1



## Race to the **To p**  **– District**  **Annual Perform ance Report**  **:**

**SUPPOR TING ST**  **AT EMENT**  **FOR P APER**  **WORK REDUCTION ACT SUBMISSION**  A. Justification A.1. Explain the circumstances that make the collection of information necessary. Identify any legal or administrative requirements that necessitate the collection. Attach a copy of the appropriate section of each statute and regulation mandating or authorizing the collection of information. On February

17, 2009, President Barack Obama signed into law the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), historic legislation designed to stimulate the econom y, support job creation, and invest in critical sectors, including education. The ARRA established the foundation for education reform by supporting investments in innovative strategies that are most likely to lead to improved results for students, long
term gains in school and school sy stem capacity, and increased productivity and effectiveness. The ARRA initially provided $4.3 billion for the Race to the Top Fund (referred to in the statute as the State Incentive Grant Fund) to support a State education reform program (Race to the Top State grants). In 2010, the United States Department o f Education ( 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 St ates and the District of Columbia put together plans to implement college
- and career
- ready standards, use data sy stems 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, s ys tem - 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 b y 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 earl y learning programs for all chi ldren, 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 L earning Challenge program, which is jointly administered by the Departments of Education and Health and Human Services. The Race to the Top
-2

Earl y Learning Challenge supports 14 States’ efforts to strengthen the quality of their earl y learning programs. On December 23, 2011, the ARRA was amended by the Department of Education (Title III of Division F of Pub. L. 112
- 74, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012) to allow the Department to make grants directl y to LEAs. 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. Congress appropriated approximately $550 million for Race to the Top for FY 2012. Of these funds, the Department awarded approximately

$383 million to 16 Race to the Top

– District grantees representing 55 local educational agencies (LEAs), with grants ranging from $10 to $40 million. Th e amount of the award for which an applicant was eligible to appl y depended upon the number of students who would be served under the application. The FY 2013 Race to the Top

– District competition will again support applicants that demonstrate how they can personalize education for all students in their schools. The priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria used in the FY 2013 competition are almost identical to those used in the FY 2012 competition. The application submission period for the FY 2013 Race to the Top

– District competition closed on October 3 , 2013. LEAs located in Colorado counties designated for Individual Assistance or Public Assistance under the Presidential major disaster (DR
- 4145) or emergency

(EM
- 3365) declaration s resulting from the September 2013 severe storms, flooding, landslides, and mudslides had an extended deadline of October 10, 2013. Applications are currently under peer review and the Department plans to make awards in December 2013 for a total of approx imately $120 million
. FY 2013 grantees will utilize the same Annual Performance Report (APR) template as FY 2012 Race to the Top

– District grantees. The Race to the Top

– District program is aimed squarel y at classrooms and the all
important relationship between educators and students. The Department encourage d and reward ed those LEAs or consortia of LEAs that have the leadership and vision to implement the strategies, structures, and s ys te ms needed to implement personalized, student
- focused approaches to learning and teaching that the Department believes will produce excellence and ensure equity for all students. To support Race to the Top

– District grantees as they

implement ambitious re form agendas , the Implementation and Support Unit (I SU) at the Department is dedicated to differentiating its approach to supporting grantees based on individual district needs , as well as supporting district s to work with each other and with experts from around the nation to achieve and sustain educational reforms. In order to fulfill our responsibilities for programmatic oversight and public reporting, the Department has developed a Race to the Top

– District Annual Performance Report (APR) that is tied directly to the FY 2012 and FY 2013 Race to the Top

– District selection criteria and priorities previously established and published in the Federal3

Register. The report is grounded in the key performance targets included in grantees’ approved Race to the Top

– District plans. Grantees will be required to report on their progress improving student outcomes and implementing personalized learning environments, including narrative sections on progress and key performance indicators. Each grantee district will submit a Race to the Top

– District APR on an annual basis. The first report for the 16 FY 2012 districts is anticipated to be collected during spring 2014 with FY 2013 grantees reporting for the first time in spring 2015. D istrict s will submit the narrative elements and quantitative measures via an online data collection platform that will then be converted into a transparent public display
. Grantee responses will provide the information required for the Department to fulfill its p rogrammatic and fiscal oversight responsibilities. In particular, the data will help to inform customized technical assistance for grantees. The questions included in the APR relate to the grant administration/performance and are covered b y the ARRA and Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) provisions. Additionally, 34 CFR 80.20 requires that a grantee must account for grant funds in accordance with State laws and procedures. It also requires that a grantee’s fiscal control an d accounting procedures, as well those of its subrecipients and contractors, must, among other things, be sufficient to permit the tracing of expenditures of funds to a level that ensures that funds have not been used in violation of applicable Federal requirements. Similarly 34 CFR 80.40 requires that grantees are responsible for managing the day
- to - day

activities of grants to assure compliance with Federal requirements and that performance goals are being achieved. In the Race to the Top

– District app lication , the Department asked grantees to create annual targets for performance me asures and noted that additional measures may be added in the future. A.2. Indicate how, by whom, and for what purpose the information is to be used. Except for a new collection, indicate the actual use the agency has made of the information received from the current collection. The information collected will be in the form of an annual report on progress and key performance indicators reported b y grantee district s . The Department will use information collected through the APR to assess the progress of Race to the Top

– District grantees in implement ation toward the targets outlined in their approved plans and to ensure compliance with statutory and Department fiscal regulations
. A.3. Describe whether, and to what extent, the collection of information involves the use of automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or forms of information technology, e.g. permitting electronic submi ssion of responses, and4

the basis for the decision of adopting this means of collection. Also describe any consideration of using information technology to reduce burden. The Department has enlisted the services of a contractor to develop an electronic sy stem to facilitate the collection of APR data from grantees
. The s ys tem will reduce burden to grantees b y prompting LEAs to complete the sections required based on their approved plans. For e xample, when a grantee logs in to complete its report, the s ys tem will direct the grantee specifically

to complete only those elements that are required based on its approved plan, will skip those sections that are not relevant, and will indicate when addi tional reporting is optional. The Race to the Top

– District APR will be emailed to grantees, discussed on a webinar, and posted on the Department’s website
. A.4. Describe efforts to identify duplication. Show specifically why any similar informatio n already available cannot be used or modified for use of the purposes described in Item 2 above. The assurances and information requested under this collection are unique to each ye ar of the Race to the Top

– District program, and the Department has not collected them in the past. Even in the event of similar or comparable information collected for other programs in the past, the progress updates and performance measures are specific to the Race to the Top

– District program and the information is specifi c to the present point in time. Therefore, any comparable information and assurances that were collected in the past would not satisfy

the requirements for this p rogram. The Department has made every effort to reduce the burden on grantees in providing the information. Some data are prepopulated in the s ystem to reflect prior reporting (e.g., [Prepopulated from application ]), to reduce grantee burden and utilize records already on file with the Department (e.g., [Prepopulated from CCD Data ]), and to lev erage existing Department data collections (e.g., [ Prepopulated from EDFacts Data ]). A.5. If the collection of information impacts small businesses or other small entities (Item 5 of OMB Form 83

-I), describe any methods used to minimize burden. The eli gible applicants for the Race to the Top

– District program are LEAs or consortiums of LEAs . No small businesses will be directl y impacted b y this collection. In order to reduce the burden on small LEAs , the Department has made every effort to ensure that the required collection is absolutely necessary

to meet the requirements of the program. Additionally , all LEAs were informed through the application process of the need to collect data on the performance measures included in their approved Race to the Top

– District plans.5

A.6. Describe the consequences to Federal program or policy activities if the collection is not conducted or is conducted less frequently, as well as any technical or legal obstacles to reducing burden. This collection is critical to ensure the Department has the required information to inform ongoing performance management discussions with grantees in order to make the necessary and immediate adjustments to program implementation and support, as well as provide appropriate and timely updates to the public on the progress of grantees ’ program implementation and achievement of targeted outcomes. A.7. Explain any special circumstances that would cause an information collection to be conducted in a manner:  requiring respondents to report information to the agency more often than quarterly;  requiring respondents to prepare a written response to a collection of information in fewer than 30 days after receipt of it;  requiring respondents to submit more than an original and two copies of any document;  requiring respondents to retain records, other than health, medical, government contract, grant
- in
- aid, or tax records for more than three years;  in connection with a statistical survey, that is not designed to produce valid and reliable results than can be generalized to the universe of study;  requiring the use of a statistical data classification that has not been reviewed and approved by OMB;  that includes a pledge of confidentiality that is not supported by authority established in statute or regulation, that is not supported by disclosure and data security policies that are consistent with the pledge, or which unnecessarily impedes sharing of data with other agencies for compatible confidential use; or  requiring respondents to submi t proprietary trade secrets, or other confidential information unless the agency can demonstrate that it has instituted procedures to protect the information’s confidentiality to the extent permitted by law. The Department is committed to supporting LEAs as they implement ambitious reform agendas through Race to the Top

– District. Specifically , the IS U is differentiating its approach to supporting grantees based on individual district needs and tailored technical assistance that support s district s to work with each other and with experts from around the nation to achieve and sustain educational reforms. Thus, ongoing communication with the Department is necessary to provide appropriate and timel y assistance to district s as they implement their Race to the Top

– District plans
. This collection is consistent with 5 CFR 1320.5 (d)(2)
. A.8. If applicable, provide a copy and identify the date and page number of publication in the Federal Register of the agency’s notice, required by 5 CFR 1320.8(d), soliciting comments on the information collection prior to submission to OMB. Summarize p ublic6

comments received in response to that notice and describe actions taken by the agency in response to these comments. Specifically address comments received on cost and hour burden. Describe efforts to consult with persons outside the agency to obtain their views on the availability of data, frequency of collection, the clarity of instruction and record keeping, disclosure, or reporting format (if any), and on the data elements to be recorded, disclosed, or reported. Consultation with representatives of those from whom information is to be obtained or those who must compile records should occur at least once every 3 years

– even if the collection of information activity is the same as in prior periods. There may be circumstances that may preclude c onsultation in a specific situation. These circumstances should be explained. A 60 day notice was published on February 10, 2014 (74 FR 77109). A 30
- day notice for public comment w as published in the federal register. No public comments were received.
A.9. Explain any decision to provide any payment or gift to respondents, other than remuneration of contractors or grantees. No pay ments or gifts to respondents have been made. A.10. Describe any assurance of confidentiality provided to respondents and the basis for the assurance in statute, regulation, or agency policy. There is no assurance of confidentiality
. A.11. Provide additional justification for any questions of a sensitive nature, such as sexual behavior and attitudes, religious beliefs, and other matters that are commonly considered private. The justification should include the reasons why the agency considers the questions necessary, the specific uses to be made of the information, the explanation to be given to persons from whom the information is requested, and any steps to be taken to obtain their consent. There are no questions of a sensitive nature.
A.12. Provide estimates of the hour burden of the collection of information. A. Burden hours for respondents7

The Department estimates that each FY 2012 and FY 2013 grante e will spend between 43 and 63 hours of staff time to provide the information required in each APR
. The lower level estimate is 43 hours, which represents the time needed to report on the require d performance measures. The upper level estimate applies to grantees that have optional budget supplements and multiple project budgets ; in that case, up to 20 additional hours will be needed to complete the report. FY 2012 Race to the Top

– District grant ees were permitted to apply for optional budget supplements as part of their Race to the Top

– District applications and several applicants chose to do so. Additionally , applicants were able to determine the number of project level budgets as part of their application . The time required to complete the APR beyond the 63 hour estimate depends on the project level budgets included in LEA applications , but we expect such reporting will require no more than 20 additional hours. The spring 2014 APR will only include the 16 FY 2012 grantees. The total number of hours estimated to be spent nationally completing the APR in spring 2014 for FY 2012 grantees would be 84 8 hours . This calculation is based on the sum of 1 6 times the averag e range for grantees ( 53 hours)
. FY 2013 grantees will report for the first time using the same APR template in spring 2015. The Department estimates 5 FY 2013 Race to the Top

– District grantees, making an estimated total of 21 respondents for the spring 2015 APR. The total number of hours estimated to be spent nationally completing the APR in spring 2015 would be 1,113 hours. This calculation is based on the sum of 21 times the average range for grantees (53 hours).
**Sections Hours**  **(Annual) A.**  **Vision:** (A)(1) Articulating a comprehensive and coherent reform vision 0 (A)(2) Applicant's approach to implementation 2 (A)(3) LEA
- wide reform & change 0 (A)(4) LEA
- wide goals for improved student outcomes 5 **B. Prior Record of Success and Conditions for Reform**  (B)(1) Demonstrating a clear track record of success 0 (B)(2) Increasing transparency in LEA processes, practices, & investments 0 (B)(3) State context for implementation 0 (B)(4) Stakeholder engagement and support 0 (B)(5) Analy sis of needs and gaps 0 **C. Preparing Students for College and Careers** (C)(1) Learning 0 (C)(2) Teaching and Leading 0 **D. LEA Policy and Infrastructure** (D)(1) LEA practices, policies, rules 18 (D)(2) LEA and school infrastructure 0 **E. Continuous Improvement**  (E)(1) Continuous improvement process 0 (E)(2) Ongoing communication and engagement 0 (E)(3) Performance measures 15 (E)(4) Evaluating effectiveness of investments 0 **F. Expenditures**  (F)(1) Overall Budget 3 (F)(2) Project budget(s) 1 **G. Optional Budget Supplement**  Progress in implementing optional budget supplement project 2 **Application Assurances** Progress in implementing application assurances 2 **Competitive Preference Priority** Performance Measures 10 **Absolute Priority 1** Progress in implementing personalized learning environments 2 Total annual hours minimum range 43 Total annual hours maximum range 63 B. Cost to Respondents The Department estimates that the per
- hour cost for grantee employees will average $30 per person (approximately GS
- 12 equivalent) per hour for a total of $ 1,590 per grantee.
A.13. Provide an estimate of the total annual cost burden to respondents or record keepers resulting f

rom the collection of information. (Do not include the cost of any hour burden shown in Items 12 and 14.)

 The cost estimate should be split into two components: (a) a total capital and start

up cost component (annualized over its expected useful life); a nd (b) a total operation and maintenance and purchase of services component. The estimates should take into account costs associated with generating, maintaining, and disclosing or providing the information. Include descriptions of methods used to estima te major cost factors including system and technology acquisition, expected useful life of capital equipment, the discount rate(s), and the time period over which costs will be incurred. Capital and start

- up costs include, among other items, preparations for collecting information such as purchasing computers and software; monitoring, sampling, drilling and testing equipment; and record storage facilities.9  If cost estimates are expected to vary widely, agencies should present ranges of cost burdens and ex

plain the reasons for the variance. The cost of contracting out information collection services should be a part of this cost burden estimate. In developing cost burden estimates, agencies may consult with a sample of respondents (fewer than 10), utilize the 60

- day pre

- OMB submission public comment process and use existing economic or regulatory impact analysis associated with the rulemaking containing the information collection, as appropriate.

 Generally, estimates should not include purchases of equipm ent or services, or portions thereof, made: (1) prior to October 1, 1995, (2) to achieve regulatory compliance with requirements not associated with the information collection, (3) for reasons other than to provide information or keep records for the government, or (4) as part of customary and usual business or private practices. Total Annualized Capital/Startup Cost: 0 Total Annual Costs (O&M) : 0

_________________________________________ Total Annualized Costs Request ed : 0
There are no start - up or annual costs (aside from salaries listed above) for this collection.
A.14. Provide estimates of annualized cost to the Federal government. Also, provide a description of the method used to estimate cost, which should include quantificatio n of hours, operational expenses (such as equipment, overhead, printing, and support staff), and any other expense that would not have been incurred without this collection of information. Agencies also may aggregate cost estimates from Items 12, 13, and 14 in a single table. The Federal costs do not include salaries of existing Federal staff. Costs explicated below are related solel y to contractual support for the APR system maintenance. Specificall y, the contractor will provide an online s ys tem for Annu al Performance Report submission; provide technical assistance, as needed to grantees in using the s ys tem; conduct data quality reviews and work with grantees, as necessary ; and conduct and analy sis of this annual data. The contractor will submit an annual anal ys is of the data reported through the APR as well as cumulative progress on several metrics by district
. Contractor assistance $1,050,000 A.15. Explain the reasons for any program changes or adjustments to #16f of the IC Data Part 1 Form. This is a new collection

– therefore all burden is new. This results in a program change of 21 responses and 1,113 burden hours.10

A.16. For collections of information whose results will be published, outline plans for tabulation and publication. Address a ny complex analytical techniques that will be used. Provide the time schedule for the entire project, including beginning and ending dates of the collection of information, completion of report, publication dates, and other actions. The Department will report the information to Congress within six months of the deadline for the submission of district reports to the Department. Some of the information collected in this Annual Performance Report may be anal yz ed with monitoring (program review) data, and other Department data sources, and shared on a government website s such as ed.gov.
A.17. If seeking approval to not display the expiration date for OMB approval of the information collection, explain the reasons that display would be inappropriate. There are no exceptions to the certification statement. The expiration date will be displayed on the form
. A18. Explain each exception to the certification statement identified in Item 20, “Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions,” of OMB Form 83

-I. There are no exceptions. **B. COLLECTION OF INFORMATION EMPLOYING STATISTICAL METHODS**  This information collection does not employ statistical methods.