Vol. 78 Tuesday, 

No. 151 August 6, 2013 

Part V 

Department of Education 

34 CFR Subtitle A 

Final Priorities, Requirements, Definitions, and Selection Criteria; Race to 

the Top—District; Final Rule 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES4
47980 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 151 / Tuesday, August 6, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

34 CFR Subtitle A 

RIN 1810–AB17 

[Docket No. ED–2013–OS–0050] 

Final Priorities, Requirements, 

Definitions, and Selection Criteria; 

Race to the Top—District 

AGENCY: Office of the Deputy Secretary, 

Department of Education. 

ACTION: Final priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria. 

[CFDA Number: 84.416.] 

SUMMARY: The Secretary announces 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria under the Race to the 

Top—District program. The Secretary 

may use one or more of these priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria for competitions in fiscal year 

(FY) 2013 and later years. 

The Race to the Top—District 

program builds on the experience of 

States and districts in implementing 

reforms in the four core educational 

assurance areas through Race to the Top 

and other key programs and supports 

applicants that demonstrate how they 

can personalize education for all 

students in their schools. The U.S. 

Department of Education (Department) 

conducted one competition under the 

Race to the Top—District program in FY 

2012, and we are maintaining the 

overall purpose and structure of the FY 

2012 Race to the Top—District 

competition. These priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria are almost identical to the ones 

we used in the FY 2012 competition. 

DATES: Effective Date: These priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria are effective September 5, 2013 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

James Butler, U.S. Department of 

Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., 

Room 7E214, Washington, DC 20202– 

4260. Telephone: (202) 453–6800. FAX: 

(202) 401–1557. Email: 

racetothetop.district@ed.gov. 

If you use a telecommunications 

device for the deaf (TDD) or 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 action is to establish 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria that will enable 

effective grant making, resulting in the 

selection of high-quality applicants who 

propose to implement activities that the 

Department believes are most likely to 

support bold, locally directed 

improvements in learning and teaching 

that would directly improve student 

achievement and educator effectiveness. 

Summary of the Major Provisions of 

This Regulatory Action: This document 

establishes priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria for the 

Race to the Top—District program. 

The Race to the Top—District 

program is designed to build on the 

momentum of other Race to the Top 

competitions by encouraging bold, 

innovative reform at the local level. The 

Race to the Top—District competition is 

aimed squarely at classrooms and the 

all-important relationship between 

educators and students. The priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria in this document are almost 

identical to those we used in the FY 

2012 competition. The competition will 

again support applicants that 

demonstrate how they can personalize 

education for all students in their 

schools. 

In that regard, through this 

competition, the Department will 

encourage and reward those local 

educational agencies (LEAs) or consortia 

of LEAs that have the leadership and 

vision to implement the strategies, 

structures, and systems that the 

Department believes are needed to 

implement personalized, studentfocused approaches to learning and 

teaching that will produce excellence 

and ensure equity for all students. The 

priorities, definitions, requirements, and 

selection criteria are designed to help 

LEAs meet these goals. As stated in the 

notice of proposed priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria (NPP) (published in the Federal 

Register on April 16, 2013 (78 FR 

22451)), most changes from the FY 2012 

competition reflect minor language 

clarifications. The two substantive 

changes are the removal of the 

opportunity to apply for an optional 

budget supplement and the reduction of 

the minimum and maximum grant 

amount for which an applicant may 

apply. We believe these changes enable 

the Department to maximize the number 

of grantees that would receive funding 

under a competition, while still 

awarding grants of sufficient size to 

support bold improvements in learning 

and teaching. In addition, this 

document includes some revisions from 

the NPP. We discuss changes from the 

NPP in greater detail in the Analysis of 

Comments and Changes section. 

Under Priority 1, applicants must 

design a personalized learning 

environment that uses collaborative, 

data-based strategies and 21st-century 

tools, such as online learning platforms, 

computers, mobile devices, and learning 

algorithms, to deliver instruction and 

supports tailored to the needs and goals 

of each student, with the aim of 

enabling all students to graduate 

college- and career-ready. 

Implementation of a personalized 

learning environment is not achieved 

through a single solution or product but 

rather requires a multi-faceted approach 

that addresses the individual and 

collective needs of students, educators, 

and families and that dramatically 

transforms the learning environment in 

order to improve student outcomes. 

Through Race to the Top—District, 

the Department will continue to support 

high-quality proposals from applicants 

across a varied set of LEAs in order to 

create diverse models of personalized 

learning environments for use by LEAs 

across the Nation. For this reason, the 

Department is establishing four 

additional priorities. Priorities 2 

through 5 support efforts to expand the 

types of reform efforts being 

implemented in LEAs in States that 

have received a Race to the Top Phase 

1, 2, or 3 award and to LEAs in other 

States. Moreover, these priorities also 

help ensure that LEAs of varying sizes, 

both rural and non-rural, and with 

different local contexts, are able to 

implement innovative personalized 

learning environments for their students 

that can serve as models for other LEAs 

and help improve student achievement 

widely. 

Finally, we establish one additional 

priority to support applicants that 

propose to extend their reforms beyond 

the classroom and partner with public 

or private entities in order to address 

the social, emotional, and behavioral 

needs of students, particularly students 

who attend a high-need school. 

Costs and Benefits: The Secretary 

believes that the costs imposed on 

applicants by these priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria are limited to paperwork burden 

related to preparing an application and 

the benefits of implementing them 

would outweigh any costs incurred by 

applicants. The costs of carrying out 

activities would be paid for with 

program funds. Thus, the costs of 

implementation would not be a burden 

for any eligible applicants, 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 notice provides an accounting 

statement that estimates that 

approximately $120 million will 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 151 / Tuesday, August 6, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 47981 

transfer from the Federal Government to 

LEAs under this program. Please refer to 

the accounting statement in this 

document for a more detailed 

discussion. 

Purpose of Program: The purpose of 

the Race to the Top—District program is 

to build on the lessons learned from the 

State competitions conducted under the 

Race to the Top program and to support 

bold, locally directed improvements in 

learning and teaching that will directly 

improve student achievement and 

educator effectiveness. 

Program Authority: Sections 14005 and 

14006 of the American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act (Pub. L. 111–5), as 

amended by section 1832(b) of Division B of 

the Department of Defense and Full-Year 

Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 (Pub. L. 

112–10), and the Department of Education 

Appropriations Act, 2012 (Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2012) (Title III of 

Division F of Pub. L. 112–74). 

We published proposed priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria for this program in the Federal 

Register on April 16, 2013 (78 FR 

22451). That notice contained 

background information and our reasons 

for proposing the particular priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria. 

Public Comment: In response to our 

invitation in the NPP, 43 parties 

submitted comments. 

We group responses to comments 

according to subject. Generally, we do 

not address technical and other minor 

changes. 

Analysis of Comments and Changes: 

An analysis of the comments and of any 

changes in the priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria since 

publication of the NPP follows. We have 

included category headings below to 

help with organization, though some 

comments were relevant to multiple 

categories and were considered 

accordingly. 

General 

Comment: Many commenters 

expressed support for the Race to the 

Top—District program’s focus on 

personalized learning and advancing 

innovation in education. Commenters 

noted that this approach will help 

accelerate and deepen student learning, 

close achievement gaps, and help all 

students graduate ready for college and 

a career. A couple commenters 

suggested the program could lead to 

transformational changes in teaching 

and learning. A commenter specifically 

agreed with the key proposed changes to 

the program, including removing the 

optional budget supplement and 

adapting the budget bands, and 

particularly applauded the decrease in 

the number of minimum participating 

students required in the largest award 

range. 

However, some commenters suggested 

different directions for the program. A 

commenter suggested that the program 

should have a primary focus on the 

implementation of college- and careerready standards, the institution of 

wraparound services, and the expansion 

of early education. Another commenter 

suggested providing more flexibility for 

applicants to address the Race to the 

Top reform areas in the context of, and 

without distracting them from, their 

own local reform efforts. A couple 

commenters suggested that building on 

the four core assurance areas could 

detract from the focus on personalized 

learning. A few commenters suggested 

streamlining the selection criteria to 

reduce the risk of overburdening LEAs 

while retaining the ambitious goals of 

the Race to the Top—District program. 

Discussion: We appreciate the support 

from commenters for the emphasis on 

personalized learning and the potential 

for contributing to significant 

improvements in learning and teaching. 

We believe it is important for applicants 

to create personalized learning 

environments that will lead to the 

greatest improvement in each LEA 

while also ensuring alignment with the 

broader education context in their 

States, including Race to the Top State 

grants, ESEA flexibility, and other 

relevant programs and initiatives. 

We appreciate the suggestions for 

different directions for the program and 

the suggestions for narrowing the 

priorities and selection criteria. We 

decline to shift the focus away from 

personalized learning or to significantly 

change the priorities and selection 

criteria. However we have removed one 

selection criterion—that was designated 

in the NPP as (B)(5) Analysis of Needs 

and Gaps—which we believe can be 

addressed in a more integrated way in 

applicants’ plans and responses to other 

selection criteria. We believe that the 

priorities and remaining selection 

criteria allow sufficient flexibility for 

applicants to design proposals aligned 

to their local context and needs while 

maximizing the opportunity for the 

Department to support bold, locally 

directed improvements in learning and 

teaching that will directly improve 

student achievement and educator 

effectiveness. 

Changes: We have removed selection 

criterion (B)(5). 

Comment: A few commenters 

expressed support for continuing to 

fund districts to lead the way with 

reforms at the local level. A number of 

commenters supported the Department’s 

plan to conduct a new competition and 

suggested that this will provide an 

opportunity for more districts to 

propose and implement bold plans. In 

addition, a commenter noted that 

maintaining a nearly identical 

application to the application used in 

the FY 2012 competition will lead to 

stronger responses in 2013. Another 

commenter noted that the Department 

included the strongest elements of the 

2012 competition within the new NPP. 

In contrast, many commenters, the 

majority on behalf of districts in one 

State and a few on behalf of districts in 

another State, asked that the Department 

fund high-scoring but unsuccessful 

applicants from the FY 2012 Race to the 

Top—District competition rather than 

invite districts to apply through a new 

competition. Commenters suggested that 

this would limit the time and resources 

spent by applicants on preparing 

submissions and by the Department on 

conducting the competition. A 

commenter also suggested that if the 

Department limits the competition to 

prior applicants, it should include 

applications that had high scores from 

two out of three peer reviewers. 

Discussion: Based on past Race to the 

Top competitions, we believe that the 

quality of applications increases each 

year that we run a competition. A new 

competition allows both new and past 

applicants to develop and submit 

proposals that reflect their current 

vision, strategies, and context and 

permits applicants to learn from 

winning applications, learn from peer 

reviewer comments, and ensure that 

their proposals reflect their current 

vision, strategies, and context. For these 

reasons, we do not plan to limit the 

competition to past applicants. We 

acknowledge the time required to 

prepare a grant application, but we also 

believe the application process provides 

a worthwhile opportunity for LEAs to 

work with stakeholders within and 

across LEAs on developing proposals for 

bold improvements in learning and 

teaching. In addition, past applicants 

have reported that developing their 

application positioned them for greater 

educational impact whether or not they 

received funding. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: A commenter 

recommended that the Department allot 

substantially more money to this 

program and provide further incentives 

for district participation by awarding at 

least the same number and size of LEA 

grants as in FY 2012. This commenter 

also suggested lowering the minimum 

award range to $2 million to $10 

million. Another commenter 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES4
47982 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 151 / Tuesday, August 6, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

appreciated the decision to continue 

this funding opportunity for local 

school districts, especially during a time 

of sequestration and other cuts to 

education, noting that this program 

provides an opportunity to support 

innovation at the local level and achieve 

equity and excellence in education for 

all children. 

Discussion: The Department 

anticipates awarding approximately 

$120 million for the Race to the Top— 

District competition and $370 million 

for the Race to the Top—Early Learning 

Challenge competition. While we 

welcome the opportunity to fund 

additional LEA and State grantees, we 

believe the amount allocated this year 

will encourage and reward reform in 

LEAs and States. In addition, we 

proposed through the NPP to remove 

the opportunity to apply for an optional 

budget supplement and reduce the 

minimum and maximum grant amount 

for which an applicant may apply. We 

believe these changes will enable the 

Department to maximize the number of 

grantees that would receive funding 

under a district competition while still 

awarding grants of sufficient size and 

scope to support bold improvements in 

learning and teaching. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: A commenter expressed 

support for setting the minimum 

number of participating students at 

2,000. A couple commenters felt this 

number should be further reduced, as it 

will exclude some districts from 

applying individually and instead 

require them to join a consortium 

despite the individual district’s unique 

problems, strengths, and goals. 

Discussion: The Department believes 

it is important to award grants of 

sufficient size and scope to support 

bold, innovative reforms in learning and 

teaching that can help to create diverse 

models of personalized learning 

environments for use by LEAs across the 

Nation. The Department also believes 

that the eligibility requirements allow 

for sufficient flexibility for individual 

LEA applicants and consortia 

applicants. According to the National 

Center for Education Statistics’ 

‘‘Numbers and Types of Public 

Elementary and Secondary Local 

Education Agencies From the Common 

Core of Data: School Year 2010–11,’’ 

more than 80 percent of public 

elementary and secondary school 

districts had a student membership over 

2,999 in 2010–2011. Thus, the majority 

of LEAs may apply individually. For 

those LEAs with fewer than 2,000 

participating students, there are two 

paths to apply, either by joining a 

consortium with a minimum of 2,000 

participating students or by joining a 

consortium with fewer than 2,000 

participating students, provided those 

students are served by a consortium of 

at least 10 LEAs and at least 75 percent 

of the students served by each LEA are 

participating students (as defined in this 

notice). 

Changes: None. 

Comment: A commenter expressed 

concern that several aspects of Race to 

the Top—District core reforms are too 

prescriptive and expressed concern 

about the trend toward using 

competitive, as opposed to formula, 

funding to advance education goals. 

Discussion: The core education reform 

areas were established in the statute 

authorizing the Race to the Top 

programs. The Race to the Top—District 

program builds on the experience of 

States and districts in implementing 

reforms in the four core educational 

assurance areas through Race to the Top 

and other key programs and supports 

applicants that demonstrate how they 

can personalize education for all 

students in their schools. The great 

majority—over 80 percent—of the 

Department’s funds for early childhood 

and elementary and secondary 

education are distributed by formula. 

We believe competitive funds provide 

an important opportunity to encourage 

and reward States and LEAs that 

propose to implement bold, innovative 

reforms that are most likely to directly 

improve student outcomes. 

Changes: None. 

Definitions 

Comment: A commenter 

recommended that the Department 

broaden the definition of ‘‘digital 

learning content’’ to ensure that all 

high-quality multiplatform digital 

content is captured in the selection 

criteria. The commenter believed this 

would help align proposals with the 

variety of ways in which children learn 

and provide children with more 

opportunities to learn anytime, 

anywhere. 

Discussion: There is nothing in the 

priorities, requirements, definitions, or 

selection criteria that would preclude an 

eligible applicant from proposing plans 

that utilize multiplatform digital 

content, provided that the proposal 

otherwise addresses the priorities, 

requirements, and selection criteria. 

Given the variety of proposals that can 

be funded under the Race to the Top— 

District program, we do not want to 

prescribe specific tools or approaches 

that must be used. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: A commenter 

recommended that the Department 

provide a definition of ‘‘high-quality 

plan.’’ 

Discussion: The Department agrees to 

add ‘‘high-quality plan’’ as a defined 

term. We have described high-quality 

plans the same way in the FY 2013 

competition as we did in the FY 2012 

competition. 

Changes: We have added ‘‘highquality plan’’ as a defined term. 

Comment: A commenter 

recommended adding a definition for 

‘‘stakeholder’’ and requiring that this 

definition be applied whenever the term 

‘‘stakeholder’’ is used in the document, 

because school improvement cannot 

succeed without the involvement of 

these crucial partners. This commenter 

also recommended that in selection 

criterion (B)(4)(a), the Department add 

‘‘community partners’’ to the list of 

groups that should be engaged in the 

development of the proposal. 

Discussion: We agree that engaging 

stakeholders is important, as 

demonstrated through the emphasis on 

stakeholder engagement throughout the 

requirements and selection criteria. 

However, we decline to include a 

specific definition of this term in order 

to allow applicants the flexibility to 

determine appropriate stakeholders for 

their local context and needs. In 

addition, selection criterion (B)(4)(b) 

already includes community-based 

organizations, and there is nothing that 

precludes an applicant from engaging 

these stakeholders further, provided that 

the applicant addresses the priorities, 

requirements, and selection criteria. 

Accordingly, we decline to add a 

reference to ‘‘community partners’’ to 

selection criterion (B)(4)(a). 

Changes: None. 

Comment: A commenter 

recommended that the Department be 

more specific in its definition of ‘‘ontrack indicator,’’ and incorporate 

specific research-based characteristics 

into that definition to ensure districts 

are accurately measuring the number of 

students who are on and off track to 

college- and career-readiness and ontime graduation from high school. The 

commenter suggested that a more 

specific definition would also provide a 

more uniform measure of effectiveness 

that would result in a better 

understanding of which interventions 

have the most impact. Another 

commenter recommended that 

applicants serving middle and high 

school students should describe the 

process for implementing an early 

warning indicator system to identify 

students in need of targeted supports 

and integrated services, particularly for 

applicants responding to the 

competitive preference priority. Both 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 151 / Tuesday, August 6, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 47983 

commenters suggested using the same 

three characteristics—attendance, 

behavior, and course performance— 

though the commenters recommended 

different measures for each 

characteristic. 

Discussion: We agree on the 

importance of capturing and using data 

frequently and highlight this throughout 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria. For example, selection 

criterion (C)(1)(b)(iv) emphasizes 

ongoing and regular feedback for each 

student, and selection criterion (E)(3) 

includes both required performance 

measures and applicant-proposed 

performance measures that provide 

rigorous, timely, and formative leading 

information tailored to the proposed 

plan and theory of action. However, 

because the potential applicants and 

plans are so diverse, we feel that it is 

important for applicants to propose the 

specific on-track indicator and related 

systems that best support achieving the 

goals in their proposals, and we decline 

to further specify definitions or system 

requirements in this area. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: A couple commenters 

requested that in the definition of 

‘‘student growth’’ we add the word 

‘‘multiple’’ before ‘‘measures’’ and 

before ‘‘alternative measures.’’ These 

commenters also recommended that the 

Department support maximum 

flexibility in how student growth 

measures are included in teacher 

evaluation systems. 

Discussion: The proposed definition 

of ‘‘student growth’’ aligns with the 

definitions used in past Race to the Top 

competitions and in ESEA flexibility. 

We believe that using this similar 

definition is helpful for applicants and 

note that multiple measures are 

currently incorporated within the 

definition. We appreciate the 

recommendation about flexibility on 

how student growth measures are 

included in teacher evaluation and 

believe the Department’s programs in 

these areas allow for local flexibility. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: A commenter noted that 

the definition of ‘‘achievement gaps’’ 

appears to depart from traditional 

definitions because it would potentially 

compare subgroup, LEA, and school 

performance to the State’s highestachieving subgroups rather than to the 

State average of all students. 

Discussion: The proposed definition 

of ‘‘achievement gap’’ aligns with ESEA 

flexibility’s approach to measuring 

achievement gaps, in particular for 

‘‘focus schools.’’ We believe that this 

alignment is helpful for applicants in 

order to minimize the different ways in 

which they calculate and report 

achievement gap information. In 

addition, ‘‘achievement gap’’ was not a 

defined term in some of our other 

competitive grant programs. We believe 

having a definition consistent with the 

one used in ESEA flexibility is helpful 

for applicants and grantees as they learn 

from each other during implementation 

of their grants and strive to meet 

ambitious goals. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: A few commenters 

applauded the Department for requiring 

districts to detail how they will leverage 

personalization to accelerate and 

deepen student learning. A couple 

commenters suggested that the 

Department provide a definition of 

‘‘deeper learning’’ since districts may 

interpret it in a variety of ways. A 

commenter suggested using a particular 

definition of ‘‘deeper learning’’ that 

includes a set of six competencies that 

students must develop. This commenter 

also recommended that districts be 

required to share how they plan to 

measure progress towards student 

mastery. 

Discussion: The Department declines 

to define ‘‘deeper learning’’ or require a 

specific plan in this area. Because the 

potential applicants and plans are so 

diverse, we think applicants are in the 

best position to determine the 

approaches to deeper learning that will 

maximize improvement in their context 

and through their proposals. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: None. 

Discussion: We are removing the 

definition of the term ‘‘four intervention 

models’’ because it is not used as a 

defined term in the Race to the Top— 

District program. 

Changes: We removed the definition 

of the term ‘‘four intervention models.’’ 

Comment: A commenter 

recommended adding to the definition 

of ‘‘four intervention models’’ a new 

option for the school intervention 

models, specifically community schools 

in which social, emotional, medical, 

and academic services that students and 

their families need are provided in the 

school buildings. 

Discussion: Because ‘‘four 

intervention models’’ is not used as a 

defined term in the Race to the Top— 

District program, we are removing the 

definition and not considering changes 

to it. 

Changes: None. 

Selection Criteria 

Note: Throughout the discussion of 

comments and changes on selection criteria, 

Section A refers to the group of selection 

criteria in A. Vision, i.e., (A)(1), (A)(2), (A)(3), 

(A)(4). Section B refers to the group of 

selection criteria in B. Prior Record of 

Success and Conditions for Reform. Section 

C refers to the group of selection criteria in 

C. Preparing Students for College and 

Careers. Section D refers to the group of 

selection criteria in D. LEA Policy and 

Infrastructure. Section E refers to the group 

of selection criteria in E. Continuous 

Improvement. Lastly, Section F refers to the 

group of selection criteria in F. Budget and 

Sustainability. 

Section A. Vision 

Comment: A few commenters 

discussed aspects of Section A. A 

commenter suggested that the 

Department increase the number of 

points allocated to Section A and ask 

districts to describe (1) their classroomlevel vision for helping students meet 

college- and career-ready standards 

through gaining such deeper learning 

skills as critical thinking, problem 

solving, collaboration, and 

communication; (2) how they will 

incorporate social, emotional, and 

behavioral supports; (3) the human 

capital strategies they will use to 

achieve shifts in teaching and learning; 

and (4) the ongoing data cycles they will 

use to drive continuous improvement. A 

commenter suggested requiring 

applicants to be specific in the vision 

they wish to achieve and provide a 

graphical representation of their 

instructional vision to help districts 

map how their plan will enact change 

in the district. This commenter 

recommended a stronger emphasis on 

how personalized learning 

environments will look different in 

different schools and classrooms. The 

commenter also recommended that 

districts identify the unique set of 

supports required by each school in 

order for it to successfully implement 

personalized learning environments. 

Discussion: The Department agrees 

that some additional description could 

be helpful in Section A, specifically 

selection criterion (A)(1). We agree that 

in responding to Section A, applicants 

should be specific in explaining how 

the educational experience will be 

different for students and teachers, and 

we have revised the language in (A)(1) 

accordingly. We believe that social, 

emotional, and behavioral supports, 

human capital strategies, and data use 

for continuous improvement are 

covered in other requirements, selection 

criteria, and priorities, and decline to 

add additional language on these topics 

to Section A. We do not believe we 

should require graphical representation 

or unique sets of supports at the 

individual school-level and leave it to 

the applicant to develop strong 

proposals and determine the best way to 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES4
47984 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 151 / Tuesday, August 6, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

convey this information. We do, 

however, require grantees to submit an 

individual school implementation plan 

for participating schools (as defined in 

this notice). Although the Department 

did not solicit comments on the points 

to be assigned to the selection criteria 

and does not include the points in this 

regulatory action, we appreciate the 

support for Section C and the related 

scoring suggestions. We are keeping the 

majority of the criteria almost identical 

to the FY 2012 competition and 

similarly will keep the scoring rubric 

consistent in order to maximize 

applicants’ ability to learn from past 

applications, peer reviewer comments, 

and other aligned resources. 

Changes: We have added language to 

selection criterion (A)(1) to ask 

applicants to include in their reform 

vision how the classroom experience 

will be different for students and 

teachers. 

Section B. Prior Record of Success and 

Conditions for Reform 

Comment: A couple commenters 

suggested that requiring a four-year 

track record of success in selection 

criterion (B)(1) could make it difficult 

for districts with the greatest need to 

receive grant funds. These commenters 

noted that this requirement could also 

negatively affect States that have 

worked to achieve key goals, such as 

adoption of college- and career-ready 

standards and next generation 

assessment systems, since there may be 

an initial decrease in test scores. On the 

other hand, another commenter 

expressed support for asking for a fouryear track record of success. A couple 

commenters suggested decreasing the 

point value for Section B because many 

districts scored highly on the criteria in 

this section in the FY 2012 competition, 

and the commenters suggested that it 

did not significantly differentiate 

applicants. 

Discussion: In order to make the 

wisest investments of public funds, the 

Department believes a prior record of 

improvement over a sustained period 

with a plan for continued growth should 

be considered when awarding grants. 

We do not believe that this 

disadvantages districts with the greatest 

need, as the priorities and selection 

criteria emphasize high-need students 

in many places, and this particular 

criterion offers many ways by which 

applicants can demonstrate a clear track 

record of success. We do not specify 

point values in these final selection 

criteria, and instead indicate in any 

notice inviting applications the points 

we will assign to a particular criterion. 

That said, we do not intend to reduce 

the point value of Section B for the FY 

2013 competition because of how 

critical it is for districts to have a record 

of success, transparency in LEA 

processes, State context for 

implementation, and stakeholder 

engagement. We will, however, remove 

selection criterion (B)(5) because we 

believe needs and gaps are already 

addressed in applicants’ plans and 

responses to other selection criteria. 

Also, in the notice inviting applications, 

we will include the points from 

selection criterion (B)(5) into selection 

criterion (B)(4), keeping the overall 

scoring for Section B the same as it was 

in FY 2012 but further emphasizing the 

importance of stakeholder engagement 

with the addition of five points for that 

selection criterion. 

Changes: We are removing selection 

criterion (B)(5). 

Comment: Some commenters 

suggested that the data collection and 

reporting language in selection criterion 

(B)(2) be eliminated or modified. In 

addition, some commenters noted that it 

is unclear how this requirement is 

relevant to evaluating an applicant’s 

prior record of success, how it 

strengthens an application, or how it 

demonstrates transparency in LEA 

processes, practices, and investments. 

Commenters also recommended changes 

to the language in selection criterion 

(B)(2). A couple commenters expressed 

privacy concerns about reporting 

personnel salaries, especially where this 

information is not already a matter of 

public record, and suggested that 

selection criterion (B)(2) should clarify 

that personally identifiable information 

will remain confidential. Another 

commenter pointed out that the current 

wording in selection criterion (B)(2) is 

not clear about whether the expenditure 

reporting requirements apply only to 

participating schools or to all schools 

within the LEA. Finally, a commenter 

suggested that if the aims of the 

expenditure reporting requirements are 

to improve teaching and learning and 

ensure equity, the focus should extend 

beyond salaries to provide a more 

complete picture of the real problems in 

hard-to-staff schools. 

Discussion: As a commenter noted, 

the aim of including selection criterion 

(B)(2) is to emphasize the importance of 

transparency and equity, with the 

public reporting of school-level 

expenditures on salaries as a proxy for 

both. Also, as this data is reported 

through the Department’s Civil Rights 

Data Collection (CRDC) instrument, we 

believe using the same language will 

help minimize burden on applicants. As 

we noted in the Frequently Asked 

Questions (FAQ) document for the FY 

2012 competition, applicants should 

follow the 2011–2012 school year CRDC 

guidelines when reporting school 

expenditure data. The Department will 

keep (B)(2) as part of the selection 

criteria and will clarify for applicants 

that reporting is for all schools within 

each LEA. 

Nothing in our selection criteria 

authorizes or encourages applicants to 

violate any local, State, or Federal 

privacy laws and we will communicate 

to applicants their obligations to comply 

with such laws. Finally, we want to 

highlight that selection criterion (B)(2) 

is not a requirement, as some 

commenters stated, but rather a 

selection criterion for which applicants 

may earn points based on the extent to 

which each LEA demonstrates evidence 

that addresses the selection criterion. 

Changes: None. 

Section C. Preparing Students for 

College and Careers 

Comment: A commenter noted that 

Section C reflects the most essential 

district actions around transforming 

teaching and learning and suggested 

increasing the number of points 

allocated to this section. 

Discussion: Although the Department 

did not solicit comments on the points 

to be assigned to the selection criteria 

and does not include the points in this 

regulatory action, we appreciate the 

support for Section C and the related 

scoring suggestions. We are keeping the 

majority of the criteria almost identical 

to the FY 2012 competition and 

similarly will keep the scoring rubric 

consistent in order to maximize 

applicants’ ability to learn from past 

applications, peer reviewer comments, 

and other aligned resources. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: A commenter noted that 

proposed selection criterion (C)(1)(b) 

seems to require that the district provide 

every student with a personalized 

learning plan, defined as a formal 

document that would include 

personalized learning 

recommendations. The commenter 

suggested an approach to 

implementation of personalized 

learning plans that would first meet the 

needs of students with disabilities and 

those at risk of dropping out. 

Discussion: The Department 

appreciates the emphasis on meeting the 

needs of all students, particularly highneed students. We do not believe, 

however, that plans in response to this 

criterion must include a formal 

document and did not intend selection 

criterion (C)(1)(b) to ask for such a plan. 

We also specifically did not define 

‘‘personalized learning plan’’ in order to 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 151 / Tuesday, August 6, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 47985 

give applicants the flexibility to propose 

an approach that will maximize 

improvement in their context and 

through their proposals. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: A commenter requested 

more specificity in the term 

‘‘frequently’’ as used in selection 

criterion (C)(1)(b)(iv)(A), regarding 

frequently updated individual student 

data, and selection criterion 

(C)(2)(a)(iii), regarding frequently 

measuring student progress. This 

commenter also recommended that data 

be used to drive small group or 

individual instruction. The commenter 

suggested that data should be something 

teachers use weekly, if not daily, to 

make instructional decisions and 

implement feedback loops frequently 

enough to accelerate student learning 

and student ownership for their 

learning. 

Discussion: We agree with the 

importance of frequent data use. We 

decline to specify a particular frequency 

or group size for optimal data use. We 

believe applicants are in the best 

position to propose an approach that 

will maximize improvement in their 

context and through their proposals. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: A commenter suggested 

that the Department further study the 

concept of students earning credit based 

on demonstrated mastery, not the 

amount of time spent on a topic, 

specifically in light of core content 

standards assigned to each grade level 

and State tests that measure specific 

skills at each grade level. 

Discussion: The purpose of the Race 

to the Top—District program is to build 

on the lessons learned from the State 

competitions conducted under the Race 

to the Top program and to support bold, 

locally directed improvements in 

learning and teaching that will directly 

improve student achievement and 

educator effectiveness, and then to help 

share those practices across the Nation. 

Implementing an education system that 

moves from focusing on inputs such as 

seat time to outputs and outcomes such 

as student mastery of academic skills 

and content and realized gains in 

student achievement is the very type of 

project that aligns with the purposes of 

this program. We believe that 

demonstration of mastery can align well 

with grade-level standards and 

assessments and think that applicants 

should propose the approaches that will 

maximize improvement in their 

contexts and through their proposals, 

provided they address the Race to the 

Top—District priorities, requirements, 

and selection criteria. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: A couple commenters 

recommended that in order to support 

successful implementation, appropriate 

time and professional development for 

educators be included in the 

components of a personalized learning 

environment. A commenter 

recommended that priority be given to 

applicants that ensure educators will 

receive support through this program, 

including through the use of funds to 

recall or hire much-needed teachers, 

education support professionals, and 

specialized instructional support 

personnel to advance personalized 

instruction. 

Discussion: The Department agrees 

that support for educators is an 

important part of implementing and 

sustaining personalized learning 

environments. We believe that we have 

already emphasized this support 

throughout the selection criteria, for 

example through educator access to 

training, tools, data, and resources, in 

selection criteria (C)(2)(a), (C)(2)(b), 

(D)(2)(a), and (D)(2)(b). We welcome 

applicants’ plans for educator support 

that best support implementation of 

personalized learning environments in 

their local contexts and through their 

proposals, provided the plans address 

the priorities, requirements, and 

selection criteria. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: A commenter 

recommended that districts be required 

to put in place training and support for 

parents to ensure that parents know 

how to use tools and resources, similar 

to the emphasis on supporting students 

in selection criterion (C)(1)(c). Another 

commenter suggested that the 

Department give priority to applicants 

that focus on parental engagement, 

particularly within the competitive 

preference priority, as it is a key factor 

in student achievement. The commenter 

suggested that applicants be asked to 

include detailed parent engagement 

strategies in their applications. A couple 

commenters noted the importance of 

ensuring equitable access for parents 

and suggested paring back other 

requirements to allow more emphasis 

on important efforts such as helping 

parents. 

Discussion: The Department 

acknowledges the importance of 

parental involvement and as a result has 

already included parent engagement in 

many places throughout the priorities, 

selection criteria, and definitions. For 

example, parents are included as key 

stakeholders and users of data in 

Section B and are noted as key to 

engaging and empowering all learners in 

Section C; in Section D applicants are 

asked to ensure parents have access to 

necessary content, tools, and other 

learning resources and appropriate 

levels of technical support. We believe 

that the priorities, selection criteria, and 

definitions appropriately emphasize 

parental engagement and support. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: A commenter noted that 

although the teaching and leading 

requirements in the proposed selection 

criterion (C)(2) are strong, it is important 

to require districts to describe the role 

of the school leader in developing and 

implementing a new approach to 

personalized learning and how the 

districts will build the capacity of 

principals to lead this work. 

Discussion: We agree that school 

leaders and leadership teams play an 

important role in developing and 

implementing personalized learning 

environments and believe that this is 

emphasized in the selection criteria. 

Selection criterion (C)(2)(c) emphasizes 

that school leaders and school 

leadership teams have the training, 

policies, tools, data, and resources to 

enable them to structure an effective 

learning environment. Selection 

criterion (D)(1)(b) emphasizes flexibility 

and autonomy for school leadership 

teams. Therefore, the Department 

believes the selection criteria effectively 

address the commenter’s suggestions 

and does not believe any changes are 

necessary. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: A commenter 

recommended expanding selection 

criterion (C)(2)(d) to ask applicants to 

include, at the secondary school level 

and at the elementary school level 

(when applicable), a plan for increasing 

the number of students who receive 

instruction from effective and highly 

effective teachers fully certified to teach 

in the subject area in which they are 

assigned as the teacher of record. The 

commenter noted that schools serving 

urban and poor students are more likely 

to employ teachers who are on 

emergency waivers and who are not 

certified in the subject they teach. 

Discussion: We agree with the 

emphasis on equitable access to 

effective teachers. Through this 

criterion, we ask applicants to propose 

a plan for increasing the number of 

students who receive instruction from 

effective and highly effective teachers 

and principals, including in hard-tostaff schools, subjects, and specialty 

areas. We believe the current language 

in the criterion addresses the 

commenter’s suggestions and declines 

to provide further specificity in order to 

maintain flexibility for applicants to 

propose approaches that will maximize 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES4
47986 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 151 / Tuesday, August 6, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

improvement in their context and 

through their proposals. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: A commenter suggested 

that schools should analyze schoolwide 

discipline issues, drawing on data 

collected for the CRDC, and then 

identify strategies that improve studentstaff relationships and school 

environment. Another commenter 

agreed with our requirement that 

district grantees produce a detailed 

assessment of root causes behind 

disproportionate discipline and 

expulsions, along with a plan to address 

these causes. They suggested that 

wraparound services and supports 

would be one way to reduce 

disproportionate discipline and 

expulsion. 

Discussion: We believe program 

requirement 4 addresses the 

commenters’ suggestions. Program 

requirement 4 requires grantees in 

which minority students or students 

with disabilities are disproportionately 

subject to discipline (as defined in this 

notice) and expulsion (according to data 

submitted through the Department’s 

CRDC, which is available at http:// 

ocrdata.ed.gov/) to conduct a district 

assessment of the root causes of the 

disproportionate discipline and 

expulsions. These grantees must also 

develop a detailed plan over the grant 

period to address these root causes and 

to reduce disproportionate discipline (as 

defined in this notice) and expulsions. 

Applicants are not precluded from 

identifying strategies that improve 

student-staff relationships and school 

environment or from using wraparound 

services and supports as ways to reduce 

disproportionate discipline and 

expulsion, provided their plans meet 

the program requirements and other 

relevant priorities, requirements, and 

selection criteria. In addition, in 

selection criterion (C)(2)(c)(i), we 

emphasize the importance of structuring 

an effective learning environment using 

information that helps school leaders 

and school leadership teams (as defined 

in this notice) assess, and take steps to 

improve, individual and collective 

educator effectiveness and school 

culture and climate for the purpose of 

continuous school improvement. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: A commenter suggested 

that applicants’ plans should enable 

students to graduate college- and careerready but that plans should also include 

a focus on student health. Specifically, 

the commenter suggested that selection 

criterion (C)(2)(b)(ii) be revised to 

specify that high-quality learning 

resources should be designed to 

improve health. The commenter also 

suggested the addition of a new subcriterion, (C)(2)(b)(iv), that emphasizes 

high-quality professional development, 

learning resources, and parental 

engagement strategies focusing on 

optimizing students’ healthy 

development. In addition, the 

commenter suggested that a preference 

be given to all applicants that include 

strategies to improve overall health, 

incorporate a strong focus on physical 

activity and physical education, and 

incorporate health education skill 

building. 

Discussion: We agree that overall 

health, physical activity, and healthy 

eating are important areas of focus, and 

we believe that the current language 

allows applicants to address these areas. 

Applicants are not precluded from 

addressing these areas, provided that 

their proposals address the priorities, 

requirements, and selection criteria of 

the Race to the Top—District program. 

We decline to provide a more specific 

focus on health areas in order to allow 

applicants the flexibility to create 

proposals that will maximize 

improvement in their contexts. 

Changes: None. 

Section D. LEA Policy and Infrastructure 

Comment: A couple commenters 

recommended reducing the points 

allocated for Section D, noting that the 

selection criteria in this section include 

essential elements but were not a key 

differentiator between winning 

applicants and all other applicants in 

the prior competition. 

Discussion: Although the Department 

did not solicit comments on the number 

of points to be assigned to the selection 

criteria, we appreciate the suggestions 

from commenters in this area. We are 

keeping the majority of the criteria 

almost identical to the FY 2012 

competition and similarly will keep the 

scoring rubric consistent in order to 

maximize applicants’ ability to learn 

from past applications, peer reviewer 

comments, and other aligned resources. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: A commenter expressed 

concern that selection criterion (D)(1)(b) 

could conflict with provisions of the 

Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA), 

particularly those concerning 

Individualized Education Programs. The 

commenter also believed that this 

criterion encourages principals to 

bypass collective bargaining over such 

factors as, among other things, school 

schedules and calendars, school staffing 

models, and school-level budgets. The 

commenter suggested that the 

Department consider school autonomy 

(rather than principal autonomy) in 

which a principal and staff would, 

through the collective bargaining 

process, propose modifications to 

Federal, State, or local law, regulation, 

or contract. 

Discussion: The current language does 

not encourage or permit violations of 

the IDEA or the collective bargaining 

process. In addition, we do not propose 

that a principal be given autonomy over 

such decisions as scheduling or schoollevel budgets. Rather, by definition, a 

school leadership team is composed of 

the principal or other head of a school, 

teachers, and other educators (as 

defined in this notice) and, as 

applicable, other school employees, 

parents, students, and other community 

members. We also believe that 

requirements for the signature of a 

union representative, where applicable, 

and, in those instances where a union 

signature is not required, the selection 

criterion that asks applicants to give 

evidence that at least 70 percent of the 

teachers in a participating school 

support the proposal, help to ensure 

that the views and rights of teachers are 

considered in the development of the 

application. In order to ensure 

consistency in the interpretation of 

‘‘school leadership teams,’’ we are 

adding ‘‘(as defined in this notice)’’ after 

‘‘school leadership teams’’ when it 

appears. Finally, since the notice 

inviting applications published 

elsewhere in this issue of the Federal 

Register includes a savings clause, 

described elsewhere in this section, we 

believe it is clear that the Department 

does not encourage bypassing the 

collective bargaining process. 

Changes: We have added ‘‘(as defined 

in this notice)’’ after ‘‘school leadership 

teams’’ in selection criterion (D)(1)(b). 

Comment: A commenter supported 

our inclusion of interoperable data 

systems in selection criterion (D)(2)(d) 

and suggested preference be given to 

applicants that seek to share data across 

sectors—for example, giving school 

nurses access to medical records. In this 

way, according to the commenter, the 

Race to the Top—District program could 

advance innovative partnerships 

between schools, early learning 

providers, health systems, and other 

relevant sectors. 

Discussion: Priority 6 rewards 

applications that propose to form 

innovative partnerships that address the 

social, emotional, or behavioral needs of 

the participating students. Under the 

Race to the Top—District program, 

applicants are not precluded from 

sharing data across sectors, provided 

that they comply with all applicable 

Federal, State, and local privacy laws 

and regulations and address the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 151 / Tuesday, August 6, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 47987 

priorities, requirements, and selection 

criteria for the competition. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: A couple commenters 

suggested that efforts to decrease class 

size should be encouraged and 

supported by the program. The 

commenter noted that small class size, 

which promotes personalized attention 

and instruction, is an important 

infrastructure improvement that should 

be advanced by the Race to the Top— 

District program. 

Discussion: The Department shares 

the desire for students to receive 

personalized attention, and the Race to 

the Top—District program focuses on 

accelerating and deepening students’ 

learning through attention to their 

individual needs. We look to applicants 

to propose the strategies and plans that 

are most appropriate for maximizing 

improvement in their contexts and 

through their proposals. 

Changes: None. 

Section E. Continuous Improvement 

Comment: A couple commenters 

emphasized the importance of 

continuous improvement for all 

students and recommended that the 

point allotment for this section be 

increased. The commenters also 

recommended that the Department ask 

applicants to describe their continuous 

improvement processes in more detail, 

including use of evidence-based 

practices; use of data-driven continuous 

improvement processes at the 

classroom, school, and district levels; 

and methods to assess return on 

investment for grant funds and use of 

this information to help inform the most 

efficient and effective future investment 

of funds. 

Discussion: The Department agrees 

that it is important to have data-driven 

discussions that lead to improvement at 

the classroom, school, and district 

levels. We believe that the selection 

criteria, in particular in Section E and 

Section C, already ask applicants to 

develop plans that address data-driven 

discussions, continuous improvement, 

and return on investment. We have also 

added language about data use to 

selection criterion (F)(2), described later 

in this section of the document. In 

addition, while the Department did not 

solicit comments on the points assigned 

to the selection criteria, we appreciate 

the suggestions from commenters in this 

area. We are keeping the majority of the 

criteria almost identical to the FY 2012 

competition and similarly will keep the 

scoring rubric consistent in order to 

maximize applicants’ ability to learn 

from past applications, peer reviewer 

comments, and other aligned resources. 

While the majority of Section E will 

remain consistent with the FY 2012 

competition, selection criterion (E)(4) 

has been revised to focus more narrowly 

on evaluating the effectiveness of 

program-funded activities and to 

emphasize that these evaluations should 

be rigorous. The Department believes 

selection criteria (E)(1) and (F)(2) 

provide an opportunity for applicants to 

address the areas previously included in 

selection criterion (E)(4). 

Changes: We have revised selection 

criterion (E)(4) to add ‘‘rigorously’’ 

before ‘‘evaluate’’ and to include only 

the first part of the FY 2012 selection 

criterion, and have removed the 

following language ‘‘and to more 

productively use time, staff, money, or 

other resources in order to improve 

results, through such strategies as 

improved use of technology, working 

with community partners, 

compensation reform, and modification 

of school schedules and structures (e.g., 

service delivery, school leadership 

teams (as defined in this notice), and 

decision-making structures).’’ 

Comment: A commenter suggested 

that the Department revise the 

description of the performance 

measures for grades 4–8 and 9–12 in 

which the applicant is asked to propose 

a health or social-emotional leading 

indicator. The commenter suggested 

adding examples of academic behaviors 

that research shows are linked to high 

school and postsecondary success, 

including such measures as motivation, 

social engagement, and self-regulation. 

Discussion: Because the potential 

applicants and plans are so diverse, we 

feel that it is important for applicants to 

propose performance measures they 

believe will provide the best leading 

indicators of progress against their 

specific plans. Therefore, we decline to 

include specific examples in this area. 

Changes: None. 

Section F. Budget and Sustainability 

Comment: A couple commenters 

noted that the selection criteria for the 

budget are important components, and 

they recommended keeping the point 

allocation the same for this section. A 

commenter supported the Department’s 

approach to post-grant sustainability 

and recommended that the Department 

clarify that scoring for selection 

criterion (F)(2) will not be adversely 

affected if applicants choose not to 

include a detailed budget. 

Discussion: We agree that applicants 

should not lose points under selection 

criterion (F)(2) if they choose not to 

include a detailed budget, and the 

criterion already reflects this. We will 

reinforce this for applicants and peer 

reviewers through FAQs or technical 

assistance. In addition, we are adding 

language to selection criterion (F)(2) that 

broadens the focus and emphasizes the 

importance of gathering and using data 

to evaluate past investments and inform 

future ones. We believe this will help 

make selection criterion (F)(2) more 

complete and will provide more ways 

for applicants to address it in a highquality manner. In addition, while the 

Department did not solicit comments on 

the points assigned to the selection 

criteria, we appreciate the suggestions 

from commenters in this area. We are 

keeping the majority of the criteria 

almost identical to the FY 2012 

competition and similarly will keep the 

scoring rubric consistent in order to 

maximize applicants’ ability to learn 

from past applications, peer reviewer 

comments, and other aligned resources. 

Changes: We have added language to 

selection criterion (F)(2) that asks 

applicants for a plan for how they will 

evaluate the effectiveness of past 

investments and use data to inform 

future investments. We also added 

language to this criterion noting that 

this plan may address how the applicant 

will evaluate improvements in 

productivity and outcomes to inform a 

post-grant budget and may include an 

estimated budget. 

General Comments on Selection Criteria 

Comment: A commenter 

recommended that the Department add 

an additional selection criterion focused 

on identifying risks and barriers and on 

articulating a comprehensive risk 

mitigation plan. The commenter 

suggested that allocating points to a 

criterion focused on this topic would 

force a more deliberate approach to 

thinking through challenges and solving 

them proactively, especially during 

implementation of applicants’ 

proposals. 

Discussion: We agree that it is 

important to consider risks and how to 

mitigate them and will explore ways to 

incorporate this further into our ongoing 

work with grantees as they implement 

their proposals. We are keeping the 

majority of the criteria almost identical 

to the FY 2012 competition in order to 

maximize applicants’ ability to learn 

from past applications, peer reviewer 

comments, and other aligned resources. 

Therefore, we decline to add an 

additional selection criterion for 

applicants. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: A commenter suggested 

that the application be more specific in 

inviting district leaders to engage in 

systematic, research-based school 

climate reform efforts that strive to 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES4
47988 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 151 / Tuesday, August 6, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

engage a variety of stakeholders in the 

school improvement process. The 

commenter asked that these efforts 

recognize social, emotional, civic, and 

intellectual aspects of learning. 

Discussion: In Priority 6, we 

encourage districts to engage 

community partners and stakeholders as 

is appropriate in their proposal. The 

definition for ‘‘Family and Community 

Supports’’ guides districts to form 

partnerships that help serve the social, 

behavioral, and emotional needs of 

students. We encourage partnerships 

that focus on the social and emotional 

needs of students and give applicants 

flexibility in addressing the most 

appropriate aspects of learning for their 

students that will maximize 

improvement in their context and 

through their proposals. Additionally, 

in selection criterion (C)(2)(c)(i), 

applicants are asked to propose an 

approach that helps school leaders and 

school leadership teams assess, and take 

steps to improve, individual and 

collective educator effectiveness and 

school culture and climate for the 

purpose of continuous school 

improvement. Therefore, we think that 

the language already addresses the 

comment and that no changes are 

necessary. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: A few commenters 

suggested that the scoring rubrics 

should be altered to include 

assessments of capacity and viability, 

especially for LEAs with ambitious 

inter-district and inter-state plans for 

cooperation. 

Discussion: We believe that the 

current priorities, definitions, and 

selection criteria already enable 

assessments of capacity and viability. 

As part of the proposal, applicants are 

asked to submit high-quality plans and 

ambitious yet achievable goals, 

performance measures, and annual 

targets. In determining the quality of an 

applicant’s plan, peer reviewers will 

evaluate the key goals, the activities to 

be undertaken and rationale for the 

activities, the timeline, the deliverables, 

the parties responsible for implementing 

the activities, and the overall credibility 

of the plan (as judged, in part, by the 

information submitted as supporting 

evidence). Peer reviewers will also 

determine whether an applicant has 

‘‘ambitious yet achievable’’ goals, 

performance measures, and annual 

targets that are meaningful for the 

applicant’s proposal and for assessing 

implementation progress, successes, and 

challenges. To help ensure consistency 

of interpretation and scoring across 

reviewers, the Department will provide 

peer reviewers with training and a 

detailed scoring chart. Finally, although 

the Department did not solicit 

comments on the points to be assigned 

to the selection criteria and does not 

include the points in this regulatory 

action, we appreciate the scoring 

suggestions. We are keeping the 

majority of the selection criteria almost 

identical to the FY 2012 competition 

and similarly will keep the scoring 

rubric consistent in order to maximize 

applicants’ ability to learn from past 

applications, peer reviewer comments, 

and other aligned resources. 

Changes: None. 

Priorities 

Priority 1 

Comment: A commenter 

recommended referencing student 

engagement and ownership of learning 

within Priority 1, as both are important 

components of personalized learning 

environments and essential to 

increasing student achievement. The 

commenter noted that student 

engagement and having a sense of 

ownership of learning are included in 

the selection criteria in Section A but 

that it would be helpful to include them 

in Priority 1 as well. 

Discussion: We agree with the 

emphasis on increasing student 

engagement and ownership. However, 

we believe this is already a central 

concept in the Race to the Top—District 

program and decline to add additional 

language to Priority 1. 

Changes: None. 

Priority 6 

Comment: Numerous commenters 

expressed support for Priority 6, in 

particular for the focus on partnerships; 

innovative health, safety, and 

community programs for high-need 

students; and capacity-building for 

districts. A commenter noted that this 

priority could be a good basis for a 

competitive grant program on its own or 

in combination with work on the 

Common Core standards, while other 

commenters noted support for keeping 

it as a competitive preference priority. 

Another commenter recommended that 

the Department increase the number of 

points available for this priority if the 

Department uses the priority as a 

competitive preference priority. A 

commenter suggested that preference be 

given to proposals that address early 

learning, given rates of reading failure 

among children. The commenter cited 

the importance of reading ability as an 

individual predictor of adult health 

status as well. A few commenters 

suggested changes to Priority 6. A 

commenter suggested that the 

Department add ‘‘community-based 

media organizations’’ to the illustrative 

list of partners to help ensure that 

public media continues to be a key 

partner in education. Another 

commenter suggested that the 

Department increase its focus on 

partnerships with small businesses. A 

commenter suggested that a preference 

be given to applicants that include a 

specific coordinated effort among 

education, public health, child health, 

and early care providers, as well as 

services for children, youth, and their 

families that span from cradle to 

graduation. A couple commenters 

described the importance of aligning the 

approach to Priority 6 with the 

applicant’s personalized learning goals 

and plans. These commenters also 

recommended that the priority further 

detail expectations regarding the quality 

of the supports and partners, for 

example by emphasizing that the 

supports are based on student needs, are 

grounded in evidence, have a 

demonstrated record of improving 

student achievement, are integrated into 

the districts’ or schools’ vision for 

teaching and learning, and directly align 

with school and classroom level 

instruction and goals. 

Discussion: We appreciate the support 

for Priority 6 and the suggestions for 

expanding it. While the Department did 

not solicit comments on the number of 

points to be awarded under this priority 

if it decides to use it as a competitive 

preference priority, we appreciate the 

suggestions from commenters in this 

area. We are keeping the majority of the 

criteria and priorities almost identical to 

the FY 2012 competition in order to 

maximize applicants’ ability to learn 

from past applications, peer reviewer 

comments, and other aligned resources. 

In that regard, we are planning to use 

Priority 6 as a competitive preference 

priority in the FY 2013 competition and 

will keep the points assigned to the 

priority consistent with those from the 

FY 2012 competition. In addition, 

because the potential applicants and 

plans are so diverse, we feel that it is 

important to allow flexibility for 

applicants to propose the specific 

partners and partnership approaches 

that will maximize improvement in 

their contexts and through their 

proposals. For these reasons and based 

on the strong support for Priority 6, we 

decline to revise the priority. Finally, 

applicants are not precluded from 

addressing the matters raised by the 

commenters in their proposals, 

provided the proposals address the Race 

to the Top—District priorities, 

requirements, and selection criteria. 

Changes: None. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 151 / Tuesday, August 6, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 47989 

Comment: A commenter expressed 

concern that Priority 6 may be seen as 

an ‘‘add-on’’ and not fit 

comprehensively into district plans. The 

commenter recommended that districts 

be allowed to delay implementation of 

Priority 6 until the second year of the 

grant period so that they may focus first 

on implementation of personalized 

learning environments and thoughtful 

selection of partners. The commenter 

also recommended that applicants 

refrain from naming partners in their 

application, similar to the approach for 

vendors. 

Discussion: Priority 6 specifically asks 

applicants to describe how the 

partnership supports the applicant’s 

plan for addressing Priority 1, rewarding 

alignment of the applicants’ partnership 

proposals and broader plans. In 

addition, the Department expects 

applicants to propose ambitious yet 

achievable plans for implementing their 

proposals. Applicants have the 

flexibility to apply for the award range 

that aligns with their implementation 

and scale-up plan and to sequence 

activities in the way that best achieves 

the goals outlined in their proposal. In 

addition, we believe it is important to 

allow applicants to identify proposed 

partnerships as appropriate and to 

provide sufficient detail for peer 

reviewers to determine the extent to 

which the applicant has met the 

priority. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: A couple commenters 

suggested that the Department give 

priority to applicants that focus on 

improving overall child health, 

including healthy eating, physical 

activity, social-emotional competencies, 

socioeconomic needs, and mental 

health. They explained the positive 

correlation between physical health and 

academic performance. A commenter 

suggested that applicants emphasize 

children’s overall healthy development 

throughout the application. This 

commenter would like to see health 

measured in data systems, data shared 

across systems in different sectors, 

increased relationships with health care 

providers, and preference to applicants 

that address health literacy and 

incorporate a strong focus on physical 

activity and physical education. 

Discussion: The Department 

recognizes the importance of student 

health and its relationship to academic 

achievement. Within Priority 6, the 

Department gives priority to applicants 

that propose partnerships designed to 

augment the schools’ resources by 

providing additional student and family 

supports to schools that address the 

social, emotional, or behavioral needs of 

the participating students. The first 

example of this type of partnership 

includes public health organizations. In 

addition, the definition of ‘‘family and 

community supports’’ includes child 

and youth health programs, such as 

physical, mental, behavioral, and 

emotional health programs. We believe 

that the current language sufficiently 

emphasizes the importance of student 

health while allowing districts 

flexibility to develop proposals that will 

maximize improvement in their 

contexts and through their proposals. In 

addition, applicants are not precluded 

from addressing the matters raised by 

the commenter in their proposals, 

provided the proposals address the Race 

to the Top—District priorities, 

requirements, and criteria. 

Changes: None. 

Requirements 

Comment: A commenter suggested 

that the minimum percentage of 

participating students from low-income 

families served by a project be increased 

from 40 percent to 60 percent to ensure 

that Federal funds are targeted to 

students with the greatest need. 

Discussion: We believe that this 

suggestion may reduce the number of 

high-need students who benefit from the 

program rather than increase it. Based 

on data from the National Center for 

Education Statistics (NCES) 2010–2011 

Common Core of Data (CCD) school and 

agency files, more than 82 percent of 

students eligible for a free or reducedprice lunch subsidy attend a school in 

which at least 40 percent of the students 

are eligible for such a subsidy. Further, 

more than 60,000 schools 

(approximately 63 percent of schools 

nationally) have at least 40 percent of 

their students eligible for a free or 

reduced-price lunch subsidy. A total of 

approximately 29 million students 

(roughly 59 percent of elementary and 

secondary students) attend those 

schools. By contrast, only 59 percent of 

students eligible for a free or reducedprice lunch subsidy attend a school in 

which at least 60 percent of the students 

are eligible for such a subsidy. In 

addition, fewer than 38,000 schools 

have at least 60 percent of their students 

eligible for a free or reduced-price lunch 

subsidy, and only 18 million students 

(36 percent of students nationally) 

attend such a school. The Department 

believes that requiring applicants to 

develop proposals in which at least 40 

percent of the participating students are 

from low-income families ensures that 

program funds are targeted effectively to 

the neediest students. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: A couple commenters 

suggested that the definition of ‘‘local 

educational agency’’ be amended to 

explicitly make schools operated by the 

Bureau of Indian Education eligible to 

receive funds under the Race to the 

Top—District program. 

Discussion: The proposed definition 

of ‘‘local educational agency’’ is the 

definition from section 9101(26) of the 

ESEA, which includes a provision 

under which a BIE school may be 

considered an LEA. If a BIE school is an 

LEA, the BIE school would be able to 

apply for a Race to the Top—District 

grant as an eligible LEA on its own or 

as part of a consortium. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: A commenter questioned 

the appropriateness of including in a 

grant program a requirement that an 

applicant agree to implement a 

superintendent evaluation system that 

reflects (1) the feedback of many 

stakeholders, including but not limited 

to educators, principals, and parents; 

and (2) student outcomes. A second 

commenter expressed support for the 

superintendent evaluation requirement 

and suggested that there be a common 

definition of ‘‘student outcomes’’ and 

that the definition should include a 

measure of student growth that aligns 

with the requirements for teacher 

evaluation. 

Discussion: For reasons similar to 

those underlying the emphasis on 

teacher and principal evaluation, the 

Department believes it is important for 

superintendents to be evaluated. We 

also believe that the definition of 

‘‘superintendent evaluation’’ provides 

sufficient flexibility for applicants to 

propose evaluation systems that reflect 

their specific circumstances while 

aligning to the approaches to teacher 

and principal evaluation in other 

Department programs. We agree that the 

definition of ‘‘superintendent 

evaluation’’ should include a measure of 

student growth to allow even better 

alignment to teacher and principal 

evaluation approaches and are revising 

the definition accordingly. 

Changes: We have added language to 

the definition of ‘‘superintendent 

evaluation’’ to indicate that student 

outcomes include student growth for all 

students (including English learners and 

students with disabilities). 

Comment: A commenter expressed 

concern that many of the teacher 

evaluation systems are currently being 

implemented without being piloted, 

field-tested, or validated and 

encouraged the Department to focus on 

those applicants that would build in 

such feedback systems in early 

implementation phases. The commenter 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES4
47990 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 151 / Tuesday, August 6, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

also urged the Department to stress the 

importance of implementing evaluation 

systems with fidelity. Another 

commenter indicated that tying teacher 

evaluations to student test scores had 

changed school culture from supporting 

innovation and trying new things to test 

preparation and a fear of change. The 

commenter further noted that teachers 

are leaving the profession and that good 

teachers are leaving at-risk schools for 

fear of being unable to improve the test 

scores of high-need children. On the 

other hand, this same commenter 

applauded the Department for shifting 

the rhetoric from removing bad teachers 

to developing teachers and elevating the 

profession. 

Discussion: To be eligible to receive a 

Race to the Top—District award, each 

LEA must include an assurance that it 

will implement not later than the 2014– 

2015 school year a teacher evaluation 

system that meets the Race to the Top— 

District requirements. In addition, an 

application from an individual LEA 

must include, among others, the 

signature of the local teacher union or 

association president if the LEA 

employs teachers who are represented 

by a teacher union or association (in a 

bargaining or non-bargaining State). For 

LEAs in which teachers do not have 

bargaining representation, applicants 

are asked to provide evidence that at 

least 70 percent of teachers in 

participating schools support the 

proposal. We believe that these 

requirements and selection criteria help 

to ensure that teacher evaluation 

systems are developed and 

implemented collaboratively with 

teacher representation. ESEA flexibility 

provides for a pilot year for teacher and 

principal evaluation and support 

systems. As of July 15, 2013, thirty-nine 

States plus the District of Columbia 

have been approved for ESEA 

flexibility, and an additional six States 

plus Puerto Rico and the Bureau of 

Indian Education currently have 

requests under review. The remaining 

five States have either not yet requested 

ESEA flexibility, or have withdrawn 

their requests. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: A couple commenters 

asked that the Department, through the 

Race to the Top—District program, 

provide incentives for greater charter 

sector accountability and transparency 

through clear and measurable objectives 

in charter contracts; clear and rigorous 

guidelines and procedures for charter 

school application reviews and ongoing 

oversight; and regular, rigorous reviews 

of charter schools by authorizers. 

Discussion: We believe that the 

selection criteria require applicants to 

consider how they will rigorously 

review and measure the progress of 

participating schools, including charter 

schools, toward program goals. For 

example, the selection criteria require 

an applicant to include in its proposal 

strategies for ensuring that students are 

making progress toward college- and 

career-ready standards and graduation 

requirements. Under selection criterion 

(E)(1) an applicant also must present ‘‘a 

high-quality plan for implementing a 

rigorous continuous process that 

provides timely and regular feedback on 

progress toward project goals and 

opportunities for ongoing corrections 

and improvements during and after the 

term of the grant.’’ Given the emphasis 

on personalized learning, we do not 

believe it is appropriate to add a 

criterion focused specifically on charter 

school accountability, but applicants are 

not precluded from including an 

emphasis on this in their proposals, 

provided the proposals address the Race 

to the Top—District priorities, 

requirements, and criteria. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: A commenter expressed 

strong support for the proposed shift in 

the award ranges and lowering of the 

minimum number of participating 

students in the top range. The 

commenter suggested that this change 

will enable districts to take a more 

deliberate approach to the roll-out of 

personalized learning environments 

across a set of students and teachers 

within the district. Another commenter 

stated that for the largest award range, 

to ease the transition to implementing 

personalized learning environments, a 

grantee should be required to serve a 

minimum of 15,000 students during the 

first year of the grant and a minimum of 

20,000 students during the second year 

of the grant. Similarly, another 

commenter recommended having a 

phase-in period that lasts beyond the 

first year of the grant. 

Discussion: The Department expects 

applicants to propose an ambitious yet 

achievable plan for implementing their 

proposals. We will not lower the 

minimum number of participating 

students for the first year within the 

largest award range because we want to 

encourage plans of sufficient size and 

scope to support bold, innovative 

reforms. In addition, applicants already 

have the flexibility to apply for the 

award range that aligns with their 

implementation and scale-up plans and 

to sequence activities in the way that 

best achieves the goals outlined in their 

proposal, provided that applicants begin 

implementation with a number of 

participating students not lower than 

the minimum number of participating 

students in the award range for which 

they applied and that they address the 

priorities, requirements, and selection 

criteria. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: A couple commenters 

suggested the Department should 

emphasize that lower-capacity districts 

are allowed to collaborate and partner 

with higher-capacity districts to 

effectively leverage existing district 

strengths to improve struggling districts. 

Discussion: This approach to 

collaboration is permitted. The 

Department welcomes inter-district 

collaboration, and any LEAs may form 

consortia, provided they meet the 

eligibility and application requirements. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: A couple commenters 

suggested eliminating the requirement 

that an applicant provide the State with 

the opportunity to comment on the 

application. The commenters noted that 

State educational agencies have formal 

and extensive educational expertise and 

missions but that they are not 

responsible for delivering educational 

services at the local level. A commenter 

requested that the Department clarify 

the weight that a peer reviewer should 

give to State comments during the 

application review process. The 

commenter expressed concern that 

assigning a high weight to such 

comments could stifle innovation at the 

local level. Another commenter stated 

that LEAs should have the freedom to 

identify and propose innovations that 

they feel best meet their needs, 

consistent with Federal requirements 

and State law. Furthermore, the 

commenters indicated that LEAs should 

not be required to document that the 

State ‘‘declined’’ to comment but rather 

that it should be sufficient for an 

applicant to provide evidence that the 

State was provided with the opportunity 

to comment for at least five business 

days. 

The same commenters also provided 

similar suggestions with respect to 

comments from local entities. The 

commenters suggested eliminating the 

requirement that an applicant provide 

the mayor or city or town administrator 

with the opportunity to comment on the 

application. A commenter stated that 

there is a profound mismatch of 

expertise, experience, accountability, 

liability, and mission between local 

school districts and local governments 

and that many city and county 

government leaders and managers are 

not required to have and do not have 

expertise in complex educational 

systems, just as many school board 

members or superintendents are not 

required to have and do not have 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 151 / Tuesday, August 6, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 47991 

expertise on municipal services. Both 

commenters noted that a county or city 

could serve multiple school districts. A 

commenter stated that requiring an 

applicant to identify all entities eligible 

to submit comments, provide the 

application to these entities, and 

document all entities’ decision not to 

comment or incorporate comments into 

the final application or otherwise 

attempt to respond to comments prior to 

submitting the final application is 

unnecessarily burdensome. The 

commenter further stated that it is 

unclear how an applicant should 

address or reconcile the comments 

received. One commenter expressed 

concern that collecting possibly 

contradictory and inconsistent feedback 

from multiple stakeholders could 

confuse rather than aid peer reviewers. 

A commenter further expressed concern 

that potential applicants could be 

discouraged from developing 

applications because of this additional 

layer of complexity in the application 

process. 

Discussion: The Department believes 

that applicants under the Race to the 

Top—District program have sufficient 

flexibility to develop proposals that best 

meet their needs. However, we also 

believe that it is important for State 

officials to have the opportunity to 

comment on applications, to identify 

whether the proposed reforms are 

aligned with statewide reform efforts, to 

provide assistance where relevant, and 

to provide meaningful comments on the 

proposals. We also believe that it is 

important that mayors (or city or town 

administrators) be given the opportunity 

to comment on the applications. 

Services provided by municipalities can 

help to support the educational reforms 

proposed in the applications. Mayors or 

other local officials can decline to 

comment on an application if they 

believe that it is out of their area of 

expertise or authority. The State and 

local comments are an application 

requirement and not related to a specific 

selection criterion. In addition, the 

application requirement permits LEAs 

to respond to the State and local 

comments where they feel it is 

necessary. Therefore, peer reviewers 

will take comments into consideration 

as appropriate when assessing relevant 

selection criteria such as stakeholder 

engagement and State context for 

implementation. The requirement that 

State and local officials comment on an 

application was in place for the first 

Race to the Top—District competition 

and the Department is not aware of 

these requirements preventing a 

potential applicant from applying. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: A couple commenters 

recommended the Department require 

any LEA located on Indian lands to 

consult with the appropriate tribes and 

provide them with the same 10-day 

period to comment on the application. 

The commenters requested that tribes be 

listed as potential partners and that an 

LEA on Indian lands receive additional 

preference points if it describes a plan 

to consult and partner with the 

applicable tribes. Further, the 

commenters stated that any LEA that 

does not participate in this consultation 

should be ineligible to receive a Race to 

the Top—District grant. 

Discussion: We agree that any LEA 

located on tribal lands, or proposing to 

address native student education should 

coordinate with the appropriate tribes 

when developing an application and 

implementing the project. Because local 

contexts vary significantly, applicants 

will need to demonstrate that they 

provided the mayor or other comparable 

local official at least 10 business days to 

comment on the application. We also 

emphasize stakeholder engagement in 

other sections. For example, selection 

criterion (B)(4) asks applicants to 

provide evidence of meaningful 

stakeholder engagement in the 

development of the proposal and 

meaningful stakeholder support for the 

proposal, and tribes are specifically 

noted in this criterion. Therefore, we 

feel that the language already addresses 

the commenters’ suggestions and that no 

changes are necessary. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Some commenters 

supported requiring the signature of a 

local union leader on the application. 

These commenters noted the 

importance of labor-management 

collaboration to the successful 

implementation of school reforms. A 

commenter suggested that the 

Department require applicants to 

provide evidence that staff at the 

participating schools have been 

informed and agreed to participate in 

the proposal. A commenter asked that 

the Department carefully consider 

reasons given by applicants that 

indicate that the signature of a local 

teacher union or association president is 

‘‘not applicable.’’ This commenter noted 

that, even with the collaboration 

requirements, some districts developed 

applications without the input of their 

union counterparts or asked for 

signatures at the last minute. A 

commenter also suggested that more 

importance and prominence should be 

given to approval by the local union 

president as a condition of participation 

in the Race to the Top—District 

program. 

A couple commenters encouraged the 

Department to require that 

memorandum of understanding (MOU) 

agreements include the signature of a 

local teacher union or association 

president in order to assure that all 

parties have seen and agreed to all 

documents submitted for grant 

consideration. A commenter further 

suggested that consortium applications 

involving States/districts/schools with 

recognized bargaining agents and States/ 

districts/schools without such 

representation include some indication 

of educator agreement in the LEAs 

lacking educator representation. 

A couple commenters recommended 

eliminating the requirement that a local 

teacher union or association president 

sign the application. These commenters 

noted that although the superintendent 

and school board are legal 

representatives of the school district as 

a unit of local government, the union is 

not. The commenters noted further that 

requiring the signature of the local 

teacher union or association 

misrepresents the respective roles of 

employees, superintendents, and school 

boards. 

Discussion: The Department believes 

that the support of educators is essential 

to help ensure that the proposed reforms 

will be effective in better preparing 

students for college and careers. 

Therefore, we will retain the 

requirement that, when applicable, an 

application include the signature of the 

local teacher union or association 

president. When reviewing applications 

for eligibility, the Department carefully 

considers those applications indicating 

that the union signature is not 

applicable. Consortium applicants are 

required to include the signature of a 

local teacher union or association 

president, where applicable, on each 

MOU. For individual LEA applicants 

and for each LEA in a consortium, if the 

signature of a local teacher union or 

association president is not required, 

applications are evaluated based on the 

extent to which the LEA has 

demonstrated that at least 70 percent of 

the teachers from participating schools 

support the proposal. Therefore, we 

believe that the requirements and 

selection criteria encourage sufficient 

levels of educator support. 

Finally, we believe requiring the 

signatures of the superintendent or chief 

executive officer (CEO), local school 

board president, and local teacher union 

or association president (where 

applicable) is important to maximizing 

the likelihood of timely, high-quality 

implementation of ambitious plans, and 

we will continue to require all three 

signatures. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES4
47992 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 151 / Tuesday, August 6, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

1Race to the Top Phase 1, 2, and 3 States are: 

Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, 

Hawaii, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, 

Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, North 

Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, 

Tennessee, and the District of Columbia. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: A couple commenters 

suggested that the Department include a 

savings clause that recognizes and 

supports existing collective bargaining 

agreements. 

Discussion: The FY 2012 NIA 

included a savings clause, and the FY 

2013 NIA also includes it. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: A commenter suggested 

that the Department require that an 

application include the local union or 

association president’s signature, even 

in the absence of collective bargaining, 

to ensure the support of key 

stakeholders and to bolster the district’s 

capacity for success. 

Discussion: Selection criterion 

(B)(4)(a)(ii) asks LEAs without collective 

bargaining representation to provide as 

part of the application evidence that at 

least 70 percent of teachers from 

participating schools (as defined in this 

notice) support the proposal. The 

Department believes that this selection 

criterion sufficiently encourages 

applicants to engage teachers in the 

development of the proposal and 

demonstrate support for it. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Some commenters 

suggested that, in the interest of 

transparency, the Department post more 

information about applicants. 

Specifically, the commenters suggested 

that before the competition the 

Department post all notices of intent to 

apply, including the names of each 

member of a consortium, and that after 

the competition the Department post all 

applications, including the signers of 

each application. A couple commenters 

described instances where union leaders 

were shown applications close to the 

deadline and felt pressured to sign with 

little or no time to review. A commenter 

suggested that the notices of intent to 

apply require the signatures of all 

school districts and their respective 

unions. 

Discussion: We agree that stakeholder 

engagement and transparency in these 

areas are very important. In the FY 2012 

Race to the Top—District competition, 

the Department posted a list of districts 

intending to apply, all winning 

applications, and the scores and 

comments for all applicants, and we 

will continue to do so in the FY 2013 

competition. We have not posted 

appendices for the FY 2012 competition 

and do not anticipate posting them for 

the FY 2013 competition due to the 

length of the appendices and the need 

to redact personally identifiable 

information. Therefore, we intend to 

explore ways to make more readily 

available the names of all people who 

signed applications and MOUs, for 

example by including them within the 

body of the application. We will 

consider revising the notice of intent to 

apply form to include the names of both 

member and lead LEAs for consortium 

applicants. We will include in the NIA 

and application the recommendation for 

LEAs to share with relevant 

stakeholders their intent to apply. 

Finally, in selection criterion (B)(4), to 

further emphasize the importance of 

early stakeholder engagement, we are 

replacing the word ‘‘in’’ with the word 

‘‘throughout’’ so that the criterion asks 

for meaningful stakeholder engagement 

‘‘throughout’’ the development of the 

proposal. 

Changes: We plan to make more 

readily available the names of all 

individuals who signed the application 

and MOUs, request names of member 

and lead LEAs for consortium 

applicants in notices of intent to apply, 

and include in the NIA the 

recommendation for LEAs to share with 

relevant stakeholders their intent to 

apply. In selection criterion (B)(4), we 

are replacing the word ‘‘in’’ with the 

word ‘‘throughout.’’ 

Final Priorities 

The Secretary establishes six 

priorities. The Department may apply 

one or more of these priorities in any 

year in which a competition for program 

funds is held. In addition, in any year 

in which a Race to the Top—District 

competition is held, we may include 

priorities from the notice of final 

supplemental priorities and definitions 

for discretionary grant programs, 

published in the Federal Register on 

December 15, 2010 (75 FR 78486), and 

corrected on May 12, 2011 (76 FR 

276637). 

Priority 1—Personalized Learning 

Environments. 

To meet this priority, an applicant 

must coherently and comprehensively 

address how it will build on the core 

educational assurance areas (as defined 

in this notice) to create learning 

environments that are designed to 

significantly improve learning and 

teaching through the personalization of 

strategies, tools, and supports for 

students and educators that are aligned 

with college- and career-ready standards 

(as defined in this notice) or collegeand career-ready graduation 

requirements (as defined in this notice); 

accelerate student achievement and 

deepen student learning by meeting the 

academic needs of each student; 

increase the effectiveness of educators; 

expand student access to the most 

effective educators; decrease 

achievement gaps across student groups; 

and increase the rates at which students 

graduate from high school prepared for 

college and careers. 

Priority 2—Non-Rural LEAs in Race to 

the Top States.1

To meet this priority, an applicant 

must be an LEA or a consortium of LEAs 

in which more than 50 percent of 

participating students (as defined in this 

notice) are in non-rural LEAs in States 

that received awards under the Race to 

the Top Phase 1, Phase 2, or Phase 3 

competition. 

Priority 3—Rural LEAs in Race to the 

Top States. 

To meet this priority, an applicant 

must be an LEA or a consortium of LEAs 

in which more than 50 percent of 

participating students (as defined in this 

notice) are in rural LEAs (as defined in 

this notice) in States that received 

awards under the Race to the Top Phase 

1, Phase 2, or Phase 3 competition. 

Priority 4—Non-Rural LEAs in nonRace to the Top States. 

To meet this priority, an applicant 

must be an LEA or a consortium of LEAs 

in which more than 50 percent of 

participating students (as defined in this 

notice) are in non-rural LEAs in States 

that did not receive awards under the 

Race to the Top Phase 1, Phase 2, or 

Phase 3 competition. 

Priority 5—Rural LEAs in non-Race to 

the Top States. 

To meet this priority, an applicant 

must be an LEA or a consortium of LEAs 

in which more than 50 percent of 

participating students (as defined in this 

notice) are in rural LEAs (as defined in 

this notice) in States that did not receive 

awards under the Race to the Top Phase 

1, Phase 2, or Phase 3 competition. 

Priority 6—Results, Resource 

Alignment, and Integrated Services. 

To meet this priority, an applicant 

must demonstrate the extent to which 

the applicant proposes to integrate 

public or private resources in a 

partnership designed to augment the 

schools’ resources by providing 

additional student and family supports 

to schools that address the social, 

emotional, or behavioral needs of the 

participating students (as defined in this 

notice), giving highest priority to 

students in participating schools (as 

defined in this notice) with high-need 

students (as defined in this notice). To 

meet this priority, an applicant’s 

proposal does not need to be 

comprehensive and may provide 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 151 / Tuesday, August 6, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 47993 

student and family supports that focus 

on a subset of these needs. 

To meet this priority, an applicant 

must— 

(1) Provide a description of the 

coherent and sustainable partnership to 

support the plan described in Priority 1 

that it has formed with public or private 

organizations, such as public health, 

before-school, after-school, and social 

service providers; integrated student 

service providers; businesses, 

philanthropies, civic groups, and other 

community-based organizations; early 

learning programs; and postsecondary 

institutions; 

(2) Identify not more than 10 

population-level desired results for 

students in the LEA or consortium of 

LEAs that align with and support the 

applicant’s broader Race to the Top— 

District proposal. These results must 

include both (a) educational results or 

other education outcomes (e.g., children 

enter kindergarten prepared to succeed 

in school, children exit third grade 

reading at grade level, and students 

graduate from high school college- and 

career-ready) and (b) family and 

community supports (as defined in this 

notice) results; 

(3) Describe how the partnership 

would— 

(a) Track the selected indicators that 

measure each result at the aggregate 

level for all children within the LEA or 

consortium and at the student level for 

the participating students (as defined in 

this notice); 

(b) Use the data to target its resources 

in order to improve results for 

participating students (as defined in this 

notice), with special emphasis on 

students facing significant challenges, 

such as students with disabilities, 

English learners, and students affected 

by poverty (including highly mobile 

students), family instability, or other 

child welfare issues; 

(c) Develop a strategy to scale the 

model beyond the participating students 

(as defined in this notice) to at least 

other high-need students (as defined in 

this notice) and communities in the LEA 

or consortium over time; and 

(d) Improve results over time; 

(4) Describe how the partnership 

would, within participating schools (as 

defined in this notice), integrate 

education and other services (e.g., 

services that address social-emotional 

and behavioral needs, acculturation for 

immigrants and refugees) for 

participating students (as defined in this 

notice); 

(5) Describe how the partnership and 

LEA or consortium would build the 

capacity of staff in participating schools 

(as defined in this notice) by providing 

them with tools and supports to— 

(a) Assess the needs and assets of 

participating students (as defined in this 

notice) that are aligned with the 

partnership’s goals for improving the 

education and family and community 

supports (as defined in this notice) 

identified by the partnership; 

(b) Identify and inventory the needs 

and assets of the school and community 

that are aligned with those goals for 

improving the education and family and 

community supports (as defined in this 

notice) identified by the applicant; 

(c) Create a decision-making process 

and infrastructure to select, implement, 

and evaluate supports that address the 

individual needs of participating 

students (as defined in this notice) and 

support improved results; 

(d) Engage parents and families of 

participating students (as defined in this 

notice) in both decision-making about 

solutions to improve results over time 

and in addressing student, family, and 

school needs; and 

(e) Routinely assess the applicant’s 

progress in implementing its plan to 

maximize impact and resolve challenges 

and problems; and 

(6) Identify its annual ambitious yet 

achievable performance measures for 

the proposed population-level and 

describe desired results for students. 

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 

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)). 

Final Eligibility Requirements 

The Secretary establishes the 

following requirements that an LEA or 

consortium of LEAs 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: To be eligible 

for a grant under this competition: 

(a) An applicant must be an 

individual LEA (as defined in this 

notice) or a consortium of individual 

LEAs from one of the 50 States, the 

District of Columbia, or the 

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. 

(i) LEAs may apply for all or a portion 

of their schools, for specific grades, or 

for subject-area bands (e.g., lowestperforming schools, secondary schools, 

schools connected by a feeder pattern, 

middle school math, or preschool 

through third grade). 

(ii) Consortia may include LEAs from 

multiple States. 

(iii) Each LEA may participate in only 

one Race to the Top—District 

application. Successful applicants (i.e., 

grantees) from past Race to the Top— 

District competitions may not apply for 

additional funding. 

(b) An applicant must serve a 

minimum of 2,000 participating 

students (as defined in this notice) or 

may serve fewer than 2,000 

participating students (as defined in this 

notice) provided those students are 

served by a consortium of at least 10 

LEAs and at least 75 percent of the 

students served by each LEA are 

participating students (as defined in this 

notice). An applicant must base its 

requested award amount on the number 

of participating students (as defined in 

this notice) it proposes to serve at the 

time of application or within the first 

100 days of the grant award. 

(c) At least 40 percent of participating 

students (as defined in this notice) 

across all participating schools (as 

defined in this notice) must be students 

from low-income families, based on 

eligibility for free or reduced-price 

lunch subsidies under the Richard B. 

Russell National School Lunch Act, or 

other poverty measures that LEAs use to 

make awards under section 1113(a) of 

the Elementary and Secondary 

Education Act of 1965, as amended 

(ESEA). If an applicant has not 

identified all participating schools (as 

defined in this notice) at the time of 

application, it must provide an 

assurance that within 100 days of the 

grant award it will meet this 

requirement. 

(d) An applicant must demonstrate its 

commitment to the core educational 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES4
47994 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 151 / Tuesday, August 6, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

assurance areas (as defined in this 

notice), including, for each LEA 

included in an application, an assurance 

signed by the LEA’s superintendent or 

chief executive officer (CEO) that— 

(i) The LEA, at a minimum, will 

implement no later than the 2014–2015 

school year— 

(A) A teacher evaluation system (as 

defined in this notice); 

(B) A principal evaluation system (as 

defined in this notice); and 

(C) A superintendent evaluation (as 

defined in this notice); 

(ii) The LEA is committed to 

preparing all students for college or 

career, as demonstrated by— 

(A) Being located in a State that has 

adopted college- and career-ready 

standards (as defined in this notice); or 

(B) Measuring all student progress 

and performance against college- and 

career-ready graduation requirements 

(as defined in this notice); 

(iii) The LEA has a robust data system 

that has, at a minimum— 

(A) An individual teacher identifier 

with a teacher-student match; and 

(B) The capability to provide timely 

data back to educators and their 

supervisors on student growth (as 

defined in this notice); 

(iv) The LEA has the capability to 

receive or match student-level 

preschool-through-12th grade and 

higher education data; and 

(v) The LEA ensures that any 

disclosure of or access to personally 

identifiable information in students’ 

education records complies with the 

Family Educational Rights and Privacy 

Act (FERPA). 

(e) Required signatures for the LEA or 

lead LEA in a consortium are those of 

the superintendent or CEO, local school 

board president, and local teacher union 

or association president (where 

applicable). 

Final Application Requirements 

The Secretary establishes the 

following application requirements for 

the application an LEA or consortium of 

LEAs would submit to the Department 

for funding under this competition. We 

may apply one or more of these 

requirements in any year in which this 

program is in effect. 

(1) State comment period. Each LEA 

included in an application must provide 

its State at least 10 business days to 

comment on the LEA’s application and 

submit as part of its application 

package— 

(a) The State’s comments or, if the 

State declined to comment, evidence 

that the LEA offered the State 10 

business days to comment; and 

(b) The LEA’s response to the State’s 

comments (optional). 

(2) Mayor (or city or town 

administrator) comment period. Each 

LEA included in an application must 

provide its mayor or other comparable 

official at least 10 business days to 

comment on the LEA’s application and 

submit as part of its application 

package— 

(a) The mayor or city or town 

administrator’s comments or, if that 

individual declines to comment, 

evidence that the LEA offered such 

official 10 business days to comment; 

and 

(b) The LEA’s response to the mayor 

or city or town administrator comments 

(optional). 

(3) Consortium. For LEAs applying as 

a consortium, the application must— 

(a) Indicate, consistent with 34 CFR 

75.128, whether— 

(i) One member of the consortium is 

applying for a grant on behalf of the 

consortium; or 

(ii) The consortium has established 

itself as a separate, eligible legal entity 

and is applying for a grant on its own 

behalf; 

(b) Be signed by— 

(i) If one member of the consortium is 

applying for a grant on behalf of the 

consortium, the superintendent or CEO, 

local school board president, and local 

teacher union or association president 

(where applicable) of that LEA; or 

(ii) If the consortium has established 

itself as a separate eligible legal entity 

and is applying for a grant on its own 

behalf, a legal representative of the 

consortium; and 

(c) Include, consistent with 34 CFR 

75.128, for each LEA in the consortium, 

copies of all memoranda of 

understanding or other binding 

agreements related to the consortium. 

These binding agreements must— 

(i) Detail the activities that each 

member of the consortium plans to 

perform; 

(ii) Describe the consortium 

governance structure (as defined in this 

notice); 

(iii) Bind each member of the 

consortium to every statement and 

assurance made in the application; and 

(iv) Include an assurance signed by 

the LEA’s superintendent or CEO that— 

(A) The LEA, at a minimum, will 

implement no later than the 2014–2015 

school year— 

(1) A teacher evaluation system (as 

defined in this notice); 

(2) A principal evaluation system (as 

defined in this notice); and 

(3) A superintendent evaluation (as 

defined in this notice); 

(B) The LEA is committed to 

preparing students for college or career, 

as demonstrated by— 

(1) Being located in a State that has 

adopted college- and career-ready 

standards (as defined in this notice); or 

(2) Measuring all student progress and 

performance against college- and careerready graduation requirements (as 

defined in this notice); 

(C) The LEA has a robust data system 

that has, at a minimum— 

(1) An individual teacher identifier 

with a teacher-student match; and 

(2) The capability to provide timely 

data back to educators and their 

supervisors on student growth (as 

defined in this notice); 

(D) The LEA has the capability to 

receive or match student-level 

preschool-through-12th grade and 

higher education data; and 

(E) The LEA ensures that any 

disclosure of or access to personally 

identifiable information in students’ 

education records complies with the 

FERPA; and 

(v) Be signed by the superintendent or 

CEO, local school board president, and 

local teacher union or association 

president (where applicable). 

Final Program Requirements 

The Secretary establishes the 

following requirements for LEAs 

receiving funds under this competition. 

We may apply one or more of these 

requirements in any year in which this 

program is in effect. 

(1) An applicant’s budget request for 

all years of its project must fall within 

the applicable budget range as follows: 

Number of participating students (as defined in this notice) Award range 

($ million) 

2,000–5,000 or Fewer than 2,000, provided those students are served by a consortium of at least 10 LEAs and at least 75 

percent of the students served by each LEA are participating students (as defined in this notice) .......................................... 4–10 

5,001–10,000 ................................................................................................................................................................................... 10–20 

10,001–20,000 ................................................................................................................................................................................. 20–25 

20,001+ ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 25–30 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 151 / Tuesday, August 6, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 47995 

The Department will not consider an 

application that requests a budget 

outside the applicable range of awards. 

(2) A grantee must commit to 

participate in any national evaluation of 

the program and work with the 

Department and with a national 

evaluator or another entity designated 

by the Department to ensure that data 

collection and program design are 

consistent with plans to conduct a 

rigorous national evaluation of the 

program and of specific solutions and 

strategies pursued by individual 

grantees. This commitment must 

include, but need not be limited to— 

(i) Consistent with 34 CFR 80.36 and 

State and local procurement procedures, 

grantees must include in contracts with 

external vendors provisions that allow 

contractors to provide implementation 

data to the LEA, the Department, the 

national evaluator, or other appropriate 

entities in ways consistent with all 

privacy laws and regulations. 

(ii) Developing, in consultation with 

the national evaluator, a plan for 

identifying and collecting reliable and 

valid baseline data for program 

participants. 

(3) LEAs must share metadata about 

content alignment with college- and 

career-ready standards (as defined in 

this notice) and use through openstandard registries. 

(4) LEAs in which minority students 

or students with disabilities are 

disproportionately subject to discipline 

(as defined in this notice) and expulsion 

(according to data submitted through 

the Department’s Civil Rights Data 

Collection, which is available at http:// 

ocrdata.ed.gov/) must conduct a district 

assessment of the root causes of the 

disproportionate discipline and 

expulsions. These LEAs must also 

develop a detailed plan over the grant 

period to address these root causes and 

to reduce disproportionate discipline (as 

defined in this notice) and expulsions. 

(5) Each grantee must make all project 

implementation and student data 

available to the Department and its 

authorized representatives in 

compliance with FERPA, as applicable. 

(6) Grantees must ensure that requests 

for information (RFIs) and requests for 

proposal (RFPs) developed as part of 

this grant are made public, and are 

consistent with the requirements of 

State and local law. 

(7) Within 100 days of award, each 

grantee must submit to the 

Department— 

(i) A scope of work that is consistent 

with its grant application and includes 

specific goals, activities, deliverables, 

timelines, budgets, key personnel, and 

annual targets for key performance 

measures; and 

(ii) An individual school 

implementation plan for participating 

schools (as defined in this notice). 

(8) Within 100 days of award, each 

grantee must demonstrate that at least 

40 percent of participating students (as 

defined in this notice) in participating 

schools (as defined in this notice) are 

from low-income families, based on 

eligibility for free or reduced-price 

lunch subsidies under the Richard B. 

Russell National School Lunch Act, or 

other poverty measures that LEAs use to 

make awards under section 1113(a) of 

the ESEA. 

Final Definitions 

The Secretary establishes the 

following definitions for terms not 

defined in the American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act (ARRA) (or, by 

reference, in the ESEA). We may apply 

one or more of these definitions in any 

year in which this program is in effect. 

Achievement gap means the 

difference in the performance between 

each subgroup (as defined in this notice) 

within a participating LEA or school 

and the statewide average performance 

of the LEA’s or State’s highest-achieving 

subgroups in reading or language arts 

and in mathematics as measured by the 

assessments required under the ESEA, 

as amended. 

College- and career-ready graduation 

requirements means minimum high 

school graduation expectations (e.g., 

completion of a minimum course of 

study, content mastery, proficiency on 

college- and career-ready assessments) 

that are aligned with a rigorous, robust, 

and well-rounded curriculum and that 

cover a wide range of academic and 

technical knowledge and skills to 

ensure that by the time students 

graduate high school, they satisfy 

requirements for admission into creditbearing courses commonly required by 

the State’s public four-year degreegranting institutions. 

College- and career-ready standards 

means content standards for 

kindergarten through 12th grade that 

build towards college- and career-ready 

graduation requirements (as defined in 

this notice). A State’s college- and 

career-ready standards must be either 

(1) standards that are common to a 

significant number of States; or (2) 

standards that are approved by a State 

network of institutions of higher 

education, which must certify that 

students who meet the standards will 

not need remedial course work at the 

postsecondary level. 

College enrollment means the 

enrollment of students who graduate 

from high school consistent with 34 

CFR 200.19(b)(1)(i) and who enroll in a 

public institution of higher education in 

the State (as defined in section 101(a) of 

the Higher Education Act of 1965, as 

amended, 20 U.S.C. 1001) within 16 

months of graduation. 

Consortium governance structure 

means the consortium’s structure for 

carrying out its operations, including— 

(1) The organizational structure of the 

consortium and the differentiated roles 

that a member LEA may hold (e.g., lead 

LEA, member LEA); 

(2) For each differentiated role, the 

associated rights and responsibilities, 

including rights and responsibilities for 

adopting and implementing the 

consortium’s proposal for a grant; 

(3) The consortium’s method and 

process (e.g., consensus, majority) for 

making different types of decisions (e.g., 

policy, operational); 

(4) The protocols by which the 

consortium will operate, including the 

protocols for member LEAs to change 

roles or leave the consortium; 

(5) The consortium’s procedures for 

managing funds received under this 

grant; 

(6) The terms and conditions of the 

memorandum of understanding or other 

binding agreement executed by each 

member LEA; and 

(7) The consortium’s procurement 

process, and evidence of each member 

LEA’s commitment to that process. 

Core educational assurance areas 

means the four key areas originally 

identified in the ARRA to support 

comprehensive education reform: (1) 

Adopting standards and assessments 

that prepare students to succeed in 

college and the workplace and to 

compete in the global economy; (2) 

building data systems that measure 

student growth and success, and inform 

teachers and principals with data about 

how they can improve instruction; (3) 

recruiting, developing, rewarding, and 

retaining effective teachers and 

principals, especially where they are 

needed most; and (4) turning around 

lowest-achieving schools. 

Digital learning content means 

learning materials and resources that 

can be displayed on an electronic device 

and shared electronically with other 

users. Digital learning content includes 

both open source and commercial 

content. In order to comply with the 

requirements of the Americans with 

Disabilities Act of 1990 and Section 504 

of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as 

amended, any digital learning content 

used by grantees must be accessible to 

individuals with disabilities, including 

individuals who use screen readers. For 

additional information regarding the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES4
47996 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 151 / Tuesday, August 6, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

application of these laws to technology, 

please refer to www.ed.gov/ocr/letters/ 

colleague-201105-ese.pdf and 

www.ed.gov/ocr/docs/dcl-ebook-faq201105.pdf. 

Discipline means any disciplinary 

measure collected by the 2009–2010 or 

2011–2012 Civil Rights Data Collection 

(see http://ocrdata.ed.gov). 

Educators means all education 

professionals and education 

paraprofessionals working in 

participating schools (as defined in this 

notice), including principals or other 

heads of a school, teachers, other 

professional instructional staff (e.g., staff 

involved in curriculum development or 

staff development, bilingual/English as 

a Second Language (ESL) specialists, or 

instructional staff who operate library, 

media, and computer centers), pupil 

support services staff (e.g., guidance 

counselors, nurses, speech pathologists), 

other administrators (e.g., assistant 

principals, discipline specialists), and 

education paraprofessionals (e.g., 

assistant teachers, bilingual/ESL 

instructional aides). 

Effective principal means a principal 

whose students, overall and for each 

subgroup, achieve acceptable rates (e.g., 

at least one grade level in an academic 

year) of student growth (as defined in 

this notice) as defined in the LEA’s 

principal evaluation system (as defined 

in this notice). 

Effective teacher means a teacher 

whose students achieve acceptable rates 

(e.g., at least one grade level in an 

academic year) of student growth (as 

defined in this notice) as defined in the 

LEA’s teacher evaluation system (as 

defined in this notice). 

Family and community supports 

means— 

(1) Child and youth health programs, 

such as physical, mental, behavioral, 

and emotional health programs (e.g., 

home visiting programs; Head Start; 

Early Head Start; programs to improve 

nutrition and fitness, reduce childhood 

obesity, and create healthier 

communities); 

(2) Safety programs, such as programs 

in school and out of school to prevent, 

control, and reduce crime, violence, 

drug and alcohol use, and gang activity; 

programs that address classroom and 

school-wide behavior and conduct; 

programs to prevent child abuse and 

neglect; programs to prevent truancy 

and reduce and prevent bullying and 

harassment; and programs to improve 

the physical and emotional security of 

the school setting as perceived, 

experienced, and created by students, 

staff, and families; 

(3) Community stability programs, 

such as programs that: (a) Provide adult 

education and employment 

opportunities and training to improve 

educational levels, job skills, and 

readiness in order to decrease 

unemployment, with a goal of 

increasing family stability; (b) improve 

families’ awareness of, access to, and 

use of a range of social services, if 

possible at a single location; (c) provide 

unbiased, outcome-focused, and 

comprehensive financial education, 

inside and outside the classroom and at 

every life stage; (d) increase access to 

traditional financial institutions (e.g., 

banks and credit unions) rather than 

alternative financial institutions (e.g., 

check cashers and payday lenders); (e) 

help families increase their financial 

literacy, financial assets, and savings; (f) 

help families access transportation to 

education and employment 

opportunities; and (g) provide supports 

and services to students who are 

homeless, in foster care, migrant, or 

highly mobile; and 

(4) Family and community 

engagement programs that are systemic, 

integrated, sustainable, and continue 

through a student’s transition from K–12 

schooling to college and career. These 

programs may include family literacy 

programs and programs that provide 

adult education and training and 

opportunities for family members and 

other members of the community to 

support student learning and establish 

high expectations for student 

educational achievement; mentorship 

programs that create positive 

relationships between children and 

adults; programs that provide for the use 

of such community resources as 

libraries, museums, television and radio 

stations, and local businesses to support 

improved student educational 

outcomes; programs that support the 

engagement of families in early learning 

programs and services; programs that 

provide guidance on how to navigate 

through a complex school system and 

how to advocate for more and improved 

learning opportunities; and programs 

that promote collaboration with 

educators and community organizations 

to improve opportunities for healthy 

development and learning. 

Graduation rate means the four-year 

or extended-year adjusted cohort 

graduation rate as defined by 34 CFR 

200.19(b)(1). 

High-minority school is defined by the 

LEA in a manner consistent with its 

State’s Teacher Equity Plan, as required 

by section 1111(b)(8)(C) of the ESEA. 

The LEA must provide, in its Race to the 

Top—District application, the definition 

used. 

High-need students means students at 

risk of educational failure or otherwise 

in need of special assistance and 

support, such as students who are living 

in poverty, who attend high-minority 

schools (as defined in this notice), who 

are far below grade level, who have left 

school before receiving a regular high 

school diploma, who are at risk of not 

graduating with a diploma on time, who 

are homeless, who are in foster care, 

who have been incarcerated, who have 

disabilities, or who are English learners. 

High-quality plan means a plan that 

includes key goals, activities to be 

undertaken and the rationale for the 

activities, the timeline, the deliverables, 

and the parties responsible for 

implementing the activities. 

Highly effective principal means a 

principal whose students, overall and 

for each subgroup, achieve high rates 

(e.g., one and one-half grade levels in an 

academic year) of student growth (as 

defined in this notice) as defined under 

the LEA’s principal evaluation system 

(as defined in this notice). 

Highly effective teacher means a 

teacher whose students achieve high 

rates (e.g., one and one-half grade levels 

in an academic year) of student growth 

(as defined in this notice) as defined 

under the LEA’s teacher evaluation 

system (as defined in this notice). 

Interoperable data system means a 

system that uses a common, established 

structure such that data can easily flow 

from one system to another and in 

which data are in a non-proprietary, 

open format. 

Local educational agency is an entity 

as defined in section 9101(26) of the 

ESEA, except that an entity described 

under section 9101(26)(D) must be 

recognized under applicable State law 

as a local educational agency. 

Low-performing school means a 

school that is in the bottom 10 percent 

of performance in the State, or that has 

significant achievement gaps, based on 

student academic performance in 

reading/language arts and mathematics 

on the assessments required under the 

ESEA, or that has a graduation rate (as 

defined in this notice) below 60 percent. 

Metadata means information about 

digital learning content such as the 

grade or age for which it is intended, the 

topic or standard to which it is aligned, 

or the type of resource it is (e.g., video, 

image). 

On-track indicator means a measure, 

available at a time sufficiently early to 

allow for intervention, of a single 

student characteristic (e.g., number of 

days absent, number of discipline 

referrals, number of credits earned), or 

a composite of multiple characteristics, 

that is both predictive of student 

success (e.g., students demonstrating the 

measure graduate at an 80 percent rate) 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 151 / Tuesday, August 6, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 47997 

2The Department considers schools that are 

identified as Tier I or Tier II schools under the SIG 

program (see 75 FR 66363) as part of a State’s 

approved applications to be persistently lowestachieving schools. A list of these Tier I and Tier II 

schools can be found on the Department’s Web site 

at http://www2.ed.gov/programs/sif/index.html. 

and comprehensive of students who 

succeed (e.g., of all graduates, 90 

percent demonstrated the indicator). 

Using multiple indicators that are 

collectively comprehensive but vary by 

student characteristics may be an 

appropriate alternative to a single 

indicator that applies to all students. 

Open data format means data that are 

available in a non-proprietary, machinereadable format (e.g., Extensible Markup 

Language (XML) and JavaScript Object 

Notation (JSON)) such that they can be 

understood by a computer. Digital 

formats that require extraction, data 

translation such as optical character 

recognition, or other manipulation in 

order to be used in electronic systems 

are not machine-readable formats. 

Open-standard registry means a 

digital platform, such as the Learning 

Registry, that facilitates the exchange of 

information about digital learning 

content (as defined in this notice), 

including (1) alignment of content with 

college- and career-ready standards (as 

defined in this notice) and (2) usage 

information about learning content used 

by educators (as defined in this notice). 

This digital platform must have the 

capability to share content information 

with other LEAs and with State 

educational agencies. 

Participating school means a school 

that is identified by the applicant and 

chooses to work with the applicant to 

implement the plan under Priority 1, 

either in one or more specific grade 

spans or subject areas or throughout the 

entire school and affecting a significant 

number of its students. 

Participating student means a student 

enrolled in a participating school (as 

defined in this notice) and who is 

directly served by an applicant’s plan 

under Priority 1. 

Persistently lowest-achieving school 

means, as determined by the State, 

consistent with the requirements of the 

School Improvement Grants (SIG) 

program authorized by section 1003(g) 

of the ESEA,2 (1) any Title I school in 

improvement, corrective action, or 

restructuring that (a) is among the 

lowest-achieving five percent of Title I 

schools in improvement, corrective 

action, or restructuring or the lowestachieving five Title I schools in 

improvement, corrective action, or 

restructuring in the State, whichever 

number of schools is greater; or (b) is a 

high school that has had a graduation 

rate (as defined in this notice) that is 

less than 60 percent over a number of 

years; and (2) any secondary school that 

is eligible for, but does not receive, Title 

I funds that (a) is among the lowestachieving five percent of secondary 

schools or the lowest-achieving five 

secondary schools in the State that are 

eligible for, but do not receive, Title I 

funds, whichever number of schools is 

greater; or (b) is a high school that has 

had a graduation rate (as defined in this 

notice) that is less than 60 percent over 

a number of years. 

To identify the lowest-achieving 

schools, a State must take into account 

both (1) the academic achievement of 

the ‘‘all students’’ group in a school in 

terms of proficiency on the State’s 

assessments under section 1111(b)(3) of 

the ESEA in reading or language arts 

and in mathematics combined; and (2) 

the school’s lack of progress on those 

assessments over a number of years in 

the ‘‘all students’’ group. 

Principal evaluation system means a 

system that: (1) Is used for continual 

improvement of instructional 

leadership; (2) meaningfully 

differentiates performance using at least 

three performance levels; (3) uses 

multiple valid measures in determining 

performance levels, including, as a 

significant factor, data on student 

growth (as defined in this notice) for all 

students (including English learners and 

students with disabilities), as well as 

other measures of professional practice 

(which may be gathered through 

multiple formats and sources, such as 

observations based on rigorous 

leadership performance standards, 

teacher evaluation data, and student and 

parent surveys); (4) evaluates principals 

on a regular basis; (5) provides clear, 

timely, and useful feedback, including 

feedback that identifies and guides 

professional development needs; and (6) 

is used to inform personnel decisions. 

Rural local educational agency means 

an LEA, at the time of the application, 

that is eligible under the Small Rural 

School Achievement (SRSA) program or 

the Rural and Low-Income School 

(RLIS) program authorized under Title 

VI, Part B of the ESEA. Eligible 

applicants may determine whether a 

particular LEA is eligible for these 

programs by referring to information on 

the Department’s Web site at http:// 

www2.ed.gov/programs/reapsrsa/ 

eligible13/index.html. 

School leadership team means a team 

that leads the implementation of 

improvement and other initiatives at the 

school and is composed of the principal 

or other head of a school, teachers, and 

other educators (as defined in this 

notice), and, as applicable, other school 

employees, parents, students, and other 

community members. In cases where 

statute or local policy, including 

collective bargaining agreements, 

establishes a school leadership team, 

that body shall serve as the school 

leadership team for the purpose of this 

program. 

Student growth means the change in 

student achievement for an individual 

student between two or more points in 

time, defined as— 

(1) For grades and subjects in which 

assessments are required under ESEA 

section 1111(b)(3): (a) A student’s score 

on such assessments; and (b) may 

include other measures of student 

learning, such as those described in (2) 

below, provided they are rigorous and 

comparable across schools within an 

LEA. 

(2) For grades and subjects in which 

assessments are not required under 

ESEA section 1111(b)(3): Alternative 

measures of student learning and 

performance, such as student results on 

pre-tests, end-of-course tests, and 

objective performance-based 

assessments; performance against 

student learning objectives; student 

performance on English language 

proficiency assessments; and other 

measures of student achievement that 

are rigorous and comparable across 

schools within an LEA. 

Student-level data means 

demographic, performance, and other 

information that pertains to a single 

student. 

Student performance data means 

information about the academic 

progress of a single student, such as 

formative and summative assessment 

data, information on completion of 

coursework, instructor observations, 

information about student engagement 

and time on task, and similar 

information. 

Subgroup means each category of 

students identified under section 

1111(b)(2)(C)(v)(II) of the ESEA and any 

combined subgroup used in the State 

accountability system that is approved 

by the Department in a State’s request 

for ESEA flexibility. 

Superintendent evaluation means a 

rigorous, transparent, and fair annual 

evaluation of an LEA superintendent 

that provides an assessment of 

performance and encourages 

professional growth. This evaluation 

must reflect: (1) The feedback of many 

stakeholders, including but not limited 

to educators, principals, and parents; 

and (2) student outcomes, including 

student growth for all students 

(including English learners and students 

with disabilities). 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES4
47998 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 151 / Tuesday, August 6, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

Teacher evaluation system means a 

system that: (1) Is used for continual 

improvement of instruction; (2) 

meaningfully differentiates performance 

using at least three performance levels; 

(3) uses multiple valid measures in 

determining performance levels, 

including, as a significant factor, data on 

student growth (as defined in this 

notice) for all students (including 

English learners and students with 

disabilities), as well as other measures 

of professional practice (which may be 

gathered through multiple formats and 

sources, such as observations based on 

rigorous teacher performance standards, 

teacher portfolios, and student and 

parent surveys); (4) evaluates teachers 

on a regular basis; (5) provides clear, 

timely, and useful feedback, including 

feedback that identifies and guides 

professional development needs; and (6) 

is used to inform personnel decisions. 

Teacher of record means an 

individual (or individuals in a coteaching assignment) who has been 

assigned the lead responsibility for a 

student’s learning in a subject or course. 

Final Selection Criteria 

The Secretary establishes the 

following selection criteria for 

evaluating an application under this 

competition. We may apply one or more 

of these criteria or sub-criteria, any of 

the selection criteria in 34 CFR 75.210, 

criteria based on statutory requirements 

for the program in accordance with 34 

CFR 75.209, or any combination of these 

in any year in which this program is in 

effect. In the notice inviting 

applications, the application package, or 

both, the Department will announce the 

selection criteria that apply to a 

competition and the maximum possible 

points assigned to each criterion. 

A. Vision 

(1) The extent to which the applicant 

has set forth a comprehensive and 

coherent reform vision that— 

(a) Builds on its work in four core 

educational assurance areas (as defined 

in this notice); 

(b) Articulates a clear and credible 

approach to the goals of accelerating 

student achievement, deepening student 

learning, and increasing equity through 

personalized student support grounded 

in common and individual tasks that are 

based on student academic interests; 

and 

(c) Describes what the classroom 

experience will be like for students and 

teachers participating in personalized 

learning environments. 

(2) The extent to which the 

applicant’s approach to implementing 

its reform proposal (e.g., schools, grade 

bands, or subject areas) will support 

high-quality LEA-level and school-level 

implementation of that proposal, 

including— 

(a) A description of the process that 

the applicant used or will use to select 

schools to participate. The process must 

ensure that the participating schools (as 

defined in this notice) collectively meet 

the competition’s eligibility 

requirements; 

(b) A list of the schools that will 

participate in grant activities (as 

available); and 

(c) The total number of participating 

students (as defined in this notice), 

participating students (as defined in this 

notice) from low-income families, 

participating students (as defined in this 

notice) who are high-need students (as 

defined in this notice), and participating 

educators (as defined in this notice). If 

participating schools (as defined in this 

notice) have yet to be selected, the 

applicant may provide approximate 

numbers. 

(3) The extent to which the 

application includes a high-quality plan 

(as defined in this notice) describing 

how the reform proposal will be scaled 

up and translated into meaningful 

reform to support district-wide change 

beyond the participating schools (as 

defined in this notice), and will help the 

applicant reach its outcome goals (e.g., 

the applicant’s logic model or theory of 

change of how its plan will improve 

student learning outcomes for all 

students who would be served by the 

applicant). 

(4) The extent to which the 

applicant’s vision is likely to result in 

improved student learning and 

performance and increased equity as 

demonstrated by ambitious yet 

achievable annual goals that are equal to 

or exceed State ESEA targets for the 

LEA(s), overall and by student subgroup 

(as defined in this notice), for each 

participating LEA in the following areas: 

(a) Performance on summative 

assessments (proficiency status and 

growth). 

(b) Decreasing achievement gaps (as 

defined in this notice). 

(c) Graduation rates (as defined in this 

notice). 

(d) College enrollment (as defined in 

this notice) rates. 

Optional: The extent to which the 

applicant’s vision is likely to result in 

improved student learning and 

performance and increased equity as 

demonstrated by ambitious yet 

achievable annual goals for each 

participating LEA in the following area: 

(e) Postsecondary degree attainment. 

B. Prior Record of Success and 

Conditions for Reform 

The extent to which each LEA has 

demonstrated evidence of— 

(1) A clear record of success in the 

past four years in advancing student 

learning and achievement and 

increasing equity in learning and 

teaching, including a description, charts 

or graphs, raw student data, and other 

evidence that demonstrates the 

applicant’s ability to— 

(a) Improve student learning 

outcomes and close achievement gaps 

(as defined in this notice), including by 

raising student achievement, high 

school graduation rates (as defined in 

this notice), and college enrollment (as 

defined in this notice) rates; 

(b) Achieve ambitious and significant 

reforms in its persistently lowestachieving schools (as defined in this 

notice) or in its low-performing schools 

(as defined in this notice); and 

(c) Make student performance data (as 

defined in this notice) available to 

students, educators (as defined in this 

notice), and parents in ways that inform 

and improve participation, instruction, 

and services. 

(2) A high level of transparency in 

LEA processes, practices, and 

investments, including by making 

public, by school, actual school-level 

expenditures for regular K–12 

instruction, instructional support, pupil 

support, and school administration. At 

a minimum, this information must 

include a description of the extent to 

which the applicant already makes 

available the following four categories of 

school-level expenditures from State 

and local funds: 

(a) Actual personnel salaries at the 

school level for all school-level 

instructional and support staff, based on 

the U.S. Census Bureau’s classification 

used in the F–33 survey of local 

government finances (information on 

the survey can be found at http:// 

nces.ed.gov/ccd/f33agency.asp); 

(b) Actual personnel salaries at the 

school level for instructional staff only; 

(c) Actual personnel salaries at the 

school level for teachers only; and 

(d) Actual non-personnel 

expenditures at the school level (if 

available). 

(3) Successful conditions and 

sufficient autonomy under State legal, 

statutory, and regulatory requirements 

to implement the personalized learning 

environments described in the 

applicant’s proposal; 

(4) Meaningful stakeholder 

engagement throughout the 

development of the proposal and 

meaningful stakeholder support for the 

proposal, including— 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 151 / Tuesday, August 6, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 47999 

(a) A description of how students, 

families, teachers, and principals in 

participating schools (as defined in this 

notice) were engaged in the 

development of the proposal and, as 

appropriate, how the proposal was 

revised based on their engagement and 

feedback, including— 

(i) For LEAs with collective 

bargaining representation, evidence of 

direct engagement and support for the 

proposals from teachers in participating 

schools (as defined in this notice); or 

(ii) For LEAs without collective 

bargaining representation, at a 

minimum, evidence that at least 70 

percent of teachers from participating 

schools (as defined in this notice) 

support the proposal; and 

(b) Letters of support from such key 

stakeholders as parents and parent 

organizations, student organizations, 

early learning programs, tribes, the 

business community, civil rights 

organizations, advocacy groups, local 

civic and community-based 

organizations, and institutions of higher 

education. 

C. Preparing Students for College and 

Careers 

The extent to which the applicant has 

a high-quality plan (as defined in this 

notice) for improving learning and 

teaching by personalizing the learning 

environment in order to provide all 

students the support to graduate collegeand career-ready. This plan must 

include an approach to implementing 

instructional strategies for all 

participating students (as defined in this 

notice) that enable participating 

students to pursue a rigorous course of 

study aligned to college- and careerready standards (as defined in this 

notice) and college- and career-ready 

graduation requirements (as defined in 

this notice) and accelerate his or her 

learning through support of his or her 

needs. This includes the extent to which 

the applicant proposes an approach that 

includes the following: 

(1) Learning: An approach to learning 

that engages and empowers all learners, 

in particular high-need students (as 

defined in this notice), in an ageappropriate manner such that: 

(a) With the support of parents and 

educators, all students— 

(i) Understand that what they are 

learning is key to their success in 

accomplishing their goals; 

(ii) Identify and pursue learning and 

development goals linked to collegeand career-ready standards (as defined 

in this notice) or college- and careerready graduation requirements (as 

defined in this notice), understand how 

to structure their learning to achieve 

their goals, and measure progress 

toward those goals; 

(iii) Are able to be involved in deep 

learning experiences in areas of 

academic interest; 

(iv) Have access and exposure to 

diverse cultures, contexts, and 

perspectives that motivate and deepen 

individual student learning; and 

(v) Master critical academic content 

and develop skills and traits such as 

goal-setting, teamwork, perseverance, 

critical thinking, communication, 

creativity, and problem-solving; 

(b) With the support of parents and 

educators (as defined in this notice), 

each student has access to— 

(i) A personalized sequence of 

instructional content and skill 

development designed to enable the 

student to achieve his or her individual 

learning goals and ensure he or she can 

graduate on time and college- and 

career-ready; 

(ii) A variety of high-quality 

instructional approaches and 

environments; 

(iii) High-quality content, including 

digital learning content (as defined in 

this notice) as appropriate, aligned with 

college- and career-ready standards (as 

defined in this notice) or college- and 

career-ready graduation requirements 

(as defined in this notice); 

(iv) Ongoing and regular feedback, 

including, at a minimum— 

(A) Frequently updated individual 

student data that can be used to 

determine progress toward mastery of 

college- and career-ready standards (as 

defined in this notice), or college- and 

career-ready graduation requirements 

(as defined in this notice); and 

(B) Personalized learning 

recommendations based on the 

student’s current knowledge and skills, 

college- and career-ready standards (as 

defined in this notice) or college- and 

career-ready graduation requirements 

(as defined in this notice), and available 

content, instructional approaches, and 

supports; and 

(v) Accommodations and high-quality 

strategies for high-need students (as 

defined in this notice) to help ensure 

that they are on track toward meeting 

college- and career-ready standards (as 

defined in this notice) or college- and 

career-ready graduation requirements 

(as defined in this notice); and 

(c) Mechanisms are in place to 

provide training and support to students 

that will ensure that they understand 

how to use the tools and resources 

provided to them in order to track and 

manage their learning. 

(2) Teaching and Leading: An 

approach to teaching and leading that 

helps educators (as defined in this 

notice) to improve instruction and 

increase their capacity to support 

student progress toward meeting 

college- and career-ready standards (as 

defined in this notice) or college- and 

career-ready graduation requirements 

(as defined in this notice) by enabling 

the full implementation of personalized 

learning and teaching for all students, in 

particular high-need students (as 

defined in this notice), such that: 

(a) All participating educators (as 

defined in this notice) engage in 

training, and in professional teams or 

communities, that supports their 

individual and collective capacity to— 

(i) Support the effective 

implementation of personalized 

learning environments and strategies 

that meet each student’s academic needs 

and help ensure all students can 

graduate on time and college- and 

career-ready; 

(ii) Adapt content and instruction, 

providing opportunities for students to 

engage in common and individual tasks, 

in response to their academic needs, 

academic interests, and optimal learning 

approaches (e.g., discussion and 

collaborative work, project-based 

learning, videos, audio, manipulatives); 

(iii) Frequently measure student 

progress toward meeting college- and 

career-ready standards (as defined in 

this notice) or college- and career-ready 

graduation requirements (as defined in 

this notice) and use data to inform both 

the acceleration of student progress and 

the improvement of the individual and 

collective practice of educators (as 

defined in this notice); and 

(iv) Improve teachers’ and principals’ 

practice and effectiveness by using 

feedback provided by the LEA’s teacher 

and principal evaluation systems (as 

defined in this notice), including 

frequent feedback on individual and 

collective effectiveness, as well as by 

providing recommendations, supports, 

and interventions as needed for 

improvement. 

(b) All participating educators (as 

defined in this notice) have access to, 

and know how to use, tools, data, and 

resources to accelerate student progress 

toward meeting college- and careerready graduation requirements (as 

defined in this notice). Those resources 

must include— 

(i) Actionable information that helps 

educators (as defined in this notice) 

identify optimal learning approaches 

that respond to individual student 

academic needs and interests; 

(ii) High-quality learning resources 

(e.g., instructional content and 

assessments), including digital 

resources, as appropriate, that are 

aligned with college- and career-ready 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES4
48000 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 151 / Tuesday, August 6, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

standards (as defined in this notice) or 

college- and career-ready graduation 

requirements (as defined in this notice), 

and the tools to create and share new 

resources; and 

(iii) Processes and tools to match 

student needs (see Selection Criterion 

(C)(2)(b)(i)) with specific resources and 

approaches (see Selection Criterion 

(C)(2)(b)(ii)) to provide continuously 

improving feedback about the 

effectiveness of the resources in meeting 

student needs. 

(c) All participating school leaders 

and school leadership teams (as defined 

in this notice) have training, policies, 

tools, data, and resources that enable 

them to structure an effective learning 

environment that meets individual 

student academic needs and accelerates 

student progress through common and 

individual tasks toward meeting collegeand career-ready standards (as defined 

in this notice) or college- and careerready graduation requirements (as 

defined in this notice). The training, 

policies, tools, data, and resources must 

include: 

(i) Information, from such sources as 

the district’s teacher evaluation system 

(as defined in this notice), that helps 

school leaders and school leadership 

teams (as defined in this notice) assess, 

and take steps to improve, individual 

and collective educator effectiveness 

and school culture and climate, for the 

purpose of continuous school 

improvement; and 

(ii) Training, systems, and practices to 

continuously improve school progress 

toward the goals of increasing student 

performance and closing achievement 

gaps (as defined in this notice). 

(d) The applicant has a high-quality 

plan (as defined in this notice) for 

increasing the number of students who 

receive instruction from effective and 

highly effective teachers and principals 

(as defined in this notice), including in 

hard-to-staff schools, subjects (such as 

mathematics and science), and specialty 

areas (such as special education). 

D. LEA Policy and Infrastructure 

The extent to which the applicant has 

a high-quality plan (as defined in this 

notice) to support project 

implementation through comprehensive 

policies and infrastructure that provide 

every student, educator (as defined in 

this notice), and level of the education 

system (classroom, school, and LEA) 

with the support and resources they 

need, when and where they are needed. 

This includes the extent to which— 

(1) The applicant has practices, 

policies, and rules that facilitate 

personalized learning by— 

(a) Organizing the LEA central office, 

or the consortium governance structure 

(as defined in this notice), to provide 

support and services to all participating 

schools (as defined in this notice); 

(b) Providing school leadership teams 

(as defined in this notice) in 

participating schools (as defined in this 

notice) with sufficient flexibility and 

autonomy over factors such as school 

schedules and calendars, school 

personnel decisions and staffing 

models, roles and responsibilities for 

educators and noneducators, and 

school-level budgets; 

(c) Giving students the opportunity to 

progress and earn credit based on 

demonstrated mastery, not the amount 

of time spent on a topic; 

(d) Giving students the opportunity to 

demonstrate mastery of standards at 

multiple times and in multiple 

comparable ways; and 

(e) Providing learning resources and 

instructional practices that are 

adaptable and fully accessible to all 

students, including students with 

disabilities and English learners; and 

(2) The LEA and school infrastructure 

supports personalized learning by— 

(a) Ensuring that all participating 

students (as defined in this notice), 

parents, educators (as defined in this 

notice), and other stakeholders (as 

appropriate and relevant to student 

learning), regardless of income, have 

access to necessary content, tools, and 

other learning resources both in and out 

of school to support the implementation 

of the applicant’s proposal; 

(b) Ensuring that students, parents, 

educators (as defined in this notice), 

and other stakeholders (as appropriate 

and relevant to student learning) have 

appropriate levels of technical support, 

which may be provided through a range 

of strategies (e.g., peer support, online 

support, or local support); 

(c) Using information technology 

systems that allow parents and students 

to export their information in an open 

data format (as defined in this notice) 

and to use the data in other electronic 

learning systems (e.g., electronic tutors, 

tools that make recommendations for 

additional learning supports, or 

software that securely stores personal 

records); and 

(d) Ensuring that LEAs and schools 

use interoperable data systems (as 

defined in this notice) (e.g., systems that 

include human resources data, student 

information data, budget data, and 

instructional improvement system data). 

E. Continuous Improvement 

Because the applicant’s plans 

represent the best thinking at a point in 

time, and may require adjustments and 

revisions during implementation, it is 

vital that the applicant have a clear and 

high-quality approach to continuously 

improve its plans. This will be 

determined by the extent to which the 

applicant has— 

(1) A high-quality plan (as defined in 

this notice) for implementing a rigorous 

continuous improvement process that 

provides timely and regular feedback on 

progress toward project goals and 

opportunities for ongoing corrections 

and improvements during and after the 

term of the grant. The plan must address 

how the applicant will monitor, 

measure, and publicly share information 

on the quality of its investments funded 

by Race to the Top—District, such as 

investments in professional 

development, technology, and staff; 

(2) A high-quality plan (as defined in 

this notice) for ongoing communication 

and engagement with internal and 

external stakeholders; and 

(3) Ambitious yet achievable 

performance measures, overall and by 

subgroup (as defined in this notice), 

with annual targets for required and 

applicant-proposed performance 

measures. For each applicant-proposed 

measure, the applicant must describe— 

(a) Its rationale for selecting that 

measure; 

(b) How the measure will provide 

rigorous, timely, and formative leading 

information tailored to its proposed 

plan and theory of action regarding the 

applicant’s implementation success or 

areas of concern; and 

(c) How it will review and improve 

the measure over time if it is insufficient 

to gauge implementation progress. 

The applicant should have a total of 

approximately 12 to 14 performance 

measures. 

The chart below outlines the required 

and applicant-proposed performance 

measures based on an applicant’s 

applicable population. 

Applicable 

population Performance measure 

All ...................... (a) The number and percentage of participating students (as defined in this notice), by subgroup (as defined in this notice), 

whose teacher of record (as defined in this notice) and principal are a highly effective teacher (as defined in this notice) 

and a highly effective principal (as defined in this notice); and 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 151 / Tuesday, August 6, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 48001 

Applicable 

population Performance measure 

(b) The number and percentage of participating students (as defined in this notice), by subgroup (as defined in this notice), 

whose teacher of record (as defined in this notice) and principal are an effective teacher (as defined in this notice) and an 

effective principal (as defined in this notice). 

PreK–3 .............. (a) Applicant must propose at least one age-appropriate measure of students’ academic growth (e.g., language and literacy 

development or cognition and general learning, including early mathematics and early scientific development); and 

(b) Applicant must propose at least one age-appropriate non-cognitive indicator of growth (e.g., physical well-being and motor 

development, or social-emotional development). 

4–8 .................... (a) The number and percentage of participating students (as defined in this notice), by subgroup, who are on track to collegeand career-readiness based on the applicant’s on-track indicator (as defined in this notice); 

(b) Applicant must propose at least one grade-appropriate academic leading indicator of successful implementation of its plan; 

and 

(c) Applicant must propose at least one grade-appropriate health or social-emotional leading indicator of successful implementation of its plan. 

9–12 .................. (a) The number and percentage of participating students (as defined in this notice) who complete and submit the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) form; 

(b) The number and percentage of participating students (as defined in this notice), by subgroup, who are on track to collegeand career-readiness based on the applicant’s on-track indicator (as defined in this notice); 

(c) Applicant must propose at least one measure of career-readiness in order to assess the number and percentage of participating students (as defined in this notice) who are or are on track to being career-ready; 

(d) Applicant must propose at least one grade-appropriate academic leading indicator of successful implementation of its plan; 

and 

(e) Applicant must propose at least one grade-appropriate health or social-emotional leading indicator of successful implementation of its plan. 

(4) A high-quality plan to rigorously 

evaluate the effectiveness of Race to the 

Top—District funded activities, such as 

professional development and activities 

that employ technology. 

F. Budget and Sustainability 

The extent to which— 

(1) The applicant’s budget, including 

the budget narrative and tables— 

(a) Identifies all funds that will 

support the project (e.g., Race to the 

Top—District grant; external foundation 

support; LEA, State, and other Federal 

funds); 

(b) Is reasonable and sufficient to 

support the development and 

implementation of the applicant’s 

proposal; and 

(c) Clearly provides a thoughtful 

rationale for investments and priorities, 

including— 

(i) A description of all of the funds 

(e.g., Race to the Top—District grant; 

external foundation support; LEA, State, 

and other Federal funds) that the 

applicant will use to support the 

implementation of the proposal, 

including total revenue from these 

sources; and 

(ii) Identification of the funds that 

will be used for one-time investments 

versus those that will be used for 

ongoing operational costs that will be 

incurred during and after the grant 

period, as described in the proposed 

budget and budget narrative, with a 

focus on strategies that will ensure the 

long-term sustainability of the 

personalized learning environments; 

and 

(2) The applicant has a high-quality 

plan (as defined in this notice) for 

sustainability of the project’s goals after 

the term of the grant. The plan should 

include support from State and local 

government leaders, financial support, 

and a description of how the applicant 

will evaluate the effectiveness of past 

investments and use this data to inform 

future investments. Such a plan may 

address how the applicant will evaluate 

improvements in productivity and 

outcomes to inform a post-grant budget, 

and include an estimated budget for the 

three years after the term of the grant 

that includes budget assumptions, 

potential sources, and uses of funds. 

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 use one or more of these priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria, we invite applications through a 

notice in the Federal Register. 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

Regulatory Impact Analysis 

Under Executive Order 12866, the 

Secretary 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 final regulatory action will have 

an annual effect on the economy of 

more than $100 million because more 

than that amount has been appropriated 

for Race to the Top and we anticipate 

that more than that amount will be 

awarded as grants. Therefore, this final 

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 final regulatory 

action and have determined that the 

benefits justify the costs. 

We have also reviewed this final 

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— 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES4
48002 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 151 / Tuesday, August 6, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

(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 issuing these final priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria only on a reasoned 

determination that their benefits justify 

their costs. In choosing among 

alternative regulatory approaches, we 

selected those approaches that 

maximize net benefits. Based on the 

analysis that follows, the Department 

believes that this regulatory action is 

consistent with the principles in 

Executive Order 13563. 

We also have determined that this 

final regulatory action does 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 Secretary believes that these 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria would not impose 

significant costs on eligible LEAs. The 

Secretary also believes that the benefits 

of implementing the priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria contained in this notice 

outweigh any associated costs. 

The Secretary believes that these 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria will result in selection 

of high-quality applications to 

implement activities that are most likely 

to support bold, locally directed 

improvements in learning and teaching 

that would directly improve student 

achievement and educator effectiveness. 

Additionally, the priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria in this notice clarify the scope 

of activities the Secretary expects to 

support with program funds and the 

expected burden of work involved in 

preparing an application and 

implementing a project under the 

program. Potential applicants need to 

consider carefully the effort that will be 

required to prepare a strong application, 

their capacity to implement a project 

successfully, and their chances of 

submitting a successful application. 

Program participation is voluntary. 

The Secretary believes that the costs 

imposed on applicants by these 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria would be limited to 

paperwork burden related to preparing 

an application and that the benefits of 

implementing them would outweigh 

any costs incurred by applicants. The 

costs of carrying out activities would be 

paid for with program funds. Thus, the 

costs of implementation would not be a 

burden for any eligible applicants, 

including small entities. 

Regulatory Alternatives Considered 

These final priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria are 

needed to implement the Race to the 

Top—District program. The Secretary 

does not believe that the statute, by 

itself, provides a sufficient level of 

detail to ensure that the Race to the 

Top—District competition serves as a 

mechanism for driving significant 

education reform in LEAs. These final 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria will enable effective 

grant making, resulting in the selection 

of high-quality applicants who propose 

to implement activities that are most 

likely to support bold, locally directed 

improvements in learning and teaching 

that would directly improve student 

achievement and educator effectiveness. 

In the absence of specific selection 

criteria for Race to the Top—District 

grants, the Department would use the 

general selection criteria in 34 CFR 

75.210 of the Education Department 

General Administrative Regulations in 

selecting LEAs to receive grants. The 

Secretary does not believe the use of 

those general criteria would be 

appropriate for the Race to the Top— 

District competition, because they do 

not focus on the educational reforms 

that districts must be implementing in 

order to receive a Race to the Top— 

District grant, on the specific uses of 

funds under Race to the Top—District, 

or on the plans that the Secretary 

believes districts should develop for 

their Race to the Top—District grants. 

The priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria in this 

notice reflect and promote the purpose 

of the Race to the Top—District 

program. They also align the Race to the 

Top—District program, where possible 

and permissible, with other 

Departmental priorities. Although we 

maintain the overall purpose and 

structure of the FY 2012 Race to the 

Top—District program, we incorporate 

changes based on specific lessons 

learned from the first competition. 

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 

changes in annual monetized transfers 

as a result of this regulatory action. 

Expenditures are classified as transfers 

from the Federal Government to LEAs. 

ACCOUNTING STATEMENT CLASSIFICATION OF ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES

[in millions] 

Category Transfers 

Annualized Monetized Transfers .............................................................. Approximately $120. 

From Whom To Whom? ........................................................................... From the Federal Government to LEAs. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES4
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 151 / Tuesday, August 6, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 48003 

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 our 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 of this Department 

published in the Federal Register, in 

text or Adobe Portable Document 

Format (PDF). To use PDF you must 

have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is 

available free at the site. 

You may also access documents of the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register by using the article search 

feature at: www.federalregister.gov. 

Specifically, through the advanced 

search feature at this site, you can limit 

your search to documents published by 

the Department. 

Dated: July 30, 2013. 

Arne Duncan, 

Secretary of Education. 

[FR Doc. 2013–18710 Filed 8–5–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES4