FR Doc 2010-8376
[Federal Register: April 14, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 71)]
[Notices]
[Page 19495-19531]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr14ap10-131]
Download: 
----------------------------------------------
[[Page 19495]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part III
Department of Education
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Overview Information; Race to the Top Fund; Notice Inviting
Applications for New Awards for Fiscal Year (FY) 2010; Notice
[[Page 19496]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Overview Information; Race to the Top Fund; Notice Inviting
Applications for New Awards for Fiscal Year (FY) 2010
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 84.395A.
Dates:
Applications Available: April 14, 2010.
Deadline for Notice of Intent to Apply for Phase 2: May 4, 2010.
Date of Meeting for Potential Applicants: The Department intends to
hold one technical assistance planning workshop. The workshop will be
held in Minneapolis, Minnesota, on April 21, 2010. We recommend that
applicants attend this workshop.
Deadlines for Transmittal of Phase 2 Applications: June 1, 2010.
Phase 2 applicants addressing selection criterion (B)(1)(ii)(b) may
amend their June 1, 2010 application submission through August 2, 2010
by submitting evidence of having adopted common standards after June 1,
2010. No other information may be submitted after June 1, 2010 in an
amended application.
Deadlines for Intergovernmental Review:
Phase 2 Applications: August 2, 2010.
Full Text of Announcement
I. Funding Opportunity Description
Purpose of Program: The purpose of the Race to the Top Fund, a
competitive grant program authorized under the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), is to encourage and reward States that
are creating the conditions for education innovation and reform;
achieving significant improvement in student outcomes, including making
substantial gains in student achievement, closing achievement gaps,
improving high school graduation rates, and ensuring student
preparation for success in college and careers; and implementing
ambitious plans in four core education reform areas:
(a) Adopting internationally-benchmarked standards and assessments
that prepare students for success in college and the workplace;
(b) Building data systems that measure student success and inform
teachers and principals in how they can improve their practices;
(c) Increasing teacher effectiveness and achieving equity in
teacher distribution; and
(d) Turning around our lowest-achieving schools.
Priorities: These priorities are from the notice of final
priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria for this
program, published in the Federal Register on November 18, 2009 (74 FR
59688).
Absolute Priority: For FY 2010, this priority is an absolute
priority. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(3), we consider only applications that
meet this priority. Applicants should address this priority throughout
their applications.
Priority 1: Absolute Priority--Comprehensive Approach to Education
Reform
To meet this priority, the State's application must comprehensively
and coherently address all of the four education reform areas specified
in the ARRA as well as the State Success Factors Criteria in order to
demonstrate that the State and its participating LEAs are taking a
systemic approach to education reform. The State must demonstrate in
its application sufficient LEA participation and commitment to
successfully implement and achieve the goals in its plans; and it must
describe how the State, in collaboration with its participating LEAs,
will use Race to the Top and other funds to increase student
achievement, decrease the achievement gaps across student subgroups,
and increase the rates at which students graduate from high school
prepared for college and careers.
Competitive Preference Priority: For FY 2010, this priority is a
competitive preference priority. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i), we award
15 additional points to applications that meet this priority.
Applicants should address this priority throughout their applications.
Priority 2: Competitive Preference Priority--Emphasis on Science,
Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM)
To meet this priority, the State's application must have a high-
quality plan to address the need to (i) offer a rigorous course of
study in mathematics, the sciences, technology, and engineering; (ii)
cooperate with industry experts, museums, universities, research
centers, or other STEM-capable community partners to prepare and assist
teachers in integrating STEM content across grades and disciplines, in
promoting effective and relevant instruction, and in offering applied
learning opportunities for students; and (iii) prepare more students
for advanced study and careers in the sciences, technology,
engineering, and mathematics, including by addressing the needs of
underrepresented groups and of women and girls in the areas of science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics.
Invitational Priorities: For FY 2010, these priorities are
invitational priorities. With an invitational priority, we signal our
interest in receiving applications that meet the priority; however,
consistent with 34 CFR 75.105(c)(1), we do not give an application that
meets an invitational priority preference over other applications.
Priority 3: Invitational Priority--Innovations for Improving Early
Learning Outcomes
The Secretary is particularly interested in applications that
include practices, strategies, or programs to improve educational
outcomes for high-need students who are young children (pre-
kindergarten through third grade) by enhancing the quality of preschool
programs. Of particular interest are proposals that support practices
that (i) improve school readiness (including social, emotional, and
cognitive); and (ii) improve the transition between preschool and
kindergarten.
Priority 4: Invitational Priority--Expansion and Adaptation of
Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems
The Secretary is particularly interested in applications in which
the State plans to expand statewide longitudinal data systems to
include or integrate data from special education programs, English
language learner programs,\1\ early childhood programs, at-risk and
dropout prevention programs, and school climate and culture programs,
as well as information on student mobility, human resources (i.e.,
information on teachers, principals, and other staff), school finance,
student health, postsecondary education, and other relevant areas, with
the purpose of connecting and coordinating all parts of the system to
allow important questions related to policy, practice, or overall
effectiveness to be asked, answered, and incorporated into effective
continuous improvement practices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The term English language learner, as used in this notice,
is synonymous with the term limited English proficient, as defined
in section 9101 of the ESEA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Secretary is also particularly interested in applications in
which States propose working together to adapt one State's statewide
longitudinal data system so that it may be used, in whole or in part,
by one or more other States, rather than having each State build or
continue building such systems independently.
[[Page 19497]]
Priority 5: Invitational Priority--P-20 Coordination, Vertical and
Horizontal Alignment
The Secretary is particularly interested in applications in which
the State plans to address how early childhood programs, K-12 schools,
postsecondary institutions, workforce development organizations, and
other State agencies and community partners (e.g., child welfare,
juvenile justice, and criminal justice agencies) will coordinate to
improve all parts of the education system and create a more seamless
preschool-through-graduate school (P-20) route for students. Vertical
alignment across P-20 is particularly critical at each point where a
transition occurs (e.g., between early childhood and K-12, or between
K-12 and postsecondary/careers) to ensure that students exiting one
level are prepared for success, without remediation, in the next.
Horizontal alignment, that is, coordination of services across schools,
State agencies, and community partners, is also important in ensuring
that high-need students (as defined in this notice) have access to the
broad array of opportunities and services they need and that are beyond
the capacity of a school itself to provide.
Priority 6: Invitational Priority--School-Level Conditions for Reform,
Innovation, and Learning
The Secretary is particularly interested in applications in which
the State's participating LEAs (as defined in this notice) seek to
create the conditions for reform and innovation as well as the
conditions for learning by providing schools with flexibility and
autonomy in such areas as--
(i) Selecting staff;
(ii) Implementing new structures and formats for the school day or
year that result in increased learning time (as defined in this
notice);
(iii) Controlling the school's budget;
(iv) Awarding credit to students based on student performance
instead of instructional time;
(v) Providing comprehensive services to high-need students (as
defined in this notice) (e.g., by mentors and other caring adults;
through local partnerships with community-based organizations,
nonprofit organizations, and other providers);
(vi) Creating school climates and cultures that remove obstacles
to, and actively support, student engagement and achievement; and
(vii) Implementing strategies to effectively engage families and
communities in supporting the academic success of their students.
Final Requirements: The following requirements are from the notice
of final priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria,
published in the Federal Register on November 18, 2009 (74 FR 59688)
and the interim final requirements published in the Federal Register on
April 2, 2010 (75 FR 16668).
Application Requirements:
(a) The State's application must be signed by the Governor, the
State's chief school officer, and the president of the State board of
education (if applicable). States will respond to this requirement in
the application, Section III, Race to the Top Application Assurances.
In addition, the assurances in Section IV must be signed by the
Governor.
(b) The State must describe the progress it has made over the past
several years in each of the four education reform areas (as described
in criterion (A)(3)(i)).
(c) The State must include a budget that details how it will use
grant funds and other resources to meet targets and perform related
functions (as described in criterion (A)(2)(i)(d)), including how it
will use funds awarded under this program to--
(1) Achieve its targets for improving student achievement and
graduation rates and for closing achievement gaps (as described in
criterion (A)(1)(iii)); the State must also describe its track record
of improving student progress overall and by student subgroup (as
described in criterion (A)(3)(ii)); and
(2) Give priority to high-need LEAs (as defined in this notice), in
addition to providing 50 percent of the grant to participating LEAs (as
defined in this notice) based on their relative shares of funding under
Part A of Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965
(ESEA) for the most recent year as required under section 14006(c) of
the ARRA. (Note: Because all Race to the Top grants will be made in
2010, relative shares will be based on total funding received in FY
2009, including both the regular Title I, Part A appropriation and the
amount made available by the ARRA).
(d) The State must provide, for each State Reform Conditions
Criterion (listed in this notice) that it chooses to address, a
description of the State's current status in meeting that criterion
and, at a minimum, the information requested as supporting evidence for
the criterion and the performance measures, if any (see Appendix A).
(e) The State must provide, for each Reform Plan Criterion (listed
in this notice) that it chooses to address, a detailed plan for use of
grant funds that includes, but need not be limited to--
(1) The key goals;
(2) The key activities to be undertaken and rationale for the
activities, which should include why the specific activities are
thought to bring about the change envisioned and how these activities
are linked to the key goals;
(3) The timeline for implementing the activities;
(4) The party or parties responsible for implementing the
activities;
(5) The information requested in the performance measures, where
applicable (see Appendix A), and where the State proposes plans for
reform efforts not covered by a specified performance measure, the
State is encouraged to propose performance measures and annual targets
for those efforts; and
(6) The information requested as supporting evidence, if any, for
the criterion, together with any additional information the State
believes will be helpful to peer reviewers in judging the credibility
of the State's plan.
(f) The State must submit a certification from the State Attorney
General that--
(1) The State's description of, and statements and conclusions
concerning State law, statute, and regulation in its application are
complete, accurate, and constitute a reasonable interpretation of State
law, statute, and regulation; and
(2) At the time the State submits its application, the State does
not have any legal, statutory, or regulatory barriers at the State
level to linking data on student achievement or student growth to
teachers and principals for the purpose of teacher and principal
evaluation.
(g) When addressing issues relating to assessments required under
the ESEA or subgroups in the selection criteria, the State must meet
the following requirements:
(1) For student subgroups with respect to the National Assessment
of Educational Progress (NAEP), the State must provide data for the
NAEP subgroups described in section 303(b)(2)(G) of the National
Assessment of Educational Progress Authorization Act (20 U.S.C. 9622)
(i.e., race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, gender, disability, and
limited English proficiency). The State must also include the NAEP
exclusion rate for students with disabilities and the exclusion rate
for English language learners, along with clear documentation of the
State's policies and practices for determining whether a student with a
disability or an English language learner should participate in the
NAEP and whether the student needs accommodations;
(2) For student subgroups with respect to high school graduation
rates,
[[Page 19498]]
college enrollment and credit accumulation rates, and the assessments
required under the ESEA, the State must provide data for the subgroups
described in section 1111(b)(2)(C)(v)(II) of the ESEA (i.e.,
economically disadvantaged students, students from major racial and
ethnic groups, students with disabilities, and students with limited
English proficiency); and
(3) When asked to provide information regarding the assessments
required under the ESEA, States should refer to section 1111(b)(3) of
the ESEA; in addition, when describing this assessment data in the
State's application, the State should note any factors (e.g., changes
in cut scores) that would impact the comparability of data from one
year to the next.
Program Requirements:
Evaluation: The Institute of Education Sciences (IES) will conduct
a series of national evaluations of Race to the Top's State grantees as
part of its evaluation of programs funded under the ARRA. The
Department's goal for these evaluations is to ensure that its studies
not only assess program impacts, but also provide valuable information
to State and local educators to help inform and improve their
practices.
The Department anticipates that the national evaluations will
involve such components as--
Surveys of States, LEAs, and/or schools, which will help
identify how program funding is spent and the specific efforts and
activities that are underway within each of the four education reform
areas and across selected ARRA-funded programs;
Case studies of promising practices in States, LEAs, and/
or schools through surveys and other mechanisms; and
Evaluations of outcomes, focusing on student achievement
and other performance measures, to determine the impact of the reforms
implemented under Race to the Top.
Race to the Top grantee States are not required to conduct
independent evaluations, but may propose, within their applications, to
use funds from Race to the Top to support such evaluations. Grantees
must make available, through formal (e.g., peer-reviewed journals) or
informal (e.g., newsletters, Web sites) mechanisms, the results of any
evaluations they conduct of their funded activities. In addition, as
described elsewhere in this notice and regardless of the final
components of the national evaluation, Race to the Top States, LEAs,
and schools are expected to identify and share promising practices,
make work available within and across States, and make data available
in appropriate ways to stakeholders and researchers so as to help all
States focus on continuous improvement in service of student outcomes.
Participating LEA Scope of Work: The agreements signed by
participating LEAs (as defined in this notice) must include a scope-of-
work section. The scope of work submitted by LEAs and States as part of
their Race to the Top applications will be preliminary. Preliminary
scopes of work should include the portions of the State's proposed
reform plans that the LEA is agreeing to implement. If a State is
awarded a Race to the Top grant, its participating LEAs (as defined in
this notice) will have up to 90 days to complete final scopes of work,
which must contain detailed work plans that are consistent with their
preliminary scopes of work and with the State's grant application, and
should include the participating LEAs' specific goals, activities,
timelines, budgets, key personnel, and annual targets for key
performance measures.
Making Work Available: Unless otherwise protected by law or
agreement as proprietary information, the State and its subgrantees
must make any work (e.g., materials, tools, processes, systems)
developed under its grant freely available to others, including but not
limited to by posting the work on a website identified or sponsored by
the Department.
Technical Assistance: The State must participate in applicable
technical assistance activities that may be conducted by the Department
or its designees.
State Summative Assessments: No funds awarded under this
competition may be used to pay for costs related to statewide summative
assessments.
Budget Requirements: For Phase 2 of the Fiscal Year 2010
competition, and for any subsequent competitions, the State's budget
must conform to the following budget ranges:\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The Department developed budget ranges for each State by
ranking every State according to its share of the national
population of children ages 5 through 17 based on data from
``Estimates of the Resident Population by Selected Age Groups for
the United States, States, and Puerto Rico: July 1, 2008'' released
by the Population Division of the U.S. Census Bureau. The Department
identified the natural breaks in the population data and then
developed overlapping budget ranges for each category taking into
consideration the total amount of funds available for awards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category 1--$350-700 million: California, Texas, New York, Florida.
Category 2--$200-400 million: Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio,
Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina, New Jersey.
Category 3--$150-250 million: Virginia, Arizona, Indiana,
Washington, Tennessee, Massachusetts, Missouri, Maryland, Wisconsin.
Category 4--$60-175 million: Minnesota, Colorado, Alabama,
Louisiana, South Carolina, Puerto Rico, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Oregon,
Connecticut, Utah, Mississippi, Iowa, Arkansas, Kansas, Nevada.
Category 5--$20-75 million: New Mexico, Nebraska, Idaho, West
Virginia, New Hampshire, Maine, Hawaii, Rhode Island, Montana,
Delaware, South Dakota, Alaska, North Dakota, Vermont, Wyoming,
District of Columbia.
The State should develop a budget that is appropriate for the plan
it outlines in its application; however we will not consider a State's
application if its request exceeds the maximum in its budget range.
Program Definitions: These definitions are from the notice of final
priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria for this
program, published in the Federal Register on November 18, 2009 (74 FR
59688).
Alternative routes to certification means pathways to certification
that are authorized under the State's laws or regulations, that allow
the establishment and operation of teacher and administrator
preparation programs in the State, and that have the following
characteristics (in addition to standard features such as demonstration
of subject-matter mastery, and high-quality instruction in pedagogy and
in addressing the needs of all students in the classroom including
English language learners and student with disabilities): (a) Can be
provided by various types of qualified providers, including both
institutions of higher education and other providers operating
independently from institutions of higher education; (b) are selective
in accepting candidates; (c) provide supervised, school-based
experiences and ongoing support such as effective mentoring and
coaching; (d) significantly limit the amount of coursework required or
have options to test out of courses; and (e) upon completion, award the
same level of certification that traditional preparation programs award
upon completion.
College enrollment refers to the enrollment of students who
graduate from high school consistent with 34 CFR 200.19(b)(1) and who
enroll in an institution of higher education (as defined in section 101
of the Higher Education Act, Public Law 105-244, 20 U.S.C. 1001) within
16 months of graduation.
Common set of K-12 standards means a set of content standards that
define what students must know and be able to do and that are
substantially identical
[[Page 19499]]
across all States in a consortium. A State may supplement the common
standards with additional standards, provided that the additional
standards do not exceed 15 percent of the State's total standards for
that content area.
Effective principal means a principal whose students, overall and
for each subgroup, achieve acceptable rates (e.g., at least one grade
level in an academic year) of student growth (as defined in this
notice). States, LEAs, or schools must include multiple measures,
provided that principal effectiveness is evaluated, in significant
part, by student growth (as defined in this notice). Supplemental
measures may include, for example, high school graduation rates and
college enrollment rates, as well as evidence of providing supportive
teaching and learning conditions, strong instructional leadership, and
positive family and community engagement.
Effective teacher means a teacher whose students achieve acceptable
rates (e.g., at least one grade level in an academic year) of student
growth (as defined in this notice). States, LEAs, or schools must
include multiple measures, provided that teacher effectiveness is
evaluated, in significant part, by student growth (as defined in this
notice). Supplemental measures may include, for example, multiple
observation-based assessments of teacher performance.
Formative assessment means assessment questions, tools, and
processes that are embedded in instruction and are used by teachers and
students to provide timely feedback for purposes of adjusting
instruction to improve learning.
Graduation rate means the four-year or extended-year adjusted
cohort graduation rate as defined by 34 CFR 200.19(b)(1).
Highly effective principal means a principal whose students,
overall and for each subgroup, achieve high rates (e.g., one and one-
half grade levels in an academic year) of student growth (as defined in
this notice). States, LEAs, or schools must include multiple measures,
provided that principal effectiveness is evaluated, in significant
part, by student growth (as defined in this notice). Supplemental
measures may include, for example, high school graduation rates;
college enrollment rates; evidence of providing supportive teaching and
learning conditions, strong instructional leadership, and positive
family and community engagement; or evidence of attracting, developing,
and retaining high numbers of effective teachers.
Highly effective teacher means a teacher whose students achieve
high rates (e.g., one and one-half grade levels in an academic year) of
student growth (as defined in this notice). States, LEAs, or schools
must include multiple measures, provided that teacher effectiveness is
evaluated, in significant part, by student growth (as defined in this
notice). Supplemental measures may include, for example, multiple
observation-based assessments of teacher performance or evidence of
leadership roles (which may include mentoring or leading professional
learning communities) that increase the effectiveness of other teachers
in the school or LEA.
High-minority school is defined by the State in a manner consistent
with its Teacher Equity Plan. The State should provide, in its Race to
the Top application, the definition used.
High-need LEA means an LEA (a) that serves not fewer than 10,000
children from families with incomes below the poverty line; or (b) for
which not less than 20 percent of the children served by the LEA are
from families with incomes below the poverty line.
High-need students means students at risk of educational failure or
otherwise in need of special assistance and support, such as students
who are living in poverty, who attend high-minority schools (as defined
in this notice), who are far below grade level, who have left school
before receiving a regular high school diploma, who are at risk of not
graduating with a diploma on time, who are homeless, who are in foster
care, who have been incarcerated, who have disabilities, or who are
English language learners.
High-performing charter school means a charter school that has been
in operation for at least three consecutive years and has demonstrated
overall success, including (a) substantial progress in improving
student achievement (as defined in this notice); and (b) the management
and leadership necessary to overcome initial start-up problems and
establish a thriving, financially viable charter school.
High-poverty school means, consistent with section
1111(h)(1)(C)(viii) of the ESEA, a school in the highest quartile of
schools in the State with respect to poverty level, using a measure of
poverty determined by the State.
High-quality assessment means an assessment designed to measure a
student's knowledge, understanding of, and ability to apply, critical
concepts through the use of a variety of item types and formats (e.g.,
open-ended responses, performance-based tasks). Such assessments should
enable measurement of student achievement (as defined in this notice)
and student growth (as defined in this notice); be of high technical
quality (e.g., be valid, reliable, fair, and aligned to standards);
incorporate technology where appropriate; include the assessment of
students with disabilities and English language learners; and to the
extent feasible, use universal design principles (as defined in section
3 of the Assistive Technology Act of 1998, as amended, 29 U.S.C. 3002)
in development and administration.
Increased learning time means using a longer school day, week, or
year schedule to significantly increase the total number of school
hours to include additional time for (a) instruction in core academic
subjects, including English; reading or language arts; mathematics;
science; foreign languages; civics and government; economics; arts;
history; and geography; (b) instruction in other subjects and
enrichment activities that contribute to a well-rounded education,
including, for example, physical education, service learning, and
experiential and work-based learning opportunities that are provided by
partnering, as appropriate, with other organizations; and (c) teachers
to collaborate, plan, and engage in professional development within and
across grades and subjects.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Research supports the effectiveness of well-designed
programs that expand learning time by a minimum of 300 hours per
school year. (See Frazier, Julie A.; Morrison, Frederick J. ``The
Influence of Extended-year Schooling on Growth of Achievement and
Perceived Competence in Early Elementary School.'' Child
Development. Vol. 69 (2), April 1998, pp. 495-497 and research done
by Mass2020.) Extending learning into before- and after-school hours
can be difficult to implement effectively, but is permissible under
this definition with encouragement to closely integrate and
coordinate academic work between in-school and out-of school. (See
James-Burdumy, Susanne; Dynarski, Mark; Deke, John. ``When
Elementary Schools Stay Open Late: Results from The National
Evaluation of the 21st Century Community Learning Centers Program.''
http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/publications/redirect_
PubsDB.asp?strSite=http://epa.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/29/4/
296. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, Vol. 29 (4),
December 2007, Document No. PP07-121.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Innovative, autonomous public schools means open enrollment public
schools that, in return for increased accountability for student
achievement (as defined in this notice), have the flexibility and
authority to define their instructional models and associated
curriculum; select and replace staff; implement new structures and
formats for the school day or year; and control their budgets.
Instructional improvement systems means technology-based tools and
other strategies that provide teachers,
[[Page 19500]]
principals, and administrators with meaningful support and actionable
data to systemically manage continuous instructional improvement,
including such activities as: Instructional planning; gathering
information (e.g., through formative assessments (as defined in this
notice), interim assessments (as defined in this notice), summative
assessments, and looking at student work and other student data);
analyzing information with the support of rapid-time (as defined in
this notice) reporting; using this information to inform decisions on
appropriate next instructional steps; and evaluating the effectiveness
of the actions taken. Such systems promote collaborative problem-
solving and action planning; they may also integrate instructional data
with student-level data such as attendance, discipline, grades, credit
accumulation, and student survey results to provide early warning
indicators of a student's risk of educational failure.
Interim assessment means an assessment that is given at regular and
specified intervals throughout the school year, is designed to evaluate
students' knowledge and skills relative to a specific set of academic
standards, and produces results that can be aggregated (e.g., by
course, grade level, school, or LEA) in order to inform teachers and
administrators at the student, classroom, school, and LEA levels.
Involved LEAs means LEAs that choose to work with the State to
implement those specific portions of the State's plan that necessitate
full or nearly-full statewide implementation, such as transitioning to
a common set of K-12 standards (as defined in this notice). Involved
LEAs do not receive a share of the 50 percent of a State's grant award
that it must subgrant to LEAs in accordance with section 14006(c) of
the ARRA, but States may provide other funding to involved LEAs under
the State's Race to the Top grant in a manner that is consistent with
the State's application.
Low-minority school is defined by the State in a manner consistent
with its Teacher Equity Plan. The State should provide, in its Race to
the Top application, the definition used.
Low-poverty school means, consistent with section
1111(h)(1)(C)(viii) of the ESEA, a school in the lowest quartile of
schools in the State with respect to poverty level, using a measure of
poverty determined by the State.
Participating LEAs means LEAs that choose to work with the State to
implement all or significant portions of the State's Race to the Top
plan, as specified in each LEA's agreement with the State. Each
participating LEA that receives funding under Title I, Part A will
receive a share of the 50 percent of a State's grant award that the
State must subgrant to LEAs, based on the LEA's relative share of Title
I, Part A allocations in the most recent year, in accordance with
section 14006(c) of the ARRA. Any participating LEA that does not
receive funding under Title I, Part A (as well as one that does) may
receive funding from the State's other 50 percent of the grant award,
in accordance with the State's plan.
Persistently lowest-achieving schools means, as determined by the
State: (i) Any Title I school in improvement, corrective action, or
restructuring that (a) Is among the lowest-achieving five percent of
Title I schools in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring or
the lowest-achieving five Title I schools in improvement, corrective
action, or restructuring in the State, whichever number of schools is
greater; or (b) Is a high school that has had a graduation rate as
defined in 34 CFR 200.19(b) that is less than 60 percent over a number
of years; and (ii) Any secondary school that is eligible for, but does
not receive, Title I funds that (a) Is among the lowest-achieving five
percent of secondary schools or the lowest-achieving five secondary
schools in the State that are eligible for, but do not receive, Title I
funds, whichever number of schools is greater; or (b) Is a high school
that has had a graduation rate as defined in 34 CFR 200.19(b) that is
less than 60 percent over a number of years.
To identify the lowest-achieving schools, a State must take into
account both (i) The academic achievement of the ``all students'' group
in a school in terms of proficiency on the State's assessments under
section 1111(b)(3) of the ESEA in reading/language arts and mathematics
combined; and (ii) The school's lack of progress on those assessments
over a number of years in the ``all students'' group.
Rapid-time, in reference to reporting and availability of locally
collected school- and LEA-level data, means that data are available
quickly enough to inform current lessons, instruction, and related
supports.
Student achievement means--
(a) For tested grades and subjects: (1) A student's score on the
State's assessments under the ESEA; and, as appropriate, (2) other
measures of student learning, such as those described in paragraph (b)
of this definition, provided they are rigorous and comparable across
classrooms.
(b) For non-tested grades and subjects: Alternative measures of
student learning and performance such as student scores on pre-tests
and end-of-course tests; student performance on English language
proficiency assessments; and other measures of student achievement that
are rigorous and comparable across classrooms.
Student growth means the change in student achievement (as defined
in this notice) for an individual student between two or more points in
time. A State may also include other measures that are rigorous and
comparable across classrooms.
Total revenues available to the State means either (a) projected or
actual total State revenues for education and other purposes for the
relevant year; or (b) projected or actual total State appropriations
for education and other purposes for the relevant year.
America COMPETES Act elements means (as specified in section
6401(e)(2)(D) of that Act): (1) A unique statewide student identifier
that does not permit a student to be individually identified by users
of the system; (2) student-level enrollment, demographic, and program
participation information; (3) student-level information about the
points at which students exit, transfer in, transfer out, drop out, or
complete P-16 education programs; (4) the capacity to communicate with
higher education data systems; (5) a State data audit system assessing
data quality, validity, and reliability; (6) yearly test records of
individual students with respect to assessments under section 1111(b)
of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 6311(b)); (7) information on students not tested
by grade and subject; (8) a teacher identifier system with the ability
to match teachers to students; (9) student-level transcript
information, including information on courses completed and grades
earned; (10) student-level college readiness test scores; (11)
information regarding the extent to which students transition
successfully from secondary school to postsecondary education,
including whether students enroll in remedial coursework; and (12)
other information determined necessary to address alignment and
adequate preparation for success in postsecondary education.
Program Authority: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009,
Division A, Section 14006, Public Law 111-5.
Applicable Regulations: (a) The Education Department General
Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) in 34 CFR parts 74, 75, 77, 79, 80,
81, 82, 84, 85, 86, 97, 98, and 99. (b) The notice of final priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria, published in the
Federal Register on
[[Page 19501]]
November 18, 2009 (74 FR 59688). (c) The interim final requirements
published in the Federal Register on April 2, 2010 (75 FR 16668).
II. Award Information
Type of Award: Discretionary grant.
Estimated Available Funds for Phase 2: $3.4 billion.
Estimated Range of Awards: $20 million-$700 million.
Maximum Award: $700 million. As indicated in the budget
requirements listed elsewhere in this notice, we will not consider a
State's application if its budget request exceeds the maximum in its
budget range. Each State's budget range is listed in this notice.
Note: The Department is not bound by any estimates in this
notice. The Department will decide on the size of each State's award
based on a detailed review of the budget the State requests,
considering such factors as the size of the State, level of LEA
participation, and the proposed activities.
Project Period: Up to 48 months.
III. Eligibility Information
1. Eligible Applicants: Eligible applicants are the 50 States, the
District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico (referred to in this notice as
State).
A State must meet the following requirements in order to be
eligible to receive funds under this program.
(a) The State's applications for funding under Phase 1 and Phase 2
of the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund program must be approved by the
Department prior to the State being awarded a Race to the Top grant.
(b) At the time the State submits its application, there must not
be any legal, statutory, or regulatory barriers at the State level to
linking data on student achievement (as defined in this notice) or
student growth (as defined in this notice) to teachers and principals
for the purpose of teacher and principal evaluation.
2. Cost Sharing or Matching: This program does not require cost
sharing or matching.
IV. Application and Submission Information
1. Address to Request Application Package:
You can obtain an application package via the Internet or from the
Education Publications Center (ED Pubs). To obtain a copy via the
Internet, use the following address:
http://www.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/index.html.
To obtain a copy from ED Pubs, write, fax, or
call the following: Education Publications Center, P.O. Box 1398,
Jessup, MD 20794-1398. Telephone, toll free: 1-877-433-7827. FAX: (301)
470-1244. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD),
call, toll free: 1-877-576-7734.
You can also contact ED Pubs at its Web site:
http://www.ed.gov/pubs/edpubs.html or at its e-mail address: edpubs@inet.ed.gov.
If you request an application from ED Pubs, be sure to identify
this program or competition as follows: CFDA 84.395A.
Individuals with disabilities can obtain a copy of the application
package in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape,
or computer diskette) by contacting the person listed under For Further
Information Contact in section VII of this notice.
2. Content and Form of Application Submission: Requirements
concerning the content of the application, together with the forms
States must submit, are in the application package for this
competition.
Page Limit: The application narrative (Section VI) is where the
applicant addresses the selection criteria that reviewers use to
evaluate applications. The Department recommends that applicants limit
their narrative responses in Section VI of the application to no more
than 100 pages of State-authored text, and limit their appendices to no
more than 250 pages. 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:
Applications Available: April 14, 2010.
Deadline for Notice of Intent to Apply: The Department will be able
to develop a more efficient process for reviewing grant applications if
we have a better understanding of the number of applications we will
receive. Therefore, we strongly encourage each potential applicant to
send an e-mail notice of its intent to apply for funding for Phase 2 to
the e-mail address RacetotheTop@ed.gov by May 4, 2010. The notice of
intent to apply is optional; States may still submit applications if
they have not notified the Department of their intention to apply.
Date of Meeting for Potential Applicants:
To assist States in preparing the application and to respond to
questions, the Department intends to host a Technical Assistance
Planning Workshop for potential Phase 2 applicants. The workshop will
be held in Minneapolis, Minnesota on April 21, 2010.
The purpose of the workshop is for Department staff to review the
selection criteria, requirements, and priorities with teams of
participants responsible for drafting State applications; for
Department staff to answer technical questions about the Race to the
Top program; and for potential Phase 2 applicants to hear from and ask
questions of successful Phase 1 applicants. The Department plans to
release more details regarding the workshop in early April. Updates
will be available at the Race to the Top Web site
http://www.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop. Attendance at the workshop is
strongly encouraged. For those who cannot attend, transcripts of the meeting
will be available on our Web site. Announcements of any other
conference calls or Webinars and Frequently Asked Questions will also
be available on the Race to the Top Web site.
Deadline for Transmittal of Applications:
Phase 2 Applications: June 1, 2010. Phase 2 applicants addressing
selection criterion (B)(1)(ii)(b) may amend their June 1, 2010
application submissions through August 2, 2010 by submitting evidence
of having adopted common standards after June 1, 2010. No other
information may be submitted in an amended application after June 1,
2010.
Deadlines for Intergovernmental Review:
Phase 2 Applications: August 2, 2010.
Applications for grants under this competition, as well as any
amendments regarding adoption of common standards that Phase 2
applicants may file after June 1 and through August 2, 2010, must be
submitted in electronic format on a CD or DVD, with CD-ROM or DVD-ROM
preferred. In addition, States must submit an original and one hard
copy of Sections III and IV of the application, which include the Race
to the Top Application Assurances and the Accountability, Transparency,
Reporting and Other Assurances. Emailed submissions will not be read.
For information (including dates and times) about how to submit your
electronic application, please refer to section IV.6, Other Submission
Requirements in this notice. Evidence, if any, of adoption of common
standards submitted after June 1, 2010, but by August 2, 2010, must be
submitted using the same submission process described in section IV.
Application and Submission Information of this notice.
[[Page 19502]]
The Department will not consider an application that does not
comply with the deadline requirements.
Individuals with disabilities who need an accommodation or
auxiliary aid in connection with the application process should contact
the person listed under For Further Information Contact in section VII
of this notice. If the Department provides an accommodation or
auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability in connection with the
application process, the individual's application remains subject to
all other requirements and limitations in this notice.
4. Intergovernmental Review: This program is subject to Executive
Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. Information about
Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs under Executive Order
12372 is in the application package for this competition.
5. Funding Restrictions: We reference regulations outlining funding
restrictions in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice.
6. Other Submission Requirements: Applications for grants under
this competition must be submitted by mail or hand delivery. The
Department strongly recommends the use of overnight mail. Applications
postmarked on the deadline date but arriving late will not be read.
a. Application Submission Format and Deadline. Applications for
grants under this competition, as well as any amendments regarding
adoption of common standards that Phase 2 applicants may file after
June 1 and through August 2, 2010, must be submitted in electronic
format on a CD or DVD, with CD-ROM or DVD-ROM preferred. In addition,
they must submit a signed original of Sections III and IV of the
application and one copy of that signed original. Sections III and IV
of the application include the Race to the Top Application Assurances
and the Accountability, Transparency, Reporting and Other Assurances.
All electronic application files must be in a .DOC (document),
.DOCX (document), .RTF (rich text), or .PDF (Portable Document) format.
Each file name should clearly identify the part of the application to
which the content is responding. If a State submits a file type other
than the four file types specified in this paragraph, the Department
will not review that material. States should not password-protect these
files.
The CD or DVD should be clearly labeled with the State's name and
any other relevant information.
The Department must receive all grant applications by 4:30:00 p.m.,
Washington DC time, on the application deadline date. We will not
accept an application for this competition after 4:30:00 p.m.,
Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. Therefore, we
strongly recommend that applicants arrange for mailing or hand delivery
of their applications in advance of the application deadline date.
b. Submission of Applications by Mail. States may submit their
application (i.e., the CD or DVD, the signed original of Sections III
and IV of the application, and the copy of that original) by mail
(either through the U.S. Postal Service or a commercial carrier). We
must receive the applications on or before the application deadline
date. Therefore, to avoid delays, we strongly recommend sending
applications via overnight mail. Mail applications to the Department at
the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application
Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.395A), 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.
c. Submission of Applications by Hand Delivery. States may submit
their application (i.e., the CD or DVD, the signed original of Sections
III and IV of the application, and the copy of that original) by hand
delivery (including via a courier service). We must receive the
applications on or before the application deadline date, at the
following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control
Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.395A), 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 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, except
Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays. If we receive an application
after the application deadline, we will not consider that application.
d. Envelope requirements and receipt: When an applicant submits its
application, whether by mail or hand delivery--
(1) It must indicate on the envelope that the CFDA number of the
competition under which it is submitting its application is 84.395A;
and
(2) The Application Control Center will mail to the applicant a
notification of receipt of the grant application. If the applicant does
not receive this notification, it should call the U.S. Department of
Education Application Control Center at (202) 245-6288.
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.
V. Application Review Information
Selection Criteria: The selection criteria and scoring rubric for
this competition are from the notice of final priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria, published in the Federal Register
on November 18, 2009 (75 FR 59688). The reviewers will utilize the
scoring rubric (which can also be found in Appendix B of this notice)
in applying the following selection criteria:
A. State Success Factors
(A)(1) Articulating State's education reform agenda and LEAs'
participation in it: The extent to which--
(i) The State has set forth a comprehensive and coherent reform
agenda that clearly articulates its goals for implementing reforms in
the four education areas described in the ARRA and improving student
outcomes statewide, establishes a clear and credible path to achieving
these goals, and is consistent with the specific reform plans that the
State has proposed throughout its application;
(ii) The participating LEAs (as defined in this notice) are
strongly committed to the State's plans and to effective implementation
of reform in the four education areas, as evidenced by Memoranda of
Understanding (MOUs) (as set forth in Appendix D) \4\ or other binding
agreements between the State and its participating LEAs (as defined in
this notice) that include--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See Appendix D for more on participating LEA MOUs and for a
model MOU.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Terms and conditions that reflect strong commitment by the
participating LEAs (as defined in this notice) to the State's plans;
(b) Scope-of-work descriptions that require participating LEAs (as
defined in this notice) to implement all or significant portions of the
State's Race to the Top plans; and
(c) Signatures from as many as possible of the LEA superintendent
(or equivalent), the president of the local school board (or
equivalent, if applicable), and the local teachers' union leader (if
applicable) (one signature of which must be from an authorized LEA
representative) demonstrating the extent of leadership
[[Page 19503]]
support within participating LEAs (as defined in this notice); and
(iii) The LEAs that are participating in the State's Race to the
Top plans (including considerations of the numbers and percentages of
participating LEAs, schools, K-12 students, and students in poverty)
will translate into broad statewide impact, allowing the State to reach
its ambitious yet achievable goals, overall and by student subgroup,
for--
(a) Increasing student achievement in (at a minimum) reading/
language arts and mathematics, as reported by the NAEP and the
assessments required under the ESEA;
(b) Decreasing achievement gaps between subgroups in reading/
language arts and mathematics, as reported by the NAEP and the
assessments required under the ESEA;
(c) Increasing high school graduation rates (as defined in this
notice); and
(d) Increasing college enrollment (as defined in this notice) and
increasing the number of students who complete at least a year's worth
of college credit that is applicable to a degree within two years of
enrollment in an institution of higher education.
(A)(2) Building strong statewide capacity to implement, scale up,
and sustain proposed plans: The extent to which the State has a high-
quality overall plan to--
(i) Ensure that it has the capacity required to implement its
proposed plans by--
(a) Providing strong leadership and dedicated teams to implement
the statewide education reform plans the State has proposed;
(b) Supporting participating LEAs (as defined in this notice) in
successfully implementing the education reform plans the State has
proposed, through such activities as identifying promising practices,
evaluating these practices' effectiveness, ceasing ineffective
practices, widely disseminating and replicating the effective practices
statewide, holding participating LEAs (as defined in this notice)
accountable for progress and performance, and intervening where
necessary;
(c) Providing effective and efficient operations and processes for
implementing its Race to the Top grant in such areas as grant
administration and oversight, budget reporting and monitoring,
performance measure tracking and reporting, and fund disbursement;
(d) Using the funds for this grant, as described in the State's
budget and accompanying budget narrative, to accomplish the State's
plans and meet its targets, including, where feasible, by coordinating,
reallocating, or repurposing education funds from other Federal, State,
and local sources so that they align with the State's Race to the Top
goals; and
(e) Using the fiscal, political, and human capital resources of the
State to continue, after the period of funding has ended, those reforms
funded under the grant for which there is evidence of success; and
(ii) Use support from a broad group of stakeholders to better
implement its plans, as evidenced by the strength of statements or
actions of support from--
(a) The State's teachers and principals, which include the State's
teachers' unions or statewide teacher associations; and
(b) Other critical stakeholders, such as the State's legislative
leadership; charter school authorizers and State charter school
membership associations (if applicable); other State and local leaders
(e.g., business, community, civil rights, and education association
leaders); Tribal schools; parent, student, and community organizations
(e.g., parent-teacher associations, nonprofit organizations, local
education foundations, and community-based organizations); and
institutions of higher education.
(A)(3) Demonstrating significant progress in raising achievement
and closing gaps: The extent to which the State has demonstrated its
ability to--
(i) Make progress over the past several years in each of the four
education reform areas, and used its ARRA and other Federal and State
funding to pursue such reforms;
(ii) Improve student outcomes overall and by student subgroup since
at least 2003, and explain the connections between the data and the
actions that have contributed to--
(a) Increasing student achievement in reading/language arts and
mathematics, both on the NAEP and on the assessments required under the
ESEA;
(b) Decreasing achievement gaps between subgroups in reading/
language arts and mathematics, both on the NAEP and on the assessments
required under the ESEA; and
(c) Increasing high school graduation rates.
B. Standards and Assessments
State Reform Conditions Criteria
(B)(1) Developing and adopting common standards: The extent to
which the State has demonstrated its commitment to adopting a common
set of high-quality standards, evidenced by (as set forth in Appendix
B)--
(i) The State's participation in a consortium of States that--
(a) Is working toward jointly developing and adopting a common set
of K-12 standards (as defined in this notice) that are supported by
evidence that they are internationally benchmarked and build toward
college and career readiness by the time of high school graduation; and
(b) Includes a significant number of States; and
(ii)(a) For Phase 1 applications, the State's high-quality plan
demonstrating its commitment to and progress toward adopting a common
set of K-12 standards (as defined in this notice) by August 2, 2010,
or, at a minimum, by a later date in 2010 specified by the State, and
to implementing the standards thereafter in a well-planned way; or
(b) For Phase 2 applications, the State's adoption of a common set
of K-12 standards (as defined in this notice) by August 2, 2010, or, at
a minimum, by a later date in 2010 specified by the State in a high-
quality plan toward which the State has made significant progress, and
its commitment to implementing the standards thereafter in a well-
planned way.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Phase 2 applicants addressing selection criterion (B)(1)(ii)
may amend their June 1, 2010 application submission through August
2, 2010 by submitting evidence of adopting common standards after
June 1, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(B)(2) Developing and implementing common, high-quality
assessments: The extent to which the State has demonstrated its
commitment to improving the quality of its assessments, evidenced by
(as set forth in Appendix B) the State's participation in a consortium
of States that--
(i) Is working toward jointly developing and implementing common,
high-quality assessments (as defined in this notice) aligned with the
consortium's common set of K-12 standards (as defined in this notice);
and
(ii) Includes a significant number of States.
Reform Plan Criteria
(B)(3) Supporting the transition to enhanced standards and high-
quality assessments: The extent to which the State, in collaboration
with its participating LEAs (as defined in this notice), has a high-
quality plan for supporting a statewide transition to and
implementation of internationally benchmarked K-12 standards that build
toward college and career readiness by the time of high school
graduation, and high-quality assessments (as defined in this notice)
tied to these standards. State or LEA activities might, for example,
include: Developing a rollout plan for the standards together with all
of their
[[Page 19504]]
supporting components; in cooperation with the State's institutions of
higher education, aligning high school exit criteria and college
entrance requirements with the new standards and assessments;
developing or acquiring, disseminating, and implementing high-quality
instructional materials and assessments (including, for example,
formative and interim assessments (both as defined in this notice));
developing or acquiring and delivering high-quality professional
development to support the transition to new standards and assessments;
and engaging in other strategies that translate the standards and
information from assessments into classroom practice for all students,
including high-need students (as defined in this notice).
C. Data Systems to Support Instruction
State Reform Conditions Criteria
(C)(1) Fully implementing a statewide longitudinal data system: The
extent to which the State has a statewide longitudinal data system that
includes all of the America COMPETES Act elements (as defined in this
notice).
Reform Plan Criteria
(C)(2) Accessing and using State data: The extent to which the
State has a high-quality plan to ensure that data from the State's
statewide longitudinal data system are accessible to, and used to
inform and engage, as appropriate, key stakeholders (e.g., parents,
students, teachers, principals, LEA leaders, community members, unions,
researchers, and policymakers); and that the data support decision-
makers in the continuous improvement of efforts in such areas as
policy, instruction, operations, management, resource allocation, and
overall effectiveness.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Successful applicants that receive Race to the Top grant
awards will need to comply with the Family Educational Rights and
Privacy Act (FERPA), including 34 CFR part 99, as well as State and
local requirements regarding privacy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(C)(3) Using data to improve instruction: The extent to which the
State, in collaboration with its participating LEAs (as defined in this
notice), has a high-quality plan to--
(i) Increase the acquisition, adoption, and use of local
instructional improvement systems (as defined in this notice) that
provide teachers, principals, and administrators with the information
and resources they need to inform and improve their instructional
practices, decision-making, and overall effectiveness;
(ii) Support participating LEAs (as defined in this notice) and
schools that are using instructional improvement systems (as defined in
this notice) in providing effective professional development to
teachers, principals, and administrators on how to use these systems
and the resulting data to support continuous instructional improvement;
and
(iii) Make the data from instructional improvement systems (as
defined in this notice), together with statewide longitudinal data
system data, available and accessible to researchers so that they have
detailed information with which to evaluate the effectiveness of
instructional materials, strategies, and approaches for educating
different types of students (e.g., students with disabilities, English
language learners, students whose achievement is well below or above
grade level).
D. Great Teachers and Leaders
State Reform Conditions Criteria
(D)(1) Providing high-quality pathways for aspiring teachers and
principals: The extent to which the State has--
(i) Legal, statutory, or regulatory provisions that allow
alternative routes to certification (as defined in this notice) for
teachers and principals, particularly routes that allow for providers
in addition to institutions of higher education;
(ii) Alternative routes to certification (as defined in this
notice) that are in use; and
(iii) A process for monitoring, evaluating, and identifying areas
of teacher and principal shortage and for preparing teachers and
principals to fill these areas of shortage.
Reform Plan Criteria
(D)(2) Improving teacher and principal effectiveness based on
performance: The extent to which the State, in collaboration with its
participating LEAs (as defined in this notice), has a high-quality plan
and ambitious yet achievable annual targets to ensure that
participating LEAs (as defined in this notice)--
(i) Establish clear approaches to measuring student growth (as
defined in this notice) and measure it for each individual student;
(ii) Design and implement rigorous, transparent, and fair
evaluation systems for teachers and principals that (a) differentiate
effectiveness using multiple rating categories that take into account
data on student growth (as defined in this notice) as a significant
factor, and (b) are designed and developed with teacher and principal
involvement;
(iii) Conduct annual evaluations of teachers and principals that
include timely and constructive feedback; as part of such evaluations,
provide teachers and principals with data on student growth for their
students, classes, and schools; and
(iv) Use these evaluations, at a minimum, to inform decisions
regarding--
(a) Developing teachers and principals, including by providing
relevant coaching, induction support, and/or professional development;
(b) Compensating, promoting, and retaining teachers and principals,
including by providing opportunities for highly effective teachers and
principals (both as defined in this notice) to obtain additional
compensation and be given additional responsibilities;
(c) Whether to grant tenure and/or full certification (where
applicable) to teachers and principals using rigorous standards and
streamlined, transparent, and fair procedures; and
(d) Removing ineffective tenured and untenured teachers and
principals after they have had ample opportunities to improve, and
ensuring that such decisions are made using rigorous standards and
streamlined, transparent, and fair procedures.
(D)(3) Ensuring equitable distribution of effective teachers and
principals: The extent to which the State, in collaboration with its
participating LEAs (as defined in this notice), has a high-quality plan
and ambitious yet achievable annual targets to--
(i) Ensure the equitable distribution of teachers and principals by
developing a plan, informed by reviews of prior actions and data, to
ensure that students in high-poverty and/or high-minority schools (both
as defined in this notice) have equitable access to highly effective
teachers and principals (both as defined in this notice) and are not
served by ineffective teachers and principals at higher rates than
other students; and
(ii) Increase the number and percentage of effective teachers (as
defined in this notice) teaching hard-to-staff subjects and specialty
areas including mathematics, science, and special education; teaching
in language instruction educational programs (as defined under Title
III of the ESEA); and teaching in other areas as identified by the
State or LEA.
Plans for (i) and (ii) may include, but are not limited to, the
implementation of incentives and strategies in such areas as
recruitment, compensation, teaching and learning environments,
professional development, and human resources practices and processes.
(D)(4) Improving the effectiveness of teacher and principal
preparation programs: The extent to which the State
[[Page 19505]]
has a high-quality plan and ambitious yet achievable annual targets
to--
(i) Link student achievement and student growth (both as defined in
this notice) data to the students' teachers and principals, to link
this information to the in-State programs where those teachers and
principals were prepared for credentialing, and to publicly report the
data for each credentialing program in the State; and
(ii) Expand preparation and credentialing options and programs that
are successful at producing effective teachers and principals (both as
defined in this notice).
(D)(5) Providing effective support to teachers and principals: The
extent to which the State, in collaboration with its participating LEAs
(as defined in this notice), has a high-quality plan for its
participating LEAs (as defined in this notice) to--
(i) Provide effective, data-informed professional development,
coaching, induction, and common planning and collaboration time to
teachers and principals that are, where appropriate, ongoing and job-
embedded. Such support might focus on, for example, gathering,
analyzing, and using data; designing instructional strategies for
improvement; differentiating instruction; creating school environments
supportive of data-informed decisions; designing instruction to meet
the specific needs of high-need students (as defined in this notice);
and aligning systems and removing barriers to effective implementation
of practices designed to improve student learning outcomes; and
(ii) Measure, evaluate, and continuously improve the effectiveness
of those supports in order to improve student achievement (as defined
in this notice).
E. Turning Around the Lowest-Achieving Schools
State Reform Conditions Criteria
(E)(1) Intervening in the lowest-achieving schools and LEAs: The
extent to which the State has the legal, statutory, or regulatory
authority to intervene directly in the State's persistently lowest-
achieving schools (as defined in this notice) and in LEAs that are in
improvement or corrective action status.
Reform Plan Criteria
(E)(2) Turning around the lowest-achieving schools: The extent to
which the State has a high-quality plan and ambitious yet achievable
annual targets to--
(i) Identify the persistently lowest-achieving schools (as defined
in this notice) and, at its discretion, any non-Title I eligible
secondary schools that would be considered persistently lowest-
achieving schools (as defined in this notice) if they were eligible to
receive Title I funds; and
(ii) Support its LEAs in turning around these schools by
implementing one of the four school intervention models (as described
in Appendix C): turnaround model, restart model, school closure, or
transformation model (provided that an LEA with more than nine
persistently lowest-achieving schools may not use the transformation
model for more than 50 percent of its schools).
F. General
State Reform Conditions Criteria
(F)(1) Making education funding a priority: The extent to which--
(i) The percentage of the total revenues available to the State (as
defined in this notice) that were used to support elementary,
secondary, and public higher education for FY 2009 was greater than or
equal to the percentage of the total revenues available to the State
(as defined in this notice) that were used to support elementary,
secondary, and public higher education for FY 2008; and
(ii) The State's policies lead to equitable funding (a) between
high-need LEAs (as defined in this notice) and other LEAs, and (b)
within LEAs, between high-poverty schools (as defined in this notice)
and other schools.
(F)(2) Ensuring successful conditions for high-performing charter
schools and other innovative schools: The extent to which--
(i) The State has a charter school law that does not prohibit or
effectively inhibit increasing the number of high-performing charter
schools (as defined in this notice) in the State, measured (as set
forth in Appendix B) by the percentage of total schools in the State
that are allowed to be charter schools or otherwise restrict student
enrollment in charter schools;
(ii) The State has laws, statutes, regulations, or guidelines
regarding how charter school authorizers approve, monitor, hold
accountable, reauthorize, and close charter schools; in particular,
whether authorizers require that student achievement (as defined in
this notice) be one significant factor, among others, in authorization
or renewal; encourage charter schools that serve student populations
that are similar to local district student populations, especially
relative to high-need students (as defined in this notice); and have
closed or not renewed ineffective charter schools;
(iii) The State's charter schools receive (as set forth in Appendix
B) equitable funding, compared to traditional public schools, and a
commensurate share of local, State, and Federal revenues;
(iv) The State provides charter schools with funding for facilities
(for leasing facilities, purchasing facilities, or making tenant
improvements), assistance with facilities acquisition, access to public
facilities, the ability to share in bonds and mill levies, or other
supports; and the extent to which the State does not impose any
facility-related requirements on charter schools that are stricter than
those applied to traditional public schools; and
(v) The State enables LEAs to operate innovative, autonomous public
schools (as defined in this notice) other than charter schools.
(F)(3) Demonstrating other significant reform conditions: The
extent to which the State, in addition to information provided under
other State Reform Conditions Criteria, has created, through law,
regulation, or policy, other conditions favorable to education reform
or innovation that have increased student achievement or graduation
rates, narrowed achievement gaps, or resulted in other important
outcomes.
2. Review and Selection Process: The Department will screen
applications that are received, as described in this notice, by the
designated deadline, and will determine which States are eligible based
on whether they have met eligibility requirement (b); the Department
will not consider further those applicants deemed ineligible under
eligibility requirement (b). As discussed below, States will be
screened for eligibility under eligibility requirement (a) at the end
of the selection process, before they would be granted awards.
The Department intends to use a two-tiered review process to judge
the eligible applications. In the initial tier, the reviewers would
consider only the written applications; in the finalist tier, reviewers
would consider both the written applications and in-person
presentations. In both tiers, the Department would use independent
reviewers who have been chosen from a pool of qualified educators,
scholars, and other individuals knowledgeable in education reform. The
Department will thoroughly screen all reviewers for conflicts of
interest to ensure a fair and competitive review process.
In the initial tier, reviewers will read, comment on, and score
their assigned
[[Page 19506]]
applications, using the selection criteria and scoring rubric included
in this notice (see Appendix B). The Department will select the
finalists after considering the reviewers' scores. The finalists will
move on to the finalist tier of the competition. Applicants who do not
move on to the finalist tier will receive their reviewers' comments and
scores as soon as possible.
The Department intends to ask each finalist to send a team to
Washington, DC to present the State's proposal to a panel of reviewers.
The panel will take this opportunity to ask the State's team further
questions in order to gain a more comprehensive picture of the State's
application proposal, including its plans and its capabilities to
implement them. (Exact timing will be announced when the finalists are
selected.) A State's presentation team may include up to five
individuals; because the panel of reviewers is interested primarily in
hearing from, and asking questions of, State leaders who would be
responsible for implementing the State's Race to the Top plan, only
those individuals who would have significant ongoing roles in and
responsibilities in executing the State's plan should present, and in
no case could presentation teams include consultants. At the conclusion
of the presentation process, reviewers will finalize their scoring of
the applications based on the selection criteria and scoring rubric in
this notice.
After the review process is complete, the Secretary will select,
consistent with 34 CFR 75.217, the grantees after considering the rank
order of applications, each applicant's status with respect to the
Absolute Priority and eligibility requirement (a), and any other
relevant information. All applicants will receive their reviewers'
comments and scores.
After awards are made for each phase of the competition, all of the
submitted applications (both successful and unsuccessful) will be
posted on the Department's WebSite, together with the final scores each
received. The Department also intends to post on its WebSite a
transcript and/or video of each finalist's presentation of its
proposal.
States that applied in Phase 1 but were not awarded grants may
reapply for funding in Phase 2 (together with those States that are
applying for the first time in Phase 2). Phase 1 winners receive full-
sized awards, and so do not apply for additional funding in Phase 2.
VI. Award Administration Information
1. Award Notices: If an application is successful, the Department
will notify the States' U.S. Representatives and U.S. Senators and send
the applicant a Grant Award Notification (GAN). We may notify the State
informally, as well.
If an application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, the
Department 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 the approved application as part of the binding
commitments under the grant.
3. Reporting: The following requirements are from the notice of
final priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria,
published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.
A State receiving Race to the Top funds must submit to the
Department an annual report which must include, in addition to the
standard elements, a description of the State's and its LEAs' progress
to date on their 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 and its participating LEAs are
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 Department will monitor
a State's and its participating LEAs' progress in meeting the State's
goals, timelines, budget, and annual targets and in fulfilling other
applicable requirements. In addition, the Department may collect
additional data as part of a State's annual reporting requirements.
To support a collaborative process between the State and the
Department, the Department may require that applicants who are selected
to receive an award enter into a written performance or cooperative
agreement with the Department. If the Department determines that a
State is not meeting its goals, timelines, budget, or annual targets or
is not fulfilling other applicable requirements, the Department will
take appropriate action, which could include a collaborative process
between the Department and the State, or 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.
A State that receives Race to the Top funds must also meet the
reporting requirements that apply to all ARRA-funded programs.
Specifically, the State must submit reports, within 10 days after the
end of each calendar quarter, that contain the information required
under section 1512(c) of the ARRA in accordance with any guidance
issued by the Office of Management and Budget or the Department (ARRA
Division A, Section 1512(c)).
In addition, for each year of the program, the State will submit a
report to the Secretary, at such time and in such manner as the
Secretary may require, that describes:
[cir] The uses of funds within the State;
[cir] How the State distributed the funds it received;
[cir] The number of jobs that the Governor estimates were saved or
created with the funds;
[cir] The State's progress in reducing inequities in the
distribution of highly qualified teachers, implementing a State
longitudinal data system, and developing and implementing valid and
reliable assessments for English language learners and students with
disabilities; and
[cir] If applicable, a description of each modernization,
renovation, or repair project approved in the State application and
funded, including the amounts awarded and project costs (ARRA Division
A, Section 14008).
4. Evidence and Performance Measures: Appendix A to this notice
contains a listing of the evidence and performance measures.
VII. Agency Contact
For Further Information Contact: James Butler, U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Ave., SW., room 3E108, Washington, DC 20202-
6400. Telephone: 202-205-3775 or by e-mail: racetothetop@ed.gov.
If a TDD is needed, call the Federal Relay Service, 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 computer diskette) on request to the program contact
person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Electronic Access to This Document: You can view this document, as
well as all other documents of this Department
[[Page 19507]]
published in the Federal Register, in text or Adobe Portable Document
Format (PDF) on the Internet at the following site:
http://www.ed.gov/news/fedregister. To use PDF you must have Adobe
Acrobat Reader, which is available free at this site.
Dated: April 7, 2010.
Arne Duncan,
Secretary of Education.
Appendix A: Evidence and Performance Measures
A. State Success Factors
(A)(1) Articulating State's education reform agenda and LEAs'
participation in it
Evidence
Evidence for (A)(1)(ii):
An example of the State's standard Participating LEA
MOU, and description of variations used, if any.
The completed summary table indicating which specific
portions of the State's plan each LEA is committed to implementing,
and relevant summary statistics (see Summary Table for
(A)(1)(ii)(b)).
The completed summary table indicating which LEA
leadership signatures have been obtained (see Summary Table for
(A)(1)(ii)(c)).
Evidence for (A)(1)(iii):
The completed summary table indicating the numbers and
percentages of participating LEAs, schools, K-12 students, and
students in poverty (see Summary Table for (A)(1)(iii)).
Tables and graphs that show the State's goals, overall
and by subgroup, requested in the criterion, together with the
supporting narrative. In addition, describe what the goals would
look like were the State not to receive an award under this program.
Evidence for (A)(1)(ii) and (A)(1)(iii):
The completed detailed table, by LEA, that includes the
information requested in the criterion (see Detailed Table for
(A)(1)).
Performance Measures
None required.
(A)(2) Building strong statewide capacity to implement, scale
up, and sustain proposed plans.
Evidence
Evidence for (A)(2)(i)(d):
The State's budget, as completed in Section XI of the
application. The narrative that accompanies and explains the budget
and how it connects to the State's plan, as completed in Section XI
of the application.
Evidence for (A)(2)(ii):
A summary in the narrative of the statements or actions
and inclusion of key statements or actions in the Appendix.
Performance Measures
None required.
(A)(3) Demonstrating significant progress in raising achievement
and closing gaps
Evidence
Evidence for (A)(3)(ii):
NAEP and ESEA results since at least 2003. Include in the
Appendix all the data requested in the criterion as a resource for
peer reviewers for each year in which a test was given or data was
collected. Note that this data will be used for reference only and
can be in raw format. In the narrative, provide the analysis of this
data and any tables or graphs that best support the narrative.
Performance Measures
None required.
(B) Standards and Assessments
(B)(1) Developing and adopting common standards.
Evidence
Evidence for (B)(1)(i):
A copy of the Memorandum of Agreement, executed by the
State, showing that it is part of a standards consortium.
A copy of the final standards or, if the standards are
not yet final, a copy of the draft standards and anticipated date
for completing the standards.
Documentation that the standards are or will be
internationally benchmarked and that, when well-implemented, will
help to ensure that students are prepared for college and careers.
The number of States participating in the standards
consortium and the list of these States.
Evidence for (B)(1)(ii):
For Phase 1 applicants:
A description of the legal process in the State for
adopting standards, and the State's plan, current progress, and
timeframe for adoption.
For Phase 2 applicants:
Evidence that the State has adopted the standards. Or,
if the State has not yet adopted the standards, a description of the
legal process in the State for adopting standards and the State's
plan, current progress, and timeframe for adoption.
Performance Measures
None required.
(B)(2) Developing and implementing common, high-quality
assessments.
Evidence
Evidence for (B)(2):
A copy of the Memorandum of Agreement, executed by the
State, showing that it is part of a consortium that intends to
develop high-quality assessments (as defined in this notice) aligned
with the consortium's common set of K-12 standards; or documentation
that the State's consortium has applied, or intends to apply, for a
grant through the separate Race to the Top Assessment Program (to be
described in a subsequent notice); or other evidence of the State's
plan to develop and adopt common, high-quality assessments (as
defined in this notice).
The number of States participating in the assessment
consortium and the list of these States.
Performance Measures
None required.
(B)(3) Supporting the transition to enhanced standards and high-
quality assessments.
Evidence
Any supporting evidence the State believes will be
helpful to peer reviewers.
Performance Measures
Optional.
(C) Data Systems to Support Instruction
(C)(1) Fully implementing a statewide longitudinal data system.
Evidence
Documentation for each of the America COMPETES Act
elements (as defined in this notice) that is included in the State's
statewide longitudinal data system.
Performance Measures
None required.
(C)(2) Accessing and using State data.
Evidence
Any supporting evidence the State believes will be
helpful to peer reviewers.
Performance Measures
Optional.
(C)(3) Using data to improve instruction.
Evidence
Any supporting evidence the State believes will be
helpful to peer reviewers.
Performance Measures
Optional.
(D) Great Teachers and Leaders.
(D)(1) Providing high-quality pathways for aspiring teachers and
principals.
Evidence for (D)(1)(i):
A description of the State's applicable laws, statutes,
regulations, or other relevant legal documents, including
information on the elements of the State's alternative routes (as
described in the alternative routes to certification definition in
this notice).
Evidence for (D)(1)(ii):
A list of the alternative certification programs
operating in the State under the State's alternative routes to
certification (as defined in this notice), and for each:
[cir] The elements of the program (as described in the
alternative routes to certification definition in this notice).
[cir] The number of teachers and principals that successfully
completed each program in the previous academic year.
[cir] The total number of teachers and principals certified
statewide in the previous academic year.
Performance Measures
None required.
(D)(2) Improving teacher and principal effectiveness based on
performance.
Evidence
Any supporting evidence the State believes will be
helpful to peer reviewers.
Performance Measures
General goals to be provided at time of application, including
baseline data and annual targets:
[[Page 19508]]
(D)(2)(i) Percentage of participating LEAs that measure
student growth (as defined in this notice).
(D)(2)(ii) Percentage of participating LEAs with
qualifying evaluation systems for teachers.
(D)(2)(ii) Percentage of participating LEAs with
qualifying evaluation systems for principals.
(D)(2)(iv) Percentage of participating LEAs with
qualifying evaluation systems that are used to inform:
[cir] (D)(2)(iv)(a) Developing teachers and principals.
[cir] (D)(2)(iv)(b) Compensating teachers and principals.
[cir] (D)(2)(iv)(b) Promoting teachers and principals.
[cir] (D)(2)(iv)(b) Retaining effective teachers and principals.
[cir] (D)(2)(iv)(c) Granting tenure and/or full certification
(where applicable) to teachers and principals.
[cir] (D)(2)(iv)(d) Removing ineffective tenured and untenured
teachers and principals.
General data to be provided at time of application, including
baseline data:
Total number of participating LEAs.
Total number of principals in participating LEAs.
Total number of teachers in participating LEAs.
Data to be requested of grantees in the future:
(D)(2)(ii) Number of teachers and principals in
participating LEAs with qualifying evaluation systems.
(D)(2)(iii) Number of teachers and principals in
participating LEAs with qualifying evaluation systems who were
evaluated as effective or better in the prior academic year.
(D)(2)(iii) Number of teachers and principals in
participating LEAs with qualifying evaluation systems who were
evaluated as ineffective in the prior academic year.
(D)(2)(iv)(b) Number of teachers and principals in
participating LEAs with qualifying evaluation systems whose
evaluations were used to inform compensation decisions in the prior
academic year.
(D)(2)(iv)(b) Number of teachers and principals in
participating LEAs with qualifying evaluation systems who were
evaluated as effective or better and were retained in the prior
academic year.
(D)(2)(iv)(c) Number of teachers in participating LEAs
with qualifying evaluation systems who were eligible for tenure in
the prior academic year.
(D)(2)(iv)(c) Number of teachers in participating LEAs
with qualifying evaluation systems whose evaluations were used to
inform tenure decisions in the prior academic year.
(D)(2)(iv)(d) Number of teachers and principals in
participating LEAs who were removed for being ineffective in the
prior academic year.
(D)(3) Ensuring equitable distribution of effective teachers and
principals
Evidence
Evidence for (D)(3)(i):
Definitions of high-minority and low-minority schools
as defined by the State for the purposes of the State's Teacher
Equity Plan.
Performance Measures
Note: All information below is requested for Participating LEAs.
Performance Measures for (D)(3)(i):
General goals to be provided at time of application, including
baseline data and annual targets:
Percentage of teachers in schools that are high-
poverty, high-minority, or both (as defined in this notice) who are
highly effective (as defined in this notice).
Percentage of teachers in schools that are low-poverty,
low-minority, or both (as defined in this notice) who are highly
effective (as defined in this notice).
Percentage of teachers in schools that are high-
poverty, high-minority, or both (as defined in this notice) who are
ineffective.
Percentage of teachers in schools that are low-poverty,
low-minority, or both (as defined in this notice) who are
ineffective.
Percentage of principals leading schools that are high-
poverty, high-minority, or both (as defined in this notice) who are
highly effective (as defined in this notice).
Percentage of principals leading schools that are low-
poverty, low-minority, or both (as defined in this notice) who are
highly effective (as defined in this notice).
Percentage of principals leading schools that are high-
poverty, high-minority, or both (as defined in this notice) who are
ineffective.
Percentage of principals leading schools that are low-
poverty, low-minority, or both (as defined in this notice) who are
ineffective.
General data to be provided at time of application, including
baseline data:
Total number of schools that are high-poverty, high-
minority, or both (as defined in this notice).
Total number of schools that are low-poverty, low-
minority, or both (as defined in this notice).
Total number of teachers in schools that are high-
poverty, high-minority, or both (as defined in this notice).
Total number of teachers in schools that are low-
poverty, low-minority, or both (as defined in this notice).
Total number of principals leading schools that are
high-poverty, high-minority, or both (as defined in this notice).
Total number of principals leading schools that are
low-poverty, low-minority, or both (as defined in this notice).
Data to be requested of grantees in the future:
Number of teachers and principals in schools that are
high-poverty, high-minority, or both (as defined in this notice) who
were evaluated as highly effective (as defined in this notice) in
the prior academic year.
Number of teachers and principals in schools that are
high-poverty, high-minority, or both (as defined in this notice) who
were evaluated as ineffective in the prior academic year.
Number of teachers and principals in schools that are
low-poverty, low-minority, or both (as defined in this notice) who
were evaluated as highly effective (as defined in this notice) in
the prior academic year.
Number of teachers and principals in schools that are
low-poverty, low-minority, or both (as defined in this notice) who
were evaluated as ineffective in the prior academic year.
Performance Measures for (D)(3)(ii):
General goals to be provided at time of application, including
baseline data and annual targets:
Percentage of mathematics teachers who were evaluated
as effective or better.
Percentage of science teachers who were evaluated as
effective or better.
Percentage of special education teachers who were
evaluated as effective or better.
Percentage of teachers in language instruction
educational programs who were evaluated as effective or better.
General data to be provided at time of application, including
baseline data:
Total number of mathematics teachers.
Total number of science teachers.
Total number of special education teachers.
Total number of teachers in language instruction
educational programs.
Data to be requested of grantees in the future:
Number of mathematics teachers in participating LEAs
who were evaluated as effective or better in the prior academic
year.
Number of science teachers in participating LEAs who
were evaluated as effective or better in the prior academic year.
Number of special education teachers in participating
LEAs who were evaluated as effective or better in the prior academic
year.
Number of teachers in language instruction educational
programs in participating LEAs who were evaluated as effective or
better in the prior academic year.
(D)(4) Improving the effectiveness of teacher and principal
preparation programs.
Evidence
Any supporting evidence the State believes will be
helpful to peer reviewers.
Performance Measures
General goals to be provided at time of application, including
baseline data and annual targets:
Percentage of teacher preparation programs in the State
for which the public can access data on the achievement and growth
(as defined in this notice) of the graduates' students.
Percentage of principal preparation programs in the
State for which the public can access data on the achievement and
growth (as defined in this notice) of the graduates' students.
General data to be provided at time of application, including
baseline data:
Total number of teacher credentialing programs in the
State.
Total number of principal credentialing programs in the
State.
Total number of teachers in the State.
Total number of principals in the State.
Data to be requested of grantees in the future:
Number of teacher credentialing programs in the State
for which the
[[Page 19509]]
information (as described in the criterion) is publicly reported.
Number of teachers prepared by each credentialing
program in the State for which the information (as described in the
criterion) is publicly reported.
Number of principal credentialing programs in the State
for which the information (as described in the criterion) is
publicly reported.
Number of principals prepared by each credentialing
program in the State for which the information (as described in the
criterion) is publicly reported.
Number of teachers in the State whose data are
aggregated to produce publicly available reports on the State's
credentialing programs.
Number of principals in the State whose data are
aggregated to produce publicly available reports on the State's
credentialing programs.
(D)(5) Providing effective support to teachers and principals.
Evidence
Any supporting evidence the State believes will be
helpful to peer reviewers.
Performance Measures
Optional.
(E) Turning Around the Lowest-Achieving Schools.
(E)(1) Intervening in the lowest-achieving schools and LEAs
Evidence.
Evidence for (E)(1):
A description of the State's applicable laws, statutes,
regulations, or other relevant legal documents.
Performance Measures
None required.
(E)(2) Turning around the lowest-achieving schools.
Evidence
The State's historic performance on school turnaround,
as evidenced by the total number of persistently lowest-achieving
schools (as defined in this notice) that States or LEAs attempted to
turn around in the last five years, the approach used, and the
results and lessons learned to date.
Performance Measures
The number of schools for which one of the four school
intervention models (described in Appendix C) will be initiated each
year.
(F) General
(F)(1) Making education funding a priority.
Evidence
Evidence for (F)(1)(i):
Financial data to show whether and to what extent
expenditures, as a percentage of the total revenues available to the
State (as defined in this notice), increased, decreased, or remained
the same.
Evidence for (F)(1)(ii):
Any supporting evidence the State believes will be
helpful to peer reviewers.
Performance Measures
None required.
(F)(2) Ensuring successful conditions for high-performing
charter schools and other innovative schools.
Evidence
Evidence for (F)(2)(i):
A description of the State's applicable laws, statutes,
regulations, or other relevant legal documents.
The number of charter schools allowed under State law
and the percentage this represents of the total number of schools in
the State.
The number and types of charter schools currently
operating in the State.
Evidence for (F)(2)(ii):
A description of the State's approach to charter school
accountability and authorization, and a description of the State's
applicable laws, statutes, regulations, or other relevant legal
documents.
For each of the last five years:
[cir] The number of charter school applications made in the
State.
[cir] The number of charter school applications approved.
[cir] The number of charter school applications denied and
reasons for the denials (academic, financial, low enrollment,
other).
[cir] The number of charter schools closed (including charter
schools that were not reauthorized to operate).
[cir] The reasons for the closures or non-renewals (academic,
financial, low enrollment, other).
Evidence for (F)(2)(iii):
A description of the State's applicable statutes,
regulations, or other relevant legal documents.
A description of the State's approach to charter school
funding, the amount of funding passed through to charter schools per
student, and how those amounts compare with traditional public
school per-student funding allocations.
Evidence for (F)(2)(iv):
A description of the State's applicable statutes,
regulations, or other relevant legal documents.
A description of the statewide facilities supports
provided to charter schools, if any.
Evidence for (F)(2)(v):
A description of how the State enables LEAs to operate
innovative, autonomous public schools (as defined in this notice)
other than charter schools.
Performance Measures
None required.
(F)(3) Demonstrating other significant reform conditions
Evidence
Evidence for (F)(3):
A description of the State's other applicable key
education laws, statutes, regulations, or relevant legal documents.
Performance Measures
None required.
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
[[Page 19510]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN14AP10.004
[[Page 19511]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN14AP10.005
[[Page 19512]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN14AP10.006
[[Page 19513]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN14AP10.007
[[Page 19514]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN14AP10.008
[[Page 19515]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN14AP10.009
[[Page 19516]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN14AP10.010
[[Page 19517]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN14AP10.011
[[Page 19518]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN14AP10.012
[[Page 19519]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN14AP10.013
[[Page 19520]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN14AP10.014
[[Page 19521]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN14AP10.015
[[Page 19522]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN14AP10.016
[[Page 19523]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN14AP10.017
[[Page 19524]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN14AP10.018
[[Page 19525]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN14AP10.019
[[Page 19526]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN14AP10.020
Appendix C. School Intervention Models
There are four school intervention models referred to in
Selection Criterion (E)(2): turnaround model, restart model, school
closure, or transformation model. Each is described below.
(a) Turnaround model. (1) A turnaround model is one in which an
LEA must--
(i) Replace the principal and grant the principal sufficient
operational flexibility (including in staffing, calendars/time, and
budgeting) to implement fully a comprehensive approach in order to
substantially improve student achievement outcomes and increase high
school graduation rates;
(ii) Using locally adopted competencies to measure the
effectiveness of staff who can work within the turnaround
environment to meet the needs of students;
(A) Screen all existing staff and rehire no more than 50
percent; and
(B) Select new staff;
(iii) Implement such strategies as financial incentives,
increased opportunities for promotion and career growth, and more
flexible work conditions that are designed to recruit, place, and
retain staff with the skills necessary to meet the needs of the
students in the turnaround school;
(iv) Provide staff with ongoing, high-quality, job-embedded
professional development that is aligned with the school's
comprehensive instructional program and designed with school staff
to ensure that they are equipped to facilitate effective teaching
and learning and have the capacity to successfully implement school
reform strategies;
(v) Adopt a new governance structure, which may include, but is
not limited to, requiring the school to report to a new ``turnaround
office'' in the LEA or SEA, hire a ``turnaround leader'' who reports
directly to the Superintendent or Chief Academic Officer, or enter
into a multi-year contract with the LEA or SEA to obtain added
flexibility in exchange for greater accountability;
(vi) Use data to identify and implement an instructional program
that is research-based and ``vertically aligned'' from one grade to
the next as well as aligned with State academic standards;
(vii) Promote the continuous use of student data (such as from
formative, interim, and summative assessments) to inform and
differentiate instruction in order to meet the academic needs of
individual students;
(viii) Establish schedules and implement strategies that provide
increased learning time (as defined in this notice); and
(ix) Provide appropriate social-emotional and community-oriented
services and supports for students.
(2) A turnaround model may also implement other strategies such
as--
(i) Any of the required and permissible activities under the
transformation model; or
(ii) A new school model (e.g., themed, dual language academy).
(b) Restart model. A restart model is one in which an LEA
converts a school or closes and reopens a school under a charter
school operator, a charter management organization (CMO), or an
education management organization (EMO) that has been selected
through a rigorous review process. (A CMO is a non-profit
organization that operates or manages charter schools by
centralizing or sharing certain functions and resources among
schools. An EMO is a for-profit or non-profit organization that
provides ``whole-school operation'' services to an LEA.) A restart
model must enroll, within the grades it serves, any former student
who wishes to attend the school.
(c) School closure. School closure occurs when an LEA closes a
school and enrolls the students who attended that school in other
schools in the LEA that are higher achieving. These other schools
should be within reasonable proximity to the closed school and may
include, but are not limited to, charter schools or new schools for
which achievement data are not yet available.
(d) Transformation model. A transformation model is one in which
an LEA implements each of the following strategies:
(1) Developing and increasing teacher and school leader
effectiveness.
(i) Required activities. The LEA must--
(A) Replace the principal who led the school prior to
commencement of the transformation model;
(B) Use rigorous, transparent, and equitable evaluation systems
for teachers and principals that--
(1) Take into account data on student growth (as defined in this
notice) as a significant factor as well as other factors such as
multiple observation-based assessments of performance and ongoing
collections of professional practice reflective of student
achievement and increased high-school graduations rates; and
(2) Are designed and developed with teacher and principal
involvement;
(C) Identify and reward school leaders, teachers, and other
staff who, in implementing this model, have increased student
achievement and high-school graduation rates and identify and remove
those who, after ample opportunities have been provided for them to
improve their professional practice, have not done so;
(D) Provide staff with ongoing, high-quality, job-embedded
professional development (e.g., regarding subject-specific pedagogy,
instruction that reflects a deeper understanding of the community
served by the school, or differentiated instruction) that is aligned
with the school's comprehensive instructional program and designed
with school staff to ensure they are equipped to facilitate
effective teaching and learning and have the capacity to
successfully implement school reform strategies; and
(E) Implement such strategies as financial incentives, increased
opportunities for promotion and career growth, and more flexible
work conditions that are designed to recruit, place, and retain
staff with the skills necessary to meet the needs of the students in
a transformation school.
(ii) Permissible activities. An LEA may also implement other
strategies to develop teachers' and school leaders' effectiveness,
such as--
[[Page 19527]]
(A) Providing additional compensation to attract and retain
staff with the skills necessary to meet the needs of the students in
a transformation school;
(B) Instituting a system for measuring changes in instructional
practices resulting from professional development; or
(C) Ensuring that the school is not required to accept a teacher
without the mutual consent of the teacher and principal, regardless
of the teacher's seniority.
(2) Comprehensive instructional reform strategies.
(i) Required activities. The LEA must--
(A) Use data to identify and implement an instructional program
that is research-based and ``vertically aligned'' from one grade to
the next as well as aligned with State academic standards; and
(B) Promote the continuous use of student data (such as from
formative, interim, and summative assessments) to inform and
differentiate instruction in order to meet the academic needs of
individual students.
(ii) Permissible activities. An LEA may also implement
comprehensive instructional reform strategies, such as--
(A) Conducting periodic reviews to ensure that the curriculum is
being implemented with fidelity, is having the intended impact on
student achievement, and is modified if ineffective;
(B) Implementing a schoolwide ``response-to-intervention''
model;
(C) Providing additional supports and professional development
to teachers and principals in order to implement effective
strategies to support students with disabilities in the least
restrictive environment and to ensure that limited English
proficient students acquire language skills to master academic
content;
(D) Using and integrating technology-based supports and
interventions as part of the instructional program; and
(E) In secondary schools--
(1) Increasing rigor by offering opportunities for students to
enroll in advanced coursework (such as Advanced Placement or
International Baccalaureate; or science, technology, engineering,
and mathematics courses, especially those that incorporate rigorous
and relevant project-, inquiry-, or design-based contextual learning
opportunities), early-college high schools, dual enrollment
programs, or thematic learning academies that prepare students for
college and careers, including by providing appropriate supports
designed to ensure that low-achieving students can take advantage of
these programs and coursework;
(2) Improving student transition from middle to high school
through summer transition programs or freshman academies;
(3) Increasing graduation rates through, for example, credit-
recovery programs, re-engagement strategies, smaller learning
communities, competency-based instruction and performance-based
assessments, and acceleration of basic reading and mathematics
skills; or
(4) Establishing early-warning systems to identify students who
may be at risk of failing to achieve to high standards or graduate.
(3) Increasing learning time and creating community-oriented
schools.
(i) Required activities. The LEA must--
(A) Establish schedules and implement strategies that provide
increased learning time (as defined in this notice); and
(B) Provide ongoing mechanisms for family and community
engagement.
(ii) Permissible activities. An LEA may also implement other
strategies that extend learning time and create community-oriented
schools, such as--
(A) Partnering with parents and parent organizations, faith- and
community-based organizations, health clinics, other State or local
agencies, and others to create safe school environments that meet
students' social, emotional, and health needs;
(B) Extending or restructuring the school day so as to add time
for such strategies as advisory periods that build relationships
between students, faculty, and other school staff;
(C) Implementing approaches to improve school climate and
discipline, such as implementing a system of positive behavioral
supports or taking steps to eliminate bullying and student
harassment; or
(D) Expanding the school program to offer full-day kindergarten
or pre-kindergarten.
(4) Providing operational flexibility and sustained support.
(i) Required activities. The LEA must--
(A) Give the school sufficient operational flexibility (such as
staffing, calendars/time, and budgeting) to implement fully a
comprehensive approach to substantially improve student achievement
outcomes and increase high school graduation rates; and
(B) Ensure that the school receives ongoing, intensive technical
assistance and related support from the LEA, the SEA, or a
designated external lead partner organization (such as a school
turnaround organization or an EMO).
(ii) Permissible activities. The LEA may also implement other
strategies for providing operational flexibility and intensive
support, such as--
(A) Allowing the school to be run under a new governance
arrangement, such as a turnaround division within the LEA or SEA; or
(B) Implementing a per-pupil school-based budget formula that is
weighted based on student needs.
If a school identified as a persistently lowest-achieving school
has implemented, in whole or in part within the last two years, an
intervention that meets the requirements of the turnaround, restart,
or transformation models, the school may continue or complete the
intervention being implemented.
Appendix D. Participating LEA Memorandum of Understanding
Background
Participating LEAs (as defined in this notice) in a State's Race
to the Top plan are required to enter into a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) or other binding agreement with the State that
specifies the scope of the work being implemented by the
participating LEA (as defined in this notice).
To support States in working efficiently with LEAs to determine
which LEAs will participate in the State's Race to the Top
application, the U.S. Department of Education has 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. They may use a
different document that includes the key features noted below and in
the model, and they should consult with their State and local
attorneys on what is most appropriate for their State that includes,
at a minimum, these key elements.
The purpose of the model MOU is to help to specify a
relationship that is specific to Race to the Top and is not meant to
detail all typical aspects of State/LEA grant management or
administration. At a minimum, a strong MOU should include the
following, each of which is described in detail below: (i) Terms and
conditions; (ii) a scope of work; and, (iii) signatures.
(i) Terms and conditions: Each participating LEA (as defined in
this notice) should sign a standard set of terms and conditions that
includes, at a minimum, key roles and responsibilities of the State
and the LEA; State recourse for LEA non-performance; and assurances
that make clear what the participating LEA (as defined in this
notice) is agreeing to do.
(ii) Scope of work: MOUs should include a scope of work
(included in the model MOU as Exhibit I) that is completed by each
participating LEA (as defined in this notice). The scope of work
must be signed and dated by an authorized LEA and State official. In
the interest of time and with respect for the effort it will take
for LEAs to develop detailed work plans, the scope of work submitted
by LEAs and States as part of their Race to the Top applications may
be preliminary. Preliminary scopes of work should include the
portions of the State's proposed reform plans that the LEA is
agreeing to implement. (Note that in order to participate in a
State's Race to the Top application an LEA must agree to implement
all or significant portions of the State's reform plans.)
If a State is awarded a Race to the Top grant, the participating
LEAs (as defined in this notice) will have up to 90 days to complete
final scopes of work (which could be attached to the model MOU as
Exhibit II), which must contain detailed work plans that are
consistent with the preliminary scope of work and with the State's
grant application, and should include the participating LEA's (as
defined in this notice) specific goals, activities, timelines,
budgets, key personnel, and annual targets for key performance
measures.
(iii) Signatures: The signatures demonstrate (a) an
acknowledgement of the relationship between the LEA and the State,
and (b) the strength of the participating LEA's (as defined in this
notice) commitment.
With respect to the relationship between the LEA and
the State, the State's counter-signature on the MOU indicates that
the LEA's commitment is consistent with the requirement that a
participating LEA (as defined in this notice) implement all or
significant portions of the State's plans.
The strength of the participating LEA's (as defined in
this notice) commitment will be demonstrated by the signatures of
the LEA superintendent (or an equivalent authorized
[[Page 19528]]
signatory), the president of the local school board (or equivalent,
if applicable) and the local teacher's union leader (if applicable).
Please note the following with regard to the State's Race to the
Top application:
In its application, the State need only provide an
example of the State's standard Participating LEA MOU; it does not
have to provide copies of every MOU signed by its participating LEAs
(as defined in this notice). If, however, States and LEAs have made
any changes to the State's standard MOU, the State must provide
description of the changes that were made. Please note that the
Department may, at any time, request copies of all MOUs between the
State and its participating LEAs.
Please see criterion (A)(1)(ii) and (A)(1)(iii), and
the evidence requested in the application, for more information and
ways in which States will be asked to summarize information about
the LEA MOUs.
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN14AP10.000
[[Page 19529]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN14AP10.001
[[Page 19530]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN14AP10.002
[[Page 19531]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN14AP10.003
[FR Doc. 2010-8376 Filed 4-13-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-C