37804 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 29, 2009 / Notices 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

[Docket ID ED–2009–OESE–0006] 

RIN 1810–AB07 

Race to the Top Fund 

AGENCY: Department of Education. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria. 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

(CFDA) Number: 84.395A. 

SUMMARY: The Secretary of Education 

(Secretary) proposes priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria for the Race to the Top Fund. 

The Secretary may use these priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria in any year in which this 

program is in effect. 

DATES: We must receive your comments 

on or before August 28, 2009. We 

encourage you to submit comments well 

in advance of this date. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments 

through the Federal eRulemaking Portal 

or via postal mail, commercial delivery, 

or hand delivery. We will not accept 

comments by fax or by e-mail. Please 

submit your comments only one time in 

order to ensure that we do not receive 

duplicate copies. In addition, please 

include the Docket ID and the term 

‘‘Race to the Top’’ at the top of your 

comments. 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov to submit 

your comments electronically. 

Information on using Regulations.gov, 

including instructions for accessing 

agency documents, submitting 

comments, and viewing the docket, is 

available on the site under ‘‘How To Use 

This Site.’’ A direct link to the docket 

page is also available at http://

www.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop. 

• Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery, 

or Hand Delivery. If you mail or deliver 

your comments about these proposed 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria, address them to Office 

of Elementary and Secondary Education 

(Attention: Race to the Top Fund 

Comments), U.S. Department of 

Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., 

Room 3W329, Washington, DC 20202. 

• Privacy Note: The Department’s 

policy for comments received from 

members of the public (including those 

comments submitted by mail, 

commercial delivery, or hand delivery) 

is to make these submissions available 

for public viewing in their entirety on 

the Federal eRulemaking Portal at 

http://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, 

commenters should be careful to 

include in their comments only 

information that they wish to make 

publicly available on the Internet. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Beth 

Yeh, U.S. Department of Education, 400 

Maryland Avenue, SW., Room 6W219, 

Washington, DC 20202. Telephone: 

202–205–3775 or by e-mail: 

racetothetop@ed.gov. Note that we will 

not accept comments by e-mail. 

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: 

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, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria, we 

urge you to identify clearly the specific 

proposed priority, requirement, 

definition, or selection criterion that 

each comment addresses. We encourage 

you to submit comments in advance of 

the date by which they must be 

received. 

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, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria. 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 by accessing 

Regulations.gov. You may also inspect 

the comments in person, in Room 

3W329, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC, between the hours of 

8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Eastern 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 Race to the 

Top Fund, authorized under the 

American Recovery and Reinvestment 

Act of 2009 (ARRA), provides 

approximately $4.3 billion for 

competitive grants to States to 

encourage and reward States that are 

creating the conditions for education 

innovation and reform; implementing 

ambitious plans in the four education 

reform areas described in the ARRA; 

and achieving significant improvement 

in student outcomes, including making 

substantial gains in student 

achievement, closing achievement gaps, 

improving high school graduation rates, 

and ensuring student preparation for 

success in college and careers. 

Program Authority: American Recovery 

and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Division A, 

Section 14006, Public Law 111–5. 

Background for Proposed Priorities, 

Requirements, Definitions, and 

Selection Criteria 

The Statutory Context 

On February 17, 2009, President 

Obama signed into law the ARRA, 

historic legislation designed to stimulate 

the economy, support job creation, and 

invest in critical sectors, including 

education. The ARRA lays the 

foundation for education reform by 

supporting investments in innovative 

strategies that are most likely to lead to 

improved results for students, long-term 

gains in school and school system 

capacity, and increased productivity 

and effectiveness. 

The ARRA provides $4.3 billion for 

the Race to the Top Fund (referred to in 

the statute as the State Incentive Grant 

Fund). This is a competitive grant 

program designed to encourage and 

reward States that are implementing 

significant education reforms across 

four ‘‘assurance’’ areas. Specifically, 

section 14006(a)(2) of the ARRA 

requires States to have made significant 

progress in the following four education 

reform areas in order to receive a grant: 

implementing standards and 

assessments, improving teacher 

effectiveness and achieving equity in 

teacher distribution, improving 

collection and use of data, and 

supporting struggling schools. In 

addition, as required by section 

14006(c) of the ARRA, States that 

receive a Race to the Top grant must use 

at least 50 percent of the award to 

provide subgrants to local educational 

agencies (LEAs), including public 

charter schools identified as LEAs under 

State law, based upon LEAs’ relative 

shares of funding under Part A of Title 

I of the Elementary and Secondary 

Education Act of 1965, as amended 

(ESEA). LEAs that choose to participate 

in their State’s Race to the Top proposal 

must agree to fully implement the 

State’s proposed plan and to use their 

funding under this grant in support of 

that plan. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 29, 2009 / Notices 37805 

1This statute, rather than relevant sections of the 

ESEA, is referenced because it provides the most 

recent listing of NAEP subgroups. We propose using 

the NAEP to monitor overall increases in student 

achievement and decreases in the achievement gap 

over the course of this grant because the NAEP 

provides a way to report consistently across Race 

to the Top grantees as well as within a State over 

time as the State transitions from its current 

assessments to the high-quality assessments (as 

defined in this notice). 

The ARRA also requires that the 

Governor apply on behalf of a State 

seeking a Race to the Top grant, and 

section 14005(c) of the ARRA 

specifically requires that a Race to the 

Top application: 

• Describe the status of the State’s 

progress in each of the four education 

reform areas, and the strategies the State 

is employing to help ensure that 

students in the subgroups described in 

section 1111(b)(2)(C)(v)(II) of the ESEA 

(i.e., economically disadvantaged 

students, students from major racial and 

ethnic groups, students with 

disabilities, and students with limited 

English proficiency) who have not met 

the State’s proficiency targets continue 

making progress toward meeting the 

State’s student academic achievement 

standards; 

• Describe the achievement and 

graduation rates (as described in section 

1111(b)(2)(C)(vi) of the ESEA and as 

clarified in 34 CFR 200.19(b)(1)) of 

public elementary and secondary school 

students in the State, and the strategies 

the State is employing to help ensure 

that all subgroups of students identified 

in section 1111(b)(2)(C)(v)(II) of the 

ESEA continue making progress toward 

meeting the State’s student academic 

achievement standards; 

• Describe how the State would use 

its grant funding to improve student 

academic achievement in the State, 

including how it will allocate the funds 

to give priority to high-need LEAs (as 

defined in this notice); and 

• Include a plan for evaluating the 

State’s progress in closing achievement 

gaps. 

In this notice, we propose additional 

specific priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria 

regarding the applications that 

individual States submit for 

approximately $4 billion of Race to the 

Top funds. At a later date, we may 

announce a separate Race to the Top 

Standards and Assessment competition, 

for approximately $350 million, to 

support the development of assessments 

by consortia of States. 

Structure of Race to the Top 

Race to the Top will reward States for 

having created the conditions for reform 

(as measured through the State Reform 

Conditions Criteria proposed in this 

notice) and for increasing student 

achievement. Race to the Top will also 

provide incentives for States to develop 

and implement comprehensive reform 

strategies that are integrated across the 

four ARRA education reform areas and 

lead to improved student outcomes (as 

measured through the Reform Plan 

Criteria proposed herein). The 

Department expects successful 

applicants to clear a high bar on both 

State Reform Conditions and Reform 

Plan Criteria. Proposed State Reform 

Conditions and Reform Plan Criteria are 

described in detail in the Proposed 

Selection Criteria section of this notice. 

To ensure that the State’s Race to the 

Top plans (which the State will describe 

in its application in response to the 

Reform Plan Criteria) are 

comprehensive, coherent, and 

measurable, we propose that States 

describe their approaches and, where 

appropriate, set annual targets for each 

of the Reform Plan Criteria. 

Note: The proposed annual targets are set 

forth in the Appendix to this notice. These 

targets are specific to Race to the Top, and 

they are in addition to, not a replacement for, 

the existing annual requirements under the 

ESEA.) The annual targets should be 

achievable but sufficiently ambitious to 

support a successful Race to the Top grant 

application. 

Under the statute, at least 50 percent 

of the funds under a State’s Race to the 

Top grant must be provided to LEAs 

based on LEAs’ relative shares of 

funding under part A of Title I of the 

ESEA. The remaining funds are 

available to the State for State-level 

activities and for disbursements to LEAs 

and other eligible entities under such 

formulas, competitive processes, or 

other mechanisms as the State may 

propose in its plan. We propose that a 

State incorporate into its plan the 

activities that LEAs will undertake to 

advance the four education reform 

areas. 

Timing of Applications and Awards 

The Department plans to make Race 

to the Top grants in two phases. States 

that are ready to apply may do so in 

Phase 1, which will open in late 

calendar year 2009. States that need 

more time—for example, to engage in 

planning with and secure commitments 

from superintendents, school boards, 

principals, teachers, union leaders, and 

community supporters, or others—may 

apply in Phase 2, which will open in 

late Spring of calendar year 2010. States 

that apply in Phase 1 but are not 

awarded grants may reapply for funding 

in Phase 2, together with States that are 

applying for the first time in Phase 2. 

Phase 1 grantees may not apply for 

additional funding in Phase 2. We will 

announce specific deadlines for both 

Phase 1 and Phase 2 in subsequent 

notice(s) inviting applications for funds 

under this program. 

I. Proposed Priorities 

Background: The Secretary proposes 

five priorities for the Race to the Top 

competition. We are proposing to 

designate Proposed Priority 1 as an 

absolute priority, Proposed Priority 2 as 

a competitive preference priority, and 

Proposed Priorities 3 through 5 as 

invitational priorities. We may choose, 

in the notice of final priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria, to change the designation of any 

of these priorities to absolute, 

competitive preference, or invitational 

priorities, or to include the substance of 

these priorities in the selection criteria. 

Under an absolute priority, as 

specified by 34 CFR 75.105(c)(3), we 

would consider only applications that 

meet the priority. Under a competitive 

preference priority, we would give 

competitive preference to an application 

by (1) awarding additional points, 

depending on the extent to which the 

application meets the priority (34 CFR 

75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) selecting an 

application that meets the priority over 

an application of comparable merit that 

does not meet the priority (34 CFR 

75.105(c)(2)(ii)). With an invitational 

priority, we would signal our interest in 

receiving applications that meet the 

priority; however, consistent with 34 

CFR 75.105(c)(1), we would not give an 

application that meets an invitational 

priority preference over other 

applications. 

Proposed Priority 1: Absolute Priority— 

Comprehensive Approach to the Four 

Education Reform Areas 

To meet this priority, the State’s 

application must comprehensively 

address each of the four education 

reform areas specified in the ARRA to 

demonstrate that the State and its 

participating LEAs are taking a systemic 

approach to education reform. The 

State’s application must describe how 

the State and participating LEAs intend 

to use Race to the Top and other funds 

to implement comprehensive and 

coherent policies and practices in the 

four education reform areas, and how 

these are designed to increase student 

achievement, reduce the achievement 

gap across student subgroups (as 

described in section 303(b)(2)(G) of the 

National Assessment of Educational 

Progress Authorization Act (NAEP) 1), 

and increase the rates at which students 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2

37806 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 29, 2009 / Notices 

2See, e.g. Kane, Thomas J., Jonah E. Rockoff, and 

Douglas O. Staiger (2006), ‘‘What Does Certification 

Tell Us About Teacher Effectiveness? Evidence 

from New York City,’’ NBER Working Paper No. 

12155; Rivkin, Steven G., Eric A. Hanushek, and 

John F. Kain (2005), ‘‘Teachers, Schools, and 

Academic Achievement,’’ Econometrica, 73(2), 

417–458; Rockoff, Jonah. E. (2004), ‘‘The Impact of 

Individual Teachers on Students’ Achievement: 

Evidence from Panel Data,’’ American Economic 

Review 94(2), 247–52; Organisation for Economic 

Co-operation and Development (2004), ‘‘Teachers 

Matter: Attracting, Developing and Retaining 

Effective Teachers’’, p. 3; Leithwood, Kenneth, 

Karen Seashore Louis, Stephen Anderson, and Kyla 

Wahlstrom (2004), ‘‘How Leadership Influences 

Student Learning,’’ Wallace Foundation Learning 

from Leadership Project; Aaronson, Daniel, Lisa 

Barrow, and William Sander (2003), ‘‘Teacher and 

Student Achievement in the Chicago Public High 

Schools,’’ Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago Working 

Paper 2002–28. 

3Rivkin, Hanushek, and Kain (2005). Kane, 

Rockoff, and Staiger (2006). Aaronson, Barrow, and 

Sander (2003). 

4For example, Rockoff et al. find that even using 

a detailed data set on incoming teacher 

characteristics allows them to predict only about 12 

percent of the variance of the expected distribution 

of teacher effectiveness. Jonah E. Rockoff, Brian A. 

Jacob, Thomas J. Kane, and Douglas O. Staiger 

(2008), ‘‘Can You Recognize an Effective Teacher 

When You Recruit One?’’ NBER Working Paper No. 

14485. Similarly, Goldhaber et al. show that the 

variance in student achievement due to 

unobservable teacher variables is 40 times greater 

than the variance due to observable teacher 

variables. Dan Goldhaber, Dominic Brewer, and 

Deborah J. Anderson (1999), ‘‘A three-way error 

components analysis of educational 

productivity,’’ Education Economics 7 (3): 199–208. 

5 Kane, Rockoff, and Staiger (2006). Aaronson, 

Barrow, and Sander (2003). 

graduate from high school prepared for 

college and careers. 

Proposed Priority 2: Competitive 

Preference Priority—Emphasis on 

Science, Technology, Engineering, and 

Mathematics (STEM) 

To meet this priority, the State’s 

application must describe plans to 

address the need to (i) offer a rigorous 

course of study in mathematics, 

sciences, technology, and engineering; 

(ii) cooperate with industry experts, 

museums, universities, research centers, 

or other STEM-capable community 

partners to prepare and assist teachers 

in integrating STEM content across 

grades and disciplines, in promoting 

effective and relevant instruction, and 

in offering applied learning 

opportunities for students; and (iii) 

prepare more students for advanced 

study and careers in the sciences, 

technology, engineering, and 

mathematics, including addressing the 

needs of underrepresented groups and 

of women and girls in the areas of 

science, technology, engineering and 

mathematics. 

Proposed Priorities 3 Through 5: 

Proposed Priority 3—Invitational 

Priority— Expansion and Adaptation of 

Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems 

The Secretary is particularly 

interested in applications in which the 

State plans to expand statewide 

longitudinal data systems to include or 

integrate data from special education 

programs, limited English proficiency 

programs, early childhood programs, 

human resources, finance, health, 

postsecondary, and other relevant areas, 

with the purpose of allowing important 

questions related to policy or practice to 

be asked and answered. 

The Secretary is also particularly 

interested in applications in which 

States propose working together to 

adapt one State’s statewide longitudinal 

data system so that it may be used, in 

whole or in part, by other State(s), rather 

than having each State build or continue 

building such system(s) independently. 

Proposed Priority 4—Invitational 

Priority—P–20 Coordination and 

Vertical Alignment 

The Secretary is particularly 

interested in applications in which the 

State plans to address how early 

childhood programs, K–12 schools, 

postsecondary institutions, and 

workforce organizations will coordinate 

to improve all parts of the education 

system and create a more seamless P–20 

route for students. Vertical alignment 

across P–20 is particularly critical at 

each point where a transition occurs 

(e.g., between early childhood and K– 

12, or between K–12 and post 

secondary) to ensure that students 

exiting one level are prepared for 

success, without remediation, in the 

next. 

Proposed Priority 5—Invitational 

Priority—School-Level Conditions for 

Reform and Innovation 

The Secretary is particularly 

interested in applications in which the 

State’s participating LEAs provide 

schools, where appropriate, with 

flexibilities and autonomies conducive 

to reform and innovation, such as— 

(i) Selecting staff; 

(ii) Implementing new structures and 

formats for the school day or year that 

expand learning time; 

(iii) Placing budgets under the 

schools’ control; 

(iv) Awarding credit to students based 

on student performance instead of 

instructional time; and 

(v) Providing comprehensive services 

to high-need students (e.g., through 

local partnerships, internal staffing, and 

contracts with outside providers). 

II. Requirements 

The Secretary proposes the following 

requirements for this program. We may 

apply these requirements in any year in 

which this program is in effect. 

A. Eligibility Requirements 

Background: We are proposing two 

eligibility requirements for Race to the 

Top applicants. First, we propose that a 

State must have an approved 

application under both Phase 1 and 

Phase 2 of the State Fiscal Stabilization 

Fund (Stabilization) program of the 

ARRA in order to be eligible to receive 

an award from the Race to the Top 

competition. Section 14005(d) of the 

ARRA requires a State that receives 

funds under the Stabilization program 

to provide assurances in the same four 

education reform areas that will be 

advanced by the Race to the Top grant. 

We therefore believe that it would be 

inconsistent to award a Race to the Top 

grant, which requires a determination 

that a State has made significant 

progress in the four education reform 

areas, to a State that has not met 

requirements for receiving funds under 

the Stabilization program. 

Second, we propose that to be eligible 

under this program, a State must not 

have any legal, statutory, or regulatory 

barriers to linking student achievement 

or student growth data to teachers for 

the purpose of teacher and principal 

evaluation. Research indicates that 

teacher quality is a critical contributor 

to student learning and that there is 

dramatic variation in teacher quality.2

Yet it is difficult to predict teacher 

quality based on the qualifications that 

teachers bring to the job. Indeed, 

measures such as certification, master’s 

degrees, and years of teaching 

experience have limited predictive 

power on this point.3 Therefore, one of 

the most effective ways to accurately 

assess teacher quality is to measure the 

growth in achievement of a teacher’s 

students;4 5 and by aggregating the 

performance of students across teachers 

within a school, to assess principal 

quality. Current law in a number of 

States presents an obstacle to efforts to 

improve teacher quality by prohibiting 

data regarding student achievement 

from being tied to teachers for the 

purposes of evaluation. This capability 

is fundamental to Race to the Top 

reforms and to the requirement in 

section 14005(d)(2) of the ARRA that 

States take actions to improve teacher 

effectiveness. Without this legal 

authority, States would not be able to 

execute reform plans relating to several 

selection criteria in this notice (see 

Selection Criteria (C)(2) through (C)(5)), 

because these plans must require LEAs 

and schools to determine which 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 29, 2009 / Notices 37807 

teachers and principals are effective 

using student achievement data. 

Proposed Eligibility Requirements: We 

propose the following requirements that 

a State must meet in order to be eligible 

to receive funds under this program. 

(a) In order for the State to be eligible 

for the Race to the Top Phase 1 

competition, the State’s applications for 

funding under Phase 1 and Phase 2 of 

the Stabilization program must be 

approved by the Department by 

December 31, 2009. In order for the 

State to be eligible for the Race to the 

Top Phase 2 competition, the State’s 

application for funding under Phase 1 

and Phase 2 of the Stabilization program 

must be approved by the Department 

prior to the State submitting its Race to 

the Top Phase 2 application. 

(b) The State does not have any legal, 

statutory, or regulatory barriers to 

linking data on student achievement (as 

defined in this notice) or student growth 

(as defined in this notice) to teachers 

and principals for the purpose of 

teacher and principal evaluation. 

B. Application Requirements 

Background: Section 14005(c) of the 

ARRA requires that certain information 

(as discussed earlier in this notice) be 

included in States’ Race to the Top 

applications. Consistent with those 

requirements and the need for 

additional information that will ensure 

a fair and accurate peer review of the 

grant applications, we propose the 

following requirements for the 

application a State would submit to the 

Department for funding under this 

program. 

The Department recognizes that 

requests for data and information 

should reflect an integrated and 

coordinated approach among the 

various ARRA programs, particularly 

the State Fiscal Stabilization, Race to 

the Top, School Improvement Grants, 

and Statewide Longitudinal Data 

Systems grant programs. Accordingly, 

the Department will continue to 

evaluate our requests for data and 

information under this program in 

context with the other ARRA programs. 

Proposed Application Requirements 

(a) The State’s application must be 

signed by the Governor, the State’s chief 

school officer, and the president of the 

State board of education. 

(b) The State must describe the 

progress it has made to date in each of 

the four education reform areas, 

including how the State has used ARRA 

and other Federal and State funding 

over the last several years to pursue 

reforms in these areas (as described in 

Overall Selection Criterion (E)(1)). 

(c) The State must provide financial 

data to show whether and to what 

extent the percentage of the total 

revenues available to the State (as 

defined in this notice) that were used to 

support elementary, secondary, and 

public higher education for FY 2009 

increased, decreased, or remained the 

same compared to FY 2008 (as 

described in Overall Selection Criterion 

(E)(2)). 

(d) The State must describe its 

statewide support from stakeholders 

and LEAs, including public charter 

schools identified as LEAs under State 

law (as described in Overall Selection 

Criterion (E)(3)). 

(e) The State must include a budget 

that details how it will use grant funds 

and other resources to meet targets and 

perform related functions, including 

how it will use funds awarded under 

this program to— 

(1) Achieve its targets for improving 

student achievement and graduation 

rates and for closing achievement gaps 

(as described in Overall Selection 

Criterion (E)(4)); and 

(2) Give priority to high-need LEAs 

(as defined in this notice), in addition 

to providing 50 percent of the grant to 

participating LEAs based on their 

relative shares of funding under part A 

of Title I of the ESEA as required under 

section 14006(c) of the ARRA. 

(f) The State must provide, for each 

State Reform Conditions Criterion 

(listed later in this notice), a description 

of the State’s current status in meeting 

that Criterion, and at a minimum, the 

information requested as supporting 

evidence for the Criterion. The 

Appendix to this notice contains a table 

listing the proposed evidence. 

(g) The State must provide, for each 

Reform Plan Criterion (listed later in 

this notice) a detailed plan for use of 

grant funds that includes, but need not 

be limited to— 

(1) The key activities to be 

undertaken; 

(2) The goals and rationale for the 

activities, which may include but need 

not be limited to evidence of the past 

effectiveness of those activities, as 

documented in research or through the 

effective implementation of an activity 

in one or more States, LEAs, or schools 

(which may include charter schools); 

(3) The timeline for implementing the 

activities; 

(4) The party or parties responsible for 

implementing the activities; 

(5) The resources the State will use to 

support the activities (e.g., funding, 

personnel, systems); 

(6) The State’s annual targets, where 

applicable, with respect to the 

performance measures aligned to the 

Criterion for the four school years 

beginning with the 2010–2011 school 

year. The Appendix to this notice 

contains a table listing the proposed 

performance measures. Where plans are 

proposed for reform efforts not covered 

by a performance measure specified by 

the Department, States are encouraged 

to propose performance measures and 

annual targets for those efforts; and 

(7) The information requested as 

supporting evidence, if any (as 

described in the Appendix), for the 

Criterion, together with any additional 

information the State believes will be 

helpful to peer reviewers. 

(h) The State must submit a 

certification from the State Attorney 

General, or other chief State legal 

officer, that the State’s description of, 

and statements and conclusions 

concerning, State law (for example, with 

respect to the Eligibility Requirement 

regarding teacher effectiveness or any of 

the applicable Selection Criteria) in its 

application are complete, accurate, and 

constitute a reasonable interpretation of 

State law. 

C. Annual Report and Performance 

Measures 

The Secretary proposes core 

performance measures for evaluating the 

performance of States receiving funds 

under this program. See the Appendix 

to this notice for the proposed 

performance measures. 

In addition, a State receiving funds 

under this program must submit to the 

Department an annual report which may 

include, in addition to the standard 

elements, a description of the State’s 

and its LEAs’ progress to date on their 

goals, timelines, and budgets, as well as 

actual performance compared to the 

annual targets the State established in 

its application with respect to each 

performance measure. 

Further, a State receiving funds under 

this program and its participating LEA 

are accountable for meeting the goals, 

timelines, budget, and annual targets 

established in the application; adhering 

to an annual fund drawdown schedule 

that is tied to meeting these goals, 

timelines, budget, and annual targets; 

and fulfilling and maintaining all other 

conditions for the conduct of the 

project. 

The Department will monitor a State’s 

and its participating LEAs’ progress in 

meeting its goals, timelines, budget, and 

annual targets and in fulfilling other 

applicable requirements. To support a 

collaborative process between the State 

and the Department, the Department 

may require that applicants who are 

selected to receive an award enter into 

a written performance or cooperative 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2

37808 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 29, 2009 / Notices 

6A State’s responses to proposed Indicator (c)(2) 

and Descriptor (c)(1) in its Stabilization program 

Phase 2 application may contain information 

responsive, in part, to this State Reform Conditions 

Criterion, to which the State may refer and 

incorporate in its Race to the Top application. 

7A State’s responses to proposed Indicator (c)(2) 

and Descriptor (c)(1) in its Stabilization program 

Phase 2 application may contain information 

responsive, in part, to this State Reform Conditions 

Criterion, to which the State may refer and 

incorporate in its Race to the Top application. 

8A State’s responses to proposed Indicators 

(c)(1)–(c)(13) and Descriptor (c)(1) in its 

Stabilization program Phase 2 application may 

contain information related to this Reform Plan 

Criterion, to which the State can refer and build 

upon in its Race to the Top application. 

9The State’s responses to proposed Indicator 

(b)(1) and requirements II.c.1.A and II.c.1.B.(i–iii) in 

its Stabilization program Phase 2 application may 

contain information responsive, in part, to this State 

Reform Conditions Criterion, to which the State can 

refer and build upon in its Race to the Top 

application. 

agreement with the Department. If the 

Department determines that a State is 

not meeting its goals, timelines, budget, 

or annual targets or is not fulfilling 

other applicable requirements, the 

Department will take appropriate action, 

which could include a collaborative 

process between the Department and the 

State, or enforcement measures with 

respect to this grant such as placing the 

State in high-risk status, putting the 

State on reimbursement payment status, 

or delaying or withholding funds. 

D. Other Program Requirements 

We propose the following additional 

requirements for States receiving funds 

under this program: 

(a) The State and its participating 

LEAs must use funds under this 

program to participate in a national 

evaluation of the program, if the 

Department chooses to conduct one. In 

addition, the Department is seeking 

comment on whether a State should, 

instead of or in addition to a national 

evaluation, be required to conduct its 

own evaluation of its program activities 

using funds under this program. The 

Department will announce in the notice 

inviting applications the evaluation 

approach(es) that will be required. 

(b) The State must participate in all 

applicable technical assistance activities 

that may be conducted by the 

Department or its designees. 

(c) The State must make freely 

available all of the outputs (e.g., 

materials, tools, processes, systems) that 

it or its designated partners produce 

related to its grant, including by posting 

the outputs on any Web site identified 

or sponsored by the Department. 

III. Selection Criteria 

The Secretary proposes the following 

criteria for reviewing applications 

submitted under this program. We may 

apply one or more of these criteria in 

any year in which this program is in 

effect. In the notice inviting 

applications, the application package, or 

both, we will announce the maximum 

number of points assigned to each 

criterion. 

As discussed elsewhere in this notice, 

we propose using two types of selection 

criteria—State Reform Conditions 

Criteria and Reform Plan Criteria—to 

rate a State’s application for Race to the 

Top funds. State Reform Conditions 

Criteria will be used to assess a State’s 

past progress and its success in creating 

conditions for reform in specific areas 

related to the four ARRA education 

reform areas. The Reform Plan Criteria 

will be used to assess States’ plans for 

future efforts in the four ARRA 

education reform areas. 

In the Appendix, we list both the 

minimum evidence, if any, that the 

State must provide to assist the 

Department and peer reviewers in 

determining whether a State’s 

application meets each Criterion, and 

the performance measures, if any, for 

each Reform Plan Criterion. States may 

submit additional information if they 

deem it to be relevant and useful. In 

addition, States that have submitted the 

requested information to the 

Department for other programs are 

welcome to indicate that they would 

like a specific previous submission to be 

used as evidence, or they may provide 

an updated submission. 

For each Reform Plan Criterion, peer 

reviewers will also consider the extent 

to which States, where applicable, set 

ambitious yet achievable annual targets 

against the performance measure, to 

support the State’s plan. Grantees will 

report their progress with respect to 

these performance measures and annual 

targets as part of their annual reports. 

Proposed Selection Criteria 

A. Standards and Assessments 

Note: Under this reform area, we are 

proposing several Criteria that will be 

different for applications submitted under 

Phase 1 and Phase 2. Where the Criteria are 

different, we have so indicated. 

State Reform Conditions Criteria 

(A)(1) Developing and adopting 

common standards: 6

(i) For Phase 1 applications: The 

extent to which the State has 

demonstrated commitment to improving 

the quality of its standards by 

participating in a consortium of States 

that is working toward jointly 

developing and adopting, by June 2010, 

a common set of K–12 standards (as 

defined in this notice) that are 

internationally benchmarked and that 

build toward college and career 

readiness by the time of high school 

graduation, and the extent to which this 

consortium includes a significant 

number of States. 

(ii) For Phase 2 applications: Whether 

the State has demonstrated commitment 

to improving the quality of its standards 

by adopting, as part of a multi-State 

consortium, a common set of K–12 

standards (as defined in this notice) that 

are internationally benchmarked and 

that build toward college and career 

readiness by the time of high school 

graduation, and the extent to which this 

consortium includes a significant 

number of States. 

(A)(2) Developing and implementing 

common, high-quality assessments: 7

Whether the State has demonstrated a 

commitment to improving the quality of 

its assessments by participating in a 

consortium of States that is working 

toward jointly developing and 

implementing common, high-quality 

assessments (as defined in this notice) 

aligned with the consortium’s common 

set of K–12 standards (as defined in this 

notice) that are internationally 

benchmarked and that build toward 

college and career readiness by the time 

of high school graduation, and the 

extent to which this consortium 

includes a significant number of States. 

Reform Plan Criteria 

(A)(3) Supporting transition to 

enhanced standards and high-quality 

assessments: 8 The extent to which the 

State, in collaboration with its 

participating LEAs, has a high-quality 

plan for supporting a statewide 

transition to and implementation of (a) 

internationally benchmarked K–12 

standards that build toward college and 

career readiness by the time of high 

school graduation, and (b) high-quality 

assessments (as defined in this notice) 

tied to these standards. State or LEA 

activities might include: Aligning high 

school exit criteria and college entrance 

requirements with the new assessments; 

developing, disseminating, and 

implementing curricular frameworks 

and materials, formative and interim 

assessments (as defined in this notice), 

and professional development materials; 

and engaging in other strategies that 

translate the standards and information 

from assessments into classroom 

practice. 

B. Data Systems to Support Instruction 

State Reform Conditions Criteria 

(B)(1) Fully implementing a statewide 

longitudinal data system: 9 The extent to 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 29, 2009 / Notices 37809 

10A State’s responses to proposed Indicator (b)(2) 

and requirements II.c.2.A and II.c.2.B(i–iii) in its 

Stabilization program Phase 2 application may 

contain information related to this Reform Plan 

Criterion, to which the State can refer and build 

upon in its Race to the Top application. 

11A State’s responses to proposed Indicator (b)(2) 

and requirements II.c.2.A and II.c.2.B(i–iii) in its 

Stabilization program Phase 2 application may 

contain information related to this Reform Plan 

Criteria, to which the State can refer and build upon 

in its Race to the Top application. 

12A State’s responses to proposed Indicators 

(a)(2) and (a)(5) and Descriptors (a)(1) and (a)(2) in 

its Stabilization program Phase 2 application may 

contain information related to this Reform Plan 

Criterion, to which the State can refer and build 

upon in its Race to the Top application. 

13A State’s response to proposed Indicator (a)(1) 

in its Stabilization program Phase 2 application 

may contain information related to this Reform Plan 

Criterion, to which the State can refer and build 

upon in its Race to the Top application. 

14A State’s responses to proposed Indicator (d)(6) 

in its Stabilization program Phase 2 application 

may contain information related to this Reform Plan 

Criterion, to which the State can refer and build 

upon in its Race to the Top application. 

which the State has a statewide 

longitudinal data system that includes 

all of the elements specified in section 

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

COMPETES Act (as defined in this 

notice). 

Reform Plan Criteria 

(B)(2) Accessing and using State 

data: 10 The extent to which the State 

has a high-quality plan to ensure that 

data from the State’s statewide 

longitudinal data system are accessible 

to, and used to inform and engage, as 

appropriate, key stakeholders (e.g., 

parents, students, teachers, principals, 

LEA leaders, community members, 

unions, researchers, and policymakers); 

that the data support decision-makers in 

the continuous improvement of 

instruction, operations, management, 

and resource allocation; and that they 

comply with the applicable 

requirements of the Family Educational 

Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). 

(B)(3) Using data to improve 

instruction: 11 The extent to which the 

State, in collaboration with its 

participating LEAs, has a high-quality 

plan to— 

(i) Increase the use of instructional 

improvement systems (as defined in this 

notice) that provide teachers, principals, 

and administrators with the information 

they need to inform and improve their 

instructional practices, decisionmaking, and overall effectiveness; and 

(ii) Make these data, together with 

statewide longitudinal data system data, 

available and accessible to researchers 

so that they have detailed information 

with which to evaluate the effectiveness 

of instructional materials, strategies, and 

approaches for educating different types 

of students (e.g., students with 

disabilities, limited English proficient 

students, students whose achievement 

is well below or above grade level), in 

a manner that complies with the 

applicable requirements of FERPA. 

C. Great Teachers and Leaders 

State Reform Conditions Criteria 

(C)(1) Providing alternative pathways 

for aspiring teachers and principals: 

The extent to which the State has in 

place legal, statutory, or regulatory 

provisions that allow alternative routes 

to certification (as defined in this 

notice) for teachers and principals, 

particularly routes that allow for 

providers in addition to institutions of 

higher education; and the extent to 

which these routes are in use. 

Reform Plan Criteria 

(C)(2) Differentiating teacher and 

principal effectiveness based on 

performance: 12 The extent to which the 

State, in collaboration with its 

participating LEAs, has a high-quality 

plan and ambitious yet achievable 

annual targets to (a) Determine an 

approach to measuring student growth 

(as defined in this notice); (b) employ 

rigorous, transparent, and equitable 

processes for differentiating the 

effectiveness of teachers and principals 

using multiple rating categories that 

take into account data on student 

growth (as defined in this notice) as a 

significant factor; (c) provide to each 

teacher and principal his or her own 

data and rating; and (d) use this 

information when making decisions 

regarding— 

(i) Evaluating annually and 

developing teachers and principals, 

including by providing timely and 

constructive feedback and targeted 

professional development; 

(ii) Compensating and promoting 

teachers and principals, including by 

providing opportunities for teachers and 

principals who are highly effective (as 

defined in this notice) to obtain 

additional compensation and 

responsibilities; and 

(iii) Granting tenure to and dismissing 

teachers and principals based on 

rigorous and transparent procedures for 

awarding tenure (where applicable) and 

for removing tenured and untenured 

teachers and principals after they have 

had ample opportunities to improve but 

have not done so. 

(C)(3) Ensuring equitable distribution 

of effective teachers and principals: 13

The extent to which the State has a 

high-quality plan and ambitious yet 

achievable annual targets to increase the 

number and percentage of highly 

effective teachers and principals (as 

defined in this notice) in high-poverty 

schools (as defined in this notice), and 

to increase the number and percentage 

of effective teachers (as defined in this 

notice) teaching hard-to-staff subjects 

including mathematics, science, special 

education, English language proficiency, 

and other hard-to-staff subjects 

identified by the State or LEA. Plans 

may include, but are not limited to, the 

implementation of incentives and 

strategies in areas such as recruitment, 

compensation, career development, and 

human resources practices and 

processes. 

(C)(4) Reporting the effectiveness of 

teacher and principal preparation 

programs: The extent to which the State 

has a high-quality plan and ambitious 

yet achievable annual targets to link a 

student’s achievement data to the 

student’s teachers and principals, to 

link this information to the programs 

where each of those teachers and 

principals was prepared for 

credentialing, and to publicly report the 

findings for each credentialing program 

that has twenty or more graduates 

annually. 

(C)(5) Providing effective support to 

teachers and principals: The extent to 

which the State, in collaboration with 

its participating LEAs, has a highquality plan to use rapid-time (as 

defined in this notice) student data to 

inform and guide the support provided 

to teachers and principals (e.g., 

professional development, time for 

common planning and collaboration) in 

order to improve the overall 

effectiveness of instruction; and to 

continuously measure and improve both 

the effectiveness and efficiency of those 

supports. 

D. Turning Around Struggling Schools 

State Reform Conditions Criteria 

(D)(1) Intervening in the lowestperforming schools and LEAs: The 

extent to which the State has the legal, 

statutory, or regulatory authority to 

intervene directly in the State’s 

persistently lowest-performing schools 

(as defined in this notice) and in LEAs 

that are in improvement and corrective 

action status. 

(D)(2) Increasing the supply of highquality charter schools: 14

(i) The extent to which the State has 

a charter school law that does not 

prohibit or effectively inhibit increasing 

the number of charter schools in the 

State (as measured by the percentage of 

total schools in the State that are 

allowed to be charter schools) or 

otherwise restrict student enrollment in 

charter schools. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2

37810 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 29, 2009 / Notices 

15A State’s responses to proposed Indicators 

(d)(3)–(d)(5) in its Stabilization program Phase 2 

application may contain information related to this 

Reform Plan Criterion, to which the State can refer 

and build upon in its Race to the Top application. 

16A State’s responses to proposed Indicator 

(c)(11) in its Stabilization program Phase 2 

application may contain information related to this 

Reform Plan Criterion, to which the State can refer 

and build upon in its Race to the Top application. 

(ii) The extent to which the State has 

statutes and guidelines regarding how 

charter school authorizers approve, 

monitor, hold accountable, reauthorize, 

and close charter schools, including the 

extent to which such statutes or 

guidelines require that student 

academic achievement be a factor in 

such activities and decisions, and the 

extent to which charter school 

authorizers in the State have closed or 

not renewed ineffective charter schools. 

(iii) The extent to which the State’s 

charter schools receive equitable 

funding, compared to traditional public 

schools, and a commensurate share of 

local, State, and Federal program and 

revenue sources. 

(iv) The extent to which the State 

provides charter schools with facilities 

funding (for leasing facilities, 

purchasing facilities, or making tenant 

improvements), assistance with 

facilities acquisition, access to public 

facilities, the ability to share in bonds 

and mill levies, or other supports; and 

the extent to which the State does not 

impose any facility-related requirements 

on charter schools that are stricter than 

those applied to traditional public 

schools. 

Reform Plan Criteria 

(D)(3) Turning around struggling 

schools: 15 The extent to which the State 

has a high-quality plan and ambitious 

yet achievable annual targets to (i) 

identify at least the lowest-achieving 

five percent of the persistently lowestperforming schools (as defined in this 

notice) or the lowest-achieving five 

schools, whichever is larger; and (ii) 

support its LEAs in turning around 

these schools by— 

• Putting in place new leadership and 

a majority of new staff, new governance, 

and improved instructional programs, 

and providing the school with 

flexibilities such as the ability to select 

staff, control its budget, and expand 

student learning time; or 

• Converting them to charter schools 

or contracting with an education 

management organization (EMO); or 

• Closing the school and placing the 

school’s students in high-performing 

schools; or 

• To the extent that these strategies 

are not possible, implementing a school 

transformation model that includes: 

Hiring a new principal, measuring 

teacher and principal effectiveness (as 

defined in this notice), rewarding 

effective teachers and principals (as 

defined in this notice), and improving 

strategies for recruitment, retention, and 

professional development; 

implementing comprehensive 

instructional reform, including an 

improved instructional program and 

differentiated instruction; and extending 

learning time and community-oriented 

supports, including more time for 

students to learn and for teachers to 

collaborate, more time for enrichment 

activities, and on-going mechanisms for 

family and community engagement. 

E. Overall Selection Criteria 

State Reform Conditions Criteria 

(E)(1) Demonstrating significant 

progress: The extent to which the State 

has, over the past several years— 

(i) Made progress to date in each of 

the four education reform areas; 

(ii) Used ARRA and other Federal and 

State funding to pursue reforms in these 

areas; 

(iii) Created, through law or policy, 

conditions favorable to education 

reform and innovation; 

(iv) Increased student achievement 

and decreased the achievement gap, as 

reported on the NAEP since 2003; and 

increased graduation rates. 

(E)(2) Making education funding a 

priority: The extent to which the 

percentage of the total revenues 

available to the State (as defined in this 

notice) that were used to support 

elementary, secondary, and public 

higher education for FY 2009 was 

greater than or equal to the percentage 

of the total revenues available to the 

State (as defined in this notice) that 

were used to support elementary, 

secondary, and public higher education 

for FY 2008. 

(E)(3) Enlisting statewide support and 

commitment: The extent to which the 

State has demonstrated commitment, 

support, and/or funding from the 

following key stakeholders: 

(i) The State’s teachers’ union(s) and 

charter school authorizers; 

(ii) Other State and local leaders (e.g., 

business, community, civil rights, and 

education association leaders); 

(iii) Grant-making foundations and 

other funding sources; and 

(iv) LEAs, including public charter 

schools identified as LEAs under State 

law, with special emphasis on the 

following: High-need LEAs (as defined 

in this notice); participation by LEAs, 

schools, students, and students in 

poverty; and the strength of the 

Memoranda of Understanding between 

LEAs and the State, which must at a 

minimum be signed by the LEA 

superintendent (or equivalent), the 

president of the local school board (if 

relevant), and the local teachers’ union 

leader (if relevant). 

Reform Plan Criteria 

(E)(4) Raising achievement and 

closing gaps: 

(i) Achievement gains: The extent to 

which the State has set ambitious yet 

achievable targets for increasing its 

students’ achievement results overall 

and by student subgroup (as described 

in section 303(b)(2)(G) of the National 

Assessment of Educational Progress 

Authorization Act) in reading and 

mathematics, as reported by the NAEP; 

annual targets using other assessments 

may be submitted as well. 

(ii) Gap closing: The extent to which 

the State has set ambitious yet 

achievable targets for decreasing the 

reading and mathematics achievement 

gaps between subgroups (as described in 

section 303(b)(2)(G) of the National 

Assessment of Educational Progress 

Authorization Act), as reported, at a 

minimum, by the NAEP; annual targets 

using other assessments may be 

submitted as well. 

(iii) Graduation rate: 16 The extent to 

which the State has ambitious yet 

achievable annual targets for increasing 

graduation rates (as defined in this 

notice) overall and by student subgroup 

(consistent with section 

1111(b)(2)(C)(v)(II) of the ESEA). 

(E)(5) Building strong statewide 

capacity to implement, scale, and 

sustain proposed plans: The extent to 

which the State has a high-quality 

overall plan that demonstrates how it 

has, and will continue to build, the 

capacity to— 

(i) Effectively and efficiently oversee 

the grant, including administering and 

disbursing funds, and, if necessary, 

taking appropriate enforcement actions 

to ensure that participating LEAs 

comply with the State’s plan and 

program requirements; 

(ii) Support the success of 

participating LEAs, ensure the 

dissemination of effective practices, and 

hold participating LEAs accountable for 

progress; 

(iii) Use the economic, political, and 

human capital resources of the State to 

continue the reforms funded under the 

grant after the period of funding has 

ended; 

(iv) Collaborate with other States on 

key elements of or activities in the 

State’s application; and 

(v) Coordinate, reallocate, or 

repurpose education funds from other 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 29, 2009 / Notices 37811 

sources to align with the State’s Race to 

the Top goals, as outlined in its plans. 

IV. Definitions 

The Secretary proposes the following 

definitions for terms not defined in the 

ARRA (or, by reference, in the ESEA). 

We may apply these definitions in any 

year in which this program is in effect. 

Proposed Definitions 

Alternative certification routes means 

pathways to certification that are 

authorized under the State’s laws or 

regulations that allow the establishment 

and operation of teacher and 

administrator preparation programs in 

the State that have the following 

characteristics: (a) Can be provided by 

various types of qualified providers, 

including both institutions of higher 

education and other providers; (b) 

provide a clinical/student teaching 

experience; (c) significantly limit the 

amount of coursework required or have 

options to test-out of courses; and (d) 

award the level of certification that 

permits a candidate who successfully 

completes the program to teach or lead 

in public schools within the State. 

Common set of K–12 standards means 

a set of content standards that define 

what students must know and be able to 

do, and that are identical across all 

States in a consortium. Notwithstanding 

this, a State may supplement the 

common standards with additional 

standards, provided that the additional 

standards do not exceed 15 percent of 

the State’s total standards for that 

content area. 

Effective principal means a principal 

whose students, overall and for each 

subgroup (described in section 

1111(b)(2)(C)(v)(II) of the ESEA), 

demonstrate acceptable rates (e.g., at 

least one grade level in an academic 

year) of student growth (as defined in 

this notice). States may supplement this 

definition as they see fit so long as 

principal effectiveness is judged, in 

significant measure, by student growth 

(as defined in this notice). 

Effective teacher means a teacher 

whose students achieve acceptable rates 

(e.g., at least one grade level in an 

academic year) of student growth (as 

defined in this notice). States may 

supplement this definition as they see 

fit so long as teacher effectiveness is 

judged, in significant measure, by 

student growth (as defined in this 

notice). 

Formative assessment means an 

assessment process that is embedded in 

instruction and is used by teachers and 

students to provide instant feedback on 

student understanding and to adjust 

ongoing teaching and learning 

accordingly. 

Graduation rate means the four-year 

adjusted cohort graduation rate as 

defined by 34 CFR 200.19(b)(1)(i). A 

State may also use, as a supplement to 

this rate, extended adjusted cohort 

graduation rates (consistent with 34 CFR 

200.19(b)(1)(v)) that are approved by the 

Secretary. 

Highly effective principal means a 

principal whose students, overall and 

for each subgroup (described in section 

1111(b)(2)(C)(v)(II) of the ESEA), 

demonstrate high rates (e.g., more than 

one grade level in an academic year) of 

student growth (as defined in this 

notice). States may supplement this 

definition as they see fit so long as 

principal effectiveness is judged, in 

significant measure, by student growth 

(as defined in this notice). 

Highly effective teacher means a 

teacher whose students achieve high 

rates (e.g., more than one grade level in 

an academic year) of student growth (as 

defined in this notice). States may 

supplement this definition as they see 

fit so long as teacher effectiveness is 

judged, in significant measure, by 

student growth (as defined in this 

notice). 

High-need LEA means an LEA with 

one or more high-poverty schools (as 

defined in this notice). 

High-poverty school means, consistent 

with section 1111(h)(1)(C)(viii) of the 

ESEA, a school in the highest quartile of 

schools in the State with respect to 

poverty level, using a measure of 

poverty determined by the State. 

High-quality assessment means an 

assessment designed to measure a 

student’s understanding of, and ability 

to apply, critical concepts through the 

use of a variety of item types, formats, 

and administration conditions (e.g., 

open-ended responses, performancebased tasks, use of technology). Such 

assessments are structured to enable 

measurement of student achievement 

(as defined in this notice) and student 

growth (as defined in this notice); are of 

high technical quality (e.g., are valid, 

reliable, and aligned to standards); and 

include the assessment of students with 

disabilities and limited English 

proficient students. 

Instructional improvement systems 

means tools that provide teachers, 

principals, and administrators with 

meaningful support for a cycle of 

continuous instructional improvement, 

including activities such as: 

instructional planning; gathering 

information (e.g., through formative 

assessments (as defined in this notice), 

interim assessments (as defined in this 

notice), and looking at student work); 

analyzing information with the support 

of rapid-time (as defined in this notice) 

reporting; using this information to 

inform decisions on appropriate next 

steps; and evaluating the effectiveness 

of the actions taken. 

Interim assessment means an 

assessment given at regular and 

specified intervals throughout the 

school year, and designed to evaluate 

students’ knowledge and skills relative 

to a specific set of academic standards, 

and the results of which can be 

aggregated (e.g., by course, grade level, 

school, or LEA) in order to inform 

teachers and administrators at the 

student, classroom, school, and LEA 

levels. 

Persistently lowest-performing schools 

means Title I schools in improvement, 

corrective action, or restructuring in the 

State and the secondary schools (both 

middle and high schools) in the State 

that are equally as low-achieving as 

these Title I schools and are eligible for, 

but do not receive, Title I funds. When 

considering which schools are the 

lowest-achieving, the State must 

consider both the absolute performance 

of schools on the State assessments in 

reading/language arts and mathematics 

and whether schools have made 

progress on those assessments. 

Rapid-time, in reference to reporting 

and availability of school- and LEAlevel data, means that data is available 

quickly enough to inform current 

lessons, instruction, and related 

supports; in most cases, this will be 

within 72 hours of an assessment or 

data gathering in classrooms, schools, 

and LEAs. 

Student achievement means, at a 

minimum— 

(a) For tested grades and subjects: A 

student’s score on the State’s assessment 

under section 1111(b)(3) of the ESEA; 

and 

(b) For non-tested grades and subjects: 

An alternative measure of student 

performance (e.g., student performance 

on interim assessments (as defined in 

this notice), rates at which students are 

on track to graduate from high school, 

percentage of students enrolled in 

Advanced Placement courses who take 

Advanced Placement exams, rates at 

which students meet goals in 

individualized education programs, 

student scores on end-of-course exams). 

Student growth means the change in 

achievement data for an individual 

student between two points in time. 

Growth may be measured by a variety of 

approaches, but any approach used 

must be statistically rigorous and based 

on student achievement (as defined in 

this notice) data, and may also include 

other measures of student learning in 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2

37812 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 29, 2009 / Notices 

order to increase the construct validity 

and generalizability of the information. 

Total revenues available to the State 

means either (a) projected or actual total 

State revenues for education and other 

purposes for the relevant year; or (b) 

projected or actual total State 

appropriations for education and other 

purposes for the relevant year. 

America COMPETES Act elements (as 

specified in section 6401(e)(2)(D)) 

means: (1) A unique statewide student 

identifier that does not permit a student 

to be individually identified by users of 

the system; (2) student-level enrollment, 

demographic, and program participation 

information; (3) student-level 

information about the points at which 

students exit, transfer in, transfer out, 

drop out, or complete P–16 education 

programs; (4) the capacity to 

communicate with higher education 

data systems; (5) a State data audit 

system assessing data quality, validity, 

and reliability; (6) yearly test records of 

individual students with respect to 

assessments under section 1111(b) of 

the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 6311(b)); (7) 

information on students not tested by 

grade and subject; (8) a teacher 

identifier system with the ability to 

match teachers to students; (9) studentlevel transcript information, including 

information on courses completed and 

grades earned; (10) student-level college 

readiness test scores; (11) information 

regarding the extent to which students 

transition successfully from secondary 

school to postsecondary education, 

including whether students enroll in 

remedial coursework; and (12) other 

information determined necessary to 

address alignment and adequate 

preparation for success in 

postsecondary education. 

Final Priorities, Requirements, 

Definitions, and Selection Criteria 

We will announce the final priorities, 

requirements definitions, and selection 

criteria, in a notice in the Federal 

Register. We will determine the final 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria after considering 

responses to this notice and other 

information available to the Department. 

This notice does not preclude us from 

proposing additional priorities, 

requirements, definitions, or selection 

criteria, subject to meeting applicable 

rulemaking requirements. 

Note: This notice does not solicit 

applications. In any year in which we choose 

to use one or more of these priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria, we invite applications through a 

notice in the Federal Register. 

Executive Order 12866 

Under Executive Order 12866, the 

Secretary must determine whether this 

regulatory action is ‘‘significant’’ and 

therefore subject to the requirements of 

the Executive Order and subject to 

review by OMB. Section 3(f) of 

Executive Order 12866 defines a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ as an 

action likely to result in a rule that may 

(1) have an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more, or 

adversely affect a sector of the economy, 

productivity, competition, jobs, the 

environment, public health or safety, or 

State, local or Tribal governments, or 

communities in a material way (also 

referred to as an ‘‘economically 

significant’’ rule); (2) create serious 

inconsistency or otherwise interfere 

with an action taken or planned by 

another agency; (3) materially alter the 

budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, 

user fees, or loan programs or the rights 

and obligations of recipients thereof; or 

(4) raise novel legal or policy issues 

arising out of legal mandates, the 

President’s priorities, or the principles 

set forth in the Executive order. 

Pursuant to the Executive order, it has 

been determined that this regulatory 

action will have an annual effect on the 

economy of more than $100 million 

because the amount of government 

transfers provided through the Race to 

the Top Fund will exceed that amount. 

Therefore, this action is ‘‘economically 

significant’’ and subject to OMB review 

under section 3(f)(1) of the Executive 

order. 

The potential costs associated with 

this proposed regulatory action are 

those resulting from statutory 

requirements and those we have 

determined as necessary for 

administering this program effectively 

and efficiently. 

In assessing the potential costs and 

benefits—both quantitative and 

qualitative—of this proposed regulatory 

action, we have determined that the 

benefits of the proposed priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria justify the costs. 

We have determined, also, that this 

proposed regulatory action does not 

unduly interfere with State, local, and 

Tribal governments in the exercise of 

their governmental functions. 

Need for Federal Regulatory Action 

These proposed priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria are needed to implement the 

Race to the Top program. The Secretary 

does not believe that the statute, by 

itself, provides a sufficient level of 

detail to ensure that Race to the Top 

truly serves as a mechanism for driving 

significant education reform in the 

States. The authorizing language is very 

brief, and we believe the Congress likely 

expected the Secretary to augment this 

language, through rulemaking, in order 

to give greater meaning to the statutory 

provisions. Additionally, the statute 

expressly provides the Secretary the 

authority to require States to include in 

their application such information as 

the Secretary may reasonably require 

and to determine which States receive 

grants on the basis of other criteria as 

the Secretary determines appropriate. 

In the absence of specific selection 

criteria for Race to the Top grants, the 

Department would use the general 

selection criteria in 34 CFR 75.210 of 

the Education Department General 

Administrative Regulations in selecting 

States to receive grants. The Secretary 

does not believe the use of those general 

criteria would be appropriate for the 

Race to the Top competitions, because 

they do not focus on the educational 

reforms that States must be 

implementing in order to receive a Race 

to the Top grant, on the specific uses of 

funds under Race to the Top, or on the 

plans that the Secretary believes States 

should develop for their Race to the Top 

grants. 

Regulatory Alternatives Considered 

The Department considered a variety 

of possible priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria before 

deciding to propose those included in 

this notice. The proposed priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria are those that best embody the 

Secretary’s concept of how the Race to 

the Top program should operate. The 

proposals would provide States (and 

their LEAs) receiving Race to the Top 

grants with broad flexibility in the 

expenditure of those grants, while 

creating clear criteria for the selection of 

applications and providing greater 

clarity (than is provided in the 

legislation itself) on what must be 

included in a State application and 

what progress States would have to 

make in the four education reform areas 

in order to receive a grant. The Secretary 

believes that the proposals, thus, 

appropriately balance a limited degree 

of Federal prescription with broad 

flexibility in State and local 

implementation. We seek public 

comment on whether we have achieved 

the optimal balance. 

Summary of Costs and Benefits 

The Department believes that the 

proposed priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria will 

not impose significant costs on States, 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 29, 2009 / Notices 37813 

or on the LEAs and other entities that 

will receive assistance through the Race 

to the Top Fund. As discussed 

elsewhere, the proposals are intended to 

create a framework for the award of 

approximately $4 billion in support of 

State and local efforts to implement 

critical educational reforms and to 

making substantial gains in student 

achievement, closing achievement gaps, 

improving high school graduation rates, 

and ensuring student preparation for 

success in college and careers. Without 

promulgation of priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria for the Race to the Top 

competitions, the Department would not 

have clear and defensible criteria for 

making very large grants to States. 

The Department believes that the 

costs imposed on States by the proposed 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria will be limited to the 

paperwork burden discussed elsewhere 

in this notice. The benefits conveyed on 

a State through its receipt of a grant will 

greatly exceed those costs. In addition, 

even States that apply but are 

unsuccessful in the competitions may 

derive benefits, as the process of 

working with LEAs and other 

stakeholders on the State application 

may help accelerate the pace of 

education reforms in the State. 

Accounting Statement 

As required by OMB Circular A–4 

(available at http:// 

www.Whitehouse.gov/omb/Circulars/ 

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

have prepared an accounting statement 

showing the classification of the 

expenditures associated with the 

provisions of this proposed regulatory 

action. This table provides our best 

estimate of the Federal payments to be 

made to States under this program as a 

result of this proposed regulatory action. 

Expenditures are classified as transfers 

to States. 

TABLE—ACCOUNTING STATEMENT

CLASSIFICATION OF ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES

Category Transfers 

(in millions) 

Annual Monetized 

Transfers.

$3,956. 

From Whom to Whom Federal Government 

to States. 

As previously explained, ARRA 

provides approximately $4.3 billion for 

the Race to the Top Fund (referred to in 

the statute as State Incentive Grants). In 

this notice, we propose additional 

specific priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and criteria regarding the 

applications that individual States 

submit for approximately $4 billion of 

Race to the Top funds. At a later date, 

we may announce a separate Race to the 

Top Standards and Assessment 

competition, for approximately $350 

million, to support the development of 

assessments by consortia of States. 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

The application requirements and 

selection criteria proposed in this notice 

will 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). It is 

our plan to offer a comment period for 

the information collection at the time of 

the notice of final priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria. At that time, the Department 

will submit the information collection 

to OMB for its review and provide the 

specific burden hours associated with 

each of the requirements and selection 

criteria for comment. However, because 

it is likely that the information 

collection will be reviewed under 

emergency OMB processing, the 

Department encourages the public to 

comment on the estimates we are 

providing for the burden hours 

associated with the requirements and 

selection criteria proposed in this 

notice. 

Proposed Application Requirements 

There are eight application 

requirements that the Department 

proposes States must meet when 

submitting their applications. These are: 

(a) The State’s application must be 

signed by the Governor, the State’s chief 

school officer, and the president of the 

State board of education. 

(b) The State must describe the 

progress it has made to date in each of 

the four education reform areas, 

including how the State has used ARRA 

and other Federal and State funding 

over the last several years to pursue 

reforms in these areas (as described in 

Overall Selection Criterion (E)(1)). 

(c) The State must provide financial 

data to show whether and to what 

extent the percentage of the total 

revenues available to the State (as 

defined in this notice) that were used to 

support elementary, secondary, and 

public higher education for FY 2009 

increased, decreased, or remained the 

same compared to FY 2008 (as 

described in Overall Selection Criterion 

(E)(2)). 

(d) The State must describe its 

statewide support from stakeholders 

and LEAs, including public charter 

schools identified as LEAs under State 

law (as described in Overall Selection 

Criterion (E)(3)). 

(e) The State must include a budget 

that details how it will use grant funds 

and other resources to meet targets and 

perform related functions, including 

how it will use funds awarded under 

this program to— 

(1) Achieve its targets for improving 

student achievement and graduation 

rates and for closing achievement gaps 

(as described in Overall Selection 

Criterion (E)(4)); and 

(2) Give priority to high-need LEAs 

(as defined in this notice), in addition 

to providing 50 percent of the grant to 

participating LEAs based on their 

relative shares of funding under part A 

of Title I of the ESEA as required under 

section 14006(c) of the ARRA. 

(f) The State must provide, for each 

State Reform Conditions Criterion 

(listed earlier in this notice), a 

description of the State’s current status 

in meeting that Criterion, and at a 

minimum, the information requested as 

supporting evidence for the Criterion. 

The Appendix to this notice contains a 

table listing the proposed evidence. 

(g) The State must provide, for each 

Reform Plan Criterion (listed earlier in 

this notice) a detailed plan for use of 

grant funds that includes, but need not 

be limited to the activities to be 

undertaken, the goals and rationale for 

the activities, the timeline for 

implementation, the party responsible 

for implementing the activities, the 

resources the State will use to support 

the activities, the State’s annual targets, 

if applicable, for the performance 

measures aligned to the Criterion, and 

the evidence requested in support of 

that Criterion (if any). (See the 

‘‘Proposed Application Requirements’’ 

section for a detailed description of 

these proposed requirements.) 

(h) The State must submit a 

certification from the State Attorney 

General, or other chief State legal 

officer, that the State’s description of, 

and statements and conclusions 

concerning, State law (for example, with 

respect to the Eligibility Requirement 

regarding teacher effectiveness or any of 

the applicable Selection Criteria) in its 

application are complete, accurate, and 

constitute a reasonable interpretation of 

State law. 

Proposed Selection Criteria 

There are 19 selection criteria that the 

Department proposes States may 

address when submitting their 

applications. These are— 

(A)(1) Developing and adopting common 

standards; 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2

37814 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 29, 2009 / Notices 

(A)(2) Developing and implementing 

common, high-quality assessments; 

(A)(3) Supporting transition to enhanced 

standards and high-quality assessments; 

(B)(1) Fully implementing a statewide 

longitudinal data system; 

(B)(2) Accessing and using State data; 

(B)(3) Using data to improve instruction; 

(C)(1) Providing alternative pathways for 

aspiring teachers and principals; 

(C)(2) Differentiating teacher and principal 

effectiveness based on performance; 

(C)(3) Ensuring equitable distribution of 

effective teachers and principals; 

(C)(4) Reporting the effectiveness of teacher 

and principal preparation programs; 

(C)(5) Providing effective support to 

teachers and principals; 

(D)(1) Intervening in the lowest-performing 

schools and LEAs; 

(D)(2) Increasing the supply of high-quality 

charter schools; 

(D)(3) Turning around struggling schools; 

(E)(1) Demonstrating significant progress; 

(E)(2) Making education funding a priority; 

(E)(3) Enlisting statewide support and 

commitment; 

(E)(4) Raising achievement and closing 

gaps; and 

(E)(5) Building strong statewide capacity to 

implement, scale, and sustain proposed 

plans. 

(Please see the ‘‘Proposed Selection 

Criteria’’ section for detailed 

descriptions.) 

We estimate that each SEA would 

spend approximately 642 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 52 SEAs is an estimated 33,384 

hours (52 SEAs (the 50 States plus the 

District of Columbia and Puerto Rico) 

times 642 hours equals 33,384 hours.) 

We estimate the average total cost per 

hour of the State-level staff who carry 

out this work to be $30.00 an hour. The 

total estimated cost for all States would 

be $1,001,520 ($30.00 × 33,384 hours = 

$1,001,520). 

Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification 

The Secretary certifies that this 

proposed regulatory action will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The Secretary makes this certification 

because the only entities eligible to 

apply for grants are States, and States 

are not small entities. 

Intergovernmental Review: This 

program is subject to Executive Order 

12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR 

Part 79. One of the objectives of the 

Executive order is to foster an 

intergovernmental partnership and a 

strengthened federalism. The Executive 

order relies on processes developed by 

State and local governments for 

coordination and review of proposed 

Federal financial assistance. 

This document provides early 

notification of our specific plans and 

actions for this program. 

Accessible Format: Individuals with 

disabilities can obtain this document in 

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

print, audiotape, or computer diskette) 

on request to the program contact 

person listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. 

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. If you have questions about 

using PDF, call the U.S. Government 

Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1– 

888–293–6498; or in the Washington, 

DC, area at (202) 512–1530. 

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: July 22, 2009. 

Arne Duncan, 

Secretary of Education. 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 29, 2009 / Notices 37815 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2EN29JY09.015</GPH>
37816 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 29, 2009 / Notices 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2EN29JY09.016</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 29, 2009 / Notices 37817 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2EN29JY09.017</GPH>
37818 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 29, 2009 / Notices 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2EN29JY09.018</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 29, 2009 / Notices 37819 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2EN29JY09.019</GPH>
37820 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 29, 2009 / Notices 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2EN29JY09.020</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 29, 2009 / Notices 37821 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2EN29JY09.021</GPH>
37822 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 29, 2009 / Notices 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2EN29JY09.022</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 29, 2009 / Notices 37823 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2EN29JY09.023</GPH>
37824 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 29, 2009 / Notices 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2EN29JY09.024</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 29, 2009 / Notices 37825 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2EN29JY09.025</GPH>
37826 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 29, 2009 / Notices 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2EN29JY09.026</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 29, 2009 / Notices 37827 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2EN29JY09.027</GPH>
37828 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 29, 2009 / Notices 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2EN29JY09.028</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 29, 2009 / Notices 37829 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2EN29JY09.029</GPH>
37830 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 29, 2009 / Notices 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2EN29JY09.030</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 29, 2009 / Notices 37831 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2EN29JY09.031</GPH>
37832 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 29, 2009 / Notices 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2EN29JY09.032</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 29, 2009 / Notices 37833 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2EN29JY09.033</GPH>
37834 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 29, 2009 / Notices 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2EN29JY09.034</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 29, 2009 / Notices 37835 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2EN29JY09.035</GPH>
37836 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 29, 2009 / Notices 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2EN29JY09.036</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 29, 2009 / Notices 37837 

1The Department is awarding Stabilization 

program funds in two phases. In the first phase, the 

Department is awarding 67 percent of a State’s 

Education Stabilization Fund allocation, unless the 

State can demonstrate that additional funds are 

required to restore fiscal year 2009 State support for 

education, in which case the Department will 

award the State up to 90 percent of that allocation. 

In addition, the Department will award 100 percent 

of each State’s Government Services Fund 

allocation in Phase I. The Department will award 

the remainder of a State’s Education Stabilization 

Fund allocation in the second phase. A table listing 

the allocations to States under the Stabilization 

program is available at: http://www.ed.gov/ 

programs/ 

statestabilization/funding.html. 

[FR Doc. E9–17909 Filed 7–24–09; 11:15 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–C 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

[Docket ID ED–2009–OESE–0007] 

RIN 1810–AB04 

State Fiscal Stabilization Fund 

Program 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

(CFDA) Numbers: 84.394 (Education 

Stabilization Fund) and 84.397 

(Government Services Fund). 

AGENCY: Department of Education. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed 

requirements, definitions, and approval 

criteria. 

SUMMARY: The Secretary of Education 

(Secretary) proposes requirements, 

definitions, and approval criteria for the 

State Fiscal Stabilization Fund 

(Stabilization) program. The Secretary 

may use one or more of these 

requirements, definitions, and approval 

criteria in awarding funds under this 

program in fiscal year (FY) 2010. The 

requirements, definitions, and approval 

criteria proposed in this notice are 

based on the assurances regarding 

education reform that grantees are 

required to provide in exchange for 

receiving funds under the Stabilization 

program. We take this action to specify 

the data and information that grantees 

must collect and report with respect to 

those assurances and to help ensure 

grantees’ ability to collect and report the 

required data and information. 

DATES: We must receive your comments 

on or before August 28, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments 

through the Federal eRulemaking Portal 

or via postal mail, commercial delivery, 

or hand delivery. We will not accept 

comments by fax or by e-mail. Please 

submit your comments only one time in 

order to ensure that we do not receive 

duplicate copies. In addition, please 

include the Docket ID and the term 

‘‘State Fiscal Stabilization Fund’’ at the 

top of your comments. 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov to submit 

your comments electronically. 

Information on using Regulations.gov, 

including instructions for accessing 

agency documents, submitting 

comments, and viewing the docket, is 

available on the site under ‘‘How To Use 

This Site.’’ 

• Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery, 

or Hand Delivery. If you mail or deliver 

your comments about these proposed 

requirements, definitions, and approval 

criteria, address them to Office of 

Elementary and Secondary Education 

(Attention: State Fiscal Stabilization 

Fund Comments), U.S. Department of 

Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., 

Room 3E108, Washington, DC 20202– 

6200. 

• Privacy Note: The Department’s 

policy for comments received from 

members of the public (including those 

comments submitted by mail, 

commercial delivery, or hand delivery) 

is to make these submissions available 

for public viewing in their entirety on 

the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http: 

//www.regulations.gov. Therefore, 

commenters should be careful to 

include in their comments only 

information that they wish to make 

publicly available on the Internet. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

James Butler. Telephone: (202) 260– 

2274 or by e-mail: 

phase2comments@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: 

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 requirements, definitions, 

and approval criteria, we urge you to 

identify clearly the specific proposed 

requirements, definitions, and approval 

criteria that each comment addresses. 

We invite you also 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 requirements, 

definitions, and approval criteria. 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 

this program. 

During and after the comment period, 

you may inspect all public comments 

about this notice by accessing 

Regulations.gov. You may also inspect 

the public comments in person in Room 

3E108, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., 

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 State Fiscal 

Stabilization Fund program provides 

approximately $48.6 billion in formula 

grants to States to help stabilize State 

and local budgets in order to minimize 

and avoid reductions in education and 

other essential services, in exchange for 

a State’s commitment to advance 

essential education reform in key areas. 

Program Authority: American 

Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, 

Division A, Title XIV—State Fiscal 

Stabilization Fund, Public Law 111–5. 

Proposed Requirements 

Note: The proposed requirements are listed 

following the background for this section. 

Background: Section 14005(d) of 

Division A of the American Recovery 

and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) 

requires a State receiving funds under 

the Stabilization program to provide 

assurances in four key areas of 

education reform: (a) Achieving equity 

in teacher distribution, (b) improving 

collection and use of data, (c) standards 

and assessments, and (d) supporting 

struggling schools. For each area of 

reform, the ARRA prescribes specific 

action(s) that the State must assure that 

it will implement. In addition, section 

14005(a) of the ARRA requires a State 

that receives funds under the 

Stabilization program to submit an 

application to the Department 

containing such information as the 

Secretary may reasonably require. In 

this notice, we propose specific data 

and information requirements (the 

assurance indicators and descriptors) 

that a State receiving funds under the 

Stabilization program must meet with 

respect to the statutory assurances. We 

also propose specific requirements for a 

plan that a State must submit (the State 

plan), as part of its application for the 

second phase 1 of funding under the 

Stabilization program, describing its 

ability to collect and report the required 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2