INTERNAL DELIBERATIV E DRAFT

1 

# Race to the Top **– District Annual Performance Report**  **CFDA Number: XXXX**  **U.S. Department of Education Washington, D.C. 20202**  **OM B**  **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 su ch collection display s a valid OMB control number. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to av era ge 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 req uired 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 burd en, 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 thi s address.INTERNAL DELIBERATIV E DRAFT

2 **Race to the Top –**  **District Annual Performance Report**  The Race to the Top

– Dis trict Annual Performance Report (APR) will document grantees’ progress toward the annual targets set forth in grantee applications. 1 A program review process currentl y 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 l ocal e ducation agency ( LEA ) needs. The program review process will also allow grantee LEAs to more widel y disseminate knowledge gained from implementing personalized learning environments . . The annual performance measures LEAs and consortia2 included 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 ye ar (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 ye ar 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 ye ar with the calendar ye ar, they will also report annuall y, 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 ye ars, their expenditure data will be reported as of those same dates in 2014, 2015, and 2016. 3 In LEAs’ and consorti a ’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 req uested in th e APR to the online collection tool, the sy stem 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 conso rtium will report performance measures annually, with submission coordinated by the lead consortium LEA. 3 T he grant initiated December 26, 2012 for all LEAs , although grantees were permitted to shorten or extend their budget year s 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 DELIBERATIV E 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 C enter 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 onl y 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 b y 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 ’ p rivacy protections will be applied when APR data are publicl y reported, following technical specifications se t forth b y the Department . APR data will be pro tected for small groups b y 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 tex t length to 500 words.

4 See “Achievement Results for State Assessments in Reading/Language Arts and Mathematics: Public Use Files for School Years 20 08 - 09, 2009 - 10, and 2010 - 11, Preliminary Data, EDFacts Data Documentation, January 2013, Version 0.1 .” for additional d etails.INTERNAL DELIBERATIV E 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. Consorti**  **a 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 revie wed the data submitted for the APR. Check box for each consortium LEA.INTERNAL DELIBERATIV E DRAFT

5 **c. Optiona**  **l 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 DELIBERATIV E 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 DELIBERATIV E 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 s chool: The Department will calculate based on the number of participating students provided by the LEA. Percent of Participating Students in the s chool 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 s chool: 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 DELIBERATIV E DRAFT

8 **3. Application Assurances**  Enter the date the teacher evaluation system became operational: P rovide 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: P rovide 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 op erational: P rovide 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: LE As 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. Accordingl y, student outcome data will be collected to i nform 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 rat e 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 DELIBERATIV E 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 end of - 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: F or LEAs that submitted growth targets in their approved application): Methodology for determining student growth (e.g., value - added, mean grow th percentile, change in achievement level s): [Prepopulated from application] F or LEAs that submitted growth targets in their approved application): Student growth data for SY 2012 - 2013 by LEA grade and subgroup : F or LEAs that submitted growth targets in their approved application): Number of students assessed to calculate student grow th data for SY 2012 - 2013 by LEA grade and subgroup : **b. (A)(4)(b)**  **: A**  **chievement gap data**

5 Files 171, 175 and 178 Academic Achievement in Mathematics & Academic Achievement in Reading/Language ArtsINTERNAL DELIBERATIV E DRAFT

10 Com parison group: [Prepopulated from application] Methodology for determining achievement gap : [Prepopulated from application]

Ac hievement 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 RatesINTERNAL DELIBERATIV E 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] F or 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 M**  **easures** Note: Beside s 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 w ill 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 EnrollmentINTERNAL DELIBERATIV E DRAFT

12 **H ighly E**  **ffective T**  **eacher Effective**  **T eacher :**  **Ineffective T**  **eacher:** 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 DELIBERATIV E DRAFT

13 **H ighly E**  **ffective P**  **rincipal Effective**  **P rincipal :**  **Ineffective P**  **rincipal:** 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 grad es 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 App lications (NIA), as the definition will vary by LEA.INTERNAL DELIBERATIV E 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 grow

th performance results for SY 2012 - 2013 , by subgroup (as defined by the LEA) : Optional: Provide a brief explanation of the non - cognitive indicator of grow th 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 grow th results for SY 2012 - 2013 , by subgroup (as defined by the LEA) :INTERNAL DELIBERATIV E DRAFT

15 Optional: Provide a brief explanation of the non - cognitive indicator of grow th 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 career readiness: [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 career readiness: 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 career readiness: The Department will calculate to determine progress toward LE A 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 DELIBERATIV E DRAFT

16 The grade - appropriate academic leading indicator of successful plan im plementation: [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 DELIBERATIV E 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 Appli cation 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 com pleted the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) form : The percent of participating students by subgroup (as defined by the LEA), who com pleted 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**

T he on - track indicator of college - and career - readiness: [Prepopulated from application]INTERNAL DELIBERATIV E 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 th e LEA), who met the on - track indicator of career - readiness: The Department will calculate to determine progress toward LEA performance measures.INTERNAL DELIBERATIV E 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 im plementation: [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 social emotional leading indicator of successful plan implementation: [Prepopulated from application]INTERNAL DELIBERATIV E DRAFT

20 Applicable population: [Prepopulated from application] Subgroups: [Prepopulated f rom 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 education al 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 famil y 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 p riority performance measure: [Prepopulated from applicatio n]

Com petitive 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 DELIBERATIV E DRAFT

21 Optional: Provide a brief explanation of the competitive preference priority results for SY 2012 - 2013: **7. Expenditures**  **a. Overall E**  **xpenditures** Note: Report the actual expenditure s for each of the categories listed in the summary expenditure table in the LE A’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 ye ars in their approved plans; some Districts’ grant ye ars go beyond December 31 of the year. For Districts with grant ye ars 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 DELIBERATIV E 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. Grant ee Year 1 Start and End Date. [Prepopulated from application] **b. Project Expenditures**  **.** Note: Complete the table below separatel y 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 StipendsINTERNAL DELIBERATIV E 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. Grant ee Year 1 Start and End Date. [Prepopulated from application] **c. Optional Budget Supplement**  **Expenditures.** Note: Complete the table below separatel y for each optional budget supplement project, as of the end of Year 1 of the grant ye ar, 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. ContractualINTERNAL DELIBERATIV E 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. Grant ee Year 1 Start and End Date. [Prepopulated from application] **8. Selection Criteri**  **on (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 im plement the personalized learning environments described in the application. If changes occurred, describe the impact on the conditions and sufficie nt autonomy necessary to im plement successfully **Definitions (as set forth in the Race to the Top –**  **District Notice**  **Inviting 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 andINTERNAL DELIBERATIV E DRAFT

25 in math ematics as measured b y 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 t ime students graduate high school, they satisfy requirements for admission into credit - bearing courses commonly required by

the State’s public four - ye ar 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 postsecon dary level. **College enrollment** m eans 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 b y 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 DELIBERATIV E DRAFT

26 **Core educational assurance areas** means the four key areas originall y 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 s ys tems that measure student growth and suc cess, 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 t he 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), ot her administrators (e.g., assistant principals, discipline specialists), and education paraprofessionals (e.g., assistant teacher s, bilingual/ESL instructional aides).INTERNAL DELIBERATIV E DRAFT

27 **Effective principal** means a principal whose students, overall and for each subgroup, a chieve acceptable rates (e.g., at least one grade level in an academic ye ar) of student growth ( as defined in the NIA ) as defined in the LEA’s principal evaluation s ys tem ( as defined in the NIA ). **Effective teacher** means a teacher whose students achieve a cceptable 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 sy stem ( as defined in the NIA ). **Fa mily and community supports**  means— (1) Child and youth health programs, such as ph ys ical, 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 phy sical 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 employ ment opportunities and training to improve educational levels, job skills, and readiness in order to decrease unemplo ym ent, 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 tradition al 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 acc ess transportation to education and employ

ment opportunities; (g) provides supports and services to students who are homeless, in foster care, migrant, or highl y mobile; and (4) Family

and community

engagement programs that are s ys temic, integrated, sustainabl e, 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 inINTERNAL DELIBERATIV E DRAFT

28 earl y learning programs and services; programs that provide guidance on how to navigate through a complex school sy stem 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 - ye ar or extended - ye ar 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 b y the LEA in a manner consistent with its State’s Teacher Equity Plan, a s required b y s ection 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 sy stem ( 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 sy stem ( as defined in the NIA ). **Interoperable data system** means a s ys tem that uses a common, established structure such that data can easily flow from one sy stem 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 DELIBERATIV E 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 performanc e 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 ty pe of resource it is (e.g., video, image). **On -**  **track indicator** means a measure, available at a time sufficiently earl y to allow for intervention, of a single student characteristic (e.g., number of day s 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 col lectively 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 L anguage (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 s ys tems are not machine - re adable 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 caree r - 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 ag encies. **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 sc hool 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 DELIBERATIV E DRAFT

30 **Persistently lowest**  **- achieving school**  means, as determined b y 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 lowe st - 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) i s 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 defin ed in 34 CFR 200.19(b) that is less than 60 percent over a number of ye ars. 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 St ate’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 thos e assessments over a number of ye ars in the “all students” group. **Principal evaluation system** mean s a s ys tem that: (1) is used for continual improvement of instructional leadership; (2) meaningfull y differentiates performance using at least three performance levels; (3) uses multiple valid measures in determining performan ce 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, su ch as observations based on rigorous leadership performance standards, teacher evaluation data, and student and parent survey s); (4) evaluates principals on a regular basis; (5) provides clear, timely , and useful feedback, including feedback th at identifie s 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 Grant s 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 W eb site at http://www2.ed.gov/programs/sif/ index.htmlINTERNAL DELIBERATIV E DRAFT

31 bargaining agreements, establishes a school leadership team, that body shall serve as the school leadership team for the purp ose 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 perfor mance, 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 a chievement 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 t ime on task, and similar information. **Subgroup** means each category of stude nts identified under section 1111(b)(2)(C)(v)(II) of the ESEA, as well as any combined subgroup used in the State accountability s ys tem and approved b y the Department in a State’s request for ESEA flexibility . **Superintendent evaluation** means a rigorous, transparent, and fair annual evaluation of an L EA 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, pri ncipals, and parents; and (2) student outcomes. **Teacher evaluation system** means a s ys tem that: (1) is used for continual improvement of instruction; (2) meaningfull y differentiates performance using at least three performance levels; (3) uses multiple valid measures in determining performance levels, including, as a significant fact or, 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 survey s); (4) evaluates teachers on a regular basis; (5) provides clear, timely , and useful feedback, including feedback that identifies and guides p rofession al development needs; and (6) is used to inform personnel decisions.INTERNAL DELIBERATIV E 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.