INTERNAL DELIBERATIVE DRAFT

1

Race to the Top – District Annual Performance Report

CFDA Number: XXXX

U.S. Department of Education

Washington, D.C. 20202

OMB Number: XXXX

Expiration Date: XXXX

Public Burden Statement

According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless such 

collection displays a valid OMB control number. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 63

hours per response, including time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data 

needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. The obligation to respond to this collection is required to obtain 

or retain benefit under P.L. 111-5 Section 406 (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009). Send comments regarding the 

burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to the U.S. 

Department of Education, 400 Maryland Ave., SW, Washington, DC 20202-4536 or email ICDocketMgr@ed.gov and reference the 

OMB Control Number. Note: Please do not return the completed Race to the Top – District Annual Performance Report to this 

address. 
INTERNAL DELIBERATIVE DRAFT

2

Race to the Top – District Annual Performance Report

The Race to the Top – District Annual Performance Report (APR) will document grantees’ progress toward the annual targets set forth 

in grantee applications.1 A program review process currently under development will align with and support the goals of the APR. 

When operational, the program review process will address the fiscal and programmatic oversight responsibilities of the Department

and will enable the Department to differentiate support based on local education agency (LEA) needs. The program review process 

will also allow grantee LEAs to more widely disseminate knowledge gained from implementing personalized learning environments. . 

The annual performance measures LEAs and consortia2included in their applications are intended to be leading indicators of their 

success towards increasing student outcomes. Therefore, the APR is one mechanism for holding LEAs accountable for meeting their 

annual targets or making significant progress towards them. In the Year 1 APR, grantees will provide student outcome and 

performance measure data from school year (SY) 2012-2013. In subsequent years, data will be collected for SYs 2013-14, 2014-15, 

and 2015-16. Expenditure data will be reported annually, as of December 31, 2013, if grantees aligned their grant year with the 

calendar year. In subsequent years, expenditure data will be reported as of December 31, 2014, December 31, 2015, and December 31, 

2016. If grantees did not align their grant year with the calendar year, they will also report annually, but will report expenditure data as 

of December 31, 2013 and as of the end of their grant year (e.g. June 30, 2013). In subsequent years, their expenditure data will be 

reported as of those same dates in 2014, 2015, and 2016.3

In LEAs’ and consortia’s Race to the Top – District applications, grantees provided percentage baselines for some metrics. LEAs also 

provided denominators for these baseline percentages for some metrics, while for others the Department noted that these data would 

be requested of grantees in the future. For purposes of cross-comparison, clarity, and data integrity, we ask grantees to provide both 

the numerator and denominator that would produce the percentages for those metrics. After grantees have uploaded the data requested 

in the APR to the online collection tool, the system will calculate percentages. In the Year 1 APR, this will permit comparison 

between the baseline, the targets for SY 2012-13 provided in the LEA or consortium’s Race to the Top – District plan, and the actual 

SY 2012-13 data provided in the APR. 

 

1 For more information on the Race to the Top – District program requirements, applications, selections criteria, please see the Race to the Top – District 

website: http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop-district/index.html.

2 Each LEA member of the consortium will report performance measures annually, with submission coordinated by the lead consortium LEA. 

3 The grant initiated December 26, 2012 for all LEAs, although grantees were permitted to shorten or extend their budget years in their application and Scope of 

Work (e.g. aligning LEA budget year with an LEA fiscal year calendar). As a result, for some grantees, the end of the calendar year may not align with the start 

of their grant year. For all grantees, the grant year aligns with the grantee Scope of Work. 
INTERNAL DELIBERATIVE DRAFT

3

Where indicated, APR data will be prepopulated with data from the grantees’ Race to the Top – District application, or with data 

provided to the Department through other data collections, such as the Common Core of Data (CCD) from the National Center for 

Education Statistics (NCES). For prepopulated data, LEAs and consortia will have an opportunity to confirm the data and if necessary,

propose amended figures to the Department. To provide additional context, LEAs and consortia are asked in several instances to 

define the assumptions behind the calculations provided in the application for baselines and targets. 

Data are reported at the LEA, school, and grade band level, consistent with each grantee’s approved application. School and grade 

band data are only collected for participating students and when LEAs set (E)(3) performance measures at the school or grade band 

level in their approved application. All (A)(4) student outcome goals will be reported at the LEA level (as required by the Elementary 

and Secondary Education Act or ESEA). LEAs and consortia will report data in a manner consistent with the definitions in the Race to 

the Top – District application package, which are provided at the end of this document. 

To help maintain the confidentiality of individual students’ privacy protections will be applied when APR data are publicly reported, 

following technical specifications set forth by the Department. APR data will be protected for small groups by suppressing all cells 

with 1-5 students and the Department will report results as a range for medium-sized groups. For medium-sized groups, the larger the 

subgroup, the more specific the range reported (e.g. Between 6-15 students will be reported <50%, ≥50%, Over 300 students will be 

reported ≤1%, 2%, 3%, ..., 98%, ≥99%).

4

For each of the numbered elements (1-8), a grantee will have the opportunity to enter text to clarify or explain the data provided. Some 

elements require only a narrative response (e.g. grantees will report on their progress implementing personalized learning 

environments in Element 2). All narrative entries will ask grantees to reference the date of any relevant approved amendments to their 

applications and will limit text length to 500 words.

 

4

See “Achievement Results for State Assessments in Reading/Language Arts and Mathematics: Public Use Files for School Years 2008-09, 2009-10, and 2010-

11, Preliminary Data, EDFacts Data Documentation, January 2013, Version 0.1.” for additional details.
INTERNAL DELIBERATIVE DRAFT

4

1. (A)(2) Vision: Applicant’s approach to implementation

a. All LEAs, including consortium LEAs:

LEA name: [Prepopulated from application]

NCES LEA ID: [Prepopulated from application]

Total number of participating low-income students in LEA: [Prepopulated from application]

Total number of low-income students in LEA, as of December 31, 2013:

As of December 31, 2013, provide a brief explanation of any change in the 

total number of low-income students in LEA from the figure provided in the 

application.

b. Consortia only:

Participating LEAs: [Prepopulated from application]

Participating LEAs, as of December 31, 2013: Check box for each consortium LEA.

As of December 31, 2013, provide a brief explanation of any change in 

participating LEAs from the figure provided since the time of the application.

Certify that each consortium LEA has reviewed the data submitted for the 

APR. Check box for each consortium LEA.
INTERNAL DELIBERATIVE DRAFT

5

c. Optional budget supplement grantees:

Optional Budget Supplement Projects: [Prepopulated from application]

Describe the LEA’s progress implementing each clear, discrete, and 

innovative solution funded by the optional budget supplement at the time of 

the application through December 31, 2013.

Highlight key accomplishments from the time of the application through 

December 31, 2013 for each optional budget supplement. 

d. All grantees:

Participating Schools : [Prepopulated from application]

NCES School ID numbers: [Prepopulated from CCD]

Participating schools, as of December 31, 2013: Check box for each participating school.

As of December 31, 2013, provide a brief explanation of any change in 

participating schools from the list provided in the application. 

Note: The following data are reported at the school level, as of December 31, 2013. The table below will be submitted multiple 

times by each grantee (i.e. one submission for each participating school). 
INTERNAL DELIBERATIVE DRAFT

6

NCES School ID numbers: [Prepopulated from CCD]

Total number of students in school: [Prepopulated from CCD]

Grades/Subjects included in Race to the Top - District Plan: [Prepopulated from application]

Number of participating educators: [Prepopulated from application]

Number of participating educators, as of December 31, 2013:

As of December 31, 2013, provide a brief explanation of any change in the 

number of participating educators from the figure provided in the application. 

Number of participating students : [Prepopulated from application]

Number of participating students, as of December 31, 2013:

As of December 31, 2013, provide a brief explanation of any change in the 

number of participating students from the figure provided in the application. 

Number of participating students from low-income families: [Prepopulated from application]

Number of participating students from low-income families, as of December 

31, 2013:
INTERNAL DELIBERATIVE DRAFT

7

As of December 31, 2013, provide a brief explanation of any change in the 

number of participating students from low-income families from the figure 

provided in the application. 

Number of participating high-need students : [Prepopulated from application]

Number of participating high-need students, as of December 31, 2013:

As of December 31, 2013, provide a brief explanation of any change in the 

number of participating high-need students from the figure provided in the 

application. 

Percent of Participating Students in the school: The Department will calculate based on the number of 

participating students provided by the LEA.

Percent of Participating Students in the school from low-income families: The Department will calculate based on the number of 

participating students provided by the LEA.

Percent of Total LEA low-income population in the school: The Department will calculate based on the number of 

participating students provided by the LEA.

2. Absolute Priority: Personalized Learning Environments

Describe the LEA’s progress in implementing personalized learning 

environments from the time of the application through December 31, 2013.
INTERNAL DELIBERATIVE DRAFT

8

3. Application Assurances

Enter the date the teacher evaluation system became operational: 

Provide a brief explanation of progress towards implementing a teacher 

evaluation system by the SY 2014-2015 deadline.

Enter the date the principal evaluation system became operational: 

Provide a brief explanation of progress towards implementing a principal 

evaluation system by the SY 2014-2015 deadline.

Enter the date the superintendent evaluation system became operational: 

Provide a brief explanation of progress towards implementing a 

superintendent evaluation system by the SY 2014-2015 deadline.

4. Selection Criterion (A)(4) Vision: LEA-wide goals for improved student outcomes

Note: LEAs will be held accountable for increasing student achievement, increasing high school graduation rates, narrowing the 

achievement gaps, and preparing students for success in college and the workforce. Accordingly, student outcome data will be 

collected to inform Race to the Top – District Program Review activities. Data will be cross-checked with EDFacts data when 

available. Reading and math assessment results from SY 2012-2013 are to be submitted to EDFacts in December 2013, while high 

school graduation rate and college enrollment from SY 2012-2013 are to be submitted in February 2014. Please note that the 

Department will use prepopulated EDFacts data to calculate achievement gaps to determine progress toward LEA student outcome 

goals.
INTERNAL DELIBERATIVE DRAFT

9

a. (A)(4)(a): Performance on summative assessments (proficiency status and growth data)

Summative assessment being used (e.g., name of ESEA assessment or endof-course test):5

[Prepopulated from application]

Methodology for determining status (e.g., percent proficient and above): [Prepopulated from application]

Number of students taking summative assessments for SY 2012-2013 (as 

required by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act or ESEA) Overall 

and by LEA grade and subgroup:

[Prepopulated from EDFacts Data]

Number of students taking summative assessments proficient or higher 

results for SY 2012-2013 (as required by the Elementary and Secondary 

Education Act or ESEA) Overall and by LEA grade and subgroup:

[Prepopulated from EDFacts Data]

Percent of students taking summative assessments proficient or higher results 

for SY 2012-2013 (as required by the Elementary and Secondary Education 

Act or ESEA) Overall and by LEA grade and subgroup:

[Prepopulated from EDFacts Data]

Optional: Provide a brief explanation of summative assessment results for SY 

2012-2013:

For LEAs that submitted growth targets in their approved application): 

Methodology for determining student growth (e.g., value-added, mean 

growth percentile, change in achievement levels):

[Prepopulated from application]

For LEAs that submitted growth targets in their approved application): 

Student growth data for SY 2012-2013 by LEA grade and subgroup:

For LEAs that submitted growth targets in their approved application): 

Number of students assessed to calculate student growth data for SY 2012-

2013 by LEA grade and subgroup: 

b. (A)(4)(b): Achievement gap data

 

5

Files 171, 175 and 178 Academic Achievement in Mathematics & Academic Achievement in Reading/Language Arts 
INTERNAL DELIBERATIVE DRAFT

10

Comparison group: [Prepopulated from application] 

Methodology for determining achievement gap : [Prepopulated from application]

Achievement gap data by grade and subgroup:

6

The Department will calculate gaps in achievement between 

the comparison group and subgroups, by grade, to determine 

progress toward LEA student outcome goals. As indicated in 

element 5(a), CCD will be utilized to complete these 

calculations.

Optional: Provide a brief explanation of achievement gap results for SY 

2012-2013:

c. (A)(4)(c): Graduation rate data 

Data on high school graduation rate results (as required by the Elementary 

and Secondary Education Act or ESEA) by subgroup:

7

[Prepopulated from EDFacts Data]

Optional: Provide a brief explanation of graduation rate results for SY 2012-

2013:

d. (A)(4)(d): College enrollment rate data 

 

6

Files 171, 175 and 178 Academic Achievement in Mathematics & Academic Achievement in Reading/Language Arts

7

Files 150, 151, and 174 Regulatory Adjusted-Cohort Graduation Rates
INTERNAL DELIBERATIVE DRAFT

11

Data on college enrollment by subgroup:

8

[Prepopulated from EDFacts Data]

Optional: Provide a brief explanation of college enrollment results for SY 

2012-2013:

e. Optional: (A)(4)(e): Postsecondary degree attainment 

Methodology for determining postsecondary degree attainment: [Prepopulated from application]

For LEAs that submitted postsecondary degree attainment targets in their 

approved application): Data on postsecondary degree attainment by subgroup

:

Optional: Provide a brief explanation of postsecondary degree results for SY 

2012-2013:

5. Selection Criterion (E)(3) Continuous Improvement: Performance Measures

Note: Besides the (E)(3)(All)Teacher of Record and (E)(3)(Grades 9-12)(a) Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) 

Form Completion performance measures, every performance measure in the Continuous Improvement: Performance Measures 

section will vary by each grantee, depending on the grade band served and the performance measures set in the grantee’s approved 

application. If the LEA provided additional performance measures in its approved application or approved amendments to its plan, 

the LEA must report against those measures.

a. (E)(3)(All)Teacher of Record

 

8

File 160 College Enrollment
INTERNAL DELIBERATIVE DRAFT

12

Highly Effective Teacher Effective Teacher : Ineffective Teacher:

The number of participating students by 

subgroup, whose teacher of record is a 

highly effective, effective, or ineffective

teacher:

The percent of participating students with a 

teacher of record who is highly effective, 

effective, or ineffective (by subgroup):

The Department will 

calculate to determine 

progress toward LEA 

performance measures.

The Department will 

calculate to determine 

progress toward LEA 

performance measures.

The Department will 

calculate to determine 

progress toward LEA 

performance measures.

Optional: Provide a brief explanation of 

participating students with an highly 

effective, effective, or ineffective teacher of 

record results for SY 2012-2013:

Provide a definition of an ineffective teacher, including the formula by which 

an educator effectiveness rating is calculated.9 

b. (E)(3)(All)Principal

 

9

Ineffective teacher is not defined in the Notice Inviting Applications (NIA) , as the definition will vary by LEA.
INTERNAL DELIBERATIVE DRAFT

13

Highly Effective Principal Effective Principal : Ineffective Principal:

The number of participating students by 

subgroup whose principal is highly effective, 

effective, or ineffective.

The percent of participating students with a 

highly effective, effective, or ineffective

principal (by subgroup):

The Department will 

calculate to determine 

progress toward LEA 

performance measures.

The Department will 

calculate to determine 

progress toward LEA 

performance measures.

The Department will 

calculate to determine 

progress toward LEA 

performance measures.

Optional: Provide a brief explanation of 

participating students with a highly 

effective, effective, or ineffective principal 

results for SY 2012-2013:

LEA definition of a principal:

Provide a definition of an ineffective principal, including the formula by 

which principal effectiveness rating is calculated.10 

c. (E)(3)(PreK-3)

Note: If the LEA provided (E)(3) performance measures for those grade bands (PreK-3, grades 4-8, and grades 9-12) in its 

approved application or approved amendments to its plan, the LEA must report against those measures.

 

10 Ineffective principal is not defined in the Notice Inviting Applications (NIA), as the definition will vary by LEA.
INTERNAL DELIBERATIVE DRAFT

14

i. (E)(3)(PreK-3)(a) Age-appropriate measure of students’ academic growth

The age-appropriate measure of students’ academic growth: [Prepopulated from application]

Applicable population: [Prepopulated from application]

Subgroups: [Prepopulated from application]

The academic growth performance results for SY 2012-2013, by subgroup 

(as defined by the LEA):

Optional: Provide a brief explanation of the non-cognitive indicator of 

growth performance results for SY 2012-2013:

ii. (E)(3)(PreK-3)(b) Age-appropriate non-cognitive indicator of growth

The age-appropriate non-cognitive indicator of growth: [Prepopulated from application]

Applicable population: [Prepopulated from application]

Subgroups: [Prepopulated from application]

The non-cognitive indicator of growth results for SY 2012-2013, by 

subgroup (as defined by the LEA):
INTERNAL DELIBERATIVE DRAFT

15

Optional: Provide a brief explanation of the non-cognitive indicator of 

growth performance results for SY 2012-2013:

d. (E)(3)(Grades 4-8)

Note: If the LEA provided (E)(3) performance measures for those grade bands (PreK-3, grades 4-8, and grades 9-12) in its 

approved application or approved amendments to its plan, the LEA must report against those measures.

i. (E)(3)(Grades 4-8)(a) On track to college- and career-readiness

Definition of the Grade 4-8 on-track indicator of college- and careerreadiness: [Prepopulated from application]

Applicable population: [Prepopulated from application]

Subgroups: [Prepopulated from application]

The number of participating students for SY 2012-2013, by subgroup (as 

defined by the LEA), who met the on-track indicator of college- and careerreadiness:

The percent of participating students for SY 2012-2013, by subgroup (as 

defined by the LEA), who met the on-track indicator of college- and careerreadiness:

The Department will calculate to determine progress 

toward LEA performance measures.

Optional: Provide a brief explanation of the academic growth performance 

results for SY 2012-2013:

ii. (E)(3)(Grades 4-8)(b) Grade-appropriate academic leading indicator of successful plan implementation
INTERNAL DELIBERATIVE DRAFT

16

The grade-appropriate academic leading indicator of successful plan 

implementation: [Prepopulated from application]

Applicable population: [Prepopulated from application]

Subgroups: [Prepopulated from application]

The academic leading indicator results for SY 2012-2013, by subgroup (as 

defined by the LEA):

Optional: Provide a brief explanation of the academic leading indicator 

results for SY 2012-2013:

iii. (E)(3)(Grades 4-8)(c) Grade-appropriate health or social-emotional leading indicator of successful plan 

implementation

The grade-appropriate health or social-emotional leading indicator of 

successful plan implementation: [Prepopulated from application]

Applicable population: [Prepopulated from application]

Subgroups: [Prepopulated from application]

The health or social-emotional leading indicator results for SY 2012-2013, by 

subgroup (as defined by the LEA):

Optional: Provide a brief explanation of the health or social-emotional 

leading indicator results for SY 2012-2013:
INTERNAL DELIBERATIVE DRAFT

17

e. (E)(3)(Grades 9-12)

Note: If the LEA provided (E)(3) performance measures for those grade bands (PreK-3, grades 4-8, and grades 9-12) in its 

approved application or approved amendments to its plan, the LEA must report against those measures.

i. (E)(3)(Grades 9-12)(a) Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) Form Completion

Applicable population: [Prepopulated from application]

Subgroups: [Prepopulated from application]

The number of participating students, by subgroup (as defined by the LEA), 

who completed the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) form:

The percent of participating students by subgroup (as defined by the LEA), 

who completed the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) form:

The Department will calculate to determine progress 

toward LEA performance measures.

Optional: Provide a brief explanation of the FAFSA form completion results 

for SY 2012-2013:

ii. (E)(3)(Grades 9-12)(b) On track to college- and career-readiness

The on-track indicator of college- and career-readiness: [Prepopulated from application]
INTERNAL DELIBERATIVE DRAFT

18

Applicable population: [Prepopulated from application]

Subgroups: [Prepopulated from application]

The number of participating students, by subgroup (as defined by the LEA), 

who met the on-track indicator of college- and career-readiness:

The percent of participating students by subgroup (as defined by the LEA), 

who met the on-track indicator of college- and career-readiness:

The Department will calculate to determine progress 

toward LEA performance measures.

Optional: Provide a brief explanation of the on-track indicator results for SY 

2012-2013:

iii. (E)(3)(Grades 9-12)(c) On track to career-readiness

The on-track indicator of career-readiness: [Prepopulated from application]

Applicable population: [Prepopulated from application]

Subgroups: [Prepopulated from application]

The number of participating students, by subgroup (as defined by the LEA), 

who met the on-track indicator of career-readiness:

The percent of participating students by subgroup (as defined by the LEA), 

who met the on-track indicator of career-readiness:

The Department will calculate to determine progress 

toward LEA performance measures.
INTERNAL DELIBERATIVE DRAFT

19

Optional: Provide a brief explanation of the on-track indicator results for SY 

2012-2013:

iv. (E)(3)(Grades 9-12)(d) Grade-appropriate academic leading indicator of successful plan implementation

The grade-appropriate academic leading indicator of successful plan 

implementation: [Prepopulated from application]

Applicable population: [Prepopulated from application]

Subgroups: [Prepopulated from application]

The academic leading indicator results for SY 2012-2013, by subgroup (as 

defined by the LEA):

Optional: Provide a brief explanation of the non-cognitive indicator of 

leading indicator results for SY 2012-2013:

v. (E)(3)(Grades 9-12)(e) Grade-appropriate health or social-emotional leading indicator of successful plan 

implementation

Specific methodology for determining the grade-appropriate health or socialemotional leading indicator of successful plan implementation: [Prepopulated from application]
INTERNAL DELIBERATIVE DRAFT

20

Applicable population: [Prepopulated from application]

Subgroups: [Prepopulated from application]

The health or social-emotional leading indicator results for SY 2012-2013, by 

subgroup (as defined by the LEA):

Optional: Provide a brief explanation of the health or social-emotional 

leading indicator results for SY 2012-2013:

6. Competitive Preference Priority: Results, Resource Alignment, and Integrated Services

Note: Competitive preference priority performance measures are defined as the number of educational results, 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/or family and community supports results. Grantees may use (E)(3) 

performance measures as competitive preference priority measures, as described in their approved application. 

(E)(3) performance measure(s) used as competitive preference priority performance measure: [Prepopulated from application]

Competitive preference priority performance measure: [Prepopulated from application]

Applicable population: [Prepopulated from application]

The competitive preference priority results for SY 2012-2013, by subgroup (as defined by the 

LEA):
INTERNAL DELIBERATIVE DRAFT

21

Optional: Provide a brief explanation of the competitive preference priority results for SY 2012-

2013:

7. Expenditures

a. Overall Expenditures

Note: Report the actual expenditures for each of the categories listed in the summary expenditure table in the LEA’s 

approved budget as of the end of Year 1 of the grant year, or as of December 31, 2013, whichever date is earlier.

11 During 

the Year 2 collection, all Districts will submit expenditure data for the time period between January 1, 2014 and December 

31, 2014. Race to the Top Districts determined their own budget years in their approved plans; some Districts’ grant years 

go beyond December 31 of the year. For Districts with grant years that end after December 31, information for after 

December 31, 2014 will be displayed as an update to SY 2013-2014 expenditures and Districts will provide current data on 

SY 2014-2015 expenditures to date.

Expenditure Categories Preliminary Year 1 Overall Grant Expenditures

1. Personnel

2. Fringe Benefits

3. Travel

4. Equipment

5. Supplies

6. Contractual

7. Training Stipends

8. Other

 

11 Grant year start and end dates will vary based on grantee’s approved application. 
INTERNAL DELIBERATIVE DRAFT

22

9. Total Direct Costs (lines 1–8) [The Department will calculate by adding lines 1-8]

10. Indirect Costs

11.Total Grant Funds Used (lines 9–10) [The Department will calculate by adding lines 9-10]

12. Funds from other sources used to support the project

13. Total Expenditure (lines 11-12) [The Department will calculate by adding lines 11-12]

Obligations (Optional): To provide additional context for the spending activity on the 

Race to the Top – District grant, grantees may include additional budgetary 

information, such as figures for funds obligated in addition to funds expended or 

descriptive text.

Grantee Year 1 Start and End Date. [Prepopulated from application]

b. Project Expenditures.

Note: Complete the table below separately for each project, as of the end of Year 1 of the grant year, or as of December 31, 

2013, whichever date is earlier.

Expenditure Categories Preliminary Year 1 Project Grant Expenditures

1. Personnel

2. Fringe Benefits

3. Travel

4. Equipment

5. Supplies

6. Contractual

7. Training Stipends
INTERNAL DELIBERATIVE DRAFT

23

8. Other

9. Total Direct Costs (lines 1–8) [The Department will calculate by adding lines 1-8]

10. Indirect Costs

11.Total Grant Funds Used (lines 9–10) [The Department will calculate by adding lines 9-10]

12. Funds from other sources used to support the project

13. Total Expenditure (lines 11-12) [The Department will calculate by adding lines 11-12]

Obligations (Optional): To provide additional context for the spending activity on the 

Race to the Top – District grant, grantees may include additional budgetary 

information, such as figures for funds obligated in addition to funds expended or 

descriptive text.

Grantee Year 1 Start and End Date. [Prepopulated from application]

c. Optional Budget Supplement Expenditures.

Note: Complete the table below separately for each optional budget supplement project, as of the end of Year 1 of the grant 

year, or as of December 31, 2013, whichever date is earlier.

Expenditure Categories

Preliminary Year 1 Optional Budget Supplement 

Project Grant Expenditures

1. Personnel

2. Fringe Benefits

3. Travel

4. Equipment

5. Supplies

6. Contractual
INTERNAL DELIBERATIVE DRAFT

24

7. Training Stipends

8. Other

9. Total Direct Costs (lines 1–8) [The Department will calculate by adding lines 1-8]

10. Indirect Costs

11.Total Grant Funds Used (lines 9–10) [The Department will calculate by adding lines 9-10]

12. Funds from other sources used to support the project

13. Total Expenditure (lines 11-12) [The Department will calculate by adding lines 11-12]

Obligations (Optional): To provide additional context for the spending activity on the 

Race to the Top – District grant, grantees may include additional budgetary 

information, such as figures for funds obligated in addition to funds expended or 

descriptive text.

Grantee Year 1 Start and End Date. [Prepopulated from application]

8. Selection Criterion (D) – LEA Policy and Infrastructure

(D)(1): State Context for Implementation: From the time of the application through December 

31, 2013, describe any changes to State legal, statutory, and regulatory requirements to 

implement the personalized learning environments described in the application. If changes 

occurred, describe the impact on the conditions and sufficient autonomy necessary to 

implement successfully

Definitions (as set forth in the Race to the Top – District NoticeInviting Applications (NIA) , the Race to the Top – District

program guidance, and the Race to the Top – District application)

Achievement gap means the difference in the performance between each subgroup (as defined in the NIA) 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 
INTERNAL DELIBERATIVE DRAFT

25

in mathematics as measured by the assessments required under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (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 the NIA). 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.
INTERNAL DELIBERATIVE DRAFT

26

Core educational assurance areas means the four key areas originally identified in the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act 

(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 the 

NIA), 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). 
INTERNAL DELIBERATIVE DRAFT

27

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 the NIA) as defined in the LEA’s principal evaluation system (as defined 

in the NIA). 

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 the NIA) as defined in the LEA’s teacher evaluation system (as defined in the NIA).

Family and community supports means—

(1) Child and youth health programs, such as physical, mental, behavioral, and emotional health programs (e.g., home 

visiting programs; Head Start; Early Head Start; programs to improve nutrition and fitness, reduce childhood 

obesity, and create healthier communities); 

(2) Safety programs, such as programs in school and out of school to prevent, control, and reduce crime, violence, drug 

and alcohol use and gang activity; programs that address classroom and school-wide behavior and conduct; 

programs to prevent child abuse and neglect; programs to prevent truancy and reduce and prevent bullying and 

harassment; and programs to improve the physical and emotional security of the school setting as perceived, 

experienced, and created by students, staff, and families; 

(3) Community stability programs, such as programs that: (a) provide adult education and employment opportunities 

and training to improve educational levels, job skills, and readiness in order to decrease unemployment, with a goal 

of increasing family stability; (b) improve families’ awareness of, access to, and use of a range of social services, if 

possible at a single location; (c) provide unbiased, outcome-focused, and comprehensive financial education, inside 

and outside the classroom and at every life stage; (d) increase access to traditional financial institutions (e.g., banks 

and credit unions) rather than alternative financial institutions (e.g., check cashers and payday lenders); (e) help 

families increase their financial literacy, financial assets, and savings; and (f) help families access transportation to 

education and employment opportunities; (g) provides 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 
INTERNAL DELIBERATIVE DRAFT

28

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 the NIA), 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 the NIA) as defined under the LEAs principal evaluation system (as 

defined in the NIA).

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 the NIA) as defined under the LEAs teacher evaluation system (as defined in the NIA).

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. 
INTERNAL DELIBERATIVE DRAFT

29

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 the NIA) 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 the NIA), including (1) alignment of content with college- and career-ready standards (as 

defined in the NIA) and (2) usage information about learning content used by educators (as defined in the NIA). 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 Absolute 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 the NIA) and who is directly served by an 

applicant’s plan under Absolute Priority 1. 
INTERNAL DELIBERATIVE DRAFT

30

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,12 (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 34 CFR 200.19(b) 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 schools or the lowest-achieving five secondary schools in the State that are eligible for, but do not receive, Title I funds, 

whichever number of schools is greater; or (b) is a high school that has had a graduation rate as defined in 34 CFR 200.19(b) that is 

less than 60 percent over a number of years. To identify the lowest-achieving schools, a State must take into account both (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 the NIA) 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 the NIA), and, as applicable, other 

school employees, parents, students, and other community members. In cases where statute or local policy, including collective 

 

12 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
INTERNAL DELIBERATIVE DRAFT

31

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 the NIA) 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. 
INTERNAL DELIBERATIVE DRAFT

32

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.