Vol. 78 Monday, 

No. 97 May 20, 2013 

Part III 

Department of Education 

34 CFR Chapter II 

Department of Health and Human Services 

45 CFR Subtitle A, Subchapter A 

Proposed Priorities, Requirements, Definitions, and Selection Criteria—Race 

to the Top – Early Learning Challenge; Proposed Rule 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
29500 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 97 / Monday, May 20, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

1National Research Council. (2008). Early 

Childhood Assessment: Why, What, and How. 

Committee on Developmental Outcomes and 

Assessments for Young Children, C.E. Snow and 

S.B. Van Hemel, Editors. Board on Children, Youth, 

and Families, Board on Testing and Assessment, 

Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and 

Education. Washington, DC: The National 

Academies Press. www.nap.edu/ 

catalog.php?record_id=12446. 

2See Department of Defense and Full-Year 

Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011, Division B, 

§ 1832(b), Public Law 112–10 (April 15, 2011). 

3Terms with initial capitalization are defined in 

the Definition section of this document. 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

34 CFR Chapter II 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

45 CFR Subtitle A, Subchapter A 

[Docket ID ED–2013–OESE–0046] 

RIN 1801–AA13 

Proposed Priorities, Requirements, 

Definitions, and Selection Criteria— 

Race to the Top—Early Learning 

Challenge 

[CFDA Number: 84.412A.] 

AGENCY: Department of Education and 

Department of Health and Human 

Services. 

ACTION: Proposed priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria. 

SUMMARY: The Secretary of Education 

and Secretary of Health and Human 

Services (‘‘the Secretaries’’) propose 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria under the Race to the 

Top—Early Learning Challenge (RTT– 

ELC) Grant program. The Secretaries 

may use one or more of these priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria for competitions in fiscal year 

(FY) 2013 and later years. 

The U.S. Department of Education 

(ED) and the U.S. Department of Health 

and Human Services (HHS) 

(collectively, ‘‘the Departments’’) 

conducted the first competition under 

the RTT–ELC program in FY 2011 and 

awarded grants to nine States. In FY 

2012, the five next highest-rated 

applicants on the slate of high-scoring 

applications from the FY 2011 

competition were funded at up to 50 

percent of the funds each requested in 

their FY 2011 applications. 

We propose to maintain the overall 

purpose and structure of the FY 2011 

RTT–ELC competition in future 

competitions. These proposed priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria are almost identical to the ones 

used in the FY 2011 competition. We 

describe the changes at the beginning of 

each section of this document. 

DATES: We must receive your comments 

on or before June 19, 2013, and we 

encourage you to submit comments well 

in advance of this date. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments 

through the Federal eRulemaking Portal 

or via postal mail, commercial delivery, 

or hand delivery. We will not accept 

comments by fax or by email. To ensure 

we do not receive duplicate comments, 

please submit your comments only 

once. In addition, please include the 

Docket ID and the term ‘‘Early Learning 

Challenge Grant-Comments’’ at the top 

of your comments. 

Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: Go to 

www.regulations.gov to submit your 

comments electronically. Information 

on using Regulations.gov, including 

instructions for accessing agency 

documents, submitting comments, and 

viewing the docket, is available on the 

site under ‘‘Are you new to the site?’’ 

Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery, or 

Hand Delivery. If you mail or deliver 

your comments about these proposed 

priorities, requirements, definitions, or 

selection criteria, address them to the 

Office of Elementary and Secondary 

Education (Attention: Early Learning 

Challenge Grant—Comments), U.S. 

Department of Education, 400 Maryland 

Avenue SW., room 3E245, Washington, 

DC 20202–6200. 

Privacy Note: The Departments’ policies 

are to make all comments received from 

members of the public available for public 

viewing in their entirety on the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov. 

Therefore, commenters should be careful to 

include in their comments only information 

that they wish to make publically available. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Miriam Lund. Telephone: (202) 401– 

2871 or by email: miriam.lund@ed.gov. 

If you use a telecommunications 

device for the deaf (TDD) or a text 

telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay 

Service (FRS), toll free, at 1–800–877– 

8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary 

Purpose of This Regulatory Action: 

The purpose of this document is to 

propose priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria for the 

RTT–ELC program that will enable 

effective grant making and result in 

high-quality proposals from States. The 

RTT–ELC program focuses Federal 

financial resources on improving early 

learning and development for young 

children by supporting States’ efforts to 

increase the number and percentage of 

low-income and disadvantaged children 

in each age group of infants, toddlers, 

and preschoolers who are enrolled in 

high-quality early learning and 

development programs; design and 

implement an integrated system of highquality early learning and development 

programs and services directly resulting 

in more children, especially those with 

high needs, entering kindergarten ready 

to succeed in school and in life; and 

ensure that any use of assessments 

conforms with the recommendations of 

the National Research Council 1 reports 

on early childhood.2

Summary of the Major Provisions of 

This Regulatory Action: The RTT–ELC 

program is designed to build on the 

momentum of other Race to the Top 

competitions by improving State 

systems of early care and education in 

order to prepare more children for 

kindergarten. The priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria proposed in this document are 

almost identical to those we used in the 

FY 2011 competition. Through future 

competitions using these proposed 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria, we will again invite 

applicants to demonstrate how they can 

transform their early learning systems 

with better coordination among various 

State Participating Agencies,3 improved 

standards, and meaningful education 

and training for early childhood 

educators. 

In that regard, through future 

competitions, the Department will 

encourage and reward States that have 

the leadership and vision to develop 

successful State systems that: 

• Support an ambitious early learning 

and reform agenda; 

• Align and raise standards for 

existing early learning programs, 

including Head Start, public preschool, 

childcare, home visiting, Part B, Section 

619 and Part C programs under the 

Individuals with Disabilities Education 

Act (IDEA), and private preschools; 

• Provide information to families 

about the quality of programs; 

• Promote early learning and 

development outcomes across Essential 

Domains of School Readiness for all 

children, reflected in clear standards 

that detail what children should know 

and be able to do and are measured 

through comprehensive assessment 

systems; 

• Build a great early childhood 

education workforce, supported by 

strategies to train, support, and retain 

high-quality teachers, providers, and 

administrators; and 

• Measure outcomes and progress 

using Comprehensive Assessment 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 97 / Monday, May 20, 2013 / Proposed Rules 29501 

4Camilli, G., Vargas, S., Ryan, S., & Barnett, W. 

S. (2010). Meta-analysis of the effects of early 

education interventions on cognitive and social 

development. Teachers College Record, 112(3), 

579–620. 

5Reynolds, A.J., Temple, J.A., Ou, S., Arteaga, 

I.A., & White, B.A.B. (2011). School-based early 

childhood education and age-28 well-being: effects 

by timing, dosage, and subgroups. Science, 

Retrieved from www.sciencemag.org/content/early/ 

2011/06/08/science.1203618.abstract doi: 10.1126/ 

science.1203618. 

6Princiotta, D., Flanagan, K. D., and Germino 

Hausken, E. (2006). Fifth Grade: Findings From The 

Fifth-Grade Follow-up of the Early Childhood 

Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 1998–99 

(ECLS–K). (NCES 2006–038) U.S. Department of 

Education. 

7Halle, T., Forry, N., Hair, E., Perper, K., 

Wandner, L., Wessel, J., & Vick, J.(2009). Disparities 

in Early Learning and Development: Lessons from 

the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study—Birth 

Cohort (ECLS–B). Washington, DC: Child Trends. 

Systems and Kindergarten Entry 

Assessments (KEA); and develop or 

enhance data systems. 

These proposed priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria are designed to help States meet 

these goals and are almost identical to 

those we used in the FY 2011 

competition with the exception of minor 

language clarifications and five 

substantive changes. We are proposing 

to (1) Revise the KEA priority(Proposed 

Priority 3) to simplify scoring; (2) revise 

and rename the priority designed to 

sustain and build upon early learning 

outcomes from preschool-through-third 

grade (Proposed Priority 4); (3) revise 

the requirements to reduce the 

maximum grant amounts for which an 

applicant may apply;(4) revise the 

program requirements to require that 

States have an operational State 

Advisory Council on Early Childhood 

Education and Care, and that this 

council include the administrator from 

the State’s Child Care and Development 

Fund program, representatives from 

both Part B and Part C of IDEA, and 

State agency representatives responsible 

for health and mental health; and (5)add 

a new eligibility requirement excluding 

States that previously received funding 

for a RTT–ELC grant. 

We believe these proposed changes 

will improve the peer review 

evaluation; strengthen the gains from 

early learning outcomes from preschool 

through the early elementary school 

years; and enable the Departments to 

maximize the number of grantees that 

would receive funding while still 

awarding grants of sufficient size to 

support ambitious yet achievable early 

learning reforms. 

The remaining priorities proposed in 

this notice (priorities 1, 2, and 5) are 

unchanged from those we used in the 

FY 2011 competition. 

Costs and Benefits: The cost imposed 

on applicants by these priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria would be limited to paperwork 

burden related to preparing an 

application. Benefits would outweigh 

any costs to applicants. The costs of 

carrying out activities would be paid for 

with RTT–ELC grant funds. The costs of 

implementation would not be a burden 

for any eligible applicant, including 

small entities. Please refer to the 

Regulatory Impact Analysis in this 

document for a more complete 

discussion of the costs and benefits of 

this regulatory action. 

This document provides an 

accounting statement that estimates that 

approximately $300 million will 

transfer from the Federal Government to 

States under this program. Please refer 

to the accounting statement in this 

document for a more detailed 

discussion. 

Invitation to Comment: We invite you 

to submit comments on this document. 

To ensure that your comments have 

maximum effect in developing the final 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria, we urge you to 

identify clearly the specific proposed 

priority, requirement, definition, and or 

selection criterion that each comment 

addresses. 

We invite you to assist us in 

complying with the specific 

requirements of Executive Orders 12866 

and 13563 and their overall requirement 

of reducing regulatory burden that 

might result from these proposed 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria. Please let us know of 

any further ways we could reduce 

potential costs or increase potential 

benefits while preserving the effective 

and efficient administration of the 

program. 

During and after the comment period, 

you may inspect all public comments 

about this notice by accessing 

Regulations.gov. You may also inspect 

the comments in person in room 3E245, 

400 Maryland Avenue SW., LBJ 

Building, Washington, DC 20202–6200, 

between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 

p.m., Washington, DC time, Monday 

through Friday of each week except 

Federal holidays. 

Assistance to Individuals with 

Disabilities in Reviewing the 

Rulemaking Record: On request we will 

provide an appropriate accommodation 

or auxiliary aid to an individual with a 

disability who needs assistance to 

review the comments or other 

documents in the public rulemaking 

record for this notice. If you want to 

schedule an appointment for this type of 

accommodation or auxiliary aid, please 

contact the person listed under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

Purpose of Program 

The purpose of the RTT–ELC program 

is to improve the quality of early 

learning and development and close the 

educational gaps for Children with High 

Needs. This program focuses on 

improving early learning and 

development for young children by 

supporting States’ efforts to increase the 

number and percentage of low-income 

and disadvantaged children, in each age 

group of infants, toddlers, and 

preschoolers, who are enrolled in highquality early learning and development 

programs; and to design and implement 

an integrated system of high-quality 

early learning and development 

programs and services. 

Program Authority: Sections 14005 and 

14006, Division A, of the American Recovery 

and Reinvestment Act of 2009, as amended 

by section 1832(b) of Division B of Pub. L. 

112–10, the Department of Defense and FullYear Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011, 

and the Department of Education 

Appropriations Act, 2012 (Title III of 

Division F of Pub. L. 112–74, the 

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012). 

Backgound 

The Statutory Context and Program 

Overview 

Race to the Top—Early Learning 

Challenge 

A critical focus of the Departments is 

supporting America’s youngest learners 

and helping ensure that children, 

especially Children with High Needs, 

enter kindergarten ready to succeed in 

school and in life. A robust body of 

research demonstrates that high-quality 

early learning and development 

programs and services can improve 

young children’s health, socialemotional, and cognitive outcomes; 

enhance school readiness; and help 

close the educational gaps 4 5 that exist 

between Children with High Needs and 

their peers at the time they enter 

kindergarten.6 7

To address this educational gap, the 

Departments have identified, as high 

priorities, strengthening the quality of 

existing early learning and development 

programs and increasing access to highquality Early Learning and Development 

Programs for all children, especially for 

Children with High Needs. 

On May 25, 2011, Secretaries Arne 

Duncan and Kathleen Sebelius 

announced the RTT–ELC, a new $500 

million State-level grant competition 

authorized under the American 

Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 

(ARRA), as amended by section 1832(b) 

of the Department of Defense and FullYear Continuing Appropriations Act, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
29502 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 97 / Monday, May 20, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

8Section 437(d)(1) of GEPA exempts the 

Secretary of Education from rulemaking 

requirements governing the first grant competition 

under a new or substantially revised program 

authority. We utilized this authority to forgo formal 

rulemaking for the FY2011 RTT–ELC competition, 

instead soliciting informal public participation 

through the ED.gov Web site. 

2011. Through the RTT–ELC program, 

the Departments seek to help close the 

educational gaps between Children with 

High Needs and their peers by 

supporting State efforts to build strong 

systems of early learning and 

development that provide increased 

access to high-quality programs for the 

children who need them most. 

The FY 2011 RTT–ELC competition 8

represented an unprecedented 

opportunity for States to focus deeply 

on their early learning and development 

systems for children from birth through 

age five. (See notice inviting 

applications for the competition, 

published in the Federal Register on 

August 26, 2011 (76 FR 53564)). 

Through the FY 2011 RTT–ELC 

competition, States were given an 

opportunity to build a more unified 

approach to supporting young children 

and their families—an approach that 

increases access to high-quality early 

learning and development programs and 

services, and helps ensure that children 

enter kindergarten with the skills, 

knowledge, and dispositions toward 

learning they need to be successful in 

school and in life. 

In December 2011, the Departments 

made awards to the nine highest-scoring 

applications from the FY 2011 RTT–ELC 

competition: California, Delaware, 

Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, 

North Carolina, Ohio, Rhode Island, and 

Washington. 

On December 23, 2011, Public Law 

112–74, the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2012, which made 

$550 million available for the Race to 

the Top Fund, was signed into law. This 

legislation authorized the Secretary of 

Education to make Race to the Top 

Fund awards on ‘‘the basis of previously 

submitted applications.’’ 

On April 9, 2012, the Departments 

announced that approximately $133 

million of the $550 million appropriated 

for the Race to the Top Fund would be 

made available to the next five highest 

scoring applicants from the FY 2011 

RTT–ELC competition. These five 

applicants, each of which received 

approximately 75 percent or more of the 

available points under the competition, 

received awards: Colorado, Illinois, New 

Mexico, Oregon, and Wisconsin. 

The FY 2011 RTT–ELC competition 

identified five key reform areas 

representing the foundation of an 

effective early learning and 

development reform agenda focused on 

school readiness and ongoing 

educational success. These areas, which 

provided a framework for the 

competition’s priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria, are as 

follows: 

(A) Successful State Systems; 

(B) High-Quality, Accountable 

Programs; 

(C) Promoting Early Learning and 

Development Outcomes for Children; 

(D) A Great Early Childhood 

Education Workforce; and 

(E) Measuring Outcomes and Progress. 

The first two of these reform areas, (A) 

and (B), are core areas of focus for this 

program (‘‘Core Areas’’), and applicants 

under the FY 2011 RTT–ELC 

competition were required to respond to 

all selection criteria under these Core 

Areas. The reform areas in (C), (D), and 

(E) that targeted attention to specific 

activities are relevant to individual 

States (‘‘Focused Investment Areas’’). 

Applicants were required to address 

each Focused Investment Area but not 

each of the selection criteria under 

them. 

In this notice, we propose specific 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria that the Departments 

could choose to use in future 

competitions. The priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria proposed in this notice are in 

large part identical to those in the FY 

2011 notice inviting applications. 

Proposed Priorities 

Changes from the FY 2011 competition 

Priority 3 

We propose to revise Priority 3 by 

deleting sub-bullet (1). This change will 

simplify scoring by requiring all 

applicants to address the KEA in one 

location in the application: selection 

criterion (E)(1). The revised priority is: 

‘‘Understanding the Status of Children’s 

Learning and Development at 

Kindergarten Entry. To meet this 

priority, the State must, in its 

application address selection criterion 

(E)(1) and earn a score of at least 70 

percent of the maximum points 

available for that criterion.’’ 

The original priority for the reader’s 

reference was: ‘‘Understanding the 

Status of Children’s Learning and 

Development at Kindergarten Entry. 

—To meet this priority, the State must, 

in its application— 

—Demonstrate that it has already 

implemented a Kindergarten Entry 

Assessment that meets selection 

criterion (E)(1) by indicating that all 

elements in Table (A)(1)-12 are met; 

or 

—Address selection criterion (E)(1) and 

earn a score of at least 70 percent of 

the maximum points available for that 

criterion.’’ 

Priority 4 

We propose to revise Priority 4 to 

emphasize the importance of sustaining 

and building upon early learning 

outcomes from preschool through the 

early elementary school years. We 

propose this revision to improve all 

transitions for children across the birththrough-third-grade continuum and to 

encourage States to be focused on 

increasing the percentage of children 

able to read and do mathematics at 

grade level by the end of the third grade. 

The revised priority is: ‘‘Creating 

Approaches to Sustain Improved Early 

Learning Outcomes through the Early 

Elementary Grades. 

Priority 4 is designed to sustain and 

build upon early learning outcomes 

through the early elementary school 

years. To meet this priority, the State 

must have a High-Quality Plan to 

improve the overall quality, alignment, 

and continuity of teaching and learning 

to serve children from preschool 

through third grade by engaging in 

activities such as— 

(a) Enhancing the State’s 

kindergarten-through-third-grade 

standards to align them with the State’s 

Early Learning and Development 

Standards across all Essential Domains 

of School Readiness; 

(b) Identifying and addressing the 

health, behavioral, and developmental 

needs of Children with High Needs from 

preschool through third grade; 

(c) Implementing teacher preparation 

and professional development programs 

and strategies that emphasize 

developmental science, pedagogy, and 

the delivery of developmentally 

appropriate content for teachers serving 

children from preschool through grade 

3; 

(d) Implementing model systems of 

collaboration both within and between 

early learning and development 

programs and elementary schools to 

improve all transitions for children 

across the birth through third grade 

continuum; 

(e) Building or enhancing data 

systems to monitor the status of 

children’s learning and development 

from preschool through third grade to 

support student progress in meeting 

critical educational benchmarks in the 

early elementary grades; 

(f) Initiatives designed to increase the 

percentage of children who are able to 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 97 / Monday, May 20, 2013 / Proposed Rules 29503 

read and do mathematics at grade level 

by the end of the third grade; and 

(g) Leveraging existing Federal, State, 

and local resources, including but not 

limited to funds received under Title I 

and Title II of ESEA, as amended, and 

IDEA.’’ 

The original priority for the reader’s 

reference was: ‘‘Sustaining Program 

Effects in the Early Elementary Grades. 

The Departments are particularly 

interested in applications that describe 

the State’s High-Quality Plan to sustain 

and build upon improved early learning 

outcomes throughout the early 

elementary school years, including by— 

(a) Enhancing the State’s current 

standards for kindergarten through 

grade 3 to align them with the Early 

Learning and Development Standards 

across all Essential Domains of School 

Readiness; 

(b) Ensuring that transition planning 

occurs for children moving from Early 

Learning and Development Programs to 

elementary schools; 

(c) Promoting health and family 

engagement, including in the early 

grades; 

(d) Increasing the percentage of 

children who are able to read and do 

mathematics at grade level by the end of 

the third grade; and 

(e) Leveraging existing Federal, State, 

and local resources, including but not 

limited to funds received under Title I 

and Title II of ESEA, as amended, and 

IDEA.’’ 

Proposed Priorities: The Secretaries 

propose five priorities. The Departments 

may apply one or more of these 

priorities in any year in which a 

competition for program funds is held. 

Priority 1: Promoting School 

Readiness for Children with High Needs. 

To meet this proposed priority, the 

State’s application must 

comprehensively and coherently 

address how the State will build a 

system that increases the quality of 

Early Learning and Development 

Programs for Children with High Needs 

so that they enter kindergarten ready to 

succeed. 

The State’s application must 

demonstrate how it will improve the 

quality of Early Learning and 

Development Programs by integrating 

and aligning resources and policies 

across Participating State Agencies and 

by designing and implementing a 

common, statewide Tiered Quality 

Rating and Improvement System. In 

addition, to achieve the necessary 

reforms, the State must make strategic 

improvements in those areas that will 

most significantly improve program 

quality and outcomes for Children with 

High Needs. Therefore, the State must 

address those criteria from within each 

of the Focused Investment Areas 

(sections (C) Promoting Early Learning 

and Development Outcomes for 

Children, (D) A Great Early Childhood 

Education Workforce, and (E) Measuring 

Outcomes and Progress) that it believes 

will best prepare its Children with High 

Needs for kindergarten success. 

Priority 2: Including all Early Learning 

and Development Programs in the 

Tiered Quality Rating and Improvement 

System. 

Proposed Priority 2 is designed to 

increase the number of children from 

birth to kindergarten entry who are 

participating in programs that are 

governed by the State’s licensing system 

and quality standards, with the goal that 

all licensed or State-regulated programs 

will participate. The State will meet this 

priority based on the extent to which 

the State has in place, or has a HighQuality Plan to implement no later than 

June 30th of the fourth year of the 

grant— 

(a) A licensing and inspection system 

that covers all programs that are not 

otherwise regulated by the State and 

that regularly care for two or more 

unrelated children for a fee in a 

provider setting; provided that if the 

State exempts programs for reasons 

other than the number of children cared 

for, the State may exclude those entities 

and reviewers will determine whether 

an applicant has met this priority only 

on the basis of non-excluded entities; 

and 

(b) A Tiered Quality Rating and 

Improvement System in which all 

licensed or State-regulated Early 

Learning and Development Programs 

participate. 

Priority 3: Understanding the Status 

of Children’s Learning and Development 

at Kindergarten Entry. 

To meet this proposed priority, the 

State must, in its application, address 

selection criterion (E)(1) and earn a 

score of at least 70 percent of the 

maximum points available for that 

criterion. 

Priority 4: Creating Preschool through 

Third Grade Approaches to Sustain 

Improved Early Learning Outcomes 

through the Early Elementary Grades. 

Proposed Priority 4 is designed to 

sustain and build upon early learning 

outcomes from preschool through the 

early elementary school years, including 

by leveraging existing Federal, State, 

and local resources. The State will meet 

this priority based on the extent to 

which it describes a High-Quality Plan 

to improve the overall quality, 

alignment, and continuity of teaching 

and learning to serve children from 

preschool through third grade through 

such activities as— 

(a) Enhancing the State’s 

kindergarten-through-third-grade 

standards to align them with the State’s 

Early Learning and Development 

Standards across all Essential Domains 

of School Readiness; 

(b) Identifying and addressing the 

health, behavioral, and developmental 

needs of Children with High Needs from 

preschool through third grade; 

(c) Implementing teacher preparation 

and professional development programs 

and strategies that emphasize 

developmental science, pedagogy, and 

the delivery of developmentally 

appropriate content for teachers serving 

children from preschool through grade 

3; 

(d) Implementing model systems of 

collaboration both within and between 

early learning and development 

programs and elementary schools to 

improve all transitions for children 

across the birth through third grade 

continuum; 

(e) Building or enhancing data 

systems to monitor the status of 

children’s learning and development 

from preschool through third grade to 

support student progress in meeting 

critical educational benchmarks in the 

early elementary grades; and 

(f) Other efforts designed to increase 

the percentage of children who are able 

to read and do mathematics at grade 

level by the end of the third grade. 

Priority 5: Encouraging Private-Sector 

Support. 

The State will meet this priority based 

on the extent to which it describes how 

the private sector will provide financial 

and other resources to support the State 

and its Participating State Agencies or 

Participating Programs in the 

implementation of the State Plan. 

Types of Priorities 

When inviting applications for a 

competition using one or more 

priorities, we designate the type of each 

priority as absolute, competitive 

preference, or invitational through a 

notice in the Federal Register. The 

effect of each type of priority follows: 

Absolute priority: Under an absolute 

priority, we consider only applications 

that meet the priority (34 CFR 

75.105(c)(3)). 

Competitive preference priority: 

Under a competitive preference priority, 

we give competitive preference to an 

application by (1) awarding additional 

points, depending on the extent to 

which the application meets the priority 

(34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) selecting 

an application that meets the priority 

over an application of comparable merit 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
29504 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 97 / Monday, May 20, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

that does not meet the priority (34 CFR 

75.105(c)(2)(ii)). 

Invitational priority: Under an 

invitational priority, we are particularly 

interested in applications that meet the 

priority. However, we do not give an 

application that meets the priority a 

preference over other applications (34 

CFR 75.105(c)(1)). 

Proposed Eligibility Requirements 

Changes from the FY 2011 competition 

Eligibility Requirement 1(a) 

We propose to eliminate the eligibility 

requirement requiring an operational 

State Advisory Council on Early 

Childhood Education and Care due to 

the elimination of Federal funding for 

this activity and the difficulty in 

determining whether a State has an 

operational State Advisory Council at 

the time of application. We have made 

this a program requirement instead, 

which will mean that the Council does 

not need to be operational at the time of 

application but must be reinstated or 

maintained throughout the grant period. 

We also propose to add a new 

eligibility requirement excluding States 

that previously received funding for a 

RTT–ELC grant. This proposed 

eligibility requirement would increase 

the number of States with ambitious 

early learning reforms that promote 

early learning and development 

outcomes for all children. 

The revised eligibility requirement is: 

The State has not previously received an 

RTT–ELC grant. 

Eligibility Requirement (1)(c) 

In eligibility requirement (1)(c), we 

propose a revision that states the 

applicant must have an active Maternal, 

Infant, and Early Childhood Home 

Visiting (MIECHV) program in the State. 

In the FY 2011 competition, we required 

applicants to have submitted their 

MIECHV plans for FY 2010 and an 

application for formula funding under 

the MIECHV program. However, we are 

proposing to update this requirement to 

reflect that all States that currently have 

an active MIECHV program would be 

eligible for funding. 

The revised eligibility requirement is: 

‘‘(c) There must be an active Maternal, 

Infant, and Early Childhood Home 

Visiting (MIECHV) program in the State, 

either through the State under section 

511(c) of Title V of the Social Security 

Act, as added by section 2951 of the 

Affordable Care Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 

111–148), or through an eligible nonprofit organization under section 

511(h)(2)(B).)). 

The original eligibility requirement 

for the reader’s reference was: ‘‘(c) The 

State must have submitted in FY 2010 

an updated MIECHV State plan and FY 

2011 Application for formula funding 

under the Maternal, Infant, and Early 

Childhood Home Visiting program (see 

section 511 of Title V of the Social 

Security Act, as added by section 2951 

of the Affordable Care Act of 2010 (P.L. 

111–148)).’’ 

Proposed Eligibility Requirements: 

The Secretaries propose the following 

requirements a State must meet in order 

to be eligible to receive funds under this 

competition. We may apply one or more 

of these requirements in any year in 

which this program is in effect. 

1. Eligible Applicants: States that 

meet the following requirements: 

(a) The State has not previously 

received an RTT–ELC grant. 

(b) The Lead Agency must have 

executed with each Participating State 

Agency a memorandum of 

understanding (MOU) or other binding 

agreement that the State must attach to 

its application, describing the 

Participating State Agency’s level of 

participation in the grant. At a 

minimum, the MOU or other binding 

agreement must include an assurance 

that the Participating State Agency 

agrees to use, to the extent applicable— 

(1) A set of statewide Early Learning 

and Development Standards; 

(2) A set of statewide Program 

Standards; 

(3) A statewide Tiered Quality Rating 

and Improvement System; and 

(4) A statewide Workforce Knowledge 

and Competency Framework and 

progression of credentials. 

(c) There must be an active Maternal, 

Infant, and Early Childhood Home 

Visiting (MIECHV) program in the State, 

either through the State under section 

511(c) of Title V of the Social Security 

Act, as added by section 2951 of the 

Affordable Care Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 

111–148), or through an eligible nonprofit organization under section 

511(h)(2)(B). 

Proposed Application Requirements 

Changes from the FY 2011 

Competition: The Departments are not 

proposing any substantive changes to 

the application requirements that were 

included in the FY 2011 competition; 

however we made minor language 

changes for clarity. 

The Secretaries propose the following 

application requirements for the 

application a State would submit for 

funding under this competition. We 

may apply one or more of these 

requirements in any year in which this 

program is in effect. 

Each applicant must meet the 

following application requirements: 

(a) The State’s application must be 

signed by the Governor or an authorized 

representative; an authorized 

representative from the Lead Agency; 

and an authorized representative from 

each Participating State Agency. 

(b) The State must submit a 

certification from the State Attorney 

General or an authorized representative 

that the State’s description of, and 

statements and conclusions in its 

application concerning, State law, 

statute, and regulation are complete and 

accurate and constitute a reasonable 

interpretation of State law, statute, and 

regulation. 

(c) The State must complete the 

budget spreadsheets that are provided in 

the application package and submit the 

completed spreadsheet as part of its 

application. These spreadsheets should 

be included on the CD or DVD that the 

State submits as its application. 

(d) The State must submit preliminary 

scopes of work for each Participating 

State Agency as part of the executed 

MOU or other binding agreement. Each 

preliminary scope of work must 

describe the portions of the State’s 

proposed plans that the Participating 

State Agency is agreeing to implement. 

If a State is awarded a RTT–ELC grant, 

the State will have up to 90 days to 

complete final scopes of work for each 

Participating State Agency. 

(e) The State must include a budget 

that details how it will use grant funds 

awarded under this competition, and 

funds from other Federal, State, private, 

and local sources to achieve the 

outcomes of the State Plan (as described 

in proposed selection criterion 

(A)(4)(a)), and how the State will use 

funds awarded under this program to— 

(1) Achieve its ambitious yet 

achievable targets for increasing the 

number and percentage of Early 

Learning and Development Programs 

that are participating in the State’s 

Tiered Quality Rating and Improvement 

System (as described in selection 

criterion (B)(2)(c)); and 

(2) Achieve its ambitious yet 

achievable targets for increasing the 

number and percentage of Children with 

High Needs who are enrolled in Early 

Learning and Development Programs 

that are in the top tiers of the State’s 

Tiered Quality Rating and Improvement 

System (as described in selection 

criterion (B)(4)(c)). 

(f) The State must provide an overall 

summary for the State Plan and a 

rationale for why it has chosen to 

address the selected criteria in each 

Focused Investment Area, including— 

• How the State’s choices build on its 

progress to date in each Focused 

Investment Area (as outlined in Tables 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 97 / Monday, May 20, 2013 / Proposed Rules 29505 

(A)(1) 6–13 and the narrative under 

(A)(1)); and 

• Why these selected criteria will best 

achieve the State’s ambitious yet 

achievable goals for improving program 

quality, improving outcomes for 

Children with High Needs statewide, 

and closing the educational gaps 

between Children with High Needs and 

their peers. 

(g) The State, within each Focused 

Investment Area, must select and 

address— 

• Two or more selection criteria 

within Focused Investment Area (C) 

Promoting Early Learning and 

Development Outcomes for Children; 

and 

• One or more selection criteria 

within Focused Investment Areas (D) A 

Great Early Childhood Education 

Workforce and (E) Measuring Outcomes 

and Progress. 

(h) Where the State is submitting a 

High-Quality Plan, the State must 

include in its application a detailed 

plan that is feasible and includes, but 

need not be limited to— 

(1) The key goals; 

(2) The key activities to be 

undertaken; the rationale for the 

activities; and, if applicable, where in 

the State the activities will be initially 

implemented, and where and how they 

will be scaled up over time to 

eventually achieve statewide 

implementation; 

(3) A realistic timeline, including key 

milestones, for implementing each key 

activity; 

(4) The party or parties responsible for 

implementing each activity and other 

key personnel assigned to each activity; 

(5) Appropriate financial resources to 

support successful implementation of 

the plan; 

(6) The information requested as 

supporting evidence, if any, together 

with any additional information the 

State believes will be helpful to peer 

reviewers in judging the credibility of 

the plan; 

(7) The information requested or 

required in the performance measures, 

where applicable; 

(8) How the State will address the 

needs of the different types of Early 

Learning and Development Programs, if 

applicable; and 

(9) How the State will meet the 

unique needs of Children with High 

Needs. 

Proposed Program Requirements 

Changes From the FY 2011 Competition 

Program Requirement (a) 

In program requirement (a), we 

propose requiring States to have an 

operational State Advisory Council on 

Early Childhood Education and Care 

that meets the requirements described 

in section 642B(b) of the Head Start Act 

(42 U.S.C. 9837(b)). The coordinated 

system of early learning and 

development plays a unique and 

important role interweaving the work 

required by the RTT–ELC grant. In 

addition, the State Advisory Council on 

Early Childhood Education and Care 

must include the State’s Child Care and 

Development Fund administrator; State 

agency coordinators from both Part B 

section 619 and Part C of IDEA, and 

State agency representatives responsible 

for health and mental health. These 

State agency representatives explicitly 

oversee the child care work in the States 

and their participation adds value and 

raises the bar because of their content 

knowledge on child care subsidy, 

quality, and Quality Rating and 

Improvement System development. 

We further propose to reorganize this 

program requirement into three 

paragraphs. Paragraph (a) Will address 

the State Advisory Council on Early 

Childhood Education and Care, 

paragraph (b) will address the IDEA, 

Part B and Part C programs and the 

Child Care Development Program, and 

paragraph (c) will require States to have 

an active Maternal, Infant, and Early 

Childhood Home Visiting (MIECHV) 

program for the duration of the grant. 

The remaining paragraphs in this 

requirement will be redesignated 

accordingly. These proposed changes 

will ensure State agencies continue to 

meet throughout the duration of their 

grant to assess implementation of their 

early learning activities for infants, 

toddlers, and preschoolers. 

The revised Program Requirements 

are: ‘‘(a) The State must have an 

operational State Advisory Council on 

Early Childhood Education and Care 

that meets the requirements described 

in section 642B(b) of the Head Start Act 

(42 U.S.C. 9837(b)). In addition, the 

State Advisory Council on Early 

Childhood Education and Care must 

include the State’s Child Care and 

Development Fund administrator, State 

agency coordinators from both Part B, 

section 619 and Part C of IDEA, and 

State agency representatives responsible 

for health and mental health; 

(b) The State must continue to 

participate in the programs authorized 

under section 619 of Part B of IDEA and 

Part C of IDEA and in the Child Care 

Development Fund (CCDF) program. 

(c) States must continue to have an 

active Maternal, Infant, and Early 

Childhood Home Visiting (MIECHV) 

program (pursuant to section 511 of 

Title V of the Social Security Act, as 

added by section 2951 of the Affordable 

Care Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111–148)) for 

the duration of the grant, whether 

operated by the State or by an eligible 

non-profit organization.’’ 

The original program requirements 

were: ‘‘(a) The State must continue to 

participate in the programs authorized 

under section 619 of Part B of IDEA and 

Part C of IDEA; in the CCDF program; 

and in the Maternal, Infant, and Early 

Childhood Home Visiting (MIECHV) 

program (pursuant to section 511 of 

Title V of the Social Security Act, as 

added by section 2951 of the Affordable 

Care Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111–148)) for 

the duration of the grant.’’ 

Proposed Program Requirements: The 

Secretaries propose the following 

program requirements for States 

receiving funds under this competition. 

We may apply one or more of these 

requirements in any year in which this 

program is in effect. 

(a) The State must have an operational 

State Advisory Council on Early 

Childhood Education and Care that 

meets the requirements described in 

section 642B(b) of the Head Start Act 

(42 U.S.C. 9837(b)). In addition, the 

State Advisory Council on Early 

Childhood Education and Care must 

include the State’s Child Care and 

Development Fund administrator, State 

agency coordinators from both Part B 

section 619 and Part C of IDEA, and 

State agency representatives responsible 

for health and mental health. 

(b) The State must continue to 

participate in the programs authorized 

under section 619 of Part B of IDEA and 

Part C of IDEA and in the CCDF 

program. 

(c) States must continue to have an 

active Maternal, Infant, and Early 

Childhood Home Visiting (MIECHV) 

program (pursuant to section 511 of 

Title V of the Social Security Act, as 

added by section 2951 of the Affordable 

Care Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111–148)) for 

the duration of the grant, whether 

operated by the State or by an eligible 

non-profit organization. 

(d) The State is prohibited from 

spending funds from the grant on the 

direct delivery of health services. 

(e) The State must participate in RTT– 

ELC grantee technical assistance 

activities facilitated by ED or HHS, 

individually or in collaboration with 

other State grantees in order to share 

effective program practices and 

solutions and collaboratively solve 

problems, and must set aside $400,000 

from its grant funds for this purpose. 

(f) The State must— 

(1) Comply with the requirements of 

any evaluation sponsored by ED or HHS 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
29506 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 97 / Monday, May 20, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

9Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Census 

Bureau, 2009. American Community Survey (ACS) 

1-year Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS) data. 

of any of the State’s activities carried 

out with the grant; 

(2) Comply with the requirements of 

any cross-State evaluation—as part of a 

consortium of States—of any of the 

State’s proposed reforms, if that 

evaluation is coordinated or funded by 

ED or HHS, including by using common 

measures and data collection 

instruments and collecting data 

necessary to the evaluation; 

(3) Together with its independent 

evaluator, if any, cooperate with any 

technical assistance regarding 

evaluations provided by ED or HHS. 

The purpose of this technical assistance 

will be to ensure that the validation of 

the State’s Tiered Quality Rating and 

Improvement System and any other 

evaluations conducted by States or their 

independent evaluators, if any, are of 

the highest quality and to encourage 

commonality in approaches where such 

commonality is feasible and useful; 

(4) Submit to ED and HHS for review 

and comment its design for the 

validation of its Tiered Quality Rating 

and Improvement System (as described 

in selection criteria (B)(5)) and any other 

evaluations of activities included in the 

State Plan, including any activities that 

are part of the State’s Focused 

Investment Areas, as applicable; and 

(5) Make widely available through 

formal (e.g., peer-reviewed journals) or 

informal (e.g., newsletters) mechanisms, 

and in print or electronically, the results 

of any evaluations it conducts of its 

funded activities. 

(g) The State must have a longitudinal 

data system that includes the 12 

elements described in section 

6401(e)(2)(D) of the America 

COMPETES Act by the date required 

under the State Fiscal Stabilization 

Fund (SFSF) grant and in accordance 

with Indicator (b)(1) of its approved 

SFSF plan. 

(h) The State must comply with the 

requirements of all applicable Federal, 

State, and local privacy laws, including 

the requirements of the Family 

Educational Rights and Privacy Act, the 

Health Insurance Portability 

Accountability Act, and the privacy 

requirements in IDEA, and their 

applicable regulations. 

(i) The State must ensure that the 

grant activities are implemented in 

accordance with all applicable Federal, 

State, and local laws. 

(j) The State must provide researchers 

with access, consistent with the 

requirements of all applicable Federal 

State, and local privacy laws, to data 

from its Tiered Quality Rating and 

Improvement System and from the 

Statewide Longitudinal Data System 

and the State’s coordinated early 

learning data system (if applicable) so 

that they can analyze the State’s quality 

improvement efforts and answer key 

policy and practice questions. 

(k) Unless otherwise protected as 

proprietary information by Federal or 

State law or a specific written 

agreement, the State must make any 

work (e.g., materials, tools, processes, 

systems) developed under its grant 

freely available to the public, including 

by posting the work on a Web site 

identified or sponsored by ED or HHS. 

Any Web sites developed under this 

grant must meet government or 

industry-recognized standards for 

accessibility (www.section508.gov/). 

(l) Funds made available under an 

RTT–ELC grant must be used to 

supplement, not supplant, any Federal, 

State, or local funds that, in the absence 

of the funds awarded under this grant, 

would be available for increasing access 

to and improving the quality of Early 

Learning and Development Programs. 

(m) For a State that is awarded an 

RTT–ELC grant, the State will have up 

to 90 days from the grant award 

notification date to complete final 

scopes of work for each Participating 

State Agency. These final scopes of 

work must contain detailed work plans 

that are consistent with their 

corresponding preliminary scopes of 

work and with the State’s grant 

application, and must include the 

Participating State Agency’s specific 

goals, activities, timelines, budgets, key 

personnel, and annual targets for key 

performance measures for the portions 

of the State’s proposed plans that the 

Participating State Agency is agreeing to 

implement. 

Proposed Budget Requirements 

Changes From the FY 2011 competition 

Budget Requirement 

We propose reducing the funding 

band amounts from the FY 2011 levels 

to maximize the number of States that 

we can fund while providing each 

winning State with a large enough grant 

to support comprehensive plans. As in 

the FY 2011 competition, the 

Departments developed the following 

categories by ranking every State 

according to its share of the national 

population of children ages birth 

through five years old from Low-Income 

families and identifying the natural 

breaks in the rank order. Then, based on 

population, budget caps were developed 

for each category.9

Proposed Budget Requirements 

The Secretaries propose the following 

budget requirements for States receiving 

funds under this competition. We may 

apply these requirements in any year in 

which this program is in effect. 

Category 1—Up to $75 million— 

Florida, New York, Texas. 

Category 2—Up to $52.5 million— 

Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, 

Pennsylvania. 

Category 3—Up to $45 million— 

Alabama, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, 

Missouri, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Puerto 

Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, 

Virginia. 

Category 4—Up to $37.5 million— 

Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, District 

of Columbia, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, 

Kansas, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, 

Nebraska, New Hampshire, Nevada, 

North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, 

Vermont, West Virginia, Wyoming. 

Proposed Definitions 

Changes from the FY 2011 

competition: The Departments are not 

proposing any substantive changes to 

the definitions used in the FY 2011 

competition. We propose only minor 

changes were made to the definitions of 

the terms ‘‘High Quality Plan’’ and to 

‘‘Participating State Agency’’ to provide 

clarity. 

Proposed Definitions: The Secretaries 

propose the following definitions for 

this program. We may apply one or 

more of these definitions in any year in 

which this program is in effect. 

Children with High Needs means 

children from birth through 

kindergarten entry who are from LowIncome families or otherwise in need of 

special assistance and support, 

including children who have disabilities 

or developmental delays; who are 

English learners; who reside on ‘‘Indian 

lands’’ as that term is defined by section 

8013(6) of the ESEA; who are migrant, 

homeless, or in foster care; and other 

children as identified by the State. 

Common Education Data Standards 

(CEDS) means voluntary, common 

standards for a key set of education data 

elements (e.g., demographics, program 

participation, transition, course 

information) at the early learning, K–12, 

and postsecondary levels developed 

through a national collaborative effort 

being led by the National Center for 

Education Statistics. CEDS focus on 

standard definitions, code sets, and 

technical specifications of a subset of 

key data elements and are designed to 

increase data interoperability, 

portability, and comparability across 

Early Learning and Development 

Programs and agencies, States, local 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 97 / Monday, May 20, 2013 / Proposed Rules 29507 

10Note: Such home-based programs and services 

will most likely not participate in the State’s Tiered 

Quality Rating and Improvement System unless the 

State has developed a set of Tiered Program 

Standards specifically for home-based programs 

and services. 

educational agencies, and 

postsecondary institutions. 

Comprehensive Assessment System 

means a coordinated and 

comprehensive system of multiple 

assessments, each of which is valid and 

reliable for its specified purpose and for 

the population with which it will be 

used, that organizes information about 

the process and context of young 

children’s learning and development in 

order to help Early Childhood Educators 

make informed instructional and 

programmatic decisions and that 

conforms to the recommendations of the 

National Research Council reports on 

early childhood. 

A Comprehensive Assessment System 

includes, at a minimum— 

(a) Screening Measures; 

(b) Formative Assessments; 

(c) Measures of Environmental 

Quality; and 

(d) Measures of the Quality of AdultChild Interactions. 

Data System Oversight Requirements 

means policies for ensuring the quality, 

privacy, and integrity of data contained 

in a data system, including— 

(a) A data governance policy that 

identifies the elements that are collected 

and maintained; provides for training on 

internal controls to system users; 

establishes who will have access to the 

data in the system and how the data 

may be used; sets appropriate internal 

controls to restrict access to only 

authorized users; sets criteria for 

determining the legitimacy of data 

requests; establishes processes that 

verify the accuracy, completeness, and 

age of the data elements maintained in 

the system; sets procedures for 

determining the sensitivity of each 

inventoried element and the risk of 

harm if those data were improperly 

disclosed; and establishes procedures 

for disclosure review and auditing; and 

(b) A transparency policy that informs 

the public, including families, Early 

Childhood Educators, and programs, of 

the existence of data systems that house 

personally identifiable information, 

explains what data elements are 

included in such a system, enables 

parental consent to disclose personally 

identifiable information as appropriate, 

and describes allowable and potential 

uses of the data. 

Early Childhood Educator means any 

professional working in an Early 

Learning and Development Program, 

including but not limited to centerbased and family child care providers; 

infant and toddler specialists; early 

intervention specialists and early 

childhood special educators; home 

visitors; related services providers; 

administrators such as directors, 

supervisors, and other early learning 

and development leaders; Head Start 

teachers; Early Head Start teachers; 

preschool and other teachers; teacher 

assistants; family service staff; and 

health coordinators. 

Early Learning and Development 

Program means any (a) State-licensed or 

State-regulated program or provider, 

regardless of setting or funding source, 

that provides early care and education 

for children from birth to kindergarten 

entry, including, but not limited to, any 

program operated by a child care center 

or in a family child care home; (b) 

preschool program funded by the 

Federal Government or State or local 

educational agencies (including any 

IDEA-funded program); (c) Early Head 

Start and Head Start program; and (d) a 

non-relative child care provider who is 

not otherwise regulated by the State and 

who regularly cares for two or more 

unrelated children for a fee in a 

provider setting. A State should include 

in this definition other programs that 

may deliver early learning and 

development services in a child’s home, 

such as the Maternal, Infant and Early 

Childhood Home Visiting; Early Head 

Start; and Part C of IDEA.10

Early Learning and Development 

Standards means a set of expectations, 

guidelines, or developmental milestones 

that— 

(a) Describe what all children from 

birth to kindergarten entry should know 

and be able to do and their disposition 

toward learning; 

(b) Are appropriate for each age group 

(e.g., infants, toddlers, and 

preschoolers); for English learners; and 

for children with disabilities or 

developmental delays; 

(c) Cover all Essential Domains of 

School Readiness; and 

(d) Are universally designed and 

developmentally, culturally, and 

linguistically appropriate. 

Early Learning Intermediary 

Organization means a national, 

statewide, regional, or community-based 

organization that represents one or more 

networks of Early Learning and 

Development Programs in the State and 

that has influence or authority over 

them. Such Early Learning Intermediary 

Organizations include, but are not 

limited to, Child Care Resource and 

Referral Agencies; State Head Start 

Associations; Family Child Care 

Associations; State affiliates of the 

National Association for the Education 

of Young Children; State affiliates of the 

Council for Exceptional Children’s 

Division of Early Childhood; statewide 

or regional union affiliates that 

represent Early Childhood Educators; 

affiliates of the National Migrant and 

Seasonal Head Start Association; the 

National Tribal, American Indian, and 

Alaskan Native Head Start Association; 

and the National Indian Child Care 

Association. 

Essential Data Elements means the 

critical child, program, and workforce 

data elements of a coordinated early 

learning data system, including— 

(a) A unique statewide child identifier 

or another highly accurate, proven 

method to link data on that child, 

including Kindergarten Entry 

Assessment data, to and from the 

Statewide Longitudinal Data System 

and the coordinated early learning data 

system (if applicable); 

(b) A unique statewide Early 

Childhood Educator identifier; 

(c) A unique program site identifier; 

(d) Child and family demographic 

information, including indicators 

identifying the criteria that States use to 

determine whether a child is a Child 

with High Needs; 

(e) Early Childhood Educator 

demographic information, including 

data on educational attainment and 

State credential or licenses held, as well 

as professional development 

information; 

(f) Program-level data on the 

program’s structure, quality, child 

suspension and expulsion rates, staff 

retention, staff compensation, work 

environment, and all applicable data 

reported as part of the State’s Tiered 

Quality Rating and Improvement 

System; and 

(g) Child-level program participation 

and attendance data. 

Essential Domains of School 

Readiness means the domains of 

language and literacy development, 

cognition and general knowledge 

(including early mathematics and early 

scientific development), approaches 

toward learning, physical well-being 

and motor development (including 

adaptive skills), and social and 

emotional development. 

Formative Assessment (also known as 

a classroom-based or ongoing 

assessment) means assessment 

questions, tools, and processes— 

(a) That are— 

(1) Specifically designed to monitor 

children’s progress in meeting the Early 

Learning and Development Standards; 

(2) Valid and reliable for their 

intended purposes and their target 

populations; and 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
29508 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 97 / Monday, May 20, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

11National Research Council. (2008). Early 

Childhood Assessment: Why, What, and How. 

Committee on Developmental Outcomes and 

Assessments for Young Children, C.E. Snow and 

S.B. Van Hemel, Editors. Board on Children, Youth, 

and Families, Board on Testing and Assessment, 

Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and 

Education. Washington, DC: The National 

Academies Press. www.nap.edu/ 

catalog.php?record_id=12446. 

(3) Linked directly to the curriculum; 

and 

(b) The results of which are used to 

guide and improve instructional 

practices. 

High-Quality Plan means any plan 

developed by the State to address a 

selection criterion or priority in this 

notice that is feasible and has a high 

probability of successful 

implementation and at a minimum 

includes— 

(a) The key goals; 

(b) The key activities to be 

undertaken; the rationale for the 

activities; and, if applicable, where in 

the State the activities will be initially 

implemented, and where and how they 

will be scaled up over time to 

eventually achieve statewide 

implementation; 

(c) A realistic timeline, including key 

milestones, for implementing each key 

activity; 

(d) The party or parties responsible 

for implementing each activity and 

other key personnel assigned to each 

activity; 

(e) Appropriate financial resources to 

support successful implementation of 

the plan; 

(f) The information requested as 

supporting evidence, if any, together 

with any additional information the 

State believes will be helpful to peer 

reviewers in judging the credibility of 

the plan; 

(g) The information requested in the 

performance measures, where 

applicable; 

(h) How the State will address the 

needs of the different types of Early 

Learning and Development Programs, if 

applicable; and 

(i) How the State will meet the needs 

of Children with High Needs. 

Kindergarten Entry Assessment means 

an assessment that— 

(a) Is administered to children during 

the first few months of their admission 

into kindergarten; 

(b) Covers all Essential Domains of 

School Readiness; 

(c) Is used in conformance with the 

recommendations of the National 

Research Council11 reports on early 

childhood; and 

(d) Is valid and reliable for its 

intended purposes and for the target 

populations and aligned to the Early 

Learning and Development Standards. 

Results of the assessment should be 

used to inform efforts to close the school 

readiness gap at kindergarten entry and 

to inform instruction in the early 

elementary school grades. This 

assessment should not be used to 

prevent children’s entry into 

kindergarten. 

Lead Agency means the State-level 

agency designated by the Governor for 

the administration of the RTT–ELC 

grant; this agency is the fiscal agent for 

the grant. The Lead Agency must be one 

of the Participating State Agencies. 

Low-Income means having an income 

of up to 200 percent of the Federal 

poverty rate. 

Measures of Environmental Quality 

means valid and reliable indicators of 

the overall quality of the early learning 

environment. 

Measures of the Quality of AdultChild Interactions means the measures 

obtained through valid and reliable 

processes for observing how teachers 

and caregivers interact with children, 

where such processes are designed to 

promote child learning and to identify 

strengths and areas for improvement for 

early learning professionals. 

Participating State Agency means a 

State agency that administers public 

funds related to early learning and 

development and is participating in the 

State Plan. The following State agencies 

are required Participating State 

Agencies: the agencies that administer 

or supervise the administration of 

CCDF, the section 619 of Part B of IDEA 

and Part C of IDEA programs, Statefunded preschool, home visiting, Title I 

of ESEA, the Head Start State 

Collaboration Grant, and the Title V 

Maternal and Child Care Block Grant, 

the State’s Child Care Licensing Agency, 

and the State Education Agency. Other 

State agencies, such as the agencies that 

administer or supervise the 

administration of Child Welfare, Mental 

Health, Temporary Assistance for Needy 

Families (TANF), Community-Based 

Child Abuse Prevention, the Child and 

Adult Care Food Program, and the Adult 

Education and Family Literacy Act 

(AEFLA) may be Participating State 

Agencies if they elect to participate in 

the State Plan as well as the State 

Advisory Council on Early Childhood 

Education and Care. 

Participating Program means an Early 

Learning and Development Program that 

elects to carry out activities described in 

the State Plan. 

Program Standards means the 

standards that serve as the basis for a 

Tiered Quality Rating and Improvement 

System and define differentiated levels 

of quality for Early Learning and 

Development Programs. Program 

Standards are expressed, at a minimum, 

by the extent to which— 

(a) Early Learning and Development 

Standards are implemented through 

evidence-based activities, interventions, 

or curricula that are appropriate for each 

age group of infants, toddlers, and 

preschoolers; 

(b) Comprehensive Assessment 

Systems are used routinely and 

appropriately to improve instruction 

and enhance program quality by 

providing robust and coherent evidence 

of— 

(1) Children’s learning and 

development outcomes; and 

(2) Program performance; 

(c) A qualified workforce improves 

young children’s health, social, 

emotional, and educational outcomes; 

(d) Strategies are successfully used to 

engage families in supporting their 

children’s development and learning. 

These strategies may include, but are 

not limited to, parent access to the 

program, ongoing two-way 

communication with families, parent 

education in child development, 

outreach to fathers and other family 

members, training and support for 

families as children move to preschool 

and kindergarten, social networks of 

support, intergenerational activities, 

linkages with community supports and 

adult and family literacy programs, 

parent involvement in decision making, 

and parent leadership development; 

(e) Health promotion practices 

include health and safety requirements; 

developmental, behavioral, and sensory 

screening, referral, and follow up; and 

the promotion of physical activity, 

healthy eating habits, oral health and 

behavioral health, and health literacy 

among parents; and 

(f) Effective data practices include 

gathering Essential Data Elements and 

entering them into the State’s Statewide 

Longitudinal Data System or other early 

learning data system, using these data to 

guide instruction and program 

improvement, and making this 

information readily available to 

families. 

Screening Measures means age and 

developmentally appropriate, valid, and 

reliable instruments that are used to 

identify children who may need followup services to address developmental, 

learning, or health needs in, at a 

minimum, the areas of physical health, 

behavioral health, oral health, child 

development, vision, and hearing. 

State means any of the 50 States, the 

District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. 

State Plan means the plan submitted 

as part of the State’s RTT–ELC 

application. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 97 / Monday, May 20, 2013 / Proposed Rules 29509 

Statewide Longitudinal Data System 

means the State’s longitudinal 

education data system that collects and 

maintains detailed, high-quality, 

student- and staff-level data that are 

linked across entities and that over time 

provide a complete academic and 

performance history for each student. 

The Statewide Longitudinal Data 

System is typically housed within the 

State educational agency but includes or 

can be connected to early childhood, 

postsecondary, and labor data. 

Tiered Quality Rating and 

Improvement System means the system 

through which the State uses a set of 

progressively higher Program Standards 

to evaluate the quality of an Early 

Learning and Development Program and 

to support program improvement. A 

Tiered Quality Rating and Improvement 

System consists of four components: (a) 

Tiered Program Standards with multiple 

rating categories that clearly and 

meaningfully differentiate program 

quality levels; (b) monitoring to evaluate 

program quality based on the Program 

Standards; (c) supports to help programs 

meet progressively higher standards 

(e.g., through training, technical 

assistance, financial support); and (d) 

program quality ratings that are 

publically available; and includes a 

process for validating the system. 

Workforce Knowledge and 

Competency Framework means a set of 

expectations that describes what Early 

Childhood Educators (including those 

working with children with disabilities 

and English learners) should know and 

be able to do. The Workforce Knowledge 

and Competency Framework, at a 

minimum, (a) Is evidence-based; (b) 

incorporates knowledge and application 

of the State’s Early Learning and 

Development Standards, the 

Comprehensive Assessment Systems, 

child development, health, and 

culturally and linguistically appropriate 

strategies for working with families; (c) 

includes knowledge of early 

mathematics and literacy development 

and effective instructional practices to 

support mathematics and literacy 

development in young children; (d) 

incorporates effective use of data to 

guide instruction and program 

improvement; (e) includes effective 

behavior management strategies that 

promote positive social emotional 

development and reduce challenging 

behaviors; and (f) incorporates feedback 

from experts at the State’s 

postsecondary institutions and other 

early learning and development experts 

and Early Childhood Educators. 

Proposed Selection Criteria 

Changes from the FY 2011 competition 

Selection Criteria A(1)(a); A(1)(b); and 

(E)(1)(c) 

Regarding selection criteria A(1)(a), 

A(1)(b), and (E)(1)(c), we propose two 

minor changes for the purpose of 

demonstrating past commitment. 

Successful State Systems selection 

criteria A(1)(a) and A(1)(b) have been 

updated to remove the reference to 

‘‘January 2007’’ and change it to ‘‘the 

previous five years.’’ Additionally, in 

the Measuring Outcomes and Process 

selection criterion (E)(1)(c), we have 

updated the school year referenced from 

‘‘2014–2015’’ to ‘‘ending during the 

fourth year of the grant.’’ 

Selection Criteria (D)(2)(a) 

In A Great Early Childhood Education 

Workforce selection criterion (D)(2)(a), 

additional language was added 

requiring proposed professional 

development opportunities be 

supported by evidence (e.g., 

evaluations, developmental theory, or 

data or information) demonstrating 

improved outcomes for Children with 

High Needs. 

The revised selection criterion is: (a) 

Providing and expanding access to 

effective professional development 

opportunities that— 

(1) Are aligned with the State’s 

Workforce Knowledge and Competency 

Framework; 

(2) Tightly link training with 

professional development approaches, 

such as coaching and mentoring; and 

(3) Are supported by strong evidence 

(e.g. available evaluations, 

developmental theory, and/or data or 

information) as to why these policies 

and incentives will be effective in 

improving outcomes for Children with 

High Needs. 

The original selection criterion for the 

reader’s reference was: ‘‘(a) Providing 

and expanding access to effective 

professional development opportunities 

that are aligned with the State’s 

Workforce Knowledge and Competency 

Framework;’’. 

Selection Criterion (D)(2)(b) 

Additional language has been 

incorporated into selection criterion 

(D)(2)(b) of criteria (D)(2) Supporting 

Early Childhood Educators in improving 

their knowledge, skills, and abilities. 

The new language would require strong 

evidence as to why these policies and 

incentives will be effective in improving 

child outcomes. 

The revised selection criterion is: (b) 

Implementing effective policies and 

incentives (e.g., scholarships, 

compensation and wage supplements, 

tiered reimbursement rates, other 

financial incentives, management 

opportunities) to promote professional 

improvement and career advancement 

along an articulated career pathway 

that— 

(1) Are aligned with the State’s 

Workforce Knowledge and Competency 

Framework; 

(2) Tightly link training with 

professional development approaches, 

such as coaching and mentoring; and 

(3) Are supported by strong evidence 

(e.g. available evaluations, 

developmental theory, or data or 

information) as to why these policies 

and incentives will be effective in 

improving outcomes for Children with 

High Needs. 

The original selection criterion for the 

reader’s reference was: (b) Implementing 

policies and incentives (e.g., 

scholarships, compensation and wage 

supplements, tiered reimbursement 

rates, other financial incentives, 

management opportunities) that 

promote professional improvement and 

career advancement along an articulated 

career pathway that is aligned with the 

Workforce Knowledge and Competency 

Framework, and that are designed to 

increase retention. 

Proposed Selection Criteria 

The Secretaries propose the following 

selection criteria for evaluating an 

application under this program. We may 

apply one or more of these criteria in 

any year in which this program is in 

effect. The Secretaries propose that they 

may use: 

• One or more of the selection criteria 

established in the notice of final 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria; 

• Any of the selection criteria in 34 

CFR 75.210; 

• Criteria based on the statutory 

requirements for the RTT–ECL program 

in accordance with 34 CFR 75.209; or 

• Any combination of these when 

establishing selection criteria for any 

RTT–ELC competition. 

The Secretaries propose that they may 

further define each criterion by selecting 

specific factors for it. The Secretaries 

may select these factors from any 

selection criterion in the list below. In 

the notice inviting applications, the 

application package, or both we will 

announce the specific selection criteria 

that apply to a competition and the 

maximum possible points assigned to 

each criterion. 

Core Areas—Sections (A) (Successful 

State Systems) and (B) (High-Quality, 

Accountable Programs) States must 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
29510 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 97 / Monday, May 20, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

address in their application all of the 

selection criteria in the Core Areas. 

A. Successful State Systems 

(A)(1) Demonstrating past 

commitment to early learning and 

development. 

The extent to which the State has 

demonstrated past commitment to and 

investment in high-quality, accessible 

Early Learning and Development 

Programs and services for Children with 

High Needs, as evidenced by the 

State’s— 

(a) Financial investment, from five 

years ago to the present, in Early 

Learning and Development Programs, 

including the amount of these 

investments in relation to the size of the 

State’s population of Children with 

High Needs during this time period; 

(b) Increasing, from the previous five 

years to the present, the number of 

Children with High Needs participating 

in Early Learning and Development 

Programs; 

(c) Existing early learning and 

development legislation, policies, or 

practices; and 

(d) Current status in key areas that 

form the building blocks for a high 

quality early learning and development 

system, including Early Learning and 

Development Standards, 

Comprehensive Assessment Systems, 

health promotion practices, family 

engagement strategies, the development 

of Early Childhood Educators, 

Kindergarten Entry Assessments, and 

effective data practices. 

Evidence for (A)(1): 

• The number and percentage of 

children from Low-Income families in 

the State, by age; 

• The number and percentage of 

Children with High Needs from special 

populations in the State; and 

• The number of Children with High 

Needs in the State who are enrolled in 

Early Learning and Development 

Programs, by age. 

• Data currently available, if any, on 

the status of children at kindergarten 

entry (across Essential Domains of 

School Readiness, if available), 

including data on the readiness gap 

between Children with High Needs and 

their peers. 

• Data currently available, if any, on 

program quality across different types of 

Early Learning and Development 

Programs. 

• The number of Children with High 

Needs participating in each type of 

Early Learning and Development 

Program for each of the previous five 

years to the present. 

• The number of Children with High 

Needs participating in each type of 

Early Learning and Development 

Program for each of the previous five 

years to the present. 

• The current status of the State’s 

Early Learning and Development 

Standards, for each of the Essential 

Domains of School Readiness, by age 

group of infants, toddlers, and 

preschoolers. 

• The elements of a Comprehensive 

Assessment System currently required 

within the State by different types of 

Early Learning and Development 

Programs or systems. 

• The elements of high-quality health 

promotion practices currently required 

within the State by different types of 

Early Learning and Development 

Programs or systems. 

• The elements of a high-quality 

family engagement strategy currently 

required within the State by different 

types of Early Learning and 

Development Programs or systems. 

• All early learning and development 

workforce credentials currently 

available in the State, including whether 

credentials are aligned with a State 

Workforce Knowledge and Competency 

Framework and the number and 

percentage of Early Childhood 

Educators who have each type of 

credential. 

• The current status of postsecondary 

institutions and other professional 

development providers in the State that 

issue credentials or degrees to Early 

Childhood Educators. 

• The current status of the State’s 

Kindergarten Entry Assessment. 

• All early learning and development 

data systems currently used in the State. 

Performance Measures for (A)(1): 

• None required. 

(A)(2) Articulating the State’s 

rationale for its early learning and 

development reform agenda and goals. 

The extent to which the State clearly 

articulates a comprehensive early 

learning and development reform 

agenda that is ambitious yet achievable, 

builds on the State’s progress to date (as 

demonstrated in selection criterion 

(A)(1)), is likely to result in improved 

school readiness for Children with High 

Needs, and includes— 

(a) Ambitious yet achievable goals for 

improving program quality, improving 

outcomes for Children with High Needs 

statewide, and closing the educational 

gaps between Children with High Needs 

and their peers; 

(b) An overall summary of the State 

Plan that clearly articulates how the 

High-Quality Plans proposed under 

each selection criterion, when taken 

together, constitute an effective reform 

agenda that establishes a clear and 

credible path toward achieving these 

goals; and 

(c) A specific rationale that justifies 

the State’s choice to address the selected 

criteria in each Focused Investment 

Area (C), (D), and (E), including why 

these selected criteria will best achieve 

these goals. 

Evidence for (A)(2): 

• The State’s goals for improving 

program quality statewide over the 

period of this grant. 

• The State’s goals for improving 

child outcomes statewide over the 

period of this grant. 

• The State’s goals for closing the 

readiness gap between Children with 

High Needs and their peers at 

kindergarten entry. 

• Identification of the two or more 

selection criteria that the State has 

chosen to address in Focused 

Investment Area (C). 

• Identification of the one or more 

selection criteria that the State has 

chosen to address in Focused 

Investment Area (D). 

• Identification of the one or more 

selection criteria that the State has 

chosen to address in Focused 

Investment Area (E). 

• For each Focused Investment Area 

(C), (D), and (E), a description of the 

State’s rationale for choosing to address 

the selected criteria in that Focused 

Investment Area, including how the 

State’s choices build on its progress to 

date in each Focused Investment Area 

(as outlined in the narrative under 

(A)(1) in the application) and why these 

selected criteria will best achieve the 

State’s ambitious yet achievable goals 

for improving program quality, 

improving outcomes for Children with 

High Needs statewide, and closing the 

educational gap between Children with 

High Needs and their peers. 

Performance Measures for (A)(2): 

• None required. 

(A)(3) Aligning and coordinating early 

learning and development across the 

State. 

The extent to which the State has 

established, or has a High-Quality Plan 

to establish, strong participation in and 

commitment to the State Plan by 

Participating State Agencies and other 

early learning and development 

stakeholders by— 

(a) Demonstrating how the 

Participating State Agencies and other 

partners, if any, will identify a 

governance structure for working 

together that will facilitate interagency 

coordination, streamline decision 

making, effectively allocate resources, 

and create long-term sustainability, and 

describing— 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 97 / Monday, May 20, 2013 / Proposed Rules 29511 

(1) The organizational structure for 

managing the grant and how it builds 

upon existing interagency governance 

structures such as children’s cabinets, 

councils, and commissions, if any 

already exist and are effective; 

(2) The governance-related roles and 

responsibilities of the Lead Agency, the 

State Advisory Council on Early 

Childhood Education and Care, each 

Participating State Agency, and the 

State’s Interagency Coordinating 

Council for Part C of IDEA, and other 

partners, if any; 

(3) The method and process for 

making different types of decisions (e.g., 

policy, operational) and resolving 

disputes; and 

(4) The plan for when and how the 

State will involve representatives from 

Participating Programs, Early Childhood 

Educators or their representatives, 

parents and families, including parents 

and families of Children with High 

Needs, and other key stakeholders in the 

planning and implementation of the 

activities carried out under the grant; 

(b) Demonstrating that the 

Participating State Agencies are strongly 

committed to the State Plan, to the 

governance structure of the grant, and to 

effective implementation of the State 

Plan, by including in the MOUs or other 

binding agreements between the State 

and each Participating State Agency— 

(1) Terms and conditions that reflect 

a strong commitment to the State Plan 

by each Participating State Agency, 

including terms and conditions 

designed to align and leverage the 

Participating State Agencies’ existing 

funding to support the State Plan; 

(2) ‘‘Scope-of-work’’ descriptions that 

require each Participating State Agency 

to implement all applicable portions of 

the State Plan and a description of 

efforts to maximize the number of Early 

Learning and Development Programs 

that become Participating Programs; and 

(3) A signature from an authorized 

representative of each Participating 

State Agency; and 

(c) Demonstrating commitment to the 

State Plan from a broad group of 

stakeholders that will assist the State in 

reaching the ambitious yet achievable 

goals outlined in response to selection 

criterion (A)(2)(a), including by 

obtaining— 

(1) Detailed and persuasive letters of 

intent or support from Early Learning 

Intermediary Organizations, and, if 

applicable, local early learning councils; 

and 

(2) Letters of intent or support from 

such other stakeholders as Early 

Childhood Educators or their 

representatives; the State’s legislators; 

local community leaders; State or local 

school boards; representatives of private 

and faith-based early learning programs; 

other State and local leaders (e.g., 

business, community, tribal, civil rights, 

education association leaders); adult 

education and family literacy State and 

local leaders; family and community 

organizations; representatives from the 

disability community, the English 

learner community, and entities 

representing other Children with High 

Needs(e.g., parent councils, nonprofit 

organizations, local foundations, tribal 

organizations, and community-based 

organizations); libraries and children’s 

museums; health providers; and 

postsecondary institutions. 

Evidence for (A)(3) (a) and (b): 

• For (A)(3)(a)(1): An organizational 

chart that shows how the grant will be 

governed and managed. 

• Governance-related roles and 

responsibilities. 

• A copy of all fully executed MOUs 

or other binding agreements that cover 

each Participating State Agency. (MOUs 

or other binding agreements should be 

referenced in the narrative but must be 

included in the Appendix to the 

application). 

Evidence for (A)(3)(c)(1): 

• A list of every Early Learning 

Intermediary Organization and local 

early learning council (if applicable) in 

the State that indicates which 

organizations and councils have 

submitted letters of intent or support. 

• A copy of every letter of intent or 

support from Early Learning 

Intermediary Organizations and local 

early learning councils. 

Evidence for (A)(3)(c)(2): 

• A copy of every letter of intent or 

support from other stakeholders. 

Performance Measures for (A)(3): 

• None required. 

(A)(4) Developing a budget to 

implement and sustain the work of this 

grant. 

The extent to which the State Plan— 

(a) Demonstrates how the State will 

use existing funds that support early 

learning and development from Federal, 

State, private, and local sources (e.g., 

CCDF; Title I and II of ESEA; IDEA; 

Striving Readers Comprehensive 

Literacy Program; State preschool; Head 

Start Collaboration funding; Maternal, 

Infant, and Early Childhood Home 

Visiting Program; Title V MCH Block 

Grant; TANF; Medicaid; child welfare 

services under Title IV (B) and (E) of the 

Social Security Act; Statewide 

Longitudinal Data System; foundation; 

other private funding sources) for 

activities and services that help achieve 

the outcomes in the State Plan, 

including how the quality set-asides in 

CCDF will be used; 

(b) Describes, in both the budget 

tables and budget narratives, how the 

State will effectively and efficiently use 

funding from this grant to achieve the 

outcomes in the State Plan, in a manner 

that— 

(1) Is adequate to support the 

activities described in the State Plan; 

(2) Includes costs that are reasonable 

and necessary in relation to the 

objectives, design, and significance of 

the activities described in the State Plan 

and the number of children to be served; 

and 

(3) Details the amount of funds 

budgeted for Participating State 

Agencies, localities, Early Learning 

Intermediary Organizations, 

Participating Programs, or other 

partners, and the specific activities to be 

implemented with these funds 

consistent with the State Plan, and 

demonstrates that a significant amount 

of funding will be devoted to the local 

implementation of the State Plan; and 

(c) Demonstrates that it can be 

sustained after the grant period ends to 

ensure that the number and percentage 

of Children with High Needs served by 

Early Learning and Development 

Programs in the State will be 

maintained or expanded. 

Evidence for (A)(4)(a): 

• The existing funds to be used to 

achieve the outcomes in the State Plan. 

• Description of how these existing 

funds will be used for activities and 

services that help achieve the outcomes 

in the State Plan. 

Evidence for (A)(4)(b): 

• The State’s budget. 

• The narratives that accompany and 

explain the budget, and describes how 

it connects to the State Plan. 

Performance Measures for (A)(4): 

• None required. 

B. High-Quality, Accountable Programs 

(B)(1) Developing and adopting a 

common, statewide Tiered Quality 

Rating and Improvement System. 

The extent to which the State and its 

Participating State Agencies have 

developed and adopted, or have a HighQuality Plan to develop and adopt, a 

Tiered Quality Rating and Improvement 

System that— 

(a) Is based on a statewide set of tiered 

Program Standards that include— 

(1) Early Learning and Development 

Standards; 

(2) A Comprehensive Assessment 

System; 

(3) Early Childhood Educator 

qualifications; 

(4) Family engagement strategies; 

(5) Health promotion practices; and 

(6) Effective data practices; 

(b) Is clear and has standards that are 

measurable, meaningfully differentiate 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
29512 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 97 / Monday, May 20, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

program quality levels, and reflect high 

expectations of program excellence 

commensurate with nationally 

recognized standards that lead to 

improved learning outcomes for 

children; and 

(c) Is linked to the State licensing 

system for Early Learning and 

Development Programs. 

Evidence for (B)(1): 

• Each set of existing Program 

Standards currently used in the State 

and the elements that are included in 

those Program Standards (Early 

Learning and Development Standards, 

Comprehensive Assessment Systems, 

Qualified Workforce, Family 

Engagement, Health Promotion, 

Effective Data Practices, and Other). 

• To the extent the State has 

developed and adopted a Tiered Quality 

Rating and Improvement System based 

on a common set of tiered Program 

Standards that meet the elements in 

criterion (B)(1)(a), submit— 

Æ A copy of the tiered Program 

Standards; 

Æ Documentation that the Program 

Standards address all areas outlined in 

the definition of Program Standards, 

demonstrate high expectations of 

program excellence commensurate with 

nationally recognized standards, and are 

linked to the States licensing system; 

and 

Æ Documentation of how the tiers 

meaningfully differentiate levels of 

quality. 

Performance Measures for (B)(1): 

• None required. 

(B)(2) Promoting Participation in the 

State’s Tiered Quality Rating and 

Improvement System. 

The extent to which the State has 

maximized, or has a High-Quality Plan 

to maximize, program participation in 

the State’s Tiered Quality Rating and 

Improvement System by— 

(a) Implementing effective policies 

and practices to reach the goal of having 

all publicly funded Early Learning and 

Development Programs participate in 

such a system, including programs in 

each of the following categories— 

(1) State-funded preschool programs; 

(2) Early Head Start and Head Start 

programs; 

(3) Early Learning and Development 

Programs funded under section 619 of 

Part B of IDEA and Part C of IDEA; 

(4) Early Learning and Development 

Programs funded under Title I of the 

ESEA; and 

(5) Early Learning and Development 

Programs receiving funds from the 

State’s CCDF program; 

(b) Implementing effective policies 

and practices designed to help more 

families afford high-quality child care 

and maintain the supply of high-quality 

child care in areas with high 

concentrations of Children with High 

Needs (e.g., maintaining or increasing 

subsidy reimbursement rates, taking 

actions to ensure affordable copayments, providing incentives to highquality providers to participate in the 

subsidy program); and 

(c) Setting ambitious yet achievable 

targets for the numbers and percentages 

of Early Learning and Development 

Programs that will participate in the 

Tiered Quality Rating and Improvement 

System by type of Early Learning and 

Development Program (as listed in 

(B)(2)(a)(1) through (5) above). 

Evidence for (B)(2): 

• Any supporting evidence the State 

believes will be helpful to peer 

reviewers. 

Performance Measures for (B)(2)(c): 

General goals to be provided at time 

of application, including baseline data 

and annual targets: 

• Number and percentage of Early 

Learning and Development Programs 

participating in the statewide Tiered 

Quality Rating and Improvement 

System, by type of Early Learning and 

Development Program. 

(B)(3) Rating and monitoring Early 

Learning and Development Programs. 

The extent to which the State and its 

Participating State Agencies have 

developed and implemented, or have a 

High-Quality Plan to develop and 

implement, a system for rating and 

monitoring the quality of Early Learning 

and Development Programs 

participating in the Tiered Quality 

Rating and Improvement System by— 

(a) Using a valid and reliable tool for 

monitoring such programs, having 

trained monitors whose ratings have an 

acceptable level of inter-rater reliability, 

and monitoring and rating the Early 

Learning and Development Programs 

with appropriate frequency; and 

(b) Providing quality rating and 

licensing information to parents with 

children enrolled in Early Learning and 

Development Programs (e.g., displaying 

quality rating information at the 

program site) and making program 

quality rating data, information, and 

licensing history (including any health 

and safety violations) publicly available 

in formats that are written in plain 

language, and are easy to understand 

and use for decision making by families 

selecting Early Learning and 

Development Programs and families 

whose children are enrolled in such 

programs. 

Evidence for (B)(3): 

• Any supporting evidence the State 

believes will be helpful to peer 

reviewers. 

Performance Measures for (B)(3): 

• None required. 

(B)(4) Promoting access to highquality Early Learning and Development 

Programs for Children with High Needs. 

The extent to which the State and its 

Participating State Agencies have 

developed and implemented, or have a 

High-Quality Plan to develop and 

implement, a system for improving the 

quality of the Early Learning and 

Development Programs participating in 

the Tiered Quality Rating and 

Improvement System by— 

(a) Developing and implementing 

policies and practices that provide 

support and incentives for Early 

Learning and Development Programs to 

continuously improve (e.g., through 

training, technical assistance, financial 

rewards or incentives, higher subsidy 

reimbursement rates, compensation); 

(b) Providing supports to help 

working families who have Children 

with High Needs access high-quality 

Early Learning and Development 

Programs that meet those needs (e.g., 

providing full-day, full-year programs; 

transportation; meals; family support 

services); and 

(c) Setting ambitious yet achievable 

targets for increasing— 

(1) The number of Early Learning and 

Development Programs in the top tiers 

of the Tiered Quality Rating and 

Improvement System; and 

(2) The number and percentage of 

Children with High Needs who are 

enrolled in Early Learning and 

Development Programs that are in the 

top tiers of the Tiered Quality Rating 

and Improvement System. 

Evidence for (B)(4): 

• Any supporting evidence the State 

believes will be helpful to peer 

reviewers. 

Performance Measures for (B)(4)(c): 

General goals to be provided at time 

of application, including baseline data 

and annual targets: 

• Number of Early Learning and 

Development Programs in the top tiers 

of the Tiered Quality Rating and 

Improvement System, by type of Early 

Learning and Development Program. 

• Number and Percentage of Children 

with High Needs who are enrolled in 

Early Learning and Development 

Programs that that are in the top tiers of 

the Tiered Quality Rating and 

Improvement System, by type of Early 

Learning and Development Program. 

(B)(5) Validating the effectiveness of 

State Tiered Quality Rating and 

Improvement Systems. 

The extent to which the State has a 

High-Quality Plan to design and 

implement evaluations—working with 

an independent evaluator and, when 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 97 / Monday, May 20, 2013 / Proposed Rules 29513 

warranted, as part of a cross-State 

evaluation consortium—of the 

relationship between the ratings 

generated by the State’s Tiered Quality 

Rating and Improvement System and 

the learning outcomes of children 

served by the State’s Early Learning and 

Development Programs by— 

(a) Validating, using research-based 

measures, as described in the State Plan 

(which also describes the criteria that 

the State used or will use to determine 

those measures), whether the tiers in the 

State’s Tiered Quality Rating and 

Improvement System accurately reflect 

differential levels of program quality; 

and 

(b) Assessing, using appropriate 

research designs and measures of 

progress (as identified in the State Plan), 

the extent to which changes in quality 

ratings are related to progress in 

children’s learning, development, and 

school readiness. 

Focused Investment Areas—Sections 

(C), (D), and (E) 

Each State must address in its 

application— 

(1) Two or more of the selection 

criteria in Focused Investment Area (C); 

(2) One or more of the selection 

criteria in Focused Investment Area (D); 

and 

(3) One or more of the selection 

criteria in Focused Investment Area (E). 

Evidence for (B)(5): 

• Any supporting evidence the State 

believes will be helpful to peer 

reviewers. 

Performance Measures for (B)(5): 

• None required. 

C. Promoting Early Learning and 

Development Outcomes for Children. 

The applicant must address at least 

two of the selection criteria within 

Focused Investment Area (C), which are 

as follows: 

(C)(1) Developing and using 

statewide, high-quality Early Learning 

and Development Standards. 

The extent to which the State has a 

High-Quality Plan to put in place highquality Early Learning and Development 

Standards that are used statewide by 

Early Learning and Development 

Programs and that— 

(a) Includes evidence that the Early 

Learning and Development Standards 

are developmentally, culturally, and 

linguistically appropriate across each 

age group of infants, toddlers, and 

preschoolers, and that they cover all 

Essential Domains of School Readiness; 

(b) Includes evidence that the Early 

Learning and Development Standards 

are aligned with the State’s K–3 

academic standards in, at a minimum, 

early literacy and mathematics; 

(c) Includes evidence that the Early 

Learning and Development Standards 

are incorporated in Program Standards, 

curricula and activities, Comprehensive 

Assessment Systems, the State’s 

Workforce Knowledge and Competency 

Framework, and professional 

development activities; and 

(d) The State has supports in place to 

promote understanding of and 

commitment to the Early Learning and 

Development Standards across Early 

Learning and Development Programs. 

Evidence for (C)(1)(a) and (b): 

• To the extent the State has 

implemented Early Learning and 

Development Standards that meet the 

elements in criteria (C)(1)(a) and (b), 

submit— 

Æ Proof of use by all types of Early 

Learning and Development Programs in 

the State; 

Æ The State’s Early Learning and 

Development Standards for: 

—Infants and toddlers 

—Preschoolers 

Æ Documentation that the standards 

are developmentally, linguistically and 

culturally appropriate for all children, 

including children with disabilities and 

developmental delays and English 

Learners; 

Æ Documentation that the standards 

address all Essential Domains of School 

Readiness and that they are of highquality; and 

Æ Documentation of the alignment 

between the State’s Early Learning and 

Development Standards and the State’s 

K–3 standards. 

Performance Measures for (C)(1): 

• None required. 

(C)(2) Supporting effective uses of 

Comprehensive Assessment Systems. 

The extent to which the State has a 

High-Quality Plan to support the 

effective implementation of 

developmentally appropriate 

Comprehensive Assessment Systems 

by— 

(a) Working with Early Learning and 

Development Programs to select 

assessment instruments and approaches 

that are appropriate for the target 

populations and purposes; 

(b) Working with Early Learning and 

Development Programs to strengthen 

Early Childhood Educators’ 

understanding of the purposes and uses 

of each type of assessment included in 

the Comprehensive Assessment 

Systems; 

(c) Articulating an approach for 

aligning and integrating assessments 

and sharing assessment results, as 

appropriate, in order to avoid 

duplication of assessments and to 

coordinate services for Children with 

High Needs who are served by multiple 

Early Learning and Development 

Programs; and 

(d) Training Early Childhood 

Educators to appropriately administer 

assessments and interpret and use 

assessment data in order to inform and 

improve instruction, programs, and 

services. 

Evidence for (C)(2): 

• Any supporting evidence the State 

believes will be helpful to peer 

reviewers. 

Performance Measures for (C)(2): 

• None required. 

(C)(3) Identifying and addressing the 

health, behavioral, and developmental 

needs of Children with High Needs to 

improve school readiness. 

The extent to which the State has a 

High-Quality Plan to identify and 

address the health, behavioral, and 

developmental needs of Children with 

High Needs by— 

(a) Establishing a progression of 

standards for ensuring children’s health 

and safety; ensuring that health and 

behavioral screening and follow-up 

occur; and promoting children’s 

physical, social, and emotional 

development across the levels of its 

Program Standards; 

(b) Increasing the number of Early 

Childhood Educators who are trained 

and supported on an on-going basis in 

meeting the health standards; 

(c) Promoting healthy eating habits, 

improving nutrition, expanding 

physical activity; and 

(d) Leveraging existing resources to 

meet ambitious yet achievable annual 

targets to increase the number of 

Children with High Needs who— 

(1) Are screened using Screening 

Measures that align with the Medicaid 

Early Periodic Screening, Diagnostic 

and Treatment benefit (see section 

1905(r)(5) of the Social Security Act) or 

the well-baby and well-child services 

available through the Children’s Health 

Insurance Program (42 CFR 457.520), 

and that, as appropriate, are consistent 

with the Child Find provisions in IDEA 

(see sections 612(a)(3) and 635(a)(5) of 

IDEA); 

(2) Are referred for services based on 

the results of those screenings, and, 

where appropriate, received follow-up; 

and 

(3) Participate in ongoing health care 

as part of a schedule of well-child care, 

including the number of children who 

are up to date in a schedule of wellchild care. 

Evidence for (C)(3)(a): 

• To the extent the State has 

established a progression of health 

standards across the levels of Program 

Standards that meet the elements in 

criterion (C)(3)(a), submit— 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
29514 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 97 / Monday, May 20, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

Æ The progression of health standards 

used in the Program Standards and the 

State’s plans for improvement over time, 

including documentation demonstrating 

that this progression of standards 

appropriately addresses health and 

safety standards; developmental, 

behavioral, and sensory screening, 

referral, and follow-up; health 

promotion including healthy eating 

habits, improved nutrition, and 

increased physical activity; oral health; 

and social and emotional development; 

and health literacy among parents and 

children. 

Evidence for (C)(3)(b): 

• To the extent the State has existing 

and projected numbers and percentages 

of Early Childhood Educators who 

receive training and support in meeting 

the health standards, the State must 

submit documentation of these data. If 

the State does not have these data, the 

State must outline its plan for deriving 

them. 

Evidence for (C)(3)(c): 

Any supporting evidence the State 

believes will be helpful to peer 

reviewers. 

Evidence for (C)(3)(d): 

• Documentation of the State’s 

existing and future resources that are or 

will be used to address the health, 

behavioral, and developmental needs of 

Children with High Needs. At a 

minimum, documentation must address 

the screening, referral, and follow-up of 

all Children with High Needs; how the 

State will promote the participation of 

Children with High Needs in ongoing 

health care as part of a schedule of wellchild care; how the State will promote 

healthy eating habits and improved 

nutrition as well as increased physical 

activity for Children with High Needs; 

and how the State will promote health 

literacy for children and parents. 

Performance Measures for (C)(3)(d): 

General goals to be provided at time 

of application, including baseline data 

and annual targets: 

• Number of Children with High 

Needs Screened. 

• Number of Children with High 

Needs referred for services and received 

follow-up/treatment. 

• Number of Children with High 

Needs that participate in ongoing health 

care as part of a schedule of well-child 

care. 

• Of these participating Children with 

High Needs, the number or percentage 

of children who are up-to-date in 

receiving services as part of a schedule 

of well-child care. 

(C)(4) Engaging and supporting 

families. 

The extent to which the State has a 

High-Quality Plan to provide culturally 

and linguistically appropriate 

information and support to families of 

Children with High Needs in order to 

promote school readiness for their 

children by— 

(a) Establishing a progression of 

culturally and linguistically appropriate 

standards for family engagement across 

the levels of its Program Standards, 

including activities that enhance the 

capacity of families to support their 

children’s education and development; 

(b) Increasing the number and 

percentage of Early Childhood 

Educators trained and supported on an 

on-going basis to implement the family 

engagement strategies included in the 

Program Standards; and 

(c) Promoting family support and 

engagement statewide, including by 

leveraging other existing resources such 

as through home visiting programs, 

other family-serving agencies, and 

through outreach to family, friend, and 

neighbor caregivers. 

Evidence for (C)(4)(a): 

• To the extent the State has 

established a progression of family 

engagement standards across the levels 

of Program Standards that meet the 

elements in criterion (C)(4)(a), submit— 

Æ The progression of culturally and 

linguistically appropriate family 

engagement standards used in the 

Program Standards that includes 

strategies successfully used to engage 

families in supporting their children’s 

development and learning. A State’s 

family engagement standards must 

address, but need not be limited to: 

parent access to the program, ongoing 

two-way communication with families, 

parent education in child development, 

outreach to fathers and other family 

members, training and support for 

families as children move to preschool 

and kindergarten, social networks of 

support, intergenerational activities, 

linkages with community supports and 

adult and family literacy programs, 

parent involvement in decision making, 

and parent leadership development; and 

Æ Documentation that this 

progression of standards includes 

activities that enhance the capacity of 

families to support their children’s 

education and development. 

Evidence for (C)(4)(b): 

• To the extent the State has existing 

and projected numbers and percentages 

of Early Childhood Educators who 

receive training and support on the 

family engagement strategies included 

in the Program Standards, the State 

must submit documentation of these 

data. If the State does not have these 

data, the State must outline its plan for 

deriving them. 

Evidence for (C)(4)(c): 

• Documentation of the State’s 

existing resources that are or will be 

used to promote family support and 

engagement statewide, including 

through home visiting programs and 

other family-serving agencies and the 

identification of new resources that will 

be used to promote family support and 

engagement statewide. 

Performance Measures for (C)(4) 

• None required. 

D. A Great Early Childhood Education 

Workforce 

The applicant must address at least 

one of the selection criteria within 

Focused Investment Area (D), which are 

as follows: 

(D)(1) Developing a Workforce 

Knowledge and Competency Framework 

and a progression of credentials. 

The extent to which the State has a 

High-Quality Plan to— 

(a) Develop a common, statewide 

Workforce Knowledge and Competency 

Framework designed to promote 

children’s learning and development 

and improve child outcomes; 

(b) Develop a common, statewide 

progression of credentials and degrees 

aligned with the Workforce Knowledge 

and Competency Framework; and 

(c) Engage postsecondary institutions 

and other professional development 

providers in aligning professional 

development opportunities with the 

State’s Workforce Knowledge and 

Competency Framework. 

Evidence for (D)(1): 

• To the extent the State has 

developed a common, statewide 

Workforce Knowledge and Competency 

Framework that meets the elements in 

criterion (D)(1), submit: 

Æ The Workforce Knowledge and 

Competencies; 

Æ Documentation that the State’s 

Workforce Knowledge and Competency 

Framework addresses the elements 

outlined in the definition of Workforce 

Knowledge and Competency Framework 

in the Program Definitions section of 

this notice and is designed to promote 

children’s learning and development 

and improve outcomes. 

Performance Measures for (D)(1) 

• None required. 

(D)(2) Supporting Early Childhood 

Educators in improving their knowledge, 

skills, and abilities. 

The extent to which the State has a 

High-Quality Plan to improve the 

effectiveness and retention of Early 

Childhood Educators who work with 

Children with High Needs, with the goal 

of improving child outcomes by— 

(a) Providing and expanding access to 

effective professional development 

opportunities that— 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 97 / Monday, May 20, 2013 / Proposed Rules 29515 

(1) Are aligned with the State’s 

Workforce Knowledge and Competency 

Framework; 

(2) Tightly link training with 

professional development approaches, 

such as coaching and mentoring; and 

(3) Are supported by strong evidence 

(e.g. available evaluations, 

developmental theory, and/or data or 

information) as to why these policies 

and incentives will be effective in 

improving outcomes for Children with 

High Needs; 

(b) Implementing effective policies 

and incentives (e.g., scholarships, 

compensation and wage supplements, 

tiered reimbursement rates, other 

financial incentives, management 

opportunities) to promote professional 

improvement and career advancement 

along an articulated career pathway 

that— 

(1) Are aligned with the State’s 

Workforce Knowledge and Competency 

Framework; 

(2) Tightly link training with 

professional development approaches, 

such as coaching and mentoring; and 

(3) Are supported by strong evidence 

provided (e.g. available evaluations, 

developmental theory, or data or 

information) as to why these policies 

and incentives will be effective in 

improving outcomes for Children with 

High Needs; 

(c) Publicly reporting aggregated data 

on Early Childhood Educator 

development, advancement, and 

retention; and 

(d) Setting ambitious yet achievable 

targets for— 

(1) Increasing the number of 

postsecondary institutions and 

professional development providers 

with programs that are aligned to the 

Workforce Knowledge and Competency 

Framework and the number of Early 

Childhood Educators who receive 

credentials from postsecondary 

institutions and professional 

development providers that are aligned 

to the Workforce Knowledge and 

Competency Framework; and 

(2) Increasing the number and 

percentage of Early Childhood 

Educators who are progressing to higher 

levels of credentials that align with the 

Workforce Knowledge and Competency 

Framework. 

Evidence for (D)(2): 

• Evidence to support why the 

proposed professional development 

opportunities, policies, and incentives 

will be effective in improving outcomes 

for Children with High Needs (e.g. 

available evaluations, developmental 

theory, and/or data or information about 

the population of Children with High 

Needs in the State). 

Performance Measures for (D)(2)(d): 

General goals to be provided at time 

of application, including baseline data 

and annual targets: 

• (D)(2)(d)(1): Number of 

postsecondary institutions and 

professional development providers that 

are aligned to the State’s Workforce 

Knowledge and Competency 

Framework, and the number of Early 

Childhood Educators receiving 

credentials from those aligned 

postsecondary institutions or 

professional development providers. 

• (D)(2)(d)(2): Number and percentage 

of Early Childhood Educators who are 

progressing to higher levels of 

credentials that align with the State’s 

Workforce Knowledge and Competency 

Framework. 

E. Measuring Outcomes and Progress 

The applicant must address at least 

one of the selection criteria within 

Focused Investment Area (E), which are 

as follows: 

(E)(1) Understanding the status of 

children’s learning and development at 

kindergarten entry. 

The extent to which the State has a 

High-Quality Plan to implement, 

independently or as part of a cross-State 

consortium, a common, statewide 

Kindergarten Entry Assessment that 

informs instruction and services in the 

early elementary grades and that— 

(a) Is aligned with the State’s Early 

Learning and Development Standards 

and covers all Essential Domains of 

School Readiness; 

(b) Is valid, reliable, and appropriate 

for the target population and for the 

purpose for which it will be used, 

including for English learners and 

children with disabilities; 

(c) Is administered beginning no later 

than the start of school year ending 

during the fourth year of the grant to 

children entering a public school 

kindergarten; States may propose a 

phased implementation plan that forms 

the basis for broader statewide 

implementation; 

(d) Is reported to the Statewide 

Longitudinal Data System, and to the 

early learning data system, if it is 

separate from the Statewide 

Longitudinal Data System, as permitted 

under and consistent with the 

requirements of Federal, State, and local 

privacy laws; and 

(e) Is funded, in significant part, with 

Federal or State resources other than 

those available under this grant, (e.g., 

with funds available under section 6111 

or 6112 of the ESEA). 

Evidence for (E)(1): 

• Any supporting evidence the State 

believes will be helpful to peer 

reviewers. 

Performance Measures for (E)(1): 

• None required. 

(E)(2) Building or enhancing an early 

learning data system to improve 

instruction, practices, services, and 

policies. 

The extent to which the State has a 

High-Quality Plan to enhance the State’s 

existing Statewide Longitudinal Data 

System or to build or enhance a 

separate, coordinated, early learning 

data system that aligns and is 

interoperable with the Statewide 

Longitudinal Data System, and that 

either data system— 

(a) Has all of the Essential Data 

Elements; 

(b) Enables uniform data collection 

and easy entry of the Essential Data 

Elements by Participating State 

Agencies and Participating Programs; 

(c) Facilitates the exchange of data 

among Participating State Agencies by 

using standard data structures, data 

formats, and data definitions such as 

Common Education Data Standards to 

ensure interoperability among the 

various levels and types of data; 

(d) Generates information that is 

timely, relevant, accessible, and easy for 

Early Learning and Development 

Programs and Early Childhood 

Educators to use for continuous 

improvement and decision making; and 

(e) Meets the Data System Oversight 

Requirements and complies with the 

requirements of Federal, State, and local 

privacy laws. 

Evidence for (E)(2): 

• Any supporting evidence the State 

believes will be helpful to peer 

reviewers. 

Performance Measures for (E)(2): 

• None required. 

Final Priorities, Requirements, 

Definitions, and Selection Criteria: 

We will announce the final priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria in the Federal Register. We will 

determine the final priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria, after considering responses to 

this notice and other information 

available to the Departments. This 

notice does not preclude us from 

proposing additional priorities, 

requirements, definitions, or selection 

criteria, subject to meeting applicable 

rulemaking requirements. 

Note: This notice does not solicit 

applications. In any year in which we choose 

to these priorities, requirements, definitions, 

and selection criteria, we invite applications 

through a notice in the Federal Register. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
29516 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 97 / Monday, May 20, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

Regulatory Impact Analysis 

Under Executive Order 12866, the 

Secretaries must determine whether this 

regulatory action is ‘‘significant’’ and, 

therefore, subject to the requirements of 

the Executive order and subject to 

review by the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive 

Order 12866 defines a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ as an action likely to 

result in a rule that may— 

(1) Have an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more, or 

adversely affect a sector of the economy, 

productivity, competition, jobs, the 

environment, public health or safety, or 

State, local or tribal governments or 

communities in a material way (also 

referred to as an ‘‘economically 

significant’’ rule); 

(2) Create serious inconsistency or 

otherwise interfere with an action taken 

or planned by another agency; 

(3) Materially alter the budgetary 

impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, 

or loan programs or the rights and 

obligations of recipients thereof; or 

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues 

arising out of legal mandates, the 

President’s priorities, or the principles 

stated in the Executive order. 

This proposed regulatory action 

would have an annual effect on the 

economy of more than $100 million 

because the Departments anticipate 

more than that amount will be 

appropriated for RTT–ELC and awarded 

as grants. Therefore, this proposed 

action is ‘‘economically significant’’ and 

subject to review by OMB under section 

3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866. 

Notwithstanding this determination, we 

have assessed the potential costs and 

benefits, both quantitative and 

qualitative, of this proposed regulatory 

action and have determined that the 

benefits would justify the costs. 

The Departments also reviewed this 

proposed regulatory action under 

Executive Order 13563, which 

supplements and explicitly reaffirms the 

principles, structures, and definitions 

governing regulatory review established 

in Executive Order 12866. To the extent 

permitted by law, Executive Order 

13563 requires that an agency— 

(1) Propose or adopt regulations only 

upon a reasoned determination that 

their benefits justify their costs 

(recognizing that some benefits and 

costs are difficult to quantify); 

(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the 

least burden on society, consistent with 

obtaining regulatory objectives and 

taking into account—among other things 

and to the extent practicable—the costs 

of cumulative regulations; 

(3) In choosing among alternative 

regulatory approaches, select those 

approaches that maximize net benefits 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health and safety, 

and other advantages; distributive 

impacts; and equity); 

(4) To the extent feasible, specify 

performance objectives, rather than the 

behavior or manner of compliance a 

regulated entity must adopt; and 

(5) Identify and assess available 

alternatives to direct regulation, 

including economic incentives—such as 

user fees or marketable permits—to 

encourage the desired behavior, or 

provide information that enables the 

public to make choices. 

Executive Order 13563 also requires 

an agency ‘‘to use the best available 

techniques to quantify anticipated 

present and future benefits and costs as 

accurately as possible.’’ The Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs of 

OMB has emphasized that these 

techniques may include ‘‘identifying 

changing future compliance costs that 

might result from technological 

innovation or anticipated behavioral 

changes.’’ 

We are proposing these priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria only on a reasoned 

determination that their benefits would 

justify their costs. In choosing among 

alternative regulatory approaches, we 

selected those approaches that would 

maximize net benefits. 

Based on the analysis that follows, the 

Departments believe that this regulatory 

action is consistent with the principles 

in Executive Order 13563. 

We also have determined that this 

proposed regulatory action would not 

unduly interfere with State, local, and 

tribal governments in the exercise of 

their governmental functions. 

In this regulatory impact analysis we 

discuss the need for regulatory action, 

the potential costs and benefits, net 

budget impacts, assumptions, 

limitations, and data sources, as well as 

regulatory alternatives we considered. 

Discussion of Costs and Benefits 

The Secretaries believe that the 

proposed priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria would 

not impose significant costs on eligible 

States. States that applied for a grant 

under the FY 2011 RTT–ELC 

competition reported that they found 

the application process to be useful in 

organizing their early childhood 

planning efforts because the priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria provided them with direction 

and structure for developing a State 

High-Quality Early Learning plan. 

Several unfunded States then used their 

prepared application as their State’s 

strategic early learning plan. In 

addition, the proposed priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria, in particular those related to 

maintaining conditions of reform 

required under the FY 2011 RTT–ELC 

competition, would require 

continuation of existing commitments 

and investments rather than the 

imposition of additional burdens and 

costs for applicant States. The 

Departments believe, therefore, that 

those States that previously applied but 

did not receive funding would incur 

minimal costs in developing an 

application. 

In addition, because the Departments 

are maintaining the criteria and 

priorities of the FY 2011 competition, 

States that did not previously apply can 

draw upon the posted applications and 

reviewer comments from the FY 2011 

competition. These resources will 

minimize burden for all applicants. The 

Departments believe therefore that the 

benefits of developing an application for 

this competition outweigh the costs. 

We believe that States will 

significantly benefit from the 

application process because it will 

require them to build strong 

relationships between State agencies 

and early learning non-profit 

organizations and consider how to use 

Federal, State, and local funding 

streams to best support early learning. A 

further benefit is that the proposed 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria would result in the 

selection of high-quality grantees that 

are most likely to successfully 

implement RTT–ELC grants in the 

manner that the Departments believe 

will best enable the program to achieve 

its objective of creating the conditions 

for effective reform in State early 

learning systems. 

The proposed priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria clarify the scope of activities the 

Secretaries expect to support with 

program funds. The pool of possible 

interested applicants is limited to State 

applicants that have not previously 

received an RTT–ELC grant. Potential 

applicants need to consider carefully 

the effort that will be required to 

prepare a strong application, their 

capacity to implement projects 

successfully, and their chances of 

submitting a successful application. 

Program participation is voluntary. 

The Secretaries believe that the costs 

imposed on applicants by the proposed 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria would be limited to 

paperwork burden related to preparing 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 97 / Monday, May 20, 2013 / Proposed Rules 29517 

an application and that the benefits of 

implementing these proposals would 

outweigh any costs incurred by 

applicants. The costs of carrying out 

activities associated with the 

application would be paid for with 

program funds. Thus, the costs of 

implementation would not be a burden 

for eligible applicants, including small 

entities. 

Elsewhere in this document, under 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we 

identify and explain burdens 

specifically associated with information 

collection requirements. 

Regulatory Alternatives Considered 

An alternative to promulgating these 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria would be to use FY 

2013 Race to the Top funds to make 

awards to the remaining highest-scoring 

unfunded applications from the FY 

2011 RTT–ELC competition. However, 

the Departments have determined that 

funding applications from the FY 2011 

competition would result in funding 

applications that are likely outdated and 

of only moderate quality, having 

received fewer than 75 percent of the 

total points available in the FY 2011 

competition. The Departments have 

determined that $300 million is a 

sufficient amount to hold a high-quality 

competition and that holding a new 

competition will result in higher quality 

applications than those submitted in FY 

2011, due to progress made in early 

learning systems during the last two 

years. 

The Departments also could have 

decided to make significant changes to 

the priorities, requirements, definitions, 

and selection criteria rather than making 

only the few changes proposed here. 

However, we have determined that 

making significant changes would be 

unduly burdensome on applicants who 

will rely on their FY 2011 efforts to 

prepare an updated application and that 

maintaining substantially the same 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria will better enable the 

Departments to conduct an evaluation of 

the performance of grantees under the 

RTT–ELC program overall. 

To assist the Departments in 

complying with the requirements of 

Executive Order 12866, the Secretaries 

invite comments on whether there may 

be further opportunities to reduce any 

potential costs or increase potential 

benefits resulting from these proposed 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria without impeding the 

effective and efficient administration of 

the RTT–ELC program. 

Accounting Statement 

As required by OMB Circular A–4 

(available at www.whitehouse.gov/sites/ 

default/files/omb/assets/omb/circulars/ 

a004/a-4.pdf), in the following table we 

have prepared an accounting statement 

showing the classification of the 

expenditures associated with the 

provisions of this regulatory action. This 

table provides our best estimate of the 

Federal payments to be made to States 

under this program as a result of this 

regulatory action. Expenditures are 

classified as transfers to States. 

ACCOUNTING STATEMENT CLASSIFICATION OF ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES

[in millions] 

Category Transfers 

Annualized Monetized 

Transfers.

$300,000,000. 

From Whom To 

Whom? 

From the Federal 

Government to 

States. 

The FY 2013 RTT–ELC competition 

process would provide approximately 

$300 million in competitive grants to 

eligible applicants. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification 

The Secretaries certify that this 

proposed regulatory action will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

This proposed regulatory action will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

small entities (such as subaward 

recipients) as States are not small 

entities within the meaning of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act. 

The Secretaries invite comments from 

small entities as to whether they believe 

this proposed regulatory action would 

have a significant economic impact on 

them and, if so, request evidence to 

support that belief. 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

As part of its continuing effort to 

reduce paperwork and respondent 

burden, the Departments will conduct a 

preclearance consultation program to 

provide the general public and Federal 

agencies with an opportunity to 

comment on proposed collections of 

information in accordance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) 

(44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This helps 

ensure that: The public understands the 

Departments’ collection instructions, 

respondents can provide the requested 

data in the desired format, reporting 

burden (time and financial resources) is 

minimized, collection instruments are 

clearly understood, and the 

Departments can properly assess the 

impact of collection requirements on 

respondents. 

We estimate that each applicant 

would spend approximately 225 hours 

of staff time to address the proposed 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria, prepare the 

application, and obtain necessary 

clearances. The total number of hours 

for all applicants will vary based on the 

number of applications. Based on the 

number of applications received in the 

FY 2011 competition, we expect to 

receive approximately 38 applications 

for these funds. The total number of 

hours for all expected applicants is an 

estimated 8,550 hours. We estimate the 

total cost per hour of the applicant-level 

staff who carry out this work to be $30 

per hour. The total estimated cost for all 

applicants would be $256,500. We have 

submitted a new Information Collection 

Request (ICR) for the information 

collection requirements, under OMB 

control number 1810—New, to OMB. 

If you want to comment on the 

proposed information collection 

requirements, please submit your 

comments through the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal at by selecting 

Docket ID number [insert FDMS Docket 

number] or via postal mail, commercial 

delivery, or hand delivery. Please note 

that comments submitted by fax or 

email and those submitted after the 

comment period will not be accepted. 

Written requests for information or 

comments submitted by postal mail or 

delivery should be addressed to the 

Director of the Information Collection 

Clearance Division, U.S. Department of 

Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., 

LBJ, Room 2E117, Washington, DC 

20202–4537. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Electronically mail 

ICDocketMgr@ed.gov. Please do not 

send comments here. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Departments, in accordance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) 

(44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the 

general public and Federal agencies 

with an opportunity to comment on 

proposed, revised, and continuing 

collections of information. This helps 

the Departments assess the impact of the 

information collection requirements and 

minimize the public’s reporting burden. 

It also helps the public understand the 

Departments’ information collection 

requirements and provide the requested 

data in the desired format. The 

Departments are soliciting comments on 

the proposed information collection 

request (ICR) that is described below. 

The Departments are especially 

interested in public comment 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3
29518 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 97 / Monday, May 20, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

addressing the following issues: (1) Is 

this collection necessary to the proper 

functions of the Departments; (2) will 

this information be processed and used 

in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate 

of burden accurate; (4) how might the 

Departments enhance the quality, 

utility, and clarity of the information to 

be collected; and (5) how might the 

Departments minimize the burden of 

this collection on the respondents, 

including through the use of 

information technology. Please note that 

written comments received in response 

to this notice will be considered public 

records. 

Intergovernmental Review: This 

program is subject to Executive Order 

12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR 

part 79. One of the objectives of the 

Executive order is to foster an 

intergovernmental partnership and a 

strengthened federalism. The Executive 

order relies on processes developed by 

State and local governments for 

coordination and review of proposed 

Federal financial assistance. 

This document provides early 

notification of the Departments’ specific 

plans and actions for this program. 

Accessible Format: Individuals with 

disabilities can obtain this document in 

an accessible format (e.g., braille, large 

print, audiotape, or compact disc) on 

request to the program contact person 

listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

Electronic Access to This Document: 

The official version of this document is 

the document published in the Federal 

Register. Free Internet access to the 

official edition of the Federal Register 

and the Code of Federal Regulations is 

available via the Federal Digital System 

at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site you 

can view this document, as well as all 

other documents from both Departments 

published in the Federal Register, in 

text or Adobe Portable Document 

Format (PDF). To use PDF you must 

have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is 

available free at the site. 

You may also access documents of the 

Departments published in the Federal 

Register by using the article search 

feature at: www.federalregister.gov. 

Specifically, through the advanced 

search feature at this site, you can limit 

your search to documents published by 

either Department. 

Dated: May 14, 2013. 

Deborah S. Delisle, 

Assistant Secretary for Elementary and 

Secondary Education, U.S. Department of 

Education. 

George Sheldon, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Children and 

Families, U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services. 

[FR Doc. 2013–11821 Filed 5–17–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–1–P 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3