Vol. 78 Friday, 

No. 169 August 30, 2013 

Part III 

Department of Education 

34 CFR Chapter II 

Department of Health and Human Services 

45 CFR Subtitle A 

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

the Top—Early Learning Challenge; Final Rule 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
53964 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 169 / Friday, August 30, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

1 Defined terms are used throughout the notice 

and are indicated by capitalization. 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

34 CFR Chapter II 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

45 CFR Subtitle A 

RIN 1810–AB18 

[Docket ID ED–2013–OESE–0046] 

Final Priorities, Requirements, 

Definitions, and Selection Criteria; 

Race to the Top—Early Learning 

Challenge 

AGENCY: Department of Education and 

Department of Health and Human 

Services. 

ACTION: Final priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria. 

[CFDA Number: 84.412A.] 

SUMMARY: The Secretary of Education 

and the Secretary of Health and Human 

Services (hereafter ‘‘the Secretaries’’) 

announce priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria for the 

Race to the Top—Early Learning 

Challenge (RTT–ELC) program. The 

Secretaries may use one or more of these 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria for competitions in 

fiscal year (FY) 2013 and later years. 

The U.S. Department of Education 

(ED) and the U.S. Department of Health 

and Human Services (HHS) 

(collectively, ‘‘the Departments’’) 

conducted the first competition under 

the RTT–ELC program in FY 2011 and 

awarded grants to nine States. In FY 

2012, the Departments funded the five 

next highest-rated applicants on the 

slate of high-scoring applications from 

the FY 2011 competition. 

In order to maintain the overall 

purpose and structure of the FY 2011 

RTT–ELC competition in future 

competitions, these final priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria are almost identical to the ones 

used in the FY 2011 competition, with 

the exception of small language 

clarifications and eight substantive 

changes from the prior competition. 

DATES: These priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria are 

effective September 30, 2013. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Miriam Lund. Telephone: (202) 401– 

2871 or by email: miriam.lund@ed.gov. 

If you use a telecommunications 

device for the deaf (TDD) or a text 

telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay 

Service (FRS), toll free, at 1–800–877– 

8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary 

Purpose of This Regulatory Action: 

The purpose of this document is to 

announce final priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria for the 

RTT–ELC program that will enable 

effective grant making and result in 

high-quality proposals from States. 

Summary of the Major Provisions of 

this Regulatory Action: In this 

document, we establish final priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria that are almost identical to those 

we used in the FY 2011 competition 

with the exception of small language 

clarifications and eight substantive 

changes from the prior competition. 

Costs and Benefits: The Secretary 

believes that the costs imposed on 

applicants by these priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria are limited to paperwork burden 

related to preparing an application and 

the benefits of implementing them 

would outweigh any costs to applicants. 

The costs of carrying out activities will 

be paid for with RTT–ELC grant funds. 

Thus, the costs of implementation 

would not be a burden for any eligible 

applicants, including small entities. 

Please refer to the Regulatory Impact 

Analysis in this document for a more 

complete discussion of the costs and 

benefits of this regulatory action. 

This document provides an 

accounting statement that estimates that 

approximately $280 million will 

transfer from the Federal Government to 

States under this program. Please refer 

to the accounting statement in this 

document for a more detailed 

discussion. 

Purpose of Program: The purpose of 

the RTT–ELC program is to improve the 

quality of early learning and 

development and close the educational 

gaps for children with high needs. This 

program focuses on improving early 

learning and development for young 

children by supporting States’ efforts to 

increase the number and percentage of 

low-income and disadvantaged 

children, in each age group of infants, 

toddlers, and preschoolers, who are 

enrolled in high-quality early learning 

and development programs; and to 

design and implement an integrated 

system of high-quality early learning 

and development programs and 

services. 

Program Authority: Sections 14005 and 

14006 of the American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) (Pub. L. 

111–5), as amended by section 1832(b) of 

Division B of the Department of Defense and 

Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 

2011 (Pub. L. 112–10), and the Department of 

Education Appropriations Act, 2012 (Title III 

of Division F of Pub. L. 112–74, the 

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012). 

We published a notice of proposed 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria (NPP) for this program 

in the Federal Register on May 20, 2013 

(78 FR 29500). That notice contained 

background information and our reasons 

for proposing the particular priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria for the RTT–ELC program. 

In response to comments received on 

the NPP, we have made the following 

changes. These changes are described in 

greater detail below in the Analysis of 

Comments and Changes section. 

• We clarified that the professional 

development programs described in 

Priority 4 include other educators, such 

as administrators and related personnel, 

rather than just teachers. 

• We added a priority, Priority 5, to 

allow States to describe strategies for 

addressing the unique needs of rural 

populations in their States. 

• We added language to the definition 

of Kindergarten Entry Assessment 1

(KEA) indicating that a KEA must not be 

used as a single measure for high-stakes 

decision-making. 

• We added a request for data on 

participation of children to be 

disaggregated by race and ethnicity to 

selection criterion (A)(1). 

• We amended the list of potential 

stakeholders in selection criterion 

(A)(3)(c)(2) to include public television 

stations. 

• We included language on 

supporting the social and emotional 

development of children in paragraph 

(c) of Priority 4 and selection criterion 

(C)(3)(e). 

• We included language that supports 

soliciting and using parental input on 

children’s needs and abilities in 

educational decision making in the 

definition of KEA and selection 

criterion (C)(2)(d) and (e). 

• We added language relating to 

building family capacity to support 

children’s learning and to build 

protective factors to paragraphs (b) and 

(e) in Priority 4, the definitions of KEA, 

Program Standards, and Workforce 

Knowledge and Competency 

Frameworks, selection criterion (C)(1) 

through (4), and selection criterion 

(E)(2)(d). 

Public Comment: In response to our 

invitation in the NPP, 36 parties 

submitted comments on the proposed 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria. In the following 

section, we summarize and provide 

responses to the comments we received. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 169 / Friday, August 30, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 53965 

We group major issues addressed in 

these comments according to subject. 

Generally, we do not address technical 

and other minor changes. In addition we 

do not address comments that raised 

concerns not directly related to the 

proposed priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria. 

Analysis of Comments and Changes: 

An analysis of the comments and any 

changes in the priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria since 

publication of the NPP follows. 

Infant-Early Childhood Mental Health 

Comment: One commenter proposed 

adding a definition of ‘‘infant-early 

childhood mental health consultation’’ 

and using this term throughout the 

selection criteria and priorities. The 

commenter also proposed additional 

language relating to supporting 

children’s social and emotional 

development, including infant-early 

childhood mental health, in selection 

criteria (A)(2), B(1), (C)(3), and (D)(2), 

and Priorities 1 and 4. 

Discussion: The Departments agree 

that supporting infant-early childhood 

mental health is an important concern. 

However, we decline to specifically 

define the term ‘‘infant-early childhood 

mental health consultation’’ as 

approaches to addressing infant-early 

childhood mental health may vary 

across States, and we do not wish to 

restrict how States might explore 

supporting mental health issues in 

infants and children. 

In selection criteria (A)(2), (B)(1), and 

(D)(2) and Priority 1 where this 

commenter suggested adding language 

relating to supporting children’s social 

and emotional development, including 

infant-early childhood mental health, 

the Departments believe that such 

additions are unnecessary and overly 

specific in the context of the criteria and 

priorities, which are intended to be 

broader and already include social and 

emotional development, which includes 

infant-child mental health. Specifying 

one of the Essential Domains of School 

Readiness would suggest that this 

domain is more important than the 

others. We believe that all the domains 

are essential and do not wish to 

emphasize one domain over others. 

In selection criterion (C)(3), however, 

the Departments believe it is 

appropriate to add the suggested 

language relating to developing a 

comprehensive approach to addressing 

infant-early childhood mental health, 

because this selection criterion 

addresses the health, behavioral, and 

developmental needs of Children with 

High Needs, and the language will not 

be overly prescriptive or too specific in 

the context of the selection criterion. 

Similarly, the Departments believe it is 

appropriate to add the suggested 

language to paragraph (c) of Priority 4, 

which notes that professional 

development for Early Childhood 

Educators includes strategies addressing 

the needs of children experiencing 

social and emotional challenges. 

Accordingly, we are revising selection 

criterion (C)(3) and paragraph (c) of 

Priority 4. 

Changes: We have added a new 

paragraph (e) to selection criterion (C)(3) 

to include developing a comprehensive 

approach to increasing the capacity of 

Early Learning and Development 

Programs to support and address infantearly childhood mental health, and 

paragraph (c) of Priority 4 to include 

professional development on addressing 

the needs of children experiencing 

social and emotional challenges. 

Inclusion of Programs Under Parts B 

and C of the Individuals With 

Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) 

Comment: Several commenters 

suggested that the RTT–ELC program 

should provide for greater inclusion of 

programs serving children under Part B, 

Section 619, and Part C of IDEA in the 

implementation of the grant. For 

example, they proposed that the 

definition of Program Standards 

reference programs serving infants and 

toddlers and their families, including 

programs under Part C of IDEA. 

Discussion: The Departments support 

the commenters’ suggestion that IDEA 

Part B section 619 and Part C programs 

should be integrated into grant 

activities. However, we do not believe 

anything in these priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria prevents such integration. In 

fact, programs funded under Parts B and 

C of IDEA are referenced throughout the 

priorities, definitions, and selection 

criteria. Regarding the proposed change 

to the definition of Program Standards, 

this definition is not intended to 

identify the specific populations served 

under RTT–ELC. Rather, this definition 

applies to all of the children served 

under RTT–ELC and their families, 

which includes infants and toddlers, 

including children served under IDEA 

Part C. We have addressed more specific 

comments related to this issue in other 

parts of this notice. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Several commenters noted 

their appreciation for the requirement 

that State agency coordinators from both 

Part B section 619 and Part C of IDEA 

be included on the State Advisory 

Council. They further recommended 

that the requirement to have 

memoranda of understanding (MOU) 

from each Participating State Agency 

(PSA) include requirements that all 

State partners, including the agency or 

agencies administering IDEA Parts B 

and C, be included in the 

implementation of grant activities and 

project leadership. In addition, the 

commenters recommended that we 

require each PSA to coordinate early 

learning efforts with the other State 

partners and the project leadership and 

to report to the Departments 

periodically on the implementation of 

all partnership efforts. 

Discussion: To be eligible to apply for 

an RTT–ELC grant, a State must submit 

a binding MOU that describes each 

PSA’s level of participation in the grant. 

The State agency or agencies 

administering Part B section 619 and 

Part C of IDEA must be included as a 

PSA. The MOU must include a 

preliminary scope of work that 

describes the portions of the grant the 

PSA will administer. Selection criterion 

(A)(3) describes how the applicant will 

be scored based on the extent to which 

the MOU includes terms and conditions 

that reflect a strong commitment to the 

State Plan, including terms and 

conditions designed to align and 

leverage the PSA’s existing funding to 

support the State Plan, terms that 

require PSAs to implement all 

applicable portions of the State Plan, 

and a description of efforts to maximize 

the number of Early Learning and 

Development Programs that become 

Participating Programs. 

Additionally, through the 

Departments’ administration and 

monitoring of RTT–ELC grants, States 

are required to report regularly to the 

Departments on the status of their 

partnership efforts, as we consider this 

integral to the success of the program. 

We believe that these requirements and 

criteria, and the Departments’ 

monitoring of grantees, address the 

concerns of the commenters. Further, 

we believe that it would be overly 

prescriptive to limit the flexibility of 

each State to determine the most 

productive role of each PSA. 

Changes: None. 

Comprehensive Assessment Systems 

Comment: Several commenters 

suggested that the Departments place 

greater emphasis on how early learning 

assessments can inform instruction and 

track children’s development across the 

birth to third grade continuum. These 

commenters stated that the use of 

assessment data in kindergarten has 

been overemphasized and that more 

emphasis should be placed on using 

early assessment before kindergarten. In 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
53966 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 169 / Friday, August 30, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

2U.S. Department of Education, National Center 

for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data, 

‘‘Public Elementary/Secondary School Universe 

Survey,’’ 2010–11 (version 2a). 

addition, these commenters 

recommended that there be stronger 

emphasis on sharing assessment data 

and results with families and on 

soliciting and using family input on 

children’s development and needs. 

Discussion: The definition of 

Comprehensive Assessment System 

states that it is a system of assessments 

‘‘that organizes information about the 

process and context of young children’s 

learning and development in order to 

help Early Childhood Educators make 

informed instructional and 

programmatic decisions.’’ The 

Departments believe that this definition, 

which is specific to programs serving 

children from birth to kindergarten 

entry, already places a strong emphasis 

on the use of assessments to measure 

children’s development and inform 

instruction in the years before 

kindergarten. 

Family engagement strategies are 

similarly emphasized throughout the 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria. As an example, the 

definition of Program Standards now 

includes culturally and linguistically 

responsive strategies to engage families 

and strengthen their capacity to support 

children’s learning and development. 

Selection criterion (C)(4) also refers to 

culturally and linguistically appropriate 

information and support of families of 

Children with High Needs and 

increasing the number and percentage of 

Early Childhood Educators trained and 

supported to implement family 

engagement strategies. However, the 

commenter is correct that the selection 

criterion does not explicitly encourage 

States to include a mechanism for 

soliciting and using family input in 

their assessment strategies. Accordingly, 

we are revising selection criterion (C)(2) 

to include training for Early Childhood 

Educators to effectively solicit and use 

family input on children’s development 

and needs. 

Changes: We have revised selection 

criterion (C)(2)(d) and added paragraph 

(C)(2)(e) to include soliciting and using 

family input on children’s development 

and needs as part of training on 

Comprehensive Assessment Systems. 

Comment: Several commenters 

recommended that the KEA be viewed 

as a midway point and critical link 

between States’ Comprehensive 

Assessment Systems and K–12 

assessment systems. These commenters 

recommended that the KEA be 

administered at the end of the year 

before kindergarten as well as in early 

kindergarten and, for that reason, 

recommended including KEA in our 

definition of Comprehensive 

Assessment System, which applies to 

assessments administered between birth 

through kindergarten entry. 

Discussion: The Departments agree 

that the KEA should be viewed as a 

midway point and critical link between 

Comprehensive Assessment Systems 

and K–12 systems. We have defined a 

KEA as an assessment that is 

administered to children during the first 

few months of their admission into 

kindergarten and used to inform efforts 

to close the school readiness gap at 

kindergarten entry and inform 

instruction in the early elementary 

grades. While there are many valid 

reasons to administer assessments in the 

year before kindergarten entry, the 

Departments do not believe the KEA 

should be administered at the end of the 

year before kindergarten, because the 

KEA is meant to be a measure of the 

status of children’s learning at 

kindergarten entry, not a measure of 

growth. Assessments should be used in 

preschool to inform instruction and a 

child’s transition to kindergarten. 

However, the definition of 

Comprehensive Assessment System 

applies to the use of assessments in 

Early Learning and Development 

Programs for children from birth 

through kindergarten entry. Because the 

KEA is administered during the first few 

months of kindergarten, the KEA falls 

outside of this period. In addition, we 

want States to have the flexibility to 

address Focused Investment Area (C)(2), 

‘‘Supporting effective uses of 

Comprehensive Assessment Systems,’’ 

even if the State does not choose to 

address Focused Investment Area (E)(1), 

which relates to developing and 

implementing a KEA. Therefore, we do 

not believe KEA should be included in 

the definition of a Comprehensive 

Assessment System. 

Changes: None. 

Other General Comments 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that we require 

significant involvement by local 

educational agencies (LEAs) in the 

development of the application and the 

implementation of the grant. 

Discussion: The Departments seek to 

improve the quality of early learning 

and development by supporting State 

efforts to build strong systems that will 

provide increased access to high-quality 

programs for children who need them 

most. LEAs are not included in the list 

of entities required to participate in the 

implementation of the grant because the 

emphasis of the program is on 

developing and strengthening State 

systems of early learning and 

development. However, RTT–ELC 

allows each applicant the flexibility to 

involve LEAs and other entities in 

application planning and grant 

implementation in ways they deem 

appropriate. To require participation of 

LEAs would require that the 

Departments define which LEAs must 

be included and what type of 

participation must be established, and 

we believe this would be burdensome 

and overly restrictive for applicants. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Some commenters 

expressed the concern that small, rural 

States have unique challenges in 

improving the quality of early learning 

and development opportunities and 

encouraged the Departments to provide 

reviewers with the flexibility to 

acknowledge States that propose 

innovative approaches to tackle these 

challenges and award points 

accordingly. 

Discussion: According to the National 

Center for Education Statistics, the 

currently funded RTT–ELC States serve 

almost one-third of the Nation’s 

children enrolled in public schools in 

rural areas (29 percent).2 However, these 

data also indicate that we are not 

funding some of the States that have the 

highest percentages of children living in 

rural areas within a State. 

To address this concern, we are 

adding a priority that will allow States 

to describe how they are addressing the 

unique needs of children living in rural 

areas. Applicants may address this 

priority by describing innovative 

approaches that are likely to close 

educational and opportunity gaps 

between Children with High Needs and 

their peers, provide increased access to 

high-quality Early Learning and 

Development Programs, and build 

stronger State systems of early learning 

and development in such areas. This 

priority will not only enable reviewers 

to acknowledge the unique needs and 

innovative strategies of States with rural 

populations, but it will further enable 

States receiving awards to expend grant 

funds on these efforts. 

Finally, to address any perceived 

inequalities in the application process 

itself, the Departments will offer all 

States technical assistance on 

completing the application live via the 

Internet and through recorded sessions 

on our Web site. 

Changes: We have added a priority to 

allow States to describe strategies to 

meet the unique needs of children in 

rural areas. We have chosen, in the 

notice inviting applications published 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 169 / Friday, August 30, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 53967 

elsewhere in this issue of the Federal 

Register, to make this new priority a 

Competitive Preference Priority. For the 

sake of clarity, we have called it Priority 

5 so it can be grouped with the other 

Competitive Preference Priorities in the 

notice inviting applications. What we 

originally proposed as Priority 5, 

Encouraging Private-Sector Support, is 

now renumbered as Priority 6. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

there was insufficient emphasis on 

program evaluation in the priorities, 

requirements, and selection criteria and 

that the Departments should allocate 

funds for cross-State evaluation of RTT– 

ELC grants. 

Discussion: The Departments have 

allocated funds for cross-State 

evaluation activities; however, the 

amount of funds available for technical 

assistance and evaluation is limited to 

five percent of the annual appropriation 

by the program’s authorizing legislation. 

The program requirements provide that 

grantees must comply with the 

requirements of any evaluation 

sponsored by ED or HHS of any of the 

State’s activities carried out with the 

grant, including cross-State evaluation. 

Furthermore, the Departments 

encourage grantees, through technical 

assistance and other guidance, to work 

together in their evaluation efforts. We 

believe that these efforts will ensure 

sufficient evaluation and therefore make 

no changes in this area. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that the program prioritize racial and 

economic diversity in early learning 

environments. 

Discussion: We agree with the 

commenter about the importance of 

racially and economically diverse early 

learning environments. However, we 

decline to shift the emphasis of the 

program away from increasing access to 

high-quality Early Learning and 

Development Programs for Children 

with High Needs. While we do not 

specifically address racially and 

economically diverse learning 

environments, the priorities, definitions, 

and selection criteria allow States to 

identify children who are from LowIncome families or otherwise in need of 

special assistance and support, under 

the definition of Children with High 

Needs. This gives States the flexibility 

to address racially and economically 

diverse early learning environments in a 

way that is appropriate to individual 

States’ needs. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that the priorities and selection criteria 

should prioritize States with the largest 

numbers and percentages of Children 

with High Needs and reduce the 

emphasis on States that have made the 

most progress in early learning reform 

efforts. 

Discussion: The Departments 

appreciate the concern raised by this 

commenter. However, the emphasis of 

this program on States that have made 

significant progress in early learning 

reform was carefully determined and 

permits us to fund States to serve as 

models for other States throughout the 

Nation. The commenter is suggesting a 

major change in the focus and scoring 

of this program. We decline to make a 

change of this scope, as we believe that 

by remaining consistent with the FY 

2011 competition, the quality of 

applications will improve, as applicants 

will be able to learn from past 

applications, peer reviewer comments, 

and other aligned resources. Future 

early learning initiatives, such as the 

Preschool for All proposal, will 

emphasize funding States to serve all 

children from low- to moderate-income 

families. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that we streamline the data tables 

required by the selection criteria to 

reduce burden on applicants and to 

provide more meaningful, comparable 

data across States. 

Discussion: The Departments have 

carefully considered whether to 

streamline data tables to reduce burden 

and provide more meaningful, 

comparable data. However, we have 

determined that the data requested in 

the tables are important to measure the 

different activities and populations 

addressed by this program. 

Furthermore, we believe it is important 

in this program to maintain consistency 

with the FY 2011 application in order 

to maximize applicants’ ability to utilize 

past applications, peer reviewer 

comments, and other aligned resources. 

Additionally, we want to maximize our 

ability to compare grantee performance 

data across cohorts. For these reasons, 

we decline to streamline the data tables. 

Changes: None. 

Priority 1: Promoting School Readiness 

for Children With High Needs 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that we add language to Priority 1 that 

would require States to show how they 

will increase the capacity of Early 

Learning and Development Programs to 

support and address the social and 

emotional development of children from 

birth to age five. 

Discussion: The Departments believe 

that supporting social and emotional 

development is already an important 

objective of this program. In these 

priorities, definitions, and selection 

criteria, including Priority 1, we have 

emphasized the importance of 

addressing all the Essential Domains of 

School Readiness, including social and 

emotional development. We believe that 

all the domains are essential and do not 

wish to emphasize one domain over 

others. Accordingly, we have made no 

change to this priority. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter asked that 

Priority 1 require States to describe how 

they will make strategic improvements 

in preventing childhood lead poisoning 

to reduce the number of Children with 

High Needs. 

Discussion: Priority 1 addresses the 

comprehensive nature of the program 

and is not designed to identify specific 

learning, development, or health 

concerns. That said, we note that 

preventing child lead poisoning as well 

as other children’s health concerns are 

embedded throughout the priorities and 

selection criteria, including in our 

definition of Essential Domains of 

School Readiness, which includes 

physical well-being, and our definition 

of Program Standards, which includes 

health promotion practices. 

Accordingly, the Departments decline to 

include a specific reference to lead 

poisoning prevention in Priority 1. 

There is no prohibition on applicants 

addressing specific health concerns, 

such as lead poisoning, in their 

applications as they deem appropriate. 

Changes: None. 

Priority 2: Including All Early Learning 

and Development Programs in the 

Tiered Quality Rating and 

Improvement System (TQRIS) 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that Priority 2 include 

improving readiness skills for children 

at risk of reading failure as a required 

element of the State Plan and that 

evidence-based literacy instruction 

should be addressed in the State’s 

TQRIS. The commenter further 

recommended that States be allowed to 

use RTT–ELC funds to support 

developmentally appropriate 

comprehensive literacy programs and 

programs that provide differentiated 

instruction for Children with High 

Needs. 

Discussion: Although the Departments 

recognize that improving reading 

readiness skills for children at risk of 

reading failure is important, Priority 2 

focuses on increasing the number of 

children in programs that are licensed 

and inspected and participating in the 

State’s TQRIS. However, a number of 

selection criteria address literacy skills 

for children at risk. For example, in 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
53968 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 169 / Friday, August 30, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

selection criterion (C)(1)(b), States are 

asked to describe their plan to put in 

place K–3 academic standards that 

address early literacy and mathematics. 

In addition, Priority 4 allows States to 

describe their High-Quality Plan to 

improve the overall quality, alignment, 

and continuity of teaching and learning 

to serve Children with High Needs 

through such activities as efforts 

designed to increase the percentage of 

children who are able to read and do 

mathematics at grade level by the end of 

the third grade. This would permit 

States to provide developmentally 

appropriate comprehensive literacy 

programs and programs that provide 

differentiated instruction. Thus, we do 

not believe any change is necessary. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Several commenters 

expressed concerns that Priority 2 forces 

States to mandate the licensure and 

participation of private, faith-based 

early learning programs in the State’s 

TQRIS. One noted that many States do 

not exempt private, faith-based 

providers from their licensure systems 

and suggested that the Departments 

clarify that any licensure and 

improvement systems be targeted 

towards only publicly funded early 

learning providers and indicate that all 

States are free to exempt private 

providers from such programs. Another 

commenter stated that Priority 2 

punishes States that choose not to 

license or regulate faith-based providers. 

According to this commenter, some 

States exempt religious providers from 

licensure, yet the providers are still 

subject to some State regulation, and 

Priority 2 would require those programs 

to participate in the State’s rating and 

improvement system. 

Discussion: Priority 2 does not require 

that States license or regulate all Early 

Learning and Development Programs or 

require their participation in TQRIS. 

The priority is designed so that States 

that exempt faith-based providers from 

their licensing and inspection systems 

are not disadvantaged in any way in the 

scoring of their applications, and States 

selected for funding are not required to 

change their approach to faith-based 

providers. Specifically, Priority 2 

indicates that programs exempted for 

reasons other than the number of 

children cared for, such as their faithbased status, may be excluded from the 

licensing and inspection system. 

Priority 2 asks that only licensed or 

State-regulated programs participate in 

TQRIS and does not require licenseexempt programs (such as faith-based 

programs in some States) to participate. 

However, in public input sessions 

conducted in 2011, for which a 

transcript was posted on the program 

Web site at http://www2ed.gov/

programs/racetothetopearlylearningchalleng/resources-phase1.html, private providers and related 

organizations expressed the concern 

that private providers should not be 

excluded from RTT–ELC. To address 

that concern, the Departments have 

clarified in Frequently Asked Questions 

posted on the program Web site at 

http://www2.ed.gov/programs/

racetothetop-earlylearningchallenge/

faq.html that private providers are 

eligible to participate and to receive 

funds from a State on the same basis as 

other entities providing early learning 

services in the State. The Departments 

have also clarified in Frequently Asked 

Questions that a private program 

participating in RTT–ELC retains its 

independence, autonomy, right of 

expression, religious character, and 

authority over governance. 

Changes: None. 

Priority 3: Understanding the Status of 

Children’s Learning and Development 

at Kindergarten Entry 

Comment: Multiple commenters 

recommended defining KEA as an 

assessment that would monitor school 

readiness at the population level and: 

(1) Be based on aggregated results of 

assessments completed by kindergarten 

teachers; (2) cover all Essential Domains 

of School Readiness; (3) be administered 

between three and six months after the 

beginning of the school year to ensure 

that teachers have had time to 

familiarize themselves with their 

students; (4) be relatively easy to 

administer, requiring teacher training of 

no more than one hour and no more 

than 15 to 20 minutes per child to 

administer; (5) include student address 

data so that data can be reported at the 

census tract level; and (6) provide valid 

and reliable data. The commenters also 

suggested a specific instrument, the 

Early Development Instrument, as one 

assessment that meets these 

characteristics. 

Discussion: The definition of KEA 

proposed in the NPP is sufficient for its 

purpose. It already covers all of the 

Essential Domains of School Readiness 

and requires that the KEA is valid and 

reliable for its intended purposes and 

for the target populations. The 

Departments do not want to require that 

the KEA be based on aggregated results 

of assessments completed by 

kindergarten teachers because the KEA 

is intended to inform efforts to address 

children’s needs early in order to close 

the school readiness gap at kindergarten 

entry, inform instruction, and inform 

parents about their children’s status at 

kindergarten entry and involve them in 

decisions about their children’s 

education. However, this does not 

preclude a State from using data in the 

aggregate as well. 

The Departments believe that it is 

important to administer the KEA during 

the first few months of children’s 

admission into kindergarten. This 

allows the KEA to be administered in a 

period of time when the results could be 

used to inform efforts to address 

children’s needs early in order to close 

the school readiness gap at kindergarten 

entry, inform instruction, and inform 

parents about their children’s status at 

kindergarten entry and involve them in 

decisions about their children’s 

education. In addition, an assessment 

administered between three and six 

months after the beginning of the school 

year would be more of a reflection of the 

child’s learning and development 

during kindergarten, rather than at 

kindergarten entry. However, there is 

nothing to prevent the use of formative 

assessments during this period. 

The Departments do not want to be 

prescriptive in defining KEA design 

elements, such as ease of 

administration, teacher training 

requirements, and length of time to 

administer. The Departments also do 

not want to require specific data 

elements, such as student address data, 

other than those included in the 

Essential Data Elements, but this does 

not preclude States from including 

additional elements. However, it is 

important that grantees comply with all 

applicable privacy laws for this type of 

data collection. 

The Departments do not endorse, 

recommend, or require applicants to use 

specific data-gathering instruments (e.g., 

the Early Development Instrument). 

Rather, applicants have the flexibility to 

use the most appropriate data-gathering 

instruments for the implementation of 

their programs. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter asked that 

the Departments emphasize that results 

of a KEA should be used to assist in the 

design of services, instruction, and 

activities geared toward preschool and 

elementary-aged children, not for highstakes purposes such as sanctions for 

children, employees, providers, or 

programs. 

Discussion: The proposed definition 

of KEA states that the assessment 

should be used to inform efforts to close 

the school readiness gap at kindergarten 

entry and to inform instruction in the 

early elementary school grades. It also 

states that the assessment should not be 

used to prevent children’s entry into 

kindergarten. However, it does not 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 169 / Friday, August 30, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 53969 

explicitly address the use of the 

assessment for making high-stakes 

decisions. We have, therefore, added to 

the KEA definition that a KEA must not 

be used as a single measure for highstakes decisions. High-stakes decisions 

may include, but are not limited to, 

dismissal of or rewards for staff and 

closure of programs. 

Changes: We have revised the 

definition of KEA to provide that the 

KEA must not be used as a single 

measure for high-stakes decisions. 

Priority 4: Creating Preschool Through 

Third Grade Approaches To Sustain 

Improved Early Learning Outcomes 

Through the Early Elementary Grades 

Comment: Multiple commenters 

noted that they appreciated the 

proposed revisions to Priority 4. They 

added a recommendation that this 

priority be elevated to a competitive or 

absolute priority rather than an 

invitational priority as it was in FY 

2011. 

Discussion: The Departments 

appreciate the recommendation and 

have considered it in developing the 

notice inviting applications for the FY 

2013 competition. Generally, we 

designate priority type in a notice 

inviting application. To do so in a 

notice of final priority binds the 

Departments to using the priority in the 

way specified in subsequent 

competitions. To preserve future 

flexibility to adjust priority 

designations, the Departments are not 

designating in this notice whether 

priorities are absolute, competitive 

preference, or invitational. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that we include in paragraph (c) of 

Priority 4 a requirement for professional 

development strategies that include 

high-quality digital resources. 

Discussion: Although the Departments 

support the provision of professional 

development through high-quality 

digital resources, we believe adding this 

specific requirement would be too 

prescriptive and that applicants are in 

the best position to determine the 

appropriate mechanisms for providing 

professional development. These 

priorities, definitions, and selection 

criteria provide States the opportunity 

to present professional development 

through digital content, if they so 

choose, giving States and programs the 

flexibility to address their individual 

professional development needs. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter 

encouraged us to promote in Priority 4 

comprehensive joint trainings of Early 

Childhood Educators, child care 

providers, and elementary educators, as 

well as other administrators and related 

personnel, and to involve families in 

that process. 

Discussion: The Departments agree 

with the commenter regarding the value 

of joint trainings for Early Childhood 

Educators, elementary educators, 

educational leaders and specialists, and 

families. Priority 4 addresses the 

implementation of teacher preparation 

and professional development programs 

for educators, including administrators 

and related personnel, to improve the 

transition of children across the birth to 

third grade continuum. However, the 

Departments believe that the 

implementation of trainings and the 

determination of which individuals 

should participate in those trainings 

should be left to the discretion of 

applicants to suit their individual 

needs. Accordingly, we have made no 

change. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter asked that 

we eliminate the specific mention of 

Title I and Title II of the Elementary and 

Secondary Education Act of 1965, as 

amended (ESEA), and IDEA Parts B and 

C from the requirement in paragraph (g) 

of Priority 4 that applicants leverage 

other funds, so that LEAs are not put in 

the position of sacrificing other services 

and programs for Children with High 

Needs. The commenter supports a 

separate funding stream for new early 

childhood initiatives. 

Discussion: We apologize for 

inadvertently providing two slightly 

different versions of Priority 4 in the 

NPP. In the description of changes to 

Priority 4, we included paragraph (g): 

‘‘Leveraging existing Federal, State, and 

local resources, including but not 

limited to funds received under Title I 

and Title II of ESEA, as amended, and 

IDEA.’’ However, when we listed the 

proposed priorities in their entirety, 

Priority 4 had language at the beginning 

of the priority relating to leveraging 

resources, without naming specific 

funding sources, and paragraph (g) was 

removed. The Departments intended to 

take comment on the latter version, 

although we have considered and 

responded to all comments on this 

priority. 

Although the Departments 

acknowledge the concern raised by the 

commenter about reducing funding for 

other programs serving Children with 

High Needs, the Departments are not 

requiring that other services be reduced 

or eliminated in order to fund this 

program. In fact, that would undermine 

one of the goals of this priority, which 

is to strengthen collaboration across 

systems. The final version of Priority 4 

does require leveraging of funds, but it 

does not require any specific funding 

sources, nor does it require specific 

amounts or the reduction of funds from 

other programs serving Children with 

High Needs. Rather, States are asked to 

describe how they will sustain and 

build upon early learning outcomes by 

leveraging existing Federal, State, and 

local resources. States will have the 

flexibility to determine how resources 

are leveraged and from which sources. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Several commenters 

recommended that Priority 4 be revised 

to include a reference to infants and 

toddlers in each of the paragraphs, to 

incorporate transition strategies 

beginning from birth. 

Discussion: Our intention in writing 

this priority is to sustain and build upon 

improved child outcomes from birth to 

age five by focusing on the important 

transition from preschool to the early 

elementary grades. The Departments 

believe that continued alignment, 

continuity, and coordination of teaching 

and learning from preschool through the 

early elementary school years is critical 

to ensure that children develop the 

skills, knowledge, and dispositions 

toward learning they need to be 

successful in school and in life. 

Throughout the RTT–ELC selection 

criteria, applicants have the opportunity 

to address transitions across the 

continuum of birth through 

kindergarten entry. Therefore, this 

priority extends the continuum of early 

learning services to third grade. 

We have left the term ‘‘preschool’’ 

undefined to ensure that States have the 

flexibility to determine the age at which 

their strategies to improve alignment 

and continuity of teaching and learning 

begins. For these reasons, we have not 

added references to infants and toddlers 

in Priority 4. However, we have added 

language to clarify our intent that 

Priority 4 is meant to build upon States’ 

High-Quality Plan to improve birth 

through age five early learning 

outcomes, and to sustain and extend 

improved early learning outcomes 

through the early elementary school 

years. 

Changes: We have revised Priority 4 

to add clarifying language that explains 

that this Priority is intended to build 

upon States’ High-Quality Plan to 

improve birth through age five early 

learning outcomes, and to sustain and 

extend improved early learning 

outcomes through the early elementary 

school years. 

Comment: Several commenters asked 

for clarification as to whether the 

professional development addressed in 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
53970 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 169 / Friday, August 30, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

3For information and resources about protective 

factors, see https://www.childwelfare.gov/can/

factors/protective.cfm. 

Priority 4 applies to administrators as 

well as teachers. 

Discussion: The Departments agree 

that the professional development 

addressed in Priority 4 should apply to 

administrators and related personnel as 

well as teachers. 

Changes: We have replaced the term 

‘‘teachers’’ with ‘‘educators, 

administrators, and related personnel.’’ 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

adding language to Priority 4 to 

emphasize building the capacity of 

families to address children’s 

developmental and learning needs, 

including by engaging and informing 

parents and by helping families build 

protective factors. Specifically, the 

commenter recommended adding 

language to paragraph (b) relating to 

building parents’ capacity to address 

children’s needs; to paragraph (c) to 

include training on the importance of 

protective factors and effective parent 

engagement strategies; to paragraph (d) 

to include engaging and supporting 

families; and to paragraph (e) to include 

informing parents about data systems. 

Discussion: The Departments agree 

that the proposed language is consistent 

with the overall purposes of the 

program and further clarifies our 

intentions. Building the capacity of 

families to support their children’s 

learning and development is an 

important element of this program. 

Further, building protective factors is an 

important part of that family support. 

Protective factors are factors that 

increase the health and well-being of 

children and families and mitigate risk.3

Research has found that successful 

interventions must both reduce risk 

factors and promote protective factors to 

ensure the well-being of children and 

families. Accordingly, we are revising 

paragraphs (b), (c), (d), and (e) of 

Priority 4. 

Changes: We have revised paragraphs 

(b), (c), (d), and (e) of Priority 4 to add 

language relating to building parents’ 

capacity to address children’s needs, 

training on the importance of protective 

factors and effective parent engagement 

strategies, engaging and supporting 

families, and informing parents about 

data systems. 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

support for the emphasis in Priority 4 

on the importance of sustaining and 

building upon early learning outcomes 

from preschool through the early 

elementary school years. The 

commenter recommended that the 

activity described in paragraph (b), 

identifying and addressing health, 

behavioral, and developmental needs, 

be required. 

Discussion: While the Departments 

agree as to the importance of addressing 

health, behavioral, and developmental 

needs, the activities listed in Priority 4 

are optional to allow States the 

maximum flexibility to tailor their 

transition strategy to their needs. We 

decline to identify one activity as a 

requirement while leaving similarly 

important activities as optional. 

Changes: None. 

Priority 6: Encouraging Private-Sector 

Support 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that the Departments 

provide additional details and 

guidelines on the kinds of private-sector 

support envisioned by this priority. 

Discussion: The Departments believe 

that there are numerous ways in which 

the private sector can provide financial 

and other resources to support the State 

and its Participating State Agencies or 

Participating Programs in the 

implementation of the State Plan, 

including contributions of funding, 

expertise, or resources, and 

collaborations with other States on 

leveraging and sharing private sector 

resources. This is an area that can best 

be determined by each applicant, and 

we encourage States to think about 

innovative and effective ways to partner 

with the private sector. Private-sector 

support should be described by 

applicants as whatever best meets their 

needs. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: None. 

Discussion: As indicated previously, 

we have re-numbered the priority on 

encouraging private-sector support to 

Priority 6. 

Changes: Priority 5, as proposed in 

the NPP, has been re-numbered as 

Priority 6. 

Suggested New Priorities 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that a new priority be added that would 

support the expansion of quality early 

learning programs to poor, 

disadvantaged, or underserved children 

and communities, including rural and 

isolated communities. 

Discussion: The priority suggested by 

this commenter is already addressed 

throughout the priorities and selection 

criteria, notably in Priority 1 and in 

selection criterion (B)(4), Promoting 

access to high-quality Early Learning 

and Development Programs for Children 

with High Needs. Also, the definition of 

Children with High Needs, which is 

used throughout the selection criteria 

and priorities, identifies many of the 

populations mentioned by the 

commenter, while also giving States the 

flexibility to identify other populations 

in need of additional support. 

Furthermore, as described earlier in this 

notice, we have added a priority that 

that would support States in meeting 

the unique needs of children residing in 

rural areas. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that a new priority be added to 

emphasize the importance of full-day 

kindergarten. 

Discussion: While high-quality, fullday kindergarten may be an effective 

strategy to improve outcomes for 

children, particularly for Children with 

High Needs, we do not believe such a 

priority is appropriate for this program, 

given its focus on supporting 

coordinated early learning and 

development systems that promote 

increased access to high-quality early 

learning programs from birth to 

kindergarten entry. 

Changes: None. 

Eligibility, Application, and Program 

Requirements 

Comment: One commenter requested 

that the Bureau of Indian Education 

(BIE) be eligible to apply for a grant 

under this program. 

Discussion: The program authority for 

RTT–ELC in section 14006(a)(2) of the 

ARRA provides that States are the only 

eligible entities, and defines the term 

‘‘State’’ to mean each of the 50 States, 

the District of Columbia, and the 

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. The 

Departments recognize the concern of 

the BIE and other non-eligible entities 

but have no authority to change the 

statutory definition of entities eligible to 

apply for this program. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter applauded 

the eligibility requirement that States 

have an active Maternal, Infant, and 

Early Childhood Home Visiting 

(MIECHV) program. Another commenter 

suggested that we ask States to identify 

specific practices that demonstrate 

alignment of efforts between the State’s 

home visiting and early childhood 

programs. 

Discussion: Asking States to provide 

the additional information suggested 

would not be appropriate for an 

eligibility requirement, as suggested by 

the commenter, because we use 

eligibility requirements only to 

determine whether an applicant may be 

considered for funding and typically do 

not evaluate descriptions or plans under 

such requirements. However, the 

information suggested can and should 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 169 / Friday, August 30, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 53971 

be provided under selection criterion 

(A)(3), Aligning and coordinating early 

learning and development across the 

State. Accordingly, we decline to make 

any changes. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter asked 

whether a non-profit organization is 

eligible to apply for the grant if it 

operates the MIECHV program instead 

of a State agency. 

Discussion: Congress made only 

States eligible to apply for RTT–ELC 

grants. The MIECHV eligibility 

requirement should be interpreted to 

mean that a State may only apply if it 

has an active MIECHV program in the 

State, either through the State or 

through an eligible non-profit 

organization in compliance with the 

requirements of the MIECHV program. 

This will be further clarified in 

technical assistance provided to 

applicants. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

the language of application requirement 

(e)(1) is unnecessarily restrictive 

because it asks that a State submit a 

budget that shows how it will use funds 

to increase the number and percentage 

of Early Learning and Development 

Programs participating in the State’s 

TQRIS. The commenter suggested 

removing the language about TQRIS 

participation because home visiting 

programs would not necessarily 

participate in TQRIS. 

Discussion: Application requirement 

(e)(1) requires a State to include a 

budget that details how the State will 

use grant funds to achieve targets for 

increasing the number and percentage of 

Early Learning and Development 

Programs participating in the State’s 

TQRIS. The provision mentioned by the 

commenter would not require a home 

visiting program to participate in a 

State’s TQRIS, as the commenter seems 

to believe. TQRIS programs in most 

States are limited to center or homebased early care and education settings. 

More importantly, this commenter’s 

suggestion would change the purpose of 

this requirement from increasing TQRIS 

participation to simply increasing the 

number and percentage of early learning 

programs in a State. Increasing TQRIS 

participation is one of the primary 

purposes of this program. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Several commenters noted 

their support for program requirement 

(a), which requires States to maintain a 

State Advisory Council (SAC). One 

commenter urged us to reconsider our 

decision to make this a program 

requirement rather than an eligibility 

requirement, which would require 

States to demonstrate that they maintain 

an ongoing SAC to be considered for 

funding. 

Discussion: SAC funds will end this 

year at different times for different 

States. The Departments are, therefore, 

eliminating the eligibility requirement 

that States have an operational SAC to 

ensure that all States have the 

opportunity to apply regardless of 

whether they currently receive Federal 

funding to support the SAC. Rather, all 

States receiving a grant will be required 

to meet the SAC program requirement, 

without exception. This treats all States 

equally because a State that receives a 

grant will be able to use grant funds to 

maintain the SAC. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Several commenters 

suggested that we revise the SAC 

program requirement to include 

representation from elementary schools 

to support alignment between early 

childhood and K–12 systems. Another 

commenter suggested that we require 

representation from the State child 

welfare agency. 

Discussion: The SAC program 

requirement explicitly includes agency 

representatives who oversee child care 

work in the States. Under the SAC 

program requirement, States must 

include the State’s Child Care and 

Development Fund administrator, State 

agency coordinators from both Part B 

section 619 and Part C of IDEA, and 

State agency representatives responsible 

for health and mental health. States may 

choose to include other members, 

including members from K–12 systems 

and the State child welfare agency. We 

also note that under Priority 4, States 

may demonstrate how they are 

supporting alignment between Early 

Learning and Development Programs 

and K–12 systems. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter requested 

that States be required to include tribal 

letters of support in their applications, 

and that tribal consultation in the 

development of the application be 

required. 

Discussion: The application does not 

require letters of support or consultation 

from specific types of stakeholders, so it 

would not be appropriate to require 

only tribal letters of support or 

consultation. We believe that each State 

should be able to take their specific 

needs into account in obtaining letters 

of support or consultation. We do, 

however, support States consulting with 

tribal entities where tribal lands exist in 

the State. We also emphasize 

stakeholder engagement in numerous 

sections. For example, selection 

criterion (A)(3) asks applicants to 

provide evidence of meaningful 

stakeholder engagement in the 

development of the proposal and 

meaningful stakeholder support for the 

proposal, and tribes are specifically 

noted in this criterion. Therefore, we 

think that the language already 

addresses the commenters’ suggestions 

and that no changes are necessary. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Several commenters 

suggested specific requirements for the 

required MOUs that would enhance the 

involvement of State partners, including 

IDEA Part B section 619 and Part C 

programs, in the implementation of the 

grant. Specifically, the commenters 

suggested that MOUs be required to 

describe the ways in which: (1) Each 

State partner will coordinate efforts 

with all other partners to maximize 

Federal and State resources; (2) each 

State partner, including IDEA Parts B 

and C programs, will be included in the 

implementation of grant activities; (3) 

grant resources will be directed to 

include all State partners; (4) all 

partners will be involved in grant 

leadership and decision making; and (5) 

the project will evaluate and report to 

the Departments periodically on the 

implementation of all partnership 

efforts. 

Discussion: To be eligible to apply for 

an RTT–ELC grant, a State must submit 

a binding MOU that describes each 

PSA’s level of participation in the grant. 

The State agency administering IDEA 

Parts B and C must be included as a 

PSA. The MOU must include a 

preliminary scope of work that 

describes the portions of the grant the 

PSA will administer. Selection criterion 

(A)(3) describes how the applicant will 

be scored based on the extent to which 

the MOU includes terms and conditions 

that reflect a strong commitment to the 

State Plan, including terms and 

conditions designed to align and 

leverage the PSA’s existing funding to 

support the State Plan; terms that 

require PSAs to implement all 

applicable portions of the State Plan; 

and a description of efforts to maximize 

the number of Early Learning and 

Development programs that become 

Participating Programs. We believe that 

these requirements and criteria address 

the commenters’ concerns. We believe 

that to be more prescriptive in the 

manner suggested by the commenters 

would unnecessarily limit the flexibility 

of each State to determine the most 

productive role of each PSA. 

Changes: None. 

Proposed Definitions 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that it might be clearer and more 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
53972 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 169 / Friday, August 30, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

straightforward to use a general term 

such as ‘‘federally recognized, evidencebased home visiting models’’ rather than 

naming specific funding streams such as 

‘‘other programs that may deliver early 

learning and development services in a 

child’s home, such as the MIECHV; 

Early Head Start; and Part C of IDEA.’’ 

Similarly, this commenter suggested 

adding ‘‘federally recognized, evidencebased home visiting models’’ to the 

definition of Early Learning 

Intermediary Organization (ELIO). 

Discussion: The Departments do not 

use the term ‘‘federally recognized’’ 

home visiting models, although HHS 

has identified some models as ‘‘meeting 

standards for evidence of effectiveness.’’ 

The change suggested by the commenter 

would be far more restrictive than the 

language of our proposed definition 

because it would limit the definition of 

home-based services to only those that 

are identified by HHS as evidence 

based. We intended this definition to 

include the wide variety of services that 

might be provided to children in the 

home and, therefore, decline to make 

the changes suggested. 

Regarding the suggested addition to 

the definition of ELIO, we believe that 

the proposed language would be 

inconsistent with the meaning of the 

term, which refers to national, 

statewide, regional, or community-based 

organizations that represent networks of 

Early Learning and Development 

Programs. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Several changes were 

suggested to the definition of Children 

with High Needs. One commenter 

suggested that the term ‘‘English 

learner’’ should be replaced with ‘‘Dual 

Language Learner.’’ Another commenter 

suggested that we add a reference to 

children who are lead poisoned to the 

definition, because children who are 

lead poisoned are not always 

categorized as children with disabilities. 

A third commenter suggested that the 

definition should be less broad and 

should provide for the consideration of 

factors such as parental education, age, 

and family structure when determining 

whether a child meets the definition. 

Discussion: The Departments agree 

with the first commenter that dual 

language instruction should be 

supported. However, we believe it is 

important to maintain a consistent use 

of terminology across programs, and 

English learner is the term used in 

similar programs at ED, such as the 

Enhanced Assessment Grant (EAG) and 

Race to the Top—District programs. 

Regarding the second comment, the 

Departments believe that the risks posed 

by lead poisoning can be adequately 

addressed by applicants in selection 

criterion (C)(3). Furthermore, the 

definition of Children with High Needs 

includes ‘‘other children as identified 

by the State,’’ so States can address 

additional needs as appropriate. 

Regarding the third comment, the 

definition of Children with High Needs 

includes 

children from birth through kindergarten 

entry who are from Low-Income families or 

otherwise in need of special assistance and 

support, including children who have 

disabilities or developmental delays; who are 

English learners; who reside on ‘‘Indian 

lands’’ as that term is defined by section 

8013(7) of ESEA; who are migrant, homeless, 

or in foster care; and other children 

identified by the State. 

This definition allows States to identify 

other at-risk children and States may 

consider factors that include education, 

family structure, disability, language, 

and parental age. The Departments have 

deliberately kept this definition broad 

so that States have the flexibility to 

address a wide range of children’s needs 

as appropriate for their populations. We 

therefore decline to limit the definition. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

adding to the definitions of KEA, 

Program Standards, and Workforce 

Knowledge and Competency 

Frameworks language relating to family 

engagement and building children’s 

protective factors that would enhance 

the capacity of families to support their 

children’s learning and development. 

The commenter suggested adding 

language to the definition of KEA 

relating to informing parents about their 

children’s learning development and 

involving them in decisions about their 

children’s education. The commenter 

also suggested revising the definition of 

Program Standards to require 

‘‘culturally and linguistically 

responsive’’ strategies that are used to 

help families build protective factors 

and build their capacity to support 

children’s development and learning. 

Finally, the commenter suggested 

adding an additional paragraph to the 

definition of Workforce Knowledge and 

Competency Frameworks relating to 

knowledge of protective factors and 

effective approaches to building 

families’ capacity to promote children’s 

development and learning. 

Discussion: The Departments support 

the goal of building the capacity of 

families to support their children’s 

education. The suggested changes to the 

definitions are consistent with the goals 

of the program and help to further 

clarify the definitions and therefore we 

have made them. The Departments 

believe that research has demonstrated 

the importance of family capacitybuilding and protective factors, so it is 

appropriate to address those concerns in 

these priorities, definitions, and 

selection criteria. 

Changes: We have added language to 

the definition of KEA relating to 

informing parents about their children’s 

learning development and involving 

them in decisions about their children’s 

education. We have revised the 

definition of Program Standards to 

specify that strategies for engaging 

families must be culturally and 

linguistically responsive and that these 

strategies would include helping 

families build protective factors and 

building families’ capacity to support 

children’s development and learning. 

We added a paragraph to the definition 

of Workforce Knowledge and 

Competency Frameworks relating to 

knowledge of protective factors and 

effective approaches to building 

families’ capacity to promote children’s 

development and learning. 

Selection Criterion A: Successful State 

Systems 

Comment: One commenter 

commended our proposal to require that 

a State ‘‘achieve its ambitious yet 

achievable targets for increasing the 

number and percentage of Children with 

High Needs who are enrolled in Early 

Learning Programs that are in the top 

tiers of the State’s TQRIS.’’ The 

commenter recommended, however, 

that we revise the selection criteria to 

require that States, in addition to 

disaggregating their TQRIS data by 

socioeconomic status, also disaggregate 

the TQRIS data by race and ethnicity. 

Discussion: We agree with the 

commenters about the importance of 

disaggregating data by race and 

ethnicity and have considered ways to 

request this data that would not be 

burdensome to States. We developed a 

request for data on participation of 

children by race and ethnicity that is 

consistent with the other types of data 

requested and that we believe will not 

be burdensome. The request does not 

break down ethnicity within different 

types of Early Learning and 

Development Programs, nor does it 

require a breakdown of race and 

ethnicity data by program ratings in the 

TQRIS. Rather, we are asking for data 

we believe that States will have readily 

available in their data systems. 

Changes: We have revised selection 

criterion (A)(1) to provide for States to 

submit data on the participation of 

children by race and ethnicity in a data 

table. 

Comment: Several commenters 

requested that the priorities, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 169 / Friday, August 30, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 53973 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria reflect an integrative and 

collaborative approach among State and 

local education, health, and human 

services agencies. Another commenter 

suggested that we encourage States to 

review existing Federal grant 

opportunities and initiatives in their 

States, consider opportunities for 

building synergies to improve outcomes 

for Children with High Needs, and 

involve agencies implementing other 

Federal programs in implementation of 

the grant. 

Discussion: We believe the proposed 

selection criteria address the 

commenters’ concerns. Specifically, 

selection criterion (A)(3) scores 

applicants on their proposals for 

alignment and coordination of early 

learning and development across the 

State. Applicants must identify a 

governance structure that facilitates 

interagency coordination and builds 

upon existing early learning structures 

such as councils and commissions. 

Furthermore, the required PSAs come 

from agencies that administer a 

combination of education, child and 

maternal health, and human services 

programs. Finally, applicants must 

demonstrate commitment and 

participation of a broad group of 

stakeholders in the early learning 

community in selection criterion 

(A)(3)(c). In our experience working 

with the current 14 RTT–ELC grantees, 

these criteria and requirements have 

resulted in strong collaborative efforts 

across education, health, and human 

services agencies at the State level. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter inquired 

whether the Departments had a 

definition for ‘‘significant amount’’ as 

used in selection criterion 

(A)(4)(b)(3)(‘‘demonstrates that a 

significant amount of funding will be 

devoted to the local implementation of 

the State Plan’’). 

Discussion: The term ‘‘significant 

amount’’ is not defined because the 

Departments believe that applicants 

need the flexibility to describe what 

constitutes significant in the context of 

their application and that determining 

what is a significant amount is a 

judgment that can be reasonably made 

by applicants and reviewers. The 

Departments will also address this in 

technical assistance provided to 

applicants and reviewers. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that applicants be 

required to submit an MOU signed by 

one or more statewide early learning 

non-profit organizations to demonstrate 

that the applicant is building strong 

relationships with non-profit 

organizations. 

Discussion: As described in selection 

criterion (A)(3), States will receive 

points for demonstrating broad 

stakeholder support, but an MOU is not 

required. Given that MOUs are already 

required for all PSAs, we believe that to 

require an MOU for every relationship 

between State agencies and non-profit 

organizations is unnecessarily 

burdensome and restrictive. State 

agencies and non-profit organizations 

may prefer to use other formal or 

informal mechanisms to memorialize 

partnerships and support. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Several commenters 

suggested additions to the list of 

potential stakeholders in selection 

criterion (A)(3)(c)(2). One commenter 

recommended that public television 

stations be added to the list. Another 

commenter recommended that ‘‘State 

and local Strengthening Families 

Leadership Teams’’ and ‘‘administrators 

of State Title V MCH Block Grant 

Programs’’ be added to the list. 

Discussion: The Departments 

recognize the role of public television 

stations as partners in early learning 

initiatives. While such partnerships 

remain at the discretion of States, 

applicants are welcome to seek out such 

partnerships, and, in fact, some existing 

RTT–ELC grantees have done so. 

Because public television stations are 

entities that applicants might not 

consider reaching out to or partnering 

with, we believe they should be added 

to the list as an illustrative example. 

However, we think the other two 

suggestions are too specific for the 

context of this list, in that they reference 

specific programs and models. The use 

of ‘‘such other stakeholders as’’ is 

intended to allow for any and all other 

stakeholders as desired by the State. 

Changes: We have revised selection 

criterion (A)(3)(c)(2) to include public 

television stations in the illustrative list 

of potential stakeholders. 

Comment: Several commenters 

suggested that we require States to 

demonstrate whether or not they have 

cut reimbursement rates for providers in 

the Child Care Development Fund 

(CCDF) and describe their commitment 

to maintaining or increasing provider 

reimbursement rates in order to ensure 

sustainability of reform efforts. 

Discussion: In its application, a State 

must demonstrate how it will improve 

the quality of Early Learning and 

Development Programs by integrating 

and aligning resources and policies 

across PSAs and by designing and 

implementing a common, statewide 

TQRIS. In demonstrating ‘‘successful 

state Systems’’ under selection criterion 

(A)(1), the State must provide evidence 

of past commitment to and investment 

in high-quality, accessible Early 

Learning and Development Programs, 

including documentation of the past 

five years of financial investments, as 

well as its existing legislation, policies, 

and practices in this area. Selection 

criterion (A)(1)(a) specifically requests 

information on the State’s investment in 

early learning, including State 

contributions and match for CCDF. In 

addition, selection criterion (B)(2)(b) 

asks States to describe how they will 

implement effective policies and 

practices designed to help more families 

afford high-quality child care (e.g., 

maintaining or increasing subsidy 

reimbursement rates, or establishing 

differential or tiered reimbursement 

rates for higher quality providers). 

While States will be evaluated on 

their prior commitments, including 

their contributions for CCDF, and their 

plans to align and leverage other sources 

of funding, it is not reasonable to 

demand that States commit to 

maintaining their current 

reimbursement rate for CCDF. Many 

factors go into that decision and it is not 

within the authority of this program to 

demand a specific level of commitment 

under another program. Furthermore, 

the proposed approach does not address 

whether rates are sufficient to provide 

access to high-quality care, which is 

difficult to measure. A requirement that 

rates be maintained or increased does 

not address a State’s starting point and 

could potentially advantage a State that 

maintains low rates. Furthermore, 

payment rates are only one aspect of 

subsidy administration. States can also 

significantly impact the value of a 

subsidy and who receives it through 

their family co-payment and eligibility 

policies. 

Changes: None. 

Selection Criterion B: High-Quality, 

Accountable Programs 

Comment: Several commenters 

recommended revising selection 

criterion (B)(2) to require States to set a 

goal of full participation in TQRIS for 

all licensed or regulated early learning 

programs in the State. 

Discussion: Selection criterion (B)(2) 

asks States to describe how they will 

reach the goal of having all publicly 

funded Early Learning and Development 

Programs participate in TQRIS, 

including State-funded preschool 

programs, Early Head Start and Head 

Start programs, programs receiving 

CCDF funds, and programs funded 

under Parts B and C of IDEA and Title 

I of ESEA. In contrast, Priority 2 asks 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
53974 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 169 / Friday, August 30, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

States to describe their plans to have all 

licensed or State-regulated programs 

participate in their TQRIS, which is 

more ambitious than requiring 

participation of all publicly funded 

programs. The commenters’ 

recommendation would change 

selection criterion (B)(2) to reflect this 

more ambitious goal. While we support 

the goal of having all State-licensed and 

regulated programs participate in 

TQRIS, we intended selection criterion 

(B)(2) to allow States more flexibility to 

determine ambitious but achievable 

goals that take into account the status of 

TQRIS in their State, while giving more 

ambitious States an opportunity to 

receive additional points in Priority 2. 

We believe that this balance provides 

the greatest flexibility for States while 

providing incentives to States to 

establish more ambitious goals for 

participation in TQRIS. Accordingly, we 

decline to change this selection criterion 

in the manner suggested. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Several commenters 

suggested that the Departments make 

clear that States, in their validation 

studies as described in selection 

criterion (B)(5), should examine 

whether the tiers of TQRIS accurately 

reflect the differential levels of program 

quality before researching the 

relationship between program quality 

and child outcomes, in order to ensure 

that validation plans are meaningful and 

valid in the context of where States are 

in their development of TQRIS. 

Discussion: We think the commenters’ 

concerns are best addressed through 

technical assistance and guidance from 

the Departments once awards are made. 

States that receive grants are required 

under program requirement (d)(4) to 

submit their plans for validation to both 

Departments for review and feedback. 

This feedback ensures that a State is 

developing a validation plan that is 

appropriate for where the State is in its 

TQRIS development. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter asked that 

the Departments ensure that program 

standards used by TQRIS are well 

researched and evidence based and tie 

directly to the growth and development 

of children. 

Discussion: Selection criterion (B)(1) 

asks States to demonstrate that their 

TQRIS have standards that are 

measurable, meaningfully differentiate 

program quality levels, and reflect high 

expectations of program excellence 

commensurate with national standards 

that lead to improved learning outcomes 

for children. This criterion is already 

consistent with what the commenter is 

requesting. Technical assistance will be 

provided to ensure that the validation 

plans for each State’s TQRIS are of the 

highest quality. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended adding language to 

selection criterion (B)(4) and (B)(5) to 

encourage States to build on Federal 

opportunities and draw on promising 

practices to help families build 

protective factors and that we 

emphasize child welfare-early learning 

partnerships to ensure the 

developmental needs of young children 

are met. Specifically, the commenter 

suggested adding a paragraph to 

selection criterion (B)(4) to measure the 

extent to which States have a plan to 

build early learning and child welfare 

partnerships to ensure that the 

developmental needs of young children 

are met, including coordinating with 

other federally funded opportunities 

that help families build protective 

factors. The commenter also 

recommended adding language to 

selection criterion (B)(5) to address 

whether changes in quality ratings are 

related to progress in building 

protective factors, engaging families, 

and building parent capacity. 

Discussion: The Departments believe 

that the overall purpose of RTT–ELC 

already encourages States to build on 

Federal opportunities and promising 

practices to help families build 

protective factors. In selection criterion 

(B)(4), the suggested language is too 

specific for the context of the criterion, 

and to add one specific strategy for 

improving the quality of early learning 

programs without specifying others 

would be problematic because we do 

not intend to prioritize one specific 

strategy over other possible strategies. In 

selection criterion (B)(5), we do not 

believe the TQRIS validation process 

will allow for States to demonstrate a 

direct correlation between the suggested 

items (building protective factors, 

family engagement, and building parent 

capacity) and changes in quality ratings. 

Changes: None. 

Selection Criterion C: Promoting Early 

Learning and Development Outcomes 

for Children 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that a paragraph be added to selection 

criterion C to address the extent to 

which a State provides curricula and 

related content and materials aligned to 

State standards that are proven effective 

in improving early literacy and other 

skills by leveraging existing resources, 

engaging educators and families, and 

identifying the appropriate platforms for 

content, including high-tech digital 

platforms. 

Discussion: Although the Departments 

support the ideas expressed in this 

recommendation, this program 

emphasizes State systems of early 

learning and development, rather than 

the development of curricula and the 

delivery of content. Because curriculum 

development is not an emphasis of this 

program, we believe flexibility in this 

area is best left to the discretion of 

States and local providers. For that 

reason, we decline to make the 

suggested change. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended including a section that 

addresses training Early Childhood 

Educators in child development and 

implementation of research-based 

instructional tools, strategies, programs, 

and techniques to specifically address 

the needs of Children with High Needs 

through developmentally appropriate 

differentiated instruction. 

Discussion: The Departments 

recognize that training for Early 

Childhood Educators of Children with 

High Needs should include training in 

child development and implementation 

of research-based instructional tools, 

strategies, programs, and techniques 

that include developmentally 

appropriate differentiated instruction. 

However, the Departments do not 

believe a unique section needs to be 

added to address this request as 

multiple priorities and selection criteria 

already address these areas. For 

example, Priority 4 provides for 

alignment of kindergarten-throughthird-grade standards with States’ Early 

Learning and Development Standards. 

Selection criteria (A)(2)(a), (B)(1)(a)(1), 

(B)(4)(2), and (D)(2)(a) and (b) each 

provide an opportunity for States to 

discuss how child development 

knowledge on early learning and 

development will be linked to training, 

professional development, and researchbased knowledge supporting Children 

with High Needs. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Several commenters asked 

that we require States to describe how 

they have enhanced or will enhance 

early learning standards for English 

learners to reflect current research on 

the importance of supporting a child’s 

first language. 

Discussion: Selection criterion (C)(1) 

asks States to describe how, and provide 

evidence that, its Early Learning and 

Development Standards are 

developmentally, culturally, and 

linguistically appropriate across each 

age group of infants, toddlers, and 

preschoolers, and that they cover all 

Essential Domains of School Readiness. 

The list of evidence required for 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 169 / Friday, August 30, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 53975 

selection criterion (C)(1) requests 

documentation that standards are 

appropriate for English learners. 

Although the Departments recognize the 

importance of supporting a child’s first 

language, we do not believe it is 

advisable to impose specific 

requirements on Early Learning and 

Development Standards relating to 

English learners that would restrict a 

State’s flexibility in this area. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended adding language to the 

selection criteria that would support 

family engagement and enhance 

families’ capacity to support children’s 

learning and development. In selection 

criterion (C)(1)(c), the suggested 

language would include evidence that 

Early Learning and Development 

Standards are shared with families 

along with appropriate strategies they 

can use at home to support children’s 

learning and development. In selection 

criterion (C)(2), the suggested language 

would require States to work with Early 

Learning and Development Programs to 

select appropriate instruments and to 

identify approaches for soliciting 

information from parents and articulate 

guidelines for sharing data with parents 

and involving parents in educational 

decision making. In selection criterion 

(C)(3), the suggested language would 

involve helping parents to support 

children’s physical, social, and 

emotional health and to promote 

healthy eating habits at home. In 

selection criterion (C)(4), the suggested 

language relates to helping families 

build protective factors and adds 

language about family resource centers, 

family support networks, and 

community-based child abuse 

prevention programs. 

Discussion: In general, the addition of 

the proposed language to selection 

criterion (C)(1) through (4) is consistent 

with our intent and the purpose of the 

program, which includes building the 

capacity of families to support the early 

learning and development of Children 

with High Needs. We are revising the 

selection criterion accordingly. 

Changes: The Departments have 

revised selection criterion (C)(1)(c) to 

provide for the applicants to address 

whether their high-quality Early 

Learning and Development Plans are 

shared with parents and families along 

with suggestions for appropriate 

strategies they can use at home to 

support their children’s learning and 

development. We have added paragraph 

(e) to selection criterion (C)(2) to 

provide language relating to States’ 

plans to work with programs to select 

assessment instruments and approaches 

that are appropriate for soliciting 

information from families and 

articulating guidelines for sharing data 

and involving families in educational 

decision making. We have revised 

selection criterion (C)(3) to ask States 

how they will build families’ capacity to 

support children’s physical, social, and 

emotional health and to promote 

healthy eating habits at home. We have 

revised selection criterion (C)(4) to 

include helping families build 

protective factors and add language 

about family resource centers, family 

support networks, and communitybased child abuse prevention programs. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

selection criterion (C)(3), which relates 

to health promotion, should be required 

rather than an optional Focused 

Investment Area. 

Discussion: In 2011, the Departments 

gave careful consideration to which 

sections of the selection criteria should 

be required and which should be 

optional. While we consider all portions 

of selection criteria C, D, and E critical 

to implementing successful early 

learning reforms, we also recognize that 

States might not be able to implement 

all of these areas of the program well. 

Because we have no basis to single out 

selection criterion (C)(3) as more 

important than the other parts of C, D, 

and E that are also optional, we have 

chosen to maintain the structure of the 

Core and Focused Investment Areas. 

Changes: None. 

Selection Criterion D: A Great Early 

Childhood Education Workforce 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

concern that RTT–ELC should focus on 

early childhood program leaders in 

addition to teachers, and that 

individuals with leadership 

responsibilities should have in-service 

and pre-service requirements that 

include knowledge of child 

development and instruction and 

assessment practices that address the 

developmental needs of young children. 

According to the commenter, preservice and in-service professional 

development should include knowledge 

of child development and learning, 

what is individually appropriate, and 

what is culturally important. 

Discussion: Professional development 

for individuals with leadership 

responsibilities is already included 

throughout the selection criteria. In 

particular, selection criterion D, which 

addresses workforce development, 

applies to Early Childhood Educators, 

and the definition of Early Childhood 

Educators explicitly includes 

administrators, directors, supervisors, 

and other leaders, in addition to 

teachers. Furthermore, selection 

criterion (D)(1) asks States to describe 

their plan to develop a Workforce 

Knowledge and Competency Framework 

that is designed to promote children’s 

learning and development and improve 

child outcomes, as well as a statewide 

progression of credentials and degrees 

aligned with this framework. The 

definition of a Workforce Knowledge 

and Competency Framework includes 

the concepts mentioned by this 

commenter. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that we add language to selection 

criterion (D)(1)(c) that would include 

public television stations with 

experience providing multiplatform 

programming and services as a specific 

professional development provider and 

that we add language to selection 

criterion (D)(2) that would require 

professional development opportunities 

to be accessible through high-quality 

multiplatform digital content and 

services. 

Discussion: The Departments believe 

that these changes are too specific with 

regard to content delivery and that 

decisions regarding specific types of 

providers or content delivery are best 

left to applicants. That said, nothing in 

the requirements of this program would 

prevent grantees from focusing on these 

areas. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended adding language to 

selection criterion (D)(2)(b) regarding 

training on differentiated instruction for 

diverse learners. 

Discussion: Selection criterion 

(D)(2)(b) asks the applicant to describe 

policies and incentives to promote 

professional improvement and career 

advancement in the State’s workforce. 

In selection criterion (D)(2), States are 

asked to describe a High-Quality Plan 

that targets Early Childhood Educators’ 

effectiveness in working with Children 

with High Needs. The Departments 

recognize that one of many approaches 

Early Childhood Educators could use 

with Children with High Needs is 

differentiated instruction for diverse 

learners. However, the determination of 

specific educational strategies is 

typically made by Early Learning and 

Development Programs—not by the 

State. 

Changes: None. 

Selection Criterion E: Measuring 

Outcomes and Progress 

Comment: One commenter 

encouraged the Departments to 

determine benchmark measures to 

reduce the reliance on assessment at 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
53976 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 169 / Friday, August 30, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

kindergarten entry and provide 

opportunities for mid-point correction 

between birth and age five. The 

commenter further recommended the 

Departments consider how to support 

more cross-State development of KEAs. 

Discussion: This program supports 

Comprehensive Assessment Systems 

that provide many opportunities for 

formative assessment that can help 

inform ‘‘mid-point correction’’ strategies 

as determined by the State for children 

from birth through age five. The 

Departments believe it would be overly 

prescriptive to establish benchmark 

measures. The commenter’s 

recommendation regarding cross-State 

development of KEAs is being 

addressed by ED’s FY 2013 EAG 

program, which will support the 

development or enhancement of a KEA 

that is aligned with States’ early 

learning and development standards 

and that covers all of the Essential 

Domains of School Readiness. This 

year’s EAG program gives priority to 

early learning collaborative efforts 

among States in developing these 

assessments. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that selection criterion (E)(2)(d) be 

modified to include language on sharing 

information with parents and other 

stakeholders. 

Discussion: The Departments agree 

with the purpose of the suggested 

modification. 

Change: The suggested language has 

been added to selection criterion 

(E)(2)(d) to include sharing information 

on the State’s early learning data system 

with parents and other community 

stakeholders. 

Final Priorities: The Secretaries 

establish six priorities. The Departments 

may apply one or more of these 

priorities in any year in which a 

competition for program funds is held. 

Priority 1: Promoting School Readiness 

for Children With High Needs 

To meet this priority, the State’s 

application must comprehensively and 

coherently address how the State will 

build a system that increases the quality 

of Early Learning and Development 

Programs for Children with High Needs 

so that they enter kindergarten ready to 

succeed. 

The State’s application must 

demonstrate how it will improve the 

quality of Early Learning and 

Development Programs by integrating 

and aligning resources and policies 

across Participating State Agencies and 

by designing and implementing a 

common, statewide Tiered Quality 

Rating and Improvement System. In 

addition, to achieve the necessary 

reforms, the State must make strategic 

improvements in those areas that will 

most significantly improve program 

quality and outcomes for Children with 

High Needs. Therefore, the State must 

address those criteria from within each 

of the Focused Investment Areas 

(sections (C) Promoting Early Learning 

and Development Outcomes for 

Children, (D) A Great Early Childhood 

Education Workforce, and (E) Measuring 

Outcomes and Progress) that it believes 

will best prepare its Children with High 

Needs for kindergarten success. 

Priority 2: Including All Early Learning 

and Development Programs in the 

Tiered Quality Rating and 

Improvement System 

Priority 2 is designed to increase the 

number of children from birth to 

kindergarten entry who are participating 

in programs that are governed by the 

State’s licensing system and quality 

standards, with the goal that all licensed 

or State-regulated programs will 

participate. The State will meet this 

priority based on the extent to which 

the State has in place, or has a HighQuality Plan to implement no later than 

June 30th of the fourth year of the 

grant— 

(a) A licensing and inspection system 

that covers all programs that are not 

otherwise regulated by the State and 

that regularly care for two or more 

unrelated children for a fee in a 

provider setting; provided that if the 

State exempts programs for reasons 

other than the number of children cared 

for, the State may exclude those entities 

and reviewers will determine whether 

an applicant has met this priority only 

on the basis of non-excluded entities; 

and 

(b) A Tiered Quality Rating and 

Improvement System in which all 

licensed or State-regulated Early 

Learning and Development Programs 

participate. 

Priority 3: Understanding the Status of 

Children’s Learning and Development 

at Kindergarten Entry 

To meet this priority, the State must, 

in its application, address selection 

criterion (E)(1) and earn a score of at 

least 70 percent of the maximum points 

available for that criterion. 

Priority 4: Creating Preschool Through 

Third Grade Approaches To Sustain 

Improved Early Learning Outcomes 

Through the Early Elementary Grades 

Priority 4 is designed to build upon 

the State’s High-Quality Plan to improve 

birth through age five early learning 

outcomes, and to sustain and extend 

improved early learning outcomes 

through the early elementary school 

years, including by leveraging existing 

Federal, State, and local resources. The 

State will meet this priority based on 

the extent to which it describes a HighQuality Plan to improve the overall 

quality, alignment, and continuity of 

teaching and learning to serve children 

from preschool through third grade 

through such activities as— 

(a) Enhancing the State’s 

kindergarten-through-third-grade 

standards to align them with the State’s 

Early Learning and Development 

Standards across all Essential Domains 

of School Readiness; 

(b) Identifying and addressing the 

health, behavioral, and developmental 

needs of Children with High Needs from 

preschool through third grade, and 

building families’ capacity to address 

these needs; 

(c) Implementing teacher preparation 

and professional development programs 

and strategies that emphasize 

developmental science and the 

importance of protective factors, 

pedagogy, and the delivery of 

developmentally appropriate content, 

strategies for identifying and addressing 

the needs of children experiencing 

social and emotional challenges, and 

effective family engagement strategies 

for educators, administrators, and 

related personnel serving children from 

preschool through third grade; 

(d) Implementing model systems of 

collaboration both within and between 

Early Learning and Development 

Programs and elementary schools to 

engage and support families and 

improve all transitions for children 

across the birth through third grade 

continuum; 

(e) Building or enhancing data 

systems to monitor the status of 

children’s learning and development 

from preschool through third grade to 

inform families and support student 

progress in meeting critical educational 

benchmarks in the early elementary 

grades; and 

(f) Other efforts designed to increase 

the percentage of children who are able 

to read and do mathematics at grade 

level by the end of the third grade. 

Priority 5: Addressing the Needs of 

Children in Rural Areas 

The State will meet this priority based 

on the extent to which it describes: 

(a) How it will implement approaches 

to address the unique needs (e.g., 

limited access to resources) of children 

in rural areas, including rural areas with 

small populations; and 

(b) How these approaches are 

designed to close educational and 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 169 / Friday, August 30, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 53977 

opportunity gaps for Children with High 

Needs, increase the number and 

percentage of Low-Income children who 

are enrolled in high-quality Early 

Learning and Development Programs; 

and enhance the State’s integrated 

system of high-quality early learning 

programs and services. 

Priority 6: Encouraging Private-Sector 

Support 

The State will meet this priority based 

on the extent to which it describes how 

the private sector will provide financial 

and other resources to support the State 

and its Participating State Agencies or 

Participating Programs in the 

implementation of the State Plan. 

Types of Priorities 

When inviting applications for a 

competition using one or more 

priorities, we designate the type of each 

priority as absolute, competitive 

preference, or invitational through a 

notice in the Federal Register. The 

effect of each type of priority follows: 

Absolute priority: Under an absolute 

priority, we consider only applications 

that meet the priority (34 CFR 

75.105(c)(3)). 

Competitive preference priority: 

Under a competitive preference priority, 

we give competitive preference to an 

application by (1) awarding additional 

points, depending on the extent to 

which the application meets the priority 

(34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) selecting 

an application that meets the priority 

over an application of comparable merit 

that does not meet the priority (34 CFR 

75.105(c)(2)(ii)). 

Invitational priority: Under an 

invitational priority, we are particularly 

interested in applications that meet the 

priority. However, we do not give an 

application that meets the priority a 

preference over other applications (34 

CFR 75.105(c)(1)). 

Final Requirements 

I. Eligibility Requirements: The 

Secretaries establish the following 

requirements a State must meet in order 

to be eligible to receive funds under this 

competition. We may apply one or more 

of these requirements in any year in 

which this program is in effect. 

States must meet the following 

requirements: 

(a) The State has not previously 

received an RTT–ELC grant. 

(b) The Lead Agency must have 

executed with each Participating State 

Agency a memorandum of 

understanding (MOU) or other binding 

agreement that the State must attach to 

its application, describing the 

Participating State Agency’s level of 

participation in the grant. At a 

minimum, the MOU or other binding 

agreement must include an assurance 

that the Participating State Agency 

agrees to use, to the extent applicable— 

(1) A set of statewide Early Learning 

and Development Standards; 

(2) A set of statewide Program 

Standards; 

(3) A statewide Tiered Quality Rating 

and Improvement System; and 

(4) A statewide Workforce Knowledge 

and Competency Framework and 

progression of credentials. 

(c) There must be an active Maternal, 

Infant, and Early Childhood Home 

Visiting (MIECHV) program in the State, 

either through the State under section 

511(c) of Title V of the Social Security 

Act, as added by section 2951 of the 

Affordable Care Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 

111–148), or through an eligible nonprofit organization under section 

511(h)(2)(B). 

II. Application Requirements: The 

Secretaries establish the following 

application requirements for the 

application a State would submit for 

funding under this competition. We 

may apply one or more of these 

requirements in any year in which this 

program is in effect. 

Each applicant must meet the 

following application requirements: 

(a) The State’s application must be 

signed by the Governor or an authorized 

representative; an authorized 

representative from the Lead Agency; 

and an authorized representative from 

each Participating State Agency. 

(b) The State must submit a 

certification from the State Attorney 

General or an authorized representative 

that the State’s description of, and 

statements and conclusions in its 

application concerning, State law, 

statute, and regulation are complete and 

accurate and constitute a reasonable 

interpretation of State law, statute, and 

regulation. 

(c) The State must complete the 

budget spreadsheets that are provided in 

the application package and submit the 

completed spreadsheet as part of its 

application. These spreadsheets should 

be included on the CD or DVD that the 

State submits as its application. 

(d) The State must submit preliminary 

scopes of work for each Participating 

State Agency as part of the executed 

MOU or other binding agreement. Each 

preliminary scope of work must 

describe the portions of the State’s 

proposed plans that the Participating 

State Agency is agreeing to implement. 

If a State is awarded an RTT–ELC grant, 

the State will have up to 90 days to 

complete final scopes of work for each 

Participating State Agency. 

(e) The State must include a budget 

that details how it will use grant funds 

awarded under this competition, and 

funds from other Federal, State, private, 

and local sources to achieve the 

outcomes of the State Plan (as described 

in selection criterion (A)(4)(a)), and how 

the State will use funds awarded under 

this program to— 

(1) Achieve its ambitious yet 

achievable targets for increasing the 

number and percentage of Early 

Learning and Development Programs 

that are participating in the State’s 

Tiered Quality Rating and Improvement 

System (as described in selection 

criterion (B)(2)(c)); and 

(2) Achieve its ambitious yet 

achievable targets for increasing the 

number and percentage of Children with 

High Needs who are enrolled in Early 

Learning and Development Programs 

that are in the top tiers of the State’s 

Tiered Quality Rating and Improvement 

System (as described in selection 

criterion (B)(4)(c)). 

(f) The State must provide an overall 

summary for the State Plan and a 

rationale for why it has chosen to 

address the selected criteria in each 

Focused Investment Area, including-– 

• How the State’s choices build on its 

progress to date in each Focused 

Investment Area (as outlined in Tables 

(A)(1)6–13 and the narrative under 

(A)(1)); and 

• Why these selected criteria will best 

achieve the State’s ambitious yet 

achievable goals for improving program 

quality, improving outcomes for 

Children with High Needs statewide, 

and closing the educational gaps 

between Children with High Needs and 

their peers. 

(g) The State, within each Focused 

Investment Area, must select and 

address— 

• Two or more selection criteria 

within Focused Investment Area (C) 

Promoting Early Learning and 

Development Outcomes for Children; 

and 

• One or more selection criteria 

within Focused Investment Areas (D) A 

Great Early Childhood Education 

Workforce and (E) Measuring Outcomes 

and Progress. 

(h) Where the State is submitting a 

High-Quality Plan, the State must 

include in its application a detailed 

plan that is feasible and includes, but 

need not be limited to— 

(1) The key goals; 

(2) The key activities to be 

undertaken; the rationale for the 

activities; and, if applicable, where in 

the State the activities will be initially 

implemented, and where and how they 

will be scaled up over time to 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
53978 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 169 / Friday, August 30, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

eventually achieve statewide 

implementation; 

(3) A realistic timeline, including key 

milestones, for implementing each key 

activity; 

(4) The party or parties responsible for 

implementing each activity and other 

key personnel assigned to each activity; 

(5) Appropriate financial resources to 

support successful implementation of 

the plan; 

(6) The information requested as 

supporting evidence, if any, together 

with any additional information the 

State believes will be helpful to peer 

reviewers in judging the credibility of 

the plan; 

(7) The information requested or 

required in the performance measures, 

where applicable; 

(8) How the State will address the 

needs of the different types of Early 

Learning and Development Programs, if 

applicable; and 

(9) How the State will meet the 

unique needs of Children with High 

Needs. 

III. Program Requirements: The 

Secretaries establish the following 

program requirements for States 

receiving funds under this competition. 

We may apply one or more of these 

requirements in any year in which this 

program is in effect. 

(a) The State must have an operational 

State Advisory Council on Early 

Childhood Education and Care that 

meets the requirements described in 

section 642B(b) of the Head Start Act 

(42 U.S.C. 9837(b)). In addition, the 

State Advisory Council on Early 

Childhood Education and Care must 

include the State’s Child Care and 

Development Fund (CCDF) 

administrator, State agency coordinators 

from both Part B section 619 and Part 

C of IDEA, and State agency 

representatives responsible for health 

and mental health. 

(b) The State must continue to 

participate in the programs authorized 

under section 619 of Part B of IDEA and 

Part C of IDEA and in the CCDF 

program. 

(c) States must continue to have an 

active MIECHV program (pursuant to 

section 511 of Title V of the Social 

Security Act, as added by section 2951 

of the Affordable Care Act of 2010 (Pub. 

L. 111–148)) for the duration of the 

grant, whether operated by the State or 

by an eligible non-profit organization. 

(d) The State is prohibited from 

spending funds from the grant on the 

direct delivery of health services. 

(e) The State must participate in RTT– 

ELC grantee technical assistance 

activities facilitated by ED or HHS, 

individually or in collaboration with 

other State grantees in order to share 

effective program practices and 

solutions and collaboratively solve 

problems, and must set aside $400,000 

from its grant funds for this purpose. 

(f) The State must— 

(1) Comply with the requirements of 

any evaluation sponsored by ED or HHS 

of any of the State’s activities carried 

out with the grant; 

(2) Comply with the requirements of 

any cross-State evaluation—as part of a 

consortium of States—of any of the 

State’s proposed reforms, if that 

evaluation is coordinated or funded by 

ED or HHS, including by using common 

measures and data collection 

instruments and collecting data 

necessary to the evaluation; 

(3) Together with its independent 

evaluator, if any, cooperate with any 

technical assistance regarding 

evaluations provided by ED or HHS. 

The purpose of this technical assistance 

will be to ensure that the validation of 

the State’s Tiered Quality Rating and 

Improvement System and any other 

evaluations conducted by States or their 

independent evaluators, if any, are of 

the highest quality and to encourage 

commonality in approaches where such 

commonality is feasible and useful; 

(4) Submit to ED and HHS for review 

and comment its design for the 

validation of its Tiered Quality Rating 

and Improvement System (as described 

in selection criterion (B)(5)) and any 

other evaluations of activities included 

in the State Plan, including any 

activities that are part of the State’s 

Focused Investment Areas, as 

applicable; and 

(5) Make widely available through 

formal (e.g., peer-reviewed journals) or 

informal (e.g., newsletters) mechanisms, 

and in print or electronically, the results 

of any evaluations it conducts of its 

funded activities. 

(g) The State must have a longitudinal 

data system that includes the 12 

elements described in section 

6401(e)(2)(D) of the America 

COMPETES Act by the date required 

under the State Fiscal Stabilization 

Fund (SFSF) grant and in accordance 

with Indicator (b)(1) of its approved 

SFSF plan. 

(h) The State must comply with the 

requirements of all applicable Federal, 

State, and local privacy laws, including 

the requirements of the Family 

Educational Rights and Privacy Act, the 

Health Insurance Portability 

Accountability Act, and the privacy 

requirements in IDEA, and their 

applicable regulations. 

(i) The State must ensure that the 

grant activities are implemented in 

accordance with all applicable Federal, 

State, and local laws. 

(j) The State must provide researchers 

with access, consistent with the 

requirements of all applicable Federal, 

State, and local privacy laws, to data 

from its Tiered Quality Rating and 

Improvement System and from the 

Statewide Longitudinal Data System 

and the State’s coordinated early 

learning data system (if applicable) so 

that they can analyze the State’s quality 

improvement efforts and answer key 

policy and practice questions. 

(k) Unless otherwise protected as 

proprietary information by Federal or 

State law or a specific written 

agreement, the State must make any 

work (e.g., materials, tools, processes, 

systems) developed under its grant 

freely available to the public, including 

by posting the work on a Web site 

identified or sponsored by ED or HHS. 

Any Web sites developed under this 

grant must meet government or 

industry-recognized standards for 

accessibility (www.section508.gov/). 

(l) Funds made available under an 

RTT–ELC grant must be used to 

supplement, not supplant, any Federal, 

State, or local funds that, in the absence 

of the funds awarded under this grant, 

would be available for increasing access 

to and improving the quality of Early 

Learning and Development Programs. 

(m) For a State that is awarded an 

RTT–ELC grant, the State will have up 

to 90 days from the grant award 

notification date to complete final 

scopes of work for each Participating 

State Agency. These final scopes of 

work must contain detailed work plans 

that are consistent with their 

corresponding preliminary scopes of 

work and with the State’s grant 

application, and must include the 

Participating State Agency’s specific 

goals, activities, timelines, budgets, key 

personnel, and annual targets for key 

performance measures for the portions 

of the State’s proposed plans that the 

Participating State Agency is agreeing to 

implement. 

IV. Budget Requirements: The 

Secretaries establish the following 

budget requirements for States receiving 

funds under this competition. We may 

apply these requirements in any year in 

which this program is in effect. 

Category 1—Up to $75 million— 

Florida, New York, Texas. 

Category 2—Up to $52.5 million— 

Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, 

Pennsylvania. 

Category 3—Up to $45 million— 

Alabama, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, 

Missouri, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Puerto 

Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, 

Virginia. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 169 / Friday, August 30, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 53979 

4Note: Such home-based programs and services 

will most likely not participate in the State’s Tiered 

Quality Rating and Improvement System unless the 

State has developed a set of tiered Program 

Standards specifically for home-based programs 

and services. 

Category 4—Up to $37.5 million— 

Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, District 

of Columbia, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, 

Kansas, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, 

Nebraska, New Hampshire, Nevada, 

North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, 

Vermont, West Virginia, Wyoming. 

The State must include in its budget 

the amount of funds it intends to 

distribute through memoranda of 

understanding (MOUs), interagency 

agreements, contracts, subgrants, or 

other mechanisms authorized by State 

procurement laws, to localities, Early 

Learning Intermediary Organizations, 

Participating Programs, or other 

partners. 

The State must set aside $400,000 

from its grant funds for the purpose of 

participating in RTT–ELC grantee 

technical assistance activities facilitated 

by ED or HHS. 

Final Definitions: The Secretaries 

establish the following definitions for 

this program. We may apply one or 

more of these definitions in any year in 

which this program is in effect. 

Children with High Needs means 

children from birth through 

kindergarten entry who are from LowIncome families or otherwise in need of 

special assistance and support, 

including children who have disabilities 

or developmental delays; who are 

English learners; who reside on ‘‘Indian 

lands’’ as that term is defined by section 

8013(7) of the Elementary and 

Secondary Education Act of 1965, as 

amended (ESEA); who are migrant, 

homeless, or in foster care; and other 

children as identified by the State. 

Common Education Data Standards 

(CEDS) means voluntary, common 

standards for a key set of education data 

elements (e.g., demographics, program 

participation, transition, course 

information) at the early learning, K–12, 

and postsecondary levels developed 

through a national collaborative effort 

being led by the National Center for 

Education Statistics. CEDS focus on 

standard definitions, code sets, and 

technical specifications of a subset of 

key data elements and are designed to 

increase data interoperability, 

portability, and comparability across 

Early Learning and Development 

Programs and agencies, States, local 

educational agencies, and 

postsecondary institutions. 

Comprehensive Assessment System 

means a coordinated and 

comprehensive system of multiple 

assessments, each of which is valid and 

reliable for its specified purpose and for 

the population with which it will be 

used, that organizes information about 

the process and context of young 

children’s learning and development in 

order to help Early Childhood Educators 

make informed instructional and 

programmatic decisions and that 

conforms to the recommendations of the 

National Research Council reports on 

early childhood. 

A Comprehensive Assessment System 

includes, at a minimum— 

(a) Screening Measures; 

(b) Formative Assessments; 

(c) Measures of Environmental 

Quality; and 

(d) Measures of the Quality of AdultChild Interactions. 

Data System Oversight Requirements 

means policies for ensuring the quality, 

privacy, and integrity of data contained 

in a data system, including— 

(a) A data governance policy that 

identifies the elements that are collected 

and maintained; provides for training on 

internal controls to system users; 

establishes who will have access to the 

data in the system and how the data 

may be used; sets appropriate internal 

controls to restrict access to only 

authorized users; sets criteria for 

determining the legitimacy of data 

requests; establishes processes that 

verify the accuracy, completeness, and 

age of the data elements maintained in 

the system; sets procedures for 

determining the sensitivity of each 

inventoried element and the risk of 

harm if those data were improperly 

disclosed; and establishes procedures 

for disclosure review and auditing; and 

(b) A transparency policy that informs 

the public, including families, Early 

Childhood Educators, and programs, of 

the existence of data systems that house 

personally identifiable information, 

explains what data elements are 

included in such a system, enables 

parental consent to disclose personally 

identifiable information as appropriate, 

and describes allowable and potential 

uses of the data. 

Early Childhood Educator means any 

professional working in an Early 

Learning and Development Program, 

including but not limited to centerbased and family child care providers; 

infant and toddler specialists; early 

intervention specialists and early 

childhood special educators; home 

visitors; related services providers; 

administrators such as directors, 

supervisors, and other early learning 

and development leaders; Head Start 

teachers; Early Head Start teachers; 

preschool and other teachers; teacher 

assistants; family service staff; and 

health coordinators. 

Early Learning and Development 

Program means any (a) State-licensed or 

State-regulated program or provider, 

regardless of setting or funding source, 

that provides early care and education 

for children from birth to kindergarten 

entry, including, but not limited to, any 

program operated by a child care center 

or in a family child care home; (b) 

preschool program funded by the 

Federal Government or State or local 

educational agencies (including any 

IDEA-funded program); (c) Early Head 

Start and Head Start program; and (d) a 

non-relative child care provider who is 

not otherwise regulated by the State and 

who regularly cares for two or more 

unrelated children for a fee in a 

provider setting. A State should include 

in this definition other programs that 

may deliver early learning and 

development services in a child’s home, 

such as the MIECHV; Early Head Start; 

and Part C of IDEA.4

Early Learning and Development 

Standards means a set of expectations, 

guidelines, or developmental milestones 

that— 

(a) Describe what all children from 

birth to kindergarten entry should know 

and be able to do and their disposition 

toward learning; 

(b) Are appropriate for each age group 

(e.g., infants, toddlers, and 

preschoolers); for English learners; and 

for children with disabilities or 

developmental delays; 

(c) Cover all Essential Domains of 

School Readiness; and 

(d) Are universally designed and 

developmentally, culturally, and 

linguistically appropriate. 

Early Learning Intermediary 

Organization means a national, 

statewide, regional, or community-based 

organization that represents one or more 

networks of Early Learning and 

Development Programs in the State and 

that has influence or authority over 

them. Such Early Learning Intermediary 

Organizations include, but are not 

limited to, Child Care Resource and 

Referral Agencies; State Head Start 

Associations; Family Child Care 

Associations; State affiliates of the 

National Association for the Education 

of Young Children; State affiliates of the 

Council for Exceptional Children’s 

Division of Early Childhood; statewide 

or regional union affiliates that 

represent Early Childhood Educators; 

affiliates of the National Migrant and 

Seasonal Head Start Association; the 

National Tribal, American Indian, and 

Alaskan Native Head Start Association; 

and the National Indian Child Care 

Association. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
53980 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 169 / Friday, August 30, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

5National Research Council. (2008). Early 

Childhood Assessment: Why, What, and How. 

Committee on Developmental Outcomes and 

Assessments for Young Children, C.E. Snow and 

S.B. Van Hemel, Editors. Board on Children, Youth, 

and Families, Board on Testing and Assessment, 

Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and 

Education. Washington, DC: The National 

Academies Press. www.nap.edu/

catalog.php?record_id=12446. 

Essential Data Elements means the 

critical child, program, and workforce 

data elements of a coordinated early 

learning data system, including— 

(a) A unique statewide child identifier 

or another highly accurate, proven 

method to link data on that child, 

including Kindergarten Entry 

Assessment data, to and from the 

Statewide Longitudinal Data System 

and the coordinated early learning data 

system (if applicable); 

(b) A unique statewide Early 

Childhood Educator identifier; 

(c) A unique program site identifier; 

(d) Child and family demographic 

information, including indicators 

identifying the criteria that States use to 

determine whether a child is a Child 

with High Needs; 

(e) Early Childhood Educator 

demographic information, including 

data on educational attainment and 

State credential or licenses held, as well 

as professional development 

information; 

(f) Program-level data on the 

program’s structure, quality, child 

suspension and expulsion rates, staff 

retention, staff compensation, work 

environment, and all applicable data 

reported as part of the State’s Tiered 

Quality Rating and Improvement 

System; and 

(g) Child-level program participation 

and attendance data. 

Essential Domains of School 

Readiness means the domains of 

language and literacy development, 

cognition and general knowledge 

(including early mathematics and early 

scientific development), approaches 

toward learning, physical well-being 

and motor development (including 

adaptive skills), and social and 

emotional development. 

Formative Assessment (also known as 

a classroom-based or ongoing 

assessment) means assessment 

questions, tools, and processes— 

(a) That are— 

(1) Specifically designed to monitor 

children’s progress in meeting the Early 

Learning and Development Standards; 

(2) Valid and reliable for their 

intended purposes and their target 

populations; and 

(3) Linked directly to the curriculum; 

and 

(b) The results of which are used to 

guide and improve instructional 

practices. 

High-Quality Plan means any plan 

developed by the State to address a 

selection criterion or priority in this 

notice that is feasible and has a high 

probability of successful 

implementation and at a minimum 

includes— 

(a) The key goals; 

(b) The key activities to be 

undertaken; the rationale for the 

activities; and, if applicable, where in 

the State the activities will be initially 

implemented, and where and how they 

will be scaled up over time to 

eventually achieve statewide 

implementation; 

(c) A realistic timeline, including key 

milestones, for implementing each key 

activity; 

(d) The party or parties responsible 

for implementing each activity and 

other key personnel assigned to each 

activity; 

(e) Appropriate financial resources to 

support successful implementation of 

the plan; 

(f) The information requested as 

supporting evidence, if any, together 

with any additional information the 

State believes will be helpful to peer 

reviewers in judging the credibility of 

the plan; 

(g) The information requested in the 

performance measures, where 

applicable; 

(h) How the State will address the 

needs of the different types of Early 

Learning and Development Programs, if 

applicable; and 

(i) How the State will meet the needs 

of Children with High Needs. 

Kindergarten Entry Assessment means 

an assessment that— 

(a) Is administered to children during 

the first few months of their admission 

into kindergarten; 

(b) Covers all Essential Domains of 

School Readiness; 

(c) Is used in conformance with the 

recommendations of the National 

Research Council 5 reports on early 

childhood; and 

(d) Is valid and reliable for its 

intended purposes and for the target 

populations and aligned to the Early 

Learning and Development Standards. 

Results of the assessment should be 

used to inform efforts to close the school 

readiness gap at kindergarten entry, to 

inform instruction in the early 

elementary school grades, and to inform 

parents about their children’s status and 

involve them in decisions about their 

children’s education. This assessment 

must not be used to prevent children’s 

entry into kindergarten or as a single 

measure for high-stakes decisions. 

Lead Agency means the State-level 

agency designated by the Governor for 

the administration of the RTT–ELC 

grant; this agency is the fiscal agent for 

the grant. The Lead Agency must be one 

of the Participating State Agencies. 

Low-Income means having an income 

of up to 200 percent of the Federal 

poverty rate. 

Measures of Environmental Quality 

means valid and reliable indicators of 

the overall quality of the early learning 

environment. 

Measures of the Quality of AdultChild Interactions means the measures 

obtained through valid and reliable 

processes for observing how teachers 

and caregivers interact with children, 

where such processes are designed to 

promote child learning and to identify 

strengths of and areas for improvement 

for early learning professionals. 

Participating Program means an Early 

Learning and Development Program that 

elects to carry out activities described in 

the State Plan. 

Participating State Agency means a 

State agency that administers public 

funds related to early learning and 

development and is participating in the 

State Plan. The following State agencies 

are required Participating State 

Agencies: the agencies that administer 

or supervise the administration of 

CCDF, the section 619 of Part B of IDEA 

and Part C of IDEA programs, Statefunded preschool, home visiting, Title I 

of ESEA, the Head Start State 

Collaboration Grant, and the Title V 

Maternal and Child Health Services 

Block Grant, the State’s Child Care 

Licensing Agency, and the State 

educational agency. Other State 

agencies, such as the agencies that 

administer or supervise the 

administration of Child Welfare, Mental 

Health, Temporary Assistance for Needy 

Families (TANF), Community-Based 

Child Abuse Prevention, the Child and 

Adult Care Food Program, and the Adult 

Education and Family Literacy Act, may 

be Participating State Agencies if they 

elect to participate in the State Plan as 

well as the State Advisory Council on 

Early Childhood Education and Care. 

Program Standards means the 

standards that serve as the basis for a 

Tiered Quality Rating and Improvement 

System and define differentiated levels 

of quality for Early Learning and 

Development Programs. Program 

Standards are expressed, at a minimum, 

by the extent to which— 

(a) Early Learning and Development 

Standards are implemented through 

evidence-based activities, interventions, 

or curricula that are appropriate for each 

age group of infants, toddlers, and 

preschoolers; 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 169 / Friday, August 30, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 53981 

(b) Comprehensive Assessment 

Systems are used routinely and 

appropriately to improve instruction 

and enhance program quality by 

providing robust and coherent evidence 

of— 

(1) Children’s learning and 

development outcomes; and 

(2) Program performance; 

(c) A qualified workforce improves 

young children’s health, social, 

emotional, and educational outcomes; 

(d) Culturally and linguistically 

responsive strategies are successfully 

used to engage families, help them build 

protective factors, and strengthen their 

capacity to support their children’s 

development and learning. These 

strategies may include, but are not 

limited to, parent access to the program, 

ongoing two-way communication with 

families, parent education in child 

development, outreach to fathers and 

other family members, training and 

support for families as children move to 

preschool and kindergarten, social 

networks of support, intergenerational 

activities, linkages with community 

supports and adult and family literacy 

programs, parent involvement in 

decision making, and parent leadership 

development; 

(e) Health promotion practices 

include health and safety requirements; 

developmental, behavioral, and sensory 

screening, referral, and follow up; and 

the promotion of physical activity, 

healthy eating habits, oral health and 

behavioral health, and health literacy 

among parents; and 

(f) Effective data practices include 

gathering Essential Data Elements and 

entering them into the State’s Statewide 

Longitudinal Data System or other early 

learning data system, using these data to 

guide instruction and program 

improvement, and making this 

information readily available to 

families. 

Screening Measures means age and 

developmentally appropriate, valid, and 

reliable instruments that are used to 

identify children who may need followup services to address developmental, 

learning, or health needs in, at a 

minimum, the areas of physical health, 

behavioral health, oral health, child 

development, vision, and hearing. 

State means any of the 50 States, the 

District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. 

State Plan means the plan submitted 

as part of the State’s RTT–ELC 

application. 

Statewide Longitudinal Data System 

means the State’s longitudinal 

education data system that collects and 

maintains detailed, high-quality, 

student- and staff-level data that are 

linked across entities and that over time 

provide a complete academic and 

performance history for each student. 

The Statewide Longitudinal Data 

System is typically housed within the 

State educational agency but includes or 

can be connected to early childhood, 

postsecondary, and labor data. 

Tiered Quality Rating and 

Improvement System means the system 

through which the State uses a set of 

progressively higher Program Standards 

to evaluate the quality of an Early 

Learning and Development Program and 

to support program improvement. A 

Tiered Quality Rating and Improvement 

System consists of four components: (a) 

Tiered Program Standards with multiple 

rating categories that clearly and 

meaningfully differentiate program 

quality levels; (b) monitoring to evaluate 

program quality based on the Program 

Standards; (c) supports to help programs 

meet progressively higher standards 

(e.g., through training, technical 

assistance, financial support); and (d) 

program quality ratings that are 

publically available; and includes a 

process for validating the system. 

Workforce Knowledge and 

Competency Framework means a set of 

expectations that describes what Early 

Childhood Educators (including those 

working with children with disabilities 

and English learners) should know and 

be able to do. The Workforce Knowledge 

and Competency Framework, at a 

minimum, (a) Is evidence based; (b) 

incorporates knowledge and application 

of the State’s Early Learning and 

Development Standards, the 

Comprehensive Assessment Systems, 

child development, health, and 

culturally and linguistically appropriate 

strategies for working with families; (c) 

includes knowledge of early 

mathematics and literacy development 

and effective instructional practices to 

support mathematics and literacy 

development in young children; (d) 

incorporates effective use of data to 

guide instruction and program 

improvement; (e) includes effective 

behavior management strategies that 

promote positive social and emotional 

development and reduce challenging 

behaviors; (f) incorporates feedback 

from experts at the State’s 

postsecondary institutions and other 

early learning and development experts 

and Early Childhood Educators; and (g) 

includes knowledge of protective factors 

and effective approaches to partnering 

with families and building families’ 

knowledge, skills, and capacity to 

promote children’s health and 

development. 

Final Selection Criteria: The 

Secretaries establish the following 

selection criteria for evaluating an 

application under this program. We may 

apply one or more of these criteria in 

any year in which this program is in 

effect. The Secretaries may use: 

• One or more of the selection criteria 

established in this notice of final 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria; 

• Any of the selection criteria in 34 

CFR 75.210; 

• Criteria based on the statutory 

requirements for the RTT–ECL program 

in accordance with 34 CFR 75.209; or 

• Any combination of these when 

establishing selection criteria for any 

RTT–ELC competition. 

The Secretaries may further define each 

criterion by selecting specific factors for 

it. The Secretaries may select these 

factors from any selection criterion in 

the list below. In the notice inviting 

applications published elsewhere in this 

issue of the Federal Register, we 

announce the specific selection criteria 

that apply to a competition and the 

maximum possible points assigned to 

each criterion. 

Core Areas—Sections (A) (Successful 

State Systems) and (B) (High-Quality, 

Accountable Programs) 

States must address in their 

application all of the selection criteria 

in the Core Areas—Sections (A) 

(Successful State Systems) and (B) 

(High-Quality, Accountable Programs). 

A. Successful State Systems 

(A)(1) Demonstrating Past Commitment 

to Early Learning and Development 

The extent to which the State has 

demonstrated past commitment to and 

investment in high-quality, accessible 

Early Learning and Development 

Programs and services for Children with 

High Needs, as evidenced by the 

State’s— 

(a) Financial investment, from five 

years ago to the present, in Early 

Learning and Development Programs, 

including the amount of these 

investments in relation to the size of the 

State’s population of Children with 

High Needs during this time period; 

(b) Increasing, from the previous five 

years to the present, the number of 

Children with High Needs participating 

in Early Learning and Development 

Programs; 

(c) Existing early learning and 

development legislation, policies, or 

practices; and 

(d) Current status in key areas that 

form the building blocks for a highquality early learning and development 

system, including Early Learning and 

Development Standards, 

Comprehensive Assessment Systems, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
53982 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 169 / Friday, August 30, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

health promotion practices, family 

engagement strategies, the development 

of Early Childhood Educators, 

Kindergarten Entry Assessments, and 

effective data practices. 

Evidence for (A)(1): 

• The number and percentage of 

children from Low-Income families in 

the State, by age. 

• The number and percentage of 

Children with High Needs from special 

populations in the State. 

• The number of Children with High 

Needs in the State who are enrolled in 

Early Learning and Development 

Programs, by age, race, and ethnicity. 

• Data currently available, if any, on 

the status of children at kindergarten 

entry (across Essential Domains of 

School Readiness, if available), 

including data on the readiness gap 

between Children with High Needs and 

their peers. 

• Data currently available, if any, on 

program quality across different types of 

Early Learning and Development 

Programs. 

• The number of Children with High 

Needs participating in each type of 

Early Learning and Development 

Program for each of the previous five 

years to the present. 

• The number of Children with High 

Needs participating in each type of 

Early Learning and Development 

Program for each of the previous five 

years to the present. 

• The current status of the State’s 

Early Learning and Development 

Standards, for each of the Essential 

Domains of School Readiness, by age 

group of infants, toddlers, and 

preschoolers. 

• The elements of a Comprehensive 

Assessment System currently required 

within the State by different types of 

Early Learning and Development 

Programs or systems. 

• The elements of high-quality health 

promotion practices currently required 

within the State by different types of 

Early Learning and Development 

Programs or systems. 

• The elements of a high-quality 

family engagement strategy currently 

required within the State by different 

types of Early Learning and 

Development Programs or systems. 

• All early learning and development 

workforce credentials currently 

available in the State, including whether 

credentials are aligned with a State 

Workforce Knowledge and Competency 

Framework and the number and 

percentage of Early Childhood 

Educators who have each type of 

credential. 

• The current status of postsecondary 

institutions and other professional 

development providers in the State that 

issue credentials or degrees to Early 

Childhood Educators. 

• The current status of the State’s 

Kindergarten Entry Assessment. 

• All early learning and development 

data systems currently used in the State. 

Performance Measures for (A)(1): 

• None required. 

(A)(2) Articulating the State’s Rationale 

for Its Early Learning and Development 

Reform Agenda and Goals 

The extent to which the State clearly 

articulates a comprehensive early 

learning and development reform 

agenda that is ambitious yet achievable, 

builds on the State’s progress to date (as 

demonstrated in selection criterion 

(A)(1)), is likely to result in improved 

school readiness for Children with High 

Needs, and includes— 

(a) Ambitious yet achievable goals for 

improving program quality, improving 

outcomes for Children with High Needs 

statewide, and closing the educational 

gaps between Children with High Needs 

and their peers; 

(b) An overall summary of the State 

Plan that clearly articulates how the 

High-Quality Plans proposed under 

each selection criterion, when taken 

together, constitute an effective reform 

agenda that establishes a clear and 

credible path toward achieving these 

goals; and 

(c) A specific rationale that justifies 

the State’s choice to address the selected 

criteria in each Focused Investment 

Area (C), (D), and (E), including why 

these selected criteria will best achieve 

these goals. 

Evidence for (A)(2): 

• The State’s goals for improving 

program quality statewide over the 

period of this grant. 

• The State’s goals for improving 

child outcomes statewide over the 

period of this grant. 

• The State’s goals for closing the 

readiness gap between Children with 

High Needs and their peers at 

kindergarten entry. 

• Identification of the two or more 

selection criteria that the State has 

chosen to address in Focused 

Investment Area (C). 

• Identification of the one or more 

selection criteria that the State has 

chosen to address in Focused 

Investment Area (D). 

• Identification of the one or more 

selection criteria that the State has 

chosen to address in Focused 

Investment Area (E). 

• For each Focused Investment Area 

(C), (D), and (E), a description of the 

State’s rationale for choosing to address 

the selected criteria in that Focused 

Investment Area, including how the 

State’s choices build on its progress to 

date in each Focused Investment Area 

(as outlined in the narrative under 

(A)(1) in the application) and why these 

selected criteria will best achieve the 

State’s ambitious yet achievable goals 

for improving program quality, 

improving outcomes for Children with 

High Needs statewide, and closing the 

educational gap between Children with 

High Needs and their peers. 

Performance Measures for (A)(2): 

• None required. 

(A)(3) Aligning and Coordinating Early 

Learning and Development Across the 

State 

The extent to which the State has 

established, or has a High-Quality Plan 

to establish, strong participation in and 

commitment to the State Plan by 

Participating State Agencies and other 

early learning and development 

stakeholders by— 

(a) Demonstrating how the 

Participating State Agencies and other 

partners, if any, will identify a 

governance structure for working 

together that will facilitate interagency 

coordination, streamline decision 

making, effectively allocate resources, 

and create long-term sustainability, and 

describing— 

(1) The organizational structure for 

managing the grant and how it builds 

upon existing interagency governance 

structures such as children’s cabinets, 

councils, and commissions, if any 

already exist and are effective; 

(2) The governance-related roles and 

responsibilities of the Lead Agency, the 

State Advisory Council on Early 

Childhood Education and Care, each 

Participating State Agency, and the 

State’s Interagency Coordinating 

Council for Part C of IDEA, and other 

partners, if any; 

(3) The method and process for 

making different types of decisions (e.g., 

policy, operational) and resolving 

disputes; and 

(4) The plan for when and how the 

State will involve representatives from 

Participating Programs, Early Childhood 

Educators or their representatives, 

parents and families, including parents 

and families of Children with High 

Needs, and other key stakeholders in the 

planning and implementation of the 

activities carried out under the grant; 

(b) Demonstrating that the 

Participating State Agencies are strongly 

committed to the State Plan, to the 

governance structure of the grant, and to 

effective implementation of the State 

Plan, by including in the MOUs or other 

binding agreements between the State 

and each Participating State Agency— 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 169 / Friday, August 30, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 53983 

(1) Terms and conditions that reflect 

a strong commitment to the State Plan 

by each Participating State Agency, 

including terms and conditions 

designed to align and leverage the 

Participating State Agencies’ existing 

funding to support the State Plan; 

(2) ‘‘Scope-of-work’’ descriptions that 

require each Participating State Agency 

to implement all applicable portions of 

the State Plan and a description of 

efforts to maximize the number of Early 

Learning and Development Programs 

that become Participating Programs; and 

(3) A signature from an authorized 

representative of each Participating 

State Agency; and 

(c) Demonstrating commitment to the 

State Plan from a broad group of 

stakeholders that will assist the State in 

reaching the ambitious yet achievable 

goals outlined in response to selection 

criterion (A)(2)(a), including by 

obtaining— 

(1) Detailed and persuasive letters of 

intent or support from Early Learning 

Intermediary Organizations, and, if 

applicable, local early learning councils; 

and 

(2) Letters of intent or support from 

such other stakeholders as Early 

Childhood Educators or their 

representatives; the State’s legislators; 

local community leaders; State or local 

school boards; representatives of private 

and faith-based early learning programs; 

other State and local leaders (e.g., 

business, community, tribal, civil rights, 

education association leaders); adult 

education and family literacy State and 

local leaders; family and community 

organizations; representatives from the 

disability community, the English 

learner community, and entities 

representing other Children with High 

Needs (e.g., parent councils, nonprofit 

organizations, local foundations, tribal 

organizations, and community-based 

organizations); libraries and children’s 

museums; health providers; public 

television stations; and postsecondary 

institutions. 

Evidence for (A)(3)(a) and (b): 

• For (A)(3)(a)(1): An organizational 

chart that shows how the grant will be 

governed and managed. 

• Governance-related roles and 

responsibilities. 

• A copy of all fully executed MOUs 

or other binding agreements that cover 

each Participating State Agency. (MOUs 

or other binding agreements should be 

referenced in the narrative but must be 

included in the Appendix to the 

application). 

Evidence for (A)(3)(c)(1): 

• A list of every Early Learning 

Intermediary Organization and local 

early learning council (if applicable) in 

the State that indicates which 

organizations and councils have 

submitted letters of intent or support. 

• A copy of every letter of intent or 

support from Early Learning 

Intermediary Organizations and local 

early learning councils. 

Evidence for (A)(3)(c)(2): 

• A copy of every letter of intent or 

support from other stakeholders. 

Performance Measures for (A)(3): 

• None required. 

(A)(4) Developing a Budget To 

Implement and Sustain the Work of 

This Grant 

The extent to which the State Plan— 

(a) Demonstrates how the State will 

use existing funds that support early 

learning and development from Federal, 

State, private, and local sources (e.g., 

CCDF; Title I and II of ESEA; IDEA; 

Striving Readers Comprehensive 

Literacy Program; State preschool; Head 

Start Collaboration funding; MIECHV 

program; Title V MCH Block Grant; 

TANF; Medicaid; child welfare services 

under Title IV (B) and (E) of the Social 

Security Act; Statewide Longitudinal 

Data System; foundation; other private 

funding sources) for activities and 

services that help achieve the outcomes 

in the State Plan, including how the 

quality set-asides in CCDF will be used; 

(b) Describes, in both the budget 

tables and budget narratives, how the 

State will effectively and efficiently use 

funding from this grant to achieve the 

outcomes in the State Plan, in a manner 

that— 

(1) Is adequate to support the 

activities described in the State Plan; 

(2) Includes costs that are reasonable 

and necessary in relation to the 

objectives, design, and significance of 

the activities described in the State Plan 

and the number of children to be served; 

and 

(3) Details the amount of funds 

budgeted for Participating State 

Agencies, localities, Early Learning 

Intermediary Organizations, 

Participating Programs, or other 

partners, and the specific activities to be 

implemented with these funds 

consistent with the State Plan, and 

demonstrates that a significant amount 

of funding will be devoted to the local 

implementation of the State Plan; and 

(c) Demonstrates that it can be 

sustained after the grant period ends to 

ensure that the number and percentage 

of Children with High Needs served by 

Early Learning and Development 

Programs in the State will be 

maintained or expanded. 

Evidence for (A)(4)(a): 

• The existing funds to be used to 

achieve the outcomes in the State Plan. 

• Description of how these existing 

funds will be used for activities and 

services that help achieve the outcomes 

in the State Plan. 

Evidence for (A)(4)(b): 

• The State’s budget. 

• The narratives that accompany and 

explain the budget and describe how it 

connects to the State Plan. 

Performance Measures for (A)(4): 

• None required. 

B. High-Quality, Accountable Programs 

(B)(1) Developing and Adopting a 

Common, Statewide Tiered Quality 

Rating and Improvement System 

The extent to which the State and its 

Participating State Agencies have 

developed and adopted, or have a HighQuality Plan to develop and adopt, a 

Tiered Quality Rating and Improvement 

System that— 

(a) Is based on a statewide set of tiered 

Program Standards that include— 

(1) Early Learning and Development 

Standards; 

(2) A Comprehensive Assessment 

System; 

(3) Early Childhood Educator 

qualifications; 

(4) Family engagement strategies; 

(5) Health promotion practices; and 

(6) Effective data practices; 

(b) Is clear and has standards that are 

measurable, meaningfully differentiate 

program quality levels, and reflect high 

expectations of program excellence 

commensurate with nationally 

recognized standards that lead to 

improved learning outcomes for 

children; and 

(c) Is linked to the State licensing 

system for Early Learning and 

Development Programs. 

Evidence for (B)(1): 

• Each set of existing Program 

Standards currently used in the State 

and the elements that are included in 

those Program Standards (Early 

Learning and Development Standards, 

Comprehensive Assessment Systems, 

Qualified Workforce, Family 

Engagement, Health Promotion, 

Effective Data Practices, and Other). 

• To the extent the State has 

developed and adopted a Tiered Quality 

Rating and Improvement System based 

on a common set of tiered Program 

Standards that meet the elements in 

selection criterion (B)(1)(a), submit— 

Æ A copy of the tiered Program 

Standards; 

Æ Documentation that the Program 

Standards address all areas outlined in 

the definition of Program Standards, 

demonstrate high expectations of 

program excellence commensurate with 

nationally recognized standards, and are 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
53984 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 169 / Friday, August 30, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

linked to the States licensing system; 

and 

Æ Documentation of how the tiers 

meaningfully differentiate levels of 

quality. 

Performance Measures for (B)(1): 

• None required. 

(B)(2) Promoting Participation in the 

State’s Tiered Quality Rating and 

Improvement System 

The extent to which the State has 

maximized, or has a High-Quality Plan 

to maximize, program participation in 

the State’s Tiered Quality Rating and 

Improvement System by— 

(a) Implementing effective policies 

and practices to reach the goal of having 

all publicly funded Early Learning and 

Development Programs participate in 

such a system, including programs in 

each of the following categories— 

(1) State-funded preschool programs; 

(2) Early Head Start and Head Start 

programs; 

(3) Early Learning and Development 

Programs funded under section 619 of 

Part B of IDEA and Part C of IDEA; 

(4) Early Learning and Development 

Programs funded under Title I of ESEA; 

and 

(5) Early Learning and Development 

Programs receiving funds from the 

State’s CCDF program; 

(b) Implementing effective policies 

and practices designed to help more 

families afford high-quality child care 

and maintain the supply of high-quality 

child care in areas with high 

concentrations of Children with High 

Needs (e.g., maintaining or increasing 

subsidy reimbursement rates, taking 

actions to ensure affordable copayments, providing incentives to highquality providers to participate in the 

subsidy program); and 

(c) Setting ambitious yet achievable 

targets for the numbers and percentages 

of Early Learning and Development 

Programs that will participate in the 

Tiered Quality Rating and Improvement 

System by type of Early Learning and 

Development Program (as listed in 

(B)(2)(a)(1) through (5) above). 

Evidence for (B)(2): 

• Any supporting evidence the State 

believes will be helpful to peer 

reviewers. 

Performance Measures for (B)(2)(c): 

General goals to be provided at time 

of application, including baseline data 

and annual targets: 

• Number and percentage of Early 

Learning and Development Programs 

participating in the statewide Tiered 

Quality Rating and Improvement 

System, by type of Early Learning and 

Development Program. 

(B)(3) Rating and Monitoring Early 

Learning and Development Programs 

The extent to which the State and its 

Participating State Agencies have 

developed and implemented, or have a 

High-Quality Plan to develop and 

implement, a system for rating and 

monitoring the quality of Early Learning 

and Development Programs 

participating in the Tiered Quality 

Rating and Improvement System by— 

(a) Using a valid and reliable tool for 

monitoring such programs, having 

trained monitors whose ratings have an 

acceptable level of inter-rater reliability, 

and monitoring and rating the Early 

Learning and Development Programs 

with appropriate frequency; and 

(b) Providing quality rating and 

licensing information to parents with 

children enrolled in Early Learning and 

Development Programs (e.g., displaying 

quality rating information at the 

program site) and making program 

quality rating data, information, and 

licensing history (including any health 

and safety violations) publicly available 

in formats that are written in plain 

language, and are easy to understand 

and use for decision making by families 

selecting Early Learning and 

Development Programs and families 

whose children are enrolled in such 

programs. 

Evidence for (B)(3): 

• Any supporting evidence the State 

believes will be helpful to peer 

reviewers. 

Performance Measures for (B)(3): 

• None required. 

(B)(4) Promoting Access to High-Quality 

Early Learning and Development 

Programs for Children With High Needs 

The extent to which the State and its 

Participating State Agencies have 

developed and implemented, or have a 

High-Quality Plan to develop and 

implement, a system for improving the 

quality of the Early Learning and 

Development Programs participating in 

the Tiered Quality Rating and 

Improvement System by— 

(a) Developing and implementing 

policies and practices that provide 

support and incentives for Early 

Learning and Development Programs to 

continuously improve (e.g., through 

training, technical assistance, financial 

rewards or incentives, higher subsidy 

reimbursement rates, compensation); 

(b) Providing supports to help 

working families who have Children 

with High Needs access high-quality 

Early Learning and Development 

Programs that meet those needs (e.g., 

providing full-day, full-year programs; 

transportation; meals; family support 

services); and 

(c) Setting ambitious yet achievable 

targets for increasing— 

(1) The number of Early Learning and 

Development Programs in the top tiers 

of the Tiered Quality Rating and 

Improvement System; and 

(2) The number and percentage of 

Children with High Needs who are 

enrolled in Early Learning and 

Development Programs that are in the 

top tiers of the Tiered Quality Rating 

and Improvement System. 

Evidence for (B)(4): 

• Any supporting evidence the State 

believes will be helpful to peer 

reviewers. 

Performance Measures for (B)(4)(c): 

General goals to be provided at time 

of application, including baseline data 

and annual targets: 

• Number of Early Learning and 

Development Programs in the top tiers 

of the Tiered Quality Rating and 

Improvement System, by type of Early 

Learning and Development Program. 

• Number and Percentage of Children 

with High Needs who are enrolled in 

Early Learning and Development 

Programs that are in the top tiers of the 

Tiered Quality Rating and Improvement 

System, by type of Early Learning and 

Development Program. 

(B)(5) Validating the Effectiveness of 

State Tiered Quality Rating and 

Improvement Systems 

The extent to which the State has a 

High-Quality Plan to design and 

implement evaluations—working with 

an independent evaluator and, when 

warranted, as part of a cross-State 

evaluation consortium—of the 

relationship between the ratings 

generated by the State’s Tiered Quality 

Rating and Improvement System and 

the learning outcomes of children 

served by the State’s Early Learning and 

Development Programs by— 

(a) Validating, using research-based 

measures, as described in the State Plan 

(which also describes the criteria that 

the State used or will use to determine 

those measures), that the tiers in the 

State’s Tiered Quality Rating and 

Improvement System accurately reflect 

differential levels of program quality; 

and 

(b) Assessing, using appropriate 

research designs and measures of 

progress (as identified in the State Plan), 

the extent to which changes in quality 

ratings are related to progress in 

children’s learning, development, and 

school readiness. 

Evidence for (B)(5): 

• Any supporting evidence the State 

believes will be helpful to peer 

reviewers. 

Performance Measures for (B)(5): 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 169 / Friday, August 30, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 53985 

• None required. 

Focused Investment Areas—Sections 

(C), (D), and (E) 

Each State must address in its 

application— 

(1) Two or more of the selection 

criteria in Focused Investment Area (C); 

(2) One or more of the selection 

criteria in Focused Investment Area (D); 

and 

(3) One or more of the selection 

criteria in Focused Investment Area (E). 

C. Promoting Early Learning and 

Development Outcomes for Children 

The applicant must address at least 

two of the selection criteria within 

Focused Investment Area (C), which are 

as follows: 

(C)(1) Developing and Using Statewide, 

High-Quality Early Learning and 

Development Standards 

The extent to which the State has a 

High-Quality Plan to put in place highquality Early Learning and Development 

Standards that are used statewide by 

Early Learning and Development 

Programs and that— 

(a) Includes evidence that the Early 

Learning and Development Standards 

are developmentally, culturally, and 

linguistically appropriate across each 

age group of infants, toddlers, and 

preschoolers, and that they cover all 

Essential Domains of School Readiness; 

(b) Includes evidence that the Early 

Learning and Development Standards 

are aligned with the State’s K–3 

academic standards in, at a minimum, 

early literacy and mathematics; 

(c) Includes evidence that the Early 

Learning and Development Standards 

are incorporated in Program Standards, 

curricula and activities, Comprehensive 

Assessment Systems, the State’s 

Workforce Knowledge and Competency 

Framework, and professional 

development activities; and that they 

are shared with parents and families 

along with suggestions for appropriate 

strategies they can use at home to 

support their children’s learning and 

development; and 

(d) Includes evidence that the State 

has supports in place to promote 

understanding of and commitment to 

the Early Learning and Development 

Standards across Early Learning and 

Development Programs. 

Evidence for (C)(1)(a) and (b): 

• To the extent the State has 

implemented Early Learning and 

Development Standards that meet the 

elements in selection criteria (C)(1)(a) 

and (b), submit— 

Æ Proof of use by all types of Early 

Learning and Development Programs in 

the State; 

Æ The State’s Early Learning and 

Development Standards for: 

—Infants and toddlers 

—Preschoolers 

Æ Documentation that the standards 

are developmentally, linguistically, and 

culturally appropriate for all children, 

including children with disabilities and 

developmental delays and English 

learners; 

Æ Documentation that the standards 

address all Essential Domains of School 

Readiness and that they are of high 

quality; and 

Æ Documentation of the alignment 

between the State’s Early Learning and 

Development Standards and the State’s 

K–3 standards. 

Performance Measures for (C)(1): 

• None required. 

(C)(2) Supporting Effective Uses of 

Comprehensive Assessment Systems 

The extent to which the State has a 

High-Quality Plan to support the 

effective implementation of 

developmentally appropriate 

Comprehensive Assessment Systems 

by— 

(a) Working with Early Learning and 

Development Programs to select 

assessment instruments and approaches 

that are appropriate for the target 

populations and purposes; 

(b) Working with Early Learning and 

Development Programs to strengthen 

Early Childhood Educators’ 

understanding of the purposes and uses 

of each type of assessment included in 

the Comprehensive Assessment 

Systems; 

(c) Articulating an approach for 

aligning and integrating assessments 

and sharing assessment results, as 

appropriate, in order to avoid 

duplication of assessments and to 

coordinate services for Children with 

High Needs who are served by multiple 

Early Learning and Development 

Programs; 

(d) Training Early Childhood 

Educators to appropriately administer 

assessments and interpret and use 

assessment data in order to inform and 

improve instruction, programs, and 

services, and to effectively solicit and 

use family input on children’s 

development and needs; and 

(e) Articulating guidelines and 

procedures for sharing assessment data 

and results with parents, involving them 

in decisions about their children’s care 

and education, and helping them 

identify concrete actions they can take 

to address developmental issues 

identified through the assessment 

process. 

Evidence for (C)(2): 

• Any supporting evidence the State 

believes will be helpful to peer 

reviewers. 

Performance Measures for (C)(2): 

• None required. 

(C)(3) Identifying and Addressing the 

Health, Behavioral, and Developmental 

Needs of Children with High Needs To 

Improve School Readiness 

The extent to which the State has a 

High-Quality Plan to identify and 

address the health, behavioral, and 

developmental needs of Children with 

High Needs by— 

(a) Establishing a progression of 

standards for ensuring children’s health 

and safety; ensuring that health and 

behavioral screening and follow-up 

occur; promoting children’s physical, 

social, and emotional development 

across the levels of its Program 

Standards; and involving families as 

partners and building parents’ capacity 

to promote their children’s physical, 

social, and emotional health; 

(b) Increasing the number of Early 

Childhood Educators who are trained 

and supported on an ongoing basis in 

meeting the health standards; 

(c) Promoting healthy eating habits, 

improving nutrition, expanding 

physical activity, and providing 

information and guidance to families to 

promote healthy habits at home; 

(d) Leveraging existing resources to 

meet ambitious yet achievable annual 

targets to increase the number of 

Children with High Needs who— 

(1) Are screened using Screening 

Measures that align with the Medicaid 

Early Periodic Screening, Diagnostic 

and Treatment benefit (see section 

1905(r)(5) of the Social Security Act) or 

the well-baby and well-child services 

available through the Children’s Health 

Insurance Program (42 CFR 457.520), 

and that, as appropriate, are consistent 

with the Child Find provisions in IDEA 

(see sections 612(a)(3) and 635(a)(5) of 

IDEA); 

(2) Are referred for services based on 

the results of those screenings and, 

where appropriate, received follow-up; 

and 

(3) Participate in ongoing health care 

as part of a schedule of well-child care, 

including the number of children who 

are up to date in a schedule of wellchild care; and 

(e) Developing a comprehensive 

approach to increase the capacity and 

improve the overall quality of Early 

Learning and Development Programs to 

support and address the social and 

emotional development (including 

infant-early childhood mental health) of 

children from birth to age five. 

Evidence for (C)(3)(a): 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
53986 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 169 / Friday, August 30, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

• To the extent the State has 

established a progression of health 

standards across the levels of Program 

Standards that meet the elements in 

selection criterion (C)(3)(a), submit— 

Æ The progression of health standards 

used in the Program Standards and the 

State’s plans for improvement over time, 

including documentation demonstrating 

that this progression of standards 

appropriately addresses health and 

safety standards; developmental, 

behavioral, and sensory screening, 

referral, and follow-up; health 

promotion including healthy eating 

habits, improved nutrition, and 

increased physical activity; oral health; 

social and emotional development; 

family involvement and capacitybuilding; and health literacy among 

parents and children. 

Evidence for (C)(3)(b): 

• To the extent the State has existing 

and projected numbers and percentages 

of Early Childhood Educators who 

receive training and support in meeting 

the health standards, the State must 

submit documentation of these data. If 

the State does not have these data, the 

State must outline its plan for deriving 

them. 

Evidence for (C)(3)(c): 

• Any supporting evidence the State 

believes will be helpful to peer 

reviewers. 

Evidence for (C)(3)(d): 

• Documentation of the State’s 

existing and future resources that are or 

will be used to address the health, 

behavioral, and developmental needs of 

Children with High Needs. At a 

minimum, documentation must address 

the screening and referral of and followup for all Children with High Needs, 

and how families will be engaged in the 

process; how the State will promote the 

participation of Children with High 

Needs in ongoing health care as part of 

a schedule of well-child care; how the 

State will promote healthy eating habits 

and improved nutrition as well as 

increased physical activity for Children 

with High Needs; and how the State will 

promote health literacy for children and 

parents. 

Performance Measures for (C)(3)(d): 

General goals to be provided at time 

of application, including baseline data 

and annual targets: 

• Number of Children with High 

Needs screened. 

• Number of Children with High 

Needs referred for services and who 

received follow-up/treatment. 

• Number of Children with High 

Needs who participate in ongoing health 

care as part of a schedule of well-child 

care. 

• Of these participating Children with 

High Needs, the number or percentage 

of children who are up-to-date in 

receiving services as part of a schedule 

of well-child care. 

Evidence for (C)(3)(e): 

• Any supporting evidence the State 

believes will be helpful to peer 

reviewers. 

(C)(4) Engaging and Supporting Families 

The extent to which the State has a 

High-Quality Plan to provide culturally 

and linguistically appropriate 

information and support to families of 

Children with High Needs in order to 

promote school readiness for their 

children by— 

(a) Establishing a progression of 

culturally and linguistically appropriate 

standards for family engagement across 

the levels of its Program Standards, 

including activities that enhance the 

capacity of families to support their 

children’s education and development 

and help families build protective 

factors; 

(b) Increasing the number and 

percentage of Early Childhood 

Educators trained and supported on an 

ongoing basis to implement the family 

engagement strategies included in the 

Program Standards; and 

(c) Promoting family support and 

engagement statewide, including by 

leveraging other existing resources, such 

as home visiting programs, family 

resource centers, family support 

networks, and other family-serving 

agencies and organizations, and through 

outreach to family, friend, and neighbor 

caregivers. 

Evidence for (C)(4)(a): 

• To the extent the State has 

established a progression of family 

engagement standards across the levels 

of Program Standards that meet the 

elements in selection criterion (C)(4)(a), 

submit— 

Æ The progression of culturally and 

linguistically appropriate family 

engagement standards used in the 

Program Standards that includes 

strategies successfully used to engage 

families in supporting their children’s 

development and learning. A State’s 

family engagement standards must 

address, but need not be limited to: 

parent access to the program, ongoing 

two-way communication with families, 

parent education in child development, 

outreach to fathers and other family 

members, training and support for 

families as children move to preschool 

and kindergarten, social networks of 

support, intergenerational activities, 

linkages with community supports and 

adult and family literacy programs, 

parent involvement in decision making, 

and parent leadership development; and 

Æ Documentation that this 

progression of standards includes 

activities that enhance the capacity of 

families to support their children’s 

education and development. 

Evidence for (C)(4)(b): 

• To the extent the State has existing 

and projected numbers and percentages 

of Early Childhood Educators who 

receive training and support on the 

family engagement strategies included 

in the Program Standards, the State 

must submit documentation of these 

data. If the State does not have these 

data, the State must outline its plan for 

deriving them. 

Evidence for (C)(4)(c): 

• Documentation of the State’s 

existing resources that are or will be 

used to promote family support and 

engagement statewide, including 

through home visiting programs and 

other family-serving agencies and the 

identification of new resources that will 

be used to promote family support and 

engagement statewide. 

Performance Measures for (C)(4) 

• None required. 

D. A Great Early Childhood Education 

Workforce 

The applicant must address at least 

one of the selection criteria within 

Focused Investment Area (D), which are 

as follows: 

(D)(1) Developing a Workforce 

Knowledge and Competency Framework 

and a Progression of Credentials 

The extent to which the State has a 

High-Quality Plan to— 

(a) Develop a common, statewide 

Workforce Knowledge and Competency 

Framework designed to promote 

children’s learning and development 

and improve child outcomes; 

(b) Develop a common, statewide 

progression of credentials and degrees 

aligned with the Workforce Knowledge 

and Competency Framework; and 

(c) Engage postsecondary institutions 

and other professional development 

providers in aligning professional 

development opportunities with the 

State’s Workforce Knowledge and 

Competency Framework. 

Evidence for (D)(1): 

• To the extent the State has 

developed a common, statewide 

Workforce Knowledge and Competency 

Framework that meets the elements in 

selection criterion (D)(1), submit: 

Æ The Workforce Knowledge and 

Competency Framework; 

Æ Documentation that the State’s 

Workforce Knowledge and Competency 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 169 / Friday, August 30, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 53987 

Framework addresses the elements 

outlined in the definition of Workforce 

Knowledge and Competency Framework 

in the Final Definitions section of this 

notice and is designed to promote 

children’s learning and development 

and improve outcomes. 

Performance Measures for (D)(1) 

• None required. 

(D)(2) Supporting Early Childhood 

Educators in Improving Their 

Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities 

The extent to which the State has a 

High-Quality Plan to improve the 

effectiveness and retention of Early 

Childhood Educators who work with 

Children with High Needs, with the goal 

of improving child outcomes by— 

(a) Providing and expanding access to 

effective professional development 

opportunities that— 

(1) Are aligned with the State’s 

Workforce Knowledge and Competency 

Framework; 

(2) Tightly link training with 

professional development approaches, 

such as coaching and mentoring; and 

(3) Are supported by strong evidence 

(e.g., available evaluations, 

developmental theory, or data or 

information) as to why these policies 

and incentives will be effective in 

improving outcomes for Children with 

High Needs; 

(b) Implementing effective policies 

and incentives (e.g., scholarships, 

compensation and wage supplements, 

tiered reimbursement rates, other 

financial incentives, management 

opportunities) to promote professional 

improvement and career advancement 

along an articulated career pathway 

that— 

(1) Are aligned with the State’s 

Workforce Knowledge and Competency 

Framework; 

(2) Tightly link training with 

professional development approaches, 

such as coaching and mentoring; and 

(3) Are supported by strong evidence 

(e.g., available evaluations, 

developmental theory, or data or 

information) as to why these policies 

and incentives will be effective in 

improving outcomes for Children with 

High Needs; 

(c) Publicly reporting aggregated data 

on Early Childhood Educator 

development, advancement, and 

retention; and 

(d) Setting ambitious yet achievable 

targets for— 

(1) Increasing the number of 

postsecondary institutions and 

professional development providers 

with programs that are aligned to the 

Workforce Knowledge and Competency 

Framework and the number of Early 

Childhood Educators who receive 

credentials from postsecondary 

institutions and professional 

development providers with programs 

that are aligned to the Workforce 

Knowledge and Competency 

Framework; and 

(2) Increasing the number and 

percentage of Early Childhood 

Educators who are progressing to higher 

levels of credentials that align with the 

Workforce Knowledge and Competency 

Framework. 

Evidence for (D)(2): 

• Evidence to support why the 

proposed professional development 

opportunities, policies, and incentives 

will be effective in improving outcomes 

for Children with High Needs (e.g., 

available evaluations, developmental 

theory, or data or information about the 

population of Children with High Needs 

in the State). 

Performance Measures for (D)(2)(d): 

General goals to be provided at time 

of application, including baseline data 

and annual targets: 

• (D)(2)(d)(1): Number of 

postsecondary institutions and 

professional development providers 

with programs that are aligned to the 

State’s Workforce Knowledge and 

Competency Framework, and the 

number of Early Childhood Educators 

receiving credentials from those aligned 

postsecondary institutions or 

professional development providers. 

• (D)(2)(d)(2): Number and percentage 

of Early Childhood Educators who are 

progressing to higher levels of 

credentials that align with the State’s 

Workforce Knowledge and Competency 

Framework. 

E. Measuring Outcomes and Progress 

The applicant must address at least 

one of the selection criteria within 

Focused Investment Area (E), which are 

as follows: 

(E)(1) Understanding the Status of 

Children’s Learning and Development at 

Kindergarten Entry 

The extent to which the State has a 

High-Quality Plan to implement, 

independently or as part of a cross-State 

consortium, a common, statewide 

Kindergarten Entry Assessment that 

informs instruction and services in the 

early elementary grades and that— 

(a) Is aligned with the State’s Early 

Learning and Development Standards 

and covers all Essential Domains of 

School Readiness; 

(b) Is valid, reliable, and appropriate 

for the target population and for the 

purpose for which it will be used, 

including for English learners and 

children with disabilities; 

(c) Is administered beginning no later 

than the start of the school year ending 

during the fourth year of the grant to 

children entering a public school 

kindergarten; States may propose a 

phased implementation plan that forms 

the basis for broader statewide 

implementation; 

(d) Is reported to the Statewide 

Longitudinal Data System, and to the 

early learning data system, if it is 

separate from the Statewide 

Longitudinal Data System, as permitted 

under and consistent with the 

requirements of Federal, State, and local 

privacy laws; and 

(e) Is funded, in significant part, with 

Federal or State resources other than 

those available under this grant (e.g., 

with funds available under section 6111 

or 6112 of ESEA). 

Evidence for (E)(1): 

• Any supporting evidence the State 

believes will be helpful to peer 

reviewers. 

Performance Measures for (E)(1): 

• None required. 

(E)(2) Building or Enhancing an Early 

Learning Data System To Improve 

Instruction, Practices, Services, and 

Policies 

The extent to which the State has a 

High-Quality Plan to enhance the State’s 

existing Statewide Longitudinal Data 

System or to build or enhance a 

separate, coordinated, early learning 

data system that aligns and is 

interoperable with the Statewide 

Longitudinal Data System, and that 

either data system— 

(a) Has all of the Essential Data 

Elements; 

(b) Enables uniform data collection 

and easy entry of the Essential Data 

Elements by Participating State 

Agencies and Participating Programs; 

(c) Facilitates the exchange of data 

among Participating State Agencies by 

using standard data structures, data 

formats, and data definitions such as 

Common Education Data Standards to 

ensure interoperability among the 

various levels and types of data; 

(d) Generates information that is 

timely, relevant, accessible, and easy for 

Early Learning and Development 

Programs and Early Childhood 

Educators to use for continuous 

improvement and decision making and 

to share with parents and other 

community stakeholders; and 

(e) Meets the Data System Oversight 

Requirements and complies with the 

requirements of Federal, State, and local 

privacy laws. 

Evidence for (E)(2): 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
53988 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 169 / Friday, August 30, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

• Any supporting evidence the State 

believes will be helpful to peer 

reviewers. 

Performance Measures for (E)(2): 

• None required. 

This notice does not preclude us from 

proposing additional priorities, 

requirements, definitions, or selection 

criteria, subject to meeting applicable 

rulemaking requirements. 

Note: This notice does not solicit 

applications. In any year in which we choose 

to use one or more of these priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria, we invite applications through a 

notice in the Federal Register. 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

Regulatory Impact Analysis 

Under Executive Order 12866, the 

Secretaries must determine whether this 

regulatory action is ‘‘significant’’ and, 

therefore, subject to the requirements of 

the Executive order and subject to 

review by the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive 

Order 12866 defines a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ as an action likely to 

result in a rule that may— 

(1) Have an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more, or 

adversely affect a sector of the economy, 

productivity, competition, jobs, the 

environment, public health or safety, or 

State, local, or tribal governments or 

communities in a material way (also 

referred to as an ‘‘economically 

significant’’ rule); 

(2) Create serious inconsistency or 

otherwise interfere with an action taken 

or planned by another agency; 

(3) Materially alter the budgetary 

impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, 

or local programs or the rights and 

obligations of recipients thereof; or 

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues 

arising out of legal mandates, the 

President’s priorities, or the principles 

stated in the Executive order. 

This final regulatory action will have 

an annual effect on the economy of 

more than $100 million because the 

Departments anticipate that the grants 

awarded will exceed that amount. 

Therefore, this final action is 

‘‘economically significant’’ and subject 

to review by OMB under section 3(f)(1) 

of Executive Order 12866. 

Notwithstanding this determination, we 

have assessed the potential costs and 

benefits, both quantitative and 

qualitative, of this final regulatory 

action and have determined that the 

benefits justify the costs. 

The Departments have also reviewed 

this final regulatory action under 

Executive Order 13563, which 

supplements and explicitly reaffirms the 

principles, structures, and definitions 

governing regulatory review established 

in Executive Order 12866. To the extent 

permitted by law, Executive Order 

13563 requires that an agency— 

(1) Propose or adopt regulations only 

upon a reasoned determination that 

their benefits justify their costs 

(recognizing that some benefits and 

costs are difficult to quantify); 

(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the 

least burden on society, consistent with 

obtaining regulatory objectives and 

taking into account—among other things 

and to the extent practicable—the costs 

of cumulative regulations; 

(3) In choosing among alternative 

regulatory approaches, select those 

approaches that maximize net benefits 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health and safety, 

and other advantages; distributive 

impacts; and equity); 

(4) To the extent feasible, specify 

performance objectives, rather than the 

behavior or manner of compliance a 

regulated entity must adopt; and 

(5) Identify and assess available 

alternatives to direct regulation, 

including economic incentives—such as 

user fees or marketable permits—to 

encourage the desired behavior, or 

provide information that enables the 

public to make choices. 

Executive Order 13563 also requires 

an agency ‘‘to use the best available 

techniques to quantify anticipated 

present and future benefits and costs as 

accurately as possible.’’ The Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs of 

OMB has emphasized that these 

techniques may include ‘‘identifying 

changing future compliance costs that 

might result from technological 

innovation or anticipated behavioral 

changes.’’ 

We are issuing these final priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria only on a reasoned 

determination that their benefits justify 

their costs. In choosing among 

alternative regulatory approaches, we 

selected those approaches that 

maximize net benefits. 

Based on the analysis that follows, the 

Departments believe this regulatory 

action is consistent with the principles 

in Executive Order 13563. 

We also have determined that this 

final regulatory action does not unduly 

interfere with State, local, and tribal 

governments in the exercise of their 

governmental functions. 

In this regulatory impact analysis we 

discuss the need for regulatory action, 

the potential costs and benefits, net 

budget impacts, assumptions, 

limitations, and data sources, as well as 

regulatory alternatives we considered. 

Need for Federal Regulatory Action 

These priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria are 

needed to implement the RTT–ELC 

award process in the manner that the 

Departments believe will best enable the 

program to achieve its objective—to 

create the conditions for effective reform 

in early learning systems in States. 

Summary of Potential Costs and 

Benefits 

The Secretaries believe that these 

final priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria do not 

impose significant costs on eligible 

States. States that applied for a grant 

under the FY 2011 RTT–ELC 

competition reported that they found 

the application process to be useful in 

organizing their early childhood 

planning efforts because the priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria provided them with direction 

and structure for developing a HighQuality Plan for a State Early Learning 

and Development Program. Several 

unfunded States then used their 

prepared application as their State’s 

strategic early learning plan. In 

addition, the final priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria, in particular those related to 

maintaining conditions of reform 

required under the FY 2011 RTT–ELC 

competition, require continuation of 

existing commitments and investments 

rather than the imposition of additional 

burdens and costs for applicant States. 

The Departments believe, therefore, that 

those States that previously applied but 

did not receive funding will incur 

minimal costs in developing an 

application. 

In addition, because the Departments 

are maintaining the priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria of the FY 2011 competition, 

States that did not previously apply can 

draw upon the posted applications and 

reviewer comments from the FY 2011 

competition. These resources will 

minimize burden for all applicants. The 

Departments believe therefore that the 

benefits of developing an application for 

this competition outweigh the costs. 

We believe that States will 

significantly benefit from the 

application process because it will 

require them to build strong 

relationships between State agencies 

and early learning non-profit 

organizations and consider how to use 

Federal, State, and local funding 

streams to best support early learning. A 

further benefit is that the final priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria are expected to result in the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 169 / Friday, August 30, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 53989 

selection of high-quality grantees that 

are most likely to successfully 

implement RTT–ELC grants in the 

manner that the Departments believe 

will best enable the program to achieve 

its objective of creating the conditions 

for effective reform in State early 

learning systems. 

The final priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria clarify 

the scope of activities the Secretaries 

expect to support with program funds. 

The pool of eligible applicants is limited 

to State applicants that have not 

previously received an RTT–ELC grant. 

Potential applicants need to consider 

carefully the effort that will be required 

to prepare a strong application, their 

capacity to implement projects 

successfully, and their chances of 

submitting a successful application. 

Program participation is voluntary. 

The Secretaries believe that the costs 

imposed on applicants by these final 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria are limited to 

paperwork burden related to preparing 

an application and that the benefits of 

implementing these proposals outweigh 

any costs incurred by applicants. The 

costs of carrying out activities 

associated with the application will be 

paid for with program funds. Thus, the 

costs of implementation will not be a 

burden for eligible applicants, including 

small entities. 

Regulatory Alternatives Considered 

An alternative to promulgating these 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria would be to use FY 

2013 Race to the Top funds to make 

awards to the remaining highest-scoring 

unfunded applications from the FY 

2011 RTT–ELC competition. However, 

the Departments have determined that 

funding applications from the FY 2011 

competition would result in funding 

applications that are likely outdated and 

of only moderate quality, having 

received fewer than 75 percent of the 

total points available in the FY 2011 

competition. The Departments have 

determined that $280 million is a 

sufficient amount to hold a high-quality 

competition and that holding a new 

competition will result in higher-quality 

applications than those submitted in FY 

2011, due to progress made in early 

learning systems during the last two 

years. 

The Departments also could have 

decided to make significant changes to 

the priorities, requirements, definitions, 

and selection criteria from the FY 2011 

competition. However, we have 

determined that making significant 

changes would be unduly burdensome 

on applicants who will rely on their FY 

2011 efforts to prepare an updated 

application and that maintaining 

substantially the same priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria will better enable the 

Departments to conduct an evaluation of 

the performance of grantees under the 

RTT–ELC program overall. 

Accounting Statement 

As required by OMB Circular A–4 

(available at www.whitehouse.gov/sites/ 

default/files/omb/assets/omb/circulars/

a004/a-4.pdf), in the following table we 

have prepared an accounting statement 

showing the classification of the 

expenditures associated with the 

provisions of this regulatory action. This 

table provides our best estimate of the 

changes in annual monetized transfers 

as a result of this regulatory action. 

Expenditures are classified as transfers 

from the Federal Government to States. 

ACCOUNTING STATEMENT CLASSIFICATION OF ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES

Category Transfers 

Annualized Monetized Transfers .............................................................. $280,000,000. 

From Whom To Whom? ........................................................................... From Federal Government to States.

Waiver of Congressional Review Act: 

These requirements have been 

determined to be a major rule for 

purposes of the Congressional Review 

Act (CRA) (5 U.S.C. 801, et seq.). 

Generally, under the CRA, a major rule 

takes effect 60 days after the date on 

which the rule is published in the 

Federal Register. Section 808(2) of the 

CRA, however, provides that any rule 

which an agency for good cause finds 

(and incorporates the finding and a brief 

statement of reasons therefor in the rule 

issued) that notice and public procedure 

thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, 

or contrary to the public interest, shall 

take effect at such time as the Federal 

agency promulgating the rule 

determines. 

These final priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria are 

needed to implement the RTT–ELC 

program, authorized under Sections 

14005 and 14006, Division A, of the 

American Recovery and Reinvestment 

Act of 2009 (Pub. L. 111–5), as amended 

by section 1832(b) of Division B of 

Public Law 112–10, the Department of 

Defense and Full-Year Continuing 

Appropriations Act, 2011, and the 

Department of Education 

Appropriations Act, 2012, which was 

signed into law on December 23, 2011. 

The Departments must award funds 

under this authority to qualified 

applicants by December 31, 2013, or the 

funds will lapse. Even on an expedited 

timeline, it is impracticable for the 

Departments to adhere to a 60-day 

delayed effective date for the final 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria and make grant awards 

to qualified applicants by the December 

31, 2013 deadline. When the 60-day 

delayed effective date is added to the 

time the Departments will need to 

receive applications (approximately 45 

days), review the applications 

(approximately 21 days), and finally 

approve applications (approximately 28 

days), the Departments will not be able 

to award funds authorized under the 

Department of Education 

Appropriations Act, 2012 to applicants 

by December 31, 2013. The Departments 

have therefore determined that, 

pursuant to section 808(2) of the CRA, 

the 60-day delay in the effective date 

generally required for congressional 

review is impracticable, contrary to the 

public interest, and waived for good 

cause. 

Intergovernmental Review: This 

program is subject to Executive Order 

12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR 

part 79. One of the objectives of the 

Executive order is to foster an 

intergovernmental partnership and a 

strengthened federalism. The Executive 

order relies on processes developed by 

State and local governments for 

coordination and review of proposed 

Federal financial assistance. 

This document provides early 

notification of our specific plans and 

actions for this program. 

Accessible Format: Individuals with 

disabilities can obtain this document in 

an accessible format (e.g., braille, large 

print, audiotape, or compact disc) on 

request to the program contact person 

listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

Electronic Access to This Document: 

The official version of this document is 

the document published in the Federal 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
53990 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 169 / Friday, August 30, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

Register. Free Internet access to the 

official edition of the Federal Register is 

available via the Federal Digital System 

at www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site you 

can view this document, as well as all 

other documents of these Departments 

published in the Federal Register, in 

text or Adobe Portable Document 

Format (PDF). To use PDF you must 

have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is 

available free at the site. 

You may also access documents of 

these Departments published in the 

Federal Register by using the article 

search feature at 

www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, 

through the advanced search feature at 

this site, you can limit your search to 

documents published by these 

Departments. 

Dated: August 26, 2013. 

Deborah S. Delisle, 

Assistant Secretary for Elementary and 

Secondary Education, U.S. Department of 

Education. 

George H. Sheldon, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Children and 

Families, U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services. 

[FR Doc. 2013–21138 Filed 8–29–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES2