 or by email: racetothetop.district@ed.gov.
    If you use a TDD or a TTY, call the FRS, toll free, at 1-800-877-
8339.

VIII. 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 compact disc) on request to 
the program contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT 
in section VII of this notice.
    Electronic Access to This Document: 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 via the Federal Digital System 
at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site 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). To use PDF 
you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the 
site.
    You may also access documents of the Department published in the 
Federal Register by using the article search feature at: 
www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search 
feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published 
by the Department.

    Dated: July 30, 2013.
Arne Duncan,
Secretary of Education.

Appendix A: Scoring Overview and Chart

I. Introduction

    To help ensure inter-reviewer reliability and transparency for 
reviewing Race to the Top--District applications, the U.S. 
Department of Education has created a detailed scoring chart for 
scoring applications. The chart details the allocation of point 
values that reviewers will be using. Race to the Top--District 
grants will be awarded on a competitive basis to LEAs or consortia 
of LEAs. The chart will be used by reviewers to ensure consistency 
across and within review panels.
    Reviewers will be assessing multiple aspects of each Race to the 
Top--District application. It is possible that an applicant that 
fails to earn points or earns a low number of points on one 
criterion might still win a Race to the Top--District award by 
earning high points on other criteria.
    Reviewers will be required to make many thoughtful judgments 
about the quality of the applications. For example, reviewers will 
be assessing, based on the criteria, the comprehensiveness and 
feasibility of the plans. Reviewers will be asked to evaluate 
whether applicants have set ambitious yet achievable performance 
measures and annual targets in their applications. Reviewers will 
need to make informed judgments about applicants' goals, performance 
measures, annual targets, proposed activities and the rationale for 
those activities, the timeline, the deliverables, and credibility of 
applicants' plans.
    Applicants must address Absolute Priority 1 throughout their 
applications, and Absolute Priority 1 must be met in order for an 
applicant to receive funding. Additionally, an applicant must 
designate which of Absolute Priorities 2 through 5 it meets. 
Applicants may choose to address the competitive preference priority 
in Part X of the application and may earn extra points under that 
priority.
    This appendix includes the point values for each criterion and 
for the competitive preference priority, guidance on scoring, and 
the scoring chart that the Department will provide to reviewers.

II. Points Overview

    The scoring chart below shows the maximum number of points that 
may be assigned to each criterion and to the competitive preference 
priority.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Detailed
                                                                      points      Section points    Section  %
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Selection Criteria:
    A. Vision...................................................  ..............              40              19
        (A)(1) Articulating a comprehensive and coherent reform               10  ..............  ..............
         vision.................................................
        (A)(2) Applicant's approach to implementation...........              10  ..............  ..............
        (A)(3) LEA-wide reform & change.........................              10  ..............  ..............
        (A)(4) LEA-wide goals for improved student outcomes.....              10  ..............  ..............
    B. Prior Record of Success and Conditions for Reform........  ..............              45              21
        (B)(1) Demonstrating a clear track record of success....              15  ..............  ..............
        (B)(2) Increasing transparency in LEA processes,                       5  ..............  ..............
         practices, & investments...............................
        (B)(3) State context for implementation.................              10  ..............  ..............
        (B)(4) Stakeholder engagement and support...............              15  ..............  ..............
    C. Preparing Students for College and Careers...............  ..............              40              19
        (C)(1) Learning.........................................              20  ..............  ..............
        (C)(2) Teaching and Leading.............................              20  ..............  ..............
    D. LEA Policy and Infrastructure............................  ..............              25              12
        (D)(1) LEA practices, policies, and rules...............              15  ..............  ..............
        (D)(2) LEA and school infrastructure....................              10  ..............  ..............
    E. Continuous Improvement...................................  ..............              30              14
        (E)(1) Continuous improvement process...................              15  ..............  ..............
        (E)(2) Ongoing communication and engagement.............               5  ..............  ..............
        (E)(3) Performance measures.............................               5  ..............  ..............
        (E)(4) Evaluating effectiveness of investments..........               5  ..............  ..............
    F. Budget and Sustainability................................  ..............              20              10
        (F)(1) Budget for the project...........................              10  ..............  ..............
        (F)(2) Sustainability of project goals..................              10  ..............  ..............
Competitive Preference Priority.................................              10              10               5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             210             210             100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 48021]]

III. About Scoring

    The Department will give reviewers general guidance on how to 
evaluate and score the information that each applicant submits; this 
guidance will be consistent with the requirements, priorities, 
selection criteria, and definitions in the NIA. Reviewers will allot 
points based on the extent to which the applicant meets the criteria 
and the competitive preference priority, including existing track 
record and conditions as well as future plans. For plans, reviewers 
will allot points based on the quality of the applicant's plan and, 
where specified in the text of the criterion or competitive 
preference priority, whether the applicant has set ambitious yet 
achievable goals, performance measures, and annual targets. In 
making these judgments, reviewers will consider the extent to which 
the applicant has:
     A high-quality plan. In determining the quality of an 
applicant's plan, reviewers will evaluate the key goals, the 
activities to be undertaken and rationale for the activities, the 
timeline, the deliverables, the parties responsible for implementing 
the activities, and the overall credibility of the plan (as judged, 
in part, by the information submitted as supporting evidence). 
Applicants should submit this information for each criterion that 
the applicant addresses that includes a plan. Applicants may also 
submit additional information that they believe will be helpful to 
peer reviewers.
     Ambitious yet achievable goals, performance measures, 
and annual targets. In determining whether an applicant has 
ambitious yet achievable goals, performance measures, and annual 
targets, reviewers will examine the applicant's goals, measures, and 
annual targets in the context of the applicant's proposal and the 
evidence submitted (if any) in support of the proposal. There are no 
specific goals, performance measures, or annual targets that 
reviewers will be looking for here; nor will higher ones necessarily 
be rewarded above lower ones. Rather, reviewers will reward 
applicants for developing ``ambitious yet achievable'' goals, 
performance measures, and annual targets that are meaningful for the 
applicant's proposal and for assessing implementation progress, 
successes, and challenges.
    Note that the evidence that applicants submit may be relevant 
both to judging whether the applicant has a high-quality plan and 
whether its goals, performance measures, and annual targets are 
ambitious yet achievable.
    About Assigning Points: For each criterion, reviewers will 
assign points to an application. The Department has specified 
maximum point values at the criterion level.
    The reviewers will use the general ranges below as a guide when 
awarding points.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Quality of applicant's response
                       Maximum point value                       -----------------------------------------------
                                                                        Low           Medium           High
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20..............................................................             0-4            5-15           16-20
15..............................................................             0-3            4-11           12-15
10..............................................................             0-2             3-7            8-10
5...............................................................             0-1             2-3             4-5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    About Priorities: There are two types of priorities in the Race 
to the Top--District competition.
     Absolute Priorities
    [cir] Absolute Priority 1 cuts across the entire application and 
should not be addressed separately. It will be assessed, after the 
proposal has been fully reviewed and evaluated, to ensure that the 
application has met the priority. If an application has not met the 
priority, it will be eliminated from the competition. In those cases 
where there is a disparity in the reviewers' determinations on the 
priority, the Department will consider Absolute Priority 1 met only 
if a majority of the reviewers on a panel determine that an 
application meets the priority.
    [cir] Absolute Priorities 2-5 are not judged by peer reviewers. 
Applicants indicate in the Application Assurances in Parts V or VI 
of the application which one of Absolute Priorities 2-5 applies to 
them. The Department will review Application Assurances before 
making grant awards.
     Competitive Preference Priority
    [cir] The competitive preference priority is optional and 
applicants may respond to it in Part X of the application. It is 
worth up to 10 points, and reviewers will allot points based on the 
extent to which the applicant meets the priority.
    In the Event of a Tie: If two or more applications have the same 
score and there is not sufficient funding to support all of the tied 
applicants in the funding range, the applicants' scores on criterion 
(B)(1) will be used to break the tie.
    Review and Selection Process: We remind potential applicants 
that in reviewing applications in any discretionary grant 
competition, the Secretary may consider, under 34 CFR 75.217(d)(3), 
the past performance of the applicant in carrying out a previous 
award, such as the applicant's use of funds, achievement of project 
objectives, and compliance with grant conditions. The Secretary may 
also consider whether the applicant failed to submit a timely 
performance report or submitted a report of unacceptable quality.
    In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary 
also requires various assurances including those applicable to 
Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs 
or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the 
Department of Education (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 
110.23).

Appendix B: Memorandum of Understanding for Consortia Applicants

BACKGROUND

    LEAs that apply to the Race to the Top--District competition as 
members of a consortium are required to enter into a memorandum of 
understanding (MOU) or other binding agreements with each other.
    To support consortia in working together effectively, the U.S. 
Department of Education has produced a model MOU, which is attached. 
This model MOU may serve as a template for eligible LEAs that are 
considering entering into a consortium for the purpose of applying 
for a Race to the Top--District grant; however, consortia are not 
required to use it. They may use a different document that includes 
the key features noted below and in the model, and they should 
consult with their attorneys on what is most appropriate for their 
consortia.
    The purpose of the model MOU is to help to specify a 
relationship that is specific to the Race to the Top--District 
competition. It is not meant to detail all typical aspects of 
consortia grant management or administration. At a minimum, each MOU 
must include the following key elements, each of which is described 
in detail below: (i) Terms and conditions, (ii) consortium 
governance structure, and (iii) signatures.
    (i) Terms and conditions: Each member of a consortium should 
sign a standard set of terms and conditions that includes, at a 
minimum, key roles and responsibilities of the applicant for the 
consortium (lead LEA) and member LEAs and assurances that make clear 
what the applicant and member LEAs are agreeing to do. In accordance 
with the requirements for consortia applicants in the Race to the 
Top--District notice inviting applications and the requirements for 
group applicants under 34 CFR 75.127-129, the MOU must:
     Designate one member of the group to apply for the 
grant or establish a separate legal entity to apply for the grant;
     Detail the activities that each member of the 
consortium plans to perform;
     Bind each member of the consortium to every statement 
and assurance made by the applicant in the application;
     State that the applicant for the consortium (the lead 
LEA) is legally responsible for:
    [cir] The use of all grant funds;
    [cir] Ensuring that the project is carried out by the consortium 
in accordance with Federal requirements;
    [cir] Ensuring that the indirect cost funds are determined as 
required under 34 CFR 75.564(e);
    [cir] Carrying out the activities it has agreed to perform; and
    [cir] Using the funds that it receives under the MOU in 
accordance with the Federal

[[Page 48022]]

requirements that apply to the Race to the Top--District grant;
     State that each member of the consortium is legally 
responsible for:
    [cir] Carrying out the activities it has agreed to perform; and
    [cir] Using the funds that it receives under the MOU in 
accordance with the Federal requirements that apply to the Race to 
the Top--District grant; and
     Contain an assurance that each LEA:
    [cir] At a minimum, will implement no later than the 2014-2015 
school year--
    [squf] A teacher evaluation system (as defined in this notice); 
\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The term ``as defined in this notice'' is used throughout 
this Appendix and model memorandum of understanding. ``This notice'' 
refers to the notice inviting applications (NIA) for the Race to the 
Top--District competition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    [squf] A principal evaluation system (as defined in this 
notice); and
    [squf] A superintendent evaluation (as defined in this notice);
    [cir] Is committed to preparing students for college or career, 
as demonstrated by:
    [squf] Being located in a State that has adopted college- and 
career-ready standards (as defined in this notice); or
    [squf] Measuring all student progress and performance against 
college- and career-ready graduation requirements (as defined in 
this notice);
    [cir] Has a robust data system that has, at a minimum--
    [squf] An individual teacher identifier with a teacher-student 
match; and
    [squf] The capability to provide timely data back to educators 
and their supervisors on student growth;
    [cir] Has the capability to receive or match student-level 
preschool-through- 12th grade and higher education data; and
    [cir] Ensures that any disclosure of or access to personally 
identifiable information in students' education records complies 
with the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA).
    (ii) Consortium governance structure: As stated in the notice, 
at a minimum, the MOU must describe the consortium's structure for 
carrying out its operations, including:
     The organizational structure of the consortium and the 
differentiated roles that a member LEA may hold (e.g., lead LEA, 
member LEA);
     For each differentiated role, the associated rights and 
responsibilities (including rights and responsibilities for adopting 
and implementing the consortium's proposal for a grant);
     The consortium's method and process (e.g., consensus, 
majority) for making different types of decisions (e.g., policy, 
operational);
     The protocols by which the consortium will operate, 
including the protocols for member LEAs to change roles or leave the 
consortium;
     The consortium's plan for managing funds received under 
this grant;
     The terms and conditions of the memorandum of 
understanding or other binding agreement executed by each member 
LEA; and
     The consortium's procurement process, and evidence of 
each member LEA's commitment to that process.
    (iii) Signatures: As stated in the notice, each MOU must be 
signed by the LEA's superintendent or CEO, local school board 
president, and local teacher union or association president (where 
applicable).

I. Model Memorandum Of Understanding for Race to the Top--District 
Grant

[Consortium Name]

I. Parties

    This Memorandum of Understanding (``MOU'') is made and effective 
as of this [DAY] day of [MONTH, YEAR], by and between the [LEA] and 
all other member LEAs of [CONSORTIUM (``Consortium'')] that have 
also executed this MOU.

    [LEA] has elected to participate in [CONSORTIUM] as (check one):
-------- Lead LEA
-------- Member LEA

II. Scope of MOU

    This MOU constitutes an understanding between the Consortium 
member LEAs to participate in the Consortium. This document 
describes the purpose and goals of the Consortium, explains its 
organizational and governance structure, and defines the terms and 
responsibilities of participation in the Consortium.

III. Binding Commitments and Assurances

    To support these goals, each signatory LEA that signs this MOU 
assures, certifies, and represents that the signatory LEA:
    a. Has all requisite power and authority to execute this MOU;
    b. Is familiar with all the contents of the Consortium 
application;
    c. At a minimum, will implement no later than the 2014-2015 
school year--
    i. A teacher evaluation system (as defined in this notice); \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The term ``as defined in this notice'' is used throughout 
the model memorandum of understanding. ``This notice'' refers to the 
notice inviting applications (NIA) for the Race to the Top--District 
competition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ii. A principal evaluation system (as defined in this notice); 
and
    iii. A superintendent evaluation (as defined in this notice);
    d. Is committed to preparing students for college or career, as 
demonstrated by:
    i. Being located in a State that has adopted college- and 
career-ready standards (as defined in this notice); or
    ii. Measuring all student progress and performance against 
college- and career-ready graduation requirements (as defined in 
this notice);
    e. Has a robust data system that has, at a minimum--
    i. An individual teacher identifier with a teacher-student 
match; and
    ii. The capability to provide timely data back to educators and 
their supervisors on student growth;
    f. Has the capability to receive or match student-level 
preschool-through-12th grade and higher education data;
    g. Ensures that any disclosure of or access to personally 
identifiable information in students' education records complies 
with the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA);
    h. Will comply with all of the terms of the Grant, and all 
applicable Federal, State, and local laws and regulations, including 
laws and regulations applicable to the program, and the applicable 
provisions of EDGAR (34 CFR parts 75, 77, 79, 80, 82, 84, 86, 97, 
98, and 99) and 2 CFR part 3485;
    i. Meets all the eligibility requirements described in the 
application and notice;
    j. Will bind itself to and comply with all elements of the 
Consortium governance structure described in this MOU and the 
individual LEA's role in the structure as described in this MOU; and
    k. Will bind itself to every statement and assurance made in the 
Consortium's application, including but not limited to programs, 
plans, policies, strategies, and requirements that the Consortium 
plans to implement.

IV. Consortium Membership

    a. Each member LEA and the lead LEA will sign on to only one 
application for a Race to the Top--District grant.
    b. Each LEA in the Consortium is legally responsible for:
    1. Carrying out the activities it has agreed to perform; and
    2. Using the funds that it receives under the MOU in accordance 
with the Federal requirements that apply to the Race to the Top--
District grant.
    c. Each LEA in the Consortium will support the activities of the 
Consortium as follows:
    1. Participate in all activities and projects that the 
Consortium board approves in support of the Consortium's 
application;
    2. Participate in the management of all those activities and 
projects;
    3. [Other activities as necessary]
    d. [If applicable, the MOU should also describe the unique 
activities and roles that each LEA will perform for the Consortium.]

V. Lead LEA

    a. The lead LEA will serve as the ``Applicant'' LEA for purposes 
of the grant application, applying as the member of the Consortium 
on behalf of the Consortium, pursuant to the Application 
Requirements of the notice and 34 CFR 75.127-129.
    b. The lead LEA 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 the indirect cost funds are determined as 
required under 34 CFR 75.564(e).
    c. The lead LEA or another LEA participating in the consortium 
will act as the fiscal agent on behalf of the Consortium.
    d. The LEA acting as fiscal agent will comply with [STATE's] 
statutes regarding procurement, accounting practices, and all other 
relevant areas of law, including but not limited to [CITATIONS].

[[Page 48023]]

VI. Consortium Governance:

    [In this section the Consortium should describe its governance 
structure. As stated in the notice, at a minimum, the MOU must 
describe the Consortium's structure for carrying out its operations, 
including:
    a. The organizational structure of the Consortium and the 
differentiated roles that a member LEA may hold (e.g., lead LEA, 
member LEA);
    b. For each differentiated role, the associated rights and 
responsibilities (including rights and responsibilities related for 
adopting and implementing the Consortium's proposal for a grant);
    c. The Consortium's method and process (e.g., consensus, 
majority) for making different types of decisions (e.g., policy, 
operational);
    d. The protocols by which the Consortium will operate, including 
the protocols for member LEAs to change roles or leave the 
Consortium;
    e. The Consortium's plan for managing funds received under this 
grant;
    f. The terms and conditions of the MOU or other binding 
agreements executed by each member LEA; and
    g. The Consortium's procurement process, and evidence of each 
member LEA's commitment to that process.]

VII. Modification

    This MOU may be amended only by written agreement signed by each 
of the parties involved, and in consultation with the U.S. 
Department of Education.
    [A Consortium may find it necessary to include other terms and 
conditions in its MOU, such as provisions explaining governing law, 
liability and risk of loss, and resolution of conflicts.]

VIII. Duration/Termination

    This MOU shall be effective, beginning with the date of the last 
signature hereon, and if the grant is received, ending upon the 
expiration of the grant project period, or upon mutual agreement of 
the parties, whichever occurs first.

IX. Points of Contact

    Communications with the LEA regarding this MOU should be 
directed to:

Name: [NAME]
Mailing Address: [ADDRESS]
Telephone: [() 
-]
Fax: [() -
]
Email: [EMAIL@EMAIL]
    Or hereinafter to another individual that may be designated by 
the LEA in writing transmitted to the [appropriate party of the 
Consortium].

X. Signatures

    [LEA] hereby joins the Consortium as a lead/member (circle one), 
and agrees to be bound by all the assurances and commitments 
associated with lead/member (circle one) classification. Further, 
the LEA agrees to perform the duties and carry out the 
responsibilities associated with the lead/member (circle one) 
membership classification as described in this MOU.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Superintendent or CEO of the LEA     Telephone:
 (Printed Name):
Signature of Superintendent or CEO   Date:
 of the LEA:
Local School Board President         Telephone:
 (Printed Name):
Signature of Local School Board      Date:
 President:
President of the Local Teacher       Telephone:
 Union or Association, if
 applicable
(Printed Name):
Signature of the President of the    Date:
 Local Teacher Union or
 Association:
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2013-18708 Filed 8-5-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P