Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 68 / Friday, April 9, 2010 / Notices 18171 

1By requiring that member States fully 

implement the summative assessment components 

of the assessment system no later than the 2014– 

2015 school year, we believe that we are providing 

an eligible applicant receiving a Comprehensive 

Assessment Systems grant with an appropriate 

amount of time to design and develop summative 

assessments that meet the Absolute Priority and 

other requirements for this grant category. 

Maryland Avenue, SW., room 4W414, 

Washington, DC 20202 or by e-mail: 

readytolearn@ed.gov. 

If you use a telecommunications 

device for the deaf, call the Federal 

Relay Service, toll free, at 1–800–877– 

8339. 

Electronic Access to This Document: 

You can view this document, as well as 

all other documents of this Department 

published in the Federal Register, in 

text or Adobe Portable Document 

Format (PDF) on the Internet at the 

following site: http://www.ed.gov/news/ 

fedregister. To use PDF you must have 

Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is 

available free at this site. 

Note: The official version of this document 

is the document published in the Federal 

Register. Free Internet access to the official 

edition of the Federal Register and the Code 

of Federal Regulations is available on GPO 

Access at: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/ 

index.html. 

Dated: April 5, 2010. 

James H. Shelton, III, 

Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and 

Improvement. 

[FR Doc. 2010–8168 Filed 4–8–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

Overview Information; Race to the Top 

Fund Assessment Program; Notice 

Inviting Applications for New Awards 

for Fiscal Year (FY) 2010 

Catalog of Federal Domestic 

Assistance (CFDA) Numbers: 84.395B 

(Comprehensive Assessment Systems 

grants) and 84.395C (High School 

Course Assessment Programs grants). 

Dates: 

Applications Available: April 9, 2010. 

Deadline for Notice of Intent To 

Apply: April 29, 2010. 

Date of Technical Assistance Meeting 

for Prospective Applicants: April 22, 

2010. 

Deadline for Transmittal of 

Applications: June 23, 2010. 

Deadline for Intergovernmental 

Review: August 23, 2010. 

Full Text of Announcement 

I. Funding Opportunity Description 

Purpose and Overview of Program: 

Authorized under the American 

Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 

(ARRA), the Race to the Top Fund 

Assessment Program provides funding 

to consortia of States to develop 

assessments that are valid, support and 

inform instruction, provide accurate 

information about what students know 

and can do, and measure student 

achievement against standards designed 

to ensure that all students gain the 

knowledge and skills needed to succeed 

in college and the workplace. These 

assessments are intended to play a 

critical role in educational systems; 

provide administrators, educators, 

parents, and students with the data and 

information needed to continuously 

improve teaching and learning; and help 

meet the President’s goal of restoring, by 

2020, the nation’s position as the world 

leader in college graduates. 

Through the Race to the Top Fund 

Assessment Program, the Department 

expects to award two categories of 

grants: (A) Comprehensive Assessment 

Systems grants, and (B) High School 

Course Assessment Programs grants. In 

this notice, we are establishing 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria for each grant category. 

An eligible applicant (i.e., a consortium 

of States) may apply for grants in both 

categories, provided it meets the 

eligibility requirements for each 

category. The Department will score and 

rank applications separately in each 

grant category. Following is an overview 

of the two grant categories: 

(A) Comprehensive Assessment 

Systems grants. Over the past decade, 

State assessment results have brought 

much-needed visibility to disparities in 

achievement among different groups of 

students and helped meet increasing 

demands for data that can be used to 

improve teaching and learning. To fully 

meet the dual needs for accountability 

and instructional improvement, 

however, States need assessment 

systems that are based on standards 

designed to prepare students for college 

and the workplace, and that more 

validly measure student knowledge and 

skills against the full range of those 

standards and across the full 

performance continuum. Further, States 

need assessment systems that better 

reflect good instructional practices and 

support a culture of continuous 

improvement in education by providing 

information that can be used in a timely 

and meaningful manner to determine 

school and educator effectiveness, 

identify teacher and principal 

professional development and support 

needs, improve programs, and guide 

instruction. 

This grant category supports the 

development of such assessment 

systems by consortia of States. 

Comprehensive Assessment Systems 

grants provide funding for the 

development of new assessment systems 

that measure student knowledge and 

skills against a common set of collegeand career-ready standards (as defined 

in this notice) in mathematics and 

English language arts in a way that 

covers the full range of those standards, 

elicits complex student demonstrations 

or applications of knowledge and skills 

as appropriate, and provides an accurate 

measure of student achievement across 

the full performance continuum and an 

accurate measure of student growth over 

a full academic year or course. 

Assessment systems developed with 

Comprehensive Assessment Systems 

grants must include one or more 

summative assessment components in 

mathematics and in English language 

arts that are administered at least once 

during the academic year in grades 3 

through 8 and at least once in high 

school and that produce student 

achievement data and student growth 

data (both as defined in this notice) that 

can be used to determine whether 

individual students are college- and 

career-ready (as defined in this notice) 

or on track to being college- and careerready (as defined in this notice). In 

addition, assessment systems developed 

with Comprehensive Assessment 

Systems grants must assess all students, 

including English learners (as defined in 

this notice) and students with 

disabilities (as defined in this notice). 

Finally, assessment systems developed 

with Comprehensive Assessment 

Systems grants must produce data 

(including student achievement data 

and student growth data) that can be 

used to inform (a) determinations of 

school effectiveness; (b) determinations 

of individual principal and teacher 

effectiveness for purposes of evaluation; 

(c) determinations of principal and 

teacher professional development and 

support needs; and (d) teaching, 

learning, and program improvement. 

To be eligible for a Comprehensive 

Assessment Systems grant, an eligible 

applicant must include at least 15 

States, of which at least 5 States must 

be governing States (as defined in this 

notice). An eligible applicant receiving 

a Comprehensive Assessment Systems 

grant must ensure that the summative 

assessment components of the 

assessment system (in both mathematics 

and English language arts) will be fully 

implemented statewide in each State in 

the consortium no later than the 2014– 

2015 school year.1 It is the expectation 

of the Department that States that adopt 

assessment systems developed with 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
18172 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 68 / Friday, April 9, 2010 / Notices 

2By requiring that at least one course assessment 

developed under the assessment program be 

implemented in each State in the consortium no 

later than the 2013–2014 school year and that all 

assessments in the assessment program be 

operational no later than the 2014–2015 school 

year, we believe that we are providing an eligible 

applicant receiving a High School Course 

Assessment Programs grant with an appropriate 

amount of time to design and develop course 

assessment programs that meet the Absolute 

Priority and other requirements for this grant 

category. 

Comprehensive Assessment Systems 

grants will use assessments in these 

systems to meet the assessment 

requirements in Title I of the ESEA. 

In addition to meeting the need for 

assessment systems that can be used to 

determine whether students are collegeand career-ready, this grant category 

seeks to ensure that the results from 

those systems will, in turn, be used 

meaningfully by institutions of higher 

education (IHEs). Under this grant 

category, we intend to promote 

collaboration and better alignment 

between public elementary, secondary, 

and postsecondary education systems 

by establishing a competitive preference 

priority for applications that include 

commitments from public IHEs or IHE 

systems to participate in the design and 

development of the consortium’s final 

high school summative assessments and 

to implement policies that exempt from 

remedial courses and place into creditbearing college courses students who 

meet the consortium-adopted 

achievement standard (as defined in this 

notice) for those assessments. An 

application that addresses this priority 

will receive competitive preference 

points based on the extent to which it 

demonstrates strong commitment from 

the public IHEs or IHE systems (as 

evidenced by letters of intent) and on 

the percentage of direct matriculation 

students (as defined in this notice) in 

public IHEs in the States in the 

consortium who are enrolled in those 

IHEs or IHE systems. 

(B) High School Course Assessment 

Programs grants. In our nation’s high 

schools, the rigor of courses offered 

varies and, in many cases, is not 

sufficient to prepare students for 

success in college and careers. To 

promote consistently high levels of rigor 

in high school courses across a wellrounded curriculum, this grant category 

supports the development of high 

school course assessment programs by 

consortia of States. High School Course 

Assessment Programs grants provide 

funding for the development of new 

assessment programs that cover 

multiple high school courses (which 

may include courses in core academic 

subjects and career and technical 

education courses) and that include a 

process for certifying the rigor of the 

assessments in the assessment program 

and for ensuring that assessments of 

courses covering similar content have 

common expectations of rigor. Each 

assessment in the assessment program 

must measure student knowledge and 

skills against standards from a common 

set of college- and career-ready 

standards in subjects for which such a 

set of standards exists, or otherwise 

against State or other rigorous 

standards; and must produce student 

achievement data and student growth 

data that can be used to inform (a) 

determinations of principal and teacher 

effectiveness and professional 

development and support needs, and (b) 

teaching, learning, and program 

improvement. In addition, assessments 

in the assessment program must be 

designed to assess the broadest possible 

range of students, including English 

learners and students with disabilities. 

To be eligible for a High School 

Course Assessment Programs grant, an 

eligible applicant must include at least 

5 governing States. An eligible applicant 

receiving a High School Course 

Assessment Programs grant must ensure 

that at least one course assessment 

developed under the assessment 

program will be implemented in each 

State in the consortium no later than the 

2013–2014 school year and that all 

assessments in the assessment program 

will be operational no later than the 

2014–2015 school year.2 The 

Department will not require that 

assessments developed with High 

School Course Assessment Programs 

grants be used to meet the assessment 

requirements in Title I of the ESEA. 

We believe that States and high 

schools will use the assessments in 

these assessment programs as part of 

coherent high school improvement 

efforts that include aligned curricula, 

instruction, and professional 

development. In that context, these 

assessments will play important roles in 

providing teachers, principals, students, 

and parents with the information they 

need to determine whether high school 

courses are sufficiently rigorous to 

prepare students for success in college 

and careers, as well as monitor student 

progress, adjust instruction, and 

ultimately improve student outcomes. 

To ensure that these assessment 

programs help students prepare for and 

transition to college successfully, we 

encourage eligible applicants to 

collaborate with IHEs in their design 

and development. 

Within this grant category, the 

Department also seeks to promote the 

development of rigorous assessment 

programs for particular courses of high 

school study. To further the 

administration’s goal of improving 

teaching and learning in the science, 

technology, engineering, and 

mathematics (STEM) subjects, we are 

establishing a competitive preference 

priority for applications that include a 

high-quality plan to develop, within the 

grant period and with input from one or 

more four-year degree-granting IHEs, 

assessments for high school courses that 

comprise a rigorous course of study 

designed to prepare high school 

students for postsecondary study and 

careers in the STEM fields. To help 

improve outcomes in career and 

technical education, we are also 

establishing a second competitive 

preference priority for applications that 

include a high-quality plan to develop, 

within the grant period and with 

relevant business community 

participation and support, assessments 

for high school courses that comprise a 

rigorous course of study in career and 

technical education that is designed to 

prepare high school students for success 

on technical certification examinations 

or for postsecondary education or 

employment. 

As mentioned earlier, the Department 

supports the development, under both 

grant categories in this competition, of 

common assessments by consortia of 

States. We believe that States working 

together in consortia benefit from 

increased assessment resources and 

expertise and, thus, can develop 

assessments that are of higher quality 

than assessments developed by an 

individual State working on its own. In 

addition, bringing States together in 

consortia will improve the efficiency 

and cost-effectiveness of projects funded 

under this competition and ensure that 

the assessments that this competition 

supports are developed for as many 

States as possible as quickly as possible. 

Finally, the development of common 

assessments will enable the production 

of comparable data that can be used to 

identify and promote effective 

instructional strategies and practices 

more reliably across States. 

In addition, we are requiring that 

eligible applicants receiving awards 

under either category in this 

competition develop assessment items 

and produce student data in a manner 

that is consistent with standards for 

interoperability, and that they make all 

assessment content (i.e., assessments 

and assessment items) developed with 

funds from this competition freely 

available to States, technology platform 

providers, or others that request it for 

purposes of administering assessments, 

consistent with States’ needs and with 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 68 / Friday, April 9, 2010 / Notices 18173 

consortium or State requirements for 

test or item security. We believe that 

these requirements will ensure that 

assessment content developed with 

funds from this competition is widely 

available, including to States that are 

not part of consortia receiving funds 

under this competition as well as to 

commercial organizations wishing to 

further develop, extend, and incorporate 

the content into assessment products 

intended for State use. Moreover, we 

believe that making assessment content 

freely available will spur innovation in 

assessment technology and enable 

technology providers to compete for 

States’ business on the basis of their 

developing efficient, effective, 

economical, and innovative assessment 

platforms. 

The Department recognizes that there 

are assessment needs—particularly for 

alternate assessments based on alternate 

academic achievement standards and 

assessments of English language 

proficiency—that we do not attempt to 

address through this competition. We 

wish to note that we have plans to 

address these needs in other ways. For 

students with the most significant 

cognitive disabilities, alternate 

assessments based on alternate 

academic achievement standards are 

critical components of a complete 

assessment system. It is the 

Department’s intent to support States in 

developing new alternate assessments 

based on alternate achievement 

standards, in coordination with this 

Race to the Top Assessment 

competition, through a separate 

competition that will be administered 

by the Department’s Office of Special 

Education and Rehabilitative Services; 

we intend to issue a notice inviting 

applications for this program later this 

year. For English learners, new 

assessments of English language 

proficiency are also needed. The 

Department intends to set aside other 

funds in its FY 2011 budget to support 

State efforts to develop assessments of 

English language proficiency that are 

aligned with the college- and careerready standards in English language arts 

currently being developed and adopted. 

For additional information on the 

Race to the Top Fund Assessment 

Program, see http://www2.ed.gov/ 

programs/racetothetop-assessment/ 

index.html. 

Note about Public and Expert Input 

Meetings: The design of this Race to the Top 

Fund Assessment Program competition has 

benefited significantly from a series of public 

and expert input meetings held by the 

Department. At these meetings, invited 

experts and members of the public provided 

input in response to questions, published in 

the Federal Register (see 74 FR 54795–54800 

and 69081–69084), in the following 

programmatic areas: General and technical 

assessment issues, technology and 

innovation in assessment, high school 

assessments, assessing English learners, 

assessing students with disabilities, 

consortium and project management, and 

procurement. For information about these 

meetings, including transcripts and 

presentation materials, as well as other 

written input provided for this program, see 

http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetopassessment/index.html. 

A. Comprehensive Assessment 

Systems: 

Priorities: For the Comprehensive 

Assessment Systems grant category, we 

are establishing the following priorities 

for the FY 2010 grant competition only 

in accordance with section 437(d)(1) of 

the General Education Provisions Act 

(GEPA), 20 U.S.C. 1232(d)(1). 

Absolute Priority: This priority is an 

absolute priority. Under 34 CFR 

75.105(c)(3), we consider only 

applications that meet this priority. An 

eligible applicant should address this 

priority throughout the application 

narrative. 

The priority is: 

Comprehensive Assessment Systems 

Measuring Student Achievement 

Against Common College- and CareerReady Standards. Under this priority, 

the Department supports the 

development of new assessment systems 

that will be used by multiple States; are 

valid, reliable, and fair for their 

intended purposes and for all student 

subgroups; and measure student 

knowledge and skills against a common 

set of college- and career-ready 

standards in mathematics and English 

language arts. To meet this absolute 

priority, an eligible applicant must 

demonstrate in its application that it 

will develop and implement an 

assessment system that— 

(a) Measures student knowledge and 

skills against a common set of collegeand career-ready standards (as defined 

in this notice) in mathematics and 

English language arts in a way that— 

(i) Covers the full range of those 

standards, including standards against 

which student achievement has 

traditionally been difficult to measure; 

(ii) As appropriate, elicits complex 

student demonstrations or applications 

of knowledge and skills; 

(iii) Provides an accurate measure of 

student achievement across the full 

performance continuum, including for 

high- and low-achieving students; and 

(iv) Provides an accurate measure of 

student growth over a full academic 

year or course; 

(b) Consists of assessment 

components in mathematics and in 

English language arts that include, for 

each subject, one or more summative 

assessment components that— 

(i) Are administered at least once 

during the academic year in grades 3 

through 8 and at least once in high 

school; and 

(ii) Produce student achievement data 

and student growth data (both as 

defined in this notice) that can be used 

to determine whether individual 

students are college- and career-ready 

(as defined in this notice) or on track to 

being college- and career-ready (as 

defined in this notice); 

(c) Assesses all students, including 

English learners (as defined in this 

notice) and students with disabilities (as 

defined in this notice); and 

(d) Produces data, including student 

achievement data and student growth 

data, that can be used to inform— 

(i) Determinations of school 

effectiveness for purposes of 

accountability under Title I of the ESEA; 

(ii) Determinations of individual 

principal and teacher effectiveness for 

purposes of evaluation; 

(iii) Determinations of principal and 

teacher professional development and 

support needs; and 

(iv) Teaching, learning, and program 

improvement. 

Competitive Preference Priority: This 

priority is a competitive preference 

priority. Consistent with 34 CFR 

75.105(c)(2)(i), we award additional 

points to an application as specified in 

the priority. 

The priority is: 

Collaboration and Alignment with 

Higher Education. The Department gives 

eligible applicants competitive 

preference points based on the extent to 

which they have promoted collaboration 

and alignment between member States’ 

public elementary and secondary 

education systems and their public IHEs 

(as defined in section 101(a) of the 

Higher Education Act of 1965, as 

amended (HEA)) or systems of those 

IHEs. Eligible applicants addressing this 

priority must provide, for each IHE or 

IHE system, a letter of intent that— 

(a) Commits the IHE or IHE system to 

participate with the consortium in the 

design and development of the 

consortium’s final high school 

summative assessments in mathematics 

and English language arts in order to 

ensure that the assessments measure 

college readiness; 

(b) Commits the IHE or IHE system to 

implement policies, once the final high 

school summative assessments are 

implemented, that exempt from 

remedial courses and place into creditbearing college courses any student who 

meets the consortium-adopted 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
18174 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 68 / Friday, April 9, 2010 / Notices 

3Consistent with section 14013 of the ARRA, the 

term ‘‘State’’ means each of the 50 States, the District 

of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto 

Rico. 

4 In selecting a proposed project management 

partner, an eligible applicant must comply with the 

requirements for procurement in 34 CFR 80.36. Due 

to the limited time period that eligible applicants 

have to select a proposed project management 

partner, we remind eligible applicants that they 

may, under 34 CFR 80.36, use informal procedures 

to select a proposed contractor for this purpose. For 

example, 34 CFR 80.36(d)(1) authorizes simple 

informal procedures to select contractors under the 

simplified acquisition threshold of $100,000; the 

regulations only require that the eligible applicant 

request offers from an adequate number of qualified 

sources. In addition, even if the eligible applicant 

expects that the proposed project management 

partner would cost more than $100,000, the 

regulations recognize special cases where a 

contractor must be selected within a very limited 

time period. Again, the eligible applicant must 

request proposals from an adequate number of 

qualified sources and select the contractor whose 

proposal is most advantageous to the program, 

considering price and other selection factors. In 

these situations, if informal solicitation does not 

result in an adequate number of proposals, the 

eligible applicant may select a single bidder so long 

as the eligible applicant documents the facts that 

formed the basis for its decision. 34 CFR 

80.36(d)(1), (d)(3), and (d)(4). 

5For example, section 2.101 of the Federal 

Acquisition Regulation (FAR) defines ‘‘best value’’ 

as the expected outcome of an acquisition that, in 

the Government’s estimation, provides the greatest 

overall benefit in response to the requirement. 

achievement standard (as defined in this 

notice) for each assessment and any 

other placement requirement 

established by the IHE or IHE system; 

and 

(c) Is signed by the State’s higher 

education executive officer (if the State 

has one) and the president or head of 

each participating IHE or IHE system. 

All letters of intent must provide the 

total number of direct matriculation 

students (as defined in this notice) in 

the partner IHE or IHE system in the 

2008–2009 school year. An eligible 

applicant must also provide the total 

number of direct matriculation students 

(as defined in this notice) in public IHEs 

in the consortium’s member States. 

The Department will award up to 20 

competitive preference points based on 

the strength of commitment 

demonstrated in the letters of intent and 

on the percentage of direct 

matriculation students in public IHEs in 

the member States who are direct 

matriculation students in the partner 

IHEs or IHE systems. To receive full 

competitive preference points under 

this priority, eligible applicants must 

provide letters of intent that 

demonstrate strong commitment from 

each partner IHE or IHE system and that 

represent at least 30 percent of direct 

matriculation students in public IHEs in 

member States. No points will be 

awarded for letters of intent that 

represent fewer than 10 percent of direct 

matriculation students in public IHEs in 

member States. 

Requirements: For the Comprehensive 

Assessment Systems grant category, we 

are establishing the following 

requirements for the FY 2010 grant 

competition only in accordance with 

section 437(d)(1) of GEPA, 20 U.S.C. 

1232(d)(1). 

Eligible Applicants: Eligible 

applicants are consortia of States.3

Eligibility Requirements: 

To be eligible to receive an award 

under this category, an eligible 

applicant must— 

1. Include a minimum of 15 States, of 

which at least 5 States must be 

governing States (as defined in this 

notice); 

2. Identify in its application a 

proposed project management partner 

and provide an assurance that the 

proposed project management partner is 

not partnered with any other eligible 

applicant applying for an award under 

this category;4 and 

3. Submit assurances from each State 

in the consortium that, to remain in the 

consortium, the State will adopt a 

common set of college- and career-ready 

standards (as defined in this notice) no 

later than December 31, 2011, and 

common achievement standards (as 

defined in this notice) no later than the 

2014–2015 school year. 

Application Requirements: 

An eligible applicant’s application 

must— 

1. Indicate, consistent with 34 CFR 

75.128, whether— 

(a) One member of the consortium is 

applying for a grant on behalf of the 

consortium; or 

(b) The consortium has established 

itself as a separate eligible legal entity 

and is applying for a grant on its own 

behalf; 

2. Be signed by— 

(a) If one member of the consortium 

is applying for a grant on behalf of the 

consortium, the Governor, the State’s 

chief school officer, and, if applicable, 

the president of the State board of 

education from that State; or 

(b) If the consortium has established 

itself as a separate eligible legal entity 

and is applying for a grant on its own 

behalf, a representative of the 

consortium; 

3. Include an assurance that— 

(a) A competitive procurement 

process based on a ‘‘best value’’ 

selection 5 will be used for tasks related 

to assessment design and development; 

and 

(b) All applicable Federal 

procurement requirements, including 

the requirements of 34 CFR 80.36, will 

be met; 

4. Include, consistent with 34 CFR 

75.128, for each State in the consortium, 

copies of all Memoranda of 

Understanding or other binding 

agreements. These binding agreements 

must— 

(a) Detail the activities that members 

of the consortium will perform; 

(b) Bind each member of the 

consortium to every statement and 

assurance made in the application; 

(c) Include an assurance, signed by 

the State’s chief procurement official (or 

designee), that the State has reviewed its 

applicable procurement rules and 

determined that it may participate in 

and make procurements through the 

consortium; and 

(d) Be signed by the Governor, the 

State’s chief school officer, and, if 

applicable, the president of the State 

board of education; 

5. Include— 

(a) An executive summary of the 

eligible applicant’s proposed project; 

(b) A theory of action that describes 

in detail the causal relationships 

between specific actions or strategies in 

the eligible applicant’s proposed project 

and its desired outcomes for the 

proposed project, including 

improvements in student achievement 

and college- and career-readiness; 

(c) A plan for designing and 

developing the proposed assessment 

system; 

(d) A plan for research and evaluation 

of the proposed assessment system; 

(e) A plan for implementing the 

proposed assessment system; and 

(f) A project management plan 

(including a workplan and timeline); 

and 

6. Include a budget that— 

(a) Describes in detail how funds from 

this grant category and other resources 

will be used to design, develop, 

implement, and evaluate the proposed 

assessment system; 

(b) Identifies Level 1 budget modules 

(as defined in this notice) that do not 

exceed $150 million in total; and 

(c) Identifies any Level 2 budget 

modules (as defined in this notice) that 

do not exceed $10 million each. 

Program Requirements 

An eligible applicant awarded a grant 

under this category must— 

1. Evaluate the validity, reliability, 

and fairness of the summative 

assessment components of the 

assessment system, and make available 

through formal mechanisms (e.g., peerreviewed journals) and informal 

mechanisms (e.g., newsletters), and in 

print and electronically, the results of 

any evaluations it conducts; 

2. Actively participate in any 

applicable technical assistance activities 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 68 / Friday, April 9, 2010 / Notices 18175 

6Eligible applicants awarded a grant under this 

program must comply with the Family Educational 

Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and 34 CFR Part 

99, as well as State and local requirements 

regarding privacy. 

7We encourage grantees under this competition 

to work during the grant period with the 

Department and the entities that set interoperability 

standards to extend those standards in order to 

make them more functional for assessment 

materials. 

conducted or facilitated by the 

Department or its designees, including 

periodic expert reviews, collaboration 

with other consortia that receive funds 

under this program, and other activities 

as determined by the Department; 

3. Work with the Department to 

develop a strategy to make student-level 

data that result from the assessment 

system available on an ongoing basis for 

research, including for prospective 

linking, validity, and program 

improvement studies; 6

4. Ensure that the summative 

assessment components of the 

assessment system in both mathematics 

and English language arts are fully 

implemented statewide by each State in 

the consortium no later than the 2014– 

2015 school year; 

5. Maximize the interoperability of 

assessments across technology platforms 

and the ability for States to switch their 

assessments from one technology 

platform to another by— 

(a) Developing all assessment items to 

an industry-recognized open-licensed 

interoperability standard that is 

approved by the Department during the 

grant period, without non-standard 

extensions or additions;7 and 

(b) Producing all student-level data in 

a manner consistent with an industryrecognized open-licensed 

interoperability standard that is 

approved by the Department during the 

grant period; 

6. Unless otherwise protected by law 

or agreement as proprietary information, 

make any assessment content (i.e., 

assessments and assessment items) 

developed with funds from this grant 

category freely available to States, 

technology platform providers, and 

others that request it for purposes of 

administering assessments, provided 

they comply with consortium or State 

requirements for test or item security; 

7. Use technology to the maximum 

extent appropriate to develop, 

administer, and score assessments and 

report assessment results; 

8. Use funds from this grant category 

only for the design, development, and 

evaluation of the assessment system. An 

eligible applicant awarded a grant under 

this category may not use funds for the 

administration of operational 

assessments; 

9. Comply with the requirements of 

34 CFR 75.129, which specifies that— 

(a) The applicant (i.e., the State 

applying on behalf of the consortium, or 

the consortium if established as a 

separate legal entity and applying on its 

own behalf) is legally responsible for— 

(i) The use of all grant funds; 

(ii) Ensuring that the project is carried 

out by the consortium in accordance 

with Federal requirements; and 

(iii) Ensuring that indirect cost funds 

are determined as required under 34 

CFR 75.564(e); and 

(b) Each member of the consortium is 

legally responsible to— 

(i) Carry out the activities it agrees to 

perform; and 

(ii) Use any grant funds it receives 

under the consortium’s Memoranda of 

Understanding or other binding 

agreements in accordance with Federal 

requirements that apply to the grant; 

10. Obtain approval from the 

Department of any third-party 

organization or entity that is responsible 

for managing funds received under this 

grant category; and 

11. Identify any current assessment 

requirements in Title I of the ESEA that 

would need to be waived in order for 

member States to fully implement the 

proposed assessment system. 

B. High School Course Assessment 

Programs: 

Priorities: For the High School Course 

Assessment Programs grant category, we 

are establishing the following priorities 

for the FY 2010 grant competition only 

in accordance with section 437(d)(1) of 

GEPA, 20 U.S.C. 1232(d)(1). 

Absolute Priority: This priority is an 

absolute priority. Under 34 CFR 

75.105(c)(3), we consider only 

applications that meet this priority. An 

eligible applicant should address this 

priority throughout the application 

narrative. 

The priority is: 

High School Course Assessment 

Programs. Under this priority, the 

Department supports the development 

of new and adapted assessments for 

high school courses that will be used by 

multiple States and are valid, reliable, 

and fair for their intended purposes and 

students. To meet this absolute priority, 

an eligible applicant must demonstrate 

in its application that it will develop 

and implement a high school course 

assessment program that— 

(a) For each course in the assessment 

program— 

(i) Measures student knowledge and 

skills against standards from a common 

set of college- and career-ready 

standards (as defined in this notice) in 

subjects for which such a set of 

standards exists, or otherwise against 

State or other rigorous standards; 

(ii) As appropriate, elicits complex 

student demonstrations or applications 

of knowledge and skills; 

(iii) Produces student achievement 

data (as defined in this notice) and 

student growth data (as defined in this 

notice) over a full academic year or 

course that can be used to inform— 

(A) Determinations of individual 

principal and teacher effectiveness and 

professional development and support 

needs; and 

(B) Teaching, learning, and program 

improvement; and 

(iv) Is designed to assess the broadest 

possible range of students, including 

English learners (as defined in this 

notice) and students with disabilities (as 

defined in this notice); 

(b) Includes assessments for multiple 

courses that will be implemented in 

each member State at a scale that will 

enable significant improvements in 

student achievement outcomes 

statewide; and 

(c) Includes a process for certifying 

the rigor of each assessment in the 

assessment program and for ensuring 

that assessments of courses covering 

similar content have common 

expectations of rigor. 

Competitive Preference Priorities: 

These priorities are competitive 

preference priorities. Consistent with 34 

CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i), we award additional 

points to an application as specified in 

these priorities. 

The priorities are: 

1. Focus on Preparing Students for 

Study in STEM-Related Fields. The 

Department gives 10 competitive 

preference points to applications that 

include a high-quality plan to develop, 

within the grant period and with input 

from one or more four-year degreegranting IHEs, assessments for high 

school courses that comprise a rigorous 

course of study that is designed to 

prepare high school students for 

postsecondary study and careers in the 

STEM fields, including technology and 

engineering. Any such course of study 

may include cross-cutting or 

interdisciplinary STEM courses (e.g., 

computer science, information 

technology, bioengineering) and be 

designed to address the needs of 

underrepresented groups. 

An eligible applicant addressing this 

priority must, in addition to addressing 

the priority throughout the application 

narrative, provide a separate plan that 

describes— 

(a) The courses for which assessments 

will be developed; 

(b) How the courses comprise a 

rigorous course of study that is designed 

to prepare high school students for 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
18176 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 68 / Friday, April 9, 2010 / Notices 

8Consistent with section 14013 of the ARRA, the 

term ‘‘State’’ means each of the 50 States, the District 

of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto 

Rico. 

9 In selecting a proposed project management 

partner, an eligible applicant must comply with the 

requirements for procurement in 34 CFR 80.36. Due 

to the limited time period that eligible applicants 

have to select a proposed project management 

partner, we remind eligible applicants that they 

may, under 34 CFR 80.36, use informal procedures 

to select a proposed contractor for this purpose. For 

example, 34 CFR 80.36(d)(1) authorizes simple 

informal procedures to select contractors under the 

simplified acquisition threshold of $100,000; the 

regulations only require that the eligible applicant 

request offers from an adequate number of qualified 

sources. In addition, even if the eligible applicant 

expects that the proposed project management 

partner would cost more than $100,000, the 

regulations recognize special cases where a 

contractor must be selected within a very limited 

time period. Again, the eligible applicant must 

request proposals from an adequate number of 

qualified sources and select the contractor whose 

proposal is most advantageous to the program, 

considering price and other selection factors; in 

these situations, if informal solicitation does not 

result in an adequate number of proposals, the 

eligible applicant may select a single bidder so long 

as the eligible applicant documents the facts that 

formed the basis for its decision. 34 CFR 

80.36(d)(1), (d)(3), and (d)(4). 

10For example, section 2.101 of the FAR defines 

‘‘best value’’ as the expected outcome of an 

acquisition that, in the Government’s estimation, 

provides the greatest overall benefit in response to 

the requirement. 

postsecondary study and careers in the 

STEM fields; and 

(c) How input from one or more fouryear degree-granting IHEs will be 

obtained in developing assessments for 

the courses. 

We will award points to eligible 

applicants addressing this priority on an 

‘‘all or nothing’’ basis (i.e., 10 points or 

zero points). An eligible applicant may 

not use the same course of study to 

address both this priority and 

Competitive Preference Priority 2 (Focus 

on Career Readiness and Placement). 

2. Focus on Career Readiness and 

Placement. The Department gives 10 

competitive preference points to 

applications that include a high-quality 

plan to develop, within the grant period 

and with relevant business community 

participation and support, assessments 

for high school courses that comprise a 

rigorous course of study in career and 

technical education that is designed to 

prepare high school students for success 

on technical certification examinations 

or for postsecondary education or 

employment. 

An eligible applicant addressing this 

priority must, in addition to addressing 

the priority throughout the application 

narrative, provide a separate plan that 

describes— 

(a) The courses for which assessments 

will be developed; 

(b) How the courses comprise a 

rigorous course of study in career and 

technical education that is designed to 

prepare high school students for success 

on technical certification examinations 

or for postsecondary education or 

employment; and 

(c) How relevant business community 

participation and support will be 

obtained in developing assessments for 

the courses. 

We will award points to eligible 

applicants addressing this priority on an 

‘‘all or nothing’’ basis (i.e., 10 points or 

zero points). An eligible applicant may 

not use the same course of study to 

address both this priority and 

Competitive Preference Priority 1 (Focus 

on Preparing Students for Study and 

Careers in STEM-Related Fields). 

Requirements: For the High School 

Course Assessment Programs grant 

category, we are establishing the 

following requirements for the FY 2010 

grant competition only in accordance 

with section 437(d)(1) of GEPA, 20 

U.S.C. 1232(d)(1). 

Eligible Applicants: Eligible 

applicants are consortia of States.8

Eligibility Requirements: 

To be eligible to receive an award 

under this category, an eligible 

applicant must— 

1. Include a minimum of 5 governing 

States (as defined in this notice); and 

2. Identify in its application a 

proposed project management partner 

and provide an assurance that the 

proposed project management partner is 

not partnered with any other eligible 

applicant applying for an award under 

this category.9

Application Requirements 

An eligible applicant’s application 

must— 

1. Indicate, consistent with 34 CFR 

75.128, whether— 

(a) One member of the consortium is 

applying for a grant on behalf of the 

consortium; or 

(b) The consortium has established 

itself as a separate eligible legal entity 

and is applying for a grant on its own 

behalf; 

2. Be signed by— 

(a) If one member of the consortium 

is applying for a grant on behalf of the 

consortium, the Governor, the State’s 

chief school officer, and, if applicable, 

the president of the State board of 

education from that State; or 

(b) If the consortium has established 

itself as a separate eligible legal entity 

and is applying for a grant on its own 

behalf, a representative of the 

consortium; 

3. Include an assurance that— 

(a) A competitive procurement 

process based on a ‘‘best value’’ 

selection 10 will be used for tasks related 

to assessment design and development; 

and 

(b) All applicable Federal 

procurement requirements, including 

the requirements of 34 CFR 80.36, will 

be met; 

4. Include, consistent with 34 CFR 

75.128, for each State in the consortium, 

copies of all Memoranda of 

Understanding or other binding 

agreements. These binding agreements 

must— 

(a) Detail the activities that members 

of the consortium will perform; 

(b) Bind each member of the 

consortium to every statement and 

assurance made in the application; 

(c) Include an assurance, signed by 

the State’s chief procurement official (or 

designee), that the State has reviewed its 

applicable procurement rules and 

determined that it may participate in 

and make procurements through the 

consortium; and 

(d) Be signed by the Governor, the 

State’s chief school officer, and, if 

applicable, the president of the State 

board of education; 

5. Include— 

(a) An executive summary of the 

eligible applicant’s proposed project; 

(b) A theory of action that describes 

in detail the causal relationships 

between specific actions or strategies in 

the eligible applicant’s proposed project 

and its desired outcomes for the 

proposed project, including 

improvements in student achievement 

and college- and career-readiness; 

(c) A plan for designing and 

developing the proposed assessment 

program; 

(d) A plan for research and evaluation 

of the proposed assessment program; 

(e) A plan for implementing the 

proposed assessment program; and 

(f) A project management plan 

(including a workplan and timeline); 

and 

6. Include a budget that— 

(a) Describes in detail how funds from 

this grant category and other resources 

will be used to design, develop, 

implement, and evaluate the proposed 

assessment program; and 

(b) Does not exceed more than $30 

million in funds from this grant 

category. 

Program Requirements 

An eligible applicant awarded a grant 

under this category must— 

1. Evaluate the validity, reliability, 

and fairness of the assessments in its 

high school course assessment program; 

2. Actively participate in any 

applicable technical assistance activities 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 68 / Friday, April 9, 2010 / Notices 18177 

11Eligible applicants awarded a grant under this 

program must comply with FERPA and 34 CFR Part 

99, as well as State and local requirements 

regarding privacy. 

12We encourage grantees under this competition 

to work during the grant period with the 

Department and the entities that set interoperability 

standards to extend those standards in order to 

make them more functional for assessment 

materials. 

conducted or facilitated by the 

Department or its designees, including 

periodic expert reviews, collaboration 

with other consortia that receive funds 

under this program, and other activities 

as determined by the Department; 

3. Work with the Department to 

develop a strategy to make student-level 

data that result from the assessment 

program available on an ongoing basis 

for research, including for prospective 

linking, validity, and program 

improvement studies; 11

4. Ensure that at least one course 

assessment developed under the high 

school course assessment program will 

be implemented in each State in the 

consortium no later than the 2013–2014 

school year and that all assessments in 

the assessment program will be 

operational no later than the 2014–2015 

school year; 

5. To the extent that technology is 

used, maximize the interoperability of 

assessments across technology platforms 

and the ability for States to switch their 

assessments from one technology 

platform to another by— 

(a) Developing all assessment items to 

an industry-recognized open-licensed 

interoperability standard that is 

approved by the Department during the 

grant period, without non-standard 

extensions or additions; 12 and 

(b) Producing all student-level data in 

a manner consistent with an industryrecognized open-licensed 

interoperability standard that is 

approved by the Department during the 

grant period; 

6. Unless otherwise protected by law 

or agreement as proprietary information, 

make any assessment content (i.e., 

assessments and assessment items) 

developed with funds from this grant 

category freely available to States, 

technology platform providers, and 

others that request it for purposes of 

administering assessments, provided 

they comply with consortium or State 

requirements for test or item security; 

7. Use funds from this grant category 

only for the design, development, and 

evaluation of the assessment program. 

An eligible applicant awarded a grant 

under this category may not use funds 

for the administration of operational 

assessments; 

8. Comply with the requirements of 

34 CFR 75.129, which specifies that— 

(a) The applicant (i.e., the State 

applying on behalf of the consortium, or 

the consortium if established as a 

separate legal entity and applying on its 

own behalf) is legally responsible for— 

(i) The use of all grant funds; 

(ii) Ensuring that the project is carried 

out by the consortium in accordance 

with Federal requirements; and 

(iii) Ensuring that indirect cost funds 

are determined as required under 34 

CFR 75.564(e); and 

(b) Each member of the consortium is 

legally responsible to— 

(i) Carry out the activities it agrees to 

perform; and 

(ii) Use any grant funds it receives 

under the consortium’s Memoranda of 

Understanding or other binding 

agreements in accordance with Federal 

requirements that apply to the grant; 

and 

9. Obtain approval from the 

Department of any third-party 

organization or entity that is responsible 

for managing funds received under this 

grant category. 

C. Definitions: For the Comprehensive 

Assessment Systems and High School 

Course Assessment Programs grant 

categories, we are establishing the 

following definitions for the FY 2010 

grant competition only in accordance 

with section 437(d)(1) of GEPA, 20 

U.S.C. 1232(d)(1). 

Accommodations means changes in 

the administration of an assessment, 

including but not limited to changes in 

assessment setting, scheduling, timing, 

presentation format, response mode, 

and combinations of these changes, that 

do not change the construct intended to 

be measured by the assessment or the 

meaning of the resulting scores. 

Accommodations must be used for 

equity in assessment and not provide 

advantage to students eligible to receive 

them. 

Achievement standard means the 

level of student achievement on 

summative assessments that indicates 

that (a) for the final high school 

summative assessments in mathematics 

or English language arts, a student is 

college- and career-ready (as defined in 

this notice); or (b) for summative 

assessments in mathematics or English 

language arts at a grade level other than 

the final high school summative 

assessments, a student is on track to 

being college- and career-ready (as 

defined in this notice). An achievement 

standard must be determined using 

empirical evidence over time. 

College- and career-ready (or 

readiness) means, with respect to a 

student, that the student is prepared for 

success, without remediation, in creditbearing entry-level courses in an IHE (as 

defined in section 101(a) of the HEA), as 

demonstrated by an assessment score 

that meets or exceeds the achievement 

standard (as defined in this notice) for 

the final high school summative 

assessment in mathematics or English 

language arts. 

Common set of college- and careerready standards means a set of 

academic content standards for grades 

K–12 that (a) define what a student must 

know and be able to do at each grade 

level; (b) if mastered, would ensure that 

the student is college- and career-ready 

(as defined in this notice) by the time of 

high school graduation; and (c) are 

substantially identical across all States 

in a consortium. A State may 

supplement the common set of collegeand career-ready standards with 

additional content standards, provided 

that the additional standards do not 

comprise more than 15 percent of the 

State’s total standards for that content 

area. 

Direct matriculation student means a 

student who entered college as a 

freshman within two years of graduating 

from high school. 

English learner means a student who 

is an English learner as that term is 

defined by the consortium. The 

consortium must define the term in a 

manner that is uniform across member 

States and consistent with section 

9101(25) of the ESEA. 

Governing State means a State that (a) 

is a member of only one consortium 

applying for a grant in the competition 

category, (b) has an active role in policy 

decision-making for the consortium, and 

(c) is committed to using the assessment 

system or program developed by the 

consortium. 

Level 1 budget module means a 

budget module for which an eligible 

applicant is seeking funds under the 

Comprehensive Assessment Systems 

grant category that (a) is necessary to 

delivering operational summative 

assessments in both mathematics and 

English language arts no later than 

school year 2014–2015, or (b) is 

otherwise necessary to the eligible 

applicant’s proposed project and 

consistent with the eligible applicant’s 

theory of action. 

Level 2 budget module means any 

budget module for which an eligible 

applicant is seeking funds under the 

Comprehensive Assessment Systems 

grant category other than a Level 1 

budget module. An eligible applicant 

must prioritize Level 2 budget modules 

in the order of importance to the 

implementation of the proposed project. 

Moderation system means a system 

for ensuring that human scoring of 

complex item types, such as extended 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
18178 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 68 / Friday, April 9, 2010 / Notices 

13The term on track to being college- and careerready is used in place of the term ‘‘proficiency’’ 

used in section 1111(b)(3) of the ESEA. 

14Eligible applicants receiving funds under this 

competition must aggregate data using the student 

subgroups in section 1111(b)(3)(C)(xiii) of the ESEA 

(i.e., by gender, by each major racial and ethnic 

group, by English proficiency status, by migrant 

status, by students with disabilities as compared to 

nondisabled students, and by economically 

disadvantaged students as compared to students 

who are not economically disadvantaged, except 

that such aggregation is not required in a case in 

which the number of students in a subgroup is 

insufficient to yield statistically reliable 

information or the results would reveal personally 

identifiable information about an individual 

student). When using the term ‘‘subgroup’’ 

throughout this notice, we mean these student 

subgroups. 

responses or performance tasks, is 

accurate, consistent across schools and 

States, and fair to all students. 

On track to being college- and careerready 13 means, with respect to a 

student, that the student is performing 

at or above grade level such that the 

student will be college- and career-ready 

(as defined in this notice) by the time of 

high school graduation, as demonstrated 

by an assessment score that meets or 

exceeds the achievement standard (as 

defined in this notice) for the student’s 

grade level on a summative assessment 

in mathematics or English language arts. 

Performance level descriptor means a 

statement or description of a set of 

knowledge and skills exemplifying a 

level of performance associated with a 

standard. 

Student achievement data means data 

regarding an individual student’s 

mastery of tested content standards. 

Student achievement data from 

summative assessment components 

must be reported in a way that can be 

reliably aggregated across multiple 

students at the subgroup,14 classroom, 

school, LEA, and State levels. 

Student growth data means data 

regarding the change in student 

achievement data (as defined in this 

notice) between two or more points in 

time. Student growth data from 

summative assessment components 

must be reported in a way that can be 

reliably aggregated across multiple 

students at the subgroup, classroom, 

school, LEA, and State levels and over 

a full academic year or course. 

Student with a disability means, for 

purposes of this competition, a student 

who has been identified as a student 

with a disability under the Individuals 

with Disabilities Education Act, as 

amended (IDEA), except for a student 

with a disability who is eligible to 

participate in alternate assessments 

based on alternate academic 

achievement standards consistent with 

34 CFR 200.6(a)(2). 

Through-course summative 

assessment means an assessment system 

component or set of assessment system 

components that is administered 

periodically during the academic year. 

A student’s results from through-course 

summative assessments must be 

combined to produce the student’s total 

summative assessment score for that 

academic year. 

Waiver of Proposed Rulemaking: 

Under the Administrative Procedure Act 

(5 U.S.C. 553), the Department generally 

offers interested parties the opportunity 

to comment on proposed priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria. Section 437(d)(1) of GEPA, 

however, allows the Secretary to exempt 

from rulemaking requirements 

regulations governing the first grant 

competition under a new or 

substantially revised program authority. 

This is the first grant competition for the 

Race to the Top Assessment Program 

under section 14006 of the ARRA and 

therefore qualifies for this exemption. In 

order to ensure timely grant awards, the 

Secretary has decided to forego public 

comment on the priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria under section 437(d)(1) of 

GEPA. (We note that, as discussed 

earlier, the design of this grant 

competition has benefited significantly 

from a series of public and expert input 

meetings held by the Department.) 

These priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria will 

apply to the FY 2010 grant competition 

only. 

Program Authority: American Recovery 

and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Division A, 

Section 14006, Public Law 111–5. 

Applicable Regulations: The 

Education Department General 

Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) in 

34 CFR parts 74, 75, 77, 79, 80, 81, 82, 

84, 85, 86, 97, 98, and 99. 

II. Award Information 

Type of Award: Discretionary grants. 

Estimated Available Funds: 

$350,000,000. 

Estimated Size of Awards: 

A. Comprehensive Assessment 

Systems: $160,000,000. 

B. High School Course Assessment 

Programs: $30,000,000. 

Estimated Number of Awards 

A. Comprehensive Assessment 

Systems: 1–2 awards. 

B. High School Course Assessment 

Programs: 1 award. 

Note: The Department is not bound by any 

estimates in this notice. The Department will 

determine the number of awards to be made 

in each grant category based on the quality 

of applications received consistent with the 

selection criteria. It will also determine the 

size of an award made to an eligible 

applicant based on a review of the eligible 

applicant’s budget. However, with respect to 

Comprehensive Assessment Systems grants, 

an eligible applicant may not submit Level 1 

budget modules exceeding $150 million in 

total, and with respect to High School Course 

Assessment Programs grants, an eligible 

applicant may not submit a budget exceeding 

$30 million. Applications requesting budget 

amounts that exceed these maximum 

amounts will not be reviewed for funding. 

An eligible applicant awarded a 

Comprehensive Assessment Systems grant 

will receive funding for the Level 1 budget 

modules identified in its application, and 

may receive funding for one or more Level 

2 budget modules identified in its 

application if those modules do not exceed 

the maximum amount of $10 million each 

and funds are available. The Department will 

rank and fund separately applications under 

each grant category. The Department may use 

any unused funds designated for this 

competition to make awards in Phase 2 of the 

Race to the Top Fund Program (CFDA 

Number 84.395A). 

Project Period: Up to 48 months. 

III. Application and Submission 

Information 

A. Address to Request Application 

Package: Prospective applicants can 

obtain an application package for either 

grant category in this competition via 

the Internet or from the Education 

Publications Center (ED Pubs). To 

obtain a copy via the Internet, use the 

following address: http://www2.ed.gov/ 

programs/racetothetop-assessment/ 

index.html. To obtain a copy from ED 

Pubs, write, fax, or call the following: 

Education Publications Center, P.O. Box 

1398, Jessup, MD 20794–1398. 

Telephone, toll free: 1–877–433–7827. 

FAX: (301) 470–1244. If you use a 

telecommunications device for the deaf 

(TDD), call, toll free: 1–877–576–7734. 

Prospective applicants can also 

contact ED Pubs at its Web site: 

http://www.ed.gov/pubs/edpubs.html or 

at its e-mail address: 

edpubs@inet.ed.gov. 

If requesting an application from ED 

Pubs, be sure to identify this 

competition as follows: CFDA Number 

84.395B (Comprehensive Assessment 

Systems grants) or CFDA Number 

84.395C (High School Course 

Assessment Programs grants). 

Individuals with disabilities can 

obtain a copy of the application package 

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

large print, audiotape, or computer 

diskette) by contacting the person listed 

under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT in section VI of this notice. 

B. Content and Form of Application 

Submission: Requirements concerning 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 68 / Friday, April 9, 2010 / Notices 18179 

the content of an application, together 

with the forms an applicant must 

submit, are in the application package 

for each grant category in this 

competition. 

Page Limit: The application narrative 

(Part I.G of the application for each 

grant category) is where the applicant 

addresses the selection criteria that 

reviewers use to evaluate applications. 

The Department recommends that 

applicants limit the application 

narrative for a Comprehensive 

Assessment Systems grant to no more 

than 60 total pages, and for a High 

School Course Assessment Programs 

grant to no more than 45 total pages, 

using the following standards: 

• A page is 8.5′′ × 11′′, on one side 

only, with 1′′ margins at the top, bottom, 

and both sides. 

• Each page is numbered. 

• Line spacing is set to 1.5 spacing, 

and the font used is 12 point Times New 

Roman font. 

An applicant must limit the executive 

summary of its proposed project (Part 

I.D of the application for each grant 

category) to no more than two pages 

using the standards above. We will not 

read information on any pages that 

exceed this page limit. 

C. Submission Dates and Times: 

Applications Available: April 9, 2010. 

Deadline for Notice of Intent to Apply: 

April 29, 2010. 

The Department will be able to 

develop a more efficient process for 

reviewing grant applications if we have 

a better understanding of the number of 

applications we will receive. Therefore, 

we strongly encourage each prospective 

applicant to send an e-mail notice of its 

intent to apply for funding under a grant 

category in this competition to the email address 

racetothetop.assessment@ed.gov by 

April 29, 2010. The notice of intent to 

apply is optional; an applicant may still 

submit an application if it has not 

notified us of its intention to apply. 

Date of Technical Assistance Meeting 

for Prospective Applicants: April 22, 

2010. 

To assist prospective applicants in 

preparing an application and to respond 

to questions, the Department will host a 

Technical Assistance Meeting for 

Prospective Applicants on April 22, 

2010. Detailed information about this 

meeting (including the meeting 

location) will be posted on the 

Department’s Web site at http:// 

www.ed.gov/programs/racetothetopassessment. Attendance at the meeting 

is strongly encouraged. Announcements 

of any other technical assistance 

opportunities for prospective applicants 

will also be available at the Web site 

above. 

Deadline for Transmittal of 

Applications: June 23, 2010. 

An applicant must submit an original 

and one paper copy of its application for 

either grant category under this 

competition. An applicant may submit 

its application by mail or hand delivery. 

E-mailed applications will not be read. 

For more information about how to 

submit an application, please refer to 

the Other Submission Requirements 

later in this section. 

The Department will not consider an 

application that does not comply with 

the deadline requirements. 

Individuals with disabilities who 

need an accommodation or auxiliary aid 

in connection with the application 

process should contact the person listed 

under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT in section VI of this notice. If 

the Department provides an 

accommodation or auxiliary aid to an 

individual with a disability in 

connection with the application 

process, the individual’s application 

remains subject to all other 

requirements and limitations in this 

notice. 

Deadline for Intergovernmental 

Review: August 23, 2010. 

D. Intergovernmental Review: This 

program is subject to Executive Order 

12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR 

part 79. Information about 

Intergovernmental Review of Federal 

Programs under Executive Order 12372 

is in the application package for each 

grant category in this competition. 

E. Funding Restrictions: We reference 

regulations outlining funding 

restrictions in the Requirements and 

Applicable Regulations in section I of 

this notice. 

F. Other Submission Requirements: 

An applicant must submit an original 

and one paper copy of its application for 

either grant category under this 

competition. An applicant may submit 

its application by mail or hand delivery. 

E-mailed applications will not be read. 

If an applicant’s application includes 

content that cannot be presented in a 

paper copy, the applicant may submit 

that content separately in one or more 

electronic files on a CD–ROM or DVD– 

ROM. The application content must 

reside on the CD–ROM or DVD–ROM; 

the Department will not review material 

in external references or links. The files 

may be in any of the following formats: 

.DOC/.DOCX (Microsoft Word 

Document), .PDF (Adobe Portable 

Document Format), .PPT/.PPTX 

(Microsoft Powerpoint), .HTML 

(Hypertext Markup Language), .JPEG 

(Joint Photographic Experts Group 

Image), .GIF (Graphics Interchange 

Format), .PNG (Portable Network 

Graphics), .TIFF (Tagged Image Format), 

.XLS/.XLSX (Microsoft Excel), .XML/ 

.XSD (Extensible Markup Language/ 

XML Schema), .CSV (Comma Separated 

Values), .TXT (Text File), and .ZIP 

(Compressed Package). If an applicant is 

submitting data files, it should include 

in its application a description or 

schema of the data elements within the 

files. If an applicant submits a file type 

other than the types specified in this 

paragraph, the Department will not 

review that material. Applicants should 

not password-protect these files. Each 

electronic file name should clearly 

identify the part of the application to 

which the content is responding. The 

CD–ROM or DVD–ROM should be 

clearly labeled with the applicant’s 

name and any other relevant 

information. An applicant must provide 

10 copies of any CD–ROM or DVD–ROM 

it submits with the original and paper 

copy of its application. 

The Department must receive all 

applications by 4:30 p.m., Washington, 

DC time, on the application deadline 

date. We will not accept an application 

for this competition after 4:30 p.m., 

Washington, DC time, on the 

application deadline date. Therefore, we 

strongly recommend that applicants 

arrange for mailing or hand delivery of 

their applications in advance of the 

application deadline date. 

(1) Submission of Applications by 

Mail. An applicant for either grant 

category may submit its application (i.e., 

the original and one paper copy of the 

application and, if necessary, 10 copies 

of an accompanying CD–ROM or DVD– 

ROM with any electronic files of 

application content that cannot be 

included in the original or paper copy 

of the application) by mail (either 

through the U.S. Postal Service or a 

commercial carrier). We must receive 

applications no later than 4:30 p.m., 

Washington, DC time, on the 

application deadline date. Therefore, to 

avoid delays, we strongly recommend 

sending applications via overnight mail. 

Mailed applications for Comprehensive 

Assessment Systems grants must be 

mailed to the Department at the 

following address: U.S. Department of 

Education, Application Control Center, 

Attention: (CFDA Number 84.395B), LBJ 

Basement Level 1, 400 Maryland 

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20202– 

4260. Mailed applications for High 

School Course Assessment Programs 

grants must be mailed to the Department 

at the following address: U.S. 

Department of Education, Application 

Control Center, Attention: (CFDA 

Number 84.395C), LBJ Basement Level 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
18180 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 68 / Friday, April 9, 2010 / Notices 

1, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20202–4260. 

If we receive an application after the 

application deadline, we will not 

consider that application. 

(2) Submission of Applications by 

Hand Delivery. An applicant for either 

grant category may submit its 

application (i.e., the original and one 

paper copy of the application and, if 

necessary, 10 copies of an 

accompanying CD–ROM or DVD–ROM 

with any electronic files of application 

content that cannot be included in the 

original or paper copy of the 

application) by hand delivery (including 

via a courier service). We must receive 

applications no later than 4:30 p.m., 

Washington, DC time, on the 

application deadline date. Handdelivered applications for 

Comprehensive Assessment Systems 

grants must be received at the following 

address: U.S. Department of Education, 

Application Control Center, Attention: 

(CFDA Number 84.395B), 550 12th 

Street, SW., Room 7041, Potomac Center 

Plaza, Washington, DC 20202–4260. 

Hand-delivered applications for High 

School Course Assessment Programs 

grants must be received at the following 

address: U.S. Department of Education, 

Application Control Center, Attention: 

(CFDA Number 84.395C), 550 12th 

Street, SW., Room 7041, Potomac Center 

Plaza, Washington, DC 20202–4260. The 

Application Control Center accepts 

hand deliveries daily between 8 a.m. 

and 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, 

except Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal 

holidays. 

If we receive an application after the 

application deadline, we will not 

consider that application. 

(3) Envelope Requirements and 

Receipt: When an applicant submits its 

application, whether by mail or hand 

delivery— 

(a) It must indicate on the envelope 

that the CFDA number of the 

competition under which it is 

submitting its application is 84.395B 

(for Comprehensive Assessment 

Systems grants) or 84.395C (for High 

School Course Assessment Programs 

grants); and 

(b) The Application Control Center 

will mail to the applicant a notification 

of receipt of the grant application. If the 

applicant does not receive this 

notification, it should call Joyce Mays at 

the U.S. Department of Education 

Application Control Center at (202) 

245–6288. 

In accordance with 34 CFR 75.216(b) 

and (c), an application will not be 

evaluated for funding if the applicant 

does not comply with all of the 

procedural rules that govern the 

submission of the application or the 

application does not contain the 

information required under the 

program. 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

The requirements and selection 

criteria established in this notice require 

the collection of information that is 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) under 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3501–3520). An emergency 

review has been requested in 

accordance with the Act (44 U.S.C. 

3507(j)), since public harm is reasonably 

likely to result if normal clearance 

procedures are followed. Approval by 

OMB has been requested by April 5, 

2010. 

Burden Hour Estimates for 

Comprehensive Assessment Systems 

Grants: We estimate 4 applicants for 

Comprehensive Assessment Systems 

grants, and that each applicant would 

spend approximately 502.25 hours of 

staff time to address the application 

requirements and criteria, prepare the 

application, and obtain necessary 

clearances. The total number of hours 

for all applicants for Comprehensive 

Assessment Systems grants is an 

estimated 2,009 hours (4 applicants 

times 502.25 hours equals 2,009 hours). 

Burden Hour Estimates for High 

School Course Assessment Programs 

Grants: We estimate 2 applicants for 

High School Course Assessment 

Programs grants, and that each applicant 

would spend approximately 363.25 

hours of staff time to address the 

application requirements and criteria, 

prepare the application, and obtain 

necessary clearances. The total number 

of hours for all applicants for High 

School Course Assessment Programs 

grants is an estimated 726.5 hours (2 

applicants times 363.25 hours equals 

726.5 hours). 

Total Cost Estimates: Across both 

grant categories, we estimate the average 

total cost per hour of the staff who carry 

out this work to be $30.00 an hour. The 

total estimated cost for all applicants 

under both grant categories would be 

$82,065 ($30.00 times 2,735.5 (2,009 + 

726.5) hours equals $82,065). 

IV. Application Review Information 

A. Comprehensive Assessment 

Systems: 

Selection Criteria: For the 

Comprehensive Assessment Systems 

category, we are establishing the 

following selection criteria for the FY 

2010 grant competition only, in 

accordance with section 437(d)(1) of 

GEPA, 20 U.S.C. 1232(d)(1). Eligible 

applicants may receive up to 200 total 

points based on the extent to which 

their applications address these 

selection criteria. The number of points 

that may be awarded for each criterion 

is indicated in parentheses next to the 

criterion. 

(A)(1) Consortium Governance (up to 

20 points). The extent to which the 

consortium’s proposed governance 

structure will enable the successful 

design, development, and 

implementation of the proposed 

assessment system. In determining the 

extent to which the consortium’s 

proposed governance structure will 

enable the successful design, 

development, and implementation of 

the proposed assessment system, we 

will consider— 

(a) The consortium’s vision, goals, 

role, and key deliverables (e.g., 

assessment components, scoring and 

moderation system, professional 

development activities), and the 

consistency of these with the 

consortium’s theory of action; 

(b) The consortium’s structure and 

operations, including— 

(i) The organizational structure of the 

consortium and the differentiated roles 

that a member State may hold (e.g., lead 

State, governing State (as defined in this 

notice), advisory State); 

(ii) For each differentiated role, the 

rights and responsibilities (including 

the level of commitment to adopting 

and implementing the assessment 

system) associated with the role; 

(iii) The consortium’s method and 

process (e.g., consensus, majority) for 

making different types of decisions (e.g., 

policy, operational); 

(iv) The protocols by which the 

consortium will operate, including the 

protocols for member States to change 

roles or leave the consortium and for 

new member States to join the 

consortium; 

(v) The consortium’s plan, including 

the process and timeline, for setting key 

policies and definitions for the 

proposed assessment system, including 

a common set of college- and careerready standards (as defined in this 

notice), a common set of performance 

level descriptors (as defined in this 

notice), a common set of achievement 

standards (as defined in this notice), 

common assessment administration 

procedures, common item release and 

test security policies, a common 

definition of ‘‘English learner,’’ and a 

common set of policies and procedures 

for accommodations (as defined in this 

notice) and student participation; and 

(vi) The consortium’s plan for 

managing funds received under this 

grant category; 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 68 / Friday, April 9, 2010 / Notices 18181 

15 ‘‘Universal design for learning’’ is used as that 

term is defined in section 103(24) of the HEA. 

(c) The terms and conditions of the 

Memoranda of Understanding or other 

binding agreements executed by each 

member State, including— 

(i) The consistency of the terms and 

conditions with the consortium’s 

governance structure and the State’s role 

in the consortium; and 

(ii) The State’s commitment to and 

plan for identifying any existing barriers 

in State law, statute, regulation, or 

policy to implementing the proposed 

assessment system and to addressing 

any such barriers prior to full 

implementation of the summative 

assessment components of the system; 

and 

(d) The consortium’s procurement 

process, and evidence of each member 

State’s commitment to that process. 

(A)(2) Theory of Action (up to 5 

points). The extent to which the eligible 

applicant’s theory of action is logical, 

coherent, and credible, and will result 

in improved student academic 

outcomes. In determining the extent to 

which the theory of action has these 

attributes, we will consider the 

description of, and rationale for— 

(a) Each component of the proposed 

assessment system and the relationship 

of the component to other components 

in the system; 

(b) How the assessment results 

produced by each component will be 

used; 

(c) How the assessments and 

assessment results will be incorporated 

into a coherent educational system (i.e., 

a system that includes standards, 

assessments, curriculum, instruction, 

and professional development); and 

(d) How the educational system as a 

whole will improve student 

achievement and college- and careerreadiness (as defined in this notice). 

(A)(3) Assessment System Design (up 

to 55 points). The extent to which the 

design of the eligible applicant’s 

proposed assessment system is 

innovative, feasible, and consistent with 

the theory of action. In determining the 

extent to which the design has these 

attributes, we will consider— 

(a) The number and types of 

components (e.g., through-course 

summative assessments (as defined in 

this notice), end-of-year summative 

assessments, formative assessments, 

interim assessments) in mathematics 

and in English language arts in the 

assessment system; 

(b) For the assessment system as a 

whole— 

(i) How the assessment system will 

measure student knowledge and skills 

against the full range of the college- and 

career-ready standards, including the 

standards against which student 

achievement has traditionally been 

difficult to measure; and provide an 

accurate measure of student 

achievement, including for high- and 

low-performing students, and an 

accurate measure of student growth over 

a full academic year or course; 

(ii) How the assessment system will 

produce the required student 

performance data (i.e., student 

achievement data and student growth 

data (both as defined in this notice) that 

can be used to determine whether 

individual students are college- and 

career-ready (as defined in this notice) 

or on track to being college- and careerready (as defined in this notice)); 

(iii) How the assessment system will 

be accessible to all students, including 

English learners and students with 

disabilities, and include appropriate 

accommodations (as defined in this 

notice) for students with disabilities and 

English learners; and 

(iv) How and when during the 

academic year different types of student 

data will be available to inform and 

guide instruction, interventions, and 

professional development; and 

(c) For each component in 

mathematics and in English language 

arts in the assessment system— 

(i) The types of data produced by the 

component, including student 

achievement data (as defined in this 

notice), student growth data (as defined 

in this notice), and other data; 

(ii) The uses of the data produced by 

the component, including determining 

whether individual students are collegeand career-ready (as defined in this 

notice) or on track to being college- and 

career-ready (as defined in this notice); 

informing determinations of school 

effectiveness for the purposes of 

accountability under Title I of the ESEA; 

informing determinations of individual 

principal and teacher effectiveness for 

the purposes of evaluation; informing 

determinations of principal and teacher 

professional development and support 

needs; informing teaching, learning, and 

program improvement; and other uses; 

(iii) The frequency and timing of 

administration of the component, and 

the rationale for these; 

(iv) The number and types of items 

(e.g., performance tasks, selected 

responses, brief or extended constructed 

responses) and the distribution of item 

types within the component, including 

the extent to which the items will be 

varied and elicit complex student 

demonstrations or applications of 

knowledge and skills (descriptions 

should include a concrete example of 

each item type proposed); and the 

rationale for using these item types and 

their distributions; 

(v) The component’s administration 

mode (e.g., paper-and-pencil, computerbased, or other electronic device), and 

the rationale for the mode; 

(vi) The methods for scoring student 

performance on the component, the 

estimated turnaround times for scoring, 

and the rationale for these; and 

(vii) The reports produced based on 

the component, and for each report, its 

intended use, target audience (e.g., 

students, parents, teachers, 

administrators, policymakers), and the 

key data it presents. 

(A)(4) Assessment System 

Development (up to 35 points). The 

extent to which the eligible applicant’s 

plan for developing the proposed 

assessment system will ensure that the 

assessment system is ready for widescale administration in a manner that is 

timely, cost-effective, and consistent 

with the proposed design and 

incorporates a process for ongoing 

feedback and improvement. In 

determining the extent to which the 

development plan has these attributes, 

we will consider— 

(a) The approaches for developing 

assessment items (e.g., evidence 

centered design, universal design for 

learning 15) and the rationale for using 

those approaches; the development 

phases and processes to be implemented 

consistent with the approaches; and the 

types of personnel involved in each 

development phase and process (e.g., 

practitioners, content experts, 

assessment experts, experts in assessing 

English learners, experts in assessing 

students with disabilities, 

psychometricians, cognitive scientists, 

IHE representatives, career and 

technical education experts); 

(b) The approach and strategy for 

designing and developing 

accommodations (as defined in this 

notice), accommodation policies, and 

methods for standardizing the use of 

those accommodations for— 

(i) English learners; and 

(ii) Students with disabilities; 

(c) The approach and strategy for 

ensuring scalable, accurate, and 

consistent scoring of items, including 

the approach and moderation system (as 

defined in this notice) for any humanscored items that are part of the 

summative assessment components and 

the extent to which teachers are trained 

and involved in the scoring of 

assessments; 

(d) The approach and strategy for 

developing the reporting system; and 

(e) The overall approach to quality 

control; and the strategy for field testing 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
18182 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 68 / Friday, April 9, 2010 / Notices 

assessment items, accommodations, 

scoring systems, and reporting systems, 

including, with respect to assessment 

items and accommodations, the use of 

representative sampling of all types of 

student populations, taking into 

particular account high- and lowperforming students and different types 

of English learners and students with 

disabilities. 

(A)(5) Research and Evaluation (up to 

30 points). The extent to which the 

eligible applicant’s research and 

evaluation plan will ensure that the 

assessments developed are valid, 

reliable, and fair for their intended 

purposes and for all student subgroups. 

In determining the extent to which the 

research and evaluation plan has these 

attributes, we will consider— 

(a) The plan for identifying and 

employing psychometric techniques 

suitable to verify, as appropriate to each 

assessment component, its construct, 

consequential, and predictive validity; 

external validity; reliability; fairness; 

precision across the full performance 

continuum; and comparability within 

and across grade levels; and 

(b) The plan for determining whether 

the assessments are being implemented 

as designed and the theory of action is 

being realized, including whether the 

intended effects on individuals and 

institutions are being achieved. 

(A)(6) Professional Capacity and 

Outreach (up to 15 points). The extent 

to which the eligible applicant’s plan for 

implementing the proposed assessment 

system is feasible, cost-effective, and 

consistent with the theory of action. In 

determining the extent to which the 

implementation plan has these 

attributes, we will consider— 

(a) The plan for supporting teachers 

and administrators in implementing the 

assessment system and for developing, 

in an ongoing manner, the professional 

capacity to use the assessments and 

results to inform and improve 

instructional practice; and 

(b) The strategy and plan for 

informing the public and key 

stakeholders (including legislators and 

policymakers) in each member State 

about the assessment system and for 

building support for the system from the 

public and those stakeholders. 

(A)(7) Technology Approach (up to 10 

points). The extent to which the eligible 

applicant is using technology effectively 

to improve the quality, accessibility, 

cost-effectiveness, and efficiency of the 

proposed assessment system. In 

determining the extent to which the 

eligible applicant is using technology 

effectively, we will consider— 

(a) The description of, and rationale 

for— 

(i) The ways in which technology will 

be used in assessment design, 

development, administration, scoring, 

and reporting; 

(ii) The types of technology to be used 

(including whether the technology is 

existing and commercially-available or 

is being newly developed); and 

(iii) How other States or organizations 

can re-use in a cost-effective manner 

any technology platforms and 

technology components developed 

under this grant; and 

(b) How technology-related 

implementation or deployment barriers 

will be addressed (e.g., issues relating to 

local access to Internet-based 

assessments). 

(A)(8) Project Management (up to 30 

points). The extent to which the eligible 

applicant’s project management plan 

will result in implementation of the 

proposed assessment system on time, 

within budget, and in a manner that is 

financially sustainable over time. In 

determining the extent to which the 

project management plan has these 

attributes, we will consider— 

(a) The quality, qualifications, and 

role of the project management partner, 

as evidenced by its mission, date of 

founding, size, experience (including 

past success in implementing similar 

projects), and key personnel assigned to 

this project (including their names, 

curricula vitae, roles, percent of time 

dedicated to this project, and experience 

in managing similar projects); 

(b) The project workplan and 

timeline, including, for each key 

deliverable (e.g., assessment component, 

scoring and moderation system, 

professional development activities), the 

major milestones, deadlines, and 

entities responsible for execution; and 

the approach to identifying, managing, 

and mitigating risks associated with the 

project; 

(c) The extent to which the eligible 

applicant’s budget— 

(i) Clearly identifies Level 1 budget 

modules (as defined in this notice) and 

any Level 2 budget modules (as defined 

in this notice); 

(ii) Is adequate to support the 

development of an assessment system 

that meets the requirements of the 

absolute priority; and 

(iii) Includes costs that are reasonable 

in relation to the objectives, design, and 

significance of the proposed project and 

the number of students to be served; and 

(d) For each member State, the 

estimated costs for the ongoing 

administration, maintenance, and 

enhancement of operational assessments 

in the proposed assessment system and 

a plan for how the State will fund the 

assessment system over time (including 

by allocating to the assessment system 

funds for existing State or local 

assessments that will be replaced by 

assessments in the system). 

B. High School Course Assessment 

Programs: 

Selection Criteria: For the High 

School Course Assessment Programs 

category, we are establishing the 

following selection criteria for the FY 

2010 grant competition only, in 

accordance with section 437(d)(1) of 

GEPA, 20 U.S.C. 1232(d)(1). Eligible 

applicants may receive up to 200 total 

points based on the extent to which 

their applications address these 

selection criteria. The total number of 

points that may be awarded for each 

criterion and the number of points that 

may be awarded for each factor within 

a criterion are indicated in parentheses 

next to the criterion or factor. 

(B)(1) Consortium Governance (up to 

30 points). The extent to which the 

consortium’s proposed governance 

structure will enable the successful 

design, development, and 

implementation of the proposed high 

school course assessment program. In 

determining the extent to which the 

consortium’s proposed governance 

structure will enable the successful 

design, development, and 

implementation of the proposed 

assessment program, we will consider— 

(a) The consortium’s vision, goals, 

role, and key deliverables (e.g., 

assessments, scoring and moderation 

system, certification system, 

professional development activities), 

and the consistency of these with the 

consortium’s theory of action; 

(b) The consortium’s structure and 

operations, including— 

(i) The organizational structure of the 

consortium and the differentiated roles 

that a member State may hold (e.g., lead 

State, governing State (as defined in this 

notice), advisory State); 

(ii) For each differentiated role, the 

rights and responsibilities (including 

the level of commitment to adopting 

and implementing the assessment 

program) associated with the role; 

(iii) The consortium’s method and 

process (e.g., consensus, majority) for 

making different types of decisions (e.g., 

policy, operational); 

(iv) The protocols by which the 

consortium will operate, including the 

protocols for member States to change 

roles or leave the consortium and for 

new member States to join the 

consortium; 

(v) The key policies and definitions to 

which all member States will adhere, 

the rationale for choosing these policies 

and definitions, and the consortium’s 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 68 / Friday, April 9, 2010 / Notices 18183 

plan (including the process and 

timeline) for developing them; and 

(vi) The consortium’s plan for 

managing funds received under this 

grant category; 

(c) The terms and conditions of the 

Memoranda of Understanding or other 

binding agreements executed by each 

member State, including the consistency 

of the terms and conditions with the 

consortium’s governance structure and 

the State’s role in the consortium; and 

(d) The consortium’s procurement 

process, and evidence of each member 

State’s commitment to that process. 

(B)(2) Theory of Action (up to 5 

points). The extent to which the eligible 

applicant’s theory of action is logical, 

coherent, and credible, and will result 

in improved academic outcomes for 

high school students across the States in 

the consortium. In determining the 

extent to which the theory of action has 

these attributes, we will consider the 

description of and rationale for— 

(a) How the proposed high school 

course assessment program will be 

incorporated into a coherent high school 

educational system (i.e., a system that 

includes standards, assessments, 

curriculum, instruction, and 

professional development); 

(b) How the assessment program’s 

rigor will be demonstrated and 

maintained over time; 

(c) How the assessment program will 

cover diverse course offerings that 

provide a variety of pathways to 

students; and 

(d) How the assessment program will 

be implemented at a scale that, across 

the States in the consortium, increases 

access to rigorous courses for students 

who have not typically had such access, 

and broadly improves student 

achievement and college and career 

readiness (as defined in this notice). 

(B)(3) Course Assessment Program 

Design and Development (up to 60 

points). The extent to which the design 

and development of the eligible 

applicant’s proposed high school 

assessment program is feasible, scalable, 

and consistent with the theory of action. 

In determining the extent to which the 

design has these attributes, we will 

consider— 

(a) The high school courses for which 

the consortium will implement 

assessments; the rationale for selecting 

those courses, including a need to 

increase access to rigorous courses for 

students who have not typically had 

such access; and the processes by which 

new high school course assessments 

will be added to the assessment program 

over time and existing course 

assessments will be updated and 

refreshed; 

(b) How the assessments will measure 

student knowledge and skills against 

standards from a common set of collegeand career-ready standards (as defined 

in this notice) in subjects for which 

such a set of standards exists, or 

otherwise against State or other rigorous 

standards; 

(c) How the consortium will certify 

the rigor of each assessment in the 

assessment program, whether the 

assessment is new or adapted; and how 

the consortium will maintain consistent 

and high levels of rigor over time; and 

(d) The general design and 

development approach for course 

assessments, including— 

(i) The number and types of 

components (e.g., mid-term tests, 

through-course summative assessments 

(as defined in this notice), end-of-course 

assessments) in a high school course 

assessment; 

(ii) The extent to which, and, where 

applicable, the approach for ensuring 

that, assessment items will be varied 

and elicit complex student 

demonstrations or applications of 

knowledge and skills; 

(iii) How the assessments will 

produce student achievement data (as 

defined in this notice) and student 

growth data (as defined in this notice); 

(iv) The approach and strategy for 

ensuring scalable, accurate, and 

consistent scoring of assessments, and 

the extent to which teachers are trained 

and involved in the scoring of 

assessments; and 

(v) How the course assessments will 

be accessible to the broadest possible 

range of students, including English 

learners and students with disabilities, 

and include appropriate 

accommodations (as defined in this 

notice) for students with disabilities and 

English learners. 

(B)(4) Research and Evaluation (up to 

25 points). The extent to which the 

eligible applicant’s research and 

evaluation plan will ensure that the 

assessments developed are valid, 

reliable, and fair for their intended 

purposes and for all students. In 

determining the extent to which the 

research and evaluation plan has these 

attributes, we will consider— 

(a) The plan for verifying validity, 

reliability, and fairness; and 

(b) The plan for determining whether 

the assessments are being implemented 

as designed and the theory of action is 

being realized, including whether the 

intended effects on students and schools 

are being achieved. 

(B)(5) Course Assessment Program 

Implementation (up to 45 points). The 

extent to which the eligible applicant’s 

plan for implementing the proposed 

high school course assessment program 

will result in increased student 

enrollment in courses in the assessment 

program (and therefore improved 

student academic outcomes) in each 

member State. In determining the extent 

to which the implementation plan has 

these attributes, we will consider— 

(a) The approach to be used in each 

member State for promoting 

participation in the high school course 

assessment program by high schools, by 

teachers, and by students (e.g., 

voluntary participation, mandatory 

participation, incentive programs); the 

plan for implementing the approach, 

including goals, major activities, 

timelines, and entities responsible for 

execution; and the expected 

participation levels in each member 

State and across the consortium overall, 

including— 

(i) The number and percentage of high 

schools expected to implement at least 

one of the assessments in the high 

school course assessment program in 

each of five consecutive years beginning 

with the 2013–2014 school year; 

(ii) For each assessment in the 

assessment program, the number and 

percentage of high schools expected to 

implement the assessment in each of 

five consecutive years beginning with 

the 2013–2014 school year; and 

(iii) The unduplicated number and 

percentage of high school students 

expected to take at least one assessment 

in the assessment program in each of 

five consecutive years beginning with 

the 2013–2014 school year; and 

(b) The plan for supporting teachers 

and administrators in implementing the 

high school course assessment program 

and for developing, in an ongoing 

manner, the professional capacity to use 

the assessments and results to inform 

and improve instructional practice. 

(B)(6) Project Management (up to 35 

points). The extent to which the eligible 

applicant’s project management plan 

will result in implementation of the 

proposed high school course assessment 

program on time, within budget, and in 

a manner that is financially sustainable 

over time. In determining the extent to 

which the project management plan has 

these attributes, we will consider— 

(a) The quality, qualifications, and 

role of the project management partner, 

as evidenced by its mission, date of 

founding, size, experience (including 

past success in implementing similar 

projects), and key personnel assigned to 

this project (including their names, 

curricula vitae, roles, percent of time 

dedicated to this project, and experience 

in managing similar projects); 

(b) The project workplan and 

timeline, including, for each key 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
18184 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 68 / Friday, April 9, 2010 / Notices 

16The Department intends to use a panel of 

expert, independent reviewers who have been 

chosen from a pool of qualified assessment and 

management experts. The Department will 

thoroughly screen all reviewers for conflicts of 

interest in order to ensure a fair and competitive 

review process. 

deliverable (e.g., assessments, scoring 

and moderation system, certification 

system, professional development 

activities), the major milestones, 

deadlines, and entities responsible for 

execution; 

(c) The extent to which the eligible 

applicant’s budget— 

(i) Is adequate to support the 

development of a high school 

assessment program that meets the 

requirements of the absolute priority; 

(ii) Includes costs that are reasonable 

in relation to the objectives, design, and 

significance of the proposed project and 

the number of students to be served; and 

(d) For each member State, the 

estimated costs for the ongoing 

administration, maintenance, and 

enhancement of operational assessments 

in the proposed assessment program 

and a plan for how the State will fund 

the assessment program over time 

(including by allocating to the 

assessment program funds for existing 

State or local assessments that will be 

replaced by assessments in the 

program). 

C. Review and Selection Process: The 

Department will screen applications 

that are received in accordance with the 

requirements in this notice and 

determine which applications will be 

reviewed for funding based on whether 

the applicant has met the eligibility 

requirements for the grant category and 

has requested a budget amount that does 

not exceed the maximum amount for the 

grant category as discussed in the 

Award Information section of this notice 

(section II). Applications from 

applicants that do not meet the 

eligibility requirements for the grant 

category or that request a budget amount 

that exceeds the maximum amount for 

the grant category will not be reviewed 

for funding. Reviewers 16 will then 

review and score applications using the 

competitive preference priorities, 

selection criteria and points included in 

this notice, and determine whether 

applications meet the Absolute Priority 

for the grant category. Applications that 

do not meet the Absolute Priority will 

not be considered for funding. The 

reviewers’ scores will be averaged for 

each application that meets the 

Absolute Priority for the grant category, 

and those applications will be rank 

ordered in each grant category. After the 

review process is complete, the 

Secretary will select, consistent with 34 

CFR 75.217, the grantees for each grant 

category after considering the rank order 

of applications, the funding available, 

and any other relevant information. 

V. Award Administration Information 

A. Award Notices: If an application is 

successful, the Department will notify 

the applicant’s U.S. Representative and 

U.S. Senators and send the applicant a 

Grant Award Notification (GAN). We 

may also notify the applicant 

informally. 

If an application is not evaluated or 

not selected for funding, we will notify 

the applicant. 

B. Administrative and National Policy 

Requirements: We identify 

administrative and national policy 

requirements in the application package 

and reference these and other 

requirements in the Applicable 

Regulations in section I of this notice. 

We reference the regulations outlining 

the terms and conditions of an award in 

the Applicable Regulations in section I 

of this notice and include these and 

other specific conditions in the GAN. 

The GAN also incorporates the 

approved application as part of the 

applicant’s binding commitments under 

the grant. 

C. Reporting: Grantees (i.e., applicants 

that receive an award) under this 

program must submit an annual 

performance report that provides the 

most current performance and financial 

expenditure information as directed by 

the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118. The 

Secretary may require more frequent 

performance reports under 34 CFR 

75.720(c). At the end of the project 

period, grantees must also submit a final 

performance report, including financial 

information, as directed by the 

Secretary. 

Grantees under this program must 

also meet the reporting requirements 

that apply to all programs funded under 

the ARRA. Specifically, grantees must 

submit reports, within 10 days after the 

end of each calendar quarter, that 

contain the information required under 

section 1512(c) of the ARRA in 

accordance with any guidance issued by 

the Office of Management and Budget or 

the Department (ARRA Division A, 

Section 1512(c)). 

In addition, for each year of the 

program, grantees must comply with the 

requirements of ARRA Division A, 

Section 14008, and other performance 

reporting that the Department may 

require. 

The Department will monitor 

grantees’ progress in meeting project 

goals, objectives, timelines, and budget 

requirements; and may require grantees 

to enter into a cooperative agreement 

with the Department. 

D. Performance Measures: We are 

establishing the following Government 

Performance and Results Act of 1993 

(GPRA) performance measures for the 

Race to the Top Assessment Program: 

Comprehensive Assessment Systems 

Grants 

The performance measures for 

Comprehensive Assessment Systems 

grants are: 

1. Number of States that have formally 

adopted a common set of college- and 

career-ready standards in mathematics 

and English language arts; 

2. Number of States that have fully 

implemented the summative assessment 

components of the assessment systems; 

3. Number of IHEs that are working 

with grantees to design and develop the 

final high school summative 

assessments in mathematics and English 

language arts; 

4. Number of IHEs that have 

implemented policies that exempt from 

remedial courses and place into creditbearing college courses students who 

meet the achievement standard for the 

final high school summative 

assessments in mathematics and English 

language arts and any other placement 

requirements; and 

5. Percentage of direct matriculation 

students (as defined in this notice) in 

public IHEs who are enrolled in IHEs 

that are working with grantees to design 

and develop the final high school 

summative assessments in mathematics 

and English language arts and/or have 

implemented policies that exempt from 

remedial courses and place into creditbearing college courses students who 

meet the achievement standard for the 

final high school summative 

assessments in mathematics and English 

language arts. 

High School Course Assessment 

Programs Grants 

The performance measures for High 

School Course Assessment Programs 

grants are: 

1. Number of courses for which 

assessments have been developed under 

the high school assessment programs; 

2. Number of States implementing the 

high school course assessment 

programs; 

3. Percentage of LEAs in each State 

implementing at least one assessment in 

the high school course assessment 

programs; 

4. Percentage of high schools in each 

State implementing at least one 

assessment in the high school course 

assessment programs; 

5. For each assessment in the high 

school course assessment programs, 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 68 / Friday, April 9, 2010 / Notices 18185 

percentage of high schools in each State 

implementing the assessment; 

6. Percentage of students in each State 

taking at least one assessment in the 

high school course assessment 

programs; and 

7. Percentage of high schools in each 

State that incorporate courses in the 

high school course assessment programs 

into requirements for high school 

diplomas or certificates. 

VI. Agency Contacts 

For Further Information Contact: 

James Butler, U.S. Department of 

Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., 

room 3C108, Washington, DC 20202– 

6400. Telephone: (202) 453–7246 or by 

e-mail: racetothetop.assessment@ed.gov. 

If you use a TDD, call the FRS, toll 

free, at 1–800–877–8339. 

VII. Other Information 

Accessible Format: Individuals with 

disabilities can obtain this document 

and a copy of the application package in 

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

print, audiotape, or computer diskette) 

on request to the program contact 

person listed under For Further 

Information Contact in section VI of this 

notice. 

Electronic Access to This Document: 

You can view this document, as well as 

all other documents of this Department 

published in the Federal Register, in 

text or Adobe Portable Document 

Format (PDF) on the Internet at the 

following site: http://www.ed.gov/news/ 

fedregister. To use PDF you must have 

Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is 

available free at this site. 

Note: The official version of this document 

is the document published in the Federal 

Register. Free Internet access to the official 

edition of the Federal Register and the Code 

of Federal Regulations is available on GPO 

Access at: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/ 

index.html. 

Dated: April 6, 2010. 

Arne Duncan, 

Secretary of Education. 

[FR Doc. 2010–8176 Filed 4–8–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

National Institute on Disability and 

Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR)— 

Disability and Rehabilitation Research 

Projects and Centers Program— 

Rehabilitation Engineering Research 

Centers (RERCs) 

Catalog of Federal Domestic 

Assistance (CFDA) Number: 84.133E–1 

and 84.133E–3. 

AGENCY: Office of Special Education and 

Rehabilitative Services, Department of 

Education. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed priorities for 

two RERCs. 

SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for 

Special Education and Rehabilitative 

Services proposes two priorities for the 

Disability and Rehabilitation Research 

Projects and Centers Program 

administered by NIDRR. Specifically, 

this notice proposes two priorities for 

RERCs: Universal Design in the Built 

Environment and Technologies for 

Children with Orthopedic Disabilities. 

The Assistant Secretary may use these 

priorities for competitions in fiscal year 

(FY) 2010 and later years. We take this 

action to focus research attention on 

areas of national need. We intend these 

priorities to improve rehabilitation 

services and outcomes for individuals 

with disabilities. 

DATES: We must receive your comments 

on or before May 10, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Address all comments about 

this notice to Donna Nangle, U.S. 

Department of Education, 400 Maryland 

Avenue, SW., room 5142, Potomac 

Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202– 

2700. 

If you prefer to send your comments 

by e-mail, use the following address: 

donna.nangle@ed.gov. You must 

include the term ‘‘Proposed Priorities for 

RERCs’’ and the priority title in the 

subject line of your electronic message. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Donna Nangle. Telephone: (202) 245– 

7462 or by e-mail: 

donna.nangle@ed.gov. 

If you use a telecommunications 

device for the deaf (TDD), call the 

Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 

1–800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

This notice of proposed priorities is in 

concert with NIDRR’s Final Long-Range 

Plan for FY 2005–2009 (Plan). The Plan, 

which was published in the Federal 

Register on February 15, 2006 (71 FR 

8165), can be accessed on the Internet 

at the following site: http://www.ed.gov/ 

about/offices/list/osers/nidrr/ 

policy.html. 

Through the implementation of the 

Plan, NIDRR seeks to: (1) Improve the 

quality and utility of disability and 

rehabilitation research; (2) foster an 

exchange of expertise, information, and 

training to facilitate the advancement of 

knowledge and understanding of the 

unique needs of traditionally 

underserved populations; (3) determine 

best strategies and programs to improve 

rehabilitation outcomes for underserved 

populations; (4) identify research gaps; 

(5) identify mechanisms of integrating 

research and practice; and (6) 

disseminate findings. This notice 

proposes two priorities that NIDRR 

intends to use for RERC competitions in 

FY 2010 and possibly later years. 

However, nothing precludes NIDRR 

from publishing additional priorities, if 

needed. 

Furthermore, NIDRR is under no 

obligation to make awards for these 

priorities. The decision to make an 

award will be based on the quality of 

applications received and available 

funding. 

Invitation to Comment: We invite you 

to submit comments regarding this 

notice. To ensure that your comments 

have maximum effect in developing the 

notice of final priorities, we urge you to 

identify clearly the specific proposed 

priority that each comment addresses. 

We invite you to assist us in 

complying with the specific 

requirements of Executive Order 12866 

and its overall requirement of reducing 

regulatory burden that might result from 

these proposed priorities. Please let us 

know of any further ways we could 

reduce potential costs or increase 

potential benefits while preserving the 

effective and efficient administration of 

the program. 

During and after the comment period, 

you may inspect all public comments 

about this notice in room 6030, 550 12th 

Street, SW., Potomac Center Plaza, 

Washington, DC, between the hours of 

8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Washington, 

DC time, Monday through Friday of 

each week except Federal holidays. 

Assistance to Individuals with 

Disabilities in Reviewing the 

Rulemaking Record: On request we will 

provide an appropriate accommodation 

or auxiliary aid to an individual with a 

disability who needs assistance to 

review the comments or other 

documents in the public rulemaking 

record for this notice. If you want to 

schedule an appointment for this type of 

accommodation or auxiliary aid, please 

contact the person listed under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

Purpose of Program: The purpose of 

the Disability and Rehabilitation 

Research Projects and Centers Program 

is to plan and conduct research, 

demonstration projects, training, and 

related activities, including 

international activities; to develop 

methods, procedures, and rehabilitation 

technology that maximize the full 

inclusion and integration into society, 

employment, independent living, family 

support, and economic and social selfsufficiency of individuals with 

disabilities, especially individuals with 

the most severe disabilities; and to 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES