```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 73 (Tuesday, April 16, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 22451-22467]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-08847]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

34 CFR Chapter II

RIN 1810-AB17
[Docket ID ED-2013-OS-0050]

Proposed Priorities, Requirements, Definitions, and Selection 
Criteria--Race to the Top--District [CFDA Number: 84.416.]

AGENCY: Office of the Deputy Secretary, Department of Education.

ACTION: Proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection 
criteria.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Secretary proposes 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 using funds from 
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 propose to maintain the overall purpose and structure of the FY 
2012 Race to the Top--District competition. These proposed priorities, 
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria are almost identical 
to the ones we used in the FY 2012 competition. We describe the changes 
at the beginning of each section of this document.

DATES: We must receive your comments on or before May 16, 2013, and we 
encourage you to submit comments well in advance of this date.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal 
or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. We will not 
accept comments by fax or by email. To ensure we do not receive 
duplicate comments, please submit your comments only once. In addition, 
please include the Docket ID and the phrase ``Race to the Top--
District-Comments'' at the top of your comments.
    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to www.regulations.gov to submit 
your comments electronically. Information on using Regulations.gov, 
including instructions for accessing agency documents, submitting 
comments, and viewing the docket, is available on the site under ''How 
to use Regulations.gov'' in the Help section.
    Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery, or Hand Delivery. If you mail or 
deliver your comments about these proposed priorities, requirements, 
definitions, and selection criteria, address them to the

[[Page 22452]]

Office of the Deputy Secretary (Attention: Race to the Top--District--
Comments), U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 
7e208, Washington, DC 20202-4260.
    Privacy Note: The Department's policy is to make all comments 
received from members of the public available for public viewing in 
their entirety on the Federal eRulemaking Portal at 
www.regulations.gov. Therefore, commenters should be careful to include 
in their comments only information that they wish to make publicly 
available.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Meredith Farace. Telephone: (202) 453-
6800 or by 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 document is 
to propose priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection 
criteria for the Race to the Top--District competition that would 
enable effective grant making and result in the selection of high-
quality applicants that 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.
    Summary of the Major Provisions of This Regulatory Action: 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 proposed 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 action, the Department will encourage 
and reward those LEAs or consortia of LEAs that have the leadership and 
vision to implement the strategies, structures, and systems needed to 
implement personalized, student-focused approaches to learning and 
teaching that will produce excellence and ensure equity for all 
students. The proposed priorities, definitions, requirements, and 
selection criteria are designed to help LEAs meet these goals. Most 
changes from the FY 2012 competition reflect minor language 
clarifications. The two more 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 proposed changes would 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.
    Under Proposed 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 proposes to 
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 proposing four additional priorities. 
Proposed Priorities 2 through 5 would support efforts to expand the 
types of reform efforts being implemented in LEAs in States that have 
received a Race to the Top award and to LEAs in other States. Moreover, 
these proposed priorities would 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 propose 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 costs imposed on applicants by these 
proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria 
would be 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 up to $150 million will transfer from the Federal 
Government to LEAs under this program. Please refer to the accounting 
statement in this document for a more detailed discussion.
    Invitation to Comment: We invite you to submit comments regarding 
this notice. To ensure that your comments have maximum effect in 
developing the notice of final priorities, requirements, definitions, 
and selection criteria, we urge you to identify clearly the specific 
proposed priority, requirement, definition, or selection criterion that 
each comment addresses.
    We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific 
requirements of Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 and their overall 
requirement of reducing regulatory burden that might result from these 
proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria. 
Please let us know of any further ways the Department could reduce 
potential costs or increase potential benefits while preserving the 
effective and efficient administration of the program.
    During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public 
comments about this notice in room 7e208, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., 
Washington, DC, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., 
Washington, DC time, Monday through Friday of each week except Federal 
holidays.
    Assistance to Individuals With Disabilities in Reviewing the 
Rulemaking Record: On request we will provide an appropriate 
accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability who 
needs assistance to review the comments or other documents in the 
public rulemaking record for this notice. If you want to schedule an 
appointment for this type of accommodation or auxiliary aid, please

[[Page 22453]]

contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    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 (ARRA) (Pub. L. 111-5), as amended by 
section 1832(b) of Division B of the Department of Defense and Full-
Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 (Pub. L. 112-10), and the 
Department of Education Appropriations Act, 2012 (Consolidated 
Appropriations Act, 2012) (Title III of Division F of Pub. L. 112-
74).

Background

The Statutory Context and Program Overview

Race to the Top
    The Race to the Top program, authorized under the ARRA (Pub. L. 
111-5), is centered on four core educational reform areas:
    (a) Adopting standards and assessments that prepare students to 
succeed in college and the workplace and to compete in the global 
economy;
    (b) Building data systems that measure student growth and success 
and inform teachers and principals about how they can improve 
instruction;
    (c) Recruiting, developing, rewarding, and retaining effective 
teachers and principals, especially where they are needed most; and
    (d) Turning around the Nation's lowest-achieving schools.
    In 2010, the Department conducted Race to the Top State 
competitions, which provided incentives to States to adopt bold and 
comprehensive reforms in elementary and secondary education and laid 
the foundation for unprecedented innovation. A total of 46 States and 
the District of Columbia put together plans to implement college- and 
career-ready standards, use data systems to guide teaching and 
learning, evaluate and support teachers and school leaders, and turn 
around their lowest-performing schools. The Race to the Top State 
competitions provided States with incentives to implement large-scale, 
system-changing reforms designed to improve student achievement, narrow 
achievement gaps, and increase graduation and college enrollment rates.
    The Race to the Top Assessment program, also authorized under the 
ARRA, supports consortia of States in developing new and better 
assessments aligned with high standards.
    In 2011, the ARRA was amended by section 1832(b) of Division B of 
the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 
2011 (Pub. L. 112-10), which added an additional education reform area: 
strengthening the quality of early learning and development programs 
and increasing access to high-quality early learning programs for all 
children, including those with high needs. As a result, the Department 
had the authority to use a portion of the FY 2011 and FY 2012 
appropriations for Race to the Top on the Race to the Top--Early 
Learning Challenge program, which is jointly administered by the 
Departments of Education and Health and Human Services. The Race to the 
Top--Early Learning Challenge supports 14 States' efforts to strengthen 
the quality of their early learning programs.
Race to the Top--District Competition
    On May 22, 2012, the Secretary announced the Race to the Top--
District program, which is designed to build on the momentum of other 
Race to the Top competitions by encouraging bold, innovative reform at 
the local level. This district-level program is authorized under 
sections 14005 and 14006 of the ARRA, as amended by section 1832(b) of 
the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 
2011 and the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012. Congress 
appropriated approximately $550 million for Race to the Top in FY 2012. 
Of these funds, the Department awarded approximately $383 million to 16 
Race to the Top--District grantees representing 55 LEAs, with grants 
ranging from $10 to $40 million. The amount of an award for which an 
applicant was eligible to apply depended upon the number of students 
who would be served under the application.
    The Race to the Top--District competition is aimed squarely at 
classrooms and the all-important relationship between educators and 
students. The proposed 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, the Race to the Top--District program will 
encourage and reward those LEAs or consortia of LEAs that have the 
leadership and vision to implement the strategies, structures, and 
systems needed to implement personalized, student-focused approaches to 
learning and teaching that will produce excellence and ensure equity 
for all students. The proposed priorities, definitions, requirements, 
and selection criteria in this notice are designed to help LEAs meet 
these goals.
    Under Proposed 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.
    The Secretary believes that teacher and student classroom 
interaction, supported by strong principals and engaged families, is 
crucial to educating students. Teacher and student interactions are 
strengthened when an effective teacher has useful information about 
students' particular needs, support from his or her principal or 
leadership team, a quality curriculum aligned with college- and career-
ready standards, and the other tools needed to do the job.
    Too often, however, these supportive conditions have not existed in 
our schools or districts, and the results are painfully predictable: 
students fall behind or drop out, achievement gaps remain or widen, 
teachers get frustrated and leave the field, and stakeholders become 
polarized and divided under pressure to perform.
    That is why--for more than four years--the Department has supported 
bold reforms at the State and local levels that have reduced barriers 
to good teaching and helped create better conditions for learning.
    There is no single approach or boutique solution to implementation 
of personalized learning environments. An LEA or consortium of LEAs 
receiving an award under this competition will build on the experience 
of States and districts in implementing reforms in the four core 
educational assurance areas (as defined in this notice) through Race to 
the Top and other key programs. A successful applicant will provide 
teachers the information, tools, and

[[Page 22454]]

supports that enable them to meet the needs of each student and 
substantially accelerate and deepen each student's learning. These LEAs 
will have the policies, systems, infrastructure, capacity, and culture 
to enable teachers, teacher teams, and school leaders to continuously 
focus on improving individual student achievement and closing 
achievement gaps. These LEAs will also make equity and access a 
priority and aim to prepare each student to master the content and 
skills required for college- and career-readiness, provide each student 
the opportunity to pursue a rigorous course of study, and accelerate 
and deepen students' learning through attention to their individual 
needs. As important, they will create opportunities for students to 
identify and pursue areas of personal academic interest--all while 
ensuring that each student masters critical areas identified in 
college- and career-ready standards or college- and career-ready high 
school graduation requirements.
    Educators want a way to inspire and challenge those students who 
are furthest ahead, provide targeted help and assistance to those 
furthest behind, and engage fully and effectively with the students in 
the middle. To accomplish this objective, educators across the country 
have created personalized learning environments and used strategies 
that involve such elements as technology, virtual and blended learning, 
individual and group tasks, partnering with parents, and aligning non-
school hours with the educational needs of students.
    Personalized learning environments allow students to: understand 
their individual learning goals and needs; access deep learning 
experiences that include individual and group tasks; and develop such 
skills and traits as goal setting, teamwork, perseverance, critical 
thinking, communications, creativity, and problem solving across 
multiple academic domains. If students are to do this successfully, 
both students and educators need opportunities to build their 
individual and collective capacity to support the implementation of 
personalized learning environments and strategies.
    The Race to the Top--District program does not create new stand-
alone programs, or support niche programs or interventions. Nor is it a 
vehicle for maintenance of the status quo. Rather, the Race to the 
Top--District program will support LEAs that demonstrate their 
commitment to identifying teachers, principals, and schools who have a 
vision and the expertise to personalize education and extend their 
reach to all of their students. LEAs successfully implementing an 
approach to learning and teaching that includes personalized learning 
environments will lay a foundation for raising student achievement, 
decreasing the achievement gap across student groups, and increasing 
the rates at which students graduate from high school prepared for 
college and careers.
    The Department is also proposing to 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 proposing 
four additional priorities--Proposed Priorities 2 through 5--through 
which the Department will support efforts to expand the types of reform 
efforts being implemented in LEAs in States that have received a Race 
to the Top award and to LEAs in other States. Moreover, these proposed 
priorities would 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 proposed 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. This priority aligns with other Department 
programs, such as the Promise Neighborhoods program, and further 
amplifies the Department's commitment to improve education as well as 
family and community supports. We believe that this will help children 
and youth in communities with these partnerships access great schools 
and the complementary family and community supports that will help 
prepare them to attain an excellent education and successfully 
transition to college and a career.

Changes From the FY 2012 Competition

    These proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection 
criteria maintain the overall purpose and structure of the FY 2012 Race 
to the Top--District competition, and include almost identical language 
to the FY 2012 competition. At the beginning of the proposed 
priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria sections, 
we list all of the differences between the FY 2012 notice inviting 
applications and this document. Most differences reflect minor language 
clarifications or changes to ensure language is appropriate for a 
notice of proposed priorities, definitions, requirements, and selection 
criteria, as compared to a notice inviting applications. The two more 
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 
proposed changes will enable the Department to maximize the number of 
grantees that receive funding under a competition, while still awarding 
grants of sufficient size to support bold improvements in learning and 
teaching.

Proposed Priorities

Changes From the FY 2012 Competition

    (a) In Proposed Priority 6, sub-bullet (2), we propose changing 
``and'' to ``or'' in ``educational results or other educational 
outcomes'', and we separate the sentence with an ``(a)'' and ``(b)''. 
These edits do not change the meaning, but help to clarify that 
educational results or outcomes, and family and community supports, are 
two distinct categories.
    --New: ``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;''
    --Original: ``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 educational results and 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 family and 
community supports (as defined in this notice) results;''
    Proposed priorities: The Secretary proposes 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

[[Page 22455]]

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 DR 
276637).
    Proposed 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 college- and 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.
    Proposed Priority 2: Non-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 non-rural LEAs in States that received awards under 
the Race to the Top Phase 1, Phase 2, or Phase 3 competition.
    Proposed 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.
    Proposed Priority 4: Non-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 non-rural LEAs in States that did not 
receive awards under the Race to the Top Phase 1, Phase 2, or Phase 3 
competition.
    Proposed 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.
    Proposed 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 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 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 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 to support the 
plan described in Priority 1;
    (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)).

[[Page 22456]]

    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)).

Proposed Eligibility Requirements

Changes From the FY 2012 Competition

    (a) In eligibility requirement (1)(a), we propose adding 
``individual'' and ``one of'' to the requirement to help further 
describe the entities that are eligible to apply for grants under this 
program. This does not change the meaning, but helps clarify that every 
LEA, whether applying individually or as part of a consortium, must be 
from one of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, or the 
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
    --New: ``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.''
    --Original: ``An applicant must be an individual LEA (as defined in 
this notice) or a consortium of LEAs from the 50 States, the District 
of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
    (b) In eligibility requirement (1)(a)(iii), we propose adding that 
``Successful applicants (i.e., grantees) from past Race to the Top--
District competitions may not apply for additional funding.'' This 
provides an opportunity for a greater number of LEAs nationwide to 
receive funding under the program.
    Proposed Eligibility Requirements: The Secretary proposes 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 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., lowest-performing 
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 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 assurance areas (as defined in this notice), including, for 
each LEA included in an application, an assurance signed by the LEA's 
superintendent or 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).

Proposed Application Requirements

    Changes from the FY 2012 competition: No changes proposed.
    Proposed Application Requirements:
    The Secretary proposes 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 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

[[Page 22457]]

    (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 chief executive officer 
(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 career-ready 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).

Proposed Program Requirements

    Changes from the FY 2012 competition:
    (a) In program requirement (1), we propose decreasing the maximum 
range from 25,001+ participating students with a $30-$40 million award 
range to 20,001+ participating students with a $25-$30 million award 
range, and making the next highest range 10,001-20,000 participating 
students with a $20-$25 million award range. We also propose reducing 
the minimum award from $5 million to $4 million. We believe these 
changes would increase the number of grants awarded under a 
competition, while still awarding grants of sufficient size to support 
bold improvements in learning and teaching.
    Proposed Program Requirements:
    The Secretary proposes the following requirements for LEAs 
receiving funds under this competition. We may apply 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               Award range
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2,000-5,000 or Fewer than 2,000,         $4-10 million.
 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).
5,001-10,000...........................  $10-20 million.
10,001-20,000..........................  $20-25 million.
20,001+................................  $25-30 million.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department will not consider an application that requests a 
budget outside the applicable range of awards.
    (2) A grantee must 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 
open-standard 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

[[Page 22458]]

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.

Proposed Definitions

    Changes from the FY 2012 competition: No changes proposed.
    Proposed definitions:
    The Secretary proposes the following definitions for terms not 
defined in the ARRA (or, by reference, in the ESEA). We may apply 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 
credit-bearing courses commonly required by the State's public four-
year degree-granting 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 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-faq-201105.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, 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

[[Page 22459]]

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.
    Four intervention models means the turnaround model, restart model, 
school closure, and transformational model as defined by the final 
requirements for the School Improvement Grant (SIG) program, published 
in the Federal Register on October 28, 2010 (75 FR 66363).
    Graduation rate means the four-year or extended-year adjusted 
cohort graduation rate as defined by 34 CFR 200.19(b)(1).
    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-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.
    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) 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, machine-readable 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 SIG program authorized 
by section 1003(g) of the ESEA,\1\ (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 lowest-achieving five Title 
I schools in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring in the 
State, whichever number of schools is greater; or (b) is a high school 
that has had a graduation rate (as defined in 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 lowest-achieving five percent of secondary

[[Page 22460]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Department considers schools that are identified as Tier 
I or Tier II schools under the School Improvement Grants Program 
(see 75 FR 66363) as part of a State's approved FY 2009 or FY 2010 
applications to be persistently lowest-achieving 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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/eligible12/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, as well as any combined subgroup used 
in the State accountability system and 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.
    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 co-
teaching assignment) who has been assigned the lead responsibility for 
a student's learning in a subject or course.

Proposed Selection Criteria

    Changes from the FY 2012 competition:
    (a) For selection criteria that include plans, peer reviewers are 
asked to assess the quality of the plans using a consistent set of 
high-quality plan elements. To clarify that these elements apply across 
all selection criteria that include plans, we propose deleting extra 
references to ``plans'' or ``strategies'' in the criteria language. 
These include:
    (i) Selection criteria (C)(1) and (C)(2): In the last sentence of 
the stem to selection criteria (C)(1) and (C)(2), we propose changing 
``The quality of the plan will be assessed based on'' to ``This 
includes''.
    --New: ``This includes the extent to which the applicant proposes 
an approach that includes the following:''
    --Original: ``The quality of the plan will be assessed based on the 
extent to which the applicant proposes an approach that includes the 
following:''
    (ii) Selection criterion (C)(1)(b): In (C)(1)(b), we propose 
deleting ``there is a strategy to ensure that''. The proposed change 
helps clarify the use of the high-quality plan elements, as well as 
makes the stem for (C)(1)(b) consistent with the stem for (C)(1)(a).
    --New: ``With the support of parents and educators, each student 
has access to--''
    --Original: ``With the support of parents and educators, there is a 
strategy to ensure that each student has access to--''
    (iii) Selection criteria (D)(1) and (D)(2): Similar to the 
clarification proposed for the stem to selection criteria (C)(1) and 
(C)(2), we propose changing ``The quality of the plan will be assessed 
based on'' to ``This includes''.
    --New: ``This includes the extent to which--''

[[Page 22461]]

    --Original: ``The quality of the plan will be determined based on 
the extent to which--''
    (iv) Selection criteria (E)(1), (E)(2), and (E)(4): We propose 
changing ``strategy'' or ``plan'' to ``high-quality plan''.
    (b) Selection criterion (E)(3): In selection criterion (E)(3), we 
propose changing ``must'' to ``should'', to clarify that the number of 
performance measures should be approximately 12 to 14, and may vary 
based on the applicant's plan and the number of applicable populations 
served.
    --New: ``The applicant should have a total of approximately 12 to 
14 performance measures.''
    --Original: ``The applicant must have a total of approximately 12 
to 14 performance measures.''
    (c) We propose removing Selection Criterion G: Optional Budget 
Supplement. As noted elsewhere in this document, we propose removing 
the opportunity to apply for an optional budget supplement in order to 
maximize the number of grantees that could receive funding under this 
program and decrease the complexity of having separate plans and 
budgets for a single selection criterion that by definition is not 
intended to impact an applicant's ability to meet Priority 1.
    Proposed Selection Criteria:
    The Secretary proposes 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 and the application package, the Department will announce 
the selection criteria to be applied 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 builds on its work in four core 
educational assurance areas (as defined in this notice) and 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.
    (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 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 
lowest-achieving 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 in the development of the 
proposal and meaningful stakeholder support for the proposal, 
including--

[[Page 22462]]

    (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; and
    (5) A high-quality plan for an analysis of the applicant's current 
status in implementing personalized learning environments and the logic 
behind the reform proposal contained within the applicant's proposal, 
including identified needs and gaps that the plan will address.

C. Preparing Students for College and Careers

    The extent to which the applicant has a high-quality plan for 
improving learning and teaching by personalizing the learning 
environment in order to provide all students the support to graduate 
college- and 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 career-ready 
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, in an age-appropriate 
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 
college- and career-ready standards (as defined in this notice) or 
college- and career-ready 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, 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; 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 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; 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 career-ready 
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;

[[Page 22463]]

    (ii) High-quality learning resources (e.g., instructional content 
and assessments), including digital resources, as appropriate, that are 
aligned with college- and career-ready 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 college- and career-ready standards (as defined in this notice) 
or college- and career-ready 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 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 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 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, 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 high-quality plan represents 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 plan. This will be 
determined by the extent to which the applicant has--
    (1) A high-quality plan 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 for ongoing communication and engagement 
with internal and external stakeholders; and
    (3) Ambitious yet achievable performance measures, overall and by 
subgroup, 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, 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

[[Page 22464]]

 
                                    (b) The number and percentage of
                                     participating students, 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, by
                                     subgroup, who are on track to
                                     college- and 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 who complete
                                     and submit the Free Application for
                                     Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) form;
                                    (b) The number and percentage of
                                     participating students, by
                                     subgroup, who are on track to
                                     college- and 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 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 evaluate the effectiveness of Race to 
the Top--District funded activities, such as professional development 
and activities that employ technology, 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).

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 for sustainability of the 
project's goals after the term of the grant. The plan should include 
support from State and local government leaders and financial support. 
Such a plan may include a budget for the three years after the term of 
the grant that includes budget assumptions, potential sources, and uses 
of funds.

Final Priorities, Requirements, Definitions, and Selection Criteria

    We will announce the final priorities, requirements, definitions, 
and selection criteria in a notice in the Federal Register. We will 
determine the final priorities, requirements, definitions, and 
selection criteria after considering responses to this notice and other 
information available to the Department. 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, or selection criteria, we invite 
applications through a notice in the Federal Register.

Executive Order 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 proposed regulatory action would have an annual effect on the 
economy of more than $100 million because we expect that more than that 
amount will be appropriated for Race to the Top and awarded as grants. 
Therefore, this proposed action is ``economically significant'' and 
subject to review by OMB under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 
12866.

[[Page 22465]]

Notwithstanding this determination, we have assessed the potential 
costs and benefits, both quantitative and qualitative, of this proposed 
regulatory action and have determined that the benefits would justify 
the costs.
    We have also reviewed this proposed regulatory action under 
Executive Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the 
principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review 
established in Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, 
Executive Order 13563 requires that an agency--
    (1) Propose or adopt regulations only upon a reasoned determination 
that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits 
and costs are difficult to quantify);
    (2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society, 
consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into 
account--among other things and to the extent practicable--the costs of 
cumulative regulations;
    (3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select 
those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential 
economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other 
advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);
    (4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather 
than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must 
adopt; and
    (5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct 
regulation, including economic incentives--such as user fees or 
marketable permits--to encourage the desired behavior, or provide 
information that enables the public to make choices.
    Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency ``to use the best 
available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future 
benefits and costs as accurately as possible.'' The Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these 
techniques may include ``identifying changing future compliance costs 
that might result from technological innovation or anticipated 
behavioral changes.''
    We are issuing these proposed priorities, requirements, 
definitions, and selection criteria only on a reasoned determination 
that their benefits would justify their costs. In choosing among 
alternative regulatory approaches, we selected those approaches that 
would maximize net benefits. Based on the analysis that follows, the 
Department believes that this regulatory action is consistent with the 
principles in Executive Order 13563.
    We also have determined that this proposed regulatory action would 
not unduly interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the 
exercise of their governmental functions.

Discussion of Costs and Benefits

    The Secretary believes that the proposed priorities, requirements, 
definitions, and selection criteria would not impose significant costs 
on eligible LEAs. The Secretary also believes that the benefits of 
implementing the proposals contained in this notice would outweigh any 
associated costs. The Secretary believes that the proposed priorities, 
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria would 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. During the first year of the program, the 
Department received over 370 applications representing more than 1200 
LEAs. We expect that the proposed priorities, requirements, 
definitions, and selection criteria in this notice would strengthen the 
applications for this program by clarifying 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 projects 
under the program. The pool of possible applicants is large and there 
is great interest in the program. Potential applicants need to consider 
carefully the effort that will be required to prepare a strong 
application, their capacity to implement projects successfully, and 
their chances of submitting a successful application.
    Program participation is voluntary. The Secretary believes that the 
costs imposed on applicants by the proposed priorities, requirements, 
definitions, and selection criteria would be limited to paperwork 
burden related to preparing an application and that the benefits of 
implementing these proposals 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 eligible applicants, including small entities.
    Elsewhere in this section under Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we 
identify and explain burdens specifically associated with information 
collection requirements.

Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

    The Secretary certifies that this proposed regulatory action will 
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. The small entities that this proposed regulatory action will 
affect are small LEAs applying for and receiving funds under this 
program. The Secretary believes that the costs imposed on applicants by 
the proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection 
criteria would be limited to paperwork burden related to preparing an 
application and that the benefits of implementing these proposals would 
outweigh any costs incurred by applicants.
    Participation in this program is voluntary. For this reason, the 
proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria 
would impose no burden on small entities in general. Eligible 
applicants would determine whether to apply for funds, and have the 
opportunity to weigh the requirements for preparing applications, and 
any associated costs, against the likelihood of receiving funding and 
the requirements for implementing projects under the program. Eligible 
applicants most likely would apply only if they determine that the 
likely benefits exceed the costs of preparing an application. The 
likely benefits include the potential receipt of a grant as well as 
other benefits that may accrue to an entity through its development of 
an application, such as the use of that application to spur educational 
reforms and improvements without additional Federal funding.
    The U.S. Small Business Administration Size Standards defines as 
``small entities'' for-profit or nonprofit institutions with total 
annual revenue below $7,000,000 or, if they are institutions controlled 
by small governmental jurisdictions (that are comprised of cities, 
counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special 
districts), with a population of less than 50,000. There are 
approximately 16,000 LEAs in the country that meet the definition of 
``small entity.'' However, the Secretary believes that only a small 
number of these entities would be interested in applying for funds 
under this program, thus reducing the likelihood that the proposals 
contained in this notice would have a significant economic impact on 
small entities. As discussed earlier, the number of applications 
received during the last competition was approximately 370.
    In addition, the Secretary believes that the proposed priorities,

[[Page 22466]]

requirements, definitions, and selection criteria discussed in this 
notice do not impose any additional burden on small entities applying 
for a grant than they would face in the absence of the proposed action. 
That is, the length of the applications those entities would submit in 
the absence of the regulatory action and the time needed to prepare an 
application would likely be the same.
    Further, the proposed action may help small entities determine 
whether they have the interest, need, or capacity to implement 
activities under the program and, thus, prevent small entities that do 
not have such an interest, need, and capacity from absorbing the burden 
of applying.
    This proposed regulatory action would not have a significant 
economic impact on small entities once they are able to meet the costs 
of compliance using the funds provided under this program.
    The Secretary invites comments from small LEAs as to whether they 
believe this proposed regulatory action would have a significant 
economic impact on them and, if so, requests evidence to support that 
belief.

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 up to $150.
From Whom To Whom?........................  From the Federal Government
                                             to LEAs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent 
burden, the Department conducts a preclearance consultation program to 
provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to 
comment on proposed and continuing collections of information in 
accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 
3506(c)(2)(A)). This helps ensure that: the public understands the 
Department's collection instructions, respondents can provide the 
requested data in the desired format, reporting burden (time and 
financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly 
understood, and the Department can properly assess the impact of 
collection requirements on respondents. We estimate that each applicant 
would spend approximately 230 hours of staff time to address the 
proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria, 
prepare the application, and obtain necessary clearances. The total 
number of hours for all applicants will vary based on the number of 
applications. Based on the number of applications the Department 
received in the FY 2012 competition, we expect to receive approximately 
300 applications for these funds. The total number of hours for all 
expected applicants is an estimated 69,000 hours. We estimate the total 
cost per hour of the applicant-level staff who carry out this work to 
be $30 per hour. The total estimated cost for all applicants would be 
$2,070,000. We have submitted an Information Collection Request (ICR) 
for this collection to OMB. If you want to comment on the proposed 
information collection requirements, please send your comments to the 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attention: Desk 
Officer for U.S. Department of Education. Send these comments by email 
to OIRA_DOCKET@omb.eop.gov or by fax to (202) 395-6974. You may also 
send a copy of these comments to the Department contact named in the 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice. In preparing 
your comments you may want to review the ICR, which we maintain on the 
Regulations.gov Web site at http://regulations.gov. You may search for 
this ICR using docket ID ED-2013-OS-0050. This ICR is also available on 
OMB's RegInfo Web site at www.reginfo.gov under OMB Number 1894-0014. 
We consider your comments on this proposed collection of information 
in--
     Deciding whether the proposed collection is necessary for 
the proper performance of our functions, including whether the 
information will have practical use;
     Evaluating the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of 
the proposed collection, including the validity of our methodology and 
assumptions;
     Enhancing the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the 
information we collect; and
     Minimizing the burden on those who must respond. This 
includes exploring the use of appropriate automated, electronic, 
mechanical, or other technological collection techniques.
    OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of 
information contained in these proposed priorities, requirements, and 
selection criteria between 30 and 60 days after publication of this 
document in the Federal Register. Therefore, to ensure that OMB gives 
your comments full consideration, it is important that OMB receives 
your comments on the proposed collection within 30 days after 
publication. This does not affect the deadline for your comments to us 
on the proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection 
criteria.
    Please note that a Federal agency cannot conduct or sponsor a 
collection of information unless OMB approves the collection under the 
PRA and the corresponding information collection instrument displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. Notwithstanding any other provision 
of law, no person is required to comply with, or is subject to penalty 
for failure to comply with, a collection of information if the 
collection instrument does not display a currently valid OMB control 
number. We will provide the OMB control number when we publish the 
notice of final priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection 
criteria.
    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

[[Page 22467]]

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: April 10, 2013.
Arne Duncan,
Secretary of Education.
[FR Doc. 2013-08847 Filed 4-15-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
```