Wednesday, 

April 14, 2010 

Part III 

Department of 

Education 

Overview Information; Race to the Top 

Fund; Notice Inviting Applications for 

New Awards for Fiscal Year (FY) 2010; 

Notice 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
19496 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 14, 2010 / Notices 

1The 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. 

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 internationallybenchmarked 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 lowestachieving 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 highneed 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. 

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. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 14, 2010 / Notices 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—SchoolLevel 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, 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
19498 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 14, 2010 / Notices 

2The 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. 

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., peerreviewed 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

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 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 14, 2010 / Notices 19499 

3Research supports the effectiveness of welldesigned 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.mathematicampr.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.) 

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 wellrounded education, including, for 

example, physical education, service 

learning, and experiential and workbased 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

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, 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
19500 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 14, 2010 / Notices 

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 problemsolving 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) studentlevel 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 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 14, 2010 / Notices 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. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
19502 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 14, 2010 / Notices 

4See Appendix D for more on participating LEA 

MOUs and for a model MOU. 

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 

§ 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— 

(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 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 14, 2010 / Notices 19503 

5Phase 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. 

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., parentteacher 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

(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 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
19504 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 14, 2010 / Notices 

6Successful 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. 

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 highneed 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

(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-tostaff 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 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 14, 2010 / Notices 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 datainformed 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 LowestAchieving Schools 

State Reform Conditions Criteria 

(E)(1) Intervening in the lowestachieving 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 lowestachieving schools: The extent to which 

the State has a high-quality plan and 

ambitious yet achievable annual targets 

to— 

(i) Identify the persistently lowestachieving schools (as defined in this 

notice) and, at its discretion, any nonTitle 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 highperforming 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 facilityrelated 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 twotiered 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 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
19506 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 14, 2010 / Notices 

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 ARRAfunded 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: 

Æ The uses of funds within the State; 

Æ How the State distributed the funds 

it received; 

Æ The number of jobs that the 

Governor estimates were saved or 

created with the funds; 

Æ 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 

Æ 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 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 14, 2010 / Notices 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: 

Æ The elements of the program (as 

described in the alternative routes to 

certification definition in this notice). 

Æ The number of teachers and principals 

that successfully completed each program in 

the previous academic year. 

Æ 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: 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
19508 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 14, 2010 / Notices 

• (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: 

Æ (D)(2)(iv)(a) Developing teachers and 

principals. 

Æ (D)(2)(iv)(b) Compensating teachers and 

principals. 

Æ (D)(2)(iv)(b) Promoting teachers and 

principals. 

Æ (D)(2)(iv)(b) Retaining effective teachers 

and principals. 

Æ (D)(2)(iv)(c) Granting tenure and/or full 

certification (where applicable) to teachers 

and principals. 

Æ (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 lowminority 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 highpoverty, high-minority, or both (as defined in 

this notice). 

• Total number of schools that are lowpoverty, 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 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 14, 2010 / Notices 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: 

Æ The number of charter school 

applications made in the State. 

Æ The number of charter school 

applications approved. 

Æ The number of charter school 

applications denied and reasons for the 

denials (academic, financial, low enrollment, 

other). 

Æ The number of charter schools closed 

(including charter schools that were not 

reauthorized to operate). 

Æ The reasons for the closures or nonrenewals (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 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
19510 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 14, 2010 / Notices 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICESEN14AP10.004</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 14, 2010 / Notices 19511 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICESEN14AP10.005</GPH>
19512 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 14, 2010 / Notices 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICESEN14AP10.006</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 14, 2010 / Notices 19513 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICESEN14AP10.007</GPH>
19514 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 14, 2010 / Notices 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICESEN14AP10.008</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 14, 2010 / Notices 19515 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICESEN14AP10.009</GPH>
19516 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 14, 2010 / Notices 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICESEN14AP10.010</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 14, 2010 / Notices 19517 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICESEN14AP10.011</GPH>
19518 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 14, 2010 / Notices 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICESEN14AP10.012</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 14, 2010 / Notices 19519 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICESEN14AP10.013</GPH>
19520 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 14, 2010 / Notices 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICESEN14AP10.014</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 14, 2010 / Notices 19521 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICESEN14AP10.015</GPH>
19522 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 14, 2010 / Notices 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICESEN14AP10.016</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 14, 2010 / Notices 19523 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICESEN14AP10.017</GPH>
19524 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 14, 2010 / Notices 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICESEN14AP10.018</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 14, 2010 / Notices 19525 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICESEN14AP10.019</GPH>
19526 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 14, 2010 / Notices 

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, highquality, 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 ‘‘wholeschool 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, highquality, 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— 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICESEN14AP10.020</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 14, 2010 / Notices 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 ‘‘responseto-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, reengagement 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 nonperformance; 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 countersignature 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 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
19528 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 14, 2010 / Notices 

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 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICESEN14AP10.000</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 14, 2010 / Notices 19529 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICESEN14AP10.001</GPH>
19530 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 14, 2010 / Notices 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICESEN14AP10.002</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 14, 2010 / Notices 19531 

[FR Doc. 2010–8376 Filed 4–13–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–C 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICESEN14AP10.003</GPH>