Applications for New Awards; Race to the Top-Early Learning Challenge, 53991-54011 [2013-21139]
Download as PDF
Vol. 78
Friday,
No. 169
August 30, 2013
Part IV
Department of Education
Department of Health and Human Services
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES3
Applications for New Awards; Race to the Top—Early Learning Challenge;
Notice
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:57 Aug 29, 2013
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4717
Sfmt 4717
E:\FR\FM\30AUN3.SGM
30AUN3
53992
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 169 / Friday, August 30, 2013 / Notices
Race to the Top—Early Learning
Challenge
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Applications for New Awards; Race to
the Top—Early Learning Challenge
Department of Education and
Department of Health and Human
Services.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
Overview Information:
Race to the Top—Early Learning
Challenge (RTT–ELC)
Notice inviting applications for new
awards for fiscal year (FY) 2013.
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
(CFDA) Number: 84.412A.
Applications Available: August
30, 2013.
Deadline for Notice of Intent to Apply:
September 30, 2013.
DATES:
Note: Submission of a notice of intent to
apply is optional.
Date of Technical Assistance
Planning Workshop: September 10,
2013. Note: Please refer to the
Department of Education’s RTT–ELC
Web site (https://www2.ed.gov/
programs/racetothetopearlylearningchallenge/) for
meeting details.
Deadline for Transmittal of
Applications: October 16, 2013.
Full Text of Announcement
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES3
I. Funding Opportunity Description
Purpose of Program: The purpose of
the Race to the Top—Early Learning
Challenge (RTT–ELC) program is to
improve the quality of early learning
and development and close the
educational gaps for Children with High
Needs.1 This program focuses on
improving early learning and
development for young children by
supporting States’ efforts to increase the
number of low-income and
disadvantaged children in each age
group of infants, toddlers, and
preschoolers who are enrolled in highquality Early Learning and Development
Programs. The program also supports
States’ efforts to design and implement
an integrated system of high-quality
Early Learning and Development
Programs and services.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The Statutory Context and Program
Overview:
1 Defined terms are used throughout the notice
and are indicated by capitalization.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:57 Aug 29, 2013
Jkt 229001
A critical focus of the U.S.
Department of Education (ED) and the
U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS) (collectively, the
‘‘Departments’’) is supporting America’s
youngest learners and helping ensure
that children, especially Children with
High Needs, enter kindergarten ready to
succeed in school and in life. A robust
body of research demonstrates that highquality Early Learning and Development
Programs can improve young children’s
health, social-emotional, and cognitive
outcomes; enhance school readiness;
and help close the educational gaps that
exist between Children with High Needs
and their peers at the time they enter
kindergarten.
To address these gaps, the
Departments have identified, as high
priorities, strengthening the quality of
existing Early Learning and
Development Programs and increasing
access to high-quality Early Learning
and Development Programs for all
children, especially for Children with
High Needs.
On May 25, 2011, Secretaries Arne
Duncan and Kathleen Sebelius
announced the RTT–ELC, a new $500
million State-level grant competition
authorized under the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
(ARRA), as amended. Through the RTT–
ELC program, the Departments seek to
help close the educational gaps between
Children with High Needs and their
peers by supporting State efforts to
build strong systems of early learning
and development that provide increased
access to high-quality programs for the
children who need them most.
The RTT–ELC program represents an
unprecedented opportunity for States to
focus deeply on their early learning and
development systems for children from
birth through age five. Fourteen States
have thus far received RTT–ELC grants
and are able to build a more unified
approach to supporting young children
and their families—an approach that
increases access to high-quality Early
Learning and Development Programs
and helps ensure that children enter
kindergarten with the skills, knowledge,
and dispositions toward learning they
need to be successful in school and in
life.
In this notice, we announce the
specific priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria that
the Departments will use in the FY 2013
RTT–ELC competition. The priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection
criteria in this notice are in large part
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
identical to those in the FY 2011 notice
inviting applications (see 76 FR 53564).
The FY 2013 RTT–ELC competition is
organized around five key reform areas
representing the foundation of an
effective early learning and
development reform agenda focused on
school readiness and ongoing
educational success. These areas
provide a framework for the
competition’s priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria, and
are as follows:
(A) Successful State Systems;
(B) High-Quality, Accountable
Programs;
(C) Promoting Early Learning and
Development Outcomes for Children;
(D) A Great Early Childhood
Education Workforce; and
(E) Measuring Outcomes and Progress.
The first two of these reform areas, (A)
and (B), are core areas of focus for this
program (‘‘Core Areas’’), and applicants
are required to respond to all selection
criteria under these Core Areas. The
reform areas in (C), (D), and (E) are areas
where applicants will direct targeted
attention to specific activities that are
relevant to their States’ context
(‘‘Focused Investment Areas’’).
Applicants are required to address each
Focused Investment Area but not each
of the selection criteria under them.
Priorities: These priorities are from
the notice of final priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection
criteria for this program, published
elsewhere in this issue of the Federal
Register.
Absolute Priority: For FY 2013 and
any subsequent year in which we make
awards from the list of unfunded
applicants from this competition, this
priority is an absolute priority. Under 34
CFR 75.105(c)(3) we consider only
applications that meet this priority.
This priority is:
Priority 1: Promoting School
Readiness for Children with High Needs.
To meet this priority, the State’s
application must comprehensively and
coherently address how the State will
build a system that increases the quality
of Early Learning and Development
Programs for Children with High Needs
so that they enter kindergarten ready to
succeed.
The State’s application must
demonstrate how it will improve the
quality of Early Learning and
Development Programs by integrating
and aligning resources and policies
across Participating State Agencies and
by designing and implementing a
common, statewide Tiered Quality
Rating and Improvement System. In
addition, to achieve the necessary
E:\FR\FM\30AUN3.SGM
30AUN3
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES3
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 169 / Friday, August 30, 2013 / Notices
reforms, the State must make strategic
improvements in those areas that will
most significantly improve program
quality and outcomes for Children with
High Needs. Therefore, the State must
address those criteria from within each
of the Focused Investment Areas
(sections (C) Promoting Early Learning
and Development Outcomes for
Children, (D) A Great Early Childhood
Education Workforce, and (E) Measuring
Outcomes and Progress) that it believes
will best prepare its Children with High
Needs for kindergarten success.
Competitive Preference Priorities: For
FY 2013 and any subsequent year in
which we make awards from the list of
unfunded applicants from this
competition, these priorities are
competitive preference priorities. 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 Priority 2; we award
up to an additional 10 points to an
application depending on how well the
application meets Priority 4; we award
an additional 10 points (all or none) to
an application that meets Priority 3; and
we will award up to an additional 5
points depending on how well the
application meets Priority 5. The
maximum score for all of the
competitive preference priorities is 35
points.
Applicants that choose to address
Priority 2, Priority 4, and Priority 5 must
provide a narrative in the space
provided in the application, and
applicants that choose to address
Priority 3 must do so by writing to
selection criterion (E)(1).
These priorities are:
Priority 2: Including All Early
Learning and Development Programs in
the Tiered Quality Rating and
Improvement System.
Priority 2 is designed to increase the
number of children from birth to
kindergarten entry who are participating
in programs that are governed by the
State’s licensing system and quality
standards, with the goal that all licensed
or State-regulated programs will
participate. The State will meet this
priority based on the extent to which
the State has in place, or has a HighQuality Plan to implement no later than
June 30th of the fourth year of the
grant—
(a) A licensing and inspection system
that covers all programs that are not
otherwise regulated by the State and
that regularly care for two or more
unrelated children for a fee in a
provider setting; provided that if the
State exempts programs for reasons
other than the number of children cared
for, the State may exclude those entities
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:57 Aug 29, 2013
Jkt 229001
and reviewers will determine whether
an applicant has met this priority only
on the basis of non-excluded entities;
and
(b) A Tiered Quality Rating and
Improvement System in which all
licensed or State-regulated Early
Learning and Development Programs
participate.
Priority 3: Understanding the Status
of Children’s Learning and Development
at Kindergarten Entry.
To meet this priority, the State must,
in its application, address selection
criterion (E)(1) and earn a score of at
least 70 percent of the maximum points
available for that criterion.
Note: A State will earn all 10 competitive
preference priority points if a majority of
reviewers determines that the State has met
the competitive preference priority. A State
earns zero points if a majority of reviewers
determines that the applicant has not met the
competitive preference priority.
Priority 4: Creating Preschool through
Third Grade Approaches to Sustain
Improved Early Learning Outcomes
through the Early Elementary Grades.
Priority 4 is designed to build upon
the State’s High-Quality Plan to improve
birth through age five early learning
outcomes, and to sustain and extend
improved early learning outcomes
through the early elementary school
years, including by leveraging existing
Federal, State, and local resources. The
State will meet this priority based on
the extent to which it describes a HighQuality Plan to improve the overall
quality, alignment, and continuity of
teaching and learning to serve children
from preschool through third grade
through such activities as—
(a) Enhancing the State’s
kindergarten-through-third-grade
standards to align them with the State’s
Early Learning and Development
Standards across all Essential Domains
of School Readiness;
(b) Identifying and addressing the
health, behavioral, and developmental
needs of Children with High Needs from
preschool through third grade, and
building families’ capacity to address
these needs;
(c) Implementing teacher preparation
and professional development programs
and strategies that emphasize
developmental science and the
importance of protective factors,
pedagogy, and the delivery of
developmentally appropriate content,
strategies for identifying and addressing
the needs of children experiencing
social and emotional challenges, and
effective family engagement strategies
for educators, administrators, and
related personnel serving children from
preschool through third grade;
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
53993
(d) Implementing model systems of
collaboration both within and between
Early Learning and Development
Programs and elementary schools to
engage and support families and
improve all transitions for children
across the birth through third grade
continuum;
(e) Building or enhancing data
systems to monitor the status of
children’s learning and development
from preschool through third grade to
inform families and support student
progress in meeting critical educational
benchmarks in the early elementary
grades; and
(f) Other efforts designed to increase
the percentage of children who are able
to read and do mathematics at grade
level by the end of the third grade.
Priority 5: Addressing the Needs of
Children in Rural Areas.
The State will meet this priority based
on the extent to which it describes:
(a) How it will implement approaches
to address the unique needs (e.g.,
limited access to resources) of children
in rural areas, including rural areas with
small populations; and
(b) How these approaches are
designed to close educational and
opportunity gaps for Children with High
Needs, increase the number and
percentage of Low-Income children who
are enrolled in high-quality Early
Learning and Development Programs;
and enhance the State’s integrated
system of high-quality early learning
programs and services.
Invitational Priority: For FY 2013 and
any subsequent year in which we make
awards from the list of unfunded
applicants from this competition, this
priority is an invitational priority.
Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(1) we do not
give an application that meets this
invitational priority a competitive or
absolute preference over other
applications.
This priority is:
Priority 6: Encouraging Private-Sector
Support.
The State will meet this priority based
on the extent to which it describes how
the private sector will provide financial
and other resources to support the State
and its Participating State Agencies or
Participating Programs in the
implementation of the State Plan.
Application Requirements: Each
application must meet the following
application requirements:
(a) The State’s application must be
signed by the Governor or an authorized
representative; an authorized
representative from the Lead Agency;
and an authorized representative from
each Participating State Agency.
E:\FR\FM\30AUN3.SGM
30AUN3
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES3
53994
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 169 / Friday, August 30, 2013 / Notices
(b) The State must submit a
certification from the State Attorney
General or an authorized representative
that the State’s description of, and
statements and conclusions in its
application concerning, State law,
statute, and regulation are complete and
accurate and constitute a reasonable
interpretation of State law, statute, and
regulation.
(c) The State must complete the
budget spreadsheets that are provided in
the application package and submit the
completed spreadsheet as part of its
application. These spreadsheets should
be included on the CD or DVD that the
State submits as its application.
(d) The State must submit preliminary
scopes of work for each Participating
State Agency as part of the executed
memorandum of understanding (MOU)
or other binding agreement. Each
preliminary scope of work must
describe the portions of the State’s
proposed plans that the Participating
State Agency is agreeing to implement.
If a State is awarded an RTT–ELC grant,
the State will have up to 90 days to
complete final scopes of work for each
Participating State Agency.
(e) The State must include a budget
that details how it will use grant funds
awarded under this competition, and
funds from other Federal, State, private,
and local sources to achieve the
outcomes of the State Plan (as described
in selection criterion (A)(4)(a)), and how
the State will use funds awarded under
this program to—
(1) Achieve its ambitious yet
achievable targets for increasing the
number and percentage of Early
Learning and Development Programs
that are participating in the State’s
Tiered Quality Rating and Improvement
System (as described in selection
criterion (B)(2)(c)); and
(2) Achieve its ambitious yet
achievable targets for increasing the
number and percentage of Children with
High Needs who are enrolled in Early
Learning and Development Programs
that are in the top tiers of the State’s
Tiered Quality Rating and Improvement
System (as described in selection
criterion (B)(4)(c)).
(f) The State must provide an overall
summary for the State Plan and a
rationale for why it has chosen to
address the selected criteria in each
Focused Investment Area, including—
• How the State’s choices build on its
progress to date in each Focused
Investment Area (as outlined in Tables
(A)(1)6–13 and the narrative under
(A)(1)); and
• Why these selected criteria will best
achieve the State’s ambitious yet
achievable goals for improving program
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:57 Aug 29, 2013
Jkt 229001
quality, improving outcomes for
Children with High Needs statewide,
and closing the educational gaps
between Children with High Needs and
their peers.
(g) The State, within each Focused
Investment Area, must select and
address—
• Two or more selection criteria
within Focused Investment Area (C)
Promoting Early Learning and
Development Outcomes for Children;
and
• One or more selection criteria
within Focused Investment Areas (D) A
Great Early Childhood Education
Workforce and (E) Measuring Outcomes
and Progress.
(h) Where the State is submitting a
High-Quality Plan, the State must
include in its application a detailed
plan that is feasible and includes, but
need not be limited to—
(1) The key goals;
(2) The key activities to be
undertaken; the rationale for the
activities; and, if applicable, where in
the State the activities will be initially
implemented, and where and how they
will be scaled up over time to
eventually achieve statewide
implementation;
(3) A realistic timeline, including key
milestones, for implementing each key
activity;
(4) The party or parties responsible for
implementing each activity and other
key personnel assigned to each activity;
(5) Appropriate financial resources to
support successful implementation of
the plan;
(6) The information requested as
supporting evidence, if any, together
with any additional information the
State believes will be helpful to peer
reviewers in judging the credibility of
the plan;
(7) The information requested or
required in the performance measures,
where applicable;
(8) How the State will address the
needs of the different types of Early
Learning and Development Programs, if
applicable; and
(9) How the State will meet the
unique needs of Children with High
Needs.
Program Requirements: If a State is
awarded an RTT–ELC grant, it must
meet the following requirements:
(a) The State must have an operational
State Advisory Council on Early
Childhood Education and Care that
meets the requirements described in
section 642B(b) of the Head Start Act
(42 U.S.C. 9837(b)). In addition, the
State Advisory Council on Early
Childhood Education and Care must
include the State’s Child Care and
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
Development Fund (CCDF)
administrator, State agency coordinators
from both Part B section 619 and Part
C of the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA), and State agency
representatives responsible for health
and mental health.
(b) The State must continue to
participate in the programs authorized
under section 619 of Part B of IDEA and
Part C of IDEA and in the CCDF
program.
(c) States must continue to have an
active Maternal, Infant, and Early
Childhood Home Visiting (MIECHV)
program (pursuant to section 511 of
Title V of the Social Security Act, as
added by section 2951 of the Affordable
Care Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111–148)) for
the duration of the grant, whether
operated by the State or by an eligible
non-profit organization.
(d) The State is prohibited from
spending funds from the grant on the
direct delivery of health services.
(e) The State must participate in RTT–
ELC grantee technical assistance
activities facilitated by ED or HHS,
individually or in collaboration with
other State grantees in order to share
effective program practices and
solutions and collaboratively solve
problems, and must set aside $400,000
from its grant funds for this purpose.
(f) The State must—
(1) Comply with the requirements of
any evaluation sponsored by ED or HHS
of any of the State’s activities carried
out with the grant;
(2) Comply with the requirements of
any cross-State evaluation—as part of a
consortium of States—of any of the
State’s proposed reforms, if that
evaluation is coordinated or funded by
ED or HHS, including by using common
measures and data collection
instruments and collecting data
necessary to the evaluation;
(3) Together with its independent
evaluator, if any, cooperate with any
technical assistance regarding
evaluations provided by ED or HHS.
The purpose of this technical assistance
will be to ensure that the validation of
the State’s Tiered Quality Rating and
Improvement System and any other
evaluations conducted by States or their
independent evaluators, if any, are of
the highest quality and to encourage
commonality in approaches where such
commonality is feasible and useful;
(4) Submit to ED and HHS for review
and comment its design for the
validation of its Tiered Quality Rating
and Improvement System (as described
in selection criterion (B)(5)) and any
other evaluations of activities included
in the State Plan, including any
activities that are part of the State’s
E:\FR\FM\30AUN3.SGM
30AUN3
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES3
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 169 / Friday, August 30, 2013 / Notices
Focused Investment Areas, as
applicable; and
(5) Make widely available through
formal (e.g., peer-reviewed journals) or
informal (e.g., newsletters) mechanisms,
and in print or electronically, the results
of any evaluations it conducts of its
funded activities.
(g) The State must have a longitudinal
data system that includes the 12
elements described in section
6401(e)(2)(D) of the America
COMPETES Act by the date required
under the State Fiscal Stabilization
Fund (SFSF) grant and in accordance
with Indicator (b)(1) of its approved
SFSF plan.
(h) The State must comply with the
requirements of all applicable Federal,
State, and local privacy laws, including
the requirements of the Family
Educational Rights and Privacy Act, the
Health Insurance Portability
Accountability Act, and the privacy
requirements in IDEA, and their
applicable regulations.
(i) The State must ensure that the
grant activities are implemented in
accordance with all applicable Federal,
State, and local laws.
(j) The State must provide researchers
with access, consistent with the
requirements of all applicable Federal,
State, and local privacy laws, to data
from its Tiered Quality Rating and
Improvement System and from the
Statewide Longitudinal Data System
and the State’s coordinated early
learning data system (if applicable) so
that they can analyze the State’s quality
improvement efforts and answer key
policy and practice questions.
(k) Unless otherwise protected as
proprietary information by Federal or
State law or a specific written
agreement, the State must make any
work (e.g., materials, tools, processes,
systems) developed under its grant
freely available to the public, including
by posting the work on a Web site
identified or sponsored by ED or HHS.
Any Web sites developed under this
grant must meet government or
industry-recognized standards for
accessibility (www.section508.gov/).
(l) Funds made available under an
RTT–ELC grant must be used to
supplement, not supplant, any Federal,
State, or local funds that, in the absence
of the funds awarded under this grant,
would be available for increasing access
to and improving the quality of Early
Learning and Development Programs.
(m) For a State that is awarded an
RTT–ELC grant, the State will have up
to 90 days from the grant award
notification date to complete final
scopes of work for each Participating
State Agency. These final scopes of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:57 Aug 29, 2013
Jkt 229001
work must contain detailed work plans
that are consistent with their
corresponding preliminary scopes of
work and with the State’s grant
application, and must include the
Participating State Agency’s specific
goals, activities, timelines, budgets, key
personnel, and annual targets for key
performance measures for the portions
of the State’s proposed plans that the
Participating State Agency is agreeing to
implement.
Program Definitions:
Children with High Needs means
children from birth through
kindergarten entry who are from LowIncome families or otherwise in need of
special assistance and support,
including children who have disabilities
or developmental delays; who are
English learners; who reside on ‘‘Indian
lands’’ as that term is defined by section
8013(7) of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965, as
amended (ESEA); who are migrant,
homeless, or in foster care; and other
children as identified by the State.
Common Education Data Standards
(CEDS) means voluntary, common
standards for a key set of education data
elements (e.g., demographics, program
participation, transition, course
information) at the early learning, K–12,
and postsecondary levels developed
through a national collaborative effort
being led by the National Center for
Education Statistics. CEDS focus on
standard definitions, code sets, and
technical specifications of a subset of
key data elements and are designed to
increase data interoperability,
portability, and comparability across
Early Learning and Development
Programs and agencies, States, local
educational agencies, and
postsecondary institutions.
Comprehensive Assessment System
means a coordinated and
comprehensive system of multiple
assessments, each of which is valid and
reliable for its specified purpose and for
the population with which it will be
used, that organizes information about
the process and context of young
children’s learning and development in
order to help Early Childhood Educators
make informed instructional and
programmatic decisions and that
conforms to the recommendations of the
National Research Council reports on
early childhood.
A Comprehensive Assessment System
includes, at a minimum—
(a) Screening Measures;
(b) Formative Assessments;
(c) Measures of Environmental
Quality; and
(d) Measures of the Quality of AdultChild Interactions.
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
53995
Data System Oversight Requirements
means policies for ensuring the quality,
privacy, and integrity of data contained
in a data system, including—
(a) A data governance policy that
identifies the elements that are collected
and maintained; provides for training on
internal controls to system users;
establishes who will have access to the
data in the system and how the data
may be used; sets appropriate internal
controls to restrict access to only
authorized users; sets criteria for
determining the legitimacy of data
requests; establishes processes that
verify the accuracy, completeness, and
age of the data elements maintained in
the system; sets procedures for
determining the sensitivity of each
inventoried element and the risk of
harm if those data were improperly
disclosed; and establishes procedures
for disclosure review and auditing; and
(b) A transparency policy that informs
the public, including families, Early
Childhood Educators, and programs, of
the existence of data systems that house
personally identifiable information,
explains what data elements are
included in such a system, enables
parental consent to disclose personally
identifiable information as appropriate,
and describes allowable and potential
uses of the data.
Early Childhood Educator means any
professional working in an Early
Learning and Development Program,
including but not limited to centerbased and family child care providers;
infant and toddler specialists; early
intervention specialists and early
childhood special educators; home
visitors; related services providers;
administrators such as directors,
supervisors, and other early learning
and development leaders; Head Start
teachers; Early Head Start teachers;
preschool and other teachers; teacher
assistants; family service staff; and
health coordinators.
Early Learning and Development
Program means any (a) State-licensed or
State-regulated program or provider,
regardless of setting or funding source,
that provides early care and education
for children from birth to kindergarten
entry, including, but not limited to, any
program operated by a child care center
or in a family child care home; (b)
preschool program funded by the
Federal Government or State or local
educational agencies (including any
IDEA-funded program); (c) Early Head
Start and Head Start program; and (d) a
non-relative child care provider who is
not otherwise regulated by the State and
who regularly cares for two or more
unrelated children for a fee in a
provider setting. A State should include
E:\FR\FM\30AUN3.SGM
30AUN3
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES3
53996
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 169 / Friday, August 30, 2013 / Notices
in this definition other programs that
may deliver early learning and
development services in a child’s home,
such as the MIECHV; Early Head Start;
and Part C of IDEA.2
Early Learning and Development
Standards means a set of expectations,
guidelines, or developmental milestones
that—
(a) Describe what all children from
birth to kindergarten entry should know
and be able to do and their disposition
toward learning;
(b) Are appropriate for each age group
(e.g., infants, toddlers, and
preschoolers); for English learners; and
for children with disabilities or
developmental delays;
(c) Cover all Essential Domains of
School Readiness; and
(d) Are universally designed and
developmentally, culturally, and
linguistically appropriate.
Early Learning Intermediary
Organization means a national,
statewide, regional, or community-based
organization that represents one or more
networks of Early Learning and
Development Programs in the State and
that has influence or authority over
them. Such Early Learning Intermediary
Organizations include, but are not
limited to, Child Care Resource and
Referral Agencies; State Head Start
Associations; Family Child Care
Associations; State affiliates of the
National Association for the Education
of Young Children; State affiliates of the
Council for Exceptional Children’s
Division of Early Childhood; statewide
or regional union affiliates that
represent Early Childhood Educators;
affiliates of the National Migrant and
Seasonal Head Start Association; the
National Tribal, American Indian, and
Alaskan Native Head Start Association;
and the National Indian Child Care
Association.
Essential Data Elements means the
critical child, program, and workforce
data elements of a coordinated early
learning data system, including—
(a) A unique statewide child identifier
or another highly accurate, proven
method to link data on that child,
including Kindergarten Entry
Assessment data, to and from the
Statewide Longitudinal Data System
and the coordinated early learning data
system (if applicable);
(b) A unique statewide Early
Childhood Educator identifier;
(c) A unique program site identifier;
2 Note: Such home-based programs and services
will most likely not participate in the State’s Tiered
Quality Rating and Improvement System unless the
State has developed a set of tiered Program
Standards specifically for home-based programs
and services.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:57 Aug 29, 2013
Jkt 229001
(d) Child and family demographic
information, including indicators
identifying the criteria that States use to
determine whether a child is a Child
with High Needs;
(e) Early Childhood Educator
demographic information, including
data on educational attainment and
State credential or licenses held, as well
as professional development
information;
(f) Program-level data on the
program’s structure, quality, child
suspension and expulsion rates, staff
retention, staff compensation, work
environment, and all applicable data
reported as part of the State’s Tiered
Quality Rating and Improvement
System; and
(g) Child-level program participation
and attendance data.
Essential Domains of School
Readiness means the domains of
language and literacy development,
cognition and general knowledge
(including early mathematics and early
scientific development), approaches
toward learning, physical well-being
and motor development (including
adaptive skills), and social and
emotional development.
Formative Assessment (also known as
a classroom-based or ongoing
assessment) means assessment
questions, tools, and processes—
(a) That are—
(1) Specifically designed to monitor
children’s progress in meeting the Early
Learning and Development Standards;
(2) Valid and reliable for their
intended purposes and their target
populations; and
(3) Linked directly to the curriculum;
and
(b) The results of which are used to
guide and improve instructional
practices.
High-Quality Plan means any plan
developed by the State to address a
selection criterion or priority in this
notice that is feasible and has a high
probability of successful
implementation and at a minimum
includes—
(a) The key goals;
(b) The key activities to be
undertaken; the rationale for the
activities; and, if applicable, where in
the State the activities will be initially
implemented, and where and how they
will be scaled up over time to
eventually achieve statewide
implementation;
(c) A realistic timeline, including key
milestones, for implementing each key
activity;
(d) The party or parties responsible
for implementing each activity and
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
other key personnel assigned to each
activity;
(e) Appropriate financial resources to
support successful implementation of
the plan;
(f) The information requested as
supporting evidence, if any, together
with any additional information the
State believes will be helpful to peer
reviewers in judging the credibility of
the plan;
(g) The information requested in the
performance measures, where
applicable;
(h) How the State will address the
needs of the different types of Early
Learning and Development Programs, if
applicable; and
(i) How the State will meet the needs
of Children with High Needs.
Kindergarten Entry Assessment means
an assessment that—
(a) Is administered to children during
the first few months of their admission
into kindergarten;
(b) Covers all Essential Domains of
School Readiness;
(c) Is used in conformance with the
recommendations of the National
Research Council 3 reports on early
childhood; and
(d) Is valid and reliable for its
intended purposes and for the target
populations and aligned to the Early
Learning and Development Standards.
Results of the assessment should be
used to inform efforts to close the school
readiness gap at kindergarten entry, to
inform instruction in the early
elementary school grades, and to inform
parents about their children’s status and
involve them in decisions about their
children’s education. This assessment
must not be used to prevent children’s
entry into kindergarten or as a single
measure for high-stakes decisions.
Lead Agency means the State-level
agency designated by the Governor for
the administration of the RTT–ELC
grant; this agency is the fiscal agent for
the grant. The Lead Agency must be one
of the Participating State Agencies.
Low-Income means having an income
of up to 200 percent of the Federal
poverty rate.
Measures of Environmental Quality
means valid and reliable indicators of
the overall quality of the early learning
environment.
3 National Research Council. (2008). Early
Childhood Assessment: Why, What, and How.
Committee on Developmental Outcomes and
Assessments for Young Children, C.E. Snow and
S.B. Van Hemel, Editors. Board on Children, Youth,
and Families, Board on Testing and Assessment,
Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and
Education. Washington, DC: The National
Academies Press. www.nap.edu/
catalog.php?record_id=12446.
E:\FR\FM\30AUN3.SGM
30AUN3
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES3
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 169 / Friday, August 30, 2013 / Notices
Measures of the Quality of AdultChild Interactions means the measures
obtained through valid and reliable
processes for observing how teachers
and caregivers interact with children,
where such processes are designed to
promote child learning and to identify
strengths of and areas for improvement
for early learning professionals.
Participating Program means an Early
Learning and Development Program that
elects to carry out activities described in
the State Plan.
Participating State Agency means a
State agency that administers public
funds related to early learning and
development and is participating in the
State Plan. The following State agencies
are required Participating State
Agencies: The agencies that administer
or supervise the administration of
CCDF, the section 619 of Part B of IDEA
and Part C of IDEA programs, Statefunded preschool, home visiting, Title I
of ESEA, the Head Start State
Collaboration Grant, and the Title V
Maternal and Child Health Services
Block Grant, the State’s Child Care
Licensing Agency, and the State
educational agency. Other State
agencies, such as the agencies that
administer or supervise the
administration of Child Welfare, Mental
Health, Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families (TANF), Community-Based
Child Abuse Prevention, the Child and
Adult Care Food Program, and the Adult
Education and Family Literacy Act, may
be Participating State Agencies if they
elect to participate in the State Plan as
well as the State Advisory Council on
Early Childhood Education and Care.
Program Standards means the
standards that serve as the basis for a
Tiered Quality Rating and Improvement
System and define differentiated levels
of quality for Early Learning and
Development Programs. Program
Standards are expressed, at a minimum,
by the extent to which—
(a) Early Learning and Development
Standards are implemented through
evidence-based activities, interventions,
or curricula that are appropriate for each
age group of infants, toddlers, and
preschoolers;
(b) Comprehensive Assessment
Systems are used routinely and
appropriately to improve instruction
and enhance program quality by
providing robust and coherent evidence
of—
(1) Children’s learning and
development outcomes; and
(2) Program performance;
(c) A qualified workforce improves
young children’s health, social,
emotional, and educational outcomes;
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:57 Aug 29, 2013
Jkt 229001
(d) Culturally and linguistically
responsive strategies are successfully
used to engage families, help them build
protective factors, and strengthen their
capacity to support their children’s
development and learning. These
strategies may include, but are not
limited to, parent access to the program,
ongoing two-way communication with
families, parent education in child
development, outreach to fathers and
other family members, training and
support for families as children move to
preschool and kindergarten, social
networks of support, intergenerational
activities, linkages with community
supports and adult and family literacy
programs, parent involvement in
decision making, and parent leadership
development;
(e) Health promotion practices
include health and safety requirements;
developmental, behavioral, and sensory
screening, referral, and follow up; and
the promotion of physical activity,
healthy eating habits, oral health and
behavioral health, and health literacy
among parents; and
(f) Effective data practices include
gathering Essential Data Elements and
entering them into the State’s Statewide
Longitudinal Data System or other early
learning data system, using these data to
guide instruction and program
improvement, and making this
information readily available to
families.
Screening Measures means age and
developmentally appropriate, valid, and
reliable instruments that are used to
identify children who may need followup services to address developmental,
learning, or health needs in, at a
minimum, the areas of physical health,
behavioral health, oral health, child
development, vision, and hearing.
State means any of the 50 States, the
District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico.
State Plan means the plan submitted
as part of the State’s RTT–ELC
application.
Statewide Longitudinal Data System
means the State’s longitudinal
education data system that collects and
maintains detailed, high-quality,
student- and staff-level data that are
linked across entities and that over time
provide a complete academic and
performance history for each student.
The Statewide Longitudinal Data
System is typically housed within the
State educational agency but includes or
can be connected to early childhood,
postsecondary, and labor data.
Tiered Quality Rating and
Improvement System means the system
through which the State uses a set of
progressively higher Program Standards
to evaluate the quality of an Early
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
53997
Learning and Development Program and
to support program improvement. A
Tiered Quality Rating and Improvement
System consists of four components: (a)
Tiered Program Standards with multiple
rating categories that clearly and
meaningfully differentiate program
quality levels; (b) monitoring to evaluate
program quality based on the Program
Standards; (c) supports to help programs
meet progressively higher standards
(e.g., through training, technical
assistance, financial support); and (d)
program quality ratings that are
publically available; and includes a
process for validating the system.
Workforce Knowledge and
Competency Framework means a set of
expectations that describes what Early
Childhood Educators (including those
working with children with disabilities
and English learners) should know and
be able to do. The Workforce Knowledge
and Competency Framework, at a
minimum, (a) Is evidence based; (b)
incorporates knowledge and application
of the State’s Early Learning and
Development Standards, the
Comprehensive Assessment Systems,
child development, health, and
culturally and linguistically appropriate
strategies for working with families; (c)
includes knowledge of early
mathematics and literacy development
and effective instructional practices to
support mathematics and literacy
development in young children; (d)
incorporates effective use of data to
guide instruction and program
improvement; (e) includes effective
behavior management strategies that
promote positive social and emotional
development and reduce challenging
behaviors; (f) incorporates feedback
from experts at the State’s
postsecondary institutions and other
early learning and development experts
and Early Childhood Educators; and (g)
includes knowledge of protective factors
and effective approaches to partnering
with families and building families’
knowledge, skills, and capacity to
promote children’s health and
development.
Program Authority: Sections 14005
and 14006, of the American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA)
(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 (Title III of
Division F of Pub. L. 112–74, the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012).
Applicable Regulations: (a) The
Education Department General
Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) in
34 CFR parts 74, 75, 77, 79, 80, 81, 82,
E:\FR\FM\30AUN3.SGM
30AUN3
53998
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 169 / Friday, August 30, 2013 / Notices
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.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES3
II. Award Information
Type of Award: Discretionary grants.
Estimated Available Funds: $280
million.
Contingent upon the availability of
funds and the quality of applications,
we may make additional awards in FY
2014 from the list of unfunded
applicants from this competition.
The Department of Education may use
any unused funds from the FY 2013
Race to the Top—District program in the
FY 2013 RTT–ELC competition. The FY
2013 Race to the Top—District
competition will be announced in a
separate notice published in the Federal
Register. Conversely, the Department of
Education may use any unused FY 2013
funds from the RTT–ELC competition in
the FY 2013 Race to the Top—District
competition.
Estimated Range of Awards: $37.5
million–$75 million.
Budget Requirements: To support
States in planning their budgets, the
Departments have developed the
following budget caps for each State. We
will not consider for funding an
application from a State that proposes a
budget that exceeds the applicable cap
set for that State. The Departments
developed the following categories by
ranking every State according to its
share of the national population of
children ages birth through five-yearsold from Low-Income families and
identifying the natural breaks in the
rank order. Then, based on population,
budget caps were developed for each
category.4
Category 1—Up to $75 million—
Florida, New York, Texas.
Category 2—Up to $52.5 million—
Arizona, Georgia, Michigan,
Pennsylvania.
Category 3—Up to $45 million—
Alabama, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Missouri, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Puerto
Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee,
Virginia.
Category 4—Up to $37.5 million—
Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, District
of Columbia, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa,
Kansas, Maine, Mississippi, Montana,
Nebraska, New Hampshire, Nevada,
North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah,
Vermont, West Virginia, Wyoming.
4 Source:
U.S. Department of Commerce, Census
Bureau, 2011. American Community Survey (ACS)
1-year Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS) data.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:57 Aug 29, 2013
Jkt 229001
The State must include in its budget
the amount of funds it intends to
distribute through MOUs, interagency
agreements, contracts, subgrants, or
other mechanisms authorized by State
procurement laws to localities, Early
Learning Intermediary Organizations,
Participating Programs, or other
partners.
The State must set aside $400,000
from its grant funds for the purpose of
participating in RTT-ELC grantee
technical assistance activities facilitated
by ED or HHS.
Estimated Number of Awards: From
three to eight awards.
Note: The Departments are not bound by
any estimates in this notice.
Project Period: Up to 48 months.
III. Eligibility Requirements
States must meet the following
requirements:
(a) The State has not previously
received an RTT–ELC grant.
(b) The Lead Agency must have
executed with each Participating State
Agency a memorandum of
understanding or other binding
agreement that the State must attach to
its application, describing the
Participating State Agency’s level of
participation in the grant. At a
minimum, the MOU or other binding
agreement must include an assurance
that the Participating State Agency
agrees to use, to the extent applicable—
(1) A set of statewide Early Learning
and Development Standards;
(2) A set of statewide Program
Standards;
(3) A statewide Tiered Quality Rating
and Improvement System; and
(4) A statewide Workforce Knowledge
and Competency Framework and
progression of credentials.
(c) There must be an active MIECHV
program in the State, either through the
State under section 511(c) of Title V of
the Social Security Act, as added by
section 2951 of the Affordable Care Act
of 2010 (Pub. L. 111–148), or through an
eligible non-profit organization under
section 511(h)(2)(B).
2. Cost Sharing or Matching: This
program does not require cost sharing or
matching.
3. Supplement-Not-Supplant: This
program involves supplement-notsupplant funding requirements, as
described in program requirement (l).
IV. Application and Submission
Information
1. Address to Request Application
Package: You can obtain an application
package via the Internet or from the
Departments. To obtain a copy via the
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
Internet, use the following address:
www.ed.gov/programs/racetothetopearlylearningchallenge. To obtain a
copy from the Departments, write, fax,
call, or email: Miriam Lund, U.S.
Department of Education, 400 Maryland
Avenue SW., Room 3e330, Washington,
DC 20202–6200. Telephone: (202) 401–
2871. FAX: (202) 260–8969. Email: RTTELC.P3.Competition@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 under Accessible Format
in section VIII of this notice.
2. 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:
September 30, 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 Departments
strongly encourage each potential
applicant to notify us of the applicant’s
intent to submit an application for
funding by emailing Miriam Lund at
RTT-ELC.P3.Competition@ed.gov. This
short email message should provide (1)
The name of the State applying, (2) the
contact person (name, phone number,
and email), and (3) all competitive
preference priorities the applicant
intends to address. Applicants that do
not submit an ‘‘Intent to Apply’’ email
may still apply for funding.
Page Limit: The application narrative
is where the applicant addresses the
selection criteria that reviewers will use
to evaluate applications. We
recommend that the applicant limit its
narrative responses to no more than 150
pages and limit its appendices to no
more than 150 pages. We strongly
request that applicants follow the
recommended page limits. The
following standards are recommended:
• A ‘‘page’’ is 8.5″ x 11″, on one side
only, with 1″ margins at the top, bottom,
and both sides.
• Each page is numbered.
• Line spacing is set to 1.5 spacing,
and the font used is 12 point Times New
Roman.
3. Submission Dates and Times:
E:\FR\FM\30AUN3.SGM
30AUN3
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES3
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 169 / Friday, August 30, 2013 / Notices
Applications Available: August 30,
2013.
Deadline for Notice of Intent to Apply:
September 30, 2013.
Date of Technical Assistance
Planning Workshop: September 10,
2013.
To assist States in preparing the
application and to respond to questions,
ED and HHS intend to host a Technical
Assistance Planning Workshop with
potential applicants on September 10,
2013, to review the priorities,
requirements, and selection criteria for
this competition. To minimize travel
burdens associated with this workshop
and to maximize the number of
potential applicants who can
participate, the Departments will also
broadcast this workshop live at
edstream.ed.gov. The purpose of the
workshop will be to allow teams of
participants responsible for developing
applications to review with Federal
program staff the priorities,
requirements, and selection criteria for
this competition and to ask questions
about the RTT–ELC competition. We
strongly encourage all interested State
applicants to participate in the
workshop, either in Washington, DC.
For those who cannot attend the
workshop in person, a video recording
of the workshop will be available on the
RTT–ELC Web site at www.ed.gov/
programs/racetothetopearlylearningchallenge. The
Departments may host additional
conference calls, workshops, or
Webinars to answer applicant questions
and will be posting Frequently Asked
Questions and responses on the RTT–
ELC Web site. The Departments will
make available all registration
information and additional details for
the September 10, 2013, workshop and
any other technical assistance events on
the RTT–ELC Web site at www.ed.gov/
programs/racetothetopearlylearningchallenge.
Deadline for Transmittal of
Applications: October 16, 2013.
Applications for grants under this
competition must be submitted in
electronic format on a CD or DVD, 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 will not consider an
application that does not comply with
the deadline requirements.
We will provide Congress with the
names of the States that have submitted
applications, and we will post the
names of these States on ED’s Web site.
We will also post all applications
submitted. Therefore, please ensure that
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:57 Aug 29, 2013
Jkt 229001
your application does not include
personally identifiable information,
proprietary information, or other nonpublic information.
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 Departments provide 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
program 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 the end of the
period of availability of these funds,
December 31, 2013.
5. Funding Restrictions: We specify
unallowable costs in section (b) of
Program Requirements in this notice.
We reference additional 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 Departments 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 seven or more business days to
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
53999
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
registration annually. This may take
three or more business days to
complete. Information about SAM is
available at SAM.gov.
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 is not
searchable;
(2) A single file in a .PDF format that
contains all application appendices;
(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.
Applicants should also include all
signed MOUs or other binding
agreements for each Participating State
Agency in the application; 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
Departments for budget reviews).
Each of these items must be clearly
labeled with the applicant’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
Departments are 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 section IV of the application and one
copy of that signed original. The
Departments 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
E:\FR\FM\30AUN3.SGM
30AUN3
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES3
54000
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 169 / Friday, August 30, 2013 / Notices
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 Departments
must receive the application by 4:30:00
p.m., Washington, DC time, on October
16, 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
original of section IV 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 Departments at the following
address: U.S. Department of Education,
Application Control Center, Attention:
CFDA Number 84.412A, 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 section IV on or
before the application deadline date and
time, to the Departments at the
following address: U.S. Department of
Education, Application Control Center,
Attention: CFDA Number 84.412A, 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 § 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
Departments—
(1) You must indicate on the envelope
the CFDA number, including suffix
letter, if any, of the competition under
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:57 Aug 29, 2013
Jkt 229001
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: The selection
criteria for this competition are in the
notice of final priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria for
this program, published elsewhere in
this issue of the Federal Register. We
will use the following selection criteria
to evaluate applications submitted
under the RTT–ELC competition. The
maximum score for all the selection
criteria and competitive preference
priorities is 315 points. The maximum
score for each selection criterion is
indicated in parentheses. The reviewers
will utilize the scoring rubric located in
Appendix A of this notice when
evaluating the following selection
criteria:
Core Areas—Sections (A) (Successful
State Systems) and (B) (High-Quality,
Accountable Programs)
States must address in their
application all of the selection criteria
in the Core Areas—Sections (A)
(Successful State Systems) and (B)
(High-Quality, Accountable Programs).
A. Successful State Systems
(A)(1) Demonstrating past
commitment to early learning and
development. (20 points)
The extent to which the State has
demonstrated past commitment to and
investment in high-quality, accessible
Early Learning and Development
Programs and services for Children with
High Needs, as evidenced by the
State’s—
(a) Financial investment, from five
years ago to the present, in Early
Learning and Development Programs,
including the amount of these
investments in relation to the size of the
State’s population of Children with
High Needs during this time period;
(b) Increasing, from the previous five
years to the present, the number of
Children with High Needs participating
in Early Learning and Development
Programs;
(c) Existing early learning and
development legislation, policies, or
practices; and
(d) Current status in key areas that
form the building blocks for a highquality early learning and development
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
system, including Early Learning and
Development Standards,
Comprehensive Assessment Systems,
health promotion practices, family
engagement strategies, the development
of Early Childhood Educators,
Kindergarten Entry Assessments, and
effective data practices.
Evidence for (A)(1):
• The number and percentage of
children from Low-Income families in
the State, by age.
• The number and percentage of
Children with High Needs from special
populations in the State.
• The number of Children with High
Needs in the State who are enrolled in
Early Learning and Development
Programs, by age, race, and ethnicity.
• Data currently available, if any, on
the status of children at kindergarten
entry (across Essential Domains of
School Readiness, if available),
including data on the readiness gap
between Children with High Needs and
their peers.
• Data currently available, if any, on
program quality across different types of
Early Learning and Development
Programs.
• The number of Children with High
Needs participating in each type of
Early Learning and Development
Program for each of the previous five
years to the present.
• The number of Children with High
Needs participating in each type of
Early Learning and Development
Program for each of the previous five
years to the present.
• The current status of the State’s
Early Learning and Development
Standards, for each of the Essential
Domains of School Readiness, by age
group of infants, toddlers, and
preschoolers.
• The elements of a Comprehensive
Assessment System currently required
within the State by different types of
Early Learning and Development
Programs or systems.
• The elements of high-quality health
promotion practices currently required
within the State by different types of
Early Learning and Development
Programs or systems.
• The elements of a high-quality
family engagement strategy currently
required within the State by different
types of Early Learning and
Development Programs or systems.
• All early learning and development
workforce credentials currently
available in the State, including whether
credentials are aligned with a State
Workforce Knowledge and Competency
Framework and the number and
percentage of Early Childhood
E:\FR\FM\30AUN3.SGM
30AUN3
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES3
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 169 / Friday, August 30, 2013 / Notices
Educators who have each type of
credential.
• The current status of postsecondary
institutions and other professional
development providers in the State that
issue credentials or degrees to Early
Childhood Educators.
• The current status of the State’s
Kindergarten Entry Assessment.
• All early learning and development
data systems currently used in the State.
Performance Measures for (A)(1):
• None required.
(A)(2) Articulating the State’s
rationale for its early learning and
development reform agenda and goals.
(20 points)
The extent to which the State clearly
articulates a comprehensive early
learning and development reform
agenda that is ambitious yet achievable,
builds on the State’s progress to date (as
demonstrated in selection criterion
(A)(1)), is likely to result in improved
school readiness for Children with High
Needs, and includes—
(a) Ambitious yet achievable goals for
improving program quality, improving
outcomes for Children with High Needs
statewide, and closing the educational
gaps between Children with High Needs
and their peers;
(b) An overall summary of the State
Plan that clearly articulates how the
High-Quality Plans proposed under
each selection criterion, when taken
together, constitute an effective reform
agenda that establishes a clear and
credible path toward achieving these
goals; and
(c) A specific rationale that justifies
the State’s choice to address the selected
criteria in each Focused Investment
Area (C), (D), and (E), including why
these selected criteria will best achieve
these goals.
Evidence for (A)(2):
• The State’s goals for improving
program quality statewide over the
period of this grant.
• The State’s goals for improving
child outcomes statewide over the
period of this grant.
• The State’s goals for closing the
readiness gap between Children with
High Needs and their peers at
kindergarten entry.
• Identification of the two or more
selection criteria that the State has
chosen to address in Focused
Investment Area (C).
• Identification of the one or more
selection criteria that the State has
chosen to address in Focused
Investment Area (D).
• Identification of the one or more
selection criteria that the State has
chosen to address in Focused
Investment Area (E).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:57 Aug 29, 2013
Jkt 229001
• For each Focused Investment Area
(C), (D), and (E), a description of the
State’s rationale for choosing to address
the selected criteria in that Focused
Investment Area, including how the
State’s choices build on its progress to
date in each Focused Investment Area
(as outlined in the narrative under
(A)(1) in the application) and why these
selected criteria will best achieve the
State’s ambitious yet achievable goals
for improving program quality,
improving outcomes for Children with
High Needs statewide, and closing the
educational gap between Children with
High Needs and their peers.
Performance Measures for (A)(2):
• None required.
(A)(3) Aligning and coordinating early
learning and development across the
State. (10 points)
The extent to which the State has
established, or has a High-Quality Plan
to establish, strong participation in and
commitment to the State Plan by
Participating State Agencies and other
early learning and development
stakeholders by—
(a) Demonstrating how the
Participating State Agencies and other
partners, if any, will identify a
governance structure for working
together that will facilitate interagency
coordination, streamline decision
making, effectively allocate resources,
and create long-term sustainability, and
describing—
(1) The organizational structure for
managing the grant and how it builds
upon existing interagency governance
structures such as children’s cabinets,
councils, and commissions, if any
already exist and are effective;
(2) The governance-related roles and
responsibilities of the Lead Agency, the
State Advisory Council on Early
Childhood Education and Care, each
Participating State Agency, and the
State’s Interagency Coordinating
Council for Part C of IDEA, and other
partners, if any;
(3) The method and process for
making different types of decisions (e.g.,
policy, operational) and resolving
disputes; and
(4) The plan for when and how the
State will involve representatives from
Participating Programs, Early Childhood
Educators or their representatives,
parents and families, including parents
and families of Children with High
Needs, and other key stakeholders in the
planning and implementation of the
activities carried out under the grant;
(b) Demonstrating that the
Participating State Agencies are strongly
committed to the State Plan, to the
governance structure of the grant, and to
effective implementation of the State
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
54001
Plan, by including in the MOUs or other
binding agreements between the State
and each Participating State Agency—
(1) Terms and conditions that reflect
a strong commitment to the State Plan
by each Participating State Agency,
including terms and conditions
designed to align and leverage the
Participating State Agencies’ existing
funding to support the State Plan;
(2) ‘‘Scope-of-work’’ descriptions that
require each Participating State Agency
to implement all applicable portions of
the State Plan and a description of
efforts to maximize the number of Early
Learning and Development Programs
that become Participating Programs; and
(3) A signature from an authorized
representative of each Participating
State Agency; and
(c) Demonstrating commitment to the
State Plan from a broad group of
stakeholders that will assist the State in
reaching the ambitious yet achievable
goals outlined in response to selection
criterion (A)(2)(a), including by
obtaining—
(1) Detailed and persuasive letters of
intent or support from Early Learning
Intermediary Organizations, and, if
applicable, local early learning councils;
and
(2) Letters of intent or support from
such other stakeholders as Early
Childhood Educators or their
representatives; the State’s legislators;
local community leaders; State or local
school boards; representatives of private
and faith-based early learning programs;
other State and local leaders (e.g.,
business, community, tribal, civil rights,
education association leaders); adult
education and family literacy State and
local leaders; family and community
organizations; representatives from the
disability community, the English
learner community, and entities
representing other Children with High
Needs (e.g., parent councils, nonprofit
organizations, local foundations, tribal
organizations, and community-based
organizations); libraries and children’s
museums; health providers; public
television stations; and postsecondary
institutions.
Evidence for (A)(3)(a) and (b):
• For (A)(3)(a)(1): An organizational
chart that shows how the grant will be
governed and managed.
• Governance-related roles and
responsibilities.
• A copy of all fully executed MOUs
or other binding agreements that cover
each Participating State Agency. (MOUs
or other binding agreements should be
referenced in the narrative but must be
included in the Appendix to the
application).
Evidence for (A)(3)(c)(1):
E:\FR\FM\30AUN3.SGM
30AUN3
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES3
54002
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 169 / Friday, August 30, 2013 / Notices
• A list of every Early Learning
Intermediary Organization and local
early learning council (if applicable) in
the State that indicates which
organizations and councils have
submitted letters of intent or support.
• A copy of every letter of intent or
support from Early Learning
Intermediary Organizations and local
early learning councils.
Evidence for (A)(3)(c)(2):
• A copy of every letter of intent or
support from other stakeholders.
Performance Measures for (A)(3):
• None required.
(A)(4) Developing a budget to
implement and sustain the work of this
grant. (15 points)
The extent to which the State Plan—
(a) Demonstrates how the State will
use existing funds that support early
learning and development from Federal,
State, private, and local sources (e.g.,
CCDF; Title I and II of ESEA; IDEA;
Striving Readers Comprehensive
Literacy Program; State preschool; Head
Start Collaboration funding; MIECHV
program; Title V MCH Block Grant;
TANF; Medicaid; child welfare services
under Title IV (B) and (E) of the Social
Security Act; Statewide Longitudinal
Data System; foundation; other private
funding sources) for activities and
services that help achieve the outcomes
in the State Plan, including how the
quality set-asides in CCDF will be used;
(b) Describes, in both the budget
tables and budget narratives, how the
State will effectively and efficiently use
funding from this grant to achieve the
outcomes in the State Plan, in a manner
that—
(1) Is adequate to support the
activities described in the State Plan;
(2) Includes costs that are reasonable
and necessary in relation to the
objectives, design, and significance of
the activities described in the State Plan
and the number of children to be served;
and
(3) Details the amount of funds
budgeted for Participating State
Agencies, localities, Early Learning
Intermediary Organizations,
Participating Programs, or other
partners, and the specific activities to be
implemented with these funds
consistent with the State Plan, and
demonstrates that a significant amount
of funding will be devoted to the local
implementation of the State Plan; and
(c) Demonstrates that it can be
sustained after the grant period ends to
ensure that the number and percentage
of Children with High Needs served by
Early Learning and Development
Programs in the State will be
maintained or expanded.
Evidence for (A)(4)(a):
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:57 Aug 29, 2013
Jkt 229001
• The existing funds to be used to
achieve the outcomes in the State Plan.
• Description of how these existing
funds will be used for activities and
services that help achieve the outcomes
in the State Plan.
Evidence for (A)(4)(b):
• The State’s budget.
• The narratives that accompany and
explain the budget and describe how it
connects to the State Plan.
Performance Measures for (A)(4):
• None required.
B. High-Quality, Accountable Programs
(B)(1) Developing and adopting a
common, statewide Tiered Quality
Rating and Improvement System. (10
points)
The extent to which the State and its
Participating State Agencies have
developed and adopted, or have a HighQuality Plan to develop and adopt, a
Tiered Quality Rating and Improvement
System that—
(a) Is based on a statewide set of tiered
Program Standards that include—
(1) Early Learning and Development
Standards;
(2) A Comprehensive Assessment
System;
(3) Early Childhood Educator
qualifications;
(4) Family engagement strategies;
(5) Health promotion practices; and
(6) Effective data practices;
(b) Is clear and has standards that are
measurable, meaningfully differentiate
program quality levels, and reflect high
expectations of program excellence
commensurate with nationally
recognized standards that lead to
improved learning outcomes for
children; and
(c) Is linked to the State licensing
system for Early Learning and
Development Programs.
Evidence for (B)(1):
• Each set of existing Program
Standards currently used in the State
and the elements that are included in
those Program Standards (Early
Learning and Development Standards,
Comprehensive Assessment Systems,
Qualified Workforce, Family
Engagement, Health Promotion,
Effective Data Practices, and Other).
• To the extent the State has
developed and adopted a Tiered Quality
Rating and Improvement System based
on a common set of tiered Program
Standards that meet the elements in
selection criterion (B)(1)(a), submit—
Æ A copy of the tiered Program
Standards;
Æ Documentation that the Program
Standards address all areas outlined in
the definition of Program Standards,
demonstrate high expectations of
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
program excellence commensurate with
nationally recognized standards, and are
linked to the States licensing system;
and
Æ Documentation of how the tiers
meaningfully differentiate levels of
quality.
Performance Measures for (B)(1):
• None required.
(B)(2) Promoting participation in the
State’s Tiered Quality Rating and
Improvement System. (15 points)
The extent to which the State has
maximized, or has a High-Quality Plan
to maximize, program participation in
the State’s Tiered Quality Rating and
Improvement System by—
(a) Implementing effective policies
and practices to reach the goal of having
all publicly funded Early Learning and
Development Programs participate in
such a system, including programs in
each of the following categories—
(1) State-funded preschool programs;
(2) Early Head Start and Head Start
programs;
(3) Early Learning and Development
Programs funded under section 619 of
Part B of IDEA and Part C of IDEA;
(4) Early Learning and Development
Programs funded under Title I of ESEA;
and
(5) Early Learning and Development
Programs receiving funds from the
State’s CCDF program;
(b) Implementing effective policies
and practices designed to help more
families afford high-quality child care
and maintain the supply of high-quality
child care in areas with high
concentrations of Children with High
Needs (e.g., maintaining or increasing
subsidy reimbursement rates, taking
actions to ensure affordable copayments, providing incentives to highquality providers to participate in the
subsidy program); and
(c) Setting ambitious yet achievable
targets for the numbers and percentages
of Early Learning and Development
Programs that will participate in the
Tiered Quality Rating and Improvement
System by type of Early Learning and
Development Program (as listed in
(B)(2)(a)(1) through (5) above).
Evidence for (B)(2):
• Any supporting evidence the State
believes will be helpful to peer
reviewers.
Performance Measures for (B)(2)(c):
General goals to be provided at time
of application, including baseline data
and annual targets:
• Number and percentage of Early
Learning and Development Programs
participating in the statewide Tiered
Quality Rating and Improvement
System, by type of Early Learning and
Development Program.
E:\FR\FM\30AUN3.SGM
30AUN3
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES3
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 169 / Friday, August 30, 2013 / Notices
(B)(3) Rating and monitoring Early
Learning and Development Programs.
(15 points)
The extent to which the State and its
Participating State Agencies have
developed and implemented, or have a
High-Quality Plan to develop and
implement, a system for rating and
monitoring the quality of Early Learning
and Development Programs
participating in the Tiered Quality
Rating and Improvement System by—
(a) Using a valid and reliable tool for
monitoring such programs, having
trained monitors whose ratings have an
acceptable level of inter-rater reliability,
and monitoring and rating the Early
Learning and Development Programs
with appropriate frequency; and
(b) Providing quality rating and
licensing information to parents with
children enrolled in Early Learning and
Development Programs (e.g., displaying
quality rating information at the
program site) and making program
quality rating data, information, and
licensing history (including any health
and safety violations) publicly available
in formats that are written in plain
language, and are easy to understand
and use for decision making by families
selecting Early Learning and
Development Programs and families
whose children are enrolled in such
programs.
Evidence for (B)(3):
• Any supporting evidence the State
believes will be helpful to peer
reviewers.
Performance Measures for (B)(3):
• None required.
(B)(4) Promoting access to highquality Early Learning and Development
Programs for Children with High Needs.
(20 points)
The extent to which the State and its
Participating State Agencies have
developed and implemented, or have a
High-Quality Plan to develop and
implement, a system for improving the
quality of the Early Learning and
Development Programs participating in
the Tiered Quality Rating and
Improvement System by—
(a) Developing and implementing
policies and practices that provide
support and incentives for Early
Learning and Development Programs to
continuously improve (e.g., through
training, technical assistance, financial
rewards or incentives, higher subsidy
reimbursement rates, compensation);
(b) Providing supports to help
working families who have Children
with High Needs access high-quality
Early Learning and Development
Programs that meet those needs (e.g.,
providing full-day, full-year programs;
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:57 Aug 29, 2013
Jkt 229001
transportation; meals; family support
services); and
(c) Setting ambitious yet achievable
targets for increasing—
(1) The number of Early Learning and
Development Programs in the top tiers
of the Tiered Quality Rating and
Improvement System; and
(2) The number and percentage of
Children with High Needs who are
enrolled in Early Learning and
Development Programs that are in the
top tiers of the Tiered Quality Rating
and Improvement System.
Evidence for (B)(4):
• Any supporting evidence the State
believes will be helpful to peer
reviewers.
Performance Measures for (B)(4)(c):
General goals to be provided at time
of application, including baseline data
and annual targets:
• Number of Early Learning and
Development Programs in the top tiers
of the Tiered Quality Rating and
Improvement System, by type of Early
Learning and Development Program.
• Number and Percentage of Children
with High Needs who are enrolled in
Early Learning and Development
Programs that are in the top tiers of the
Tiered Quality Rating and Improvement
System, by type of Early Learning and
Development Program.
(B)(5) Validating the effectiveness of
State Tiered Quality Rating and
Improvement Systems. (15 points)
The extent to which the State has a
High-Quality Plan to design and
implement evaluations—working with
an independent evaluator and, when
warranted, as part of a cross-State
evaluation consortium—of the
relationship between the ratings
generated by the State’s Tiered Quality
Rating and Improvement System and
the learning outcomes of children
served by the State’s Early Learning and
Development Programs by—
(a) Validating, using research-based
measures, as described in the State Plan
(which also describes the criteria that
the State used or will use to determine
those measures), that the tiers in the
State’s Tiered Quality Rating and
Improvement System accurately reflect
differential levels of program quality;
and
(b) Assessing, using appropriate
research designs and measures of
progress (as identified in the State Plan),
the extent to which changes in quality
ratings are related to progress in
children’s learning, development, and
school readiness.
Evidence for (B)(5):
• Any supporting evidence the State
believes will be helpful to peer
reviewers.
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
54003
Performance Measures for (B)(5):
• None required.
Focused Investment Areas—Sections
(C), (D), and (E)
Each State must address in its
application—
(1) Two or more of the selection
criteria in Focused Investment Area (C);
(2) One or more of the selection
criteria in Focused Investment Area (D);
and
(3) One or more of the selection
criteria in Focused Investment Area (E).
C. Promoting Early Learning and
Development Outcomes for Children
The total available points that an
applicant may receive for selection
criteria (C)(1) through (C)(4) is 60. The
60 points will be divided by the number
of selection criteria that the applicant
chooses to address so that each selection
criterion is worth the same number of
points. For example, if the applicant
chooses to address all four selection
criteria under this Focused Investment
Area, each criterion will be worth up to
15 points. If the applicant chooses to
address two selection criteria, each
criterion will be worth up to 30 points.
The applicant must address at least
two of the selection criteria within
Focused Investment Area (C), which are
as follows:
(C)(1) Developing and using
statewide, high-quality Early Learning
and Development Standards.
The extent to which the State has a
High-Quality Plan to put in place highquality Early Learning and Development
Standards that are used statewide by
Early Learning and Development
Programs and that—
(a) Includes evidence that the Early
Learning and Development Standards
are developmentally, culturally, and
linguistically appropriate across each
age group of infants, toddlers, and
preschoolers, and that they cover all
Essential Domains of School Readiness;
(b) Includes evidence that the Early
Learning and Development Standards
are aligned with the State’s K–3
academic standards in, at a minimum,
early literacy and mathematics;
(c) Includes evidence that the Early
Learning and Development Standards
are incorporated in Program Standards,
curricula and activities, Comprehensive
Assessment Systems, the State’s
Workforce Knowledge and Competency
Framework, and professional
development activities; and that they
are shared with parents and families
along with suggestions for appropriate
strategies they can use at home to
support their children’s learning and
development; and
E:\FR\FM\30AUN3.SGM
30AUN3
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES3
54004
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 169 / Friday, August 30, 2013 / Notices
(d) Includes evidence that the State
has supports in place to promote
understanding of and commitment to
the Early Learning and Development
Standards across Early Learning and
Development Programs.
Evidence for (C)(1)(a) and (b):
• To the extent the State has
implemented Early Learning and
Development Standards that meet the
elements in selection criteria (C)(1)(a)
and (b), submit—
Æ Proof of use by all types of Early
Learning and Development Programs in
the State;
Æ The State’s Early Learning and
Development Standards for:
—Infants and toddlers
—Preschoolers
Æ Documentation that the standards
are developmentally, linguistically, and
culturally appropriate for all children,
including children with disabilities and
developmental delays and English
learners;
Æ Documentation that the standards
address all Essential Domains of School
Readiness and that they are of high
quality; and
Æ Documentation of the alignment
between the State’s Early Learning and
Development Standards and the State’s
K–3 standards.
Performance Measures for (C)(1):
• None required.
(C)(2) Supporting effective uses of
Comprehensive Assessment Systems.
The extent to which the State has a
High-Quality Plan to support the
effective implementation of
developmentally appropriate
Comprehensive Assessment Systems
by—
(a) Working with Early Learning and
Development Programs to select
assessment instruments and approaches
that are appropriate for the target
populations and purposes;
(b) Working with Early Learning and
Development Programs to strengthen
Early Childhood Educators’
understanding of the purposes and uses
of each type of assessment included in
the Comprehensive Assessment
Systems;
(c) Articulating an approach for
aligning and integrating assessments
and sharing assessment results, as
appropriate, in order to avoid
duplication of assessments and to
coordinate services for Children with
High Needs who are served by multiple
Early Learning and Development
Programs;
(d) Training Early Childhood
Educators to appropriately administer
assessments and interpret and use
assessment data in order to inform and
improve instruction, programs, and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:57 Aug 29, 2013
Jkt 229001
services, and to effectively solicit and
use family input on children’s
development and needs; and
(e) Articulating guidelines and
procedures for sharing assessment data
and results with parents, involving them
in decisions about their children’s care
and education, and helping them
identify concrete actions they can take
to address developmental issues
identified through the assessment
process.
Evidence for (C)(2):
• Any supporting evidence the State
believes will be helpful to peer
reviewers.
Performance Measures for (C)(2):
• None required.
(C)(3) Identifying and addressing the
health, behavioral, and developmental
needs of Children with High Needs to
improve school readiness.
The extent to which the State has a
High-Quality Plan to identify and
address the health, behavioral, and
developmental needs of Children with
High Needs by—
(a) Establishing a progression of
standards for ensuring children’s health
and safety; ensuring that health and
behavioral screening and follow-up
occur; promoting children’s physical,
social, and emotional development
across the levels of its Program
Standards; and involving families as
partners and building parents’ capacity
to promote their children’s physical,
social, and emotional health;
(b) Increasing the number of Early
Childhood Educators who are trained
and supported on an ongoing basis in
meeting the health standards;
(c) Promoting healthy eating habits,
improving nutrition, expanding
physical activity, and providing
information and guidance to families to
promote healthy habits at home;
(d) Leveraging existing resources to
meet ambitious yet achievable annual
targets to increase the number of
Children with High Needs who—
(1) Are screened using Screening
Measures that align with the Medicaid
Early Periodic Screening, Diagnostic
and Treatment benefit (see section
1905(r)(5) of the Social Security Act) or
the well-baby and well-child services
available through the Children’s Health
Insurance Program (42 CFR 457.520),
and that, as appropriate, are consistent
with the Child Find provisions in IDEA
(see sections 612(a)(3) and 635(a)(5) of
IDEA);
(2) Are referred for services based on
the results of those screenings and,
where appropriate, received follow-up;
and
(3) Participate in ongoing health care
as part of a schedule of well-child care,
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
including the number of children who
are up to date in a schedule of wellchild care; and
(e) Developing a comprehensive
approach to increase the capacity and
improve the overall quality of Early
Learning and Development Programs to
support and address the social and
emotional development (including
infant-early childhood mental health) of
children from birth to age five.
Evidence for (C)(3)(a):
• To the extent the State has
established a progression of health
standards across the levels of Program
Standards that meet the elements in
selection criterion (C)(3)(a), submit—
Æ The progression of health standards
used in the Program Standards and the
State’s plans for improvement over time,
including documentation demonstrating
that this progression of standards
appropriately addresses health and
safety standards; developmental,
behavioral, and sensory screening,
referral, and follow-up; health
promotion including healthy eating
habits, improved nutrition, and
increased physical activity; oral health;
social and emotional development;
family involvement and capacitybuilding; and health literacy among
parents and children.
Evidence for (C)(3)(b):
• To the extent the State has existing
and projected numbers and percentages
of Early Childhood Educators who
receive training and support in meeting
the health standards, the State must
submit documentation of these data. If
the State does not have these data, the
State must outline its plan for deriving
them.
Evidence for (C)(3)(c):
• Any supporting evidence the State
believes will be helpful to peer
reviewers.
Evidence for (C)(3)(d):
• Documentation of the State’s
existing and future resources that are or
will be used to address the health,
behavioral, and developmental needs of
Children with High Needs. At a
minimum, documentation must address
the screening and referral of and followup for all Children with High Needs,
and how families will be engaged in the
process; how the State will promote the
participation of Children with High
Needs in ongoing health care as part of
a schedule of well-child care; how the
State will promote healthy eating habits
and improved nutrition as well as
increased physical activity for Children
with High Needs; and how the State will
promote health literacy for children and
parents.
Performance Measures for (C)(3)(d):
E:\FR\FM\30AUN3.SGM
30AUN3
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES3
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 169 / Friday, August 30, 2013 / Notices
General goals to be provided at time
of application, including baseline data
and annual targets:
• Number of Children with High
Needs screened.
• Number of Children with High
Needs referred for services and who
received follow-up/treatment.
• Number of Children with High
Needs who participate in ongoing health
care as part of a schedule of well-child
care.
• Of these participating Children with
High Needs, the number or percentage
of children who are up-to-date in
receiving services as part of a schedule
of well-child care.
Evidence for (C)(3)(e):
• Any supporting evidence the State
believes will be helpful to peer
reviewers.
(C)(4) Engaging and supporting
families.
The extent to which the State has a
High-Quality Plan to provide culturally
and linguistically appropriate
information and support to families of
Children with High Needs in order to
promote school readiness for their
children by—
(a) Establishing a progression of
culturally and linguistically appropriate
standards for family engagement across
the levels of its Program Standards,
including activities that enhance the
capacity of families to support their
children’s education and development
and help families build protective
factors;
(b) Increasing the number and
percentage of Early Childhood
Educators trained and supported on an
ongoing basis to implement the family
engagement strategies included in the
Program Standards; and
(c) Promoting family support and
engagement statewide, including by
leveraging other existing resources, such
as home visiting programs, family
resource centers, family support
networks, and other family-serving
agencies and organizations, and through
outreach to family, friend, and neighbor
caregivers.
Evidence for (C)(4)(a):
• To the extent the State has
established a progression of family
engagement standards across the levels
of Program Standards that meet the
elements in selection criterion (C)(4)(a),
submit—
Æ The progression of culturally and
linguistically appropriate family
engagement standards used in the
Program Standards that includes
strategies successfully used to engage
families in supporting their children’s
development and learning. A State’s
family engagement standards must
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:57 Aug 29, 2013
Jkt 229001
address, but need not be limited to:
Parent access to the program, ongoing
two-way communication with families,
parent education in child development,
outreach to fathers and other family
members, training and support for
families as children move to preschool
and kindergarten, social networks of
support, intergenerational activities,
linkages with community supports and
adult and family literacy programs,
parent involvement in decision making,
and parent leadership development; and
Æ Documentation that this
progression of standards includes
activities that enhance the capacity of
families to support their children’s
education and development.
Evidence for (C)(4)(b):
• To the extent the State has existing
and projected numbers and percentages
of Early Childhood Educators who
receive training and support on the
family engagement strategies included
in the Program Standards, the State
must submit documentation of these
data. If the State does not have these
data, the State must outline its plan for
deriving them.
Evidence for (C)(4)(c):
• Documentation of the State’s
existing resources that are or will be
used to promote family support and
engagement statewide, including
through home visiting programs and
other family-serving agencies and the
identification of new resources that will
be used to promote family support and
engagement statewide.
Performance Measures for (C)(4)
• None required.
D. A Great Early Childhood Education
Workforce
The total available points that a State
may receive for selection criteria (D)(1)
and (D)(2) is 40. The 40 points will be
divided by the number of selection
criteria that the applicant chooses to
address so that each selection criterion
is worth the same number of points. For
example, if the applicant chooses to
address both selection criteria under
this Focused Investment Area, each
criterion will be worth up to 20 points.
If the applicant chooses to address one
selection criterion, the criterion will be
worth up to 40 points.
The applicant must address at least
one of the selection criteria within
Focused Investment Area (D), which are
as follows:
(D)(1) Developing a Workforce
Knowledge and Competency Framework
and a progression of credentials.
The extent to which the State has a
High-Quality Plan to—
(a) Develop a common, statewide
Workforce Knowledge and Competency
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
54005
Framework designed to promote
children’s learning and development
and improve child outcomes;
(b) Develop a common, statewide
progression of credentials and degrees
aligned with the Workforce Knowledge
and Competency Framework; and
(c) Engage postsecondary institutions
and other professional development
providers in aligning professional
development opportunities with the
State’s Workforce Knowledge and
Competency Framework.
Evidence for (D)(1):
• To the extent the State has
developed a common, statewide
Workforce Knowledge and Competency
Framework that meets the elements in
selection criterion (D)(1), submit:
Æ The Workforce Knowledge and
Competency Framework;
Æ Documentation that the State’s
Workforce Knowledge and Competency
Framework addresses the elements
outlined in the definition of Workforce
Knowledge and Competency Framework
in the Program Definitions section of
this notice and is designed to promote
children’s learning and development
and improve outcomes.
Performance Measures for (D)(1)
• None required.
(D)(2) Supporting Early Childhood
Educators in improving their knowledge,
skills, and abilities.
The extent to which the State has a
High-Quality Plan to improve the
effectiveness and retention of Early
Childhood Educators who work with
Children with High Needs, with the goal
of improving child outcomes by—
(a) Providing and expanding access to
effective professional development
opportunities that—
(1) Are aligned with the State’s
Workforce Knowledge and Competency
Framework;
(2) Tightly link training with
professional development approaches,
such as coaching and mentoring; and
(3) Are supported by strong evidence
(e.g., available evaluations,
developmental theory, or data or
information) as to why these policies
and incentives will be effective in
improving outcomes for Children with
High Needs;
(b) Implementing effective policies
and incentives (e.g., scholarships,
compensation and wage supplements,
tiered reimbursement rates, other
financial incentives, management
opportunities) to promote professional
improvement and career advancement
along an articulated career pathway
that—
(1) Are aligned with the State’s
Workforce Knowledge and Competency
Framework;
E:\FR\FM\30AUN3.SGM
30AUN3
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES3
54006
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 169 / Friday, August 30, 2013 / Notices
(2) Tightly link training with
professional development approaches,
such as coaching and mentoring; and
(3) Are supported by strong evidence
(e.g., available evaluations,
developmental theory, or data or
information) as to why these policies
and incentives will be effective in
improving outcomes for Children with
High Needs;
(c) Publicly reporting aggregated data
on Early Childhood Educator
development, advancement, and
retention; and
(d) Setting ambitious yet achievable
targets for—
(1) Increasing the number of
postsecondary institutions and
professional development providers
with programs that are aligned to the
Workforce Knowledge and Competency
Framework and the number of Early
Childhood Educators who receive
credentials from postsecondary
institutions and professional
development providers with programs
that are aligned to the Workforce
Knowledge and Competency
Framework; and
(2) Increasing the number and
percentage of Early Childhood
Educators who are progressing to higher
levels of credentials that align with the
Workforce Knowledge and Competency
Framework.
Evidence for (D)(2):
• Evidence to support why the
proposed professional development
opportunities, policies, and incentives
will be effective in improving outcomes
for Children with High Needs (e.g.,
available evaluations, developmental
theory, or data or information about the
population of Children with High Needs
in the State).
Performance Measures for (D)(2)(d):
General goals to be provided at time
of application, including baseline data
and annual targets:
• (D)(2)(d)(1): Number of
postsecondary institutions and
professional development providers
with programs that are aligned to the
State’s Workforce Knowledge and
Competency Framework, and the
number of Early Childhood Educators
receiving credentials from those aligned
postsecondary institutions or
professional development providers.
• (D)(2)(d)(2): Number and percentage
of Early Childhood Educators who are
progressing to higher levels of
credentials that align with the State’s
Workforce Knowledge and Competency
Framework.
E. Measuring Outcomes and Progress
The total available points an applicant
may receive for selection criteria (E)(1)
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:57 Aug 29, 2013
Jkt 229001
and (E)(2) is 40. The 40 points will be
divided by the number of selection
criteria that the applicant chooses to
address so that each selection criterion
is worth the same number of points. For
example, if the applicant chooses to
address both selection criteria under
this Focused Investment Area, each
criterion will be worth up to 20 points.
If the applicant chooses to address one
selection criterion, the criterion will be
worth up to 40 points.
The applicant must address at least
one of the selection criteria within
Focused Investment Area (E), which are
as follows:
(E)(1) Understanding the status of
children’s learning and development at
kindergarten entry.
The extent to which the State has a
High-Quality Plan to implement,
independently or as part of a cross-State
consortium, a common, statewide
Kindergarten Entry Assessment that
informs instruction and services in the
early elementary grades and that—
(a) Is aligned with the State’s Early
Learning and Development Standards
and covers all Essential Domains of
School Readiness;
(b) Is valid, reliable, and appropriate
for the target population and for the
purpose for which it will be used,
including for English learners and
children with disabilities;
(c) Is administered beginning no later
than the start of the school year ending
during the fourth year of the grant to
children entering a public school
kindergarten; States may propose a
phased implementation plan that forms
the basis for broader statewide
implementation;
(d) Is reported to the Statewide
Longitudinal Data System, and to the
early learning data system, if it is
separate from the Statewide
Longitudinal Data System, as permitted
under and consistent with the
requirements of Federal, State, and local
privacy laws; and
(e) Is funded, in significant part, with
Federal or State resources other than
those available under this grant (e.g.,
with funds available under section 6111
or 6112 of ESEA).
Evidence for (E)(1):
• Any supporting evidence the State
believes will be helpful to peer
reviewers.
Performance Measures for (E)(1):
• None required.
(E)(2) Building or enhancing an early
learning data system to improve
instruction, practices, services, and
policies.
The extent to which the State has a
High-Quality Plan to enhance the State’s
existing Statewide Longitudinal Data
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
System or to build or enhance a
separate, coordinated, early learning
data system that aligns and is
interoperable with the Statewide
Longitudinal Data System, and that
either data system—
(a) Has all of the Essential Data
Elements;
(b) Enables uniform data collection
and easy entry of the Essential Data
Elements by Participating State
Agencies and Participating Programs;
(c) Facilitates the exchange of data
among Participating State Agencies by
using standard data structures, data
formats, and data definitions such as
Common Education Data Standards to
ensure interoperability among the
various levels and types of data;
(d) Generates information that is
timely, relevant, accessible, and easy for
Early Learning and Development
Programs and Early Childhood
Educators to use for continuous
improvement and decision making and
to share with parents and other
community stakeholders; and
(e) Meets the Data System Oversight
Requirements and complies with the
requirements of Federal, State, and local
privacy laws.
Evidence for (E)(2):
• Any supporting evidence the State
believes will be helpful to peer
reviewers.
Performance Measures for (E)(2):
• None required.
2. Review and Selection Process:
The Departments will screen
applications that are received by the
deadline listed in this notice and will
determine which States are eligible
based on whether they have met the
eligibility requirements in paragraphs
(1)(a), (1)(b), and (1)(c) of section III
(Eligibility Information) of this notice;
the Departments will not consider
further those applicants deemed
ineligible under eligibility requirements
in paragraphs (1)(a), (1)(b), and (1)(c) of
that section.
The Departments intend to use a peer
review process with panels of three
reviewers per application. Review
panels will be created based on the
number of applications received.
After the review process is complete,
the selection of grantees will take into
account, consistent with 34 CFR 75.217,
the rank order of applications; each
applicant’s status with respect to the
Absolute Priority and the eligibility
requirements (1)(a), (1)(b), and (1)(c) of
section III (Eligibility Information) of
this notice; and any other relevant
information. In addition, we remind
potential applicants that in reviewing
applications in any discretionary grant
competition, the Secretary of Education
E:\FR\FM\30AUN3.SGM
30AUN3
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 169 / Friday, August 30, 2013 / Notices
may consider, under 34 CFR
75.217(d)(3), the applicant’s past
performance in carrying out a previous
reward, such as the applicant’s use of
funds, achievement of project
objectives, and compliance with grant
conditions, as well as the applicant’s
prior record in submitting timely and
adequate performance reports. All
applicants will receive their reviewers’
comments and scores.
In addition, in making a competitive
grant award, various assurances are
required from grantees, 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).
In addition to considering other
relevant factors (see 34 CFR
75.217(d)(3)), the selection of grantees
may consider the need to ensure that
high-quality early learning and
development systems are developed in
States addressing the needs of children
in rural areas. Awards may be granted
to high-quality applications out of rank
order to meet this need.
We will post all submitted
applications (both successful and
unsuccessful) on ED’s Web site, together
with the final scores each application
received. We will post each reviewer’s
final scores and comments on reviewed
applications, with the names of
reviewers redacted.
3. Special Conditions: Under 34 CFR
74.14 and 80.12, the Secretary of
Education 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.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES3
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); or we may send you an email
containing a link to access an electronic
version of your GAN. We may notify
you informally, also.
If your application is not evaluated or
not selected for funding, ED will notify
the State.
2. Administrative and National Policy
Requirements: We identify
administrative and national policy
requirements in the application package
and reference these and other
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:57 Aug 29, 2013
Jkt 229001
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:
(a) Any State that applies for a grant
under this competition must ensure that
it has in place the necessary processes
and systems to comply with the
reporting requirements in 2 CFR part
170 should it receive funding under the
competition. This does not apply if the
State has an exception under 2 CFR
170.110(b).
(b) A State receiving funds under an
RTT–ELC grant must submit an annual
report that must include, in addition to
the standard elements, a description of
the State’s progress to date on its goals,
timelines, and budgets, as well as actual
performance compared to the annual
targets the State established in its
application with respect to each
performance measure. Further, a State
receiving funds under this program is
accountable for meeting the goals,
timelines, budget, and annual targets
established in the application; adhering
to an annual fund drawdown schedule
that is tied to meeting these goals,
timelines, budget, and annual targets;
and fulfilling and maintaining all other
conditions for the conduct of the
project. The Departments will monitor a
State’s progress in meeting the State’s
goals, timelines, budget, and annual
targets and in fulfilling other applicable
requirements. In addition, we may
collect additional data as part of a
State’s annual reporting requirements.
To support a collaborative process
with the State, we may require that
applicants who are selected to receive
an award enter into a written
performance or cooperative agreement.
If we determine that a State is not
meeting its goals, timelines, budget, or
annual targets or is not fulfilling other
applicable requirements, we will take
appropriate action, which could include
establishing a collaborative process or
taking enforcement measures with
respect to this grant, such as placing the
State in high-risk status, putting the
State on reimbursement payment status,
or delaying or withholding funds.
4. Evidence and Performance
Measures: Evidence and performance
measures for this notice follow directly
after each selection criteria.
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
54007
VII. Agency Contact
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Miriam Lund, U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Ave., SW.,
room 3E330, Washington, DC 20202–
6200. Telephone: 202–401–2871 or by
email: RTT-ELC.P3.Competition@
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 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.
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 these Departments
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
these Departments 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 these
Departments.
Dated: August 26, 2013.
Deborah S. Delisle,
Assistant Secretary for Elementary and
Secondary Education, U.S. Department of
Education.
George H. Sheldon,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Children and
Families, U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services.
Appendix A. Scoring Rubric
I. Introduction
To help ensure inter-reviewer reliability
and transparency for the RTT–ELC
applicants, ED and HHS have created and are
publishing a rubric for scoring State
applications. The pages that follow detail the
rubric and allocation of point values that
reviewers will be using. The rubric will be
used by reviewers to ensure consistency
across and within review panels.
The rubric allocates points to each
selection criterion. In all, the RTT–ELC
scoring rubric includes 17 selection criteria
and four competitive preference priorities.
These collectively add up to 315 points. The
E:\FR\FM\30AUN3.SGM
30AUN3
54008
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 169 / Friday, August 30, 2013 / Notices
selection criteria are divided into two
sections: Core Areas and Focused Investment
Areas.
• Applicants must respond to all of the
selection criteria within each of the two Core
Areas: (A) Successful State Systems and (B)
High-Quality, Accountable Programs.
• Applicants have more flexibility within
each of the Focused Investment Areas: (C)
Promoting Early Learning and Development
Outcomes for Children; (D) A Great Early
Childhood Education Workforce; and (E)
Measuring Outcomes and Progress. In these
sections, applicants may select which
selection criteria to address, focusing on
those that the State believes will have the
most impact on school readiness for its
Children with High Needs, given that State’s
context and the current status of its early
learning and development activities. The
Focused Investment Areas must be addressed
as follows.
Focused Investment Areas
• The applicant must select and address—
At least two selection criteria from Focused
Investment Area (C) Promoting Early
Learning and Development Outcomes for
Children; and
At least one selection criterion from each
of Focused Investment Areas (D) A Great
Early Childhood Education Workforce and
(E) Measuring Outcomes and Progress.
• Each Focused Investment Area (C), (D),
and (E) is worth a specific number of points;
these points will be evenly divided across the
selection criteria that the applicant chooses
to address in that section.
Priorities
Applicants must address the absolute
priority throughout their applications; they
do not write separately to this priority. The
absolute priority must be met in order for an
applicant to receive funding.
Applications that choose to address a
competitive preference priority will earn
extra points under that priority if the
reviewers determine that the response is of
high quality. Applicants may choose to write
to the invitational priority to extend the
scope of the application; applicants are
invited to address this and may apply funds
from this grant to implement activities under
it, but do not earn additional points for doing
so.
Reviewers will be required to make
thoughtful judgments about the quality of the
State’s application and will be assessing,
based on the criteria, the comprehensiveness,
feasibility, and likely impact of the State’s
application. Reviewers will also be asked to
evaluate, for example, the extent to which the
State has set ambitious but achievable annual
targets in its application. Reviewers will also
need to make informed judgments about the
State’s goals, the rationales for the Focused
Investment Areas, the activities the State has
chosen to undertake, and the timelines and
credibility of the State’s plans.
This appendix includes information about
the point values for each criterion and
priority, guidance on scoring, and the rubric
that we will provide to reviewers.
II. Points Overview
The chart below shows the maximum
number of points that are assigned to each
criterion.
Race to the Top-Early Learning Challenge: Points Overview
Points available
A. Successful State Systems
(A)(1) Demonstrating past commitment to early learning and development ..............................................
(A)(2) Articulating the State’s rationale for its early learning and development reform agenda and goals
(A)(3) Aligning and coordinating work across the State .............................................................................
(A)(4) Developing a budget to implement and sustain the work ................................................................
20
20
10
15
Core Area A Subtotal ...........................................................................................................................
65
B. High-Quality, Accountable Programs
(B)(1) Developing and adopting a common, statewide Tiered Quality Rating and Improvement System
(B)(2) Promoting participation in the State’s Tiered Quality Rating and Improvement System .................
(B)(3) Rating and monitoring Early Learning and Development Programs ................................................
(B)(4) Promoting access to high-quality Early Learning and Development Programs ...............................
(B)(5) Validating the State’s Tiered Quality Rating and Improvement System ..........................................
10
15
15
20
15
Core Area B Subtotal ...........................................................................................................................
75
Percent
C. Promoting Early Learning and Development Outcomes for Children
(C)(1) Developing and using statewide, high-quality Early Learning and Development Standards ...........
23
27
60 (divided evenly
across the criteria
addressed)
(C)(2) Supporting effective uses of Comprehensive Assessment Systems ...............................................
(C)(3) Identifying and addressing health, behavioral, and developmental needs ......................................
(C)(4) Engaging and supporting families .....................................................................................................
Focused Investment Area C Subtotal ..................................................................................................
D. A Great Early Childhood Education Workforce
(D)(1) Developing a Workforce Knowledge and Competency Framework and a progression of credentials ...........................................................................................................................................................
60
21
40 (divided evenly
across the criteria
addressed)
(D)(2) Supporting Early Childhood Educators .............................................................................................
Focused Investment Area D Subtotal ..................................................................................................
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES3
E. Measuring Outcomes and Progress
(E)(1) Understanding the status of children at kindergarten entry ..............................................................
40
14
40 (divided evenly
across the criteria
addressed)
(E)(2) Building or enhancing an early learning data system.
Focused Investment Area E Subtotal ..................................................................................................
40
Total Points Available for Selection Criteria .........................................................................................
Competitive Priority 2: Including all Early Learning and Development Programs in the TQRIS ................
Competitive Priority 3: Understanding status of learning and development at kindergarten entry ............
280
10
10
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:57 Aug 29, 2013
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\30AUN3.SGM
30AUN3
14
54009
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 169 / Friday, August 30, 2013 / Notices
Race to the Top-Early Learning Challenge: Points Overview
Points available
Competitive Priority 4: Creating preschool through third grade approaches to sustain improved early
learning outcomes through the early elementary grades ........................................................................
Competitive Priority 5: Addressing the needs of children in rural areas ....................................................
10
5
Grand Total ...........................................................................................................................................
315
III. About Scoring
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES3
Percent
General Notes about Scoring
There are two terms that we use repeatedly
in the notice: High-Quality Plan and
‘‘ambitious yet achievable’’ goals or targets.
These are anchor terms for both applicants to
understand and reviewers to use in guiding
their scoring. We discuss each below.
• A High-Quality Plan. In determining the
quality of a State’s plan for a given selection
criterion or competitive preference priority,
reviewers will assess the extent to which the
plan meets the definition (as provided in the
notice) of a High-Quality Plan, including
whether it is feasible and has a high
probability of successful implementation and
contains the following components—
(a) The key goals;
(b) The key activities to be undertaken; the
rationale for the activities; and, if applicable,
where in the State the activities will be
initially implemented, and where and how
they will be scaled up to achieve statewide
implementation;
(c) A realistic timeline, including key
milestones, for implementing each key
activity;
(d) The party or parties responsible for
implementing each activity and other key
personnel assigned to each activity;
(e) Appropriate financial resources to
support successful implementation of the
plan;
(f) The information requested as supporting
evidence, if any, together with any additional
information the State believes will be helpful
to peer reviewers in judging the credibility of
the plan;
(g) The information requested in the
performance measures, where applicable;
(h) How the State will address the needs
of the different types of Early Learning and
Development Programs, if applicable; and
(i) How the State will meet the needs of
Children with High Needs, as well as the
unique needs of special populations of
Children with High Needs.
Using the information provided to them in
the application, reviewers will assess the
extent to which the proposed plan in a
specific selection criterion is a High-Quality
Plan that is credible, feasible to implement,
and likely to result in the outcomes the State
has put forward.
• Ambitious yet achievable. In determining
whether a State has ambitious yet achievable
goals or targets for a given selection criterion,
reviewers will examine the State’s goals or
targets in the context of the State’s plan and
the evidence submitted (if any) in support of
the plan. Reviewers will not be looking for
any specific targets nor will they necessarily
reward higher targets above lower ones with
higher scores. Rather, reviewers will reward
States for developing goals and targets that,
in light of each State’s plan and the current
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:57 Aug 29, 2013
Jkt 229001
context and status of the work in that State,
are shown to be ‘‘ambitious yet achievable.’’
About Assigning Points
Reviewers will assign points to an
application for each selection criterion in
Core Areas (A) and (B) and for each selection
criterion that the State has chosen to address
within Focused Investment Areas (C), (D),
and (E). Reviewers will also assign points to
the competitive preference priorities. Points
for a selection criterion or priority (e.g., (B)(4)
or Priority 2) are assigned by reviewers for
the totality of the applicant’s response; that
is, reviewers need not divide the total
available points equally across the subcriteria.
Rubric
The following scoring rubric will be used
to guide the reviewers in scoring selection
criteria and priorities. (See ‘‘General Notes
about Scoring’’ for more information about
how reviewers will assess High-Quality Plans
and ‘‘ambitious yet achievable’’ targets and
goals.)
Percentage of
available
points
awarded
(percent)
High-quality response ............
Medium/high-quality response
Medium/low-quality response
Low-quality response .............
80–100
50–80
20–50
0–20
About Priorities
There are three types of priorities in the
RTT–ELC competition.
• Applicants should address the absolute
priority across the entire application and
should not address it separately. It will be
assessed by reviewers after they have fully
reviewed and evaluated the entire
application, to ensure that the application
has met the priority. If an application has not
met the priority, it will be eliminated from
the competition. A State meets the absolute
priority if a majority of reviewers determines
that the State has met the absolute priority.
• Applicants earn points under the
competitive preference priorities in a manner
similar to how they earn points under the
selection criteria.
Æ Priority 2 is worth up to 10 points.
Æ Priority 3 is worth 10 points; all 10
points are earned if the competitive
preference priority is met. A State will earn
competitive preference priority points if a
majority of reviewers determines that the
State has met the competitive preference
priority. No points are earned if a majority of
reviewers determine that the applicant has
not met the competitive preference priority.
A State meets the competitive preference
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
priority by addressing selection criterion
(E)(1) and earning a score of at least 70
percent of the maximum points available for
that criterion.
Æ Priority 4 is worth up to 10 points.
Æ Priority 5 is worth up to 5 points.
• The invitational priority is addressed in
its own separate section. While applicants
are invited to write to the invitational
priority, they will not earn points under the
invitational 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, the
applicants’ overall scores on Core Area (B)
will be used to break the tie.
Appendix B. Participating State Agency
Memorandum of Understanding
Background for Memorandum of
Understanding
Each Participating State Agency identified
in a State’s Race to the Top-Early Learning
Challenge (RTT–ELC) State Plan is required
to enter into a memorandum of
understanding (MOU) or other binding
agreement with the State’s Lead Agency that
specifies the scope of the work that will be
implemented by the Participating State
Agency. The purpose of the MOU or other
binding agreement is to define a relationship
between the Lead Agency and the
Participating State Agency that is specific to
the RTT–ELC competition; the MOU or other
binding agreement is not meant to detail all
typical aspects of grant coordination or
administration.
To support States in working efficiently
with their Participating State Agencies to
affirm each Participating State Agency’s
participation in the State Plan, ED and HHS
have produced a model MOU, which is
attached. This model MOU may serve as a
template for States; however, States are not
required to use it. States may use a document
other than the model MOU, as long as it
includes the key features noted below and in
the model MOU. States should consult with
their State attorneys on what is most
appropriate. States may allow multiple
Participating State Agencies to sign a single
MOU or other binding agreement, with
customized exhibits for each Participating
State Agency, if the State so chooses.
At a minimum, an RTT–ELC MOU or other
binding agreement should include the
following key features, each of which is
described in detail below and exemplified in
the attached model MOU: (i) Terms and
conditions; (ii) a scope of work; and (iii)
authorized signatures.
(i) Terms and conditions: Each
Participating State Agency must sign a
standard set of terms and conditions that
E:\FR\FM\30AUN3.SGM
30AUN3
54010
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 169 / Friday, August 30, 2013 / Notices
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES3
includes, at a minimum, key roles and
responsibilities of the Lead Agency and the
Participating State Agency; State recourse for
non-performance by the Participating State
Agency; and assurances that make clear what
the Participating State Agency is agreeing to
do.
(ii) Scope of work: RTT–ELC MOUs or
other binding agreements must include a
preliminary scope of work (included in the
model RTT–ELC MOU as Exhibit I) that is
completed by each Participating State
Agency. The scope of work must be signed
and dated by an authorized Participating
State Agency official and an authorized Lead
Agency official. In the interest of time and in
consideration of the effort it will take for the
Lead Agency and Participating State
Agencies to develop detailed work plans for
RTT–ELC, the scope of work submitted by
Participating State Agencies and Lead
Agencies as part of a State’s application may
be preliminary. Preliminary scopes of work
must, at a minimum, identify all applicable
portions of the State Plan that the
Participating State Agency is agreeing to
implement and include the required
assurances. (Note that in order for a State to
be eligible for the RTT–ELC competition, the
Lead Agency must have executed with each
Participating State Agency an MOU or other
binding agreement, which the State must
attach to its application and which must
describe the Participating State Agency’s
level of participation in the grant and must
include the required assurances.)
If a State is awarded an RTT–ELC grant,
Participating State Agencies will have up to
90 days to complete final scopes of work,
which must contain detailed work plans that
are consistent with each Participating State
Agency’s preliminary scope of work and with
the State’s grant application, and must
include the Participating State Agencies’
specific goals, activities, timelines, budgets,
and key personnel.
(iii) Authorized Signatures: The signatures
on the MOU or other binding agreement
demonstrate an acknowledgement of the
relationship between the Participating State
Agency and the Lead Agency. With respect
to the relationship between the Participating
State Agency and the Lead Agency, the Lead
Agency’s counter-signature on the MOU or
other binding agreement indicates that the
Participating State Agency’s commitment is
consistent with the requirement that a
Participating State Agency implement all
applicable portions of the State Plan.
Model Participating State Agency
Memorandum of Understanding
This Memorandum of Understanding
(‘‘MOU’’) is entered into by and between
____ (‘‘Lead Agency’’) and ____
(‘‘Participating State Agency’’). The purpose
of this agreement is to establish a framework
of collaboration, as well as articulate specific
roles and responsibilities in support of the
State in its implementation of an approved
Race to the Top-Early Learning Challenge
grant project.
I. ASSURANCES
The Participating State Agency hereby
certifies and represents that it:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:57 Aug 29, 2013
Jkt 229001
(1) Agrees to be a Participating State
Agency and will implement those portions of
the State Plan indicated in Exhibit I, if the
State application is funded;
(2) Agrees to use, to the extent applicable
and consistent with the State Plan and
Exhibit I:
(a) A set of statewide Early Learning and
Development Standards;
(b) A set of statewide Program Standards;
(c) A statewide Tiered Quality Rating and
Improvement System; and
(d) A statewide Workforce Knowledge and
Competency Framework and progression of
credentials.
(Please note that Participating State
Agencies must provide these assurances in
order for the State to be eligible for a Race
to the Top-Early Learning Challenge grant.)
(3) Has all requisite power and authority to
execute and fulfill the terms of this MOU;
(4) Is familiar with the State’s Race to the
Top-Early Learning Challenge grant
application and is supportive of and
committed to working on all applicable
portions of the State Plan;
(5) Will provide a Final Scope of Work
only if the State’s application is funded and
will do so in a timely fashion but no later
than 90 days after a grant is awarded; and
will describe the Participating State Agency’s
specific goals, activities, timelines, budgets,
and key personnel (‘‘Participating State
Agency Plan’’) in a manner that is consistent
with the Preliminary Scope of Work (Exhibit
I), with the Budget included in section VIII
of the State Plan (including existing funds, if
any, that the Participating State Agency is
using for activities and services that help
achieve the outcomes of the State Plan); and
(6) Will comply with all of the terms of the
Race to the Top-Early Learning Challenge
Grant, this agreement, and all applicable
Federal and State laws and regulations,
including laws and regulations applicable to
the Race to the Top-Early Learning Challenge
program, and the applicable provisions of
EDGAR (34 CFR Parts 75, 77, 79, 80, 82, 84,
86, 97, 98, and 99), and the suspension and
debarment regulations in 2 CFR Part 3485.
II. PROJECT ADMINISTRATION
A. PARTICIPATING STATE AGENCY
RESPONSIBILITIES
In assisting the Lead Agency in
implementing the tasks and activities
described in the State’s Race to the Top-Early
Learning Challenge grant application, the
Participating State Agency will:
(1) Implement the Participating State
Agency Scope of Work as identified in
Exhibit I of this agreement;
(2) Abide by the governance structure
outlined in the State Plan;
(3) Abide by the Participating State
Agency’s Budget included in section VIII of
the State Plan (including the existing funds
from Federal, State, private, and local
sources, if any, that the Participating State
Agency is using to achieve the outcomes in
the RTT–ELC State Plan);
(4) Actively participate in all relevant
meetings or other events that are organized
or sponsored by the State, by the U.S.
Department of Education (‘‘ED’’), or by the
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services (‘‘HHS’’);
(5) Post to any Web site specified by the
State, ED, or HHS, in a timely manner, all
non-proprietary products and lessons learned
developed using Federal funds awarded
under the RTT–ELC grant;
(6) Participate, as requested, in any
evaluations of this grant conducted by the
State, ED, or HHS;
(7) Be responsive to State, ED, or HHS
requests for project information including on
the status of the project, project
implementation, outcomes, and any
problems anticipated or encountered,
consistent with applicable local, State, and
Federal privacy laws.
B. LEAD AGENCY RESPONSIBILITIES
In assisting the Participating State
Agencies in implementing their tasks and
activities described in the State’s Race to the
Top-Early Learning Challenge application,
the Lead Agency will:
(1) Work collaboratively with the
Participating State Agency and support the
Participating State Agency in carrying out the
Participating State Agency Scope of Work, as
identified in Exhibit I of this agreement;
(2) Timely award the portion of Race to the
Top-Early Learning Challenge grant funds
designated for the Participating State Agency
in the State Plan during the course of the
project period and in accordance with the
Participating State Agency’s Scope of Work,
as identified in Exhibit I, and in accordance
with the Participating State Agency’s Budget,
as identified in section VIII of the State’s
application;
(3) Provide feedback on the Participating
State Agency’s status updates, any interim
reports, and project plans and products;
(4) Keep the Participating State Agency
informed of the status of the State’s Race to
the Top-Early Learning Challenge grant
project and seek input from the Participating
State Agency, where applicable, through the
governance structure outlined in the State
Plan;
(5) Facilitate coordination across
Participating State Agencies necessary to
implement the State Plan; and
(6) Identify sources of technical assistance
for the project.
C. JOINT RESPONSIBILITIES
(1) The Lead Agency and the Participating
State Agency will each appoint a key contact
person for the Race to the Top-Early Learning
Challenge grant.
(2) These key contacts from the Lead
Agency and the Participating State Agency
will maintain frequent communication to
facilitate cooperation under this MOU,
consistent with the State Plan and
governance structure.
(3) Lead Agency and Participating State
Agency personnel will work together to
determine appropriate timelines for project
updates and status reports throughout the
grant period.
(4) Lead Agency and Participating State
Agency personnel will negotiate in good faith
toward achieving the overall goals of the
State’s Race to the Top-Early Learning
Challenge grant, including when the State
E:\FR\FM\30AUN3.SGM
30AUN3
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 169 / Friday, August 30, 2013 / Notices
Plan requires modifications that affect the
Participating State Agency, or when the
Participating State Agency’s Scope of Work
requires modifications.
D. STATE RECOURSE IN THE EVENT OF
PARTICIPATING STATE AGENCY’S
FAILURE TO PERFORM
If the Lead Agency determines that the
Participating State Agency is not meeting its
goals, timelines, budget, or annual targets, or
is in some other way not fulfilling applicable
requirements, the Lead Agency will take
appropriate enforcement action, which could
include initiating a collaborative process to
attempt to resolve the disagreements between
the Lead Agency and the Participating State
Agency, or initiating such enforcement
measures as are available to the Lead Agency,
under applicable State or Federal law.
III. MODIFICATIONS
This Memorandum of Understanding may
be amended only by written agreement
signed by each of the parties involved, in
consultation with ED and HHS.
IV. DURATION
This Memorandum of Understanding shall
be effective beginning on the date of the last
signature hereon and, if a Race to the TopEarly Learning Challenge grant is received by
the State, ending upon the expiration of the
Race to the Top-Early Learning Challenge
grant project period.
V. SIGNATURES
Authorized Representative of Lead Agency:
lllllllllllllllllllll
Signature
Date
lllllllllllllllllllll
Print Name
Title
Authorized Representative of Participating
State Agency
lllllllllllllllllllll
Signature
Date
lllllllllllllllllllll
Print Name
Title
Exhibit I—Participating State Agency Scope
of Work
The Participating State Agency hereby
agrees to participate in the State Plan, as
described in the State’s application, and
more specifically commits to undertake the
tasks and activities described in detail below.
Selection criterion
Participating party
Type of participation
Example Row—shows an example of criterion (B)(1) for the State agency that
oversees
state-funded
preschool,
IDEA, and Head Start Collab Office
• State-funded preschool
• IDEA preschool special
ed
• Head Start Collab Office
Representatives from each program are
sitting on the state committee to define
statewide QRIS program standards
• Head Start Collab Office
Responsible for cross-walking Head Start
performance standards with the new
program standards
(B)(1)
(B)(2)
(B)(3)
(B)(4)
(B)(5)
(C)(1)
(C)(2)
(C)(3)
(C)(4)
(D)(1)
(D)(2)
(E)(1)
(E)(2)
Signature (Authorized Representative of Lead Agency)
Date
Signature (Authorized Representative of Participating State Agency)
Date
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES3
[FR Doc. 2013–21139 Filed 8–29–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000–01–P
VerDate Mar<15>2010
20:22 Aug 29, 2013
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
54011
E:\FR\FM\30AUN3.SGM
30AUN3
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 169 (Friday, August 30, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53991-54011]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-21139]
[[Page 53991]]
Vol. 78
Friday,
No. 169
August 30, 2013
Part IV
Department of Education
Department of Health and Human Services
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Applications for New Awards; Race to the Top--Early Learning Challenge;
Notice
Federal Register / Vol. 78 , No. 169 / Friday, August 30, 2013 /
Notices
[[Page 53992]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Applications for New Awards; Race to the Top--Early Learning
Challenge
AGENCY: Department of Education and Department of Health and Human
Services.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Overview Information:
Race to the Top--Early Learning Challenge (RTT-ELC)
Notice inviting applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY)
2013.
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 84.412A.
DATES: Applications Available: August 30, 2013.
Deadline for Notice of Intent to Apply: September 30, 2013.
Note: Submission of a notice of intent to apply is optional.
Date of Technical Assistance Planning Workshop: September 10, 2013.
Note: Please refer to the Department of Education's RTT-ELC Web site
(https://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop-earlylearningchallenge/) for meeting details.
Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: October 16, 2013.
Full Text of Announcement
I. Funding Opportunity Description
Purpose of Program: The purpose of the Race to the Top--Early
Learning Challenge (RTT-ELC) program is to improve the quality of early
learning and development and close the educational gaps for Children
with High Needs.\1\ This program focuses on improving early learning
and development for young children by supporting States' efforts to
increase the number of low-income and disadvantaged children in each
age group of infants, toddlers, and preschoolers who are enrolled in
high-quality Early Learning and Development Programs. The program also
supports States' efforts to design and implement an integrated system
of high-quality Early Learning and Development Programs and services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Defined terms are used throughout the notice and are
indicated by capitalization.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The Statutory Context and Program Overview:
Race to the Top--Early Learning Challenge
A critical focus of the U.S. Department of Education (ED) and the
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) (collectively, the
``Departments'') is supporting America's youngest learners and helping
ensure that children, especially Children with High Needs, enter
kindergarten ready to succeed in school and in life. A robust body of
research demonstrates that high-quality Early Learning and Development
Programs can improve young children's health, social-emotional, and
cognitive outcomes; enhance school readiness; and help close the
educational gaps that exist between Children with High Needs and their
peers at the time they enter kindergarten.
To address these gaps, the Departments have identified, as high
priorities, strengthening the quality of existing Early Learning and
Development Programs and increasing access to high-quality Early
Learning and Development Programs for all children, especially for
Children with High Needs.
On May 25, 2011, Secretaries Arne Duncan and Kathleen Sebelius
announced the RTT-ELC, a new $500 million State-level grant competition
authorized under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
(ARRA), as amended. Through the RTT-ELC program, the Departments seek
to help close the educational gaps between Children with High Needs and
their peers by supporting State efforts to build strong systems of
early learning and development that provide increased access to high-
quality programs for the children who need them most.
The RTT-ELC program represents an unprecedented opportunity for
States to focus deeply on their early learning and development systems
for children from birth through age five. Fourteen States have thus far
received RTT-ELC grants and are able to build a more unified approach
to supporting young children and their families--an approach that
increases access to high-quality Early Learning and Development
Programs and helps ensure that children enter kindergarten with the
skills, knowledge, and dispositions toward learning they need to be
successful in school and in life.
In this notice, we announce the specific priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria that the Departments will use in
the FY 2013 RTT-ELC competition. The priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria in this notice are in large part
identical to those in the FY 2011 notice inviting applications (see 76
FR 53564).
The FY 2013 RTT-ELC competition is organized around five key reform
areas representing the foundation of an effective early learning and
development reform agenda focused on school readiness and ongoing
educational success. These areas provide a framework for the
competition's priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection
criteria, and are as follows:
(A) Successful State Systems;
(B) High-Quality, Accountable Programs;
(C) Promoting Early Learning and Development Outcomes for Children;
(D) A Great Early Childhood Education Workforce; and
(E) Measuring Outcomes and Progress.
The first two of these reform areas, (A) and (B), are core areas of
focus for this program (``Core Areas''), and applicants are required to
respond to all selection criteria under these Core Areas. The reform
areas in (C), (D), and (E) are areas where applicants will direct
targeted attention to specific activities that are relevant to their
States' context (``Focused Investment Areas''). Applicants are required
to address each Focused Investment Area but not each of the selection
criteria under them.
Priorities: These priorities are from the notice of final
priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria for this
program, published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.
Absolute Priority: For FY 2013 and any subsequent year in which we
make awards from the list of unfunded applicants from this competition,
this priority is an absolute priority. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(3) we
consider only applications that meet this priority.
This priority is:
Priority 1: Promoting School Readiness for Children with High
Needs.
To meet this priority, the State's application must comprehensively
and coherently address how the State will build a system that increases
the quality of Early Learning and Development Programs for Children
with High Needs so that they enter kindergarten ready to succeed.
The State's application must demonstrate how it will improve the
quality of Early Learning and Development Programs by integrating and
aligning resources and policies across Participating State Agencies and
by designing and implementing a common, statewide Tiered Quality Rating
and Improvement System. In addition, to achieve the necessary
[[Page 53993]]
reforms, the State must make strategic improvements in those areas that
will most significantly improve program quality and outcomes for
Children with High Needs. Therefore, the State must address those
criteria from within each of the Focused Investment Areas (sections (C)
Promoting Early Learning and Development Outcomes for Children, (D) A
Great Early Childhood Education Workforce, and (E) Measuring Outcomes
and Progress) that it believes will best prepare its Children with High
Needs for kindergarten success.
Competitive Preference Priorities: For FY 2013 and any subsequent
year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applicants from
this competition, these priorities are competitive preference
priorities. 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
Priority 2; we award up to an additional 10 points to an application
depending on how well the application meets Priority 4; we award an
additional 10 points (all or none) to an application that meets
Priority 3; and we will award up to an additional 5 points depending on
how well the application meets Priority 5. The maximum score for all of
the competitive preference priorities is 35 points.
Applicants that choose to address Priority 2, Priority 4, and
Priority 5 must provide a narrative in the space provided in the
application, and applicants that choose to address Priority 3 must do
so by writing to selection criterion (E)(1).
These priorities are:
Priority 2: Including All Early Learning and Development Programs
in the Tiered Quality Rating and Improvement System.
Priority 2 is designed to increase the number of children from
birth to kindergarten entry who are participating in programs that are
governed by the State's licensing system and quality standards, with
the goal that all licensed or State-regulated programs will
participate. The State will meet this priority based on the extent to
which the State has in place, or has a High-Quality Plan to implement
no later than June 30th of the fourth year of the grant--
(a) A licensing and inspection system that covers all programs that
are not otherwise regulated by the State and that regularly care for
two or more unrelated children for a fee in a provider setting;
provided that if the State exempts programs for reasons other than the
number of children cared for, the State may exclude those entities and
reviewers will determine whether an applicant has met this priority
only on the basis of non-excluded entities; and
(b) A Tiered Quality Rating and Improvement System in which all
licensed or State-regulated Early Learning and Development Programs
participate.
Priority 3: Understanding the Status of Children's Learning and
Development at Kindergarten Entry.
To meet this priority, the State must, in its application, address
selection criterion (E)(1) and earn a score of at least 70 percent of
the maximum points available for that criterion.
Note: A State will earn all 10 competitive preference priority
points if a majority of reviewers determines that the State has met
the competitive preference priority. A State earns zero points if a
majority of reviewers determines that the applicant has not met the
competitive preference priority.
Priority 4: Creating Preschool through Third Grade Approaches to
Sustain Improved Early Learning Outcomes through the Early Elementary
Grades.
Priority 4 is designed to build upon the State's High-Quality Plan
to improve birth through age five early learning outcomes, and to
sustain and extend improved early learning outcomes through the early
elementary school years, including by leveraging existing Federal,
State, and local resources. The State will meet this priority based on
the extent to which it describes a High-Quality Plan to improve the
overall quality, alignment, and continuity of teaching and learning to
serve children from preschool through third grade through such
activities as--
(a) Enhancing the State's kindergarten-through-third-grade
standards to align them with the State's Early Learning and Development
Standards across all Essential Domains of School Readiness;
(b) Identifying and addressing the health, behavioral, and
developmental needs of Children with High Needs from preschool through
third grade, and building families' capacity to address these needs;
(c) Implementing teacher preparation and professional development
programs and strategies that emphasize developmental science and the
importance of protective factors, pedagogy, and the delivery of
developmentally appropriate content, strategies for identifying and
addressing the needs of children experiencing social and emotional
challenges, and effective family engagement strategies for educators,
administrators, and related personnel serving children from preschool
through third grade;
(d) Implementing model systems of collaboration both within and
between Early Learning and Development Programs and elementary schools
to engage and support families and improve all transitions for children
across the birth through third grade continuum;
(e) Building or enhancing data systems to monitor the status of
children's learning and development from preschool through third grade
to inform families and support student progress in meeting critical
educational benchmarks in the early elementary grades; and
(f) Other efforts designed to increase the percentage of children
who are able to read and do mathematics at grade level by the end of
the third grade.
Priority 5: Addressing the Needs of Children in Rural Areas.
The State will meet this priority based on the extent to which it
describes:
(a) How it will implement approaches to address the unique needs
(e.g., limited access to resources) of children in rural areas,
including rural areas with small populations; and
(b) How these approaches are designed to close educational and
opportunity gaps for Children with High Needs, increase the number and
percentage of Low-Income children who are enrolled in high-quality
Early Learning and Development Programs; and enhance the State's
integrated system of high-quality early learning programs and services.
Invitational Priority: For FY 2013 and any subsequent year in which
we make awards from the list of unfunded applicants from this
competition, this priority is an invitational priority. Under 34 CFR
75.105(c)(1) we do not give an application that meets this invitational
priority a competitive or absolute preference over other applications.
This priority is:
Priority 6: Encouraging Private-Sector Support.
The State will meet this priority based on the extent to which it
describes how the private sector will provide financial and other
resources to support the State and its Participating State Agencies or
Participating Programs in the implementation of the State Plan.
Application Requirements: Each application must meet the following
application requirements:
(a) The State's application must be signed by the Governor or an
authorized representative; an authorized representative from the Lead
Agency; and an authorized representative from each Participating State
Agency.
[[Page 53994]]
(b) The State must submit a certification from the State Attorney
General or an authorized representative that the State's description
of, and statements and conclusions in its application concerning, State
law, statute, and regulation are complete and accurate and constitute a
reasonable interpretation of State law, statute, and regulation.
(c) The State must complete the budget spreadsheets that are
provided in the application package and submit the completed
spreadsheet as part of its application. These spreadsheets should be
included on the CD or DVD that the State submits as its application.
(d) The State must submit preliminary scopes of work for each
Participating State Agency as part of the executed memorandum of
understanding (MOU) or other binding agreement. Each preliminary scope
of work must describe the portions of the State's proposed plans that
the Participating State Agency is agreeing to implement. If a State is
awarded an RTT-ELC grant, the State will have up to 90 days to complete
final scopes of work for each Participating State Agency.
(e) The State must include a budget that details how it will use
grant funds awarded under this competition, and funds from other
Federal, State, private, and local sources to achieve the outcomes of
the State Plan (as described in selection criterion (A)(4)(a)), and how
the State will use funds awarded under this program to--
(1) Achieve its ambitious yet achievable targets for increasing the
number and percentage of Early Learning and Development Programs that
are participating in the State's Tiered Quality Rating and Improvement
System (as described in selection criterion (B)(2)(c)); and
(2) Achieve its ambitious yet achievable targets for increasing the
number and percentage of Children with High Needs who are enrolled in
Early Learning and Development Programs that are in the top tiers of
the State's Tiered Quality Rating and Improvement System (as described
in selection criterion (B)(4)(c)).
(f) The State must provide an overall summary for the State Plan
and a rationale for why it has chosen to address the selected criteria
in each Focused Investment Area, including--
How the State's choices build on its progress to date in
each Focused Investment Area (as outlined in Tables (A)(1)6-13 and the
narrative under (A)(1)); and
Why these selected criteria will best achieve the State's
ambitious yet achievable goals for improving program quality, improving
outcomes for Children with High Needs statewide, and closing the
educational gaps between Children with High Needs and their peers.
(g) The State, within each Focused Investment Area, must select and
address--
Two or more selection criteria within Focused Investment
Area (C) Promoting Early Learning and Development Outcomes for
Children; and
One or more selection criteria within Focused Investment
Areas (D) A Great Early Childhood Education Workforce and (E) Measuring
Outcomes and Progress.
(h) Where the State is submitting a High-Quality Plan, the State
must include in its application a detailed plan that is feasible and
includes, but need not be limited to--
(1) The key goals;
(2) The key activities to be undertaken; the rationale for the
activities; and, if applicable, where in the State the activities will
be initially implemented, and where and how they will be scaled up over
time to eventually achieve statewide implementation;
(3) A realistic timeline, including key milestones, for
implementing each key activity;
(4) The party or parties responsible for implementing each activity
and other key personnel assigned to each activity;
(5) Appropriate financial resources to support successful
implementation of the plan;
(6) The information requested as supporting evidence, if any,
together with any additional information the State believes will be
helpful to peer reviewers in judging the credibility of the plan;
(7) The information requested or required in the performance
measures, where applicable;
(8) How the State will address the needs of the different types of
Early Learning and Development Programs, if applicable; and
(9) How the State will meet the unique needs of Children with High
Needs.
Program Requirements: If a State is awarded an RTT-ELC grant, it
must meet the following requirements:
(a) The State must have an operational State Advisory Council on
Early Childhood Education and Care that meets the requirements
described in section 642B(b) of the Head Start Act (42 U.S.C. 9837(b)).
In addition, the State Advisory Council on Early Childhood Education
and Care must include the State's Child Care and Development Fund
(CCDF) administrator, State agency coordinators from both Part B
section 619 and Part C of the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act (IDEA), and State agency representatives responsible for health and
mental health.
(b) The State must continue to participate in the programs
authorized under section 619 of Part B of IDEA and Part C of IDEA and
in the CCDF program.
(c) States must continue to have an active Maternal, Infant, and
Early Childhood Home Visiting (MIECHV) program (pursuant to section 511
of Title V of the Social Security Act, as added by section 2951 of the
Affordable Care Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-148)) for the duration of the
grant, whether operated by the State or by an eligible non-profit
organization.
(d) The State is prohibited from spending funds from the grant on
the direct delivery of health services.
(e) The State must participate in RTT-ELC grantee technical
assistance activities facilitated by ED or HHS, individually or in
collaboration with other State grantees in order to share effective
program practices and solutions and collaboratively solve problems, and
must set aside $400,000 from its grant funds for this purpose.
(f) The State must--
(1) Comply with the requirements of any evaluation sponsored by ED
or HHS of any of the State's activities carried out with the grant;
(2) Comply with the requirements of any cross-State evaluation--as
part of a consortium of States--of any of the State's proposed reforms,
if that evaluation is coordinated or funded by ED or HHS, including by
using common measures and data collection instruments and collecting
data necessary to the evaluation;
(3) Together with its independent evaluator, if any, cooperate with
any technical assistance regarding evaluations provided by ED or HHS.
The purpose of this technical assistance will be to ensure that the
validation of the State's Tiered Quality Rating and Improvement System
and any other evaluations conducted by States or their independent
evaluators, if any, are of the highest quality and to encourage
commonality in approaches where such commonality is feasible and
useful;
(4) Submit to ED and HHS for review and comment its design for the
validation of its Tiered Quality Rating and Improvement System (as
described in selection criterion (B)(5)) and any other evaluations of
activities included in the State Plan, including any activities that
are part of the State's
[[Page 53995]]
Focused Investment Areas, as applicable; and
(5) Make widely available through formal (e.g., peer-reviewed
journals) or informal (e.g., newsletters) mechanisms, and in print or
electronically, the results of any evaluations it conducts of its
funded activities.
(g) The State must have a longitudinal data system that includes
the 12 elements described in section 6401(e)(2)(D) of the America
COMPETES Act by the date required under the State Fiscal Stabilization
Fund (SFSF) grant and in accordance with Indicator (b)(1) of its
approved SFSF plan.
(h) The State must comply with the requirements of all applicable
Federal, State, and local privacy laws, including the requirements of
the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, the Health Insurance
Portability Accountability Act, and the privacy requirements in IDEA,
and their applicable regulations.
(i) The State must ensure that the grant activities are implemented
in accordance with all applicable Federal, State, and local laws.
(j) The State must provide researchers with access, consistent with
the requirements of all applicable Federal, State, and local privacy
laws, to data from its Tiered Quality Rating and Improvement System and
from the Statewide Longitudinal Data System and the State's coordinated
early learning data system (if applicable) so that they can analyze the
State's quality improvement efforts and answer key policy and practice
questions.
(k) Unless otherwise protected as proprietary information by
Federal or State law or a specific written agreement, the State must
make any work (e.g., materials, tools, processes, systems) developed
under its grant freely available to the public, including by posting
the work on a Web site identified or sponsored by ED or HHS. Any Web
sites developed under this grant must meet government or industry-
recognized standards for accessibility (www.section508.gov/).
(l) Funds made available under an RTT-ELC grant must be used to
supplement, not supplant, any Federal, State, or local funds that, in
the absence of the funds awarded under this grant, would be available
for increasing access to and improving the quality of Early Learning
and Development Programs.
(m) For a State that is awarded an RTT-ELC grant, the State will
have up to 90 days from the grant award notification date to complete
final scopes of work for each Participating State Agency. These final
scopes of work must contain detailed work plans that are consistent
with their corresponding preliminary scopes of work and with the
State's grant application, and must include the Participating State
Agency's specific goals, activities, timelines, budgets, key personnel,
and annual targets for key performance measures for the portions of the
State's proposed plans that the Participating State Agency is agreeing
to implement.
Program Definitions:
Children with High Needs means children from birth through
kindergarten entry who are from Low-Income families or otherwise in
need of special assistance and support, including children who have
disabilities or developmental delays; who are English learners; who
reside on ``Indian lands'' as that term is defined by section 8013(7)
of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended
(ESEA); who are migrant, homeless, or in foster care; and other
children as identified by the State.
Common Education Data Standards (CEDS) means voluntary, common
standards for a key set of education data elements (e.g., demographics,
program participation, transition, course information) at the early
learning, K-12, and postsecondary levels developed through a national
collaborative effort being led by the National Center for Education
Statistics. CEDS focus on standard definitions, code sets, and
technical specifications of a subset of key data elements and are
designed to increase data interoperability, portability, and
comparability across Early Learning and Development Programs and
agencies, States, local educational agencies, and postsecondary
institutions.
Comprehensive Assessment System means a coordinated and
comprehensive system of multiple assessments, each of which is valid
and reliable for its specified purpose and for the population with
which it will be used, that organizes information about the process and
context of young children's learning and development in order to help
Early Childhood Educators make informed instructional and programmatic
decisions and that conforms to the recommendations of the National
Research Council reports on early childhood.
A Comprehensive Assessment System includes, at a minimum--
(a) Screening Measures;
(b) Formative Assessments;
(c) Measures of Environmental Quality; and
(d) Measures of the Quality of Adult-Child Interactions.
Data System Oversight Requirements means policies for ensuring the
quality, privacy, and integrity of data contained in a data system,
including--
(a) A data governance policy that identifies the elements that are
collected and maintained; provides for training on internal controls to
system users; establishes who will have access to the data in the
system and how the data may be used; sets appropriate internal controls
to restrict access to only authorized users; sets criteria for
determining the legitimacy of data requests; establishes processes that
verify the accuracy, completeness, and age of the data elements
maintained in the system; sets procedures for determining the
sensitivity of each inventoried element and the risk of harm if those
data were improperly disclosed; and establishes procedures for
disclosure review and auditing; and
(b) A transparency policy that informs the public, including
families, Early Childhood Educators, and programs, of the existence of
data systems that house personally identifiable information, explains
what data elements are included in such a system, enables parental
consent to disclose personally identifiable information as appropriate,
and describes allowable and potential uses of the data.
Early Childhood Educator means any professional working in an Early
Learning and Development Program, including but not limited to center-
based and family child care providers; infant and toddler specialists;
early intervention specialists and early childhood special educators;
home visitors; related services providers; administrators such as
directors, supervisors, and other early learning and development
leaders; Head Start teachers; Early Head Start teachers; preschool and
other teachers; teacher assistants; family service staff; and health
coordinators.
Early Learning and Development Program means any (a) State-licensed
or State-regulated program or provider, regardless of setting or
funding source, that provides early care and education for children
from birth to kindergarten entry, including, but not limited to, any
program operated by a child care center or in a family child care home;
(b) preschool program funded by the Federal Government or State or
local educational agencies (including any IDEA-funded program); (c)
Early Head Start and Head Start program; and (d) a non-relative child
care provider who is not otherwise regulated by the State and who
regularly cares for two or more unrelated children for a fee in a
provider setting. A State should include
[[Page 53996]]
in this definition other programs that may deliver early learning and
development services in a child's home, such as the MIECHV; Early Head
Start; and Part C of IDEA.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Note: Such home-based programs and services will most likely
not participate in the State's Tiered Quality Rating and Improvement
System unless the State has developed a set of tiered Program
Standards specifically for home-based programs and services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Early Learning and Development Standards means a set of
expectations, guidelines, or developmental milestones that--
(a) Describe what all children from birth to kindergarten entry
should know and be able to do and their disposition toward learning;
(b) Are appropriate for each age group (e.g., infants, toddlers,
and preschoolers); for English learners; and for children with
disabilities or developmental delays;
(c) Cover all Essential Domains of School Readiness; and
(d) Are universally designed and developmentally, culturally, and
linguistically appropriate.
Early Learning Intermediary Organization means a national,
statewide, regional, or community-based organization that represents
one or more networks of Early Learning and Development Programs in the
State and that has influence or authority over them. Such Early
Learning Intermediary Organizations include, but are not limited to,
Child Care Resource and Referral Agencies; State Head Start
Associations; Family Child Care Associations; State affiliates of the
National Association for the Education of Young Children; State
affiliates of the Council for Exceptional Children's Division of Early
Childhood; statewide or regional union affiliates that represent Early
Childhood Educators; affiliates of the National Migrant and Seasonal
Head Start Association; the National Tribal, American Indian, and
Alaskan Native Head Start Association; and the National Indian Child
Care Association.
Essential Data Elements means the critical child, program, and
workforce data elements of a coordinated early learning data system,
including--
(a) A unique statewide child identifier or another highly accurate,
proven method to link data on that child, including Kindergarten Entry
Assessment data, to and from the Statewide Longitudinal Data System and
the coordinated early learning data system (if applicable);
(b) A unique statewide Early Childhood Educator identifier;
(c) A unique program site identifier;
(d) Child and family demographic information, including indicators
identifying the criteria that States use to determine whether a child
is a Child with High Needs;
(e) Early Childhood Educator demographic information, including
data on educational attainment and State credential or licenses held,
as well as professional development information;
(f) Program-level data on the program's structure, quality, child
suspension and expulsion rates, staff retention, staff compensation,
work environment, and all applicable data reported as part of the
State's Tiered Quality Rating and Improvement System; and
(g) Child-level program participation and attendance data.
Essential Domains of School Readiness means the domains of language
and literacy development, cognition and general knowledge (including
early mathematics and early scientific development), approaches toward
learning, physical well-being and motor development (including adaptive
skills), and social and emotional development.
Formative Assessment (also known as a classroom-based or ongoing
assessment) means assessment questions, tools, and processes--
(a) That are--
(1) Specifically designed to monitor children's progress in meeting
the Early Learning and Development Standards;
(2) Valid and reliable for their intended purposes and their target
populations; and
(3) Linked directly to the curriculum; and
(b) The results of which are used to guide and improve
instructional practices.
High-Quality Plan means any plan developed by the State to address
a selection criterion or priority in this notice that is feasible and
has a high probability of successful implementation and at a minimum
includes--
(a) The key goals;
(b) The key activities to be undertaken; the rationale for the
activities; and, if applicable, where in the State the activities will
be initially implemented, and where and how they will be scaled up over
time to eventually achieve statewide implementation;
(c) A realistic timeline, including key milestones, for
implementing each key activity;
(d) The party or parties responsible for implementing each activity
and other key personnel assigned to each activity;
(e) Appropriate financial resources to support successful
implementation of the plan;
(f) The information requested as supporting evidence, if any,
together with any additional information the State believes will be
helpful to peer reviewers in judging the credibility of the plan;
(g) The information requested in the performance measures, where
applicable;
(h) How the State will address the needs of the different types of
Early Learning and Development Programs, if applicable; and
(i) How the State will meet the needs of Children with High Needs.
Kindergarten Entry Assessment means an assessment that--
(a) Is administered to children during the first few months of
their admission into kindergarten;
(b) Covers all Essential Domains of School Readiness;
(c) Is used in conformance with the recommendations of the National
Research Council \3\ reports on early childhood; and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ National Research Council. (2008). Early Childhood
Assessment: Why, What, and How. Committee on Developmental Outcomes
and Assessments for Young Children, C.E. Snow and S.B. Van Hemel,
Editors. Board on Children, Youth, and Families, Board on Testing
and Assessment, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and
Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12446.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(d) Is valid and reliable for its intended purposes and for the
target populations and aligned to the Early Learning and Development
Standards.
Results of the assessment should be used to inform efforts to close
the school readiness gap at kindergarten entry, to inform instruction
in the early elementary school grades, and to inform parents about
their children's status and involve them in decisions about their
children's education. This assessment must not be used to prevent
children's entry into kindergarten or as a single measure for high-
stakes decisions.
Lead Agency means the State-level agency designated by the Governor
for the administration of the RTT-ELC grant; this agency is the fiscal
agent for the grant. The Lead Agency must be one of the Participating
State Agencies.
Low-Income means having an income of up to 200 percent of the
Federal poverty rate.
Measures of Environmental Quality means valid and reliable
indicators of the overall quality of the early learning environment.
[[Page 53997]]
Measures of the Quality of Adult-Child Interactions means the
measures obtained through valid and reliable processes for observing
how teachers and caregivers interact with children, where such
processes are designed to promote child learning and to identify
strengths of and areas for improvement for early learning
professionals.
Participating Program means an Early Learning and Development
Program that elects to carry out activities described in the State
Plan.
Participating State Agency means a State agency that administers
public funds related to early learning and development and is
participating in the State Plan. The following State agencies are
required Participating State Agencies: The agencies that administer or
supervise the administration of CCDF, the section 619 of Part B of IDEA
and Part C of IDEA programs, State-funded preschool, home visiting,
Title I of ESEA, the Head Start State Collaboration Grant, and the
Title V Maternal and Child Health Services Block Grant, the State's
Child Care Licensing Agency, and the State educational agency. Other
State agencies, such as the agencies that administer or supervise the
administration of Child Welfare, Mental Health, Temporary Assistance
for Needy Families (TANF), Community-Based Child Abuse Prevention, the
Child and Adult Care Food Program, and the Adult Education and Family
Literacy Act, may be Participating State Agencies if they elect to
participate in the State Plan as well as the State Advisory Council on
Early Childhood Education and Care.
Program Standards means the standards that serve as the basis for a
Tiered Quality Rating and Improvement System and define differentiated
levels of quality for Early Learning and Development Programs. Program
Standards are expressed, at a minimum, by the extent to which--
(a) Early Learning and Development Standards are implemented
through evidence-based activities, interventions, or curricula that are
appropriate for each age group of infants, toddlers, and preschoolers;
(b) Comprehensive Assessment Systems are used routinely and
appropriately to improve instruction and enhance program quality by
providing robust and coherent evidence of--
(1) Children's learning and development outcomes; and
(2) Program performance;
(c) A qualified workforce improves young children's health, social,
emotional, and educational outcomes;
(d) Culturally and linguistically responsive strategies are
successfully used to engage families, help them build protective
factors, and strengthen their capacity to support their children's
development and learning. These strategies may include, but are not
limited to, parent access to the program, ongoing two-way communication
with families, parent education in child development, outreach to
fathers and other family members, training and support for families as
children move to preschool and kindergarten, social networks of
support, intergenerational activities, linkages with community supports
and adult and family literacy programs, parent involvement in decision
making, and parent leadership development;
(e) Health promotion practices include health and safety
requirements; developmental, behavioral, and sensory screening,
referral, and follow up; and the promotion of physical activity,
healthy eating habits, oral health and behavioral health, and health
literacy among parents; and
(f) Effective data practices include gathering Essential Data
Elements and entering them into the State's Statewide Longitudinal Data
System or other early learning data system, using these data to guide
instruction and program improvement, and making this information
readily available to families.
Screening Measures means age and developmentally appropriate,
valid, and reliable instruments that are used to identify children who
may need follow-up services to address developmental, learning, or
health needs in, at a minimum, the areas of physical health, behavioral
health, oral health, child development, vision, and hearing.
State means any of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and
Puerto Rico.
State Plan means the plan submitted as part of the State's RTT-ELC
application.
Statewide Longitudinal Data System means the State's longitudinal
education data system that collects and maintains detailed, high-
quality, student- and staff-level data that are linked across entities
and that over time provide a complete academic and performance history
for each student. The Statewide Longitudinal Data System is typically
housed within the State educational agency but includes or can be
connected to early childhood, postsecondary, and labor data.
Tiered Quality Rating and Improvement System means the system
through which the State uses a set of progressively higher Program
Standards to evaluate the quality of an Early Learning and Development
Program and to support program improvement. A Tiered Quality Rating and
Improvement System consists of four components: (a) Tiered Program
Standards with multiple rating categories that clearly and meaningfully
differentiate program quality levels; (b) monitoring to evaluate
program quality based on the Program Standards; (c) supports to help
programs meet progressively higher standards (e.g., through training,
technical assistance, financial support); and (d) program quality
ratings that are publically available; and includes a process for
validating the system.
Workforce Knowledge and Competency Framework means a set of
expectations that describes what Early Childhood Educators (including
those working with children with disabilities and English learners)
should know and be able to do. The Workforce Knowledge and Competency
Framework, at a minimum, (a) Is evidence based; (b) incorporates
knowledge and application of the State's Early Learning and Development
Standards, the Comprehensive Assessment Systems, child development,
health, and culturally and linguistically appropriate strategies for
working with families; (c) includes knowledge of early mathematics and
literacy development and effective instructional practices to support
mathematics and literacy development in young children; (d)
incorporates effective use of data to guide instruction and program
improvement; (e) includes effective behavior management strategies that
promote positive social and emotional development and reduce
challenging behaviors; (f) incorporates feedback from experts at the
State's postsecondary institutions and other early learning and
development experts and Early Childhood Educators; and (g) includes
knowledge of protective factors and effective approaches to partnering
with families and building families' knowledge, skills, and capacity to
promote children's health and development.
Program Authority: Sections 14005 and 14006, of the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) (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 (Title III of
Division F of Pub. L. 112-74, the Consolidated Appropriations Act,
2012).
Applicable Regulations: (a) The Education Department General
Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) in 34 CFR parts 74, 75, 77, 79, 80,
81, 82,
[[Page 53998]]
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.
II. Award Information
Type of Award: Discretionary grants.
Estimated Available Funds: $280 million.
Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of
applications, we may make additional awards in FY 2014 from the list of
unfunded applicants from this competition.
The Department of Education may use any unused funds from the FY
2013 Race to the Top--District program in the FY 2013 RTT-ELC
competition. The FY 2013 Race to the Top--District competition will be
announced in a separate notice published in the Federal Register.
Conversely, the Department of Education may use any unused FY 2013
funds from the RTT-ELC competition in the FY 2013 Race to the Top--
District competition.
Estimated Range of Awards: $37.5 million-$75 million.
Budget Requirements: To support States in planning their budgets,
the Departments have developed the following budget caps for each
State. We will not consider for funding an application from a State
that proposes a budget that exceeds the applicable cap set for that
State. The Departments developed the following categories by ranking
every State according to its share of the national population of
children ages birth through five-years-old from Low-Income families and
identifying the natural breaks in the rank order. Then, based on
population, budget caps were developed for each category.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, 2011.
American Community Survey (ACS) 1-year Public Use Microdata Sample
(PUMS) data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category 1--Up to $75 million--Florida, New York, Texas.
Category 2--Up to $52.5 million--Arizona, Georgia, Michigan,
Pennsylvania.
Category 3--Up to $45 million--Alabama, Indiana, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Missouri, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Puerto Rico, South Carolina,
Tennessee, Virginia.
Category 4--Up to $37.5 million--Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut,
District of Columbia, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Mississippi,
Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Nevada, North Dakota, South Dakota,
Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, Wyoming.
The State must include in its budget the amount of funds it intends
to distribute through MOUs, interagency agreements, contracts,
subgrants, or other mechanisms authorized by State procurement laws to
localities, Early Learning Intermediary Organizations, Participating
Programs, or other partners.
The State must set aside $400,000 from its grant funds for the
purpose of participating in RTT-ELC grantee technical assistance
activities facilitated by ED or HHS.
Estimated Number of Awards: From three to eight awards.
Note: The Departments are not bound by any estimates in this
notice.
Project Period: Up to 48 months.
III. Eligibility Requirements
States must meet the following requirements:
(a) The State has not previously received an RTT-ELC grant.
(b) The Lead Agency must have executed with each Participating
State Agency a memorandum of understanding or other binding agreement
that the State must attach to its application, describing the
Participating State Agency's level of participation in the grant. At a
minimum, the MOU or other binding agreement must include an assurance
that the Participating State Agency agrees to use, to the extent
applicable--
(1) A set of statewide Early Learning and Development Standards;
(2) A set of statewide Program Standards;
(3) A statewide Tiered Quality Rating and Improvement System; and
(4) A statewide Workforce Knowledge and Competency Framework and
progression of credentials.
(c) There must be an active MIECHV program in the State, either
through the State under section 511(c) of Title V of the Social
Security Act, as added by section 2951 of the Affordable Care Act of
2010 (Pub. L. 111-148), or through an eligible non-profit organization
under section 511(h)(2)(B).
2. Cost Sharing or Matching: This program does not require cost
sharing or matching.
3. Supplement-Not-Supplant: This program involves supplement-not-
supplant funding requirements, as described in program requirement (l).
IV. Application and Submission Information
1. Address to Request Application Package: You can obtain an
application package via the Internet or from the Departments. To obtain
a copy via the Internet, use the following address: www.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop-earlylearningchallenge. To obtain a copy from the
Departments, write, fax, call, or email: Miriam Lund, U.S. Department
of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 3e330, Washington, DC
20202-6200. Telephone: (202) 401-2871. FAX: (202) 260-8969. Email: RTT-ELC.P3.Competition@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 under
Accessible Format in section VIII of this notice.
2. 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: September 30, 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
Departments strongly encourage each potential applicant to notify us of
the applicant's intent to submit an application for funding by emailing
Miriam Lund at RTT-ELC.P3.Competition@ed.gov. This short email message
should provide (1) The name of the State applying, (2) the contact
person (name, phone number, and email), and (3) all competitive
preference priorities the applicant intends to address. Applicants that
do not submit an ``Intent to Apply'' email may still apply for funding.
Page Limit: The application narrative is where the applicant
addresses the selection criteria that reviewers will use to evaluate
applications. We recommend that the applicant limit its narrative
responses to no more than 150 pages and limit its appendices to no more
than 150 pages. We strongly request that applicants follow the
recommended page limits. The following standards are recommended:
A ``page'' is 8.5'' x 11'', on one side only, with 1''
margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.
Each page is numbered.
Line spacing is set to 1.5 spacing, and the font used is
12 point Times New Roman.
3. Submission Dates and Times:
[[Page 53999]]
Applications Available: August 30, 2013.
Deadline for Notice of Intent to Apply: September 30, 2013.
Date of Technical Assistance Planning Workshop: September 10, 2013.
To assist States in preparing the application and to respond to
questions, ED and HHS intend to host a Technical Assistance Planning
Workshop with potential applicants on September 10, 2013, to review the
priorities, requirements, and selection criteria for this competition.
To minimize travel burdens associated with this workshop and to
maximize the number of potential applicants who can participate, the
Departments will also broadcast this workshop live at edstream.ed.gov.
The purpose of the workshop will be to allow teams of participants
responsible for developing applications to review with Federal program
staff the priorities, requirements, and selection criteria for this
competition and to ask questions about the RTT-ELC competition. We
strongly encourage all interested State applicants to participate in
the workshop, either in Washington, DC. For those who cannot attend the
workshop in person, a video recording of the workshop will be available
on the RTT-ELC Web site at www.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop-earlylearningchallenge. The Departments may host additional conference
calls, workshops, or Webinars to answer applicant questions and will be
posting Frequently Asked Questions and responses on the RTT-ELC Web
site. The Departments will make available all registration information
and additional details for the September 10, 2013, workshop and any
other technical assistance events on the RTT-ELC Web site at
www.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop-earlylearningchallenge.
Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: October 16, 2013.
Applications for grants under this competition must be submitted in
electronic format on a CD or DVD, 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 will not consider an
application that does not comply with the deadline requirements.
We will provide Congress with the names of the States that have
submitted applications, and we will post the names of these States on
ED's Web site. We will also post all applications submitted. Therefore,
please ensure that your application does not include personally
identifiable information, proprietary information, or other non-public
information.
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 Departments provide 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 program 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 the end of the period of availability of these funds, December 31,
2013.
5. Funding Restrictions: We specify unallowable costs in section
(b) of Program Requirements in this notice. We reference additional
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 Departments 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 seven 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 registration annually. This may take three or more
business days to complete. Information about SAM is available at
SAM.gov.
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 is not searchable;
(2) A single file in a .PDF format that contains all application
appendices;
(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. Applicants should also include all signed MOUs or other
binding agreements for each Participating State Agency in the
application; 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 Departments for budget reviews).
Each of these items must be clearly labeled with the applicant'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
Departments are 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 section IV of the application and one copy of that signed
original. The Departments 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
[[Page 54000]]
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 Departments must receive the application
by 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on October 16, 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 original of
section IV 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 Departments
at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application
Control Center, Attention: CFDA Number 84.412A, 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 section IV on or before
the application deadline date and time, to the Departments at the
following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control
Center, Attention: CFDA Number 84.412A, 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 Departments--
(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: The selection criteria for this competition
are in the notice of final priorities, requirements, definitions, and
selection criteria for this program, published elsewhere in this issue
of the Federal Register. We will use the following selection criteria
to evaluate applications submitted under the RTT-ELC competition. The
maximum score for all the selection criteria and competitive preference
priorities is 315 points. The maximum score for each selection
criterion is indicated in parentheses. The reviewers will utilize the
scoring rubric located in Appendix A of this notice when evaluating the
following selection criteria:
Core Areas--Sections (A) (Successful State Systems) and (B) (High-
Quality, Accountable Programs)
States must address in their application all of the selection
criteria in the Core Areas--Sections (A) (Successful State Systems) and
(B) (High-Quality, Accountable Programs).
A. Successful State Systems
(A)(1) Demonstrating past commitment to early learning and
development. (20 points)
The extent to which the State has demonstrated past commitment to
and investment in high-quality, accessible Early Learning and
Development Programs and services for Children with High Needs, as
evidenced by the State's--
(a) Financial investment, from five years ago to the present, in
Early Learning and Development Programs, including the amount of these
investments in relation to the size of the State's population of
Children with High Needs during this time period;
(b) Increasing, from the previous five years to the present, the
number of Children with High Needs participating in Early Learning and
Development Programs;
(c) Existing early learning and development legislation, policies,
or practices; and
(d) Current status in key areas that form the building blocks for a
high-quality early learning and development system, including Early
Learning and Development Standards, Comprehensive Assessment Systems,
health promotion practices, family engagement strategies, the
development of Early Childhood Educators, Kindergarten Entry
Assessments, and effective data practices.
Evidence for (A)(1):
The number and percentage of children from Low-Income
families in the State, by age.
The number and percentage of Children with High Needs from
special populations in the State.
The number of Children with High Needs in the State who
are enrolled in Early Learning and Development Programs, by age, race,
and ethnicity.
Data currently available, if any, on the status of
children at kindergarten entry (across Essential Domains of School
Readiness, if available), including data on the readiness gap between
Children with High Needs and their peers.
Data currently available, if any, on program quality
across different types of Early Learning and Development Programs.
The number of Children with High Needs participating in
each type of Early Learning and Development Program for each of the
previous five years to the present.
The number of Children with High Needs participating in
each type of Early Learning and Development Program for each of the
previous five years to the present.
The current status of the State's Early Learning and
Development Standards, for each of the Essential Domains of School
Readiness, by age group of infants, toddlers, and preschoolers.
The elements of a Comprehensive Assessment System
currently required within the State by different types of Early
Learning and Development Programs or systems.
The elements of high-quality health promotion practices
currently required within the State by different types of Early
Learning and Development Programs or systems.
The elements of a high-quality family engagement strategy
currently required within the State by different types of Early
Learning and Development Programs or systems.
All early learning and development workforce credentials
currently available in the State, including whether credentials are
aligned with a State Workforce Knowledge and Competency Framework and
the number and percentage of Early Childhood
[[Page 54001]]
Educators who have each type of credential.
The current status of postsecondary institutions and other
professional development providers in the State that issue credentials
or degrees to Early Childhood Educators.
The current status of the State's Kindergarten Entry
Assessment.
All early learning and development data systems currently
used in the State.
Performance Measures for (A)(1):
None required.
(A)(2) Articulating the State's rationale for its early learning
and development reform agenda and goals. (20 points)
The extent to which the State clearly articulates a comprehensive
early learning and development reform agenda that is ambitious yet
achievable, builds on the State's progress to date (as demonstrated in
selection criterion (A)(1)), is likely to result in improved school
readiness for Children with High Needs, and includes--
(a) Ambitious yet achievable goals for improving program quality,
improving outcomes for Children with High Needs statewide, and closing
the educational gaps between Children with High Needs and their peers;
(b) An overall summary of the State Plan that clearly articulates
how the High-Quality Plans proposed under each selection criterion,
when taken together, constitute an effective reform agenda that
establishes a clear and credible path toward achieving these goals; and
(c) A specific rationale that justifies the State's choice to
address the selected criteria in each Focused Investment Area (C), (D),
and (E), including why these selected criteria will best achieve these
goals.
Evidence for (A)(2):
The State's goals for improving program quality statewide
over the period of this grant.
The State's goals for improving child outcomes statewide
over the period of this grant.
The State's goals for closing the readiness gap between
Children with High Needs and their peers at kindergarten entry.
Identification of the two or more selection criteria that
the State has chosen to address in Focused Investment Area (C).
Identification of the one or more selection criteria that
the State has chosen to address in Focused Investment Area (D).
Identification of the one or more selection criteria that
the State has chosen to address in Focused Investment Area (E).
For each Focused Investment Area (C), (D), and (E), a
description of the State's rationale for choosing to address the
selected criteria in that Focused Investment Area, including how the
State's choices build on its progress to date in each Focused
Investment Area (as outlined in the narrative under (A)(1) in the
application) and why these selected criteria will best achieve the
State's ambitious yet achievable goals for improving program quality,
improving outcomes for Children with High Needs statewide, and closing
the educational gap between Children with High Needs and their peers.
Performance Measures for (A)(2):
None required.
(A)(3) Aligning and coordinating early learning and development
across the State. (10 points)
The extent to which the State has established, or has a High-
Quality Plan to establish, strong participation in and commitment to
the State Plan by Participating State Agencies and other early learning
and development stakeholders by--
(a) Demonstrating how the Participating State Agencies and other
partners, if any, will identify a governance structure for working
together that will facilitate interagency coordination, streamline
decision making, effectively allocate resources, and create long-term
sustainability, and describing--
(1) The organizational structure for managing the grant and how it
builds upon existing interagency governance structures such as
children's cabinets, councils, and commissions, if any already exist
and are effective;
(2) The governance-related roles and responsibilities of the Lead
Agency, the State Advisory Council on Early Childhood Education and
Care, each Participating State Agency, and the State's Interagency
Coordinating Council for Part C of IDEA, and other partners, if any;
(3) The method and process for making different types of decisions
(e.g., policy, operational) and resolving disputes; and
(4) The plan for when and how the State will involve
representatives from Participating Programs, Early Childhood Educators
or their representatives, parents and families, including parents and
families of Children with High Needs, and other key stakeholders in the
planning and implementation of the activities carried out under the
grant;
(b) Demonstrating that the Participating State Agencies are
strongly committed to the State Plan, to the governance structure of
the grant, and to effective implementation of the State Plan, by
including in the MOUs or other binding agreements between the State and
each Participating State Agency--
(1) Terms and conditions that reflect a strong commitment to the
State Plan by each Participating State Agency, including terms and
conditions designed to align and leverage the Participating State
Agencies' existing funding to support the State Plan;
(2) ``Scope-of-work'' descriptions that require each Participating
State Agency to implement all applicable portions of the State Plan and
a description of efforts to maximize the number of Early Learning and
Development Programs that become Participating Programs; and
(3) A signature from an authorized representative of each
Participating State Agency; and
(c) Demonstrating commitment to the State Plan from a broad group
of stakeholders that will assist the State in reaching the ambitious
yet achievable goals outlined in response to selection criterion
(A)(2)(a), including by obtaining--
(1) Detailed and persuasive letters of intent or support from Early
Learning Intermediary Organizations, and, if applicable, local early
learning councils; and
(2) Letters of intent or support from such other stakeholders as
Early Childhood Educators or their representatives; the State's
legislators; local community leaders; State or local school boards;
representatives of private and faith-based early learning programs;
other State and local leaders (e.g., business, community, tribal, civil
rights, education association leaders); adult education and family
literacy State and local leaders; family and community organizations;
representatives from the disability community, the English learner
community, and entities representing other Children with High Needs
(e.g., parent councils, nonprofit organizations, local foundations,
tribal organizations, and community-based organizations); libraries and
children's museums; health providers; public television stations; and
postsecondary institutions.
Evidence for (A)(3)(a) and (b):
For (A)(3)(a)(1): An organizational chart that shows how
the grant will be governed and managed.
Governance-related roles and responsibilities.
A copy of all fully executed MOUs or other binding
agreements that cover each Participating State Agency. (MOUs or other
binding agreements should be referenced in the narrative but must be
included in the Appendix to the application).
Evidence for (A)(3)(c)(1):
[[Page 54002]]
A list of every Early Learning Intermediary Organization
and local early learning council (if applicable) in the State that
indicates which organizations and councils have submitted letters of
intent or support.
A copy of every letter of intent or support from Early
Learning Intermediary Organizations and local early learning councils.
Evidence for (A)(3)(c)(2):
A copy of every letter of intent or support from other
stakeholders.
Performance Measures for (A)(3):
None required.
(A)(4) Developing a budget to implement and sustain the work of
this grant. (15 points)
The extent to which the State Plan--
(a) Demonstrates how the State will use existing funds that support
early learning and development from Federal, State, private, and local
sources (e.g., CCDF; Title I and II of ESEA; IDEA; Striving Readers
Comprehensive Literacy Program; State preschool; Head Start
Collaboration funding; MIECHV program; Title V MCH Block Grant; TANF;
Medicaid; child welfare services under Title IV (B) and (E) of the
Social Security Act; Statewide Longitudinal Data System; foundation;
other private funding sources) for activities and services that help
achieve the outcomes in the State Plan, including how the quality set-
asides in CCDF will be used;
(b) Describes, in both the budget tables and budget narratives, how
the State will effectively and efficiently use funding from this grant
to achieve the outcomes in the State Plan, in a manner that--
(1) Is adequate to support the activities described in the State
Plan;
(2) Includes costs that are reasonable and necessary in relation to
the objectives, design, and significance of the activities described in
the State Plan and the number of children to be served; and
(3) Details the amount of funds budgeted for Participating State
Agencies, localities, Early Learning Intermediary Organizations,
Participating Programs, or other partners, and the specific activities
to be implemented with these funds consistent with the State Plan, and
demonstrates that a significant amount of funding will be devoted to
the local implementation of the State Plan; and
(c) Demonstrates that it can be sustained after the grant period
ends to ensure that the number and percentage of Children with High
Needs served by Early Learning and Development Programs in the State
will be maintained or expanded.
Evidence for (A)(4)(a):
The existing funds to be used to achieve the outcomes in
the State Plan.
Description of how these existing funds will be used for
activities and services that help achieve the outcomes in the State
Plan.
Evidence for (A)(4)(b):
The State's budget.
The narratives that accompany and explain the budget and
describe how it connects to the State Plan.
Performance Measures for (A)(4):
None required.
B. High-Quality, Accountable Programs
(B)(1) Developing and adopting a common, statewide Tiered Quality
Rating and Improvement System. (10 points)
The extent to which the State and its Participating State Agencies
have developed and adopted, or have a High-Quality Plan to develop and
adopt, a Tiered Quality Rating and Improvement System that--
(a) Is based on a statewide set of tiered Program Standards that
include--
(1) Early Learning and Development Standards;
(2) A Comprehensive Assessment System;
(3) Early Childhood Educator qualifications;
(4) Family engagement strategies;
(5) Health promotion practices; and
(6) Effective data practices;
(b) Is clear and has standards that are measurable, meaningfully
differentiate program quality levels, and reflect high expectations of
program excellence commensurate with nationally recognized standards
that lead to improved learning outcomes for children; and
(c) Is linked to the State licensing system for Early Learning and
Development Programs.
Evidence for (B)(1):
Each set of existing Program Standards currently used in
the State and the elements that are included in those Program Standards
(Early Learning and Development Standards, Comprehensive Assessment
Systems, Qualified Workforce, Family Engagement, Health Promotion,
Effective Data Practices, and Other).
To the extent the State has developed and adopted a Tiered
Quality Rating and Improvement System based on a common set of tiered
Program Standards that meet the elements in selection criterion
(B)(1)(a), submit--
[cir] A copy of the tiered Program Standards;
[cir] Documentation that the Program Standards address all areas
outlined in the definition of Program Standards, demonstrate high
expectations of program excellence commensurate with nationally
recognized standards, and are linked to the States licensing system;
and
[cir] Documentation of how the tiers meaningfully differentiate
levels of quality.
Performance Measures for (B)(1):
None required.
(B)(2) Promoting participation in the State's Tiered Quality Rating
and Improvement System. (15 points)
The extent to which the State has maximized, or has a High-Quality
Plan to maximize, program participation in the State's Tiered Quality
Rating and Improvement System by--
(a) Implementing effective policies and practices to reach the goal
of having all publicly funded Early Learning and Development Programs
participate in such a system, including programs in each of the
following categories--
(1) State-funded preschool programs;
(2) Early Head Start and Head Start programs;
(3) Early Learning and Development Programs funded under section
619 of Part B of IDEA and Part C of IDEA;
(4) Early Learning and Development Programs funded under Title I of
ESEA; and
(5) Early Learning and Development Programs receiving funds from
the State's CCDF program;
(b) Implementing effective policies and practices designed to help
more families afford high-quality child care and maintain the supply of
high-quality child care in areas with high concentrations of Children
with High Needs (e.g., maintaining or increasing subsidy reimbursement
rates, taking actions to ensure affordable co-payments, providing
incentives to high-quality providers to participate in the subsidy
program); and
(c) Setting ambitious yet achievable targets for the numbers and
percentages of Early Learning and Development Programs that will
participate in the Tiered Quality Rating and Improvement System by type
of Early Learning and Development Program (as listed in (B)(2)(a)(1)
through (5) above).
Evidence for (B)(2):
Any supporting evidence the State believes will be helpful
to peer reviewers.
Performance Measures for (B)(2)(c):
General goals to be provided at time of application, including
baseline data and annual targets:
Number and percentage of Early Learning and Development
Programs participating in the statewide Tiered Quality Rating and
Improvement System, by type of Early Learning and Development Program.
[[Page 54003]]
(B)(3) Rating and monitoring Early Learning and Development
Programs. (15 points)
The extent to which the State and its Participating State Agencies
have developed and implemented, or have a High-Quality Plan to develop
and implement, a system for rating and monitoring the quality of Early
Learning and Development Programs participating in the Tiered Quality
Rating and Improvement System by--
(a) Using a valid and reliable tool for monitoring such programs,
having trained monitors whose ratings have an acceptable level of
inter-rater reliability, and monitoring and rating the Early Learning
and Development Programs with appropriate frequency; and
(b) Providing quality rating and licensing information to parents
with children enrolled in Early Learning and Development Programs
(e.g., displaying quality rating information at the program site) and
making program quality rating data, information, and licensing history
(including any health and safety violations) publicly available in
formats that are written in plain language, and are easy to understand
and use for decision making by families selecting Early Learning and
Development Programs and families whose children are enrolled in such
programs.
Evidence for (B)(3):
Any supporting evidence the State believes will be helpful
to peer reviewers.
Performance Measures for (B)(3):
None required.
(B)(4) Promoting access to high-quality Early Learning and
Development Programs for Children with High Needs. (20 points)
The extent to which the State and its Participating State Agencies
have developed and implemented, or have a High-Quality Plan to develop
and implement, a system for improving the quality of the Early Learning
and Development Programs participating in the Tiered Quality Rating and
Improvement System by--
(a) Developing and implementing policies and practices that provide
support and incentives for Early Learning and Development Programs to
continuously improve (e.g., through training, technical assistance,
financial rewards or incentives, higher subsidy reimbursement rates,
compensation);
(b) Providing supports to help working families who have Children
with High Needs access high-quality Early Learning and Development
Programs that meet those needs (e.g., providing full-day, full-year
programs; transportation; meals; family support services); and
(c) Setting ambitious yet achievable targets for increasing--
(1) The number of Early Learning and Development Programs in the
top tiers of the Tiered Quality Rating and Improvement System; and
(2) The number and percentage of Children with High Needs who are
enrolled in Early Learning and Development Programs that are in the top
tiers of the Tiered Quality Rating and Improvement System.
Evidence for (B)(4):
Any supporting evidence the State believes will be helpful
to peer reviewers.
Performance Measures for (B)(4)(c):
General goals to be provided at time of application, including
baseline data and annual targets:
Number of Early Learning and Development Programs in the
top tiers of the Tiered Quality Rating and Improvement System, by type
of Early Learning and Development Program.
Number and Percentage of Children with High Needs who are
enrolled in Early Learning and Development Programs that are in the top
tiers of the Tiered Quality Rating and Improvement System, by type of
Early Learning and Development Program.
(B)(5) Validating the effectiveness of State Tiered Quality Rating
and Improvement Systems. (15 points)
The extent to which the State has a High-Quality Plan to design and
implement evaluations--working with an independent evaluator and, when
warranted, as part of a cross-State evaluation consortium--of the
relationship between the ratings generated by the State's Tiered
Quality Rating and Improvement System and the learning outcomes of
children served by the State's Early Learning and Development Programs
by--
(a) Validating, using research-based measures, as described in the
State Plan (which also describes the criteria that the State used or
will use to determine those measures), that the tiers in the State's
Tiered Quality Rating and Improvement System accurately reflect
differential levels of program quality; and
(b) Assessing, using appropriate research designs and measures of
progress (as identified in the State Plan), the extent to which changes
in quality ratings are related to progress in children's learning,
development, and school readiness.
Evidence for (B)(5):
Any supporting evidence the State believes will be helpful
to peer reviewers.
Performance Measures for (B)(5):
None required.
Focused Investment Areas--Sections (C), (D), and (E)
Each State must address in its application--
(1) Two or more of the selection criteria in Focused Investment
Area (C);
(2) One or more of the selection criteria in Focused Investment
Area (D); and
(3) One or more of the selection criteria in Focused Investment
Area (E).
C. Promoting Early Learning and Development Outcomes for Children
The total available points that an applicant may receive for
selection criteria (C)(1) through (C)(4) is 60. The 60 points will be
divided by the number of selection criteria that the applicant chooses
to address so that each selection criterion is worth the same number of
points. For example, if the applicant chooses to address all four
selection criteria under this Focused Investment Area, each criterion
will be worth up to 15 points. If the applicant chooses to address two
selection criteria, each criterion will be worth up to 30 points.
The applicant must address at least two of the selection criteria
within Focused Investment Area (C), which are as follows:
(C)(1) Developing and using statewide, high-quality Early Learning
and Development Standards.
The extent to which the State has a High-Quality Plan to put in
place high-quality Early Learning and Development Standards that are
used statewide by Early Learning and Development Programs and that--
(a) Includes evidence that the Early Learning and Development
Standards are developmentally, culturally, and linguistically
appropriate across each age group of infants, toddlers, and
preschoolers, and that they cover all Essential Domains of School
Readiness;
(b) Includes evidence that the Early Learning and Development
Standards are aligned with the State's K-3 academic standards in, at a
minimum, early literacy and mathematics;
(c) Includes evidence that the Early Learning and Development
Standards are incorporated in Program Standards, curricula and
activities, Comprehensive Assessment Systems, the State's Workforce
Knowledge and Competency Framework, and professional development
activities; and that they are shared with parents and families along
with suggestions for appropriate strategies they can use at home to
support their children's learning and development; and
[[Page 54004]]
(d) Includes evidence that the State has supports in place to
promote understanding of and commitment to the Early Learning and
Development Standards across Early Learning and Development Programs.
Evidence for (C)(1)(a) and (b):
To the extent the State has implemented Early Learning and
Development Standards that meet the elements in selection criteria
(C)(1)(a) and (b), submit--
[cir] Proof of use by all types of Early Learning and Development
Programs in the State;
[cir] The State's Early Learning and Development Standards for:
--Infants and toddlers
--Preschoolers
[cir] Documentation that the standards are developmentally,
linguistically, and culturally appropriate for all children, including
children with disabilities and developmental delays and English
learners;
[cir] Documentation that the standards address all Essential
Domains of School Readiness and that they are of high quality; and
[cir] Documentation of the alignment between the State's Early
Learning and Development Standards and the State's K-3 standards.
Performance Measures for (C)(1):
None required.
(C)(2) Supporting effective uses of Comprehensive Assessment
Systems.
The extent to which the State has a High-Quality Plan to support
the effective implementation of developmentally appropriate
Comprehensive Assessment Systems by--
(a) Working with Early Learning and Development Programs to select
assessment instruments and approaches that are appropriate for the
target populations and purposes;
(b) Working with Early Learning and Development Programs to
strengthen Early Childhood Educators' understanding of the purposes and
uses of each type of assessment included in the Comprehensive
Assessment Systems;
(c) Articulating an approach for aligning and integrating
assessments and sharing assessment results, as appropriate, in order to
avoid duplication of assessments and to coordinate services for
Children with High Needs who are served by multiple Early Learning and
Development Programs;
(d) Training Early Childhood Educators to appropriately administer
assessments and interpret and use assessment data in order to inform
and improve instruction, programs, and services, and to effectively
solicit and use family input on children's development and needs; and
(e) Articulating guidelines and procedures for sharing assessment
data and results with parents, involving them in decisions about their
children's care and education, and helping them identify concrete
actions they can take to address developmental issues identified
through the assessment process.
Evidence for (C)(2):
Any supporting evidence the State believes will be helpful
to peer reviewers.
Performance Measures for (C)(2):
None required.
(C)(3) Identifying and addressing the health, behavioral, and
developmental needs of Children with High Needs to improve school
readiness.
The extent to which the State has a High-Quality Plan to identify
and address the health, behavioral, and developmental needs of Children
with High Needs by--
(a) Establishing a progression of standards for ensuring children's
health and safety; ensuring that health and behavioral screening and
follow-up occur; promoting children's physical, social, and emotional
development across the levels of its Program Standards; and involving
families as partners and building parents' capacity to promote their
children's physical, social, and emotional health;
(b) Increasing the number of Early Childhood Educators who are
trained and supported on an ongoing basis in meeting the health
standards;
(c) Promoting healthy eating habits, improving nutrition, expanding
physical activity, and providing information and guidance to families
to promote healthy habits at home;
(d) Leveraging existing resources to meet ambitious yet achievable
annual targets to increase the number of Children with High Needs who--
(1) Are screened using Screening Measures that align with the
Medicaid Early Periodic Screening, Diagnostic and Treatment benefit
(see section 1905(r)(5) of the Social Security Act) or the well-baby
and well-child services available through the Children's Health
Insurance Program (42 CFR 457.520), and that, as appropriate, are
consistent with the Child Find provisions in IDEA (see sections
612(a)(3) and 635(a)(5) of IDEA);
(2) Are referred for services based on the results of those
screenings and, where appropriate, received follow-up; and
(3) Participate in ongoing health care as part of a schedule of
well-child care, including the number of children who are up to date in
a schedule of well-child care; and
(e) Developing a comprehensive approach to increase the capacity
and improve the overall quality of Early Learning and Development
Programs to support and address the social and emotional development
(including infant-early childhood mental health) of children from birth
to age five.
Evidence for (C)(3)(a):
To the extent the State has established a progression of
health standards across the levels of Program Standards that meet the
elements in selection criterion (C)(3)(a), submit--
[cir] The progression of health standards used in the Program
Standards and the State's plans for improvement over time, including
documentation demonstrating that this progression of standards
appropriately addresses health and safety standards; developmental,
behavioral, and sensory screening, referral, and follow-up; health
promotion including healthy eating habits, improved nutrition, and
increased physical activity; oral health; social and emotional
development; family involvement and capacity-building; and health
literacy among parents and children.
Evidence for (C)(3)(b):
To the extent the State has existing and projected numbers
and percentages of Early Childhood Educators who receive training and
support in meeting the health standards, the State must submit
documentation of these data. If the State does not have these data, the
State must outline its plan for deriving them.
Evidence for (C)(3)(c):
Any supporting evidence the State believes will be helpful
to peer reviewers.
Evidence for (C)(3)(d):
Documentation of the State's existing and future resources
that are or will be used to address the health, behavioral, and
developmental needs of Children with High Needs. At a minimum,
documentation must address the screening and referral of and follow-up
for all Children with High Needs, and how families will be engaged in
the process; how the State will promote the participation of Children
with High Needs in ongoing health care as part of a schedule of well-
child care; how the State will promote healthy eating habits and
improved nutrition as well as increased physical activity for Children
with High Needs; and how the State will promote health literacy for
children and parents.
Performance Measures for (C)(3)(d):
[[Page 54005]]
General goals to be provided at time of application, including
baseline data and annual targets:
Number of Children with High Needs screened.
Number of Children with High Needs referred for services
and who received follow-up/treatment.
Number of Children with High Needs who participate in
ongoing health care as part of a schedule of well-child care.
Of these participating Children with High Needs, the
number or percentage of children who are up-to-date in receiving
services as part of a schedule of well-child care.
Evidence for (C)(3)(e):
Any supporting evidence the State believes will be helpful
to peer reviewers.
(C)(4) Engaging and supporting families.
The extent to which the State has a High-Quality Plan to provide
culturally and linguistically appropriate information and support to
families of Children with High Needs in order to promote school
readiness for their children by--
(a) Establishing a progression of culturally and linguistically
appropriate standards for family engagement across the levels of its
Program Standards, including activities that enhance the capacity of
families to support their children's education and development and help
families build protective factors;
(b) Increasing the number and percentage of Early Childhood
Educators trained and supported on an ongoing basis to implement the
family engagement strategies included in the Program Standards; and
(c) Promoting family support and engagement statewide, including by
leveraging other existing resources, such as home visiting programs,
family resource centers, family support networks, and other family-
serving agencies and organizations, and through outreach to family,
friend, and neighbor caregivers.
Evidence for (C)(4)(a):
To the extent the State has established a progression of
family engagement standards across the levels of Program Standards that
meet the elements in selection criterion (C)(4)(a), submit--
[cir] The progression of culturally and linguistically appropriate
family engagement standards used in the Program Standards that includes
strategies successfully used to engage families in supporting their
children's development and learning. A State's family engagement
standards must address, but need not be limited to: Parent access to
the program, ongoing two-way communication with families, parent
education in child development, outreach to fathers and other family
members, training and support for families as children move to
preschool and kindergarten, social networks of support,
intergenerational activities, linkages with community supports and
adult and family literacy programs, parent involvement in decision
making, and parent leadership development; and
[cir] Documentation that this progression of standards includes
activities that enhance the capacity of families to support their
children's education and development.
Evidence for (C)(4)(b):
To the extent the State has existing and projected numbers
and percentages of Early Childhood Educators who receive training and
support on the family engagement strategies included in the Program
Standards, the State must submit documentation of these data. If the
State does not have these data, the State must outline its plan for
deriving them.
Evidence for (C)(4)(c):
Documentation of the State's existing resources that are
or will be used to promote family support and engagement statewide,
including through home visiting programs and other family-serving
agencies and the identification of new resources that will be used to
promote family support and engagement statewide.
Performance Measures for (C)(4)
None required.
D. A Great Early Childhood Education Workforce
The total available points that a State may receive for selection
criteria (D)(1) and (D)(2) is 40. The 40 points will be divided by the
number of selection criteria that the applicant chooses to address so
that each selection criterion is worth the same number of points. For
example, if the applicant chooses to address both selection criteria
under this Focused Investment Area, each criterion will be worth up to
20 points. If the applicant chooses to address one selection criterion,
the criterion will be worth up to 40 points.
The applicant must address at least one of the selection criteria
within Focused Investment Area (D), which are as follows:
(D)(1) Developing a Workforce Knowledge and Competency Framework
and a progression of credentials.
The extent to which the State has a High-Quality Plan to--
(a) Develop a common, statewide Workforce Knowledge and Competency
Framework designed to promote children's learning and development and
improve child outcomes;
(b) Develop a common, statewide progression of credentials and
degrees aligned with the Workforce Knowledge and Competency Framework;
and
(c) Engage postsecondary institutions and other professional
development providers in aligning professional development
opportunities with the State's Workforce Knowledge and Competency
Framework.
Evidence for (D)(1):
To the extent the State has developed a common, statewide
Workforce Knowledge and Competency Framework that meets the elements in
selection criterion (D)(1), submit:
[cir] The Workforce Knowledge and Competency Framework;
[cir] Documentation that the State's Workforce Knowledge and
Competency Framework addresses the elements outlined in the definition
of Workforce Knowledge and Competency Framework in the Program
Definitions section of this notice and is designed to promote
children's learning and development and improve outcomes.
Performance Measures for (D)(1)
None required.
(D)(2) Supporting Early Childhood Educators in improving their
knowledge, skills, and abilities.
The extent to which the State has a High-Quality Plan to improve
the effectiveness and retention of Early Childhood Educators who work
with Children with High Needs, with the goal of improving child
outcomes by--
(a) Providing and expanding access to effective professional
development opportunities that--
(1) Are aligned with the State's Workforce Knowledge and Competency
Framework;
(2) Tightly link training with professional development approaches,
such as coaching and mentoring; and
(3) Are supported by strong evidence (e.g., available evaluations,
developmental theory, or data or information) as to why these policies
and incentives will be effective in improving outcomes for Children
with High Needs;
(b) Implementing effective policies and incentives (e.g.,
scholarships, compensation and wage supplements, tiered reimbursement
rates, other financial incentives, management opportunities) to promote
professional improvement and career advancement along an articulated
career pathway that--
(1) Are aligned with the State's Workforce Knowledge and Competency
Framework;
[[Page 54006]]
(2) Tightly link training with professional development approaches,
such as coaching and mentoring; and
(3) Are supported by strong evidence (e.g., available evaluations,
developmental theory, or data or information) as to why these policies
and incentives will be effective in improving outcomes for Children
with High Needs;
(c) Publicly reporting aggregated data on Early Childhood Educator
development, advancement, and retention; and
(d) Setting ambitious yet achievable targets for--
(1) Increasing the number of postsecondary institutions and
professional development providers with programs that are aligned to
the Workforce Knowledge and Competency Framework and the number of
Early Childhood Educators who receive credentials from postsecondary
institutions and professional development providers with programs that
are aligned to the Workforce Knowledge and Competency Framework; and
(2) Increasing the number and percentage of Early Childhood
Educators who are progressing to higher levels of credentials that
align with the Workforce Knowledge and Competency Framework.
Evidence for (D)(2):
Evidence to support why the proposed professional
development opportunities, policies, and incentives will be effective
in improving outcomes for Children with High Needs (e.g., available
evaluations, developmental theory, or data or information about the
population of Children with High Needs in the State).
Performance Measures for (D)(2)(d):
General goals to be provided at time of application, including
baseline data and annual targets:
(D)(2)(d)(1): Number of postsecondary institutions and
professional development providers with programs that are aligned to
the State's Workforce Knowledge and Competency Framework, and the
number of Early Childhood Educators receiving credentials from those
aligned postsecondary institutions or professional development
providers.
(D)(2)(d)(2): Number and percentage of Early Childhood
Educators who are progressing to higher levels of credentials that
align with the State's Workforce Knowledge and Competency Framework.
E. Measuring Outcomes and Progress
The total available points an applicant may receive for selection
criteria (E)(1) and (E)(2) is 40. The 40 points will be divided by the
number of selection criteria that the applicant chooses to address so
that each selection criterion is worth the same number of points. For
example, if the applicant chooses to address both selection criteria
under this Focused Investment Area, each criterion will be worth up to
20 points. If the applicant chooses to address one selection criterion,
the criterion will be worth up to 40 points.
The applicant must address at least one of the selection criteria
within Focused Investment Area (E), which are as follows:
(E)(1) Understanding the status of children's learning and
development at kindergarten entry.
The extent to which the State has a High-Quality Plan to implement,
independently or as part of a cross-State consortium, a common,
statewide Kindergarten Entry Assessment that informs instruction and
services in the early elementary grades and that--
(a) Is aligned with the State's Early Learning and Development
Standards and covers all Essential Domains of School Readiness;
(b) Is valid, reliable, and appropriate for the target population
and for the purpose for which it will be used, including for English
learners and children with disabilities;
(c) Is administered beginning no later than the start of the school
year ending during the fourth year of the grant to children entering a
public school kindergarten; States may propose a phased implementation
plan that forms the basis for broader statewide implementation;
(d) Is reported to the Statewide Longitudinal Data System, and to
the early learning data system, if it is separate from the Statewide
Longitudinal Data System, as permitted under and consistent with the
requirements of Federal, State, and local privacy laws; and
(e) Is funded, in significant part, with Federal or State resources
other than those available under this grant (e.g., with funds available
under section 6111 or 6112 of ESEA).
Evidence for (E)(1):
Any supporting evidence the State believes will be helpful
to peer reviewers.
Performance Measures for (E)(1):
None required.
(E)(2) Building or enhancing an early learning data system to
improve instruction, practices, services, and policies.
The extent to which the State has a High-Quality Plan to enhance
the State's existing Statewide Longitudinal Data System or to build or
enhance a separate, coordinated, early learning data system that aligns
and is interoperable with the Statewide Longitudinal Data System, and
that either data system--
(a) Has all of the Essential Data Elements;
(b) Enables uniform data collection and easy entry of the Essential
Data Elements by Participating State Agencies and Participating
Programs;
(c) Facilitates the exchange of data among Participating State
Agencies by using standard data structures, data formats, and data
definitions such as Common Education Data Standards to ensure
interoperability among the various levels and types of data;
(d) Generates information that is timely, relevant, accessible, and
easy for Early Learning and Development Programs and Early Childhood
Educators to use for continuous improvement and decision making and to
share with parents and other community stakeholders; and
(e) Meets the Data System Oversight Requirements and complies with
the requirements of Federal, State, and local privacy laws.
Evidence for (E)(2):
Any supporting evidence the State believes will be helpful
to peer reviewers.
Performance Measures for (E)(2):
None required.
2. Review and Selection Process:
The Departments will screen applications that are received by the
deadline listed in this notice and will determine which States are
eligible based on whether they have met the eligibility requirements in
paragraphs (1)(a), (1)(b), and (1)(c) of section III (Eligibility
Information) of this notice; the Departments will not consider further
those applicants deemed ineligible under eligibility requirements in
paragraphs (1)(a), (1)(b), and (1)(c) of that section.
The Departments intend to use a peer review process with panels of
three reviewers per application. Review panels will be created based on
the number of applications received.
After the review process is complete, the selection of grantees
will take into account, consistent with 34 CFR 75.217, the rank order
of applications; each applicant's status with respect to the Absolute
Priority and the eligibility requirements (1)(a), (1)(b), and (1)(c) of
section III (Eligibility Information) of this notice; and any other
relevant information. In addition, we remind potential applicants that
in reviewing applications in any discretionary grant competition, the
Secretary of Education
[[Page 54007]]
may consider, under 34 CFR 75.217(d)(3), the applicant's past
performance in carrying out a previous reward, such as the applicant's
use of funds, achievement of project objectives, and compliance with
grant conditions, as well as the applicant's prior record in submitting
timely and adequate performance reports. All applicants will receive
their reviewers' comments and scores.
In addition, in making a competitive grant award, various
assurances are required from grantees, 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).
In addition to considering other relevant factors (see 34 CFR
75.217(d)(3)), the selection of grantees may consider the need to
ensure that high-quality early learning and development systems are
developed in States addressing the needs of children in rural areas.
Awards may be granted to high-quality applications out of rank order to
meet this need.
We will post all submitted applications (both successful and
unsuccessful) on ED's Web site, together with the final scores each
application received. We will post each reviewer's final scores and
comments on reviewed applications, with the names of reviewers
redacted.
3. Special Conditions: Under 34 CFR 74.14 and 80.12, the Secretary
of Education 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); or we may send you an email containing a link to
access an electronic version of your GAN. We may notify you informally,
also.
If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding,
ED will notify the State.
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:
(a) Any State that applies for a grant under this competition must
ensure that it has in place the necessary processes and systems to
comply with the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 170 should it
receive funding under the competition. This does not apply if the State
has an exception under 2 CFR 170.110(b).
(b) A State receiving funds under an RTT-ELC grant must submit an
annual report that must include, in addition to the standard elements,
a description of the State's progress to date on its goals, timelines,
and budgets, as well as actual performance compared to the annual
targets the State established in its application with respect to each
performance measure. Further, a State receiving funds under this
program is accountable for meeting the goals, timelines, budget, and
annual targets established in the application; adhering to an annual
fund drawdown schedule that is tied to meeting these goals, timelines,
budget, and annual targets; and fulfilling and maintaining all other
conditions for the conduct of the project. The Departments will monitor
a State's progress in meeting the State's goals, timelines, budget, and
annual targets and in fulfilling other applicable requirements. In
addition, we may collect additional data as part of a State's annual
reporting requirements.
To support a collaborative process with the State, we may require
that applicants who are selected to receive an award enter into a
written performance or cooperative agreement. If we determine that a
State is not meeting its goals, timelines, budget, or annual targets or
is not fulfilling other applicable requirements, we will take
appropriate action, which could include establishing a collaborative
process or taking enforcement measures with respect to this grant, such
as placing the State in high-risk status, putting the State on
reimbursement payment status, or delaying or withholding funds.
4. Evidence and Performance Measures: Evidence and performance
measures for this notice follow directly after each selection criteria.
VII. Agency Contact
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Miriam Lund, U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Ave., SW., room 3E330, Washington, DC 20202-
6200. Telephone: 202-401-2871 or by email: RTT-ELC.P3.Competition@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 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.
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 these Departments 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 these Departments 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 these Departments.
Dated: August 26, 2013.
Deborah S. Delisle,
Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education, U.S.
Department of Education.
George H. Sheldon,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Children and Families, U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services.
Appendix A. Scoring Rubric
I. Introduction
To help ensure inter-reviewer reliability and transparency for
the RTT-ELC applicants, ED and HHS have created and are publishing a
rubric for scoring State applications. The pages that follow detail
the rubric and allocation of point values that reviewers will be
using. The rubric will be used by reviewers to ensure consistency
across and within review panels.
The rubric allocates points to each selection criterion. In all,
the RTT-ELC scoring rubric includes 17 selection criteria and four
competitive preference priorities. These collectively add up to 315
points. The
[[Page 54008]]
selection criteria are divided into two sections: Core Areas and
Focused Investment Areas.
Applicants must respond to all of the selection
criteria within each of the two Core Areas: (A) Successful State
Systems and (B) High-Quality, Accountable Programs.
Applicants have more flexibility within each of the
Focused Investment Areas: (C) Promoting Early Learning and
Development Outcomes for Children; (D) A Great Early Childhood
Education Workforce; and (E) Measuring Outcomes and Progress. In
these sections, applicants may select which selection criteria to
address, focusing on those that the State believes will have the
most impact on school readiness for its Children with High Needs,
given that State's context and the current status of its early
learning and development activities. The Focused Investment Areas
must be addressed as follows.
Focused Investment Areas
The applicant must select and address--
At least two selection criteria from Focused Investment Area
(C) Promoting Early Learning and Development Outcomes for Children;
and
At least one selection criterion from each of Focused
Investment Areas (D) A Great Early Childhood Education Workforce and
(E) Measuring Outcomes and Progress.
Each Focused Investment Area (C), (D), and (E) is worth
a specific number of points; these points will be evenly divided
across the selection criteria that the applicant chooses to address
in that section.
Priorities
Applicants must address the absolute priority throughout their
applications; they do not write separately to this priority. The
absolute priority must be met in order for an applicant to receive
funding.
Applications that choose to address a competitive preference
priority will earn extra points under that priority if the reviewers
determine that the response is of high quality. Applicants may
choose to write to the invitational priority to extend the scope of
the application; applicants are invited to address this and may
apply funds from this grant to implement activities under it, but do
not earn additional points for doing so.
Reviewers will be required to make thoughtful judgments about
the quality of the State's application and will be assessing, based
on the criteria, the comprehensiveness, feasibility, and likely
impact of the State's application. Reviewers will also be asked to
evaluate, for example, the extent to which the State has set
ambitious but achievable annual targets in its application.
Reviewers will also need to make informed judgments about the
State's goals, the rationales for the Focused Investment Areas, the
activities the State has chosen to undertake, and the timelines and
credibility of the State's plans.
This appendix includes information about the point values for
each criterion and priority, guidance on scoring, and the rubric
that we will provide to reviewers.
II. Points Overview
The chart below shows the maximum number of points that are
assigned to each criterion.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Race to the Top-Early Learning
Challenge: Points Overview Points available Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Successful State Systems
(A)(1) Demonstrating past 20
commitment to early learning and
development......................
(A)(2) Articulating the State's 20
rationale for its early learning
and development reform agenda and
goals............................
(A)(3) Aligning and coordinating 10
work across the State............
(A)(4) Developing a budget to 15
implement and sustain the work...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Core Area A Subtotal.......... 65 23
------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. High-Quality, Accountable
Programs
(B)(1) Developing and adopting a 10
common, statewide Tiered Quality
Rating and Improvement System....
(B)(2) Promoting participation in 15
the State's Tiered Quality Rating
and Improvement System...........
(B)(3) Rating and monitoring Early 15
Learning and Development Programs
(B)(4) Promoting access to high- 20
quality Early Learning and
Development Programs.............
(B)(5) Validating the State's 15
Tiered Quality Rating and
Improvement System...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Core Area B Subtotal.......... 75 27
------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Promoting Early Learning and
Development Outcomes for Children
(C)(1) Developing and using 60 (divided
statewide, high-quality Early evenly across the
Learning and Development criteria
Standards........................ addressed)
(C)(2) Supporting effective uses
of Comprehensive Assessment
Systems..........................
(C)(3) Identifying and addressing
health, behavioral, and
developmental needs..............
(C)(4) Engaging and supporting
families.........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Focused Investment Area C 60 21
Subtotal.....................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. A Great Early Childhood
Education Workforce
(D)(1) Developing a Workforce 40 (divided
Knowledge and Competency evenly across the
Framework and a progression of criteria
credentials...................... addressed)
(D)(2) Supporting Early Childhood
Educators........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Focused Investment Area D 40 14
Subtotal.....................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Measuring Outcomes and Progress
(E)(1) Understanding the status of 40 (divided
children at kindergarten entry... evenly across the
criteria
addressed)
(E)(2) Building or enhancing an
early learning data system.......
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Focused Investment Area E 40 14
Subtotal.....................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Points Available for 280
Selection Criteria...........
Competitive Priority 2: Including 10
all Early Learning and
Development Programs in the TQRIS
Competitive Priority 3: 10
Understanding status of learning
and development at kindergarten
entry............................
[[Page 54009]]
Competitive Priority 4: Creating 10
preschool through third grade
approaches to sustain improved
early learning outcomes through
the early elementary grades......
Competitive Priority 5: Addressing 5
the needs of children in rural
areas............................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grand Total................... 315
------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. About Scoring
General Notes about Scoring
There are two terms that we use repeatedly in the notice: High-
Quality Plan and ``ambitious yet achievable'' goals or targets.
These are anchor terms for both applicants to understand and
reviewers to use in guiding their scoring. We discuss each below.
A High-Quality Plan. In determining the quality of a
State's plan for a given selection criterion or competitive
preference priority, reviewers will assess the extent to which the
plan meets the definition (as provided in the notice) of a High-
Quality Plan, including whether it is feasible and has a high
probability of successful implementation and contains the following
components--
(a) The key goals;
(b) The key activities to be undertaken; the rationale for the
activities; and, if applicable, where in the State the activities
will be initially implemented, and where and how they will be scaled
up to achieve statewide implementation;
(c) A realistic timeline, including key milestones, for
implementing each key activity;
(d) The party or parties responsible for implementing each
activity and other key personnel assigned to each activity;
(e) Appropriate financial resources to support successful
implementation of the plan;
(f) The information requested as supporting evidence, if any,
together with any additional information the State believes will be
helpful to peer reviewers in judging the credibility of the plan;
(g) The information requested in the performance measures, where
applicable;
(h) How the State will address the needs of the different types
of Early Learning and Development Programs, if applicable; and
(i) How the State will meet the needs of Children with High
Needs, as well as the unique needs of special populations of
Children with High Needs.
Using the information provided to them in the application,
reviewers will assess the extent to which the proposed plan in a
specific selection criterion is a High-Quality Plan that is
credible, feasible to implement, and likely to result in the
outcomes the State has put forward.
Ambitious yet achievable. In determining whether a
State has ambitious yet achievable goals or targets for a given
selection criterion, reviewers will examine the State's goals or
targets in the context of the State's plan and the evidence
submitted (if any) in support of the plan. Reviewers will not be
looking for any specific targets nor will they necessarily reward
higher targets above lower ones with higher scores. Rather,
reviewers will reward States for developing goals and targets that,
in light of each State's plan and the current context and status of
the work in that State, are shown to be ``ambitious yet
achievable.''
About Assigning Points
Reviewers will assign points to an application for each
selection criterion in Core Areas (A) and (B) and for each selection
criterion that the State has chosen to address within Focused
Investment Areas (C), (D), and (E). Reviewers will also assign
points to the competitive preference priorities. Points for a
selection criterion or priority (e.g., (B)(4) or Priority 2) are
assigned by reviewers for the totality of the applicant's response;
that is, reviewers need not divide the total available points
equally across the sub-criteria.
Rubric
The following scoring rubric will be used to guide the reviewers
in scoring selection criteria and priorities. (See ``General Notes
about Scoring'' for more information about how reviewers will assess
High-Quality Plans and ``ambitious yet achievable'' targets and
goals.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percentage of available
points awarded (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
High-quality response.................... 80-100
Medium/high-quality response............. 50-80
Medium/low-quality response.............. 20-50
Low-quality response..................... 0-20
------------------------------------------------------------------------
About Priorities
There are three types of priorities in the RTT-ELC competition.
Applicants should address the absolute priority across
the entire application and should not address it separately. It will
be assessed by reviewers after they have fully reviewed and
evaluated the entire application, to ensure that the application has
met the priority. If an application has not met the priority, it
will be eliminated from the competition. A State meets the absolute
priority if a majority of reviewers determines that the State has
met the absolute priority.
Applicants earn points under the competitive preference
priorities in a manner similar to how they earn points under the
selection criteria.
[cir] Priority 2 is worth up to 10 points.
[cir] Priority 3 is worth 10 points; all 10 points are earned if
the competitive preference priority is met. A State will earn
competitive preference priority points if a majority of reviewers
determines that the State has met the competitive preference
priority. No points are earned if a majority of reviewers determine
that the applicant has not met the competitive preference priority.
A State meets the competitive preference priority by addressing
selection criterion (E)(1) and earning a score of at least 70
percent of the maximum points available for that criterion.
[cir] Priority 4 is worth up to 10 points.
[cir] Priority 5 is worth up to 5 points.
The invitational priority is addressed in its own
separate section. While applicants are invited to write to the
invitational priority, they will not earn points under the
invitational 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, the
applicants' overall scores on Core Area (B) will be used to break
the tie.
Appendix B. Participating State Agency Memorandum of Understanding
Background for Memorandum of Understanding
Each Participating State Agency identified in a State's Race to
the Top-Early Learning Challenge (RTT-ELC) State Plan is required to
enter into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) or other binding
agreement with the State's Lead Agency that specifies the scope of
the work that will be implemented by the Participating State Agency.
The purpose of the MOU or other binding agreement is to define a
relationship between the Lead Agency and the Participating State
Agency that is specific to the RTT-ELC competition; the MOU or other
binding agreement is not meant to detail all typical aspects of
grant coordination or administration.
To support States in working efficiently with their
Participating State Agencies to affirm each Participating State
Agency's participation in the State Plan, ED and HHS have produced a
model MOU, which is attached. This model MOU may serve as a template
for States; however, States are not required to use it. States may
use a document other than the model MOU, as long as it includes the
key features noted below and in the model MOU. States should consult
with their State attorneys on what is most appropriate. States may
allow multiple Participating State Agencies to sign a single MOU or
other binding agreement, with customized exhibits for each
Participating State Agency, if the State so chooses.
At a minimum, an RTT-ELC MOU or other binding agreement should
include the following key features, each of which is described in
detail below and exemplified in the attached model MOU: (i) Terms
and conditions; (ii) a scope of work; and (iii) authorized
signatures.
(i) Terms and conditions: Each Participating State Agency must
sign a standard set of terms and conditions that
[[Page 54010]]
includes, at a minimum, key roles and responsibilities of the Lead
Agency and the Participating State Agency; State recourse for non-
performance by the Participating State Agency; and assurances that
make clear what the Participating State Agency is agreeing to do.
(ii) Scope of work: RTT-ELC MOUs or other binding agreements
must include a preliminary scope of work (included in the model RTT-
ELC MOU as Exhibit I) that is completed by each Participating State
Agency. The scope of work must be signed and dated by an authorized
Participating State Agency official and an authorized Lead Agency
official. In the interest of time and in consideration of the effort
it will take for the Lead Agency and Participating State Agencies to
develop detailed work plans for RTT-ELC, the scope of work submitted
by Participating State Agencies and Lead Agencies as part of a
State's application may be preliminary. Preliminary scopes of work
must, at a minimum, identify all applicable portions of the State
Plan that the Participating State Agency is agreeing to implement
and include the required assurances. (Note that in order for a State
to be eligible for the RTT-ELC competition, the Lead Agency must
have executed with each Participating State Agency an MOU or other
binding agreement, which the State must attach to its application
and which must describe the Participating State Agency's level of
participation in the grant and must include the required
assurances.)
If a State is awarded an RTT-ELC grant, Participating State
Agencies will have up to 90 days to complete final scopes of work,
which must contain detailed work plans that are consistent with each
Participating State Agency's preliminary scope of work and with the
State's grant application, and must include the Participating State
Agencies' specific goals, activities, timelines, budgets, and key
personnel.
(iii) Authorized Signatures: The signatures on the MOU or other
binding agreement demonstrate an acknowledgement of the relationship
between the Participating State Agency and the Lead Agency. With
respect to the relationship between the Participating State Agency
and the Lead Agency, the Lead Agency's counter-signature on the MOU
or other binding agreement indicates that the Participating State
Agency's commitment is consistent with the requirement that a
Participating State Agency implement all applicable portions of the
State Plan.
Model Participating State Agency Memorandum of Understanding
This Memorandum of Understanding (``MOU'') is entered into by
and between -------- (``Lead Agency'') and -------- (``Participating
State Agency''). The purpose of this agreement is to establish a
framework of collaboration, as well as articulate specific roles and
responsibilities in support of the State in its implementation of an
approved Race to the Top-Early Learning Challenge grant project.
I. ASSURANCES
The Participating State Agency hereby certifies and represents
that it:
(1) Agrees to be a Participating State Agency and will implement
those portions of the State Plan indicated in Exhibit I, if the
State application is funded;
(2) Agrees to use, to the extent applicable and consistent with
the State Plan and Exhibit I:
(a) A set of statewide Early Learning and Development Standards;
(b) A set of statewide Program Standards;
(c) A statewide Tiered Quality Rating and Improvement System;
and
(d) A statewide Workforce Knowledge and Competency Framework and
progression of credentials.
(Please note that Participating State Agencies must provide
these assurances in order for the State to be eligible for a Race to
the Top-Early Learning Challenge grant.)
(3) Has all requisite power and authority to execute and fulfill
the terms of this MOU;
(4) Is familiar with the State's Race to the Top-Early Learning
Challenge grant application and is supportive of and committed to
working on all applicable portions of the State Plan;
(5) Will provide a Final Scope of Work only if the State's
application is funded and will do so in a timely fashion but no
later than 90 days after a grant is awarded; and will describe the
Participating State Agency's specific goals, activities, timelines,
budgets, and key personnel (``Participating State Agency Plan'') in
a manner that is consistent with the Preliminary Scope of Work
(Exhibit I), with the Budget included in section VIII of the State
Plan (including existing funds, if any, that the Participating State
Agency is using for activities and services that help achieve the
outcomes of the State Plan); and
(6) Will comply with all of the terms of the Race to the Top-
Early Learning Challenge Grant, this agreement, and all applicable
Federal and State laws and regulations, including laws and
regulations applicable to the Race to the Top-Early Learning
Challenge program, and the applicable provisions of EDGAR (34 CFR
Parts 75, 77, 79, 80, 82, 84, 86, 97, 98, and 99), and the
suspension and debarment regulations in 2 CFR Part 3485.
II. PROJECT ADMINISTRATION
A. PARTICIPATING STATE AGENCY RESPONSIBILITIES
In assisting the Lead Agency in implementing the tasks and
activities described in the State's Race to the Top-Early Learning
Challenge grant application, the Participating State Agency will:
(1) Implement the Participating State Agency Scope of Work as
identified in Exhibit I of this agreement;
(2) Abide by the governance structure outlined in the State
Plan;
(3) Abide by the Participating State Agency's Budget included in
section VIII of the State Plan (including the existing funds from
Federal, State, private, and local sources, if any, that the
Participating State Agency is using to achieve the outcomes in the
RTT-ELC State Plan);
(4) Actively participate in all relevant meetings or other
events that are organized or sponsored by the State, by the U.S.
Department of Education (``ED''), or by the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services (``HHS'');
(5) Post to any Web site specified by the State, ED, or HHS, in
a timely manner, all non-proprietary products and lessons learned
developed using Federal funds awarded under the RTT-ELC grant;
(6) Participate, as requested, in any evaluations of this grant
conducted by the State, ED, or HHS;
(7) Be responsive to State, ED, or HHS requests for project
information including on the status of the project, project
implementation, outcomes, and any problems anticipated or
encountered, consistent with applicable local, State, and Federal
privacy laws.
B. LEAD AGENCY RESPONSIBILITIES
In assisting the Participating State Agencies in implementing
their tasks and activities described in the State's Race to the Top-
Early Learning Challenge application, the Lead Agency will:
(1) Work collaboratively with the Participating State Agency and
support the Participating State Agency in carrying out the
Participating State Agency Scope of Work, as identified in Exhibit I
of this agreement;
(2) Timely award the portion of Race to the Top-Early Learning
Challenge grant funds designated for the Participating State Agency
in the State Plan during the course of the project period and in
accordance with the Participating State Agency's Scope of Work, as
identified in Exhibit I, and in accordance with the Participating
State Agency's Budget, as identified in section VIII of the State's
application;
(3) Provide feedback on the Participating State Agency's status
updates, any interim reports, and project plans and products;
(4) Keep the Participating State Agency informed of the status
of the State's Race to the Top-Early Learning Challenge grant
project and seek input from the Participating State Agency, where
applicable, through the governance structure outlined in the State
Plan;
(5) Facilitate coordination across Participating State Agencies
necessary to implement the State Plan; and
(6) Identify sources of technical assistance for the project.
C. JOINT RESPONSIBILITIES
(1) The Lead Agency and the Participating State Agency will each
appoint a key contact person for the Race to the Top-Early Learning
Challenge grant.
(2) These key contacts from the Lead Agency and the
Participating State Agency will maintain frequent communication to
facilitate cooperation under this MOU, consistent with the State
Plan and governance structure.
(3) Lead Agency and Participating State Agency personnel will
work together to determine appropriate timelines for project updates
and status reports throughout the grant period.
(4) Lead Agency and Participating State Agency personnel will
negotiate in good faith toward achieving the overall goals of the
State's Race to the Top-Early Learning Challenge grant, including
when the State
[[Page 54011]]
Plan requires modifications that affect the Participating State
Agency, or when the Participating State Agency's Scope of Work
requires modifications.
D. STATE RECOURSE IN THE EVENT OF PARTICIPATING STATE AGENCY'S
FAILURE TO PERFORM
If the Lead Agency determines that the Participating State
Agency is not meeting its goals, timelines, budget, or annual
targets, or is in some other way not fulfilling applicable
requirements, the Lead Agency will take appropriate enforcement
action, which could include initiating a collaborative process to
attempt to resolve the disagreements between the Lead Agency and the
Participating State Agency, or initiating such enforcement measures
as are available to the Lead Agency, under applicable State or
Federal law.
III. MODIFICATIONS
This Memorandum of Understanding may be amended only by written
agreement signed by each of the parties involved, in consultation
with ED and HHS.
IV. DURATION
This Memorandum of Understanding shall be effective beginning on
the date of the last signature hereon and, if a Race to the Top-
Early Learning Challenge grant is received by the State, ending upon
the expiration of the Race to the Top-Early Learning Challenge grant
project period.
V. SIGNATURES
Authorized Representative of Lead Agency:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Signature Date
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Print Name Title
Authorized Representative of Participating State Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Signature Date
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Print Name Title
Exhibit I--Participating State Agency Scope of Work
The Participating State Agency hereby agrees to participate in
the State Plan, as described in the State's application, and more
specifically commits to undertake the tasks and activities described
in detail below.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Selection criterion Participating party Type of participation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Example Row--shows an example of criterion (B)(1) for State-funded preschool Representatives from each program are sitting on the
the State agency that oversees state-funded preschool, IDEA preschool special ed state committee to define statewide QRIS program
IDEA, and Head Start Collab Office Head Start Collab Office standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Head Start Collab Office Responsible for cross-walking Head Start performance
standards with the new program standards
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(B)(1) ...................................... .......................................................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(B)(2) ...................................... .......................................................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(B)(3) ...................................... .......................................................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(B)(4) ...................................... .......................................................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(B)(5) ...................................... .......................................................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(C)(1) ...................................... .......................................................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(C)(2) ...................................... .......................................................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(C)(3) ...................................... .......................................................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(C)(4) ...................................... .......................................................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(D)(1) ...................................... .......................................................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(D)(2) ...................................... .......................................................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(E)(1) ...................................... .......................................................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(E)(2) ...................................... .......................................................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
..................... .....................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Signature (Authorized Representative of Lead Agency) ..................... Date
..................... .....................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Signature (Authorized Representative of Participating State Agency) ..................... Date
[FR Doc. 2013-21139 Filed 8-29-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P