FR Doc E9-27426[Federal Register: November 18, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 221)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 59687-59834]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr18no09-9]
Download: 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 59687]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part III
Department of Education
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
34 CFR Subtitle B, Chapter II
Race to the Top Fund; Final Rule
[[Page 59688]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Subtitle B, Chapter II
[Docket ID ED-2009-OESE-0006]
RIN 1810-AB07
Race to the Top Fund
AGENCY: Department of Education.
ACTION: Final priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection
criteria.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 84.395A.
SUMMARY: The Secretary of Education (Secretary) announces 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: Effective Date: These priorities, requirements, definitions, and
selection criteria are effective January 19, 2010.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Butler, U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Ave., SW., room 3E108, Washington, DC 20202-
6400. Telephone: 202-205-3775 or by e-mail: racetothetop@ed.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Purpose of Program: The purpose of the Race to the Top Fund, a
competitive grant program, is to encourage and reward States that are
creating the conditions for education innovation and reform; 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; and implementing
ambitious plans in four core education reform areas--
(a) Adopting internationally benchmarked standards and assessments
that prepare students for success in college and the workplace;
(b) Building data systems that measure student success and inform
teachers and principals about how they can improve their practices;
(c) Increasing teacher and principal effectiveness and achieving
equity in their distribution; and
(d) Turning around our lowest-achieving schools. Additional
information on the Race to the Top program can be found at:
http://www.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop.
Program Authority: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009,
Division A, Section 14006, Public Law 111-5.
We published a notice of proposed priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria (NPP) for this program in the
Federal Register on July 29, 2009 (74 FR 37804). That notice contained
background information and our reasons for proposing the particular
priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria.
There are a number of differences between the NPP and this notice
of final priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria
as discussed in the Analysis of Comments and Changes section elsewhere
in this notice.
Public Comment:
In response to our invitation in the NPP, 1,161 parties submitted
comments on the proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and
selection criteria.
Generally, we do not address technical and other minor changes, nor
do we address suggested changes that the law does not authorize us to
make under the applicable statutory authority. In addition, we do not
address general comments that raised concerns not directly related to
the NPP.
Introduction
The Race to the Top program, a $4.35 billion fund created under the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), is the largest
competitive education grant program in U.S. history. The Race to the
Top Fund (referred to in the ARRA as the State Incentive Grant Fund) is
designed to provide incentives to States to implement large-scale,
system-changing reforms that result in improved student achievement,
narrowed achievement gaps, and increased graduation and college
enrollment rates.
The ARRA specifies that applications for Race to the Top funds must
address the four assurance areas referenced in section 14006(a)(2):
Enhancing standards and assessments, improving the collection and use
of data, increasing teacher effectiveness and achieving equity in
teacher distribution, and turning around struggling schools. The
Department published the NPP to solicit public comment on the
priorities, requirements, and selection criteria that State
applications will address in accordance with this statutory
requirement.
The NPP prompted an outpouring of public comments. Some 1,161
commenters submitted thousands of unique comments, ranging from one
paragraph to 67 pages. Parents submitted comments, as did professional
associations. From the statehouse to the schoolhouse, scores of public
officials and educators, governors, chief State school officers,
teachers, and principals weighed in with suggestions and critiques. All
told, individuals from all 50 States and the District of Columbia,
including over 550 individuals and 200 organizations, commented on the
NPP.
The extensive and thoughtful public commentary on the NPP has been
invaluable in helping the Department revise, improve, and clarify the
priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria for the
Race to the Top program. A discussion of the most significant changes
follows.
Major Changes in the Selection Criteria, Priorities, Requirements, and
Definitions
State Success Factors
Many of the commenters expressed concern that the NPP's
encouragement of comprehensive and coherent statewide reform was
undercut by the need for State applicants to organize their plans
around each of the four reform assurances, one at a time. In response
to this concern, the Department has reorganized a number of the
criteria, moving key criteria from the Overall section to a new section
at the beginning of the selection criteria called State Success
Factors. This new section provides States with the opportunity to start
their proposals with clear statements of their coherent, coordinated,
statewide reform agendas.
As several commenters noted, States face at least three overarching
issues critical to their success in implementing their Race to the Top
plans--the need for a coherent reform agenda, the capacity to lead
LEAs, and the ability to improve outcomes. In this notice, these three
issues are reflected in the State Success Factors as follows: Criterion
(A)(1) pertains to a State's ability to articulate a comprehensive and
coherent education reform agenda, and to engage its local educational
agencies (LEAs) in strongly committing to and participating in that
agenda; criterion (A)(2) relates to a State's capacity to implement its
proposed plans through strong leadership, successfully supporting its
LEAs in improving student outcomes, administering a grant of this
magnitude efficiently, and organizing its financial resources to
optimize impact; and finally, criterion (A)(3) asks States to
demonstrate their ability to significantly improve education outcomes
for students across the State.
More specifically, criterion (A)(1)(i) is a new criterion that asks
States to set forth a comprehensive and coherent reform agenda that
clearly articulates their goals for implementing reform in
[[Page 59689]]
the four education areas described in the ARRA and improving student
outcomes statewide, establishes a clear and credible path to achieving
these goals, and is consistent with the specific reform plans that the
State has proposed throughout its application.
Under criterion (A)(1)(ii) (proposed criterion (E)(3)(iv)), States
will demonstrate the participation and commitment of their LEAs. First,
as described in criterion (A)(1)(ii)(a), the strength of LEAs'
commitments to their State's plans will be evaluated based on the terms
and conditions in a State's binding agreements with its LEAs. (To
support States' efforts, the Department has drafted a model Memorandum
of Understanding (MOU) and included it in Appendix D of this notice.)
Criterion (A)(1)(ii)(b) has been added to make it clear that the
commitment of participating LEAs will also be judged, in part, based on
LEAs' agreements to implement all or significant portions of the work
outlined in the State's plan. Criterion (A)(1)(ii)(c) clarifies that
the extent of an LEA's leadership support for participating in the
State's Race to the Top plans will be assessed by how many signatures
are on the binding agreement between the State and the LEA, from among
(if applicable) the superintendent, the president of the local school
board, and the local teachers' union leader, or their equivalents
(provided that there is at least one authorized LEA signatory on the
agreement). For all of these criteria, States will be asked to provide
as evidence examples of their participating LEA agreements as well as
tables that summarize which portions of the State plans LEAs are
committing to implement and how extensive the LEAs' leadership support
is.
Criterion (A)(1)(iii) (adapted from proposed criteria (E)(3)(iv)
and (E)(4)) asks States to describe how the engagement of those LEAs
that are participating in the State's Race to the Top plans will
translate into broad statewide impact on student outcomes, including
increasing achievement and decreasing achievement gaps for (at a
minimum) reading/language arts and mathematics on the National
Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) and on the assessments
required under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as
amended (ESEA); and increasing high school graduation rates, college
enrollment rates, and college credit accumulation.
Criterion (A)(2) asks States to describe their capacity to
implement, scale up, and sustain their proposed plans. Criterion
(A)(2)(i) (adapted from proposed criterion (E)(5)) concerns States'
capacity to implement their plans. Criterion (A)(2)(i)(a) asks States
to demonstrate that they have strong leadership and dedicated teams to
implement their statewide education reform plans; and criterion
(A)(2)(i)(b) (proposed (E)(5)(ii)) encourages States to describe the
activities they will undertake in supporting participating LEAs in
successfully implementing their plans. Criterion (A)(2)(i)(c) (proposed
criterion (E)(5)(i)) asks States about the effectiveness and efficiency
of their operations and processes for implementing a Race to the Top
grant. Criterion (A)(2)(i)(d) (proposed (E)(5)(v)) further clarifies
that States will be evaluated based on how they plan to use the funds
for this grant, as described in their budgets and accompanying budget
narratives, to accomplish their plans and meet their performance
targets. Proposed criterion (E)(5)(iv), regarding collaboration between
States, is not included in this final notice.
In criterion (A)(2)(ii) (proposed (E)(3)(i) and (E)(3)(ii)), States
demonstrate that they have a plan to use the support from a broad group
of stakeholders to better implement their reform plans. Criterion
(A)(2)(ii)(a) concerns enlisting the support of teachers and principals
as key stakeholders. Criterion (A)(2)(ii)(b) asks States to describe
the strength of statements and actions of support from other critical
stakeholders, and examples of these are listed. Proposed criterion
(E)(3)(iii), regarding the support of grant-making foundations and
other funding sources, is not included in this final notice.
Criterion (A)(3) addresses the extent to which the State has
demonstrated significant progress in raising achievement and closing
gaps. Criterion (A)(3)(i) (proposed criteria (E)(1)(i) and (E)(1)(ii))
provides for the evaluation of States based on whether they have made
progress in each of the four education reform areas over the past
several years and used ARRA and other Federal and State funding to
pursue such reforms.
Criterion (A)(3)(ii) (proposed criterion (E)(1)(iv)) addresses
States' track records of increasing student achievement, decreasing
achievement gaps, and increasing graduation rates. When evaluating
these student academic outcomes, reviewers will examine student
assessment results in reading/language arts and mathematics, both on
the NAEP and on the assessments required under the ESEA; progress will
be considered for each subgroup as well as for the ``all students''
group.
Standards and Assessments
In response to comments indicating that some States would have
difficulty meeting a June 2010 deadline for adopting a new set of
common, kindergarten-to-grade-12 (K-12) standards, this notice extends
the deadline for adopting standards as far as possible, while still
allowing the Department to comply with the statutory requirement to
obligate all Race to the Top funds by September 30, 2010. As set forth
in criterion (B)(1)(ii), the new deadline for adopting a set of common
K-12 standards is August 2, 2010. States that cannot adopt a common set
of K-12 standards by this date will be evaluated based on the extent to
which they demonstrate commitment and progress toward adoption of such
standards by a later date in 2010 (see criterion (B)(1) and Appendix
B). Evidence supporting the State's adoption claims will include a
description of the legal process in the State for adopting standards,
and the State's plan, current progress against that plan, and timeframe
for adoption.
For criteria (B)(1) and (B)(2) (proposed criteria (A)(1) and
(A)(2), respectively), regarding the development and adoption of
common, high-quality standards and assessments, the term ``significant
number of States'' has been further explained in the scoring rubric
that will be used by reviewers to judge the Race to the Top
applications (see Appendix B). The rubric clarifies that, on this
aspect of the criterion, a State will earn ``high'' points if its
consortium includes a majority of the States in the country; it will
earn ``medium'' or ``low'' points if its consortium includes one-half
or fewer of the States in the country.
Further, for criterion (B)(2), concerning the development and
implementation of common, high-quality assessments, States will be
asked to present, as evidence, copies of their Memoranda of Agreement
showing that the State is part of a consortium that intends to develop
high-quality assessments aligned with the consortium's common set of
standards. This is similar to the evidence required for criterion
(B)(1) concerning the development and adoption of common standards.
Finally, this notice clarifies the language in criterion (B)(3)
(proposed criterion (A)(3)) regarding the transition to enhanced
standards and high-quality assessments; the criterion now lists a
number of activities in which States or LEAs might engage as they work
to translate the standards and assessments into classroom practice.
[[Page 59690]]
Data Systems to Support Instruction
The data systems selection criteria in the Race to the Top
competition involve two types of data systems--statewide longitudinal
data systems and instructional improvement systems. While numerous
comments addressed the Department's emphasis on statewide longitudinal
data systems in the NPP, the Department intends to give equal priority
in this program to using instructional data as a critical tool for
teachers, principals, and administrators to identify student needs,
fill curriculum gaps, and target professional development. The final
selection criteria, therefore, place significant emphasis on using data
to inform professional development and fostering a culture of
continuous improvement in schools and LEAs.
More specifically, the final notice contains new language in
criterion (C)(3)(i) (proposed (B)(3)(i)) that clarifies that this
criterion concerns local instructional improvement systems, not
statewide longitudinal data systems, and further clarifies the LEA's
role in the acquisition, adoption, and use of local instructional
improvement systems.
New criterion (C)(3)(ii) was added to encourage LEAs and States to
provide effective professional development on using data from these
systems to support continuous instructional improvement.
Great Teachers and Leaders
The teachers and leaders criteria are built on two core principles
that remain consistent with the NPP--that teacher and principal quality
matters, and that effective teachers and principals are those whose
students grow academically. Thus, this notice continues to include
criteria directed at improving teacher and principal effectiveness and
at ensuring that highly effective teachers and principals are serving
in the high-poverty, high-minority schools where their talents are
needed the most. In addition, this notice continues to define effective
teachers and principals as those whose students make significant
academic growth. While the final notice reaffirms these core
principles, it also includes a number of changes to the criteria and
related definitions based on public input.
The Department received over 400 comments in this reform area, many
of which provided helpful suggestions that informed our revisions. One
commenter suggested that the greatest contribution that the Race to the
Top program could make would be to encourage the development of
outstanding models for teacher and principal evaluation systems, now
widely described as flawed and superficial. Based on this and similar
comments, the Department has revised criterion (D)(2), now titled
Improving Teacher and Principal Effectiveness Based on Performance, to
encourage the design of high-quality evaluation systems, and to promote
their use for feedback, professional improvement, and decision-making.
The Department concurs with the many commenters who cautioned that
teacher and principal ``effectiveness'' should not be based solely on
student test scores. In this notice, ``effectiveness'' is defined as
based on input from multiple measures, provided that student growth is
a significant factor. In addition, this notice re-emphasizes that it is
student growth--not raw student achievement data or proficiency
levels--that is the ``significant factor'' to be considered in
evaluating effectiveness.
Finally, this notice expands and improves the four selection
criteria that deal with teacher and principal professional development
(criteria (B)(3), (C)(3)(ii), (D)(2)(iv)(a), and (D)(5)). It clarifies
that professional collaboration and planning time, individualized
professional development plans, training and support in the analysis
and use of data, classroom observations with immediate feedback, and
other activities are critical to supporting the development of teachers
and principals.
Specifically, criterion (D)(1) (proposed (C)(1)), concerning high-
quality pathways for aspiring teachers and leaders, has been expanded.
It now includes a new criterion (D)(1)(iii), under which States will be
evaluated based on the extent to which they have in place a process for
monitoring, evaluating, and identifying areas of teacher and principal
shortage and for preparing teachers and principals to fill these areas
of shortage.
Criterion (D)(2) (proposed (C)(2)) has been revised to focus on the
design and use of rigorous, transparent, and fair evaluation systems
that provide regular feedback on performance to teachers and
principals. This criterion also has been changed to clarify that the
LEAs, not the States, should implement the teacher and principal
effectiveness reforms under this criterion, and that the role of the
States is to support their participating LEAs in implementing these
reforms.
Criterion (D)(2)(ii) (proposed (C)(2)(b)) now emphasizes that these
evaluation systems should differentiate effectiveness using multiple
rating categories, and should be designed and developed with teacher
and principal involvement. Criterion (D)(2)(iii) (proposed criteria
(C)(2)(c) and (C)(2)(d)(i)) encourages such evaluations to be conducted
annually and to include timely and constructive feedback, while
criterion (D)(2)(iv) (proposed criterion (C)(2)(d)) addresses uses of
evaluations to inform decision-making.
Criteria (D)(2)(iv)(c) and (D)(2)(iv)(d) (proposed criterion
(C)(2)(d)(iii)) separately address the use of these evaluation systems
to inform decisions regarding whether to grant tenure and/or full
certification to effective teachers and principals (in criterion
(D)(2)(iv)(c)), and removing ineffective teachers and principals (in
criterion (D)(2)(iv)(d)). In addition, the Department has clarified
that these decisions should be made using rigorous standards and
streamlined, transparent, and fair procedures.
Criterion (D)(3) (proposed (C)(3)) has been revised to clarify that
the State's plan for the equitable distribution of effective teachers
and principals should be informed by the State's prior actions and
data, and should ensure that students in high-poverty as well as high-
minority schools have equitable access to highly effective teachers and
principals--and are not served by ineffective ones at higher rates than
are other students. The performance measures for this criterion now
include, for comparison purposes, data on the presence of highly
effective and ineffective teachers and principals in low-poverty and
low-minority schools.
Criterion (D)(4) concerns improving the effectiveness of teacher
and principal preparation programs. Criterion (D)(4)(i) (proposed
(C)(4)) was revised to specify that, when reporting the effectiveness
of teacher and principal credentialing programs, States should report
student growth as well as student achievement data; they should report
the data for all in-State credentialing programs, regardless of the
number of graduates; and they should publicly report data, not
``findings.''
Criterion (D)(4)(ii) has been added to encourage States to expand
those preparation and credentialing options and programs that are
successful at producing effective teachers and principals (both as
defined in this notice).
Criterion (D)(5) (proposed criterion (C)(5)) focuses on providing
effective support to teachers and principals. Here, the Department has
inserted a new paragraph, (D)(5)(i), to provide additional guidance on,
and examples of, effective support. The Department has also removed the
reference to using
[[Page 59691]]
``rapid-time'' student data to inform and guide the supports provided
to teachers and principals.
Turning Around the Lowest-Achieving Schools
The Department made three noteworthy changes to the selection
criteria on turning around the persistently lowest-achieving schools.
First, this notice removes the restriction, proposed in the NPP, that
permitted the ``transformation'' model to be used solely as a last
resort. Instead, we simply specify that an LEA with more than nine
persistently lowest-achieving schools may not use the transformation
model for more than 50 percent of its schools.
Second, the Department has fully aligned the school intervention
requirements and definitions across Race to the Top, the State Fiscal
Stabilization Fund, and the forthcoming Title I School Improvement
Grants final notice. The Department's intention, in so doing, is to
make it easier for States to develop consistent and coherent plans
across these three programs.
Third, the public comments suggested that there was confusion about
the role of charter schools in the Department's reform agenda. Some
commenters concluded that by placing the charter school criterion in
the school turnaround section, the Department was advancing charter
schools as the chief remedy for addressing the needs of the
persistently lowest-achieving schools. While the Department believes
that charter schools can be strong partners in school turnaround work,
it does not believe that charter schools are the only or preferred
solution to turning around struggling schools. In fact, it is the
Department's belief that turning around the persistently lowest-
achieving schools is a core competency that every district needs to
develop, and that closing bad schools and opening good ones is the job
of school district leaders. Notwithstanding research showing that
charter schools on average perform similarly to traditional public
schools, a growing body of evidence suggests that high-quality charter
schools can be powerful forces for increasing student achievement,
closing achievement gaps, and spurring educational innovation. As a
consequence, the selection criterion pertaining to charter schools
(criterion (F)(2), proposed (D)(2)) has been shifted from the Turning
Around the Lowest-Achieving Schools section to the General section,
where it more appropriately reflects charter schools' broader role as a
tool for school innovation and reform.
Specifically, the following changes have been made to criterion
(E)(2) (proposed criterion (D)(3)), regarding turning around the
lowest-achieving schools. Criterion (E)(2)(i) (proposed (D)(3)(i)) has
been changed to allow States, at their discretion, to use Race to the
Top funds to turn around non-Title I eligible secondary schools that
would be considered ``persistently lowest-achieving schools'' if they
were eligible to receive Title I funds.
Criterion (E)(2)(ii) (proposed criterion (D)(3)(ii)) has been
changed by removing the clause that restricted the use of the
``transformation'' model to situations where the other intervention
models were not possible and by specifying that an LEA with more than
nine persistently lowest-achieving schools may not use the
transformation model for more than 50 percent of its schools. In
addition, the four intervention models LEAs may use under this
criterion are now described in detail in Appendix C, and these models
have been made identical across the Race to the Top, State Fiscal
Stabilization Fund, and Title I School Improvement Grants notices.
Finally, the evidence collected for criterion (E)(2) will include
the State's historic performance on school turnaround efforts, as
evidenced by the total number of persistently lowest-achieving schools
that States or LEAs attempted to turn around in the last five years,
the approach used, and the results and lessons learned to date.
General
The General section includes a number of other key reform
conditions or plans.
First, criterion (F)(1) concerns education funding across the
State. Criterion (F)(1)(i) (proposed (E)(2)) addresses the State's
efforts to maintain education funding between FY 2008 and FY 2009. New
criterion (F)(1)(ii) has been added to reward States whose policies
lead to equitable funding between high-need LEAs and other LEAs, and
within LEAs, between high-poverty schools and other schools.
As noted above, criterion (F)(2) regarding charter schools has been
moved to the General section from the Turning Around the Lowest-
Achieving Schools section, where it was proposed criterion (D)(2). In
this notice, the Department maintains its focus on high-quality charter
schools as important tools for school reform.
As was the case with the NPP, the final charter school criteria
presented under (F)(2) encourage both unrestrictive charter school
growth laws and strong charter school accountability. In support of
charter school growth, the criteria also provide for the evaluation of
States based on the extent to which they provide equitable funding for
charter schools and offer them access to facilities. Criterion
(F)(2)(ii) has also been revised to urge authorizers to encourage
charter schools that serve student populations that are similar to
local district student populations, especially relative to high-need
students.
In their comments, a number of States argued that they had laws--
other than charter school laws--that spurred school innovation. In
response to these comments, the Department has added a new criterion,
(F)(2)(v), that invites States to describe the extent to which they
enable LEAs to operate innovative, autonomous public schools other than
charter schools.
It is the Department's hope that the Race to the Top competition
gives States ample opportunity to explain and implement proven and
promising ideas for bolstering student learning and educational
attainment, and to do this in ways that work best in their local
contexts. To ensure that the application reflects a broad range of
effective State and local solutions, criterion (F)(3) (proposed
criterion (E)(1)(iii)) asks States to describe laws, regulations, or
policies (other than those asked about in other selection criteria)
that have created conditions in the State that are conducive to
education reform and improved student outcomes.
Priorities
Many commenters offered suggestions about the proposed priorities,
in particular the invitational and competitive preference priorities. A
number of commenters urged the Department to increase the importance of
each invitational priority by making it a competitive or absolute
priority, while others wanted to add new priorities. Because of the
Department's desire to give States latitude and flexibility in
developing focused plans to best meet their students' needs, we are not
changing any of the priorities from invitational to competitive or
absolute. We did, however, add a new invitational priority and make
some changes to the proposed priorities.
Regarding the proposed absolute priority, which stated that States'
applications must comprehensively and coherently address all of the
four education reform areas specified in the ARRA, the Department has
added the requirement that States must comprehensively and coherently
address the new State Success Factors criteria as well.
[[Page 59692]]
The final notice adds a new invitational priority 3, Innovations
for Improving Early Learning Outcomes, expressing the Secretary's
interest in applications that will improve early learning outcomes for
high-need students who are young children.
In invitational priority 4 (proposed priority 3), Expansion and
Adaptation of Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems, programs such as at-
risk and dropout prevention programs, school climate and culture
programs, and early learning programs have been added to the list of
programs that a State may choose to integrate with its statewide
longitudinal data system.
In invitational priority 5 (proposed priority 4), P-20
Coordination, Vertical and Horizontal Alignment, horizontal
coordination of services was added as a critical component for
supporting high-need students.
In invitational priority 6 (proposed priority 5), School-level
Conditions for Reform, Innovation, and Learning, new paragraph (vi)
adds school climate and culture, and new paragraph (vii) adds family
and community engagement to the list of school conditions conducive to
reform and innovation.
Requirements
The first eligibility requirement, requirement (a), has been
changed to provide that a State must have both phases of its State
Fiscal Stabilization Fund application approved by the Department prior
to being awarded a Race to the Top grant. In the NPP, we proposed that
a State would have to receive approval of its Stabilization Fund
applications prior to December 31, 2009 (for Race to the Top Phase 1
applicants) or prior to submitting a Race to the Top application (for
Race to the Top Phase 2 applicants).
The second eligibility requirement, requirement (b), was revised to
clarify that the State must not have any legal, statutory, or
regulatory barriers at the State level 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.
In addition, several changes were made to the application
requirements. The Department removed two proposed application
requirements, application requirements (c) and (d), which would have
required States to provide information about making education funding a
priority and about stakeholder support. Note that the final notice
retains the selection criteria that request this same information.
Application requirement (c)(2) provides additional clarity about
how to calculate the relative shares of the Race to the Top grant that
participating LEAs will be eligible to receive.
The Department has added a new application requirement, requirement
(g), to clarify specific issues related to the term ``subgroup,'' to
NAEP, and to the assessments required under the ESEA. In addition to
requiring States to include, at a minimum, the listed student subgroups
when reporting past outcomes and setting future targets, this
application requirement includes statutory references. This addition
eliminates the need for statutory references that define subgroups
elsewhere in the notice, and they therefore have been removed.
The program requirements have also changed. First, the Department
has indicated its final approach to evaluation. The Institute of
Education Sciences will conduct a series of national evaluations of
Race to the Top State grantees as part of its evaluation of programs
funded under the ARRA. States that are awarded Race to the Top grants
will be required to participate in these evaluations and are welcome,
but not required, to conduct their own independent, statewide
evaluations as well.
Finally, the program requirements have clarified that funds awarded
under this competition may not be used to pay for costs related to
statewide summative assessments.
Definitions
The Department has revised the definition of alternative routes to
certification to require that in addition to the other program
characteristics listed, the program must be selective in accepting
candidates. The revised definition also clarifies that such programs
should include standard features of high-quality preparation programs
and award the same level of certification that is awarded by
traditional preparation programs.
A new definition of college enrollment refers to the enrollment of
students who graduate from high school consistent with 34 CFR
200.19(b)(1) and who enroll in an institution of higher education (as
defined in section 101 of the Higher Education Act, Public Law 105-244,
20 U.S.C. 1001) within 16 months of graduation.
The final notice revises the definitions of effective teacher,
effective principal, highly effective teacher, and highly effective
principal to require that multiple measures be used to evaluate
effectiveness, and provides several examples of appropriate measures.
The definition of formative assessment has been revised to clarify
that formative assessments are assessment questions, tools and
processes and to require that feedback from such assessments need only
be timely rather than instant.
Under a new definition of high-minority school, States are to
define high-minority schools in their applications in a manner
consistent with their Teacher Equity Plans.
The definition of high-need LEA was changed to conform with the
definition of this term used in section 14013 of the ARRA.
The final notice adds and defines high-need students to mean
students at risk of educational failure or otherwise in need of special
assistance and support, such as students who are living in poverty, who
attend high-minority schools (as defined in this notice), who are far
below grade level, who have left school before receiving a regular high
school diploma, who are at risk of not graduating with a diploma on
time, who are homeless, who are in foster care, who have been
incarcerated, who have disabilities, or who are English language
learners.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The term English language learner, as used in this notice,
is synonymous with the term limited English proficient, as defined
in section 9101 of the ESEA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The final notice adds a definition of high-performing charter
school. This definition refers to a charter school that has been in
operation for at least three consecutive years and has demonstrated
overall success, including substantial progress in improving student
achievement and having the management and leadership necessary to
overcome initial start-up problems and establish a thriving,
financially viable charter school.
The definition of high-quality assessment has been revised to
clarify that test design must, to the extent feasible, use universal
design principles in development and administration, and incorporate
technology where appropriate.
The final notice also adds a definition of increased learning time,
which refers to using a longer school day, week, or year schedule to
significantly increase the total number of school hours to include
additional time for (a) instruction in core academic subjects,
including English; reading or language arts; mathematics; science;
foreign languages; civics and government; economics; arts; history; and
geography; (b) instruction in other subjects and enrichment activities
that contribute to a well-rounded education, including, for
[[Page 59693]]
example, physical education, service learning, and experiential and
work-based learning opportunities that are provided by partnering, as
appropriate, with other organizations; and (c) teachers to collaborate,
plan, and engage in professional development within and across grades
and subjects.
The final notice adds a definition of innovative, autonomous public
schools to refer to open enrollment public schools that, in return for
increased accountability for student achievement (as defined in this
notice), have the flexibility and authority to define their
instructional models and associated curriculum; select and replace
staff; implement new structures and formats for the school day or year;
and control their budgets.
In the definition of instructional improvement systems, the
Department now provides examples of related types of data that could be
integrated into these systems.
The final notice adds a definition of involved LEAs, which refers
to LEAs that choose to work with the State to implement those specific
portions of the State's plan that necessitate full or nearly full
statewide implementation, such as transitioning to a common set of K-12
standards, (as defined in this notice). Involved LEAs do not receive a
share of the 50 percent of a State's grant award that it must subgrant
to LEAs in accordance with section 14006(c) of the ARRA; however,
States may provide other funding to involved LEAs under the State's
Race to the Top grant in a manner that is consistent with the State's
application.
The final notice adds a definition of low-minority school, which is
to be defined by the State in a manner consistent with the State's
Teacher Equity Plan.
A new definition of low-poverty school refers, consistent with
section 1111(h)(1)(C)(viii) of the ESEA, to a school in the lowest
quartile of schools in the State with respect to poverty level, using a
measure of poverty determined by the State.
The final notice adds a definition of participating LEAs, which
refers to LEAs that choose to work with the State to implement all or
significant portions of the State's Race to the Top plan, as specified
in each LEA's agreement with the State. Each participating LEA that
receives funding under Title I, Part A will receive a share of the 50
percent of a State's grant award that the State must subgrant to LEAs,
based on the LEA's relative share of Title I, Part A allocations in the
most recent year (that is, 2009), in accordance with section 14006(c)
of the ARRA. Any participating LEA that does not receive funding under
Title I, Part A (as well as one that does) may receive funding from the
State's other 50 percent of the grant award, in accordance with the
State's plan.
The term persistently lowest-performing schools has been changed to
persistently lowest-achieving schools. The definition has been revised
to include the lowest-achieving five percent criterion originally
included in proposed criterion (D)(3) and to add high schools with
graduation rates below 60 percent. The definition also provides that,
in determining the lowest-achieving schools, a State must consider the
academic achievement of the ``all students'' group for each school in
terms of proficiency on the State's assessments required by the ESEA in
reading/language arts and mathematics combined, and the lack of
progress by that group on these assessments over a number of years.
The definition of rapid-time, in reference to reporting and
availability of data, has been changed to remove the specification of a
turnaround time of 72 hours and to clarify that it refers to locally
collected school- and LEA-level data.
The definition of student achievement has been revised to include
several examples of alternate measures of student learning and
performance for non-tested grades and subjects. The final notice also
clarifies that, for tested grades and subjects, student achievement can
be measured using alternative measures of student learning and
performance in addition to the State's assessments under the ESEA.
Finally, the reference to Individualized Education Program (IEP) goals
as a potential achievement measure has been removed.
The definition of student growth was clarified to mean the change
in student achievement (as defined in this notice) for an individual
student between two or more points in time, rather than just between
two points in time, as the NPP had proposed, and that a State may also
include other measures that are rigorous and comparable across
classrooms.
In the following section, the Department has summarized and
provided its responses to the comments received.
Analysis of Comments and Changes: An analysis of the comments and
of any changes in the priorities, requirements, definitions, and
selection criteria since publication of the NPP follows.
General Comments on the Race to the Top Program
Reorganization of the Final Notice
Comment: None.
Discussion: The selection criteria in this notice are reordered.
The most significant change is the addition of State Success Factors to
the beginning of the selection criteria. State Success Factors criteria
include some new criteria, as well as criteria that are adapted from
proposed criteria from the overall selection criteria section proposed
in the NPP. This reorganization will give States the opportunity to
begin their proposals with clear statements of their coherent and
coordinated statewide reform agendas. However, with this change, it was
necessary to redesignate the remaining criteria. For example, in the
NPP, the criteria related to standards and assessments were designated
as ``A'' (e.g., (A)(1), (A)(2), etc.), but in this final notice have
been re-designated as ``B'' (e.g., (B)(1), (B)(2), etc.). One way to
indicate this change throughout the final notice is to include both
references every time a criterion is used (e.g., revised criterion
(B)(1) (proposed criterion (A)(1)). Given the length of this notice and
the extensive references to criteria, we have opted to refer only to
the revised designation in the discussion of the comments. For example,
we refer to a criterion for standards and assessments as ``criterion
(B)(1),'' rather than as ``revised criterion (B)(1) (proposed criterion
(A)(1)).'' In a few instances, we refer to ``proposed criterion'' or
``revised criterion'' for clarity but, generally, do not refer to each
criterion with both its ``revised'' and ``proposed'' designation. We
believe this format makes the document easier to read and understand.
As a reminder to readers, we include both the final and proposed
designations under the appropriate headings. Table 1 lists the final
criteria and the corresponding proposed criteria. In Table 2, the
columns are reversed to show the proposed criteria and the
corresponding final criteria.
There is a similar re-designation of the priorities. Specifically,
we added a new invitational priority on innovations for improving early
learning outcomes and designated it as priority 3. Subsequent
priorities were re-numbered, and thus, proposed priorities 3, 4, and 5
are now priorities 4, 5, and 6, respectively. As with the selection
criteria, generally, we will refer only to the final designation for
these priorities and will use headers, as appropriate, to remind the
reader of the changes. Thus, for example, we will refer to the priority
[[Page 59694]]
on Expansion and Adaptation of Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems,
which was proposed priority 3 in the NPP, as priority 4. Table 3
summarizes these changes.
Changes: We have re-designated the selection criteria and proposed
priorities 3, 4, and 5. We will refer to the selection criteria and
priorities with their final designations throughout this notice and, in
a few instances, will refer to proposed designations for clarity. Three
tables have been added to show how the final selection criteria and
priorities relate to the proposed criteria and priorities.
Table 1--The Final Selection Criteria Compared With the Proposed
Selection Criteria
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final notice Proposed notice
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. State Success Factors (E)(1), (E)(3), (E)(4), (E)(5),
and new
A1. Articulating State's (E)(3)(iv), new
education reform agenda and
LEAs' participation in it
(A)(1)(i) New
(A)(1)(ii) (E)(3)(iv)
(A)(1)(ii)(a) (E)(3)(iv)
(A)(1)(ii)(b) (E)(3)(iv)
(A)(1)(ii)(c) (E)(3)(iv)
(A)(1)(iii)(a) (E)(3)(iv) and (E)(4)(i)
(A)(1)(iii)(b) (E)(3)(iv) and (E)(4)(ii)
(A)(1)(iii)(c) (E)(3)(iv) and (E)(4)(iii)
(A)(1)(iii)(d) (E)(3)(iv) and new
A2. Building strong statewide (E)(3)(i-ii), (E)(5), and new
capacity to implement, scale
up, and sustain proposed plans
(A)(2)(i)(a) New
(A)(2)(i)(b) (E)(5)(ii)
(A)(2)(i)(c) (E)(5)(i)
(A)(2)(i)(d) (E)(5)(v)
(A)(2)(i)(e) (E)(5)(iii)
(A)(2)(ii)(a) (E)(3)(i)
(A)(2)(ii)(b) (E)(3)(i-ii)
A3. Demonstrating significant (E)(1) and (E)(4)
progress in raising
achievement and closing gaps
(A)(3)(i) (E)(1)(i-ii)
(A)(3)(ii)(a) (E)(1)(iv)
(A)(3)(ii)(b) (E)(1)(iv)
(A)(3)(ii)(c) (E)(1)(iv)
B. Standards and Assessments A. Standards and Assessments
B1. Developing and adopting (A)(1)
common standards
(B)(1)(i)(a) (A)(1)(i) and (A)(1)(ii)
(B)(1)(i)(b) (A)(1)(i) and (A)(1)(ii)
(B)(1)(i)(c) (A)(1)(i) and (A)(1)(ii)
(B)(1)(ii)(a) (A)(1)(i)
(B)(1)(ii)(b) (A)(1)(ii)
B2. Developing and implementing (A)(2)
common, high-quality
assessments
(B)(2)(a) (A)(2)
(B)(2)(a) (A)(2)
B3. Supporting the transition (A)(3)
to enhanced standards and high-
quality assessments
C. Data Systems to Support B. Data Systems to Support
Instruction Instruction
C1. Fully implementing a (B)(1)
statewide longitudinal data
system
C2. Accessing and using State (B)(2)
data
C3. Using data to improve (B)(3)
instruction
(C)(3)(i) (B)(3)(i)
(C)(3)(ii) New
(C)(3)(iii) (B)(3)(ii)
D. Great Teachers and Leaders C. Great Teachers and Leaders
D1. Providing high-quality (C)(1)
pathways for aspiring teachers
and principals
(D)(1)(i) (C)(1)
(D)(1)(ii) (C)(1)
(D)(1)(iii) New
D2. Improving teacher and (C)(2)
principal effectiveness based
on performance
(D)(2)(i) (C)(2)(a)
(D)(2)(ii) (C)(2)(b)
(D)(2)(iii) (C)(2)(c) and (C)(2)(d)(i)
(D)(2)(iv) (C)(2)(d)
(D)(2)(iv)(a) (C)(2)(d)(i)
(D)(2)(iv)(b) (C)(2)(d)(ii)
(D)(2)(iv)(c) (C)(2)(d)(iii)
(D)(2)(iv)(d) (C)(2)(d)(iii)
D3. Ensuring equitable (C)(3)
distribution of effective
teachers and principals
[[Page 59695]]
(D)(3)(i) (C)(3)
(D)(3)(ii) (C)(3)
D4. Improving the effectiveness (C)(4)
of teacher and principal
preparation programs
(D)(4)(i) (C)(4)
(D)(4)(ii) New
D5. Providing effective support (C)(5)
to teachers and principals
(D)(5)(i) (C)(5)
(D)(5)(ii) (C)(5)
E. Turning Around the Lowest- D. Turning Around Struggling
Achieving Schools Schools
E1. Intervening in the lowest- (D)(1)
achieving schools and LEAs
E2. Turning around the lowest- (D)(3)
achieving schools
(E)(2)(i) (D)(3)(i)
(E)(2)(ii) (D)(3)(ii)
F. General Selection Criteria (D)(2), (E)(1), (E)(2), and new
F1. Making education funding a (E)(2) and new
priority
(F)(1)(i) (E)(2)
(F)(1)(ii) New
F2. Ensuring successful (D)(2)
conditions for high-performing
charter schools and other
innovative schools
(F)(2)(i) (D)(2)(i)
(F)(2)(ii) (D)(2)(ii)
(F)(2)(iii) (D)(2)(iii)
(F)(2)(iv) (D)(2)(iv)
(F)(2)(v) New
F3. Demonstrating other (E)(1)(iii)
significant reform conditions
Removed (E)(3)(iii)
Removed (E)(5)(iv)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2--The Proposed Selection Criteria Compared With the Final
Selection Criteria
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed notice Final notice
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Standards and Assessments B. Standards and Assessments
(A)(1). Developing and adopting (B)(1)
common standards
(A)(1)(i) (B)(1)(i), (B)(1)(ii)(a)
(A)(1)(ii) (B)(1)(i), (B)(1)(ii)(b)
(A)(2). Developing and (B)(2)
implementing common, high-
quality assessments
(A)(3). Supporting the (B)(3)
transition to enhanced
standards and high-quality
assessments
B. Data Systems to Support C. Data Systems to Support
Instruction Instruction
(B)(1). Fully implementing a (C)(1)
statewide longitudinal data
system
(B)(2). Accessing and using (C)(2)
State data
(B)(3). Using data to improve (C)(3)(i), (C)(3)(iii)
instruction
(B)(3)(i) (C)(3)(i)
(B)(3)(ii) (C)(3)(iii)
C. Great Teachers and Leaders D. Great Teachers and Leaders
(C)(1). Providing high-quality (D)(1)(i-ii)
pathways for aspiring teachers
and principals
(C)(2). Improving teacher and (D)(2)
principal effectiveness based
on performance
(C)(2)(a) (D)(2)(i)
(C)(2)(b) (D)(2)(ii)
(C)(2)(c) (D)(2)(iii)
(C)(2)(d)(i) (D)(2)(iii), (D)(2)(iv)(a)
(C)(2)(d)(ii) (D)(2)(iv)(b)
(C)(2)(d)(iii) (D)(2)(iv)(c), (D)(2)(iv)(d)
(C)(3). Ensuring equitable (D)(3)(i), (D)(3)(ii)
distribution of effective
teachers and principals
(C)(4). Reporting the (D)(4)(i)
effectiveness of teacher and
principal preparation programs
(C)(5). Providing effective (D)(5)(i), (D)(5)(ii)
support to teachers and
principals
D. Turning Around Struggling E. Turning Around the Lowest-
Schools Achieving Schools
(D)(1). Intervening in the (E)(1)
lowest-achieving schools and
LEAs
(D)(2). Increasing the supply (F)(2)
of high-quality charter
schools
(D)(2)(i) (F)(2)(i)
(D)(2)(ii) (F)(2)(ii)
(D)(2)(iii) (F)(2)(iii)
(D)(2)(iv) (F)(2)(iv)
(D)(3). Turning around the (E)(2)
lowest-achieving schools
[[Page 59696]]
(D)(3)(i) (E)(2)(i)
(D)(3)(ii) (E)(2)(ii)
E. Overall Selection Criteria (A) State Success Factors and (F)
General Selection Criteria
(E)(1). Demonstrating (A)(3)(i), (A)(3)(ii), (F)(3)
significant progress
(E)(1)(i) (A)(3)(i)
(E)(1)(ii) (A)(3)(i)
(E)(1)(iii) (F)(3)
(E)(1)(iv) (A)(3)(ii)
(E)(2). Making education (F)(1)(i)
funding a priority
(E)(3). Enlisting statewide (A)(1)(ii), (A)(1)(iii),
support and commitment (A)(2)(ii)
(E)(3)(i) (A)(2)(ii)(a), (A)(2)(ii)(b)
(E)(3)(ii) (A)(2)(ii)(b)
(E)(3)(iii) Removed
(E)(3)(iv) (A)(1)(ii), (A)(1)(iii)
(E)(4). Raising achievement and (A)(1)(iii)
closing gaps
(E)(4)(i) (A)(1)(iii)(a)
(E)(4)(ii) (A)(1)(iii)(b)
(E)(4)(iii) (A)(1)(iii)(c)
(E)(5). Building strong (A)(2)(i)(b-e)
statewide capacity to
implement, scale up, and
sustain proposed plans
(E)(5)(i) (A)(2)(i)(c)
(E)(5)(ii) (A)(2)(i)(b)
(E)(5)(iii) (A)(2)(i)(e)
(E)(5)(iv) Removed
(E)(5)(v) (A)(2)(i)(d)
New (A)(1)(i)
New (A)(1)(iii)(d)
New (A)(2)(i)(a)
New (C)(3)(ii)
New (D)(1)(iii)
New (D)(4)(ii)
New (F)(1)(ii)
New (F)(2)(v)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3--The Final Priorities Compared With the Proposed Priorities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final priorities Proposed priorities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Priority 1: Absolute Priority-- Priority 1: Absolute Priority.
Comprehensive Approach to
Education Reform.
Priority 2: Competitive Preference Priority 2: Competitive Preference
Priority--Emphasis on Science, Priority.
Technology, Engineering, and
Mathematics (STEM).
Priority 3: Invitational Priority-- New.
Innovations for Improving Early
Learning Outcomes.
Priority 4: Invitational Priority-- Priority 3.
Expansion and Adaptation of
Statewide Longitudinal Data
Systems.
Priority 5: Invitational Priority-- Priority 4.
P-20 Coordination, Vertical and
Horizontal Alignment.
Priority 6: Invitational Priority-- Priority 5.
School-Level Conditions for
Reform, Innovation, and Learning.
Priority 6, Paragraph vi. New.
Priority 6, Paragraph vii. New.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overall Comments on the Race to the Top Program
Comment: We received a number of comments that addressed issues
related to the Race to the Top program in general, as well as comments
that focused on a number of priorities and selection criteria.
Discussion: We are addressing, in this section, general comments on
the Race to the Top program, as well as comments that focused on
multiple priorities and selection criteria. This allows us to group
similar comments and be more responsive to the commenters.
Changes: None.
Comment: Many commenters supported our proposals in the NPP and our
effort to leverage cutting-edge education reforms and innovation in a
competitive Race to the Top program that will lay the foundation for
significant improvement of America's education system. In particular,
these commenters praised the Department's proposals for ``game-
changing'' reforms in the areas of improving teacher and principal
effectiveness and turning around our lowest-achieving schools.
Other commenters expressed their overall opposition to the Race to
the Top program because of what they described as its ``one-size-fits-
all'' approach to education reform involving ``a top-down, narrow
definition of innovation that has little research to support it.''
Another commenter stated that the Department is prescribing a national
formula for education reform, which threatens to undermine the program.
In particular, several
[[Page 59697]]
commenters objected to the proposed use of test scores as an accurate
measure of student achievement and what they claimed were ``unproven''
interventions such as charter schools and linking teacher compensation
to student achievement data. Many commenters asserted that the proposed
program design would interfere with State and local prerogatives and
responsibilities for public education. Other commenters noted that some
of the interventions proposed in Race to the Top, such as increasing
the number of high-quality charter schools, are not consistent with
existing State laws and might not work as well in rural areas as in
urban environments. One commenter stated that the NPP ignored the
existing ESEA school improvement process and ``would simply layer
another top-down accountability process on top of the current faulty
one.'' Some of these commenters urged that the final notice instead
encourage States to propose multiple innovative, research-based reform
strategies and models tailored to their own unique local needs.
Discussion: The Department appreciates the expressions of support
for its Race to the Top proposal as well as commenters' constructive
suggestions. The Race to the Top program provides a flexible framework
for comprehensive State and local innovation in the key reform areas
identified in the ARRA. In fact, one of the key purposes of this
program is to ask States for their best ideas about how to address the
levers of change--the four assurances in the ARRA--to significantly
improve student outcomes and advance the field of education reform.
To create ``room'' for States to meet this goal, this final notice,
consistent with the NPP, includes only one absolute priority and two
eligibility requirements--none of which interferes with a State's
flexibility to put forward its best ideas and practices for reform. The
absolute priority focuses on comprehensiveness and coherence across the
reform areas, and the eligibility requirements include (1) approved
applications for funding under Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the Stabilization
program, and (2) no legal, statutory, or regulatory barriers at the
State level to linking data on student achievement or student growth to
teachers and principals for the purpose of teacher and principal
evaluation. As we noted in the NPP, 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 are
advanced by the Race to the Top program. We, therefore, believe 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. With regard to the
second eligibility requirement, we believe that the capability to link
student achievement to teachers and principals for the purposes of
evaluation is fundamental to the 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. Furthermore, without the legal
authority to use student achievement or student growth data for teacher
and principal evaluations, States would not be able to execute reform
plans related to several selection criteria in this notice.
In addition, the proposed selection criteria were not designated as
eligibility requirements; instead, they were proposed as recommended
elements of a comprehensive State plan that would provide an individual
State with the flexibility to emphasize its own priorities and craft a
winning application. This flexible approach has been retained in this
final notice. For instance, States need not address every selection
criterion, so long as they comprehensively and coherently address all
of the four education reform areas as well as the State Success Factors
Criteria.
Through this program, the Department will reward success in at
least two ways: First, by giving States credit for having already put
into place key conditions for reform, improving student achievement,
and closing achievement gaps; and second, by encouraging States to
build on their assets and successes. We believe that State plans that
build on a foundation of successful existing practices will be more
likely to succeed in improving student outcomes.
It is important to note that the Race to the Top program is a
voluntary competitive grant program. Consistent with section 14006(b)
of the ARRA, we may use ``such other criteria as the Secretary
determines appropriate'' in making Race to the Top awards; our
intention is not to fund every State but to identify and reward the
subset of States that demonstrate the greatest promise of making
meaningful gains in developing standards and assessments, using data to
drive improved student outcomes, improving teacher and principal
effectiveness and achieving equity in the distribution of effective
teachers and principals, and turning around struggling schools.
Moreover, because the effects of the Race to the Top program might not
be captured by existing State accountability systems, such as those
created under the ESEA, this final notice retains the separate
performance measures included in the NPP.
In response to commenters' concerns pertaining to ``unproven''
interventions in the Race to the Top program, there is ample evidence,
for example, that high-performing charter schools can significantly
improve the achievement of high-need students. Likewise, the research
supports that effective teachers and principals are essential to
improving student achievement; accordingly, the Department believes
that identifying, recruiting, developing, and retaining effective
teachers and school leaders is critical to creating high-performing
schools and a world-class education system. Finally, we are providing
States with flexibility to incorporate these reforms into their plans
through their own innovative and thoughtful approaches that are
designed to address their specific needs. In addition, we are including
in this final notice two additional criteria intended to make this
flexibility for innovation more explicit.
Changes: We have added the following criteria: First, criterion
(F)(2)(v) asks a State to demonstrate the extent to which it enables
LEAs to operate innovative, autonomous public schools other than
charter schools. Second, criterion (F)(3) (proposed criterion
(E)(1)(iii)) encourages States to describe any other conditions
favorable to education reform or innovation that have increased student
achievement or graduation rates, narrowed achievement gaps, or resulted
in other important outcomes.
Transparency
Comment: Some commenters requested that the Department make all
State applications and annual reports publicly available for review.
Additional commenters requested that applications and all related
materials be posted online prior to approval.
Discussion: To foster transparency and openness, the Department
plans to post all State applications--for both successful and
unsuccessful applications--on our Web site at the conclusion of each
phase of the competition, together with the final scores each received.
States may choose to make their applications publicly available at any
time. We also anticipate making State annual reports publicly
available.
Changes: None.
[[Page 59698]]
Allocation of Points
Comment: Several commenters requested clarification concerning the
weighting of selection criteria. Two commenters specifically requested
that the point scale or rubric be disclosed. Other commenters suggested
that the point allocations be subject to public comment. One commenter
suggested that Secretary Duncan make the final award selections.
Discussion: To ensure that the Race to the Top competition is as
open and transparent as possible, the Department is publishing the
reviewer scoring rubric in Appendix B of this notice. The rubric is
designed to ensure consistency across reviewers and help applicants
better understand the Department's priorities for this competition by
clearly identifying the point allocations for each selection criterion
and indicating how priorities will be judged. The Secretary will select
the grantees after considering the rank order of applications, each
applicant's status with respect to the Absolute Priority and
eligibility requirement (a), and any other relevant information. Grant
award decisions are made by the Secretary, pursuant to the Department's
regulations. It is the Department's practice to first take public
comment on proposed selection criteria before making final decisions on
those criteria. This allows the Department to consider public comment
on the proposed selection criteria before making final decisions on
point allocations, which are then published in the application package
and final notice inviting applications.
Changes: The scoring rubric for the criteria is included as
Appendix B.
Comment: Many commenters recommended weighting State Reform
Conditions Criteria more heavily than Reform Plan Criteria, arguing
that States that have already enacted reform policies are more likely
to accelerate student achievement. On the other hand, one commenter
suggested that States be given extra credit for recently enacted
regulatory or legislative reforms, particularly in Phase 2 of the Race
to the Top competition. Several other commenters recommended that the
Department ensure that no single criterion or assurance, by itself,
operate to eliminate a State from the Race to the Top competition. One
of these commenters argued that States need flexibility, while another
commenter added that a State application that addresses some criteria
in depth may be stronger than one that addresses all criteria but is
``shallow'' in its overall approach.
Discussion: The scoring rubric assigns more weight to
accomplishments (i.e., State Reform Conditions Criteria) than to plans
(i.e., Reform Plan Criteria). (See Appendix B). However, the Department
will not give ``extra credit'' to States that have recently enacted
laws or polices intended to support their Race to the Top applications,
as that would penalize early reformers. Finally, as is made clear
elsewhere in this notice, the selection criteria are not eligibility
requirements; the failure to meet any single criterion, or even a
number of criteria, will not preclude a State from receiving a Race to
the Top award. Moreover, the large number of criteria for which a State
may earn points means that an application that is exceptionally strong
on a majority of, but not all, Race to the Top selection criteria may
score higher than an application that earns only partial credit on
every criterion. On the other hand, applicants should keep in mind the
statutory emphasis on comprehensive reforms, as well as absolute
priority 1, which requires an applicant to address comprehensively all
four ARRA assurance areas as well as the State Success Factors (Section
(A)) of the selection criteria.
Changes: None.
Comment: Many commenters recommended that the Department heavily
weight the selection criteria for turning around struggling schools.
Another commenter suggested a weighting system that rewards States for
providing flexibility or autonomy to schools, whether charter or
traditional. One commenter suggested awarding a significant portion of
points for activities that support science, technology, engineering,
and mathematics (STEM) initiatives; needy locations; turning around
school climate; partnerships with community based organizations and
volunteers; and family engagement.
Discussion: The Department believes that each of the four reform
areas is critical and has assigned points accordingly. The Department,
therefore, declines to heavily weight the selection criteria for
turning around struggling schools or to provide extra points to States
that provide flexibility and autonomy to its schools. We decline to
award a significant portion of points for activities that support STEM
initiatives, needy locations, school climate, partnerships with
community based organizations and volunteers, and family engagement. We
note that each of these areas already is addressed in this notice. For
example, a State that includes STEM education in its comprehensive plan
will be eligible to receive competitive preference points; States are
required to give priority to high-need LEAs in their Race to the Top
plans; and strategies to improve school climate, develop partnerships
with CBOs, and improve family engagement are specifically encouraged in
the school intervention models in Appendix C.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested that the Department release
guidance to help States determine whether they are likely to be
successful in competing for Race to the Top funds as judged by their
NAEP scores. The commenter suggested that States with low NAEP scores
are unlikely to receive funds and would be wasting tremendous resources
in completing a Race to the Top application.
Discussion: The Department has created a scoring rubric with the
number of possible points for each selection criterion. The rubric will
be used by reviewers to judge State applications for Race to the Top
funds. The Department is including the rubric in Appendix B to ensure
that the scoring of State applications is transparent and so that
States are fully informed as they develop their applications. We note
that the criterion referenced by the commenter (proposed criterion
(E)(1)(iv), which has been revised and designated as criterion
(A)(1)(iii)), focuses on improvements in achievement, and not simply
whether a State has high or low scores, as reported by both the NAEP
and the assessments required under the ESEA.
Changes: None.
Other Education Reform Strategies
Comment: Many commenters suggested that Race to the Top take into
account existing State and local education reform strategies,
particularly in high-need schools. Several commenters suggested that
Race to the Top include reform initiatives specifically targeted to
high schools, the learning needs of advanced students, or the
attainment of ``21st Century Skills'' (described in the comments as
skills pertaining to media, technology, and financial literacy and
global awareness). One commenter urged a greater focus in Race to the
Top on ``disruptive innovations'' such as online learning, while others
championed specific subjects, such as music and the arts, as essential
ways of engaging students in learning and keeping them in school. In
addition, several commenters argued that the study of foreign languages
is critical for our future competitiveness in the global economy and
should be included as a priority in the Race to the Top program.
[[Page 59699]]
Discussion: The Department recognizes that numerous strategies,
interventions, technologies, and subjects can make meaningful
contributions to improving the quality of our education system,
engaging students, and turning around the lowest-achieving schools. We
also agree that it is important to give States credit for existing
reforms that are achieving positive outcomes. This is one reason why we
are clarifying and expanding criterion (F)(3) (proposed criterion
(E)(1)(iii)) which, as mentioned earlier, asks States to demonstrate
the extent to which they have created conditions favorable to education
reform or innovation, in addition to the information provided under
other State Reform Conditions Criteria. We also note that under the
State Reform Conditions Criteria, States will be rewarded for having
put into place key conditions for reform, while the State Reform Plan
Criteria asks States to create plans that build on their successes.
Changes: Criterion (F)(3) (proposed criterion (E)(1)(iii)) has been
clarified and expanded to focus on the extent to which a State, in
addition to information provided under other State Reform Conditions
Criteria, has created, through law, regulation, or policy, other
conditions favorable to education reform or innovation that have
increased student achievement or graduation rates, narrowed achievement
gaps, or resulted in other important outcomes.
Evidence-Based Practices in Race to the Top
Comment: Some commenters argued that the Race to the Top program,
as outlined in the NPP, would not adequately support evidence-based
practices. One of these commenters suggested including a minimum
evidence threshold for each of the State Reform Plan Criteria.
Discussion: We believe that the use of evidence-based practices is
critical to the success of the Race to the Top program. However, we
acknowledge that the research evidence to support education practices,
strategies, and programs may not reach the same threshold for each
reform area. The four education reform areas in the ARRA are in large
part focused on giving educators new data-based tools for developing
and implementing their own best practices. Indeed, developing stronger
standards and assessments, expanding the use of longitudinal data
systems, improving teacher and principal effectiveness, and supporting
struggling schools are all intended to create and support evidence-
driven continuous instructional improvement based on what works in the
classroom. One key purpose of Race to the Top is to empower cutting-
edge States and LEAs to build on what works while also creating new,
more effective models of educational reform and improvement that will
significantly expand our collection of evidence-based practices. We
believe that State flexibility is key in this effort.
Changes: None.
Support for Traditional Public Schools
Comment: One commenter claimed that the Race to the Top program, as
outlined in the NPP, would result in little or no support for
traditional public schools because it seemed primarily concerned with
creating ``financial opportunities for educational entrepreneurs.''
Discussion: This commenter misconstrues Race to the Top, which is
focused almost entirely on improving our traditional public schools.
Furthermore, pursuant to section 14006(c) of the ARRA, at least 50
percent of Race to the Top funds must be allocated directly to LEAs
according to their relative shares of funding under Title I, Part A of
the ESEA; a majority of those LEAs are likely to serve exclusively
traditional public schools. Further, each of the four assurances under
the ARRA, which provide the overall framework for the Race to the Top
program, is aimed at increasing the effectiveness of State and local
support for traditional public schools.
Changes: None.
Eligibility of Other Entities
Comment: Several commenters suggested that entities other than
States be made eligible to apply directly for Race to the Top funds.
Specifically, commenters suggested that such organizations as charter
schools, independent school districts, community colleges, historically
black colleges and universities, LEAs, and not-for-profit organizations
partnering with either LEAs or universities be able to apply for Race
to the Top funds. Those commenters argued that preventing these
entities from applying for the Race to the Top competition would limit
the creation of innovative partnerships. Other commenters requested
that private schools and non-profit organizations that partner with
LEAs be eligible. Another commenter suggested that municipalities, in
addition to LEAs, should be eligible to receive Race to the Top
subgrants. One commenter was supportive of States applying directly for
funds as opposed to LEAs.
Discussion: Section 14006(a)(2) of the ARRA specifically states
that ``the Secretary shall make grants to States that have made
significant progress'' in meeting the objectives of the four reform
areas. As such, the Department does not have the authority to expand
the statute's directive to extend eligibility to the other entities
suggested by the commenters. The Department recognizes, however, that
these entities and others within the State are essential to the success
of Race to the Top grantees. For this reason, we are adding additional
examples of stakeholders to State Success Factors Criterion
(A)(2)(ii)(b) (proposed criteria (E)(3)(i) and (ii)), which
specifically asks applicants to demonstrate the extent to which they
have secured broad stakeholder support. In addition, participating LEAs
may use their funds to serve non-Title I schools, if doing so aligns
with the State's plan and the Department's general regulations on uses
of funds. States also may, consistent with applicable procurement
requirements, contract with organizations such as those mentioned by
the commenters, using the State's share of Race to the Top funds.
Changes: Criterion (A)(2)(ii)(b) has been expanded to include
additional examples of stakeholder support.
Comment: Some commenters suggested that private schools be eligible
for Race to the Top funds. One commenter argued that services to
students and teachers in private schools is permitted under the
Stabilization Fund and, therefore, should be permitted under the Race
to the Top program. The commenter stated that section 14006(b) of the
ARRA leaves considerable discretion to the Secretary in awarding grants
on the basis of State applications for the Stabilization Fund and
argued that this latitude extends to Race to the Top funds. The
commenter requested that the overall selection criteria be amended to
include a criterion that focuses on applicants' compliance with
statutory provisions related to the equitable participation of private
school students and teachers in Federal education programs.
Other commenters recommended that the notice encourage States to
include faith-based schools in their applications. These commenters
pointed to positive effects on at-risk youth attributed to Catholic and
other faith-based schools. A few commenters specifically requested that
faith-based schools be eligible to apply for Race to the Top funds
directly. One commenter noted that because private school students
participate in Title I, Part A programs under the ESEA, they should be
allowed
[[Page 59700]]
to participate in the Race to the Top activities approved in a State's
plan. Other commenters requested that private schools that partner with
LEAs be made eligible to receive Race to the Top funds. One commenter
asserted that private schools should have the option to participate in
all Federal programs without sacrificing control in such areas as
curriculum, hiring, or teacher requirements.
Discussion: As described in the response to the previous set of
comments related to eligibility, the statutory language of the ARRA
specifically provides that States are the eligible applicants for Race
to the Top funds, and that only LEAs are eligible to receive subgrants
from the States. Race to the Top funds may not be provided to private
schools through a grant or subgrant, and there is no requirement that
private school students, teachers, or other educational personnel
participate in Race to the Top on an equitable basis (as required in
some programs in the ESEA). Furthermore, Race to the Top funds may not
be used to provide financial assistance to students to attend private
schools. However, States and LEAs have the flexibility to include
private school students, teachers, and other educational personnel in
activities that the States and LEAs deem appropriate, and may contract
with private schools for appropriate secular activities, consistent
with the State's plan.
Changes: None.
Authority for the NPP
Comment: Some commenters objected to the NPP, arguing that it
proposed education policy outside of the legislative process. One
commenter claimed that while the ARRA ``imposes only brief and general
requirements'' governing the use of Race to the Top funds, the
prescriptive proposals in the NPP ``amount to writing new laws.'' One
commenter recommended that Congress hold hearings on the notice,
claiming that there has been a lack of sufficient time to review the
NPP.
Another commenter asserted that Congress should conduct a broad
review of the NPP and of our determination that the NPP would ``not
unduly interfere with State, local, and Tribal governments in the
exercise of governmental functions.'' Two commenters also stated that
it appeared that we were using Race to the Top, in the context of the
fiscal emergency currently faced by many States, to impose education
reform policies that would not otherwise be accepted by States and
LEAs.
Discussion: The commenters are correct that the ARRA offers few
specifics governing the Race to the Top program; however, the ARRA is
very clear that (1) The program is expected to provide incentives for
``significant progress'' in the four assurance areas, and (2) the
Secretary has authority to award Race to the Top funds using ``such
criteria as the Secretary determines appropriate.'' Moreover, section
410 of the General Education Provisions Act (20 U.S.C. 1221e-3) gives
the Secretary full authority to promulgate rules and regulations
necessary for the effective administration of Federal education
programs. This final notice, like the NPP, is consistent with these
authorities.
Moreover, the ARRA specifically provides that Race to the Top funds
must be awarded not later than September 30, 2010. In order to provide
States the maximum amount of time possible to plan, organize, and draft
their applications for the Phase 1 and Phase 2 competitions, while
still allowing and responding fully to public comment, the Department
sought comment on the NPP for a 30-day time period. Notably, section
437(d)(1) of the General Education Provisions Act, 20 U.S.C.
1232(d)(1), allows the Department to waive rulemaking for the first
grant competition under a new or substantially revised program
authority. The Race to the Top program is a new program, so the
Department was not required to conduct notice-and-comment rulemaking.
The Department, however, instead of taking advantage of that option,
specifically sought public comment in order to inform the development
of the program. Moreover, the comments received from over 1,100
commenters during the NPP's 30-day comment period suggest that this
period of time was sufficient for broad public review and comment.
In response to claims that the Race to the Top requirements would
interfere with State, local, or Tribal governments or impose policies
on these governments, we note that the Race to the Top program is a
voluntary competitive grant program that, like other such programs,
includes requirements and criteria that must be met in order for States
to participate and receive funding. States and LEAs that do not wish to
comply with these conditions and criteria are not required to apply for
a grant. While the fiscal crises currently faced by many States may
encourage States to apply for Race to the Top funds, ameliorating State
and local deficits is not the primary purpose of this program. Instead,
the Race to the Top program, which will award only about 4 percent of
all education funds provided by the ARRA, was specifically intended to
encourage and reward those States that are making ``significant
progress'' toward the four assurances. This final notice, like the NPP,
represents our effort to establish reasonable and appropriate criteria
for defining the ``significant progress'' as required by the statute.
Changes: None.
Promoting Successful Implementation
Comment: Several commenters raised questions concerning the
implementation of Race to the Top. One commenter expressed concern that
the proposed priorities pertained to State rather than LEA functions.
The commenter noted that States do not achieve significant improvements
in student outcomes; rather teachers working in LEAs with students,
parents, school administrators, and other stakeholders make the
difference.
Another commenter urged us to make Race to the Top awards as soon
as possible, but not later than early 2010, so that States and school
districts can begin implementing reforms in the 2010-2011 school year.
Two commenters suggested that we will not be able to create the
momentum to accomplish national education reform unless a sufficient
number of States receive Race to the Top funds. One commenter suggested
that the Race to the Top program would have a broader national impact
if 26-30 States participated in the program, and recommended
structuring the award phases so that the first round provides large
``lead'' grant awards followed by a second round of smaller ``but still
substantial'' awards.
Discussion: The Department agrees that the success of a State's
Race to the Top reform efforts will depend on its ability to articulate
a comprehensive and coherent education reform agenda, secure the
commitment of its LEAs to implement on its proposed plans, and provide
leadership and support to its LEAs. We recognize that the most
important reform efforts will take place in the classroom and that a
critical part of a State's application will be the State's capacity to
support its LEAs in successfully implementing its plans through such
activities as identifying best practices, widely disseminating and
replicating effective practices statewide, and holding LEAs accountable
for progress and performance.
We are aware of the need for successful applicants to begin
implementing their Race to the Top plans as soon as possible. Toward
this
[[Page 59701]]
end, we expect to make Phase 1 Race to the Top awards in the first half
of calendar year 2010. We do not agree that Race to the Top funds
should be spread across an arbitrarily larger number of States.
Instead, the size and number of Race to the Top awards in the two
phases of funding will depend on the scope and quality of the
applications that States submit to the Department.
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters requested clarification regarding how
States should develop and use performance and data indicators. One
commenter suggested requiring States to provide information on the
extent to which LEAs in the State have made adequate yearly progress
(AYP) as part of their annual reports. Other commenters called for the
Department to peer-review annual State Race to the Top reports. Two
commenters expressed concern that performance measures would vary from
State to State, causing confusion in the field. Finally, one commenter
recommended that the Department remove the phrase ``ambitious yet
achievable'' because its meaning is unclear.
Discussion: In the NPP the Department proposed core performance
measures for evaluating the performance of States receiving Race to the
Top funds against both the four assurances and specific elements of
State Race to the Top plans (see Appendix A). For the most part, we are
retaining these measures, with some modifications, in this notice. The
Department understands the concerns expressed by commenters about
comparability of data across States receiving Race to the Top grants;
this is one reason that this final notice retains the request for
States to set student achievement and gap-closing goals based on NAEP
data in revised criterion (A)(1)(iii) (proposed criterion (E)(4)). NAEP
scores are comparable across States, thus eliminating concerns about
the widely varying standards and assessments in use by States under
ESEA accountability systems.
States already issue annual reports on AYP status for schools and
LEAs, including proficiency rates for all schools; there is no need to
duplicate this reporting by requiring its inclusion in a State's annual
Race to the Top report. However, States that desire to include AYP data
in their annual Race to the Top reports are free to do so. The
Department declines to add a requirement for peer review of these
annual reports.
Finally, we are retaining the ``ambitious yet achievable'' language
throughout the Race to the Top State Reform Plan Criteria. As noted
elsewhere in this notice, the Department believes that this language
strikes the right balance between encouraging States to set a high bar
for Race to the Top goals while recognizing that real change in
education is difficult and takes time. The goal is to encourage
realistic thinking and planning that connects specific activities to
specific, achievable results, while acknowledging that improvements in
the Nation's education system are urgently needed and the country's
children cannot wait.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter expressed concern that too many of the
measures proposed in the NPP reflect past performance and recommended a
greater emphasis on future Race to the Top performance.
Discussion: The emphasis on past performance comes directly from
the requirements in the ARRA, which requires States to have made
significant progress in the four education reform areas in order to
receive a grant. Once Race to the Top grants are awarded and winning
States begin implementing their reform plans, the Department will
become far more focused on how States perform under this program.
Changes: None.
Race to the Top Funding
Comment: Several commenters suggested that the Department provide
more information on expected funding levels for States that receive
Race to the Top funds, including the number and size of Race to the Top
awards for both the Phase 1 and 2 competitions. Multiple commenters
suggested that we provide funding for States to develop reform plans
and applications. One commenter requested assurances that the level of
funding to successful State applicants will be sufficient to carry out
all activities in States' reform plans. Two commenters expressed
concern that LEAs will have control of ARRA funds, outside of public
accountability and without provisions for oversight, while another
commenter requested information about the restrictions on the usage of
Race to the Top funds, and an explanation of how States are expected to
use them.
Discussion: We encourage States to develop budgets that match the
needs they have outlined in their applications. To support States in
planning their budgets, we have developed nonbinding budget guidance
with ranges for each State; these are listed in the notice inviting
applications, published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal
Register. These ranges may be used to guide States as they draft their
applications, but States may prepare budgets that are above or below
the suggested ranges. The amount awarded in Phase 1 will depend on the
quality of the applications that States submit to the Department, as
well as the successful applicants' proposed budgets. It is our
intention to have significant funds available for Phase 2 applicants
and awards. The ARRA does not provide funding to help States prepare or
design their Race to the Top applications.
Finally, the Department has taken extraordinary measures to ensure
accountability in the use of all ARRA funds, including the Race to the
Top fund, so that all dollars are used wisely and accounted for in a
transparent manner. Indeed, as explained in the Reporting section of
this final notice and in the notice inviting applications, successful
applicants must comply with the ARRA annual reporting requirements in
section 14008 of the ARRA and with quarterly reporting requirements in
section 1512(c) of the ARRA, which are designed to ensure thorough and
public oversight of the expenditure of ARRA funds. In addition, the
Department has established a Recovery Act Web site and hotline for
members of the public to report suspected misuse of funds.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter expressed concern about structuring the Race
to the Top program as a competitive grant. The commenter noted that
structuring the program this way will mean that not every State will
win Race to the Top grant funds. Another commenter stated that by
predetermining ``the conditions necessary for reform,'' the winners and
losers have already been chosen.
Discussion: The Race to the Top program is intended to promote and
reward States making the most progress in achieving the goals described
in the ARRA and by the Secretary. As the Secretary and the President
have said, Race to the Top is designed as a competitive, once-in-a-
lifetime opportunity for the Federal Government to create incentives
for far-reaching improvement in our Nation's schools. While other ARRA
funds provide substantial increases in formula funds to States (e.g.,
the Stabilization Fund, ESEA Title I, IDEA), we strongly believe that
the competitive nature of the Race to the Top program will encourage
statewide reform resulting in significant improvement in student
outcomes. Finally, we note that contrary to the suggestion made by one
commenter, the Department has not pre-selected the winners and losers
for this competition. Applications will be judged based on the
conditions States have put in place
[[Page 59702]]
by the time they apply, the strength of their plans, and how these come
together as a coherent and cohesive strategy to improve student
outcomes.
Changes: None.
Flexibility to Allocate Funds
Comment: Several commenters sought greater flexibility for States
and LEAs to determine award levels. For example, a few commenters
suggested that allocating 50 percent of Race to the Top funds by
formula runs counter to the program's goals, and that States should be
allowed to focus funding on LEAs with the greatest need for additional
resources to address the educational needs of at-risk students such as
English language learners, students with disabilities, and students
from low-income families, or to give priority to one or more of the
four assurances when funding LEAs. Other commenters sought
clarification about State flexibility in using the 50 percent of funds
that will not be distributed on the basis of the Title I formula. One
commenter suggested that States might use their shares of Race to the
Top awards to support high-need students in non-Title I schools, while
another proposed allowing States to use these funds for State-level
activities or to make their own formula or competitive subgrants.
Another commenter asked whether LEAs can serve non-Title I schools in
their districts with their 50 percent share, and whether use of these
funds must also adhere to Title I regulations.
Discussion: Section 14006(c) of the ARRA requires at least 50
percent of Race to the Top funding to States to be sub-granted to
participating LEAs according to their relative shares of funding under
the ESEA Title I, Part A program for the most recent year. Neither the
Department nor the States have discretion to deviate from this
allocation requirement. LEAs that agree to work with the State to
implement the State's Race to the Top plan may use these funds to serve
non-Title I schools. Because these are not Title I program funds, LEAs
are not required to adhere to Title I regulations regarding the usage
of those funds. Fund uses, however, must be consistent with the State's
plan and the Department's general regulations on uses of funds.
In addition, States have considerable flexibility in awarding or
allocating the remaining 50 percent of their Race to the Top awards,
which are available for State-level activities, disbursements to LEAs,
and other purposes as the State may propose in its plan. Many of the
activities recommended by commenters would be allowable uses of the
State's share of Race to the Top funds, including: Serving high-need
students in non-Title I schools, State-level activities in support of
Race to the Top plans, competitive or formula-based subgrants to LEAs,
contracts with non-profit organizations, or supporting the
participation of private school students and teachers in Race to the
Top.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter stated that a portion of the Race to the Top
funds should be set aside for LEA-IHE consortia to develop training
that would allow for the development and implementation of systemic P-
20 collaboration, facilitate curricular alignment, and promote seamless
transitions from high school to college.
Discussion: As noted in the previous comment, section 14006(c) of
the ARRA requires a State that receives a Race to the Top grant to use
at least 50 percent of the award to provide subgrants to LEAs,
including public charter schools identified as LEAs under State law.
The ARRA does not require or specify that funds should be set aside for
any other specific purposes; therefore, we decline to require that a
portion of the Race to the Top funds be set aside for LEA-IHE consortia
as recommended by the commenter. However, States are welcome to include
such expenditures in their proposals if they align with their plans. We
also note that IHEs are critical partners in implementing significant
reforms, particularly in ensuring that a State's longitudinal data
system can provide data to assess the extent to which students are
adequately prepared for success in post-secondary education. As noted
elsewhere, we are adding language to criterion (B)(3) to acknowledge
the role that IHEs may play in supporting the transition to enhanced
standards and high-quality assessments. In addition, as noted
elsewhere, we are adding ``institutions of higher education'' in
criterion (A)(2)(ii)(b) as an example of a type of stakeholder from
whom a State should enlist support and commitment to assist in the
State's education reform efforts.
Changes: None.
Sustaining Race to the Top Reforms
Comment: One commenter expressed concern that the requirements and
activities proposed in Race to the Top would not be fully paid for by
Race to the Top awards, and that these activities would ``be difficult
to sustain operationally and financially.'' This commenter recommended
a sharper focus in the final notice on the requirements ``of greatest
importance.'' In a related comment, one individual described Race to
the Top as an ``underfunded mandate'' and argued that it would impose
additional costs on State and local taxpayers.
Discussion: While the Race to the Top program is intended to
support a comprehensive approach to developing and carrying out
critical change and reform in the four assurance areas, States have
flexibility to tailor their Race to the Top budgets and spending plans
according to both the relative priority of plan activities and the
availability of funding from other Federal, State, and local sources,
consistent with criterion (A)(2)(i)(d) (proposed criterion (E)(5)(v)).
For example, States may use their Title I School Improvement Grants to
execute most of their plans under criterion (E)(2) (proposed criterion
(D)(3)), thereby allowing themselves to dedicate a higher proportion of
Race to the Top funds to activities in the other three assurance areas.
Similarly, a State that receives a Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems
grant might use these funds to enhance its data systems work and could,
therefore, focus its Race to the Top funding on other assurance areas.
Also, the selection criteria include elements intended to help ensure
that funding issues do not derail Race to the Top plans. For example,
under criterion (F)(1), States are asked to demonstrate the extent to
which (i) the share of overall State revenues supporting education in
FY 2009 was greater than or equal to the share provided for education
in FY 2008; and (ii) the State's policies lead to equitable funding (a)
between high-need LEAs and other LEAs, and (b) within LEAs, between
high-poverty schools and other schools (new criterion). In addition,
criterion (A)(2)(i)(e) (proposed criterion (E)(5)(iii)) addresses
whether a State has explained in its application how it will use its
fiscal, political, and human capital resources to continue Race to the
Top reforms after the period of funding has ended. Finally, because the
Race to the Top is a voluntary, competitive grant program, it does not
impose costs on any State or local taxpayers, and thus does not meet
any reasonable definition of an underfunded mandate.
Changes: Criteria related to budget planning and funding have been
modified and rearranged in this final notice to promote the development
and submission of more coherent Race to the Top plans. Criterion
(A)(2)(i)(d) asks States to demonstrate through their budget narratives
and accompanying budgets the extent to which they have high-quality
plans to use Race to the Top funds to accomplish their plans and meet
their targets, including, where feasible, coordinating, reallocating,
or
[[Page 59703]]
repurposing education funds from other Federal, State, and local
sources to align with their Race to the Top goals. Criterion (A)(2)(e)
(proposed criterion (E)(5)(iii)) will help ensure that States have
plans to continue support for Race to the Top reforms once Race to the
Top funds have been spent.
Addressing Obstacles Created by Poverty
Comment: One commenter asserted that overcoming achievement gaps--a
key goal of the Race to the Top program--would require addressing
obstacles to high academic achievement created by the conditions of
poverty. This commenter urged that Race to the Top be used to promote
``comprehensive educational opportunity'' for all students, but
particularly for those from low-income families. Other commenters
argued that Race to the Top plans should include efforts and incentives
to ensure the adequacy and equity of State and local education funding,
such as by rewarding States that have taken steps to allocate resources
and inputs equitably.
Discussion: The Secretary believes that a high-quality education is
the surest route out of poverty. However, while broader societal
problems such as the lack of affordable housing or access to health
care certainly make the jobs of schools serving disadvantaged students
more challenging, they should not be used to excuse the lack of
achievement in high-need schools. Race to the Top is structured to
promote comprehensive educational reforms benefitting all students
while targeting additional attention and resources towards high-need
LEAs and toward the persistently lowest-achieving schools that
typically enroll a disproportionate number of students from low-income
families. For example, 50 percent of Race to the Top funding must be
subgranted by States to LEAs on the basis of their relative shares of
formula grant allocations under Title I, Part A of the ESEA, which are
based largely on counts of children from low-income families residing
in the communities served by those LEAs. Also, under criterion (E)(2)
(proposed criterion (D)(3)), States will create comprehensive school
intervention plans for the persistently lowest-achieving schools.
Furthermore, under criterion (D)(3) (proposed criterion (C)(3)), States
will be evaluated on their plans to ensure that students in high-
poverty and/or high-minority schools have equitable access to highly
effective teachers and principals and are not served by ineffective
teachers and principals at higher rates than other students.
However, we agree that in this final notice, the Department should
place greater emphasis on equitable funding of high-need LEAs and
students. For this reason, we are adding criterion (F)(1)(ii), which
examines the extent to which a State's policies lead to equitable
funding (a) between high-need LEAs (as defined in this notice) and
other LEAs, and (b) within LEAs, between high-poverty schools (as
defined in this notice) and other schools.
Changes: The addition of criterion (F)(1)(ii) establishes a new
State Reform Condition Criterion that will consider the extent to which
a State's policies lead to equitable funding (a) between high-need LEAs
and other LEAs, and (b) within LEAs, between high-poverty schools and
other schools.
Civil Rights Enforcement
Comment: Several commenters raised concerns about the NPP as it
relates to civil rights laws and discrimination based on race and sex
in schools. One commenter recommended that the Department include
language in the final notice reminding States of their obligations
under anti-discrimination statutes, including Title IX of the Education
Amendments Act of 1972.
Discussion: The Department believes in promoting educational
excellence throughout the Nation through vigorous enforcement of civil
rights laws. The Department's Office for Civil Rights is specifically
tasked with enforcing several Federal civil rights laws that prohibit
discrimination in programs or activities that receive Federal financial
assistance from the Department, and issuing guidance to school
districts on how to comply with those laws. Since SEAs and LEAs are
ongoing recipients of Federal financial assistance, they are aware of
these civil rights laws. We believe, therefore, that reiteration of
State responsibilities under various civil rights laws in the final
notice is unnecessary.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested that the notice include language
requiring States to support voluntary school integration efforts.
Another commenter recommended adding an invitational priority for
innovative approaches to voluntary school integration in order to
encourage inter-district magnet schools and new charter schools that
achieve racial and economic integration. The commenter also recommended
adding an invitational priority to encourage the use of inter-district
school transfers to promote integration. Another commenter recommended
adding a criterion requiring a high-quality plan for a State to
substantially reduce the isolation and segregation of low-income
students, through intra- or inter-district collaboration, magnet
schools, transfer programs, or school restructuring and consolidation.
One commenter suggested adding requirements that State proposals reduce
school-based poverty concentrations and racial isolation in schools.
Another commenter wrote that the NPP overlooked ``the continuing
importance of avoiding racial and economic segregation in public
schools, and promoting voluntary integration'' and urged that the final
notice promote these goals.
Discussion: Racial and economic diversity are laudable goals that
the Department supports. The Race to the Top program encourages
innovative solutions to important problems facing our Nation's schools,
which could include appropriate approaches to further racially and
economically diverse schools. However, we have not added this objective
as an invitational priority in the Race to the Top program. We note
that the Department has for many years administered the statutory
Magnet Schools Assistance Program, 20 U.S.C. 7231. This program
provides grants to LEAs to fund magnet schools that--in addition to
strengthening students' academic knowledge and their attainment of
tangible and marketable skills--will further the ``elimination,
reduction or prevention of minority group isolation'' in elementary and
secondary schools. 20 U.S.C. 7231(b).
Changes: None.
Family and Community Engagement
Comment: Many commenters stressed the importance of including
parents, students, family, and community members ``as equal partners''
in developing States' Race to the Top plans. One commenter urged that
the final notice require States and LEAs to document the involvement of
parents in developing their Race to the Top plans, while another
commenter recommended the inclusion of parent and student
accountability measures in Race to the Top plans. One commenter urged
that the Department and participating States keep parents informed of
Race to the Top activities using materials written in ``easy-to-
understand language'' and, where necessary, multiple languages. Several
commenters stated that family engagement policies and practices that
are culturally and linguistically appropriate are essential components
of comprehensive services to high-need
[[Page 59704]]
students. A few commenters recommended that school personnel work with
community partners to align school, family, and community assets and
expertise in order to support student achievement (e.g., centers of
community, community schools, community learning centers, full service
community schools). Many commenters stressed the importance of family
and community involvement in local school turnaround strategies.
Several commenters also noted that the terms ``family engagement'' and
``community engagement'' should be separated, arguing that these
concepts involve different stakeholders and require different
strategies.
Discussion: The Department agrees that States' Race to the Top
plans would benefit from documented input and involvement by parents
and organizations that represent parents, students, families, and
community members. To encourage States to do so, we are adding, in
criterion (A)(2)(ii)(b) (proposed criterion (E)(3)(ii)), Tribal
schools; and parent, student, and community organizations among the
stakeholders from which a State could obtain statements or actions of
support to demonstrate statewide commitment to its Race to the Top
plan. At the local level, criterion (E)(2) and Appendix C (proposed
criterion (D)(3)) support greater parent involvement in individual
school turnaround plans and the turnaround model and the transformation
model in particular. The Department views such mechanisms not only as
opportunities for parents to participate in turnaround planning but
also for LEAs and schools to promote greater accountability for parents
and students in areas such as school attendance, homework completion,
and monitoring student achievement. In addition, the Department
believes that any mechanism for family and community engagement
naturally would require keeping parents informed of Race to the Top-
related activities, including providing information in multiple formats
and languages, where necessary. However, the final notice retains
flexibility for LEAs to determine the nature of these mechanisms and
does not specifically require plans to include separate parental
involvement programs.
Changes: Criterion (A)(2)(ii)(b) adds ``Tribal schools; parent,
student, and community organizations (e.g., parent-teacher
associations, nonprofit organizations, local education foundations, and
community-based organizations)'' to the list of stakeholder groups from
which a State can obtain statements or actions of support in order to
demonstrate statewide support for its Race to the Top plan.
I. Final Priorities
General Comments on Proposed Priorities
Comment: We received a number of comments that addressed more than
one proposed priority or that focused on a proposed priority as well as
on specific selection criteria.
Discussion: In some cases we have responded to comments received in
response to more than one priority or that focused on a priority and
selection criteria in this ``General Comments on Proposed Priorities''
section. In other cases, we decided that it would be more appropriate
to respond to the comments in the ``General Comments on the Race to the
Top Program'' earlier in this notice. This enabled us to group similar
comments and concerns in order to be more responsive to the commenters.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter stated that including absolute, competitive
preference, and invitational priorities in the NPP was confusing and
undermined the review process by suggesting that the Department does
not have a clear sense of what is important. Another commenter
recommended eliminating the invitational priorities claiming that they
provide no competitive advantage in the grant competition and distract
from the key elements of the program.
One commenter requested that the final notice include an
explanation of the differences and significance of the competitive
preference priority for STEM and the invitational priorities for data
systems, P-20 coordination, and school-level conditions for reform and
innovation. Another commenter asked whether different weights will be
assigned to the absolute priority versus the competitive preference and
invitational priorities.
Two commenters expressed concern with the statement in the NPP that
the Secretary reserves the right to propose additional priorities,
requirements, definitions, or selection criteria. These commenters
requested that any additional priorities, requirements, definitions, or
selection criteria be published in the Federal Register and that the
public be given the opportunity to comment on them.
Discussion: The Education Department General Administrative
Regulations (EDGAR) in 34 CFR 75.105(c) identify the types of
priorities the Department may establish for its direct grant programs.
Under an absolute priority, the Secretary considers only those
applications that meet the priority (see 34 CFR 75.105(c)(3)). Under a
competitive preference priority, the Secretary may award bonus points
to an application depending on the extent to which the application
meets the priority or may select an application that meets the priority
over an application of comparable merit that does not meet the priority
(see 34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)). And, under an invitational priority, the
Secretary may simply invite applications that meet the priority; an
application that meets the invitational priority, however, receives no
competitive or absolute preference over other applications (see 34 CFR
75.105(c)(1)).
The designation of priorities as invitational in the NPP and in
this final notice demonstrates the Department's interest in particular
topics or issues and applicants' interest in and capacity to address
those areas. Applicants are not required to address these invitational
priorities in their applications. Because the Department is interested
in State focus and capacity in the areas identified as invitational
priorities, we decline to remove them in this final notice.
In this final notice, we are designating priority 1, Comprehensive
Approach to Education Reform, as an absolute priority that all
applicants must meet. Priority 2, Emphasis on Science, Technology,
Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM), has been designated as a
competitive preference priority for which a State can receive
additional points (see Appendix B for the scoring rubric). Finally, we
are including the following invitational priorities: Priority 3,
Innovations for Improving Early Learning Outcomes; priority 4,
Expansion and Adaptation of Longitudinal Data Systems; priority 5, P-20
Coordination, Vertical and Horizontal Alignment; and priority 6,
School-Level Conditions for Reform, Innovation, and Learning. Unless
certain exceptions apply, the Department must conduct notice-and-
comment rulemaking when establishing absolute and competitive
preference priorities. See 34 CFR 75.105(b)(2). Notice-and-comment
rulemaking is not required for the Department to establish invitational
priorities. See 34 CFR 75.105(b)(2)(i). As noted by one commenter, we
stated in the NPP that the proposed priorities could be changed in the
final notice, and that the Department may propose additional
priorities, requirements, definitions, or selection criteria, subject
to applicable rulemaking requirements. As indicated elsewhere, we are
adding a new invitational priority 3, Innovations for
[[Page 59705]]
Improving Early Learning Outcomes, based on comments received on the
NPP. Since the priority is invitational only, we were able to include
it in this final notice without additional public comment.
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters recommended that invitational
priorities 4, 5, and 6 be changed to competitive preference priorities
given the importance of each of the priorities and the need for States
to have an integrated and coordinated reform strategy. One commenter
recommended that additional points be given to a State that
demonstrates how all the invitational priorities are integrated in its
overall reform strategy.
Discussion: We believe that priorities 4, 5, and 6 are
appropriately designated as invitational priorities. Although the
Secretary is interested in receiving applications addressing these
priorities, each of the priorities extends or complements the core
reform work that States must already address in their applications. For
example, priority 4, Expansion and Adaptation of Statewide Longitudinal
Data Systems, extends States' core work in developing statewide
longitudinal data systems; priority 5, P-20 Coordination, Vertical and
Horizontal Alignment, complements States' core reform efforts in the K-
12 education systems and extends them to the larger P-20 education
systems; and priority 6, School-level Conditions for Reform,
Innovation, and Learning, is a natural extension of the work States are
doing to create, through law, regulation, or policy, other conditions
favorable to education reform or innovation that improve student
outcomes. For these reasons, we do not believe that extra points should
be awarded to applications that address the invitational priorities.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended adding an invitational priority
to support alternative governance structures. The commenter stated that
in addition to charter schools, mayoral control, gubernatorial control,
and State control have been effective in reforming public education.
Discussion: As noted elsewhere, we are adding criterion (F)(2)(v)
to give credit to States that enable LEAs to operate innovative,
autonomous public schools other than charter schools.
Changes: None.
Literacy
Comment: Numerous commenters recommended that the final notice
include a competitive preference priority focused on literacy
development for young children; reading and writing skills for young
students; and higher-order literacy skills for adolescent students
(e.g., ability to analyze diverse texts and write using critical
reasoning). Many commenters also proposed that priority be given to
States that prepare more students (particularly low-income students,
English language learners, and students with disabilities) for success
in school and for graduation from high school ready for college and
work, and with skills to meet the literacy demands of high-growth,
high-wage jobs. Another commenter suggested that the final notice
include access to high-quality school libraries as part of the
criteria.
Discussion: Advancing the literacy skills of all students,
particularly students from low-income families, English language
learners, and students with disabilities, is the foundation for many of
the criteria in the Race to the Top competition. For example, a State
will be judged on the extent to which it has made progress over the
past several years in each of the four education reform areas, and used
its ARRA and other Federal and State funding to pursue such reforms
(see criterion (A)(3)(i)). A State will be judged on the extent to
which it has demonstrated a track record of improving student
achievement overall and by student subgroup in reading/language arts
and mathematics, decreasing the achievement gaps between subgroups in
reading/language arts and mathematics, and increasing high school
graduation rates (see criterion (A)(3)(ii)). We believe that applicants
must necessarily place priority on improving and advancing the literacy
skills of students if they are to adequately address these criteria,
and, therefore, do not believe that a separate competitive preference
priority focused on literacy is necessary. Additionally, States and
LEAs may determine in partnership the roles school libraries can play
in advancing the State's reform goals.
Changes: None.
Early Learning
Comment: Numerous commenters expressed concern that the NPP did not
include a priority for, or otherwise require applicants to address,
early learning in the context of the four reform areas. Several
commenters highlighted the importance of early childhood education in
improving student achievement and closing achievement gaps, and some
cited research indicating that the most effective time to intervene to
close achievement gaps is during the preschool years. Many commenters
requested that the final notice include a competitive preference
priority focused on early learning programs. One commenter stated that
a competitive preference priority on early learning should focus on
increasing the number of low-income children in high-quality pre-K
programs. Other commenters recommended requiring a quality early
learning strategy as part of a State's plan for turning around
struggling schools. A number of commenters suggested that such a
strategy could include expanded pre-K funding and programs, aligned
standards and assessments for pre-K through third grade, links between
longitudinal data systems and pilot ``Quality Rating and Improvement
Systems'' to improve instruction, and increasing the availability of
credentialed pre-K through third-grade teachers.
Another commenter recommended that States be required to address
the following issues to strengthen the quality of early care and
education programs: (1) Appropriate compensation to attract and retain
talented administrators and teachers in early care and education
programs; (2) the need for a technological infrastructure to establish
a data-driven decision-making system, as well as to document the
benefits of early care and education services; (3) creation of a State-
level advisory body to develop a State early learning plan, monitor the
implementation of the plan and recommend adjustments to strengthen
strategies as the plan is implemented; and (4) creation of a panel,
that includes providers, to determine the true cost of supporting a
quality early care and education system.
A few commenters recommended adding an invitational priority to the
final notice focusing on the coordination of preschool services
(including Head Start services and services provided under the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)) in order to ensure
that more young children begin school ready to learn.
Discussion: The Department agrees that expanding access to high-
quality early learning programs is a key strategy in an overall effort
to raise student achievement, particularly for high-need students. We
agree that the Race to the Top program should encourage States to
increase the quality of existing early learning programs and expand
access to high-quality early learning programs, particularly for
children from low-income families. Therefore, we are adding an
invitational priority focused on early learning to this final notice.
[[Page 59706]]
We do not believe that States should be required to include an
early learning focus in their applications or that States should be
given competitive preference points for doing so. Nor do we believe
that quality early learning strategies should be required to be part of
a State's plan for turning around struggling schools, given that
efforts to turn around struggling schools focus primarily on improving
educational outcomes for students currently enrolled in the Nation's
persistently lowest-achieving schools. We believe that an invitational
priority will encourage applicants to consider how their reform efforts
can be strengthened by focusing on activities that promote school
readiness and ensure that all children have access to high-quality
early learning programs.
With regard to the request that States be required to address the
issues that one commenter stated were necessary for strengthening the
quality of early care and education programs, a State that chooses to
include a focus on early learning in its application could include
activities addressing the educational needs of young children in its
State reform plan. We note, however, that funds could not be used to
address issues related to early child care needs, absent an educational
component, because the purpose of Race to the Top is for States and
LEAs to address educational reforms. Given the variation in State needs
and priorities, we do not believe that it would be appropriate to
require all applicants to follow the commenter's recommendations.
In response to the recommendation to add an invitational priority
focusing on the coordination of preschool services, this focus is
already included in priority 5, P-20 Coordination, Vertical and
Horizontal Alignment, which encourages State reform plans to address
how early childhood programs, K-12 schools, postsecondary institutions,
and other State agencies and community partners will coordinate to
create a more seamless P-20 route for students.
Changes: We have added a new invitational priority 3--Innovations
for Improving Early Learning Outcomes, which states, ``The Secretary is
particularly interested in applications that include practices,
strategies, or programs to improve educational outcomes for high-need
students who are young children (pre-kindergarten through third grade)
by enhancing the quality of preschool programs. Of particular interest
are proposals that support practices that (i) improve school readiness
(including social, emotional, and cognitive); and (ii) improve the
transition between preschool and kindergarten.''
School Climate and Culture
Comment: Several commenters recommended that the final notice
include a priority to encourage States to implement policies and take
actions intended to improve school climate, such as citizenship
training, anti-bullying, or service learning programs that may improve
academic achievement, school attendance, and graduation rates. One
commenter recommended adding an invitational priority for States that
implement evidence-based measures to improve student discipline,
stating that there is a well-documented link between school safety/
school discipline and improved academic outcomes. Several commenters
specifically recommended that we provide for States to address school-
wide systems of positive behavioral interventions and supports and
stated that improving school climate is integral to improving the
achievement of the lowest performing students. Another commenter stated
that unless the Department designates school climate as a top priority,
equal to that of academic improvement, schools are extremely unlikely
to focus on improving school climate. A few commenters recommended
encouraging States to collect data on school environments. Other
commenters suggested that States support and recognize schools that
provide opportunities for students to practice their education in real-
world situations that lead to civic engagement. The commenters stated
that States should ensure that, in policy and funding decisions,
schools know that they are to be honored, as well as held accountable,
for creating a caring, welcoming, safe environment.
Other commenters strongly recommended that the final notice include
language that would require schools to address the needs of the whole
child, including by providing character education; instruction in
social, emotional, and physical wellness; civic education and
engagement; arts education; community-based learning; and opportunities
for parent involvement. One commenter stated that it is essential for
schools to work in collaboration with health, social, civic, faith-
based, business and community organizations in order to successfully
educate the whole child. One commenter expressed concern that the
proposed priorities emphasize math, reading, and science at the expense
of the other core academic subjects and argued that there should be an
equal emphasis on the social, emotional, and creative development of
students. Another commenter stated that efforts to shift education to
address the needs of the whole child should be part of, and fully
integrated into, a well-rounded core curriculum of academic
instruction. Finally, one commenter stated that the proposed priorities
incorrectly omit any reference to reducing the use of punitive measures
in schools, and recommended that the final notice emphasize the
Secretary's policy on reducing the use of restraints, seclusion, and
corporal punishment.
Discussion: We agree that a positive school climate that includes
policies and measures to improve discipline can contribute to improving
academic achievement, school attendance, and graduation rates. We also
agree that it is important to address the needs of the whole child and
to work in collaboration with other agencies and community
organizations in order to successfully educate the whole child.
Therefore, we are changing priority 6, School-Level Conditions for
Reform, Innovation, and Learning to include school climate and school
culture as examples of areas in which an LEA could provide flexibility
and autonomy to its schools in order to create conditions for reform,
innovation, and learning. The language in new paragraph (vi) of this
priority acknowledges the importance of creating school climates and
cultures that remove obstacles to, and actively support, student
engagement and achievement; the language in new paragraph (vii) of the
priority focuses on implementing strategies to effectively engage
families and communities in supporting the academic success of their
students.
In addition, we note that the final notice addresses issues of
school climate and culture in several ways. First, invitational
priority 4, Expansion and Adaptation of Statewide Longitudinal Data
Systems, invites States to include school climate and culture measures
in extending and adapting their statewide longitudinal data systems.
Consistent with commenters' examples of school policies and programs to
improve school climate, we also have included references to ``service
learning'' and ``experiential and work-based learning opportunities''
in the definition of increased learning time, as examples of activities
that contribute to a well-rounded education. And we have included in
our school intervention turnaround and transformation models for the
persistently lowest-achieving schools (see criterion (E)(2) and
[[Page 59707]]
Appendix C) the need to address students' social and emotional needs
and to create healthy school climates and cultures. We do not,
therefore, believe that a new separate priority focusing on school
climate and culture is necessary.
We acknowledge that positive behavioral interventions and supports,
as well as other systemic programs and policies that address bullying,
student harassment, and disciplinary problems, are important to
consider in ensuring that students have a safe and supportive
environment in which to learn. However, we do not believe it is
necessary to include this level of detail in this final notice and,
therefore, decline to make the changes requested by the commenters.
Finally, in response to the comment that the notice does not
reference reducing the use of punitive measures, on July 31, 2009, the
Secretary encouraged each State to review its current policies and
guidelines regarding the use of restraints and seclusion in schools to
ensure that every student is safe and protected and, if appropriate,
develop or revise its policies and guidelines. We believe that this is
the proper approach to addressing this issue, rather than in a notice
for a competitive grant program for which all States will not
necessarily apply or receive funding. It would be appropriate for
States that choose to address priority 6 to include, in their reform
plans, a focus on ensuring that policies and guidelines address the use
of restraints and seclusions in schools to ensure that every student is
safe and protected.
Changes: We have revised priority 6 to include as examples of the
autonomies and flexibilities a State's participating LEAs may provide
to its schools: Creating school climates and cultures that remove
obstacles to, and actively support, student engagement and achievement
and implementing strategies to effectively engage families and
communities in supporting the academic success of their students.
Charter Schools
Comment: Several commenters recommended that the final notice
include an absolute priority requiring States to expand charter
schools.
Discussion: We do not believe an absolute priority for charter
schools is necessary because States already will be evaluated against
criteria that support the development of high-quality charter schools.
Criterion (F)(2) focuses on charter schools. Specifically, criterion
(F)(2)(i) considers the extent to which a State has a charter school
law that does not prohibit or effectively inhibit increasing the number
of high-performing charter schools in the State or otherwise restrict
student enrollment in charter schools. Criterion (F)(2)(ii) considers
the extent to which the State has laws, statutes, regulations, or
guidelines regarding how charter school authorizers approve, monitor,
hold accountable, reauthorize, and close charter schools. Under
criterion (F)(2)(iii), a State will be evaluated based on the extent to
which its charter schools receive equitable funding and a commensurate
share of local, State, and Federal revenues. Finally, criterion
(F)(2)(iv) addresses the extent to which a State provides charter
schools with funding for facilities, 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 a State
does not impose any facility-related requirements on charter schools
that are stricter than those applied to traditional public schools. All
applicants will be rated against these criteria, among others.
Changes: None.
Dropout Recovery
Comment: One commenter expressed concern that the NPP did not
include targeted investments for dropout recovery programs or provide
States and LEAs with direction on innovative models to re-engage youth
who have dropped out of school. The commenter stated that the recovery
of high school dropouts must be a central component of any serious
systemic school reform effort. Several commenters stated that it is
important to recognize that students who fail to thrive in traditional
settings need additional supports to graduate from high school and
that, without strategic approaches that intentionally include re-
engagement efforts, districts will not serve this population
effectively.
Another commenter recommended that the final notice include a
competitive preference priority for serving students who are still in
school, but are off-track to graduate and those who have disengaged
from school and dropped out. The commenter noted that educational
continuity and stability are also needed for children in foster care.
One commenter recommended establishing a competitive preference
priority for applicants that include data-driven strategies to re-
engage high-school students who fail to graduate on time and
recommended that the final notice encourage States to coordinate Race
to the Top funding with funding they receive through other sources such
as programs under the Workforce Investment Act.
Discussion: We agree that there is a need to increase efforts to
re-engage youth who have dropped out of school and to help students who
are off-track to graduate stay in school. We have addressed the needs
of these students in several ways. First, as noted elsewhere, we are
changing criterion (E)(2) (regarding States' plans to enable their LEAs
to implement one of the four school intervention models) to include
credit-recovery programs and re-engagement strategies as methods that
can be used by LEAs to increase high school graduation rates (see
Appendix C). Second, we are adding a new definition of high-need
students and including in the definition, among others, students who
are performing far below grade level, those who leave school before
receiving a regular high school diploma, and those at risk of not
graduating with a diploma on time. Third, as noted in the discussion of
priority 4, we are inviting States to extend and adapt their statewide
longitudinal data systems to include data from programs that serve at-
risk students and from dropout prevention programs. Fourth, we are
adding a reference to horizontal alignment in priority 5. Horizontal
alignment is the coordination of services across schools, State
agencies, and community partners, and we note that it is important in
ensuring that high-need students have access to the broad array of
opportunities and services they need and that are beyond the capacity
of a school itself to provide. We also note that priority 6, School-
Level Conditions for Reform, Innovation, and Learning, specifically
refers to the need to provide comprehensive services to high-need
students (see paragraph (v)). Therefore, we believe that this final
notice adequately addresses the needs of students off-track to graduate
who are still in school and those who have disengaged from school and
dropped out, and that it is unnecessary to add a competitive preference
priority focused on these specific youth.
With regard to the comment that the final notice encourage
coordinating ARRA funding with other funding streams, we believe this
issue is addressed in criterion (A)(2)(i)(d), which will evaluate the
extent to which a State has the capacity to use Race to the Top funds,
as described in the State's budget and budget narrative, to accomplish
the State's plan and meet its targets, including, where feasible, by
coordinating, reallocating, or ``repurposing'' education funds from
other Federal, State, and local sources to
[[Page 59708]]
align with the State's Race to the Top goals.
Changes: None.
Students With Disabilities and English Language Learners
Comment: One commenter encouraged the Department to add
invitational priorities that focus on policy development and
implementation (versus data collection and analysis) for special
education and English language acquisition, including the development
of high-quality and innovative programs of teacher preparation and
professional development in these areas, in order to encourage States
to meet the needs of students with disabilities and English language
learners more effectively. Another commenter expressed disappointment
that the priorities did not thoroughly take into account the needs of
English language learners. One commenter strongly urged the Department
to ensure that English language learners are not overlooked in State
plans, but are explicitly identified in all areas, including through
efforts to improve standards and assessments, close achievement gaps,
increase graduation rates, and ensure college readiness.
Discussion: The needs of students with disabilities and English
language learners are addressed in many of the selection criteria and
are especially highlighted everywhere the term high-need student is
used; the new definition of this term includes students with
disabilities and English language learners. All applicants for Race to
the Top grants will need to consider how they currently work to meet or
plan to meet the unique needs of these students based on the criteria
set forth in this final notice.
In addition, this final notice recognizes and specifically
references the unique needs of students with disabilities and English
language learners in the following areas: (a) Priority 4 encourages
State plans to expand statewide longitudinal data systems to include or
integrate data from special education and English language learner
programs; (b) criterion (C)(3)(iii) will be used to assess the extent
to which States make their data systems available and accessible to
researchers so that they have information to evaluate the effectiveness
of instructional materials, strategies, and approaches for educating
different types of students, such as students with disabilities and
English language learners; and (c) criterion (D)(3) will be used to
examine States' plans to increase the number and percentage of highly
effective teachers teaching in hard-to-staff subjects and specialty
areas, such as special education and language instruction educational
programs (as defined under Title III of the ESEA). In addition, the
measures used to document increases in achievement, closing achievement
gaps, and increasing graduation rates, all require data to be
disaggregated by subgroups, including the students with disabilities
and limited English proficient students subgroups (see criteria
(A)(1)(iii) and (A)(3)(ii)).
Therefore, we believe that this final notice ensures that students
with disabilities and English language learners are not overlooked in
State reform plans and that it is unnecessary to add an invitational
priority focused on students with disabilities and English language
learners.
Changes: None.
Curriculum, Instruction, Assessments, Professional Development
Comment: One commenter stated that the proposed priorities have
little to do with improving curriculum, instruction, assessments, or
professional development and recommended that in the final notice, the
Department give priority to developing and implementing core school
improvement activities, particularly school-based collaborative
activities to improve teaching.
Discussion: We disagree with the commenter's statement that the
proposed priorities have little to do with improving curriculum,
instruction, assessments, or professional development. In order to
receive a Race to the Top grant, States must demonstrate that they have
made and will continue to drive significant improvement in student
outcomes, including making substantial gains in student achievement,
closing achievement gaps, improving high school graduation rates, and
ensuring that students are prepared for success in college and careers.
To accomplish this, a State would have to focus on improving
curriculum, instruction, assessments, and professional development.
Furthermore, absolute priority 1 requires all applicants to address
comprehensively each of the four education reform areas specified in
the ARRA--enhancing standards and assessments, improving the collection
and use of data, increasing teacher effectiveness and achieving equity
in teacher distribution, and turning around struggling schools. In
addressing each of these reform areas, States will necessarily have to
focus on improving curriculum, instruction, assessments, and
professional development.
Furthermore, criteria (B)(3), (C)(3)(ii), (D)(2)(iv)(a), and (D)(5)
explicitly focus on professional development. Criterion (B)(3) focuses
on, among other activities, professional development to support the
transition to new standards and assessments; as noted elsewhere,
criterion (C)(3)(ii) has been added to focus on professional
development for teachers, principals and administrators on using
instructional improvement systems to support continuous instructional
improvement; criterion (D)(2)(iv)(a) refers to using teacher and
principal evaluations to inform relevant professional development; and
criterion (D)(5) focuses on the need for States and LEAs to provide
effective data-informed professional development, coaching, induction,
and common planning and collaboration time to teachers and principals
that are, where appropriate, ongoing and job-embedded.
Changes: None.
Research-Based Practice
Comment: One commenter recommended adding an invitational priority
to encourage States to adopt programs that have been demonstrated to be
effective through rigorous research. The commenter stated that priority
should be given to States that identify resources to help their LEAs
select programs that are supported by the best available empirical
evidence.
Discussion: Criterion (A)(2)(i)(b) will be used to judge the extent
to which a State has the capacity to support its participating LEAs in
successfully implementing the education reform plans the State has
proposed through such activities as identifying promising practices,
evaluating these practices' effectiveness, and ceasing ineffective
practices. In addition, criteria (C)(2) and (C)(3) focus on gathering
and using data to support continuous improvement, including a specific
focus on making the data available and accessible to researchers to
evaluate the effectiveness of instructional materials, strategies, and
approaches. We believe these criteria address the commenter's concerns
and, therefore, that it is unnecessary to add the invitational priority
suggested by the commenter.
Changes: None.
Using Data To Inform Practice
Comment: One commenter urged the Department to add a competitive
preference priority for establishing an ``evidence-based learning
cycle'' to improve system-wide policy and student achievement results.
The commenter recommended that the
[[Page 59709]]
competitive preference priority encourage States to: (1) Design robust
formative and summative evaluations on their Race to the Top programs;
(2) gather data on the highest-priority teacher and principal actions,
and school-level and classroom-level practices that differentiate fast-
improving schools and classrooms from other schools and classrooms; and
(3) document these practices so that other teachers, school leaders,
and State and local policymakers can access and use these tools and
evidence to drive a continuous cycle of improvement in other schools,
classrooms, and systems.
Another commenter recommended adding the development of
longitudinal data systems as a competitive preference priority in order
to accelerate development and implementation of next-generation, user-
oriented data systems that provide timely, useful data for teachers and
principals to use in managing performance and improving student
achievement; prioritize academic data with an emphasis on leading
predictive indicators; include routine data inquiry processes and
training to support educators in the effective interpretation and use
of data that result in improved student achievement; and enhance State
and local capacity to use data and improve the systematic integration
and use of data over time.
Discussion: The evidence-based learning cycle and the user-oriented
data systems proposed by the commenters are similar in concept to
criteria (C)(2) and (C)(3). Criteria (C)(2) and (C)(3) focus on the use
of data from the State's statewide longitudinal data system and the
local instructional improvement systems to support continuous
improvement both within and outside of the classroom. In addition,
priority 4 focuses on expanding statewide longitudinal data systems to
include or integrate data from a variety of sources, including, for
example, human resources, school finance, and other relevant areas with
the purpose of connecting and coordinating all parts of the system to
inform continuous improvement practices. Therefore, we do not believe
it is necessary to make the changes recommended by the commenters.
Changes: None.
Flexibility in Operating Conditions
Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department include an
invitational priority for applicants that commit to implementing the
reforms and providing flexible operating conditions for their schools.
Discussion: We agree that flexibility in operating conditions is an
important strategy to facilitate reform efforts. That is why we
included priority 6, School-Level Conditions for Reform, Innovation,
and Learning, which focuses on flexibilities and autonomies that an LEA
provides to its schools in order to create the conditions for reform,
innovation, and learning.
Changes: None.
Priority 1: Absolute Priority--Comprehensive Approach to Education
Reform:
General Comments
Comment: Numerous commenters expressed support for absolute
priority 1 and its focus on ensuring that States comprehensively
address each of the four education reform areas and take a systemic
approach to education reform. The commenters stated that this approach
will encourage school systems around the country to implement much-
needed changes that will improve student outcomes. One commenter stated
that this approach sets a much higher bar for State applications than
is typically required of competitive grant programs and was supportive
of this approach. Another commenter encouraged the Department to award
Race to the Top grants only to those States that pursue significant
comprehensive and systemic reforms. However, one commenter expressed
concern that this approach would encourage States to lower standards
rather than provide incentives for States to improve their educational
standards and put in place the reforms necessary to improve educational
outcomes.
Discussion: We appreciate the support for absolute priority 1 and
its focus on a comprehensive and systematic approach to addressing the
four education reform areas specified in the ARRA. We do not agree with
the commenter that a comprehensive and systematic approach to the four
reform areas will encourage States to lower standards. The focus on
improving student achievement, decreasing achievement gaps, and
increasing high school graduation rates, and the use of sound measures,
such as the results from the NAEP, will help ensure that States do not
lower their standards. In addition, unlike in other competitive
programs, we are rewarding States that have already created the
conditions for reform and improved student outcomes and have a strong
foundation for implementing plans going forward. States that have
lowered their standards will not clear the high bar that we have set
for awards under the Race to the Top program.
As noted elsewhere, we are adding to this final notice a new
section (A), State Success Factors. We are revising a number of the
selection criteria from proposed section (E) (Overall Selection
Criteria) and including them as State Success Factors Criteria (A). The
purpose of this change is to provide States with the opportunity to
begin their proposals with clear statements of their integrated,
coordinated, statewide reform agendas. In order to be consistent with
this change, we are changing the language in priority 1 to provide
that, in addition to addressing the four education reform areas, State
applications also must address the State Success Factors Criteria.
Consistent with this focus on the State Success Factors Criteria, we
are adding clarifying language and removing the reference to the four
reform areas in the title of absolute priority 1.
With regard to the use of NAEP scores to measure increasing student
achievement, we are removing this reference in priority 1 because, as
noted elsewhere, the new section on State Success Factors describes how
increases in student achievement and closing achievement gaps across
subgroups will be measured. State Success Factors Criteria (A)(1)(iii)
and (A)(3)(ii) specify that when evaluating increases in student
achievement and gap-closing, reviewers will examine results in reading/
language arts and mathematics based on the NAEP and on the assessments
required under the ESEA.
Changes: Absolute priority 1 has been revised to read: ``To meet
this priority, the State's application must comprehensively and
coherently address all of the four education reform areas specified in
the ARRA as well as the State Success Factors Criteria in order to
demonstrate that the State and its participating LEAs are taking a
systemic approach to education reform. The State must demonstrate in
its application sufficient LEA participation and commitment to
successfully implement and achieve the goals in its plans; and it must
describe how the State, in collaboration with its participating LEAs,
will use Race to the Top and other funds to increase student
achievement, decrease the achievement gaps across student subgroups,
and increase the rates at which students graduate from high school
prepared for college and careers.''
Competitive Preference Priority 2: Emphasis on Science, Technology,
Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM):
Comment: Numerous commenters expressed support for including an
emphasis on STEM education as a competitive preference priority. The
[[Page 59710]]
commenters noted that major developments in medicine, energy, and
agriculture are dependent on innovations in STEM fields and stated that
engaging students in STEM education programs is the most effective way
to improve the Nation's economy and maintain America's global
leadership. One commenter recommended changing the priority to an
absolute priority and another commenter recommended adding selection
criteria related to STEM education.
However, many commenters stated that designating STEM as a
competitive preference priority implies that STEM subjects are more
important than other subjects and recommended omitting or changing the
STEM priority to an invitational priority. One commenter asked why the
Department chose to emphasize STEM subjects over other subjects.
Numerous commenters expressed concern that including a competitive
preference priority on STEM education would lead to a narrowing of the
curriculum. One commenter expressed concern that a competitive
preference priority emphasizing STEM education might encourage STEM-
only programs, as opposed to STEM-focused programs in which the content
is integrated into various curricular areas. The commenter expressed
concern that the priority would prohibit States from applying data-
driven reform and school achievement interventions that do not focus on
STEM. Another commenter recommended changing the priority to give
States the option of using data to develop plans that meet the needs of
their low-performing schools.
Discussion: We appreciate the support expressed for including a
competitive preference priority on STEM education. Ensuring American
competitiveness in a global economy requires significant improvements
in STEM education. As the commenters noted, professionals in STEM
fields are major contributors to the American economy in such areas as
medicine, agriculture, and energy. Science-based industries are in need
of skilled workers, and we believe a competitive preference priority on
STEM will help schools produce a generation of Americans who can meet
this demand. Therefore, we decline to eliminate priority 2 or to re-
designate priority 2 as an invitational priority. We did not intend for
an emphasis on STEM education to result in a narrowing of the
curriculum. Rather, our intent was to focus attention on the need to
develop and implement rigorous courses of study in STEM fields, assist
teachers in providing effective and relevant instruction in those
fields, and prepare more students for advanced study and careers in
STEM. While we believe increasing the focus on STEM education is
important, we do not believe that an emphasis on STEM education should
be required as part of the core work that States are required to
address in their reform plans for the Race to the Top program.
Therefore, we decline to change the emphasis on STEM education to an
absolute priority or include selection criteria emphasizing STEM
education. With regard to commenters' concerns that emphasizing STEM
education might encourage STEM-only programs, as opposed to STEM-
focused programs, we note that this notice specifically refers to
preparing and assisting teachers in integrating STEM content across
grades and disciplines. The priority will not prohibit States from
using data from areas other than STEM education to drive reform, nor
should it discourage them from doing so.
Changes: None.
Comment: Two commenters recommended that the final notice clarify
the meaning of ``a rigorous course of study,'' as used in priority 2,
by providing examples of what the Department considers to be rigorous
courses of study. The commenters suggested Advanced Placement courses
and STEM-intensive courses, such as those offered in many career and
technical education programs, as examples of rigorous courses of study.
One commenter recommended including a reference to career preparatory
coursework. Two commenters recommended the final notice include an
incentive for States that assess the alignment of rigorous courses of
study in STEM subjects with other courses of study in a school's
curriculum.
Discussion: The Department believes that States should have the
flexibility to determine the content and focus of a rigorous course of
study in STEM subjects and, therefore, declines to add examples of
rigorous courses of study in priority 2. In determining the rigor of a
course in STEM subjects, local decision-makers will likely assess how
STEM subjects are integrated and aligned with other courses offered in
a State or LEAs' current programs of study. Therefore, we do not
believe that it is necessary to provide incentives for doing so.
Changes: None.
Comment: A few commenters recommended that the final priority
reference additional STEM-capable community partners such as youth-
serving community organizations, ``valued-added intermediaries,'' and
public broadcasting entities. One commenter strongly recommended that
the Department provide guidelines for selecting STEM-capable partners.
Another commenter noted that non-school settings, such as museums and
science centers, offer designed spaces and programs to engage students
and encourage them to pursue and develop interests in scientific
inquiry that may positively influence academic achievement and expand
students' sense of career options.
Discussion: To meet priority 2, applicants must cooperate with
industry experts, museums, universities, research centers, or other
STEM-capable community partners in preparing and assisting teachers to
integrate STEM content across grades and disciplines, to promote
effective and relevant instruction, and to offer applied learning
opportunities for students. We do not believe it is appropriate to be
more specific about the STEM-capable partnerships that States should
form given that the resources and needs vary considerably across
schools and communities; such decisions are best left to local decision
makers. Therefore, we decline to include additional examples of STEM-
capable partnerships or to provide guidelines for selecting STEM-
capable partners, as requested by commenters.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department revise
priority 2 to explicitly include computer science as part of STEM
education. The commenter stated that computer science is often confused
with technology literacy and this confusion leads to teaching basic
skills instead of core concepts and problem solving. The commenter
noted that computer science provides students with a fundamental
understanding of computing, exposure to professional fields, and
opportunities to develop computational thinking skills.
Discussion: STEM education includes a wide-range of disciplines,
including computer science. We believe that States should have the
flexibility to define the specific courses of study in mathematics, the
sciences, technology, and engineering, based on the needs and available
resources of the State, as well as the advice of industry experts,
museums, universities, research centers, and other STEM-capable
community partners. Therefore, we decline to change priority 2 to
specify that computer science is a part of STEM education, as requested
by the commenter.
Changes: None.
[[Page 59711]]
Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department require
States to implement the recommendations of the National Mathematics
Advisory Panel regarding K-8 mathematics teacher preparation programs
and licensing requirements. The commenter stated that teacher
preparation programs and licensing requirements for K-8 mathematics
teachers should address arithmetic, geometry, measurement, and algebra.
Another commenter recommended requiring States to provide funds for
improving State licensing requirements in order to ensure that K-8
teachers master core mathematics content. One commenter recommended
that the Department require in-service training for K-8 mathematics
teachers. Another commenter recommended that the Department revise
priority 2 in order to ensure that teachers in high-risk, low-
performing schools are provided with professional development
opportunities, mentoring, and the necessary guidance to ensure that
rigorous courses of study in STEM subjects are taught in these schools.
Discussion: We do not believe that it would be appropriate for the
Department to require States to implement the recommendations of the
National Mathematics Advisory Panel regarding mathematics teacher
preparation programs and licensing requirements; decisions regarding
teacher preparation programs and licensing requirements are best left
to State and local officials to make depending on the unique needs and
circumstances in each State. With regard to the recommendation to
require in-service training and professional development, mentoring,
and guidance in STEM subjects to teachers in high-risk, low-achieving
schools, we note that this final notice includes several criteria that
address the professional development needs of teachers, including
criteria (B)(3), (C)(3)(ii), (D)(2)(iv)(a), and especially (D)(5),
which focuses on the extent to which States provide effective support
to teachers and principals. We believe that these criteria adequately
address the commenter's concerns regarding professional development;
States addressing the STEM competitive preference priority will have
ample opportunities to address professional development needs in their
responses to these criteria. We therefore decline to change priority 2
in the manner recommended by the commenter.
Changes: None.
Comment: A few commenters recommended that the Department encourage
States to recruit, train, and provide alternative pathways for STEM
professionals to join the teaching force as full-time teachers, co-
teachers, or professional development providers. The commenters noted
that STEM professionals in the classroom would help students understand
the career opportunities available for individuals with knowledge in
STEM subjects. One commenter recommended providing additional credit to
States that use ``informal science education centers'' as resources for
professional development.
Discussion: We agree with commenters that efforts should be made to
recruit and train STEM professionals to join the teaching force as
teachers and that having such professionals in the classroom would help
students understand the career opportunities available in STEM fields.
Criterion (D)(1), which assesses the extent to which a State has high-
quality pathways for aspiring teachers and principals, addresses this
concern. To the extent that the informal science education centers,
referred to by one commenter, provide professional development as an
alternative route to certification, States that permit use of such
centers would be given credit under criterion (D)(1)(i). Therefore, we
decline to give additional credit to States that use such centers as
recommended by one commenter.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department invite
States to strengthen their early childhood education programs by
including STEM education in their State reform plans for early learning
programs.
Discussion: As noted elsewhere, we are adding an invitational
priority for early learning programs (see priority 3), which includes a
focus on improving young children's school readiness, and a competitive
preference priority for STEM education (see priority 2). States that
choose to address either of these priorities could include a
description of efforts to ensure that early learning program standards
and curricula include developmentally appropriate science, pre-
numeracy, and numeracy content in order to help prepare young children
to succeed in STEM-related areas when they enter school.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department encourage
States to provide high-level STEM curricula to advanced students in
earlier grades than is typically the norm. The commenter noted that
local policies and practices typically inhibit acceleration options and
leave advanced students unchallenged.
Discussion: With regard to the commenter's recommendation that the
Department encourage States to provide high-level STEM curricula to
advanced students in earlier grades than is typical, States will have
opportunities to include such concepts in their applications, if they
so desire, through priority 6, which focuses on LEAs creating the
conditions for reform and innovation by providing their schools with
flexibilities and autonomies; through criterion (B)(3), which addresses
instructional issues relating to enhanced standards; and by addressing
competitive preference priority 2, which focuses on STEM education.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter urged the Secretary to encourage States to
open statewide, public, residential high schools that focus on math and
science.
Discussion: To the extent that a public residential high school
would be considered an innovative school, we note that criterion
(F)(2)(v) encourages States to enable LEAs to operate such innovative,
autonomous public schools. Therefore, we do not believe that additional
language in priority 2 is needed to address the commenter's
recommendation.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter stated that the availability of up-to-date
laboratory equipment plays an important role in STEM learning and
requested that the Department clarify whether Race to the Top funds
could be used to purchase laboratory equipment and technological tools
to implement STEM programs. The commenter stated that the quality and
quantity of equipment is inadequate in most schools, particularly in
schools with high concentrations of at-risk students.
Discussion: The Race to the Top program provides States and LEAs
with significant freedom to use Race to the Top funds to meet the goals
outlined in their State reform plans. Laboratory equipment would be an
allowable use of funds under the Race to the Top program.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter urged the Department to encourage States to
develop a common set of core STEM standards and assessments. In
addition, the commenter recommended that the Department encourage and
reward States that enhance their high school graduation requirements to
include four years of STEM courses.
Discussion: The Department is encouraging States to develop a
common set of high-quality K-12 standards that are internationally
benchmarked and that build toward
[[Page 59712]]
college- and career-readiness by the time of high school graduation. In
addition, the Department is encouraging States to develop and implement
common, high-quality assessments that are aligned with those standards.
Thus, criterion (B)(1) assesses the extent to which a State has
demonstrated its commitment to adopting a common set of high-quality
standards, and criterion (B)(2) assesses the extent to which the State
has demonstrated its commitment to improving the quality of its
assessments. It is a State's responsibility to determine the content of
those standards and assessments, including whether to develop a common
set of core STEM standards and assessments. Likewise, States are
responsible for establishing high school graduation requirements. Thus,
whether or not four years of STEM courses are included as a requirement
for graduation from high school is a decision that is made by States,
not the Federal Government.
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters recommended that the Department require
STEM instruction to be consistent with the principles of universal
design for learning. The commenters noted that universal design for
learning is defined in section 103(24) of the Higher Education
Opportunity Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110-315), as a structure that provides
flexibility in instruction that accommodates, supports, and maintains
high achievement expectations for all students, including students with
disabilities and English language learners.
Discussion: Paragraph (ii) in priority 2 focuses on promoting STEM
education that is effective, relevant, and includes applied learning
opportunities for students. To the extent that such instruction can be
provided consistent with the principles of universal design, we
encourage States to do so. However, we do not believe it would be
appropriate to require all instruction to be consistent with the
principles of universal design for learning as recommended by the
commenters.
Changes: None.
Comment: A few commenters recommended that the Department promote
racial, economic, and gender integration in STEM programs. These
commenters stated that programs funded by the Department have an
obligation to be inclusive and remove discriminatory barriers. One
commenter noted that STEM programs should be included in schools that
serve low-income students to ensure that such students have access to
STEM programs. Another commenter recommended that the Department
reiterate that recipients of Race to the Top funds should remove
obstacles that might discourage female students from enrolling and
completing STEM programs.
Discussion: We agree with these commenters that all students should
have access to rigorous courses of study in STEM programs. Paragraph
(iii) in priority 2 specifically refers to State plans addressing the
needs of underrepresented groups and of women and girls in the areas of
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Therefore, we do not
believe that additional language needs to be added to priority 2 to
address the commenters' concerns.
Changes: None.
Comment: Two commenters recommended that the final notice reference
advanced laboratory work, service learning, project-based learning, and
work-based learning as examples of ``applied learning opportunities.''
The commenters stated that providing such examples would help clarify
the meaning of applied learning opportunities as it is used in priority
2. One commenter recommended that the Department clarify that applied
learning opportunities could occur during regular school hours, or
before or after the regular school day.
Discussion: A State seeking to meet priority 2 is required to
cooperate with industry experts, museums, universities, research
centers, and other STEM-capable community partners to ensure that
instruction is relevant and that students are provided with
opportunities to apply what they have learned in the classroom. Such
cooperative work with experts in STEM fields should provide a State
with ample examples of applied learning opportunities. In addition, as
noted elsewhere, we are adding a definition of increased learning time;
this definition specifically references service learning and
experiential and work-based learning and encourages such learning to
occur during or outside of regular school hours. As such, we do not
believe it is necessary to include examples of applied learning
opportunities in priority 2, which could limit, rather than promote
ideas and strategies to improve or enhance STEM education programs.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended that priority 2 be changed to
require State reform plans to describe how technology will be
incorporated as a required component in STEM education programs. The
commenter also recommended requiring State reform plans to include
online access to high-quality STEM courses and instructors, remediation
for low-performing students through interactive instructional software,
virtual field trips, and online connections to STEM professionals.
Another commenter noted that programs supported by universities use
technology and multimedia to improve teaching and learning of STEM
subjects and recommended that universities and the business sector work
in partnership with schools to prepare students for postsecondary
education and workplace success.
Discussion: We agree that the approaches that commenters discussed
can be useful in implementing STEM programs. However, we believe such
decisions are best left to local officials who understand the needs and
available resources in their schools and communities. We decline,
therefore, to make the changes that the commenters recommend.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter asked how the Department will determine
whether a State's application meets the competitive preference
priority. The commenter asked specifically whether a ``pilot'' project
focused on STEM education, rather than a comprehensive STEM program,
would meet priority 2. Another commenter recommended that the
Department require a State's proposed STEM programs to be evidence-
based.
Discussion: Priority 2 describes the three elements that a State's
reform plan must address to meet priority 2. These elements include the
need to (i) offer a rigorous course of study in STEM subjects; (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; and (iii) prepare more students for advanced
study and careers in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics,
including by addressing the needs of underrepresented groups and of
women and girls in STEM areas. We are clarifying that, to meet the
priority, the State's application must have a high-quality plan to
address each of these elements. We do not believe it is necessary to
require that a State's proposed STEM program be evidence-based in order
to meet this priority; reviewers will judge the quality of the program
that a State proposes, which will necessarily include the extent to
[[Page 59713]]
which the State's proposed STEM education program is evidence-based.
Changes: We have revised the priority to specify that, to meet this
priority, the State's application must have a high-quality plan to
address the areas specified in the priority.
Comment: One commenter stated that a significant investment is
necessary to successfully improve student performance in STEM subjects
and recommended that the Department revise priority 2 to provide a
preference to States with the infrastructure to demonstrate results.
Discussion: We do not believe that preference should be given to
States that already have the infrastructure in place to evaluate and
demonstrate results. As part of its application, each State must
provide a detailed budget and accompanying budget narrative describing
how the State plans to use Race to the Top funds to accomplish the
State's reform plan and meet its targets. The detailed plan for using
grant funds must include, among other things, the key goals, the key
activities to be undertaken, the rationale for the activities, and the
timeline for implementing the activities (see application
requirements). A State that includes a focus on STEM education must,
therefore, include in its proposed budget how it plans to use grant
funds or other Federal, State, and local funds to meet its goals
related to improving STEM education.
Changes: None.
Priority 4--Invitational Priority--Expansion and Adaptation of
Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems (Proposed Priority 3):
Comment: A number of comments were received on priority 4 that were
similar to the comments received on criterion (C)(1), regarding
implementing a statewide longitudinal data system; criterion (C)(2),
regarding accessing and using State data; and criterion (C)(3),
regarding using data to improve instruction.
Discussion: In some cases we have responded to comments received in
response to priority 4 under section (C), Data Systems to Support
Instruction. This enabled us to group similar comments and concerns in
order to be more responsive to the commenters.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended changing the title of this
priority to ``Expansion, Adaptation, and Appropriate Utilization of
State Longitudinal Data Systems.''
Discussion: We do not believe the lengthier title recommended by
the commenter is necessary, and therefore, decline to change the title
of priority 4.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended that priority 4 be eliminated.
The commenter stated that Race to the Top funds should be used to
improve teaching and not for expanding data systems.
Discussion: Establishing a statewide longitudinal data system that
provides data on student achievement or student growth to teachers and
principals, as well as policymakers, researchers, and other
stakeholders, is key to driving education reform in general, and
improvements in the classroom, in particular. Therefore, we decline to
eliminate priority 4.
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters recommended that priority 4 be changed
from an invitational priority to a competitive preference priority
because of the importance of linking data from various program areas
with statewide longitudinal data systems. Several commenters stated
that expanding and linking data systems are essential to achieving
comprehensive reform in the four ARRA education reform areas, and
therefore, recommended changing the priority to an absolute priority.
Discussion: We believe that priority 4 is appropriately designated
as an invitational priority because it extends the work that States are
already doing to address the criteria related to fully implementing
statewide longitudinal data systems. A State will already be judged on
the extent to which it has a statewide longitudinal data system that
includes all of the America COMPETES Act elements (see criterion
(C)(1)) and the extent to which it has a high-quality plan to ensure
that data from the State's statewide longitudinal data system are used
to support decision-makers in the continuous improvement of policy,
instruction, operations, management, resource allocation, and overall
effectiveness (see criterion (C)(2)). While we believe that the focus
of priority 4 is important, it is not part of the core work that States
must do to address the four education reform areas. Therefore, we
decline to re-designate priority 4 as an absolute priority or as a
competitive preference priority.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter requested clarification about the data that
are required to meet this priority and the questions these data should
be able to answer.
Discussion: Criterion (C)(1) will examine the extent to which a
State has a statewide longitudinal data system that includes all of the
America COMPETES Act. The purpose of priority 4 is to reward States
that go beyond the 12 elements of the America COMPETES Act to connect
their statewide longitudinal data systems to other data or data systems
that may exist independently from a State's statewide longitudinal data
system. The information that will be responsive to this priority will
depend on each State's current statewide longitudinal data system, the
extent to which it is already connected to other data or data systems,
and the types of questions related to policy, practice, or overall
effectiveness that a State needs to answer in order to implement its
reform agenda. We believe that this purpose could have been stated more
clearly in the priority and, therefore, are adding clarifying language.
Changes: We have changed the end of the last sentence in the first
paragraph of the priority as follows: ``* * * with the purpose of
connecting and coordinating all parts of the system to allow important
questions related to policy, practice, or overall effectiveness to be
asked, answered, and incorporated into effective continuous improvement
practices.''
Comment: One commenter noted that statewide longitudinal data
systems could be expanded in a number of ways such as including
additional data from within the agency, from other State agencies, from
other States, or from management systems that track and allocate
resources. The commenter recommended that the priority include this
clarification. Another commenter recommended that the priority
encourage States to link their longitudinal data systems with data from
other State agencies.
Discussion: While the commenter noted several ways in which
statewide longitudinal data systems could be expanded, we do not
believe that it is necessary to include this information in the
priority, nor to encourage States to link their longitudinal data
systems with data from other agencies. How States expand their data
systems will depend on the current needs, resources, and capabilities
of each State's statewide longitudinal data system. We remind States
that they must consider how to protect student privacy as data are
shared across agencies. Successful applicants that receive Race to the
Top grant awards will need to comply with the Family Educational Rights
and Privacy Act (FERPA), including 34 CFR Part 99, as well as State and
local requirements regarding privacy.
Changes: None.
Comment: Many commenters recommended that statewide longitudinal
data systems include student-level data on transfers, chronic
[[Page 59714]]
absenteeism, and in- and out-of-school suspensions, as well as school
dropout rates, dropout and re-enrollment data, and data on students
completing P-16 programs. One commenter recommended that data on
``student mobility'' be included in all data gathering and reporting.
Other commenters strongly recommended that State longitudinal data
systems include measures of school safety, culture, and climate.
Discussion: Applicants for Race to the Top grants will already be
judged on the extent to which the State has a statewide longitudinal
data system that includes all of the America COMPETES Act elements (see
criterion (C)(1)). Those elements include, among other, student level
enrollment, demographic, and program participation information; and
student-level information about the points at which students exit,
transfer in, transfer out, dropout, or complete P-16 education
programs. It would not, therefore, be appropriate to include these
elements in priority 4, which is focused on expanding statewide
longitudinal data systems. However, we believe that it is appropriate
to reference in priority 4 linking data from at-risk and dropout
prevention programs, school climate and culture programs, and
information on student mobility. Such data will complement and expand
the data that States will be collecting through the America COMPETES
Act elements. Therefore, we are adding language to the priority to
refer to at-risk and dropout prevention programs, school climate and
culture programs, and information on student mobility. For clarity, we
also are adding a parenthetical following ``human resources.''
Changes: We have added the phrase ``at-risk and dropout prevention
programs, and school climate and culture programs, as well as
information on student mobility'' following ``early childhood
programs'' in priority 4. We also have added ``(i.e., information on
teachers, principals, and other staff)'' following ``human resources.''
Comment: None.
Discussion: Throughout this notice, we have used the term ``English
language learner,'' rather than ``limited English proficient,''
whenever possible. During our internal review, we noted that we
inadvertently used ``limited English proficient'' in priority 4.
Therefore, we are changing ``limited English proficient,'' to ``English
language learner'' in priority 4.
Changes: We have replaced ``limited English proficiency'' with
``English language learner'' in priority 4.
Comment: Two commenters recommended that statewide longitudinal
data systems include data on all postsecondary students, including
adults who are enrolled part[hyphen]time, taking non[hyphen]credit
courses, or participating in remedial programs. These commenters also
recommended that statewide longitudinal data systems include data on
participants in other educational and workforce training programs such
as adult basic education programs. Several commenters recommended
referencing data on career placements and State employment wage records
as areas in which States should expand their systems.
Discussion: As priority 4 already references postsecondary data, we
do not believe it is necessary to add specific detail about the types
of postsecondary data that States should collect. Nor do we believe
that it is necessary to reference data on career placements and State
employment wage records. States that believe such data are important to
their overall reform strategy can certainly propose to expand their
statewide longitudinal data base by adding these elements.
Changes: None.
Comment: Two commenters referred to the statement in the proposed
priority stating that the Secretary was interested in applications in
which States propose working together to adapt statewide longitudinal
data systems, rather than having each State build such systems
independently. The commenters requested guidance on how States should
work together and asked for clarity about whether one State should be
designated as the lead and what would happen if only one of the States
in the partnership is successful in receiving a Race to the Top award.
Discussion: States that propose to work together to adapt their
statewide longitudinal data systems should include these proposed
efforts in their reform plan and show how these efforts are coordinated
with the State's larger reform efforts. When developing their plans,
States should propose alternative options should one of the States not
be awarded Race to the Top funds and be unable to devote other funds to
achieve the outlined goals.
Changes: None.
Priority 5--Invitational Priority--P-20 Coordination, Vertical and
Horizontal Alignment (Proposed Priority 4):
Comment: Several commenters recommended that priority 5, regarding
P-20 coordination, include an emphasis on aligning a State's
educational system with other State agencies and community
organizations. The commenters stated that such ``horizontal'' alignment
is just as important as ``vertical alignment,'' particularly for high-
need students. One commenter recommended that the Department require
State reform plans to provide information about how all parts of the
State's education system will work to improve student achievement and
the overall quality of schools, and how the State's education system
will work with other supporting agencies and institutions to address
the needs of all students. The commenter also recommended that State
reform plans address how the improvement process will be managed
effectively both within the educational system and across supporting
agencies and institutions.
Numerous commenters stated that community-based organizations play
a key role in assisting youth at the secondary level, particularly in
helping them transition to postsecondary education, and therefore,
should be included as partners in creating a seamless P-20 route for
students. A few commenters stated that the educational system should
work with child welfare, juvenile justice, and criminal justice
agencies to help re-engage high school dropouts.
Discussion: We agree that priority 5 would be strengthened by
including a focus on coordinating educational systems with other State
agencies and community organizations that provide services to students
that are beyond the capacity of schools to provide. This would include,
for example, community-based organizations that serve youth, as well as
child welfare, juvenile justice, and criminal justice agencies, as
mentioned by commenters. Therefore, we are revising the priority, as
well as the title of the priority, to reflect a focus on the
``horizontal alignment'' of the educational system with other agencies
and community organizations. Applicants that choose to address priority
5 should include in their State reform plans how all parts of the
education system will coordinate their work to create a more seamless
P-20 route for students--both vertically, to ensure that students
exiting one level of the education system are prepared for success in
the next, as well as horizontally, to ensure that services across
schools, State agencies, and community partners are coordinated and
aligned.
With regard to the comment that State reform plans address how the
improvement process will be managed effectively, we note that criterion
(A)(2) focuses on the extent to which States have built strong
statewide capacity to
[[Page 59715]]
implement, scale up, and sustain their proposed reform plans.
Changes: We have changed the title of priority 5 to: P-20
Coordination, Vertical and Horizontal Alignment. In addition we have
added ``and other State agencies and community partners (e.g., child
welfare, juvenile justice, and criminal justice agencies)'' following
``organizations'' in the first sentence of the priority. Finally, we
have added the following sentence at the end of the priority:
``Horizontal alignment, that is, coordination of services across
schools, State agencies, and community partners, is also important to
ensure that high-need students (as defined in this notice) have access
to the broad array of opportunities and services they need and that are
beyond the capacity of the school itself to provide.''
Comment: Many commenters recommended changing priority 5 from an
invitational priority to a competitive preference priority, stating
that P-20 alignment efforts are key to improving student transitions,
and ultimately, student success. A few commenters recommended changing
priority 5 from an invitational priority to an absolute priority. One
commenter stated that coordination across and within systems can
improve instruction, service delivery, and communication, and thus
create an environment that encourages innovation.
Discussion: We believe that priority 5 is appropriately designated
as an invitational priority because it extends beyond the core K-12
focus of the Race to the Top program. States will already be judged on
the extent to which they set forth a comprehensive and coherent reform
agenda for improving student outcomes statewide (see criterion (A)(1))
and the extent to which they enlist strong statewide support and
commitment for their plans from a broad group of stakeholders, which
may include other State agencies, nonprofit organizations, and
community-based organizations (see criterion (A)(2)(ii)). While we
believe that the focus of priority 5 is important, it is not part of
the core work that States must do to address the four education reform
areas. Therefore, we decline to re-designate priority 5 as an absolute
priority or a competitive preference priority.
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters recommended that priority 5 encourage
collaboration between K-12 schools, higher education, and workforce
development organizations in order to create pathways to college and
work. One commenter stated that partnerships with workforce development
organizations would add relevance to classroom instruction and help
develop school-work partnerships.
Discussion: We agree with the commenters and are changing
``workforce organizations'' to ``workforce development organizations''
to be clear that such organizations are important to creating a more
seamless P-20 route for students. We also are including careers as an
example of a critical transition point.
Changes: We have changed ``workforce organizations'' to ``workforce
development organizations.'' In the parenthetical following ``each
point where a transition occurs,'' we have changed ``postsecondary'' to
``postsecondary/careers.''
Comment: Two commenters recommended including family engagement in
each State's P-20 plan.
Discussion: As part of its overall reform plan, States will be
judged on the extent to which they have enlisted strong statewide
support and commitment from a broad array of stakeholders, which
includes community organizations, such as parent-teacher associations.
Therefore, we do not believe it is necessary to add family engagement
in this priority, as recommended by the commenters. We also note that
priority 6 specifically focuses on flexibilities and autonomies for
school-level reform, including those related to implementing strategies
to effectively engage families and communities in supporting the
academic success of their students (see paragraph (vii) in priority 6).
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended that the reference to vertical
alignment in this priority include multiple education pathways to
graduating from high school, such as alternative education programs,
general educational development (GED) programs, and community college
programs. Another commenter recommended that priority 5 focus on
alignment between the traditional education system and alternative
education programs for high school dropouts. Two commenters urged the
Department to include adult education programs in this priority,
stating that adult education programs play a key role in the P-20 route
for some students, particularly English language learners.
Discussion: Priority 5 refers to K-12 schools, postsecondary
institutions, workforce development organizations, and other State
agencies and community partners, which would encompass the programs
referenced by the commenters. We do not believe that the notice needs
to include additional references to these programs or to other specific
types of schools or programs. Therefore, we decline to make the changes
requested by the commenters.
Changes: None.
Comment: Many commenters highlighted the importance of improving
the transition from early childhood to K-12 programs. One commenter
asked that States be allowed to focus on coordination between early
childhood and elementary school exclusively and without penalty for
excluding middle school, high school, and post-secondary education in
their plans. One commenter recommended that the Department more
explicitly identify the ways in which early childhood and higher
education sectors should participate in States' reform strategies and
provide guidance on how cross-system alignment will be evaluated in the
peer review process. Two commenters recommended that SEAs work with
State early childhood advisory councils to improve the transition from
early childhood programs to K-12 programs.
Discussion: As discussed elsewhere, we are adding a new
invitational priority 3 on improving early educational outcomes for
high-need students who are young children, which includes a focus on
improving transitions between preschool and kindergarten.
With regard to the comment asking whether States could focus on the
transition between early childhood and elementary school exclusively
without penalty for excluding middle and high school transitions, and
the comment regarding how alignment will be evaluated in the peer
review process, we note that States will be judged on the extent to
which their plans set forth comprehensive and coherent reform agendas
for improving student outcomes statewide (see criterion (A)(1)), and on
the extent to which States have enlisted strong statewide support and
commitment for their plans from a broad group of stakeholders, which
may include IHEs and agencies providing early childhood education (see
criterion (A)(2)(ii)). States that choose to address priority 5 should
discuss how to coordinate all parts of their systems to create more
seamless P-20 routes for students--both vertically, to ensure that
students exiting one level of the education system are prepared for
success in the next, and horizontally, to ensure that services across
schools, State agencies and community partners are coordinated and
aligned.
The ways in which early childhood and higher education programs
participate in States' reform strategies
[[Page 59716]]
will vary from State to State depending on the needs and resources in
each State. Therefore, we decline to include in priority 5 specific
ways in which these sectors should participate in their State's reform
plans, as requested by one commenter.
We agree that one way to improve transitions from early childhood
programs to K-12 programs is for SEAs to work with State early
childhood advisory councils. We are not including specific examples of
processes the State may use to improve transitions across the P-20
system; we believe such decisions are best left to local decision-
makers.
Changes: None.
Comment: Two commenters recommended adding a reference in this
priority to middle school transitions (i.e., elementary to middle
school and middle to high school) because these transitions can be
particularly challenging with the increased expectations for student
performance and responsibility, often in environments that are far less
personalized than elementary schools.
Discussion: We agree that transitions to and from middle school can
be challenging. Ensuring smooth transitions from elementary to middle
school and from middle school to high school would be important aspects
of creating a seamless P-20 route for students. The fact that priority
5 does not specifically reference the transitions to and from middle
school does not mean that State reform plans should not include efforts
to improve these important transitions. We note that the parenthetical
in priority 5 provides examples of critical transition points before
and after K-12 and is not meant to exclude transition points within K-
12 that States may address within their core Race to the Top reform
plans.
Changes: None.
Comment: A few commenters requested that priority 5 include a
requirement to coordinate early childhood programs that serve children
from birth to age five. These commenters pointed to research
documenting the importance of high quality education in the first three
years of life.
Discussion: We agree that the Race to the Top program should
recognize the importance of early learning programs in preparing
children for success in school. Therefore, as noted elsewhere, we are
adding priority 3 to focus on improving early educational outcomes for
high-need students who are young children (pre-kindergarten through
third grade). Because Race to the Top focuses its efforts primarily on
States and LEAs, an early childhood educational focus starting in pre-
kindergarten seems most applicable. The Department has other programs
that will focus exclusively and comprehensively on children younger
than pre-kindergarten age.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended that States include private
schools in developing their plans to create a more seamless P-20 route
for students. The commenter noted that many students attend both public
and private schools at various times in their educational careers.
Discussion: There is nothing that would preclude a State from
including in its plan efforts to improve coordination with private
schools. We note that nothing in the Race to the Top program requires a
State that receives funds under Race to the Top to include private
schools in the four reform areas. Because the Race to the Top program
is directed to improving public K-12 education, we decline to include a
reference to private schools in priority 5, which addresses a more
seamless P-20 route for students.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter asked whether the focus of priority 5 is on
developing a P-20 data system. Another commenter asked how the data
elements in a P-20 system would differ from a P-16 system's required
elements.
Discussion: Priority 5 focuses on improving all parts of the
education system by coordinating within the educational system (e.g.,
between early childhood programs, K-12 schools, postsecondary
institutions) and between the educational system and other State
agencies and community partners (e.g., child welfare, juvenile justice,
and criminal justice agencies). Priority 5 is not focused on P-20 data
systems; that is the focus of priority 4, Expansion and Adaptation of
Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems.
Under criterion (C)(1), States will be judged on the extent to
which they have a statewide longitudinal data system that includes the
America COMPETES Act elements. Beyond these 12 elements, the Department
has not specified any additional elements that States must include in
their statewide longitudinal data systems.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended that States use longitudinal
data to evaluate and improve the effectiveness of programs designed to
facilitate vertical alignment in the education system. Two commenters
recommended that the Department include an incentive in this priority
for States and LEAs to learn from LEAs with outstanding records in data
development and reporting in order to improve the vertical alignment of
the State's education system.
Discussion: We agree that longitudinal data could be used to
evaluate and improve the effectiveness of programs designed to improve
transitions from one level of the education system to another. We also
agree that States and LEAs should learn from each other on using data
to improve the vertical alignment of educational systems. Priorities 3,
4, and 5 encourage States to undertake such practices. We note that
States receiving Race to the Top funds, along with their LEAs and
schools, are expected to identify and share promising practices, make
work freely available within and across States, make data available in
appropriate ways to stakeholders and researchers, and help all States
focus on continuous improvement of student outcomes.
Changes: None.
Priority 6--Invitational Priority--School-Level Conditions for
Reform, Innovation, and Learning (Proposed Priority 5).
General:
Comment: Numerous commenters expressed support for priority 6.
While some commenters stated that it was appropriate for priority 6 to
be an invitational priority, numerous other commenters recommended
changing priority 6 to a competitive preference priority stating that
the conditions listed for reform and innovation are critical to
supporting school reform efforts. One commenter stated that it is
important to give priority to school-level conditions for reform
because reform is most evident when changes are implemented at the
local level, where student learning can be directly and immediately
influenced.
Several commenters urged the Department to make priority 6 a
competitive preference priority in order to ensure that districts
create the preconditions for dramatically improving student
achievement. Other commenters stated that the flexibilities and
autonomies listed in the priority are essential to school success and
that it is highly unlikely that any State will turn around low-
performing schools without these ingredients. Another commenter stated
that LEA actions are fundamental to enabling schools to turn around and
that if this priority was a competitive preference priority, it would
motivate LEAs to undertake challenging reforms. Lastly, one commenter
recommended that the priority be changed to an absolute priority.
Discussion: States may choose to address priority 6, which examines
the
[[Page 59717]]
extent to which a State's participating LEAs are broadly creating the
conditions for reform and innovation by providing schools with
flexibilities and autonomies. All States, however, will be rewarded for
flexibilities and autonomies that are provided to schools in the
highest need situations--turning around persistently lowest-achieving
schools--as part of criterion (E)(2). In addition, criterion (F)(2)
will assess the extent to which States ensure successful conditions for
high-performing charter schools and other innovative schools.
Therefore, we do not believe it is necessary to change priority 6 to an
absolute or competitive preference priority.
Changes: None.
Comment: A few commenters noted that priority 6 focuses on school-
level conditions for reform and innovation but does not speak to the
conditions that are necessary for student learning. The commenters
recommended that the title and content of the priority be changed to
also focus on creating the school-level conditions for learning. One
commenter stated that school-level conditions for reform should be
clearly defined in the notice to ensure that all of the comprehensive
learning opportunities necessary for school success are in place.
Discussion: We agree with the commenters that priority 6 should
emphasize reform and innovation in the service of learning, and thus
are adding ``learning'' to the title of the priority. We also are
clarifying, in the text of the priority, that the Secretary is
interested in applications in which the State's participating LEAs
create the conditions for reform and innovation, as well as the
conditions for learning. We decline to provide an exhaustive list of
school-level conditions for reform as requested by one commenter as
such conditions will vary depending on the unique needs of schools and
communities. Therefore, priority 6 only includes examples of
flexibilities and autonomies that an LEA might provide to its schools
in order to help create the conditions for reform, innovation, and
learning. We also are making a few technical edits for clarity.
Changes: We have changed the title of priority 6 to ``School-Level
Conditions for Reform, Innovation, and Learning.'' We have added the
phrase ``seek to create the conditions for reform and innovation as
well as the conditions for learning. * * *'' following ``The Secretary
is particularly interested in applications in which the State's
participating LEAs.''
Comment: One commenter stated that in order to meet priority 6,
States should describe the ways in which their participating LEAs
provide schools, in particular turnaround schools, with flexibilities
and autonomies conducive to reform and innovation.
Discussion: Under criterion (E)(2), States must describe the ways
in which they will support their LEAs to implement the flexibilities
provided in the school intervention models (described in Appendix C)
for their persistently lowest-achieving schools. Therefore, in
addressing priority 6, a State should describe other flexibilities and
autonomies that its LEAs currently provide, or plan to provide, to
their schools in order to create the conditions for reform, innovation,
and learning.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended that priority 6 be changed to
reach beyond LEA-school governance to include State-LEA flexibility and
autonomy. The commenter stated that emphasis should be placed on
demonstrating how changes in governance and rules affect school reform
efforts and instructional innovations. The commenter further
recommended that we add examples of flexibilities and autonomies
conducive to reform and innovation such as coordinated planning between
categorical programs and budgets, changing education delivery models to
increase productivity, and more efficiently using existing learning
time and resources.
A few commenters recommended that the Department provide additional
regulatory waivers and flexibilities to improve the coordination of
funds and create the conditions for systemic reforms and instructional
innovations. One commenter stated that Federal funding and regulatory
flexibility could have a significant effect on State and LEA reform
efforts and suggested that funds be competitively awarded in return for
a State meeting a number of key requirements.
Discussion: The Department is placing particular emphasis on these
school-level flexibilities because their effectiveness has been shown
in a number of educational settings and because they are related to
efforts to turn around struggling schools, which is a priority of the
ARRA. We are, however, open to State innovation around exploring
further flexibilities with their LEAs and, to the extent that such
flexibilities are in place, the State could describe them in response
to criterion (F)(3), Demonstrating Other Significant Reform Conditions.
We also note that under criterion (A)(2)(i)(d), a State will be
evaluated based on its capacity to accomplish its plan and targets by
coordinating, reallocating, or repurposing education funds from other
Federal, State, and local sources where feasible. We, therefore,
believe it is unnecessary to add to priority 6 the language regarding
coordinated planning between categorical programs and budgets and
changing delivery models suggested by the commenter.
In response to commenters who recommended that the Department
provide additional regulatory waivers and flexibilities, we note that
such waivers and flexibilities are often limited by statute. However,
the Department fully supports efforts to coordinate the use of funds in
order to make the most efficient and effective use of limited resources
and will continue to consider States' requests for waivers that are
permissible under current Federal statutes and regulations.
Changes: None.
Comment: A few commenters recommended that the list of
flexibilities and autonomies conducive to reform and innovation include
providing high-quality, engaging curricula and instruction that focus
on real-world problem solving. The commenters also recommended that
instruction be consistent with the principles of universal design for
learning.
Discussion: Several Race to the Top selection criteria established
in this final notice emphasize an approach to curriculum and
instruction that is based on an evidence-driven cycle of continuous
instructional improvement (see criteria (B)(3), (C)(3), and (D)(5)).
Because this issue is addressed directly in the criteria, we do not
believe it is necessary to reference specific principles used to design
curricula or instruction (i.e., universal design for learning).
Changes: None.
Comment: A few commenters requested that priority 6 clearly state
that the flexibilities and autonomies provided to schools must not
include waiving the program requirements under the IDEA.
Discussion: There is nothing in priority 6 to suggest that LEAs
would be permitted to waive program requirements required under other
Federal laws and regulations, including those required by the IDEA.
Therefore, we believe it is unnecessary to add the language requested
by the commenters.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter requested that the final notice provide
examples of flexibilities and autonomies that LEAs could provide to
schools to improve early learning. The commenter provided numerous
examples, including
[[Page 59718]]
increasing the use of Title I funds for early learning programs and
permitting the use of school facilities for early learning programs and
family centers.
Discussion: Several of the flexibilities and autonomies included in
priority 6 are applicable to early learning--for example, flexibility
in selecting staff (paragraph (i)) and controlling the school's budget
(paragraph (iii)). Therefore, we do not believe that examples
specifically applicable to early learning are necessary. We note that,
as discussed elsewhere in this notice, we are adding an invitational
priority (Priority 3) focused on early learning. An applicant who
chooses to address the early childhood priority could choose to include
flexibilities, such as those recommended by the commenter, in its
application.
Changes: None.
Comment: Numerous commenters recommended that the list of
flexibilities and autonomies conducive to reform and innovation include
charter schools and charter school autonomies. Several of these
commenters recommended that States be rewarded for their past and
proposed efforts to support charter school flexibilities and,
conversely, that States should lose points if they do not provide
adequate school-level autonomy or are implementing efforts to restrict
charter school flexibility. One commenter suggested that we clarify
that flexibilities and autonomies conducive to reform and innovation do
not include policies that would exempt charter schools or other non-
traditional public schools from open enrollment mandates or from
requirements that they be subject to and rated by the same academic
achievement standards as traditional public schools.
Discussion: As part of its application, a State is already asked to
address several criteria to ensure that it is creating the conditions
for high-quality charter schools. (See criterion (F)(2)). Therefore, we
decline to include additional criteria related to charter schools in
priority 6. We also decline to add language specifying the
flexibilities and autonomies that LEAs may provide to charter schools.
State and local governments possess the authority to authorize charter
schools and as such, requirements for charter school admissions are
primarily State and local matters.
Changes: None.
Selecting Staff (Paragraph (i))
Comment: One commenter recommended that paragraph (i) of this
priority specifically refer to schools having the flexibility to select
``leadership team members.'' Another commenter stated that school
principals must have the authority to replace consistently low-
performing educators and suggested changing paragraph (i) to clarify
that principals should be given the authority to select and replace
staff.
Discussion: We decline to add ``leadership team members'' to
paragraph (i) in priority 6 because we are unsure to whom the term
refers. With regard to the suggestion that we refer specifically to
principals selecting and replacing staff, we note that there may be
other school leaders or groups of school staff responsible for hiring
staff (e.g., department chairs; a panel of teachers, parents, and the
principal; an executive in a private management organization).
Therefore, we decline to make the change proposed by the commenters.
Changes: None.
Increased Learning Time (Paragraph (ii))
Comment: Many commenters expressed support for reform efforts that
put in place new structures and formats for the school day or year in
order to expand learning time. Commenters provided many examples of
activities that should be conducted during expanded learning time
including extra-curricular pursuits, experiential learning, enrichment
activities, family and community engagement, recreational activities,
and activities that support students' transition between grade levels.
Other commenters focused on the use of expanded learning time for
academic supports, and as a strategy to improve student achievement,
close achievement gaps, and support struggling schools. One commenter
stated that priority 6 should include other flexibilities such as
expanding opportunities for youth that include, but are not limited to,
a longer school day. Several commenters recommended clarifying that
expanded learning time includes after-school and summer school
programs. Another commenter strongly recommended that the final notice
clarify that expanded learning time includes strategies that go beyond
those that mirror the instruction provided to students during the
school day. Other commenters stated that it is important for the
Department to acknowledge that expanded learning time includes
increasing educators' learning time for activities such as professional
development that is collaborative, on-site, and tailored to the needs
of school staff and leadership, and to allow teachers to plan and learn
together.
Discussion: We appreciate the numerous comments we received on
increasing learning time. We acknowledge that the term, ``expanded
learning time'' is typically used to refer to programs that redesign
the school day, week, and year to provide additional hours of learning
time, and that ``extended learning time'' is typically used to describe
before school, after school, and summer programs. We, therefore, are
defining a new term, increased learning time, to indicate the need for
schools to provide additional time for academic work to improve the
proficiency of students in core academic subjects, as well as for
additional subjects and enrichment activities that can contribute to a
well-rounded education. We agree with commenters that teachers could
also use the additional time to collaborate, plan, and engage in
professional development.
Changes: We have replaced ``expanded learning time'' with
``increased learning time.'' We also have added a definition of
increased learning time in the definitions section of this notice to
read as follows: ``Increased learning time means using a longer school
day, week, or year schedule to significantly increase the total number
of school hours to include additional time for (a) instruction in core
academic subjects, including English; reading or language arts;
mathematics; science; foreign languages; civics and government;
economics; arts; history; and geography; (b) instruction in other
subjects and enrichment activities that contribute to a well-rounded
education, including, for example, physical education, service
learning, and experiential and work-based learning opportunities that
are provided by partnering, as appropriate, with other organizations;
and (c) teachers to collaborate, plan, and engage in professional
development within and across grades and subjects.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Research supports the effectiveness of well-designed
programs that expand learning time by a minimum of 300 hours per
school year. (See Frazier, Julie A.; Morrison, Frederick J. ``The
Influence of Extended-year Schooling on Growth of Achievement and
Perceived Competence in Early Elementary School.'' Child
Development. Vol. 69 (2), April 1998, pp.495-497 and research done
by Mass2020.) Extending learning into before- and after-school hours
can be difficult to implement effectively, but is permissible under
this definition with encouragement to closely integrate and
coordinate academic work between in-school and out-of school. (See
James-Burdumy, Susanne; Dynarski, Mark; Deke, John. ``When
Elementary Schools Stay Open Late: Results from The National
Evaluation of the 21st Century Community Learning Centers Program.''
http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/publications/redirect_
PubsDB.asp?strSite=http://epa.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/29/4/
296 Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, Vol. 29 (4),
December 2007, Document No. PP07-121.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 59719]]
Comment: Many commenters recommended that priority 6 focus on
removing barriers to innovative approaches to serving students in
after-school and summer school programs. The commenters stated that
schools should be encouraged to allow the use of school buildings for
summer programs. Other commenters recommended requiring LEAs to
coordinate funding streams for after-school and summer school programs,
such as those tied to Title I, 21st Century Community Learning Centers,
and other Federal, State, and local funds in order to maximize impact,
improve efficiencies, and provide comprehensive services.
Discussion: Priority 6 focuses on creating the conditions for
reform, innovation, and learning at the school level and includes a
list of the types of flexibility and autonomy that LEAs may provide to
schools; the list provides examples and is not exhaustive. We do not
believe it is necessary to include the very specific flexibility of
removing barriers to using school buildings for after-school and summer
school programs. Likewise, flexibilities that permit coordinating
funding streams for after-school and summer school programs are already
covered in paragraph (iii) of the priority, which references placing
budgets under the school's control.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended that LEAs be encouraged to form
partnerships with providers of out-of-school-time programming that have
proven outcomes and that can bring innovative approaches to support
true reform. Another commenter recommended that States ensure that
nonprofit partners have the opportunity to apply for extended learning
funds in partnership with one or more struggling schools in order to
maximize competition and increase the quality of programs provided. One
commenter recommended requiring States to ensure that expanded learning
time models do not limit staffing to existing teachers. The commenter
stated that flexibility should be provided to engage educators outside
of the school such as tutors, mentors, individuals in teaching
fellowship programs and alternative certification programs, and
volunteers from the community, business, and industry.
Discussion: Developing local partnerships can be an effective
strategy to move local school reform agendas forward, particularly in
providing comprehensive services to high-need students. However, we
believe it would be inappropriate to require States to form
partnerships with nonprofit organizations or individuals outside of the
school; such decisions are best left to local decision-makers who
understand the unique needs of their schools and the resources
available in their communities. We are changing the language in
paragraph (v) regarding comprehensive services to high-need students to
include examples of how such services might be provided to high-need
students.
Changes: The parenthetical in paragraph (v) now reads, ``(e.g., by
mentors and other caring adults; through local partnerships with
community-based organizations, nonprofit organizations, and other
providers).''
Comment: One commenter supported expanded learning time but stated
that educators should not be forced to work longer hours for the same
compensation and that adjustments to work schedules should be
determined locally between the district and educators and bargained
where collective bargaining agreements exist. A few commenters stated
that collaboration among labor, management, and parents is critical for
expanded learning time models to succeed.
Discussion: Decisions about work hours and compensation are
determined at the local level. As with all educational reform efforts,
we believe that collaboration among stakeholders is critical to
success.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended that the final notice provide a
clear picture of how strategies for expanded learning time and
comprehensive services for high-need students fit together as part of a
broader approach to reform and recommended that language be added to
encourage applications that demonstrate how States and LEAs will align
their strategies to produce results.
Discussion: It will be up to each applicant to describe how its
plan for reform is comprehensive and coherent and will increase student
achievement, reduce achievement gaps, and increase graduation rates.
Absolute priority 1 specifically requires that States comprehensively
address each of the four education reform areas specified in the ARRA
and demonstrate that the State and its participating LEAs are taking a
systemic approach to education reform. Applicants who choose to address
priority 6 should address how their approach to meeting this priority
fits into the State's overall reform efforts.
Changes: None.
Budgets (Paragraph (iii))
Comment: One commenter recommended revising paragraph (iii)
regarding placing budgets under the schools' control to ensure that
teachers and parents are involved in making budget decisions.
Discussion: The process that a school or LEA uses to establish its
budget is a local matter. Therefore, we decline to add the language
requested by the commenter.
Changes: None.
Credit Based on Student Performance (Paragraph (iv))
Comment: Several commenters expressed support for awarding credit
to students based on student performance instead of instructional time
and providing multiple pathways to a graduation with a regular high
school diploma. One commenter recommended that funds be used to
encourage State policies that allow middle or high school students to
receive high school graduation credit or to meet a subject area
requirement earlier than typically would be expected. The commenters
advocated for options that create flexibility for students without
sacrificing rigorous learning and cited school-work partnerships,
diploma-plus programs, and dual enrollment (high school-community
college) programs as examples of innovative approaches to creating
multiple options that help students graduate from high school and
pursue additional educational goals.
Discussion: We believe that the commenters' recommendations are all
addressed in paragraph (iv), which provides for ``awarding credit to
students based on student performance instead of instructional time.''
We, therefore, do not see a need to add the commenter's recommended
language in priority 6.
Changes: None.
Comprehensive Services (Paragraph (v))
Comment: A few commenters noted that instruction and services for
high-need students cannot be provided by traditional education systems
alone and recommended adding language to the priority to emphasize the
importance of community-based organizations and nonprofit organizations
in providing comprehensive services to high-need students. One
commenter stated that the final notice should clarify that the goal of
State and local educational agencies should be to build a comprehensive
picture of children's progress--academically, socially, and in terms of
health and well-being. One commenter stated that in order to provide
[[Page 59720]]
comprehensive services to high-need students, States must create a
safety net of wrap-around services designed to increase student success
and focus on both community- and district-level conditions.
Another commenter suggested using the term ``comprehensive
supports'' rather than ``comprehensive services,'' stating that
``comprehensive supports'' includes services and has more salience with
educators. Another commenter recommended clarifying that comprehensive
services for high-need students address the health, safety, social,
emotional, behavioral, physical, and educational needs of a child.
Discussion: We agree with the commenters that high-need students
often require a broad array of services that are beyond the capacity of
the school itself to provide, and that community-based organizations
and nonprofit organizations play an important role in meeting these
needs. As noted in an earlier comment regarding the role of community-
based organizations and nonprofit organizations in schools that provide
increased learning time, we are changing paragraph (v) to reference
community-based organizations and nonprofit organizations.
With regard to comments concerning the need for comprehensive
services and creating a safety net of wrap-around services with
involvement of both communities and districts, we note that priority 5
focuses on the need to coordinate services across schools, State
agencies, and community partners in order to ensure that high-need
students have access to the broad array of opportunities and services
they need (see the discussion on priority 5).
We decline to change the term ``comprehensive services'' to
``comprehensive supports,'' as requested by one commenter; we do not
agree that the two terms are substantively different or that one term
has more salience for educators than the other. We also decline to
specify the array of services included in ``comprehensive services''
because, by doing so, we could inadvertently restrict the range of
services that a State may determine are necessary to serve high-need
students.
Changes: None.
II. Requirements
Eligibility Requirements
Eligibility Requirement (a): State Fiscal Stabilization Fund
(Stabilization) Phase 1 and 2:
Comment: Many commenters expressed support for the eligibility
requirement that States have their State Fiscal Stabilization Fund
program Phase 1 and Phase 2 applications approved in order to be
eligible for a Race to the Top award. Other commenters expressed
concern that States may have difficulty obtaining approval of their
Stabilization Phase 2 applications in time to submit a Race to the Top
application. One commenter expressed concern that the Department's
approval of Stabilization Phase 2 applications may occur too late for a
State to apply during Phase 1 of the Race to the Top competition. One
commenter specifically noted the difficulty in satisfying the data
requirements for Stabilization Phase 2 in time to apply for the Race to
the Top competition. Some commenters requested information pertaining
to the timing of Stabilization Phase 2 applications and the Race to the
Top competition.
Discussion: The eligibility requirement pertaining to the approval
of Stabilization applications is being changed to require only that the
State have approved Stabilization Phase 1 and Phase 2 applications by
the time the State is awarded a Race to the Top grant. Thus, a State's
Stabilization Phase 2 application will not need to be approved at the
time it prepares or submits its Race to the Top application.
Changes: Eligibility requirement (a) has been changed to read: ``A
State must meet the following requirements in order to be eligible to
receive funds under this program. (a) The State's applications for
funding under Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the State Fiscal Stabilization
Fund program must be approved by the Department prior to the State
being awarded a Race to the Top grant.''
Eligibility Requirement (b): Linking Student Data to Teachers and
Principals:
Comment: Numerous commenters expressed their support for evaluating
teachers and principals based on student achievement or growth. These
commenters suggested that the final notice should require States to use
student growth data in teacher and principal evaluations. Several
commenters offered their support for the requirement that a State not
have any barriers to linking student achievement or student growth data
to teacher and principal evaluations. These commenters specifically
noted that teachers should be judged by their effectiveness, not by
their credentials or years of service.
Several commenters, however, claimed that there is a lack of
research or evidence demonstrating that the use of such data for
teacher and principal evaluations has any positive impact on teacher,
principal, or student performance. A few commenters disagreed with the
Department's reference to research indicating that teacher
qualifications, including certification status and years of experience,
are not accurately predictive of teacher quality. Other commenters
identified research explaining the difficulty in disaggregating student
achievement data to determine a teacher's effect from other variables.
One commenter suggested that States should pass laws requiring a peer
reviewed validation of any value-added methodology before including
student achievement data as part of any evaluation or compensation
mechanism and further argued that such laws should not constitute a
State barrier under the eligibility requirements.
Discussion: As indicated in the NPP, we believe that research
clearly shows that teacher and principal quality are critical
contributors to student learning. The Department believes that student
achievement and student growth data are meaningful measures of teacher
and principal effectiveness, and therefore, should be considered as a
part of a rigorous, transparent and fair evaluation system.
Consequently, legal barriers to linking data about student achievement
or student growth to teachers and principals for evaluation purposes
effectively prevents schools from having the core information systems
they need to serve students well. For these reasons, we decline to make
substantive changes to eligibility requirement (b).
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters asked whether teacher or principal
contracts or local collective bargaining agreements that prohibit the
use of student achievement data for teacher and principal evaluations
would constitute a State barrier, thus making a State ineligible for
the Race to the Top competition. One commenter noted that one specific
State lacks control over teacher and principal evaluation systems.
Discussion: The Department has revised eligibility requirement (b)
to clarify that the State must not have any legal, statutory, or
regulatory barriers at the State level to linking student achievement
or student growth data to teachers and principals for purposes of
evaluation. Therefore, a State would be eligible to apply for a Race to
the Top grant even if a teacher or principal contract or collective
bargaining agreement at the local level prohibited the use of student
achievement or student growth data for evaluation purposes.
[[Page 59721]]
Changes: Eligibility requirement (b) has been changed to read: ``At
the time the State submits its application, there must not be any
legal, statutory, or regulatory barriers at the State level 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.''
Comment: One commenter suggested limiting the eligibility
requirements pertaining to linking student achievement data to teacher
and principal evaluations to exclude educators working in early
learning or child care programs. This commenter claimed that teacher
and principal evaluation systems would not be applicable to a State's
proposal emphasizing early learning initiatives.
Discussion: The Department believes that student growth data are
strong measures of teacher effectiveness across the spectrum from
preschool to grade 12. While traditional student achievement and
student growth data may not be routinely collected in early learning
settings, relevant student achievement and student growth data are
available in other forms. Child outcome data should not be the only
measures of teacher effectiveness in early learning settings, but can
provide useful information to improve the effectiveness of early
childhood educators and administrators when coupled with other
quantitative and qualitative indicators.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended that the notice clarify what
level of change to a State law regarding linking data on student
achievement or student growth to teachers and principals would be
necessary in order to be eligible for Race to the Top funds. For
example, one commenter asked if legislation to remove a barrier to
linking student achievement data to teachers and principals would need
to be enacted prior to applying for Race to the Top funds or whether
the introduction of such legislation would be adequate to the meet
eligibility requirements. Another commenter asked whether a State would
need to enact legislation adopting its plan in its State education code
to be eligible to apply for Race to the Top funds.
Discussion: Eligibility requirement (b) contemplates only existing
laws; a State will not be able to establish its eligibility based on
intent to change those laws. There is no requirement in the ARRA or in
this notice requiring States to enact legislation adopting their Race
to the Top plans.
Changes: None.
Comment: Some commenters suggested that States should be eligible
for the Race to the Top competition even if barriers exist to linking
student achievement or student growth data to teachers and principals
for evaluation purposes, so long as the State's reform plan only
includes LEAs and charter schools that allow such linkages. One
commenter argued that the eligibility requirement is unfair because
LEAs without such prohibitions would not receive Race to the Top funds
if they were situated in a State with such barriers.
Discussion: Under eligibility requirement (b), States are required
to demonstrate that they do not have any legal, statutory, or
regulatory barriers at the State level to linking student achievement
or student growth data to teachers and principals for the purpose of
evaluations. States that have such barriers are not eligible for Race
to the Top awards. Race to the Top is meant to provide an incentive for
statewide reform and improvements, and is a competitive grant program
encouraging States to be bold and innovative. While individual LEAs and
charter schools in States with barriers may be ready and eager to use
student growth data to identify and improve teacher and principal
effectiveness, Race to the Top focuses on the extent to which the
State's conditions and plans lead to statewide impact.
Changes: None.
Comment: Numerous commenters argued that one specific State's law,
which prohibits linking teacher and student achievement data, should
not disqualify it from applying for the Race to the Top competition.
Some of these commenters argued that the State's law does not prohibit
data linking between students and teachers at the district level where
personnel decisions are made, and therefore should not make the State
ineligible for Race to the Top funds. One commenter, however,
specifically stated their support for the data linkage eligibility
requirement with respect to the State.
Another commenter argued that an existing statute regulating the
use of student achievement data in tenure determinations in another
State should not make the State ineligible to apply for the Race to the
Top competition. The commenter argued that the statute does not
prohibit use of student test data in annual teacher performance reviews
or for tenure consideration.
Discussion: As stated earlier, the Department believes that student
growth should be one significant measure of several when evaluating
teacher and principal effectiveness. State level data linkage barriers
unduly restrict schools and LEAs from using student achievement or
student growth data to identify and improve teacher and principal
effectiveness. The Department also believes that schools and LEAs
should have the ability to choose to use student achievement and
student growth data in this manner. For this reason, the Department
declines to exempt any one State from this requirement and encourages
States to lift legal, statutory, and regulatory barriers that prohibit
these linkages.
The Department notes that this notice requires the State's Attorney
General to certify that the State has no legal, statutory, or
regulatory barriers at the State level to linking student achievement
or student growth data to teachers and principals for the purpose of
evaluations.
Changes: None.
Eligibility Overall
Comment: Multiple commenters suggested adding an eligibility
requirement to limit eligibility for Race to the Top funds to States
that meet the requirements in their FY 2007 Annual Performance Report
under the IDEA. Those commenters noted that States unable to meet basic
IDEA requirements should not be eligible to apply for Race to the Top
funds.
Discussion: Race to the Top is a competitive grant program intended
to improve educational outcomes for all students. The Department
already has a mechanism to monitor States' progress, as reported in
their Annual Performance Reports, in meeting the targets in their State
Performance Plan under the IDEA. Therefore, we decline to include the
requirement suggested by the commenter as an eligibility requirement in
the Race to the Top competition.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested the Department consider the number
of outstanding audits and audit exceptions against a State for any
Federal education program as part of the Race to the Top program
eligibility determination. One commenter suggested that if awards were
given to States with audit exceptions, conditions should be imposed on
the award of funds, including onsite monitoring.
Discussion: The Department has taken extraordinary measures to
ensure accountability in the use of all ARRA funds, including the Race
to the Top program, so that all dollars are used wisely and accounted
for in a transparent manner. Indeed, as explained in the Reporting
section of this final notice and the notice inviting
[[Page 59722]]
applications, successful applicants must comply with the ARRA annual
reporting requirements in section 14008 of the ARRA and quarterly
reporting requirements in section 1512(c) of the ARRA, which are
designed to ensure thorough and public oversight of the expenditure of
ARRA funds. The Department has established a Recovery Act Web site and
hotline for members of the public to report suspected misuse of funds.
Additionally, the Department has other mechanisms and protections in
place to enforce and monitor progress and resolution of any prior audit
findings from other programs. Accordingly, we do not believe it is
necessary to add requirements pertaining to States that have audit
exceptions.
Changes: None.
Application Requirements
Reorganization of the Application Requirements
Comment: None.
Discussion: In order to streamline the application requirements and
the criteria and reduce burden for applicants, we are removing from
this final notice proposed application requirements that were
duplicative of the criteria. The remaining application requirements are
being renumbered, accordingly. For instance, proposed application
requirement (c) concerning the level of State funding for education is
being removed from the final application requirements but is still
being retained in criterion (F)(1)(i); and proposed application
requirement (d) concerning support from stakeholders is being removed
but is still being retained in criterion (A)(2)(ii). In addition, we
are revising the application requirements to make minor editorial
changes, providing internal cross references to relevant portions of
the notice, and reorganizing application requirement (e) to better
clarify the components of this requirement.
Changes: We have removed proposed application requirements (c) and
(d). We have reordered the application requirements accordingly. We
have made minor editorial changes to provide better clarification to
this section, have clarified that the Governor must sign the assurances
in Section IV of the application, and have reorganized application
requirement (e).
Comment: Some commenters recommended providing benchmarks or
statutory tests to help provide consistency in how State Attorneys
General determine and certify their State's eligibility for Race to the
Top. Some commenters suggested that the Department provide a ``test''
for Attorneys General to apply to their State law to determine
eligibility.
Discussion: Under application requirement (f) (proposed application
requirement (h)), the State's Attorney General is asked to certify that
the State has no legal, statutory or regulatory barriers at the State
level with respect to eligibility requirement (b). We interpret this to
mean State constitutions, case law, statutes, or regulations.
Interpretation of a State's laws falls uniquely within the expertise of
the State Attorney General and therefore, we leave this task to the
Attorney General. The Department notes that the certification
requirement does not seek a formal legal opinion. Instead, the
Department provides forms in the application for Attorneys General to
sign certifying that (a) the description of, and statements and
conclusions in the application concerning State law, statute, and
regulation in its application are complete, accurate, and constitute a
reasonable interpretation of State law, statute and regulation; and (b)
that the State does not have any legal, statutory, or regulatory
barriers at the State level to linking data on student achievement or
student growth to teachers and principals for the purpose of teacher
and principal evaluations. The certification of the Attorney General
addresses this requirement. The applicant may provide explanatory
information, if necessary.
In addition, we note that we are changing application requirement
(f) to be consistent with the changes to eligibility requirement (b),
as discussed earlier, and separating application requirement (f) into
two subparagraphs.
Changes: Application requirement (f) has been made consistent with
eligibility requirement (b), as discussed earlier, and separated into
two subparagraphs.
High-Need LEAs
Comment: Many commenters had difficulty interpreting proposed
application requirement (e)(2) that would have required States to
explain in their budget plans how it will use Race to the Top funds to
give priority to high-need LEAs over and above the participating LEA
share.
Discussion: First, the Department notes that it inadvertently
neglected to use the statutory definition of high-need LEA in the NPP,
as found in section 14013(2) of the ARRA. Accordingly, and as discussed
in this notice, we are changing the definition of high-need LEA to
reflect the statutory definition: ``[an LEA] that serves not fewer than
10,000 children from families with incomes below the poverty line; or
for which not less than 20 percent of the children served by the LEA
are from families with incomes below the poverty line.''
Consistent with section 14006(c) of the ARRA, States must subgrant
50 percent of their grant awards to participating LEAs, based on the
LEAs' relative share of Title I, Part A allocations in the most recent
year. We have clarified in application requirement (c)(2) that, because
all Race to the Top grants will be made in 2010, relative shares will
be based on total funding received in FY 2009, including both the
regular Title I, Part A appropriation and the amount made available by
the ARRA.
Consistent with section 14005(c)(4) of the ARRA, application
requirement (c)(2) requires a State to include in its application a
budget detailing how the State will use Race to the Top funds to ``give
priority to high-need LEAs'' beyond the base amount provided to all
participating LEAs. States have flexibility to determine the meaning of
``give priority to,'' which could include, for example, additional
funding, more comprehensive technical assistance, coordination of State
or local social services for students in such LEAs, expanded
professional development, and larger incentives for teachers and
principals who agree to work in these LEAs.
Changes: Application requirement (c)(2) has been revised to
include: ``(Note: Because all Race to the Top grants will be made in
2010, relative shares will be based on total funding received in FY
2009, including both the regular Title I, Part A appropriation and the
amount made available by the ARRA).''
Reporting Requirements
Comment: Several commenters raised questions concerning
accountability for Race to the Top funds. One commenter praised the
proposed requirements but wanted greater detail on how we would ensure
``successful on-the-ground implementation'' of the Race to the Top
program. One strategy suggested by the commenter was to withhold funds
from States that do not meet the commitments they make in their Race to
the Top applications. Other commenters recommended that Race to the Top
funds be conditioned on meeting performance goals as reflected in the
annual reports, or that the Department withhold funds from those States
not meeting their commitments. Two commenters requested flexibility for
States to revise their State plans to encourage continuous improvement.
[[Page 59723]]
Discussion: The Reporting Requirements section in this final notice
explains that the Department plans to both support and carefully
monitor State and LEA progress in meeting their goals, timelines,
budgets, and annual performance targets. If we determine that a State
is not meeting one or more of the requirements for this program, the
Department may take a range of actions to remedy the situation,
including placing the State in high-risk status, putting the State on
reimbursement payment status, or delaying or withholding funds. The
Department also recognizes that States may wish to, or need to, revise
their Race to the Top plans occasionally to take into account changing
circumstances; such revisions will be subject to approval by the
Secretary. The Department recognizes that many of the accountability
requirements of the Race to the Top program differ from those of the
ESEA, and that winning States will be adding a new layer of goal-
setting, performance measurement, and data collection to their existing
accountability systems. Finally, to provide greater clarity and
completeness to the Reporting Requirements section, we are including
the reporting requirements contained in sections 1512(c) and 14008 of
the ARRA.
Changes: We have added the reporting requirements contained in
sections 1512(c) and 14008 of the ARRA.
Comment: One commenter argued that the Department may not use
written performance agreements or cooperative agreements to monitor a
State's progress because, they claimed, ARRA only allows grants
monitoring. Another commenter stated that the Department should be a
full participant in the Race to the Top program and, therefore, that
Race to the Top awards should be cooperative agreements, rather than
grants.
Discussion: The Department intends to support States and LEAs
through technical assistance, evaluations, and other mechanisms to
facilitate them in meeting their goals, timelines, budgets, and annual
performance targets. Contrary to the assertion by one commenter, the
Department has the authority under the Federal Grant and Cooperative
Agreement Act of 1977 (31 U.S.C. Chapter 63) to use written performance
agreements or cooperative agreements to monitor Race to the Top grantee
performance. As stated in the NPP and reiterated in this notice, the
Department may require grantees to enter into a written performance or
cooperative agreement with the Department as a condition of receiving
the grant; a final determination will be made at the time of grant
awards. We do not believe it is necessary to arbitrarily require these
agreements for all grantees because the determination whether to use a
cooperative agreement as the award instrument is based on the nature of
the relationship and the activities to be performed by the grantee, and
is therefore highly case specific.
Changes: None.
Program Requirements
Evaluation
Comment: In response to the NPP's request for advice on the best
way to conduct an evaluation of the Race to the Top program, many
commenters recommended that States conduct their own Race to the Top
evaluations. These commenters believed that the likely breadth of
variation in Race to the Top plans would make it difficult to conduct a
national evaluation, and that State-level evaluations would provide the
kind of detailed feedback needed to support continuous improvement.
However, another commenter asserted that a relatively small number of
States were expected to receive a Race to the Top award and, according
to the commenter, that a national evaluation is a far more efficient
method than using Race to the Top funds to pay for individual State-led
evaluations. Another commenter emphasized the importance of a national
evaluation of the Race to the Top program using State data. A few
commenters recommended that we carry out both national and State-level
evaluations of the Race to the Top program.
Other commenters requested information on funding for Race to the
Top evaluations, and two commenters recommended that up to 10 percent
of Race to the Top awards be available to support those evaluations.
One commenter expressed concern that the reporting requirements were
focused on outcomes only, and did not include a description of the
processes used to achieve those outcomes. Finally, four commenters
suggested that a national evaluation should focus on identifying
promising or best practices, while two commenters recommended the
inclusion of ``process metrics'' to ensure that best practices can be
fully documented to facilitate dissemination and adoption by others.
Discussion: The Department appreciates this advice on how to
structure an evaluation plan for the Race to the Top program. As
described later in this notice, the Institute of Education Sciences
(IES) will conduct a series of national evaluations of Race to the Top
State grantees. The Department's goal for these evaluations is to
ensure that its studies not only assess program impacts but also
provide valuable information to State and local educators to help
inform and improve their practices. We are not requiring through this
notice that Race to the Top grantee States conduct independent
evaluations. However, they are free to propose, within their
applications, to use funds from Race to the Top to support independent
evaluations. A full explanation of the Race to the Top evaluation plan
is included in the Program Requirements section of this notice and the
notice inviting applications.
Changes: We have revised the Program Requirements section to
reflect the evaluation requirements for all States that win a Race to
the Top grant. Specifically, this notice has been revised to require
State grantees to participate in a series of national evaluations that
will be conducted by IES. This notice has been revised to reflect that
these evaluations will involve components described further in this
notice, including surveys, case studies, and evaluation of outcomes. We
have further clarified that States have the option of conducting
additional evaluations using Race to the Top funds or other funds. We
have also revised this notice to reflect that State grantees, LEAs, and
schools are expected to identify and share promising practices and make
data available to help all States focus on continuous improvement.
Participating LEA Scope of Work
Comment: None.
Discussion: The Program Requirement concerning Participating LEA
Scope of Work is addressed in the discussion for Section A, State
Success Factors.
Change: The Program Requirement section is revised to include a
requirement on Participating LEA Scope of Work.
Making Work Available
Comment: Two commenters suggested that the Department require that
any new educational materials developed by Race to the Top State
grantees be made available as open educational resources. One of these
recommended that all outputs be open source and royalty-free. Several
other commenters expressed concern about copyrighted intellectual
property, proprietary systems, and the rights of contractors or
partners, and that a requirement to share all outputs would preclude
States from entering into contracts or licensing agreements or would
conflict with agreements already in place. A commenter noted that one
[[Page 59724]]
specific State relies on subscriptions to copyrighted services for data
warehousing and would have to build new systems to share data tools
freely with the public. Two commenters suggested using the exclusion in
the Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems grant program to protect
intellectual property and proprietary products in Race to the Top.
Discussion: We understand and agree with the concerns about
proprietary information in the context of the proposed requirement that
States and LEAs make available materials developed with Race to the Top
funds. We are revising the Program Requirements section entitled Making
Work Available to provide that such materials must be available
``unless otherwise protected by law or agreement as proprietary
information.'' We also have clarified that this agreement applies to
work developed under this grant.
Changes: The Making Work Available requirement has been revised to
read as follows: ``Unless otherwise protected by law or agreement as
proprietary information, the State and its subgrantees must make any
work (e.g., materials, tools, processes, systems) developed under its
grant freely available to others, including but not limited to by
posting the work on a Web site identified or sponsored by the
Department.''
State Summative Assessments
Comment: None.
Discussion: The Program Requirement concerning State summative
assessments is addressed in the discussion for Section B, Standards and
Assessments.
Changes: The Program Requirement Section is revised to include a
program requirement on State summative assessments.
Technical Assistance
Comment: One commenter expressed support for the requirement that
States participate in the Department's technical assistance activities.
This commenter also suggested that technical assistance be provided by
the federally supported research and development infrastructure, such
as the regional labs. Another commenter argued that because successful
implementation may be difficult, the Department should devote more
resources and personnel to providing clear and fair technical
assistance. One commenter recommended that the Department provide
States with funds to cover the estimated costs of participating in
technical assistance.
Discussion: The Department intends to conduct extensive technical
assistance activities related to Race to the Top grants and will
utilize to the extent feasible all available resources, including
federally supported research centers and regional laboratories, to
support those activities. In addition, we will work to minimize the
cost of this technical assistance to participants.
Changes: None.
Using Subgroups Under NAEP and the ESEA
Comment: None.
Discussion: The application requirement concerning use of subgroups
under NAEP and the ESEA for reporting achievement gains and for setting
future targets is addressed in the discussion for Section A, State
Success Factors.
Changes: We have added new paragraph (g) in the application
requirements that explains the subgroup data that a State must provide
in various parts of the application.
A. State Success Factors
Definitions: college enrollment, involved LEAs, participating LEAs.
Comments regarding the preceding definitions are addressed, as
appropriate, below.
New Selection Criterion (A)(1)(i)
Comment: None.
Discussion: As noted elsewhere, we are adding a new section,
``State Success Factors,'' to the beginning of the Selection Criteria
section in order to provide an opportunity for States to begin their
Race to the Top proposals with a clear statement of their comprehensive
and coherent statewide reform agendas. We are adding criterion
(A)(1)(i) which will be used to assess the extent to which a State is
successful in articulating the State's reform agenda.
Changes: Criterion (A)(1) begins: ``Articulating the State's
education reform agenda and LEAs' participation in it: The extent to
which--(i) The State has set forth a comprehensive and coherent reform
agenda that clearly articulates its goals for implementing reforms in
the four education areas described in the ARRA and improving student
outcomes statewide, establishes a clear and credible path to achieving
these goals, and is consistent with the specific reform plans that the
State has proposed throughout its application.''
Selection Criteria (A)(1)(ii) and (iii): Participating LEAs
(proposed criteria (E)(3)(iv) and (E)(4)):
Note: A number of comments common to criteria (A)(1)(iii) and
(A)(3)(ii) are addressed in the discussion of (A)(3)(ii) later in
this notice.
Comment: Many commenters requested clarification regarding funding
for LEAs under the Race to the Top program, State discretion to select
participating LEAs, and whether LEAs may decline Race to the Top
funding. Many commenters questioned whether State applications may
exclude LEAs that are not committed to part or all of a State's Race to
the Top plan. One commenter recommended giving States complete control
over how Race to the Top funds are spent by participating LEAs,
claiming that the State, not the LEA, will be held accountable for
meeting Race to the Top goals and targets. Other commenters suggested
that Race to the Top funds should be awarded only to LEAs that sign an
agreement or otherwise fully agree to implement its State's Race to the
Top plans. One commenter asked whether LEAs receiving a share of the 50
percent of Race to the Top funds distributed on the basis of the Title
I, Part A formula under the ESEA are required to participate in the
Race to the Top program. Several commenters asked if LEAs would be
subject to Race to the Top requirements even if they declined to
participate.
Discussion: In response to these comments, and because LEAs are
ultimately responsible for implementing many of the items in a State's
Race to the Top plan, we have made a number of changes to provide great
clarity on how LEAs can be involved in a State's plan. First, we are
providing that LEAs can be included in States' Race to the Top projects
at one of two levels: as ``participating LEAs'' or as ``involved
LEAs.''
Participating LEAs, as defined in this notice, means LEAs that
choose to work with the State to implement all or significant portions
of the State's Race to the Top plan, as specified in each LEA's
agreement with the State. Each participating LEA that receives funding
under Title I, Part A will receive a share of the 50 percent of a
State's grant award that the State must subgrant to LEAs, based on the
LEA's relative share of Title I, Part A allocations in the most recent
year, in accordance with section 14006(c) of the ARRA. Any
participating LEA that does not receive funding under Title I, Part A
(as well as one that does) may receive funding from the State's other
50 percent of the grant award, in accordance with the State's plan.
States do not have the discretion to select participating LEAs;
instead, each LEA will make the decision to sign on to the State's plan
as a participating
[[Page 59725]]
LEA. All LEAs that agree to work with the State, and that sign valid
agreements stating their commitment to implement all or significant
portions of the State's plan (as defined by the State) must be included
in the State's plan. States do have the flexibility to develop detailed
reform plans in which LEAs must choose whether to participate. States
also have the authority to define the ``significant portions'' of their
Race to the Top plans that LEAs must agree to implement in order to
qualify as participating LEAs. As described earlier, States that
receive a Race to the Top grant must use at least 50 percent of the
award to provide subgrants to their participating LEAs based on their
relative shares of funding under Part A of Title I of the ESEA for the
most recent year. Because all Race to the Top grants will be made in
2010, relative shares will be based on total funding received in FY
2009, including both the regular Title I, Part A appropriation and the
amount made available by ARRA. The remaining funds will be available to
the State for State-level activities and for disbursement to
participating LEAs (regardless of their Title I eligibility), involved
LEAs, or other entities, consistent with the State's plan. A State has
no obligation to provide Race to the Top funds, benefits, or supports
to non-participating LEAs.
Participating LEAs must in turn use their funding in a manner that
is consistent with the State's plan and its MOU or other binding
agreement with the State. States may establish more detailed rules on
uses of funds provided they are consistent with the ARRA, the terms of
the grant award, and the Department's applicable administrative
regulations. Although participating LEAs will receive subgrants from
the State as described earlier, Race to the Top funds are not governed
by the Title I restrictions on the uses of funds.
As described earlier, participating LEAs agree to implement all or
a significant portion of State's Race to the Top plans. However, other
LEAs may choose to work with the State to implement those specific
portions of the State's plan that require statewide or nearly statewide
implementation, such as transitioning to a common set of K-12
standards. We have defined these LEAs in this notice as involved LEAs.
As defined, involved LEAs do not receive a share of the 50 percent of a
State's grant award that it must subgrant to LEAs in accordance with
section 14006(c) of the ARRA, but States may provide other funding to
involved LEAs under the State's Race to the Top grant in a manner that
is consistent with the State's application.
In general, involved LEAs are not included in, and are not subject
to, the requirements of a State's Race to the Top plan.
It is important to note that this notice does not require LEAs to
participate in a State's plan (whether as participating or as involved
LEAs) or give States the authority to impose such a requirement.
Rather, through the definitions of participating LEA and involved LEA,
we are setting the parameters for what LEAs must do to be eligible for
certain funding streams. In addition, through absolute priority 1, the
Department is specifying that States will only be awarded grants if
they demonstrate sufficient LEA participation and commitment to
successfully implement and achieve the goals of their plans; and
through criteria (A)(1)(ii) and (A)(1)(iii), this notice sets forth the
terms by which reviewers will award points to each State based on the
participation and commitment of their LEAs.
Changes: We have added two new definitions to this notice. The
definition of participating LEAs clarifies that participating LEAs
choose to work with the State to implement all or significant portions
of the State's Race to the Top plan, as specified in each LEA's
agreement with the State. Each participating LEA that receives funding
under Title I, Part A will receive a share of the 50 percent of a
State's grant award that the State must subgrant to LEAs, based on the
LEA's relative share of Title I, Part A allocations in the most recent
year, in accordance with section 14006(c) of the ARRA. Any
participating LEA that does not receive funding under Title I, Part A
(as well as one that does) may receive funding from the State's other
50 percent of the grant award, in accordance with the State's plan.
The definition of involved LEAs clarifies that such LEAs choose to
work with the State to implement those specific portions of the State's
plan that necessitate full or nearly-full statewide implementation,
such as transitioning to a common set of K-12 standards (as defined in
this notice). Involved LEAs do not receive a share of the 50 percent of
a State's grant award that it must subgrant to LEAs in accordance with
section 14006(c) of the ARRA, but States may provide other funding to
involved LEAs under the State's Race to the Top grant in a manner that
is consistent with the State's application.
Comment: Many commenters recommended that the Department define
``participating school'' in the final notice.
Discussion: Participating LEAs are responsible for determining the
roles and responsibilities of their schools in Race to the Top
activities; these should be consistent with the LEA's agreement with
the State. Consequently, we do not believe that there is a need for a
definition of participating school in this notice.
Changes: None.
Comment: Commenters requested additional clarification pertaining
to how States would identify and account for LEA participation and
support in State reform plans. Multiple commenters recommended that
participating LEAs and charter schools formally declare their support
in writing as part of the Race to the Top application. One commenter
recommended requiring States to list all the LEAs that requested to be
included in designing and developing the State plan.
Discussion: Proposed criterion (E)(3)(iv) was included to elicit
information about the extent of the commitment to and participation of
LEAs in a State's Race to the Top plan. Because we believe that States
should begin their Race to the Top proposals with clear statements of
their entire reform agendas, and because LEA implementation is a
central component of that agenda, we are moving this criterion into the
new ``State Success Factors'' section. Furthermore, to add clarity, we
are dividing the proposed criterion into two revised criteria. In this
final notice, criterion (A)(1)(ii) addresses the level of commitment
among participating LEAs, while criterion (A)(1)(iii) addresses the
extent of LEA participation.
Because the extent of LEA participation should be measured partly
by the expected effects on student outcomes statewide, we have
incorporated into criterion (A)(1)(iii) the language from proposed
criterion (E)(4) regarding a State's goals for increasing student
achievement, decreasing achievement gaps, and increasing graduation
rates. As discussed later, we also include new criterion (A)(1)(iii)(d)
regarding increasing college enrollment and credit accumulation.
In addition, as evidence to support the State's response to
criteria (A)(1)(ii) and (A)(1)(iii), Appendix A to this notice asks
States for the following information: (1) An example of the State's
standard participating LEA MOU and description of variations used, if
any; (2) the completed summary table indicating which specific portions
of the State's plan each LEA is committed to implementing and relevant
summary statistics; (3) the completed summary table, indicating which
LEA leadership signatures have been obtained; (4) the completed summary
table, indicating
[[Page 59726]]
the numbers and percentages of participating LEAs, schools, K-12
students, and students in poverty; (5) tables and graphs that show the
State's goals, overall and by subgroup, requested in criterion
(A)(1)(iii), together with the supporting narrative; and (6) the
completed detailed table, by LEA, that includes the information
requested in criteria (A)(1)(ii) and (A)(1)(iii).
As discussed in greater detail elsewhere in this notice, the
Department is providing a sample MOU (see Appendix D) to assist States
and LEAs during this process.
Changes: Criterion (A)(1)(ii) specifies that reviewers will
evaluate the extent to which the participating LEAs are strongly
committed to the State's plans and to effective implementation of the
four education reform areas, as evidenced by Memoranda of Understanding
(MOUs) (as set forth in Appendix D) or other binding agreements between
the State and its participating LEAs (as defined in this notice) that
include--
(a) Terms and conditions that reflect strong commitment by the
participating LEAs (as defined in this notice) to the State's plans;
(b) Scope-of-work descriptions that require participating LEAs (as
defined in this notice) to implement all or significant portions of the
State's Race to the Top plans; and
(c) Signatures from as many as possible of the LEA superintendent
(or equivalent), the president of the local school board (or
equivalent, if applicable), and the local teachers' union leader (if
applicable) (one signature of which must be from an authorized LEA
representative) demonstrating the extent of leadership support within
participating LEAs (as defined in this notice).
In addition, criterion (A)(1)(iii) specifies that LEA participation
will be evaluated based on the extent to which the LEAs that are
participating in the State's Race to the Top plans (including
considerations of the numbers and percentages of participating LEAs,
schools, K-12 students, and students in poverty) will translate into
broad statewide impact, allowing the State to reach its ambitious yet
achievable goals, overall and by student subgroup, for--
(a) Increasing student achievement in (at a minimum) reading/
language arts and mathematics, as reported by the NAEP and the
assessments required under the ESEA;
(b) Decreasing achievement gaps between subgroups in reading/
language arts and mathematics, as reported by the NAEP and the
assessments required under the ESEA;
(c) Increasing high school graduation rates (as defined in this
notice); and
(d) Increasing college enrollment (as defined in this notice) and
increasing the number of students who complete at least a year's worth
of college credit that is applicable to a degree within two years of
enrollment in an institution of higher education.
Finally, Appendix A, Evidence and Performance Measures, has been
revised to specify the evidence that States must submit when responding
to criteria (A)(1)(ii) and (A)(1)(iii).
Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs)
Comment: Many commenters requested clarification regarding the MOUs
between States and participating LEAs, including the purpose,
requirements, and expected contents of the MOUs.
Discussion: We agree with the commenters that additional
clarification is needed on the purpose and content of the MOUs. As
discussed earlier, we are clarifying in criterion (A)(1)(ii) the
elements of the MOU or other binding agreements that reviewers will
consider in evaluating LEA commitment. We also are adding a new
requirement that clarifies the expectations for the Participating LEA
scope of work. Finally, we are including in Appendix D to this final
notice a model MOU to provide further guidance to States in preparing
these agreements with their LEAs.
Changes: We have added to the program requirements a new
Participating LEA Scope of Work requirement, which clarifies that the
agreements signed by participating LEAs (as defined in this notice)
must include a scope-of-work section. The scope of work submitted by
LEAs and States as part of their Race to the Top applications will be
preliminary. Preliminary scopes of work should include the portions of
the State's proposed reform plans that the LEA is agreeing to
implement. If a State is awarded a Race to the Top grant, its
participating LEAs (as defined in this notice) will have up to 90 days
to complete final scopes of work, which must contain detailed work
plans that are consistent with their preliminary scopes of work and
with the State's grant application, and should include the
participating LEAs' specific goals, activities, timelines, budgets, key
personnel, and annual targets for key performance measures. We have
added a new Appendix D to this notice which provides a model MOU that
States may use in developing these agreements.
Comment: One commenter suggested that final agreements with
participating LEAs should be based on the actual amount of funding a
State receives and, therefore, that States should not be required to
provide detailed MOUs with their applications.
Discussion: The Department agrees that LEAs should not have to
provide final agreements detailing their precise activities at the time
that States apply, and as discussed earlier, we are clarifying in the
new Participating LEA Scope of Work requirement that States will have
90 days after the receipt of a grant to negotiate the final scope of
work agreements with their participating LEAs. However, we believe that
it is critical that LEAs indicate, at the time they sign their MOU in
connection with the State's application, which parts of the State's
plan they will participate in implementing. Peer reviewers must have
this information in order to determine, under criterion (A)(1)(ii),
whether the State's participating LEAs are indeed strongly committed to
the State's plan. We also note that, because we are providing
nonbinding budget ranges in the notice inviting applications and
encouraging States to propose budgets that match the plans they
propose, States should have some sense of the expected funding
available for LEAs before they apply for their grants.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department accept a
signed ``certification of consultation,'' rather than an MOU. The
commenter stated that such a certification would be the more
appropriate method for demonstrating agreement in the commenter's
State.
Discussion: We understand that States may have processes and
procedures other than an MOU that they use to establish agreements with
their LEAs. As long as such certifications or agreements are binding,
they may be included in a State's application as evidence of its LEAs'
commitment to its reform plan. We are adding language in criterion
(A)(1)(ii) to make this clear.
Changes: Criterion (A)(1)(ii) provides that participating LEAs'
commitment to the State's plans may be evidenced by an MOU or other
binding agreement.
Comment: A few commenters stated that it would be burdensome and
time-consuming to require MOUs between an SEA and its LEAs with
required signatories, and suggested that the Department allow SEAs to
design and propose a stakeholder input process in accordance with State
and local needs. One commenter requested clarification
[[Page 59727]]
as to whether a State's Race to the Top application must include an MOU
with each LEA or whether an outline of what would be covered in an MOU
with an LEA would suffice.
Discussion: The Department acknowledges that requiring States to
develop and obtain signed MOUs for submission with Race to the Top
applications on a short timeline will be a challenge. However, strong
LEA participation in State Race to the Top plans is essential if those
plans are to have a broad impact on student outcomes. To assist States
in this work, we are providing, as part of the application package and
Appendix D in this notice, a model MOU that States can adapt or use in
signing agreements with their participating LEAs.
With regard to the question of whether a State's Race to the Top
application must include an MOU with each LEA or whether an outline of
what would be covered in an MOU with an LEA would suffice, criterion
(A)(1)(ii) makes clear that the MOUs included in a State's application
will be used as evidence of LEAs' commitment to the State's plan.
Therefore, in order to receive maximum points on criterion (A)(1)(ii),
a State should have an MOU for each participating LEA. However, in
acknowledgement of the short timeline, we are clarifying in the new
Participating LEA Scope of Work requirement that a State need only
include preliminary scopes of work from its participating LEA in its
application. States will have up to 90 days after receiving a grant
award to obtain the final scope of work from participating LEAs. States
also can use this time to reach agreements with additional
participating LEAs.
Changes: We have included in Appendix D to this notice a model MOU
that States can adapt or use for their LEAs who will be participating
LEAs. In addition, we have added a new Participating LEA Scope of Work
requirement in order to clarify that the MOUs need only include a
preliminary scope of work, which must be finalized within 90 days of
the State receiving a Race to the Top award. This requirement also
clarifies that winning States can reach agreements with additional
participating LEAs within 90 days of the State receiving a Race to the
Top award.
Comment: Several commenters requested that the MOU between the
State and its LEAs require the signature of the president of the local
PTA units and State charter school membership associations. Another
commenter requested that State union leaders be required to approve the
State's entire application.
Discussion: The Department agrees that Race to the Top plans would
benefit from input and involvement by parents, teachers, and the
organizations that represent them. Thus, at the State level, criterion
(A)(2)(ii) includes teachers' unions, parent-teacher organizations, and
charter school membership associations among the broad group of
stakeholders from which a State could obtain statements or actions of
support to demonstrate statewide commitment to its Race to the Top
plan. In addition, at the LEA level, criterion (A)(1)(ii)(c) specifies
that LEA leadership support will be evaluated based on the number of
signatures gathered from among the superintendent (or equivalent),
school board president (or equivalent, if applicable), and teachers'
union leader (if applicable).
Changes: None.
Comment: Two commenters recommended removing the phrase ``ambitious
yet achievable'' in proposed criterion (E)(4) on the grounds that it
might encourage States to set a low bar and that it reflects a step
backward from current ESEA accountability requirements emphasizing 100
percent proficiency for all students. A number of commenters requested
that the Department provide more guidance on expectations for State
targets.
Discussion: We are retaining the ``ambitious yet achievable''
language in criterion (A)(1)(iii) (proposed criterion (E)(4)). The
Department believes that this language strikes the right balance
between encouraging States to set a high bar for Race to the Top goals
while recognizing that real change in education is difficult and takes
time. The purpose of this language is to encourage realistic thinking
and planning that connects specific activities to specific achievable
results. Further, the Department believes that the competitive aspect
of the Race to the Top program will prevent States from setting low
bars.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter objected to our proposal that in responding
to proposed criterion (E)(4), regarding targets for improved student
outcomes, States submit an estimate of the State's expected levels of
future performance were the State not to receive Race to the Top
funding; this commenter argued that a State's goal should be the same
with or without additional funding. Another commenter requested
clarification as to how such outcomes should be estimated.
Discussion: Because this requested piece of evidence was confusing
to States, we have decided not to include it in the final notice.
Changes: The final notice does not ask States to provide estimates
of their expected levels of future performance were they not to receive
funds under this program.
Selection Criterion (A)(2)(ii): Stakeholder Support (proposed
criterion (E)(3)):
Comment: We received many comments on the list of stakeholders in
proposed criterion (E)(3) from which States could enlist support and
commitment for their State plans. Many commenters welcomed the broad
list of stakeholders; in particular, several commenters expressed
appreciation for including teachers' unions in the list of stakeholders
given the need for teacher and school staff support to effectively
implement Race to the Top reforms. A few commenters recommended adding
principals to the list of stakeholders. Some commenters recommended
that States obtain the signature of union leaders on their
applications, while another recommended that teachers' unions not be
given ``veto power'' over statewide or local plans.
Discussion: We agree with commenters that it is important for
States to obtain support for their reform plans from teachers and
principals, and that this should include a State's teachers' union or
statewide teachers' association. As stewards of the teaching workforce,
teachers' unions have a critical role to play in education reform.
Therefore, in this final notice, criterion (A)(2)(ii)(a) (proposed
criterion (E)(3)) specifically identifies teachers and principals,
which include a State's teachers' union or statewide teachers'
association, as stakeholders whose support will earn States points.
However, we decline to require States to obtain signatures from union
leaders in order to apply for a Race to the Top Grant.
Note that for clarity, we have moved ``charter school authorizers''
from this list to the list in criterion (A)(2)(ii)(b), regarding other
critical stakeholders.
Changes: Criterion (A)(2)(ii)(a) provides for evaluation of a
State's application based on the extent to which it has a high-quality
plan to use the support from its teachers and principals, which include
the State's teachers' unions or statewide teacher associations, to
better implement its plans.
Comment: Some commenters stated that State plans should not include
elements that potentially undermine collective bargaining agreements.
Discussion: We agree with the comment that State reform plans
should
[[Page 59728]]
not undermine collective bargaining agreements. We also believe that
Race to the Top may lead to forward-thinking approaches that change how
LEAs and teachers' unions work together within the framework of
collective bargaining. Of course, any changes to collective bargaining
agreements must be collectively bargained.
Changes: None.
Comment: Many commenters recommended that other stakeholder groups
be included in proposed criterion (E)(3) as groups from which States
should obtain support and commitment for their State plans. Commenters
recommended that the following groups be included: State legislatures,
charter school associations, parent and family organizations, parent-
teacher associations, Parent Information and Resource Centers, youth-
serving community-based organizations (CBOs) and other community
groups, CBOs serving Native American tribes, higher education leaders
and providers, members of the business community, private and faith-
based school leaders, students, local education funds, value-added
intermediaries, public broadcasting entities, municipal leaders,
teachers and principals who have successfully turned around schools,
school service providers, guidance counselors, statewide after-school
networks, and statewide teacher associations.
Discussion: We appreciate the broad and diverse group of
stakeholders that commenters identified as important to States' reform
efforts. Obviously, the stakeholders from which a State should garner
support for its reform plan will vary based, to a large extent, on the
unique needs of the State and its LEAs. While we cannot include all of
the stakeholders recommended by commenters in this notice, we believe
it is important to include several examples for illustrative purposes
and to encourage States, as appropriate to their unique contexts, to
solicit broad support. We are, therefore, designating proposed
criterion (E)(3)(ii) as criterion (A)(2)(ii)(b), and adding ``charter
school authorizers'' from proposed criterion (E)(3)(i), as well as
additional stakeholders from whom the State may want to obtain support
for its plans.
Changes: Criterion (A)(2)(ii)(b) reads as follows: ``Other critical
stakeholders, such as the State's legislative leadership; charter
school authorizers and State charter school membership associations (if
applicable); other State and local leaders (e.g., business, community,
civil rights, and education association leaders); Tribal schools;
parent, student, and community organizations (e.g., parent-teacher
associations, nonprofit organizations, local education foundations, and
community-based organizations); and institutions of higher education.''
Comment: Some commenters viewed proposed criterion (E)(3) as an
opportunity to be involved in developing a State's reform plan. One
commenter recommended adding language to the final notice to require
LEA participation in the development of the State plan, while another
commenter proposed that States develop their plans in consultation with
civil rights leaders, parents, and community groups that are
representative of the State's population, and document such
consultation. Other commenters recommended that the Department award
additional points for State plans that coordinate and integrate support
from education, health, nutrition, social services, and juvenile
justice stakeholders, or for demonstrating a broad spectrum of
stakeholder support.
Discussion: There is no requirement that a State involve its LEAs,
or any other persons or groups, in developing its reform plan. However,
given that the success of a State's plan depends, to a large extent, on
the support and commitment of its LEAs to implement the plan, we
strongly encourage States to work together with their LEAs in
developing their State plan. Similarly, we believe that committed and
interested stakeholders can make the difference in a reform's success
or failure. We decline to require States to develop their plans with
any specific stakeholders or to award additional points for plans that
coordinate with specific groups or agencies, as recommended by
commenters. We believe the decision on who to work with in developing a
State plan is best left to States.
Changes: None.
Comment: A number of commenters expressed concern that requiring
support or input from a broad range of stakeholders could lead to less
rigorous, ``watered-down'' plans if States were to satisfy all the
different groups with their competing interests. Some of these
commenters recommended eliminating the provision on stakeholder support
from the final notice, while others suggested clarifying that ``buy-
in'' from all stakeholders is not required. Several commenters
requested a definition of ``statewide support.''
Discussion: Race to the Top does not require States to work with
specific stakeholders (other than LEAs) or obtain their support and
commitment in order to be eligible for a grant. Instead, States will
earn points for demonstrating stakeholder support under criterion
(A)(2)(ii). In addition, we note that the list of proposed stakeholders
in criterion (A)(2)(ii)(b) is illustrative. We believe that this list
provides sufficient clarity regarding the phrase ``statewide support''
and, therefore, decline to define it in this notice.
Changes: None.
Comment: Some commenters requested that the Department include in
the final notice examples of the specific kinds of evidence that should
be used to demonstrate stakeholder support. For example, one commenter
suggested that evidence of support should include strong letters of
commitment from teachers' unions; another commenter suggested that
States provide documentation that plans were developed with stakeholder
support.
Discussion: We agree that it would be helpful to specify the
evidence that a State should submit to demonstrate the strength of its
support from a broad range of stakeholders. To give further guidance as
to how States should respond to this criterion, we are revising
criterion (A)(2)(ii) to clarify that reviewers will judge the extent to
which a State has a high-quality plan to use its stakeholder support to
better implement its Race to the Top plans, as evidenced by the
strength of its stakeholders' statements or actions of support. We are
also clarifying in Appendix A to this notice that States should provide
the key statements or actions of support and a summary of them in their
applications.
Changes: We have added to the introduction in criterion (A)(2)(ii),
the following: ``Use support from a broad group of stakeholders to
better implement its plans, as evidenced by the strength of the
statements or actions of support from--.'' We have changed the
requested evidence in Appendix A to require that States provide ``a
summary in the narrative of the statements or actions and inclusion of
key statements or actions in the Appendix'' when responding to this
criterion.
Selection Criterion (A)(2): Building State Capacity (proposed
criterion (E)(5)):
Comment: A number of commenters expressed support for criterion
(A)(2) (proposed criterion (E)(5)), which focuses on a State's plan to
build statewide capacity to implement, scale up, and sustain its reform
plan. One commenter in particular emphasized the importance of plan
implementation. This commenter claimed that States
[[Page 59729]]
often make empty promises and fail to deliver on their grant
applications.
Discussion: We agree that the Race to the Top competition must
judge States' capabilities to implement their plans, as well as the
quality of the plans themselves. To emphasize this point, we are moving
most of the criteria in proposed criterion (E)(5) to criterion
(A)(2)(i), in which the Department will evaluate the extent to which a
State has a high-quality plan to ensure it has the capacity necessary
to implement its proposed Race to the Top plans. We are adding a
criterion regarding State leadership. We are also including in
criterion (A)(2)(i)(c) (proposed (E)(5)(i)) more specific examples of
activities that support effective and efficient grant administration,
such as budget reporting and monitoring, performance measure tracking
and reporting, and fund disbursement.
Changes: Criterion (A)(2)(i)(a) has been added to address the
extent to which a State has a high-quality plan to provide strong
leadership and dedicated teams to implement the statewide education
reforms plans the State has proposed. Criterion (A)(2)(i)(c)
incorporates with minor changes the language from proposed criterion
(E)(5)(i) and now reads: ``Providing effective and efficient operations
and processes for implementing its Race to the Top grant in such areas
as grant administration and oversight, budget reporting and monitoring,
performance measure tracking and reporting, and fund disbursement.''
Comment: Some commenters supported proposed criterion (E)(5)(ii)
and its focus on ensuring the dissemination of best practices.
Discussion: We agree that supporting LEAs to implement the State's
reform plans and disseminate successful practices is critical to a
State's reform efforts. Therefore, we are re-designating proposed
criterion (E)(5)(ii) as criterion (A)(2)(i)(b) and adding examples of
State activities that will help LEAs successfully implement reform
plans, such as identifying promising practices, evaluating the
effectiveness of these practices, ceasing ineffective practices, and
widely disseminating and replicating effective practices.
Changes: We have re-designated proposed criterion (E)(5)(ii) as
criterion (A)(2)(i)(b) and added additional text for clarity and
completeness. Criterion (A)(2)(i)(b) now reads as follows: ``Supporting
participating LEAs (as defined in this notice) in successfully
implementing the education reform plans the State has proposed, through
such activities as identifying promising practices, evaluating these
practices' effectiveness, ceasing ineffective practices, widely
disseminating and replicating the effective practices statewide,
holding participating LEAs (as defined in this notice) accountable for
progress and performance, and intervening where necessary.''
Comment: Some commenters suggested that the Department require
coordination between State agencies and education-related
organizations, for example, to share and scale up the adoption of
successful Race to the Top strategies. Other commenters requested
clarification regarding the collaboration contemplated by the
Department in proposed criterion (E)(5)(iv), which would examine the
quality of a State's plan to collaborate with other States on key
elements of a State's application. Another commenter suggested that the
Department strengthen this collaboration requirement.
Discussion: We agree that States and LEAs should partner with and
learn from outside organizations, other agencies, and other States and
LEAs whenever doing so would help them improve student outcomes.
However, commenters' confusion over the Department's intentions around
collaboration convinced us that reviewers would be best able to
reliably score State applications if collaboration were evaluated in
the context of specific plans rather than as a stand-alone portion of a
State's application. In other words, to the extent that a State
improves the quality of its plan in response to a given criterion by
collaborating with others, the State will receive credit under that
criterion for having a high-quality plan. In addition, in situations
where there is especially clear value to collaboration among States,
such as in the development of common standards and assessments (see
criteria section B), we have specifically encouraged collaboration. We
have therefore removed from this notice the more general criterion on
collaboration (proposed criterion (E)(5)(iv)).
Changes: We have removed proposed criterion (E)(5)(iv), regarding
collaboration with other States, from this final notice.
Comment: Some commenters emphasized the need for States to ensure
that LEAs have sufficient resources to implement reforms.
Discussion: We agree with the commenters that LEA activities are
central to Race to the Top and that LEAs will need sufficient resources
to make their activities a success. In the NPP, proposed application
requirement (e) required a State to include a budget that detailed,
among other things, how it would use grant funds and other resources to
meet targets and perform related functions. In this notice, we have
retained that application requirement (re-designated as application
requirement (c)), but also included language in criterion (A)(2)(i)(d)
directing reviewers to evaluate how the State will use its Race to the
Top funds to accomplish its plans and meet its targets. We also note
that, under section 14006(c) of the ARRA, States must subgrant at least
50 percent of their Race to the Top grant to participating LEAs based
on LEAs' relative shares of funding under Part A, Title I of the ESEA.
In addition, States have considerable flexibility in awarding or
allocating the remaining 50 percent of their Race to the Top awards,
which are available for State-level activities, disbursements to LEAs,
and other purposes as the State may propose in its plan.
Changes: Criterion (A)(2)(i)(d) provides for the evaluation of the
extent to which the State has a high-quality plan for using the funds
for this grant, as described in the State's budget and accompanying
budget narrative, to accomplish the State's plans and meet its targets,
including, where feasible, by coordinating, reallocating, or
repurposing education funds from other Federal, State, and local
sources so that they align with the State's Race to the Top goals.
Comment: A number of commenters expressed concern regarding
proposed criterion (E)(5)(v), which focuses on the extent to which
States coordinate, allocate, or repurpose funds from other sources to
align with the State's Race to the Top goals. One commenter suggested
that it was beyond the scope of the Race to the Top program to suggest
that non-ARRA funds be reallocated to meet the goals of the Race to the
Top program. A number of commenters requested that the Department add
the phrase ``consistent with program requirements'' after proposed
criterion (E)(5)(v) to ensure that reallocation of funds does not
violate the program requirements of the IDEA.
Discussion: In response to concerns raised by many commenters
regarding a State's ability or authority to repurpose education funds
from other sources to align with a State's Race to the Top plan, we are
adding ``where feasible'' in proposed criterion (E)(5)(v). We also are
re-designating proposed criterion (E)(5)(v) as criterion (A)(2)(d) and
adding additional text for clarity and completeness. However, we
continue to believe that States need to focus and align their education
funding resources for maximum impact consistent with
[[Page 59730]]
existing program requirements, and that Race to the Top should
encourage States to leverage the improved use of all available
resources, regardless of the source, to support effective,
comprehensive changes in State and local education systems. In this
context, consideration of the extent to which a State is willing to
realign available resources in support of Race to the Top goals is not
only appropriate, but necessary.
Changes: We have re-designated criterion (E)(5)(v) as criterion
(A)(2)(d) and clarified that States will be judged based on their
coordination, reallocation, or repurposing of education funds so that
they support Race to the Top goals ``where feasible.''
Comment: One commenter recommended amending proposed criterion
(E)(5)(iii) to include fiscal resources, rather than ``economic
resources'' in the list of resources that States should use to continue
Race to the Top reforms after the grant funding. Another commenter
recommended clarifying that grant activities should be continued only
if there is evidence of success.
Discussion: We agree that ``fiscal'' is a better word than
``economic'' to describe the financial resources that a State will use
to continue Race to the Top reforms after the period of Race to the Top
funding has ended. Therefore, we are changing proposed criterion
(E)(5)(iii) to refer to fiscal resources and re-designating criterion
(E)(5)(iii) as criterion (A)(2)(i)(e). In addition, we are adding
language to criterion (A)(2)(i)(e) to clarify that post-Race to the Top
grant planning applies only to continuing support for Race to the Top
activities for which there is evidence of success.
Changes: We have re-designated proposed criterion (E)(5)(iii) as
criterion (A)(2)(i)(e) and revised the criterion to read as follows:
``Using the fiscal, political, and human capital resources of the State
to continue, after the period of funding has ended, those reforms
funded under the grant for which there is evidence of success.''
Selection Criterion (A)(3): Demonstrating Significant Progress in
Raising Achievement and Closing Gaps (proposed criteria (E)(1) and
(E)(4)):
Note: This section includes issues common to criteria
(A)(1)(iii) and (A)(3)(ii).
Comment: None.
Discussion: The ARRA emphasizes the importance of States
demonstrating significant progress in meeting the objectives of the
four assurance areas. In the NPP, proposed criterion (E)(1)(i) asked
States to describe their progress in each of the four education reform
areas generally, proposed criterion (E)(1)(ii) asked States to describe
how they have used ARRA and other Federal and State funding to pursue
reforms in these areas, and proposed criterion (E)(1)(iv) asked States
to describe the successes they have had in increasing student
achievement, closing achievement gaps, and increasing graduation rates.
In order to reduce redundancy and the burden on States, we are
combining proposed criteria (E)(1)(i) and (E)(1)(ii) into one criterion
and designating it as criterion (A)(3)(i). We are also designating
proposed criterion (E)(1)(iv) as criterion (A)(3)(ii). Both of these
revised criteria are now part of the State Success Factors section. We
believe this reorganization more logically groups our requests for
information regarding progress. We have also added, in criterion
(A)(3)(ii), that States may report progress since ``at least'' 2003 to
allow a longer data history for States that have such data (all States
have NAEP and ESEA data since 2003, but not all States participated in
all of NAEP prior to 2003). Further changes to criterion (A)(3)(ii) are
discussed later in this section.
Changes: We have combined proposed criteria (E)(1)(i) and
(E)(1)(ii) into one criterion, designated (A)(3)(i), and designated
proposed criterion (E)(1)(iv) as criterion (A)(3)(ii). Criterion (A)(3)
now evaluates a State based on the extent to which the State has
demonstrated its ability to--
(i) Make progress over the past several years in each of the four
education reform areas, and used its ARRA and other Federal and State
funding to pursue such reforms;
(ii) Improve student outcomes overall and by student subgroup since
at least 2003, and explain the connections between the data and the
actions that have contributed to--
(a) Increasing student achievement in reading/language arts and
mathematics, both on the NAEP and on the assessments required under the
ESEA;
(b) Decreasing achievement gaps between subgroups in reading/
language arts and mathematics, both on the NAEP and on the assessments
required under the ESEA; and
(c) Increasing high school graduation rates.
Comment: A number of commenters objected to our proposal that
States demonstrate progress in increasing student achievement and
closing the achievement gap using the National Assessment of
Educational Progress (NAEP). Some of these commenters asserted that the
NAEP provides an incomplete and distorted view of student achievement,
particularly the achievement of students with disabilities. Another
commenter noted that the NAEP does not include high school results.
Others expressed concern that using the NAEP data would only encourage
teaching to a test or would conflict with the NAEP's purpose as an
outside and valid measurement. Several commenters stated that, in
addition to the NAEP, the Department should allow States to demonstrate
achievement gains on assessments or achievement measures under the
ESEA, such as the annual proficiency scores and targets used to
determine adequate yearly progress (AYP), including proficiency rates
broken down by subgroup. One commenter stated that it would be
particularly unfair to require a State to use NAEP data where the State
could demonstrate that it has more rigorous assessments. Other
commenters suggested the final notice permit States to include other
measures to demonstrate achievement gains.
Discussion: The Department proposed using NAEP results to measure
State progress in increasing student achievement and decreasing
achievement gaps because NAEP is the only national measure of student
achievement that is comparable across States. The limitations of the
NAEP, as pointed out by commenters, are well-known: It is not aligned
to State content standards, does not include high school results, and
may not provide accurate achievement information for students with
disabilities and certain other subgroups. Also, the NAEP is not
administered annually, limiting the number of data points available for
measuring progress toward Race to the Top goals. However, the ability
of NAEP to compare progress across States and to be a consistent
measure over time remains a compelling reason to use it for Race to the
Top. Accordingly, we believe that including data from both the NAEP and
the annual State assessments required under the ESEA will provide a
more complete and valid picture of State progress to date and States'
goals for increasing student achievement and decreasing achievement
gaps. We are incorporating with some revisions the language from
proposed criteria (E)(1)(iv) and (E)(4) into criteria (A)(3)(ii) and
(A)(1)(iii) to reflect this decision. In addition, we are specifying in
application requirement (g) that when describing data for the
assessments required under the ESEA, the State should note any factors
(e.g., changes in cut scores) that would impact the comparability of
data from one year to the next. We also note that
[[Page 59731]]
including more than one assessment should significantly reduce any
risks of teaching to the test. As a result, we do not believe that
including this use of the NAEP in Race to the Top will affect NAEP's
validity or utility as an objective measure of student achievement, as
suggested by commenters.
Regarding the comment that we should allow States to demonstrate
achievement gains on assessments or achievement measures under the
ESEA, such as the annual proficiency scores and targets used to
determine AYP, we note that States already issue annual reports on AYP
status for schools and LEAs, including proficiency rates for all
schools; there is no need to duplicate this reporting by requiring its
inclusion in a State's annual Race to the Top report. However, States
that desire to include AYP data (or other measures) in their annual
Race to the Top reports would be free to do so.
Changes: Proposed criteria (E)(1)(iv) and (E)(4) have been
redesignated as criteria (A)(3)(ii) and (A)(1)(iii), respectively. They
have been revised to consider both NAEP and ESEA assessment results
when evaluating increases in student achievement and decreases in
achievement gaps in reading/language arts and mathematics; criterion
(A)(3)(ii) considers these in terms of historic gains (since at least
2003), while criterion (A)(1)(iii) considers them in terms of future
goals in light of the participation of the State's LEAs in the State's
reform plans. The evidence requested in Appendix A has also been
revised to conform with the criteria. We have also added application
requirement (g), which we discuss in more detail later in this notice.
Comment: Many commenters recommended modifications or additions to
the achievement measures for assessing past progress and setting future
targets in proposed criteria (E)(1)(iv) and (E)(4). Other commenters
supported the NPP's emphasis on increasing student achievement,
narrowing achievement gaps, and increasing graduation rates. One key
area of concern for several commenters was dropout recovery and
prevention, with one commenter recommending that the Department
supplement existing measures on graduation rates in proposed criteria
(E)(1)(iv) and (E)(4)(iii) with targets for decreasing the number of
young people aged 18 to 24 without a high school diploma. Other
commenters recommended that States set targets and report on the
percentage of low-income and minority 9th grade students who graduate
from high school in four years, the number of low-income and minority
students who are on track to be college- and career-ready, and
increases in the percentage of low-income and minority students being
taught by effective teachers. Other commenters recommended the addition
of targets for early childhood education, such as goals for
kindergarten readiness and third-grade reading and mathematics. A few
commenters suggested that in evaluating Race to the Top applications,
the Department consider the extent to which a State has ambitious
annual targets for increasing college enrollment and completion rates
or increasing college and career readiness.
Discussion: The Department acknowledges that many measures could
demonstrate progress toward Race to the Top goals. We especially agree
that increasing college enrollment is an important area that should be
reviewed in the context of Race to the Top. We are, therefore, adding
criterion (A)(1)(iii)(d), which examines the extent to which a State's
LEA participation will allow the State to reach its ambitious yet
achievable goals for increasing college enrollment and credit
accumulation. We are also adding a definition of college enrollment to
help States respond appropriately to this criterion.
After careful consideration of the comments, the Department
believes that this new criterion, in combination with the proposed
measures--which focus on reading, mathematics, and increasing
graduation rates--reflect the right emphasis on key areas that States
can report on with some validity and comparability. Further increasing
the number of measures would increase data collection and reporting
burdens on States and LEAs, many of which have not been collecting data
in the areas suggested by commenters. States that want to include their
own supplemental measures and targets are free to do so, and the
ongoing expansion of State data systems, which is supported by the Race
to the Top program and encouraged under invitational priority 4, will
likely facilitate future indicators and targets in such areas as early
childhood, drop-out prevention, and student mobility.
Changes: We have added criterion (A)(1)(iii)(d), which rewards
States whose LEA participation will translate into broad statewide
impact, allowing the State to reach its ambitious yet achievable goals,
overall and by student subgroup, for increasing college enrollment (as
defined in this notice) and increasing the number of students who
complete at least a year's worth of college credit that is applicable
to a degree within two years of enrollment in an institution of higher
education. We have also added a definition of college enrollment, which
refers to the enrollment of students who graduate from high school
consistent with 34 CFR 200.19(b)(1) and who enroll in an institution of
higher education (as defined in section 101 of the Higher Education
Act, Public Law 105-244, 20 U.S.C. 1001) within 16 months of
graduation.
Comment: Many commenters requested that the Department ensure that
State applicants set targets for all core academic subjects reported by
the NAEP, and not only in reading and mathematics, as in proposed
criteria (E)(4)(i) and (ii).
Discussion: The final notice continues to focus on reading and
mathematics achievement, partly to ensure consistency with ESEA
assessment requirements and partly to promote comparability, since all
States have NAEP and ESEA assessment results dating back to at least
2003 in those subjects. The Department notes, however, that these are
minimum expectations; States may include assessment results in other
subjects both to demonstrate past progress and to measure Race to the
Top performance going forward.
Changes: None.
Comment: Many commenters recommended that States focus more
narrowly on specific student groups in crafting their State Plans to
raise student achievement and close achievement gaps, including among
high-need students.
Discussion: We agree with the commenters that closing achievement
gaps is an urgent national priority. Proposed criterion (E)(4) asked
States to set ambitious yet achievable goals for closing achievement
gaps, as well as for increasing student achievement and graduation
rates overall and by subgroup. Criterion (A)(1)(iii) in this final
notice retains these provisions and includes similar subgroup-specific
goals in new criterion (A)(1)(iii)(d), regarding college enrollment and
credit accumulation. This final notice also includes new language in
criterion (A)(3)(ii) specifying that States' recent gains in increasing
student achievement and graduation rates will be evaluated both overall
and by student subgroup. We leave it to States to determine which of
the subgroups in their student populations need the most attention.
Changes: Criterion (A)(3)(ii) rewards States that have demonstrated
the ability to improve student outcomes overall and by student subgroup
since at least 2003 and explain the connections
[[Page 59732]]
between the data and the actions that have contributed to--
(a) Increasing student achievement in reading/language arts and
mathematics, both on the NAEP and on the assessments required under the
ESEA;
(b) Decreasing achievement gaps between subgroups in reading/
language arts and mathematics, both on the NAEP and on the assessments
required under the ESEA; and
(c) Increasing high school graduation rates.
Comment: A number of commenters suggested that the Department
should not ask States to report data disaggregated by the student
subgroups in section 303(b)(2)(G) of the NAEP but rather use the
student subgroups as described in section 1111(b)(2)(C)(v)(II) of the
ESEA. Others emphasized the importance of disaggregating data by
subgroup, including race and gender.
Discussion: We agree with the need to clarify the subgroups for
which States must report achievement data given the differences in
reporting achievement data by subgroups under the NAEP versus under the
ESEA. As discussed earlier, we are adding new paragraph (g) in the
application requirements that explains the subgroup data that a State
must provide in various parts of the application. Specifically, when
addressing items in the criteria for student subgroups with respect to
the NAEP, the State must provide data using the NAEP subgroups as
described in section 303(b)(2)(G) of the National Assessment of
Educational Progress Authorization Act (20 U.S.C. 9622) (i.e., race,
ethnicity, socioeconomic status, gender, disability, and limited
English proficiency); and when addressing items in the criteria for
student subgroups with respect to high school graduation rates, college
enrollment and credit accumulation rates, and the assessments required
under the ESEA, the State must provide data for 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). We note that States are required under section
1111(b)(3)(C)(xiii) of the ESEA to also report achievement data
disaggregated by gender and migrant status.
Changes: As discussed earlier, we have added new paragraph (g) in
the application requirements, which specifies that when addressing
issues related to assessments required under the ESEA or subgroups in
the selection criteria, the State must meet the following requirements:
(1) For student subgroups with respect to the NAEP, the State must
provide data for the NAEP subgroups described in section 303(b)(2)(G)
of the National Assessment of Educational Progress Authorization Act
(i.e., race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, gender, disability, and
limited English proficiency). The State must also include the NAEP
exclusion rate for students with disabilities and the exclusion rate
for English language learners, along with clear documentation of the
State's policies and practices for determining whether a student with a
disability or an English language learner should participate in the
NAEP and whether the student needs accommodations;
(2) For student subgroups with respect to graduation rates, college
enrollment and credit accumulation rates, and the assessments required
under the ESEA, the State must provide data for 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); and
(3) When asked to provide information regarding the assessments
required under the ESEA, States should refer to section 1111(b)(3) of
the ESEA; in addition, when describing this assessment data in the
State's application, the State should note any factors (e.g., changes
in cut scores) that would impact the comparability of data from one
year to the next.
Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department clarify that
States must still meet AYP targets as required by the ESEA, even as
they set new targets based on NAEP scores for Race to the Top
accountability purposes. Another expressed concern that these criteria
would tie State accountability goals and reporting to NAEP, which would
conflict with ESEA requirements that link accountability to State-based
standards and assessments.
Discussion: The Department does not believe that additional
language is required to clarify that States must still meet existing
ESEA requirements. Neither the ARRA nor this final notice affects
States' compliance with and obligations under the ESEA.
Changes: None.
B. Standards and Assessments
Definitions: Common set of K-12 standards and high-quality
assessment. Comments regarding the preceding definitions are addressed,
as appropriate, below.
Selection Criterion (B)(1): Developing and adopting common
standards (Proposed Selection Criterion (A)(1)):
Comment: Commenters were divided in their reactions to the
criterion under which the Department would evaluate States'
applications based on their commitment to adopt a common set of K-12
standards (as defined in this notice). Many commenters supported this
criterion. Some suggested procedures that should be followed in the
process of developing standards, including the need for broad
participation from representatives of all student subgroups within a
State prior to formal adoption of standards.
A few commenters, however, were opposed to the adoption of common
standards for various reasons, such as a lack of evidence that common
standards will benefit students and the potential cost of adopting new
content standards. One commenter urged removing participation in a
consortium as a necessary condition of funding because of concerns that
the size and the complexity of the relationships in a consortium may
have the potential for conflicts of interest. Some commenters regarded
the proposed criterion as punitive. A few commenters suggested making
participation in common standards an invitational priority in the
interest of making adoption truly voluntary. Another commenter
expressed concern that a criterion under which States would be rewarded
for their commitment for adopting a common set of K-12 standards will
preempt what, up to now, has been a State-led process and would call
into question the voluntary nature of State adoption of standards.
Many commenters argued that States should be excused from the
requirement to adopt common core standards if their current standards
are as rigorous as common standards. One commenter suggested that the
Department include in the final notice an additional criterion to
provide recognition for those States with rigorous standards and
improved student achievement. Another recommended an external review
focused on rigor, college and career readiness and international
benchmarking to determine whether adoption of a common set of K-12
standards is necessary.
Discussion: We appreciate commenters' support for this criterion.
The Department believes that States' adoption of common sets of K-12
standards will provide a foundation for more efficient and effective
creation of the instructional and assessment resources needed to
implement a coherent system of teaching and
[[Page 59733]]
learning. We do not agree that an external review is needed to
determine whether States' adoption of common K-12 standards is
necessary.
Some readers appear to have been confused about the role of the
criteria. One mistakenly believed that joining a consortium was a
condition of funding under Race to the Top. This is not the case.
Criteria are used to evaluate grant applications and applicants. States
receive points for the strength and content of their responses to the
criteria. In this program, we proposed that States' applications would
be evaluated and receive points for demonstrating their commitment to
improve standards by participating in a consortium of States working
toward jointly adopting common K-12 standards. Thus, States with
stronger proposals would receive more points; however, a State could
receive a grant even without getting any points for this criterion. An
individual State that chooses not to participate in a consortium for
the development and adoption of common standards is eligible to apply
for funds, but the application will not receive points under this
criterion. A State that chooses not to join a consortium could describe
its accomplishments in response to new criteria (F)(3) under which it
could earn points for other significant reform conditions that have
contributed to increased student achievement, narrowed achievement
gaps, or other important outcomes. We decline to make participation in
common standards an invitational priority for which a State would
receive no points in the competition, rather than a selection
criterion. We believe that common internationally benchmarked standards
that prepare students for college and careers are a critical foundation
for students' education and, therefore, are a component of a State's
application deserving of evaluation and points in the competition.
We agree that there is potential for conflicts of interest to arise
within consortia, but believe there are ways for consortia to mitigate
such conflicts and that removal of the criterion on these grounds is
not warranted.
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters recommended that the Department clarify
in the final notice whether the reference to common standards refers
specifically to the common core standards currently being developed
jointly by members of the National Governors Association and the
Council of Chief State School Officers. Others recommended that the
guidelines be modified to recognize other multi-State consortia that
have defined or adopted common standards. One commenter requested
recognition of the national collaborative of State leaders developing
national standards and assessments in arts education.
Discussion: In this program, the phrase ``common standards'' does
not refer to any specific set of common standards, such as the common
core standards currently under development by members of the National
Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers.
The Department declines to make changes in order to endorse any
particular standards-development consortium.
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters recommended that we clarify the meaning
of ``a significant number of States'' within a consortium. One
recommended that the number of States be set at a minimum of three if
the quality of their common standards is comparable to the common
standards developed by members of the National Governor's Association
and the Council of Chief State School Officers. Others suggested that
instead of a minimum number, the criterion should focus on the
importance or potential impact of the proposed work.
Discussion: The goal of common K-12 standards is to replace the
existing patchwork of State standards that results in unequal
expectations based on geography alone. Some of the major benefits of
common standards will be the shared understanding of teaching and
learning goals; consistency of data permitting research on effective
practices in staffing and instruction; and the coordination of
information that could inform the development and implementation of
curriculum, instructional resources, and professional development. The
Department believes that the cost savings and efficiency resulting from
collaboration in a consortium should be rewarded through the Race to
the Top program when the impact on educational practices is pronounced.
And generally, we believe that the larger the number of States within a
consortium, the greater the benefits and potential impact. We decline
to define the term ``significant number of States'' by providing a
particular number of States. We are providing additional information in
Appendix B regarding how this selection criterion will be scored by
reviewers and adding a cross reference to Appendix B in criterion
(B)(1) to emphasize that States' evidence will be evaluated using
Appendix B.
Changes: The term ``significant number of States'' has been
clarified in the Scoring Rubric (see Appendix B) so that, on this
aspect of the criterion, a State will earn ``high'' points if its
consortium includes a majority of the States in the country, and
``medium'' or ``low'' points if its consortium includes one-half of the
States in the country or less. Additionally, we have added a reference
to this in criterion (B)(1) by adding the parenthetical ``(as set forth
in Appendix B)'' after ``evidenced by.''
Comment: Many commenters expressed concern regarding the proposed
timeline for the adoption of common standards by June 2010. Commenters
urged delay of the adoption target date in order to allow adequate time
for activities such as local review and evaluation of the common
standards, legislative or administrative action required for adoption,
and broad stakeholder participation. Several pointed out that the
proposed timeline for adoption of common standards by June 2010
conflicts with the timeline agreed to by governors and State chiefs
currently participating in one consortium for the development of common
standards. One commenter objected that the Race to the Top process does
not allow States enough time to review the final standards from that
consortium before submitting a grant application. Others questioned
apparent differences for Phase 1 applicants and Phase 2 applicants
regarding the actual adoption of common standards.
Discussion: The Department recognizes that States need as much time
as possible to review, evaluate, and adopt common K-12 standards. We
are therefore extending the deadline for adopting standards as far as
possible, while still allowing the Department to comply with the
statutory requirement that the Department obligate all Race to the Top
funds by September 30, 2010. The new deadline in this criterion for
adopting common K-12 standards is August 2, 2010, or, at a minimum, by
a later date in 2010 specified by the State. As described in the
Scoring Rubric, States that meet the August 2, 2010 target date will
earn more points for this criterion; a State that has a high-quality
plan to adopt common standards by a later date in 2010 will earn some
points for this criterion. In addition, we have clarified that Phase 1
applicants must demonstrate commitment to and progress toward adoption
by August 2, 2010, or, at a minimum, by a later date in 2010 specified
by the State, and that Phase 2 applicants must demonstrate adoption by
that date in order to earn the most points for this criterion. We
understand that adoption of standards is a legal process at the State
level, and
[[Page 59734]]
fully expect that implementation of the standards will follow a
thoughtful, deliberate course in subsequent year(s). For any State
receiving funds, the Department will monitor the State's progress in
meeting its goals and timelines as established in its plan, including
States' progress towards adoption of common standards.
Changes: We have revised the deadline in criterion (B)(1) regarding
adoption of a common set of K-12 standards. Phase 1 applicants will be
evaluated based on their high-quality plans demonstrating commitment to
and progress toward adopting a common set of K-12 standards by August
2, 2010, or, at a minimum, by a later date in 2010 specified by the
State. Phase 2 applicants will be evaluated based on whether they adopt
such standards by August 2, 2010, or at a minimum, by a later date in
2010 specified by the State in a high-quality plan toward which the
State has made significant progress. Both Phase 1 and Phase 2
applicants will also be evaluated on their commitment to implementing
the standards after the deadline in a well-planned way.
We also have revised and reorganized criterion (B)(1) non-
substantively for purposes of clarity. When describing how a State can
demonstrate its commitment to developing standards we have changed the
phrase, ``improving the quality of its standards'' to ``adopting a
common set of high-quality standards, as evidenced by * * *''. In
criterion (B)(1)(ii)(a), we also have removed the qualifier to a common
set of K-12 standards (``that are internationally benchmarked and that
build toward college and career readiness by the time of high school
graduation * * *'') because it is redundant with similar language in
criterion (B)(1)(i)(a).
Comment: Several commenters recommended that the Department clarify
in the final notice the evidence necessary for criterion (B)(1), asking
whether participation in a standards development consortium or an
expression of intent to participate in such a consortium, such as a
Memorandum of Agreement, is sufficient. One commenter suggested that a
State should be allowed to provide whatever evidence it believes is
appropriate to demonstrate its efforts to address this criterion.
Discussion: We agree that the evidence for this criterion should be
clearer, and have made some revisions to the evidence requested for
that purpose. The evidence requested is shown in Appendix A of this
notice. We do not agree with the commenter that a State should provide
whatever evidence it believes is appropriate to demonstrate its efforts
to address this criterion.
Changes: We have clarified some of the requested evidence for
criterion (B)(1). We request that a State supply a copy of the
Memorandum of Agreement, executed by the State, showing that it is part
of a standards consortium, and provide the number and names of States
participating in the consortium. A State should provide a copy of the
final standards, or if the standards are not yet final, a copy of the
draft standards and anticipated date for completing the standards. A
State should also provide documentation that the standards are or will
be internationally benchmarked. For Phase 1, States must provide a
description of the legal process in the State for adopting standards,
and the State's plan, current progress, and timeframe for adoption. For
Phase 2, States must show evidence that they have adopted the
standards; or, if the State has not yet adopted the standards, provide
a description of the legal process in the State for adopting standards,
and the State's plan, current progress, and timeframe for adoption.
States may provide additional evidence beyond that requested.
Comment: One commenter asked what national and international
benchmarks are required under criterion (B)(1).
Discussion: The Department is not requiring that common standards
adopted by State applicants be benchmarked to particular international
standards, but the standards should be supported by evidence that they
are internationally benchmarked.
Changes: We have revised criterion (B)(1)(i) to clarify that the K-
12 standards adopted by the State should be ``supported by evidence
that they are'' internationally benchmarked.
Comment: A few commenters requested more detail regarding the
desired characteristics of college and career ready standards. Some
suggested that the Department require specific types of evidence to
meet this criterion, such as measurement of the skills needed to
succeed in non-remedial college courses, validation by the
postsecondary system or involvement of postsecondary faculty in
development of the standards and assessments.
Discussion: Criterion (B)(1) focuses on States' development and
adoption of common K-12 standards that build toward college and career
readiness. By using these terms, we mean that the standards should
build on content knowledge and skills regarded as essential for success
in college and the workforce. The Department recognizes that many kinds
of documentation could reasonably support the claim that common
standards build toward college and career readiness and prefers to
leave the selection of appropriate documentation to the States.
Changes: None.
Definition of Common Set of K-12 Standards
Comment: We received several recommendations to modify the
definition of common set of K-12 standards. Some commenters suggested
that the definition of common set of K-12 standards should refer to
21st century skills; English language proficiency standards aligned to
the language arts standards; and standards for science, technology, and
engineering. Another commenter recommended expanding the definition to
include standards currently shared across States, such as the American
Diploma Project standards or ACT College Benchmarks. Other commenters
recommended that the definition clearly specify whether the common
standards should include standards for each high school grade or for
each high school course. One commenter asked if the term ``standard''
refers to a broad statement about content or to a discrete concept or
skill.
Discussion: It is up to States participating in the development of
common standards to determine the content and scope of the standards,
whether to organize the standards for high school by grade or by
course, and whether the statement of each standard is focused broadly
on general concepts or narrowly on particular skills. Therefore, we
decline to make the changes recommended by the commenters.
Changes: None.
Comment: Commenters requested clarification of what it means for
the common standards to be ``identical'' across all States in a
consortium given that a State may supplement the common standards with
additional standards. Some commenters suggested changing the definition
to refer to standards that are ``aligned,'' across States, rather than
``identical.'' Other commenters suggested that the additional standards
adopted by a State should be more stringent than the common standards,
foster innovation, or focus on particular skills of local relevance.
Discussion: Some commenters appeared to be confused by the term
``identical'' when it was qualified by the possible addition of a
supplementary group of standards that could vary across States in a
consortium. The term
[[Page 59735]]
``identical'' refers to the common standards and not the supplementary
standards and would not permit the standards to be ``aligned'' across
States in a consortium, as recommended by one commenter. Upon further
reflection, we believe that there may be reasons for the common
standards to be slightly different across States (e.g., States may use
slightly different terms to refer to the same concepts or may have a
particular format which would require slight changes in language) and
therefore, are changing ``identical'' to ``substantially identical.''
The Department believes that it is unnecessary to include in the
definition additional requirements for the supplementary standards,
such as being more rigorous or fostering innovation, and therefore,
declines to change the definition as requested by commenters.
Changes: We have changed ``identical'' to ``substantially
identical'' to clarify that a common set of K-12 standards are
``substantially identical'' across all States in a consortium.
Selection Criterion (B)(2): Developing and Implementing Common,
High-quality Assessments (Proposed Selection Criterion (A)(2)):
Comment: A number of commenters supported the Department's proposal
to evaluate a State's commitment to improving the quality of its
assessments by participating in a consortium of States developing
common high-quality assessments (as defined in this notice) aligned
with the consortium's common set of K-12 standards. However, other
commenters requested that the Department remove this criterion,
stressing that the Department has overemphasized standardized testing
and that the ESEA has stressed reading and math to the detriment of
other subjects. One commenter asserted that a State should not have to
join a consortium if its own assessment is of high quality. Another
commenter questioned why we would encourage States to change current
assessment programs; this commenter suggested that we not replace
current assessments until there is certainty about which aspects of
current testing need change so as to not waste resources and risk
development of low-quality assessments. Another commenter suggested the
Department support the improvement of State and local assessment
systems rather than pressuring States to ``swap one standardized test
for another.''
Discussion: The Department believes that consortia of States, by
pooling resources, will be able to produce significantly higher-quality
assessments more cost-effectively than any one State could produce
alone. Significant improvement of student outcomes can be realized when
high-quality assessments aligned to common standards inform and support
teacher instruction and, thus, student learning. An individual State
that chooses not to participate in a consortium for the development and
adoption of assessments aligned to common standards is eligible to
apply for funds, but the application will not receive points for this
criterion.
We understand commenters' concerns about the overemphasis of
standardized testing, but believe that educators need good information
about what students know and can do so that they can guide their
students' learning, and adjust and differentiate their instruction
appropriately. This information needs to come, in part, from academic
assessments.
With respect to support for local assessments, criteria (B)(3) and
(C)(3) provide opportunities for focus on local assessments and
instructional improvement systems. Criterion (B)(3) evaluates a State
on the extent to which it has a high-quality plan for supporting
statewide transition to and implementation of enhanced standards and
high-quality assessments and provides examples of State or LEA support
activities, including implementation of high-quality instructional
materials and assessments. In responding to this criterion, States
could propose to support development of local assessments, including
formative and interim assessments, that would assist in the transition
to new statewide standards and assessments. Criterion (C)(3) evaluates
a State on the extent to which it has a high-quality plan to increase
the acquisition, adoption, and use of local instructional improvement
systems (as defined in this notice); supports LEAs and schools that are
using instructional improvement systems; and makes data from these
systems available and accessible to researchers. Instructional
improvement systems may include local assessment data.
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters opposed the provision in criterion
(B)(2) that asked a State to describe the extent to which its
consortium working on developing common high-quality assessments
includes a ``significant number of States,'' recommending instead that
the criterion focus only on the quality of the assessments. One
commenter recommended that the criterion evaluate the extent to which
the consortium has the potential to have a significant national impact,
including consideration of the number and diversity of students in
participating States, or the ability of participating States to serve
as exemplars for statewide reform, rather than focus on the number of
participating States.
Discussion: The Department believes that the cost savings and
efficiency resulting from collaboration in a consortium should be
rewarded through Race to the Top when the impact on educational
practices is pronounced. Generally, we believe that the larger the
number of States within a consortium, the greater the benefits and
potential impact. While the other measures suggested by the commenters
could be valuable, they would not be as objective a measure for the
reviewers to consider when evaluating a State's plan. We are providing
information about the scoring of this criterion in the Scoring Rubric
set forth in Appendix B. Additionally, we are adding a cross reference
to Appendix B in criterion (B)(2) to emphasize that States' evidence
will be evaluated using Appendix B.
Changes: The term ``significant number of States'' has been
clarified in the Scoring Rubric (see Appendix B) so that, on this
aspect of the criterion, a State will earn ``high'' points if its
consortium includes a majority of the States in the country, and
``medium'' or ``low'' points if its consortium includes one-half of the
States in the country or less. Additionally, we added the parenthetical
``(as set forth in Appendix B)'' after ``evidenced by'' in criterion
(B)(2).
In addition, we have made some non-substantive changes to this
section for clarity. We have replaced ``whether'' with ``to the extent
to which'' in criterion (B)(2); we have added ``as evidenced by (i) the
State's participation * * *''; and we have removed the phrase ``that
are internationally benchmarked'' when we refer to a common set of K-12
standards because the phrase is unnecessary and redundant with language
in criterion (B)(1)(i)(a).
Comment: Many commenters suggested that the Department consider
additional factors in examining a State's commitment to developing
common assessments. One commenter recommended that States submit
evidence from assessment developers demonstrating that the assessments
are valid and reliable for English language learners, as well as
showing the research base for use of accommodations. Another commenter
suggested that the criterion explicitly encourage States to develop a
more comprehensive local assessment system.
[[Page 59736]]
Discussion: Members of an assessment consortium are responsible for
ensuring that assessments are developed to meet the definition of high-
quality assessments (as defined in this notice), including the
requirement that assessments are of high technical quality and include
students with disabilities and English language learners. Local
assessments can be addressed in response to other criteria, such as
criterion (B)(3) and (C)(3) as previously discussed.
Changes: None.
Comment: A number of commenters requested that the Department
clarify in the final notice how an applicant should describe its
strategy for and commitment to joining a common assessments consortium
and implementing common assessments. One commenter suggested that
States demonstrate compliance with this criterion by developing a
timeline for when assessments would be aligned to the common standards.
Two commenters asked if States can include the cost of additional
assessments, such as formative and benchmark assessments, in addition
to summative tests in its application. Another commenter suggested that
we evaluate States' progress in relation to developing common
assessments on a regular basis and that reports should be provided on
these evaluations.
Discussion: It is not necessary for a State to describe its
strategy for joining a common assessments consortium; the evidence for
this criterion focuses on a State's participation in a consortium that
intends to develop high-quality assessments. The minimum evidence for
which a State will receive points for this criterion is described in
detail in Appendix A of this notice (Evidence and Performance
Measures). The Department intends to hold a separate Race to the Top
Assessment competition that will fund the development of common,
summative assessments tied to common K-12 standards. We therefore
believe that funds within this Race to the Top competition would be
better spent on other activities. Accordingly, we have added a
requirement specifying that no funds awarded under this competition may
be used to pay for costs related to statewide summative assessments.
Formative and interim assessments (as defined in this notice) may be
funded within this competition, and would be funded as part of a
State's plan for criterion (B)(3). In addition, for any State receiving
funds, the Department will monitor the State's progress in meeting its
goals and timelines.
Changes: We have added a program requirement that no funds awarded
under this competition may be used to pay for costs related to
statewide summative assessments.
Comment: A few commenters suggested that high-quality assessments
include grade-by-grade specificity of core subject matter. Others
suggested this notice explicitly include the assessment of broad-based
humanities centered curricula, including art, science, and social
studies.
Discussion: This notice does not limit or require certain grade or
content coverage for high-quality assessments.
Changes: None.
Comment: Another commenter suggested that we award additional
points to States that commit to developing a common STEM assessment.
Discussion: A State may choose to address competitive preference
priority 2, which addresses STEM issues, and, if peer reviewers
determine the State has met the priority, would receive extra points in
the Race to the Top competition. The third element of this priority (a
plan to address the need to prepare more students for advanced study
and careers in the sciences, technology, engineering, and mathematics)
could be addressed, in part, by a commitment to develop a common STEM
assessment. Note, however, that a statewide summative STEM assessment
would have to be developed using funds other than those awarded under
this competition because, as noted in the previous comment, Race to the
Top funds cannot be used to pay for costs related to statewide
summative assessments.
Changes: None.
Comments: Some commenters asked that the Department provide
incentives for States to develop and implement high-quality assessments
beginning at pre-kindergarten.
Discussion: As previously stated, this notice does not limit or
require certain grade or content coverage for high-quality assessments.
We note, however, that invitational priority 3 invites States to
include in their applications practices, strategies, or programs to
improve educational outcomes for high-need young children by enhancing
the quality of preschool programs. Of particular interest are proposals
that support practices that (i) improve school readiness (including
social, emotional, and cognitive); and (ii) improve the transition
between preschool and kindergarten.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter requested that the Department state in the
final notice that new assessment systems should be aligned with content
standards, and be vertically integrated. Another commenter suggested
that the entire K-12 assessment system should be vertically moderated
to the anchor assessments so ``proficient'' means ``prepared'' and that
students are on-track to meet college and career ready standards by
graduation.
Discussion: Under criterion (B)(2) States will be rewarded for the
development of assessments aligned with common standards that build
toward college and career readiness. The technical aspects of how the
assessment system is organized to reflect increasing student competence
from grade to grade will be determined by the consortia developing the
assessments.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter stated that a plan for implementing high-
quality assessments must include high-quality alternate assessments.
Discussion: We agree with the commenter; however, we do not believe
it is necessary to include additional language to that effect in this
notice because section 1111(b)(3)(C)(ix)(II) of the ESEA requires that
States include students with disabilities in their assessments. In
addition, section 612(a)(16)(C) of the IDEA requires States to provide
an alternate assessment to a student with a disability who needs it for
any statewide assessment.
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters supported the statement in the NPP
that, at a later date, we may announce a separate Race to the Top
Assessment Competition, for approximately $350 million, to support the
development of assessments by consortia of States. Several commenters
asked for more explicit guidelines on standards and assessment work for
Phases 1 and 2 as described in this notice, as opposed to the work for
the separate $350 million fund for the development of assessments.
Discussion: As previously indicated, the Department intends to hold
a separate Race to the Top Assessment competition that will fund
consortia in developing common, summative assessments tied to common K-
12 standards. The Department may provide additional information about
this competition in the future, and as noted previously, more
requirements may be articulated in that competition's notice.
Changes: None.
Definition of High-Quality Assessment
Comment: Many commenters supported the proposed definition of
[[Continued on page 59737]]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
]
[[pp. 59737-59786]] Race to the Top Fund
[[Continued from page 59736]]
[[Page 59737]]
high-quality assessment. Several commenters recommended that the
definition refer to the use of universal design principles in test
development and administration. A few commenters suggested revising the
definition to clarify that the use of open-ended items, performance-
based tasks, and technology are desirable and necessary only insofar as
they are grade-appropriate for the subject matter and consistent with
the skills to be measured. Many other commenters recommended revising
the definition to include assessments and assessment systems that
measure higher order and critical thinking, problem-solving, reasoning,
research, writing, scientific investigation, communication, and
teamwork skills.
Discussion: We agree with the commenters that the definition of
high-quality assessment should refer to the use of universal design
principles in test design and administration and are making that
change. However, we are not revising the definition to include specific
skills, such as critical thinking, problem solving, research, or
writing skills, mentioned by the commenters because the skills and
content included in an assessment will be determined by the content
standards on which the assessment is based. Instead, we are revising
the definition to state that a high-quality assessment is an assessment
that is designed to measure a student's ``knowledge, understanding of,
and ability to apply, critical concepts,'' rather than an assessment
that is designed to measure ``understanding of, and ability to apply,
critical concepts.''
We do not believe it is necessary to clarify that open-ended items,
performance-based tasks, and technology should be appropriate for the
grade and subject to be assessed and consistent with the skills to be
measured, as recommended by commenters. We believe this is implicit in
the design of any assessment and have included open-ended responses,
performance-based tasks, and technology as examples, not as
requirements of a high-quality assessment.
Finally, based on the Department's internal review, we are making
several changes to the definition. First, in the NPP, we stated that a
high-quality assessment uses a ``variety of item types, formats, and
administration conditions (e.g., open-ended responses, performance-
based tasks, technology).'' We believe that a variety of administration
conditions is not necessarily a requirement for an assessment to be of
high quality. Therefore, we are revising the definition to clarify that
a high-quality assessment uses a variety of item types and formats
(e.g., open-ended responses, performance-based tasks) and incorporates
technology, where appropriate. Second, for consistency with the rest of
the notice, we are changing the reference to ``limited English
proficient students'' to ``English language learners.'' Next, the
proposed definition stated that a high-quality assessment be ``of high
technical quality (e.g., valid, reliable, and aligned to standards).''
For completeness, we are adding ``fair'' to the examples in the
parenthetical. Finally, for clarity, we are changing ``Such assessments
are structured to enable measurement of student achievement * * *'' to
``Such assessments should enable measurement of student achievement.''
Changes: With the aforementioned changes, the definition of high-
quality assessment is as follows: ``High-quality assessment means an
assessment designed to measure a student's knowledge, understanding of,
and ability to apply, critical concepts through the use of a variety of
item types and formats (e.g., open-ended responses, performance-based
tasks). Such assessments should enable measurement of student
achievement (as defined in this notice) and student growth (as defined
in this notice); be of high technical quality (e.g., be valid,
reliable, fair, and aligned to standards); incorporate technology where
appropriate; include the assessment of students with disabilities and
English language learners; and to the extent feasible, use universal
design principles (as defined in section 3 of the Assistive Technology
Act of 1998, as amended, 29 U.S.C. 3002) in development and
administration.''
Comment: Several commenters recommended that the Department require
that high-quality assessments address the needs of English language
learners, students with disabilities, and other learners who need
targeted services.
Discussion: As defined in this notice, a high-quality assessment
includes assessment of students with disabilities and English language
learners.
Changes: None.
Selection Criterion (B)(3): Supporting the Transition to Enhanced
Standards and High-Quality Assessments (Proposed Selection Criterion
(A)(3)):
Comment: Many commenters approved of criterion (B)(3) regarding a
State's high-quality plan for supporting a statewide transition to and
implementation of enhanced standards and high-quality assessments, but
stated that the Department should expand the activities that a
transition plan might include. For instance, several commenters
suggested that States show that they plan to increase student
participation in Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate
courses, as well as dual enrollment in postsecondary credit-bearing
courses, while transitioning to common standards and assessments. A few
commenters suggested States commit to increasing student participation
in pre-Advanced Placement courses for middle school students, and in
after-school programs to accelerate achievement for students having
difficulty meeting academic targets. One commenter recommended that
States provide a roll-out plan for adoption of the common standards and
all of their supporting components. Some commenters suggested that
adoption of common standards be accompanied by the necessary supporting
components, such as curricular frameworks, unit plans, lesson plans,
curriculum-embedded formative assessments, anchor assignments, and
rubrics. One commenter noted that States should amend course
requirements for graduation to ensure that students are guaranteed to
receive the content.
However, not all commenters supported additional supports and
resources during a State's transition to enhanced standards and high-
quality assessments. One commenter questioned whether limited Race to
the Top funds should be used by States and LEAs to develop
instructional materials. Another commenter was critical of requiring a
plan for transition; instead this commenter suggested that a State
should be judged on its transition after implementation of common
standards and assessments, not before the State has developed best
practices.
Discussion: We agree with many of the commenters' suggestions
regarding which supporting components should be considered when
transitioning to new standards and assessments. We encourage States to
create plans that increase student participation in advanced coursework
in order to provide for a smooth transition to internationally
benchmarked standards aligned with college and career ready
expectations. We also agree that a rollout plan and additional supports
would aid in the transition to enhanced standards and high-quality
standards, and have therefore incorporated these suggestions. We
understand the commenter's concern that States may need to amend course
requirements for graduation to ensure that students are guaranteed to
receive the content. We
[[Page 59738]]
believe a statement in criterion (B)(3) addresses this comment--that
State or LEA activities might include, ``in cooperation with the
State's institutions of higher education, aligning high school exit
criteria and college entrance requirements with new standards and
assessments.''
We disagree with commenters who questioned whether limited Race to
the Top funds should be used by States and LEAs to develop
instructional materials. We believe that the transition to enhanced
assessments and a common set of K-12 standards will not be successful
without support from the States doing this work in collaboration with
their participating LEAs.
We have made several edits for clarity in the illustrative list of
State and LEA support activities for transition to enhanced standards
and high-quality assessments. We deleted the reference to developing
curricular frameworks, for example, but added a reference to ``high-
quality instructional materials and assessments (including, for
example, formative and interim assessments).'' Additionally, we
accepted commenters' suggestion to add ``development of a rollout plan
for the standards with all supporting components,'' which could
include, among other things, development of curricular frameworks and
materials.
Changes: We have revised the language in criterion (B)(3) to
include many of the commenters' suggestions. The language now reads
that State or LEA activities might, for example, include, ``developing
a rollout plan for the standards together with all of their supporting
components; in cooperation with the State's institutions of higher
education, aligning high school exit criteria and college entrance
requirements with the new standards and assessments; developing or
acquiring, disseminating, and implementing high-quality instructional
materials and assessments (including, for example, formative and
interim assessments (both as defined in this notice)); developing or
acquiring and delivering high-quality professional development to
support the transition to new standards and assessments; and engaging
in other strategies that translate the standards and information from
assessments into classroom practice for all students, including high-
need students (as defined in this notice).''
Comment: One commenter suggested including, as an additional
activity to support statewide transition to and implementation of
enhanced standards and high-quality assessments, building improvements
for science labs and technology in the classrooms.
Discussion: Consistent with the Department's May 11, 2009, State
Fiscal Stabilization Fund guidance ,\3\ the Department also discourages
States and LEAs from using Race to the Top funds for new construction
because this use may limit the ability of the State and its LEAs to
implement the State's core Race to the Top plans. States may propose
that certain participating LEAs may use Race to the Top funds for
modernization, renovation, or repair projects to the extent that these
projects are consistent with the State's Race to the Top plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Available at:
http://www.ed.gov/programs/statestabilization/guidance-mod-05112009.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters observed that teachers will be
primarily responsible for ensuring successful implementation of new
standards and, accordingly, recommended that teachers be involved in a
State's transition plan. Commenters stated that a transition plan
should include model lesson plans, pre-service teacher education, and
in-service professional development to familiarize and train teachers
on the content standards and how to use assessment results. One
commenter suggested that professional development be focused on middle
school and high school teachers.
Discussion: We agree with commenters that a successful transition
plan should include high-quality professional development to support
the transition to new standards and assessments. The NPP included
developing, disseminating and implementing professional development
materials as a suggested State or local activity in this criterion. We
are strengthening the language about this activity to suggest
development or acquisition and delivery of high-quality professional
development to support the transition to new standards and assessments.
We also agree with the commenter that teachers should be involved in a
State's transition plan. Under criterion (B)(3) the Department will
evaluate a State application on the extent to which it has a high-
quality plan for supporting the transition to and implementation of
enhanced standards and high-quality assessments, in collaboration with
its participating LEAs. We expect that LEAs will collaborate with
teachers on this criterion. In addition, in criterion (A)(2)(ii)(a), a
State is judged on the extent to which it has a high-quality overall
plan to (among other things) utilize the support it has from a broad
group of stakeholders to better implement its plans, as evidenced by
the strength of the statements or actions of support from the State's
teachers and principals, which include the State's teachers' unions or
statewide teacher associations.
We decline to take the commenter's suggestion that a State focus
its professional development on middle and high school teachers because
we believe all teachers implementing enhanced standards and high-
quality assessments would benefit from high-quality professional
development.
Changes: We have included language in criterion (B)(3) to clarify
that a State or LEA activity might, for example, include ``developing
or acquiring and delivering high-quality professional development to
support the transition to new standards and assessments.''
Comment: Numerous commenters articulated a need for collaboration,
stakeholder engagement, financial support, autonomy, and flexibility
during the transition to enhanced standards and assessments. One
commenter stated that unless States are committed to the adoption and
implementation of the standards, and support LEAs and schools in
implementing them, the new standards and assessments will not
positively affect teaching or learning. One commenter suggested that
the State plans require local school boards to ensure collaboration
between school administrators and union leaders to ensure that all
educators are part of the alignment of assessments. A few commenters
urged the Department to encourage continuity between pre-kindergarten
and elementary school as part of the transition process. One commenter
supported efforts to promote a seamless articulation of standards and
assessments between pre-kindergarten, K-12, and post-secondary
education, since any gap leads to critical loss of learning for
students.
Discussion: The Department agrees with commenters that
collaboration, support, and engagement are critical factors for a
successful transition to enhanced standards and high-quality
assessments. The criteria in (A) establish State Success Factors, which
ask States to articulate their education reform agendas and LEAs'
participation in it, and explain their strategies for building strong
statewide capacity to implement, scale and sustain proposed plans.
Specifically, criterion (A)(2)(ii) provides for evaluation of a State's
plan to utilize the support it has from a broad group of stakeholders
to better implement its plans, as evidenced by
[[Page 59739]]
the strength of statements or actions of support from critical
stakeholders.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter requested clarification about whether all
LEAs or only participating LEAs must transition to the enhanced
standards and high-quality assessments. Many commenters noted that the
adoption of common standards will affect all LEAs, not only those
participating in a State's Race to the Top application. Accordingly,
commenters suggested that a State include in its plan how it will
provide direct financial support for the operational costs incurred by
LEAs as they transition to common standards and assessments.
Discussion: The NPP was clear that a State will be judged on the
extent to which it has a high-quality plan for supporting a statewide
transition to a common set of K-12 standards and high-quality
assessments aligned to those standards. We recognize that a statewide
system of standards and assessments eventually would be implemented in
all LEAs, some of which are not participating in the Race to the Top
grant. To address this situation, we are adding a new definition of
involved LEAs. An involved LEA is an LEA that chooses to work with the
State to implement those specific portions of the State's plan that
necessitate full or nearly-full statewide implementation, such as
transitioning to a common set of K-12 standards. Involved LEAs do not
receive a share of the 50 percent of a State's grant award that it must
subgrant to LEAs in accordance with section 14006(c) of the ARRA, but
States may provide other funding to involved LEAs under the State's
Race to the Top grant in a manner that is consistent with the State's
application. We expect that participating LEAs will have a greater role
than involved LEAs in collaborating with States as States develop their
plans, but believe that the specifics of such decisions are best left
to local decision makers.
Changes: We have added a new definition of involved LEAs, which
reads as follows: ``Involved LEAs mean LEAs that choose to work with
the State to implement those specific portions of the State's plan that
necessitate full or nearly-full statewide implementation, such as
transitioning to a common set of K-12 standards (as defined in this
notice). Involved LEAs do not receive a share of the 50 percent of a
State's grant award that it must subgrant to LEAs in accordance with
section 14006(c) of the ARRA, but States may provide other funding to
involved LEAs under the State's Race to the Top grant in a manner that
is consistent with the State's application.''
Comment: One commenter recommended that States should provide
minimum protections for their students during the transition to new
standards and assessments, including a period of time to orient
students and teachers to new standards and assessments, to ensure
instruction time, and to eliminate disparate impact on minority
students. One commenter requested that the Department address equity in
the adequacy of instructional materials, suggesting that States ensure
that every student has access to print or digital instructional
materials that are current and aligned to the enhanced standards.
Discussion: We agree with commenters that a State should address
supports for high-need students in its plan to transition to enhanced
standards and high-quality assessments. We are adding a reference to
high-need students in criterion (B)(3) and including a definition of
high-need students in the Definitions section of this notice. States
should have the flexibility to decide on the appropriate supports for
their high-need students; therefore, we decline to specify the supports
States must provide to students.
Changes: We have added language to criterion (B)(3) indicating that
State or LEA activities might include ``engaging in other strategies
that translate the standards and information from assessments into
classroom practice for all students, including high-need students (as
defined in this notice).'' We also have added a definition of high-need
students, which reads as follows: ``High-need students means students
at risk of educational failure or otherwise in need of special
assistance and support, such as students who are living in poverty, who
attend high-minority schools (as defined in this notice), who are far
below grade level, who have left school before receiving a regular high
school diploma, who are at risk of not graduating with a diploma on
time, who are homeless, who are in foster care, who have been
incarcerated, who have disabilities, or who are English language
learners.''
Comment: One commenter suggested that a State demonstrate that its
public higher education institutions will certify readiness for entry
into credit-bearing coursework if students meet the high school common
standards through completing a course of study aligned with those
standards and score at the defined college-ready level on high school
assessments.
Discussion: We do not believe that we should prescribe the exact
policy mentioned by the commenter; we believe a State should have the
flexibility to determine, in cooperation with its institutions of
higher education, the best way to align high school exit criteria and
college entrance requirements with the new standards and assessments.
However, we believe that some clarification of the language in
criterion (B)(3) is necessary and have revised accordingly.
Changes: Criterion (B)(3) has been revised to provide that State or
LEA activities might, for example, include, ``in cooperation with the
State's institutions of higher education, aligning high school exit
criteria and college entrance requirements with the new standards and
assessments.''
Comment: A few commenters requested that States provide minimum
evidence as to how they are ensuring proper implementation of their
current standards, including evidence of actual implementation in
classrooms, such as survey results from a representative sample of
teachers demonstrating how standards are being disseminated and
utilized.
Discussion: For any State receiving funds, the Department will
monitor the State's progress in meeting its goals and timelines as
established in its plan. Rather than requiring a State to use survey
results as minimum evidence for this criterion, as some commenters
suggested, we will be gathering this kind of information through
evaluations. As stated elsewhere in this notice, IES will be conducting
a series of national evaluations of Race to the Top State grantees as
part of its evaluation of programs funded under the ARRA. Race to the
Top grantee States are not required to conduct independent evaluations,
but may propose, within their applications, to use funds from Race to
the Top to support independent evaluations. Grantees must make
available, through formal or informal mechanisms, the results of any
evaluations they conduct of their funded activities. In addition, as
described elsewhere in this notice and regardless of the final
components of the national evaluation, Race to the Top States, LEAs,
and schools are required to make work developed under this grant freely
available to others, and should identify and share promising practices
and make data available to stakeholders and researchers (in appropriate
ways that must comply with FERPA, including 34 CFR Part 99, as well as
State and local requirements regarding privacy).
Changes: None.
[[Page 59740]]
C. Data Systems To Support Instruction
Definitions: Instructional Improvement System
Comments regarding the preceding definition are addressed, as
appropriate, below.
Selection Criterion (C)(1): Fully Implementing a Statewide
Longitudinal Data System (Proposed Selection Criterion (B)(1)):
Comment: Many commenters supported criterion (C)(1) that provides
for a State to be evaluated based on the extent to which it has a
statewide longitudinal data system that includes all of the America
COMPETES Act elements. Other commenters suggested that the Department
consider using Race to the Top funds for purposes other than data
systems, such as providing direct services in schools with demonstrated
needs or improving the infrastructure for the delivery of instruction.
One commenter suggested using the funds to develop new standards and
assessments first, rather than building a longitudinal data system
based on current standards and assessment systems. One commenter
suggested that rather than having a major focus on State collection and
sharing of data, the Department should require States to help schools
and LEAs develop longitudinal data collection systems.
Discussion: The Department appreciates the support for the
development and implementation of statewide longitudinal data systems.
We disagree with commenters who recommend that funds not be used for
this purpose. Data is an important tool to identify needs and improve
instruction. In addition, section 14006(a)(2) of the ARRA directs the
Secretary to make grants to States that have made significant progress
in meeting the objectives of paragraphs (2), (3), (4), and (5) of
section 14005(d), including the development of statewide longitudinal
data systems that include the elements described in section
6401(e)(2)(D) of the America COMPETES Act. While criterion (C)(1) is a
measure of the current status of States' implementation of their
statewide longitudinal data systems under the America COMPETES Act (as
defined in this notice), both criteria (C)(2) and (C)(3) provide for
the evaluation of States' plans to enhance their statewide longitudinal
data systems and local instructional improvement systems. Funds awarded
under the Department's statewide longitudinal data systems grants
program may also be used, in coordination with Race to the Top funds,
to build out a State's data infrastructure.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter indicated that a State should plan for the
operational costs of implementing data systems that a Race to the Top
grant does not cover. This commenter recommended that the Department
require each State to specifically indicate in its application how it
plans to technically and financially support LEAs across the State,
including developing contracts and systems that can reduce costs by
involving multiple LEAs.
Discussion: We agree with commenters that it is important for a
State to consider funding issues in its data system implementation
plans, as well as its overall plans. Under criterion (A)(2)(i)(e), a
State will be evaluated on the extent to which it has a high-quality
overall plan to ensure that it has the capacity required to implement
its proposed plans by using the fiscal, political, and human capital
resources of the State to continue, after the period of funding has
ended, those reforms funded under the grant for which there is evidence
of success.
Changes: None.
Comment: Many commenters applauded criterion (C)(1), which
evaluates the extent to which a 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. Several commenters
specifically highlighted the importance of including unique identifiers
for students, teachers, and administrators in the list of America
COMPETES Act data elements. However, many commenters suggested
additional data elements that should be collected and reported through
these systems.
Commenters indicated that these data systems should include
multiple achievement measures and multiple data sources, such as annual
achievement data for all core academic subjects, as defined in the
ESEA, valid and reliable local and State assessment results, formative
assessment results, performance assessment results, and English
language proficiency results. One commenter recommended that the data
systems include data that demonstrate a student's ability to apply,
analyze, synthesize and evaluate content knowledge. A few commenters
recommended collecting data on the rates of students reading at grade-
level by grade 3.
Some commenters recommended various ways data should be
disaggregated. They suggested that statewide longitudinal data systems
be designed to allow for analysis of student achievement by race,
ethnicity, socioeconomic status, gender, disability, and English
language learner status. One commenter recommended that the Department
encourage States to disaggregate data of vulnerable populations such as
pregnant and parenting students. One commenter noted that it is
critical that the statewide longitudinal data system measure all
proficiency levels (i.e., below proficiency, at proficiency, above
proficiency, and advanced) instead of just measuring below or above
proficiency.
Other commenters recommended non-assessment related data elements
to be included in statewide longitudinal data systems, such as college
readiness indicators, graduation rates, attendance rates, student
enrollment data, course enrollment, student mobility rates, budget
information, completion rates, curriculum changes, and instructional
time. A few commenters suggested that in order to evaluate the progress
of individual students through the K-12 system and into postsecondary
education, systems should include information such as the percentage of
students from each high school enrolling in institutions of higher
education, students taking remedial or developmental coursework in
college, or the points at which students exit, transfer in, transfer
out, drop out, or complete P-16 education programs. One commenter
suggested that the data systems include model lesson plans for
teachers.
Some commenters recommended including data related to indicators of
school safety, culture and climate. Others suggested including
information about student, family and community engagement. A few
commenters requested that the data systems include student social
service-related data elements and health indicators, such as
immunization rates, asthma rates, vision and hearing screening, and
obesity rates. Several commenters recommended including measures of
students' social and emotional health and character development. Others
believed that data systems should provide data regarding the numbers of
transfers, dropout rates, chronic absenteeism, suspension rates,
truancy, and dropout re-enrollment in order to trigger supports and
interventions for students and families.
Commenters also suggested that statewide longitudinal data systems
should include data about teaching and learning conditions, such as
teacher recruitment and retention, educator turnover, pupil and teacher
ratios,
[[Page 59741]]
subject area teacher certification, full-time equivalent teacher
employment, and the commitment to current educational programs (i.e.,
whether the curriculum has changed) in order to help schools, districts
and States better understand supports and barriers to teacher
effectiveness.
One commenter recommended that statewide longitudinal data systems
include information about English language learners, such as the type
of English language learner instructional program in which a student
participates, time in that program, level of English proficiency, and
date of reclassification. Some commenters suggested requiring data
about student participation in other programs, such as data on students
served in gifted and talented education programs, innovative programs,
expanded learning programs, or students receiving advanced coursework.
One commenter recommended that data on technology use be explicitly
included in statewide longitudinal data systems.
Some commenters recommended that statewide longitudinal data
systems include linkages with students in adult basic education,
workforce and skills training programs and corrections systems, and
student information from State employment wage records.
One commenter stated that we did not provide sufficient
justification for why all these data elements are essential. Another
commenter suggested that the Department give States latitude to define
the elements included in their data systems.
Discussion: Some of the data elements suggested by commenters
mirror the data elements listed in the America COMPETES Act. Although
the Department will not be evaluating whether a State's system has
information beyond the 12 elements of the America COMPETES Act, we
recognize the varying needs and capabilities of States, and we
encourage States to track additional information through their
longitudinal data systems or to add additional components to their
State plans to the extent the State deems appropriate. However, the
Department recognizes the financial burden of collecting data, and we
believe that it is sufficient to specifically evaluate States only on
the extent to which their statewide longitudinal data systems include
the elements in the America COMPETES Act.
As stated in invitational priority 4, 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, English language learner programs, early childhood
programs, at-risk and drop-out prevention programs, and school climate
and culture programs, as well as information on student mobility, human
resources (i.e. information on teachers, principals, and other staff),
finance, student health, postsecondary, and other relevant areas, with
the purpose of connecting and coordinating all parts of the system to
allow important questions related to policy, practice, or overall
effectiveness to be asked and answered, and incorporated into effective
continuous improvement practices. While the Secretary is interested in
applications that meet this invitational priority, a State meeting the
priority would not receive additional points or preference over other
applications. A State will be evaluated based on the extent to which it
has a statewide longitudinal data system that includes all of the
elements specified in section 6401(e)(2)(D) of the America COMPETES
Act.
Changes: None.
Early Childhood
Comment: Several commenters supported the fact that a statewide
longitudinal data system, as specified by the America COMPETES Act,
would include student information beginning at the pre-kindergarten
level. Some commenters recommended that the Department require a State
to expand its longitudinal data system by linking with available data
on young children; their participation in early childhood education
programs; and the characteristics, quality, staffing, and funding of
those programs in order to increase access, improve quality, identify
critical social services and interventions, and align standards,
curricula and assessments from pre-kindergarten through grade 3. A few
commenters recommended that a data system be designed so that data
eventually can be captured at birth and fed into a Quality Rating
Improvement System, if a State has such a system.
Discussion: We agree with commenters that data about early
childhood education programs are important to help ensure that young
children begin school ready to learn. The America COMPETES Act elements
specify a pre-kindergarten-16 data system. If it chooses, a State may
link its longitudinal data system to available data on young children
and their participation in early childhood programs, consistent with
FERPA, including 34 CFR Part 99. This notice has several invitational
priorities regarding early childhood programs: (a) Invitational
priority 3, inviting applications in which the State plans to create
practices, strategies, or programs to improve educational outcomes for
high-need young children by enhancing the quality of preschool
programs; (b) invitational priority 4, which invites applications that
propose to expand statewide longitudinal data systems to include or
integrate data from early childhood programs, among other programs; and
(c) invitational priority 5, inviting applications in which the State
plans to address how early childhood programs, K-12 schools,
postsecondary institutions, workforce development organizations, and
other State agencies and community partners, will coordinate to improve
all parts of the education system and create a more seamless pre-
kindergarten-20 route for students. While the Secretary is interested
in applications that meet these invitational priorities, we decline to
require that statewide longitudinal data systems include additional
information about early childhood programs because that would go beyond
the data elements specified in the America COMPETES Act.
Changes: None.
Timeline
Comment: Many commenters suggested that a State be evaluated based
on the degree of progress it has made on developing a system that would
comply with the America COMPETES Act rather than on the extent to which
a State has completed these efforts. Another commenter suggested a
State be judged on a plan to implement any missing elements of its
statewide longitudinal data system. Several commenters also stated that
it is not feasible for some States to have a completed statewide
longitudinal data system to be in place by September 30, 2011, the date
specified in the notice of proposed requirements for the State Fiscal
Stabilization Fund.
Discussion: The State Reform Conditions Criteria are used to assess
a State's past progress and its success in creating conditions for
reform in special areas related to the four ARRA education reform
areas. A State will be judged on the extent to which it has, already in
place, a statewide longitudinal data system that includes the elements
in the America COMPETES Act. Some commenters misunderstood criterion
(C)(1); this notice does not require the statewide longitudinal data
system to be completed by a particular date. Rather, a State will
receive points for the elements it has completed at the time it submits
its application.
Changes: None.
[[Page 59742]]
Development of a Statewide Longitudinal Data System
Comment: Several commenters stressed the importance of stakeholder
support and technical expertise in the development and implementation
of statewide longitudinal data systems. Some commenters suggested that
we provide incentives to encourage States to design data systems using
input from professional standards boards. Other commenters recommended
seeking feedback from parents, businesses, educators, community-based
partners, universities, hospitals, and students on the content and
overall effectiveness of the statewide longitudinal data system.
Discussion: We agree with commenters that stakeholder and expert
support in developing a longitudinal data system is important. However,
we believe that each State is in the best position to determine how
best to solicit technical expertise and stakeholder support and from
which groups. Accordingly, we do not believe it is necessary to specify
the input and support each State should seek.
Changes: None.
Comment: Some commenters suggested particular qualities of strong
statewide longitudinal data systems. They argued that data sets must be
common across districts, cross-operational, and supportive of
developing a robust, accurate, and immediately useful data mine.
Commenters emphasized the importance of developing data systems that
are comprehensive, systemic, reliable, valid, and designed for long-
term use. One commenter suggested that the Department ensure data
elements are used to create uniform cohorts.
Discussion: We agree with commenters that these are important
characteristics of a statewide longitudinal data system. We believe
that the 12 data elements in the America COMPETES Act represent the
qualities suggested by the commenters, and therefore, no change is
necessary.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended that the State data systems
should reflect sufficient grade-to-grade alignment in order to ensure
that valid grade-level growth determinations can be made in each State.
This commenter urged that the Department require that such growth
measures be used only with vertically scaled assessments that are
appropriate for examining value-added growth. Two commenters
recommended emphasizing the importance of States using cohort data in
the statewide longitudinal data systems for determining student
progress.
Discussion: We agree with commenters who emphasize the importance
of data and assessment systems that support the measurement of student
growth. In this notice, student growth is defined as the change in
achievement data for an individual student between two or more points
in time. A State may also include other measures that are rigorous and
comparable across classrooms. Given this definition, we decline to
specify or restrict the structure of statewide longitudinal data or
assessment systems but rather allow States the flexibility to develop
data and assessment systems, as long as they support a growth measure
that is rigorous and comparable across classrooms.
Changes: None.
Comment: Many commenters stressed that it was important for States
to develop interoperable data systems that are aligned with existing
technology platforms and able to incorporate data from existing data
management systems. Commenters also stressed the importance of ensuring
that statewide longitudinal data systems can ``communicate'' with each
other so that the data in these systems can be used by early childhood
centers and institutions of higher education, within and among schools,
within and among LEAs, among State and local agencies, across States
and with Federal agencies. One commenter requested that the Department
provide additional clarification regarding America COMPETES Act element
(4), ``the capacity to communicate with higher education data systems''
and whether this capacity includes data integration or two-way
communication.
Discussion: The COMPETES Act requires a statewide longitudinal data
system to have the capacity to communicate with higher education data
systems. Therefore, statewide longitudinal data systems should have the
ability to link an individual student record from one system to
another, consistent with FERPA, including 34 CFR Part 99. Additionally,
these systems should meet interoperability and portability standards,
which will ensure that they have timely and reliable opportunities to
share data across different sectors within a State and across States.
Timely and reliable information from across sectors will facilitate the
evaluation of which program or combinations of programs is improving
outcomes for students. Note that States must consider how to protect
student privacy as data are shared across agencies. Successful
applicants that receive Race to the Top grant awards will need to
comply with FERPA, including 34 CFR Part 99, as well as State and local
requirements regarding privacy.
Changes: None.
Selection Criterion (C)(2) (proposed Selection Criterion (B)(2)):
Accessing and using State data:
Uses of Data
Comment: Several commenters expressed support for our proposal to
evaluate State Race to the Top applications based on the extent to
which the State plans to use this data to inform and engage key
stakeholders, such as policymakers, parents, students, and the public,
so that they have information about how well students are performing.
Many commenters recommended that these data systems should also be used
to identify continuous improvement goals, address barriers that
compromise student success, and highlight understanding of best
practices. Some commenters suggested these data systems be used to
improve instructional practice by facilitating the use of
differentiated instruction, to make individualized decisions about
students' academic and developmental needs, and to design comprehensive
interventions to address those needs. A few commenters suggested that
States use these data systems to inform professional development and
teacher and administrator evaluations, evaluate teacher preparation
programs, allow for the monitoring of teacher and principal
assignments, and ensure equitable distribution of teachers. One
commenter suggested that data be used to address conditions that lead
to the racial isolation of low income students. Commenters recommended
that data systems be used to inform strategic planning, inform resource
allocation decisions, and support decision-makers in overall
organizational effectiveness. In order to ensure that all students have
equitable access to education, one commenter recommended that data be
analyzed to identify and implement an appropriate array of options that
use early access to college coursework as a way to promote college
readiness for every student.
Discussion: Criterion (C)(2) will be used to evaluate a State on
the extent to which it has a high-quality plan to ensure that the data
from its statewide longitudinal data system are accessible to, and used
to inform and engage decision-makers in the continuous improvement of
policy, instruction, operations, management, resource allocation, and
overall effectiveness. We
[[Page 59743]]
agree with the commenters that data from these systems can be used for
many of the purposes indentified by the commenters. However, we believe
most of these are covered in the broad categories of instruction,
operations management, and resource allocation. We are revising the
criterion to specify that such data can also be used in the areas of
``policy'' and ``overall effectiveness.''
Changes: We have revised criterion (C)(2) to include ``policy,''
and ``overall effectiveness'' as areas for which data may be used.
Building Capacity
Comment: Several commenters stated that the Race to the Top funds
should be used to build State capacity for data accuracy, analysis, and
dissemination. One commenter urged the Department to consider ways to
help States expand and use longitudinal data systems. Other commenters
recommended that a State be judged on its capacity to use the data
contained in these systems or how it has moved from collecting data to
transforming the data into actionable information for use.
Discussion: We agree with the commenter that State plans under this
criterion should include a proposal for how the State will improve its
own capacity to analyze and use data. We believe the criterion makes
this clear and that no further changes are needed. In addition,
invitational priority 4 indicates that the Secretary is 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 States, rather than having each
State build or continue building such systems independently. We will
consider the commenter's request for the Department to help States
expand their statewide longitudinal data systems as we develop plans to
provide technical assistance to grantees.
Changes: None.
Accessibility of Data
Comment: Some commenters recommended adding language to criterion
(C)(2) to ensure that data from a State's statewide longitudinal data
system are accessible to key stakeholders. For instance, commenters
suggested requiring a State to describe how its data are presented in a
format and language that key stakeholders can access and understand,
and are in a format that is easy to interpret and analyze. One
commenter suggested that this notice compel a State to describe the
format (e.g., dashboards, reports, data downloads) and timelines in
which it plans to provide the appropriate level of data to the
different stakeholders, as well as its communication plans to ensure
that stakeholders are aware this information is available. Some
commenters were especially concerned that the data are accessible to
communities and families, and in particular, that these stakeholders be
provided support in understanding data and their uses to monitor
children's progress and to hold districts and schools accountable.
A few commenters recommended that States and LEAs provide parents
and the public with clear and concise annual reports that are useful
and relevant to all constituencies. Commenters suggested topics that
should be included in these reports, such as an overall assessment of
education, reports on school quality, descriptions of progress in the
core academic subjects, and indicators of the health and safety of
children. One commenter suggested that States include in reports an
opportunity-to-learn index to track data about the quality of State and
local education systems. Another commenter suggested that reports
provide teachers with data on the growth of their students on interim
or summative assessments. A few commenters noted the importance of
consultation with stakeholders after the data are reported,
recommending that States and LEAs address in their application how they
plan to disseminate and explain the data to stakeholders and how they
will use community input to develop a plan of action to improve
schools.
Discussion: We agree with commenters that data should be accessible
to key stakeholders and that reports including those data should
provide useful information to them. A State's application will be
evaluated on the extent to which it has a high-quality plan to make
sure its data are accessible to, and used to inform and engage key
stakeholders. However, we decline to specify the exact format of the
data, what might be included in reports, the specific input or
consultation with stakeholders, or the timelines for sharing data given
the unique nature of statewide longitudinal data systems and the
differing needs of constituencies within States. These are all
potential elements that States could include, however, in their Race to
the Top plans.
Changes: None.
Comment: Some commenters suggested adding to the list of
stakeholders in criterion (C)(2) other groups who should have access to
data from statewide longitudinal data systems, such as families
(instead of parents), youth-serving community-based organizations and
value-added intermediaries, parent teacher associations, nonprofit
organizations, workforce investment boards, business leaders, community
groups, institutions of higher education involved in the preparation of
new teachers, and early childhood program providers.
Discussion: The list of stakeholders in criterion (C)(2) is meant
to be illustrative, but not exhaustive. States should make data
available, consistent with FERPA, including 34 CFR Part 99, to any
relevant stakeholder it deems appropriate. We do not, however, think it
is necessary to add more examples of stakeholders to this criterion.
Changes: None.
Comment: Many commenters recommended that the Department require a
State to address how public charter schools will have the same access
to the information produced by these data systems as traditional public
schools. Commenters believed that access to high-quality student-level
data is critical to the successful operation of all public schools,
including public charter schools, and is a key underpinning of any
accountability based system. Another commenter requested that the
Department clarify that charter schools must provide data to States.
Discussion: The Department agrees that charter schools should have
the same access to the information produced by statewide longitudinal
data systems as traditional public schools and States should ensure
this access. Nothing in this notice would prohibit equal access to data
for public charter schools. Public charter schools must provide States
with any data specified by the State on the same basis as other public
schools.
Changes: None.
Privacy Issues
Comments: Several commenters recommended that the Department
require a State to provide assurances concerning the safeguards it has
in place to protect the privacy of students and school employees as
data about them are shared.
Discussion: States must consider how to protect student privacy as
data are shared. Successful applicants that receive Race to the Top
grant awards will need to comply with FERPA, and its implementing
regulations 34 CFR Part 99, as well as any applicable State and local
requirements. Because a State's compliance with FERPA is a requirement
with which all recipients of Department funds must meet, we are
removing the reference to compliance
[[Page 59744]]
with FERPA from the text of the selection criteria in (C). To remind
States of their obligations under FERPA, we are including a footnote
with a reference to the statute and implementing regulations in this
section.
The Department agrees that teacher and principal privacy also must
be protected. However, teacher and principal privacy is governed by
State law. States, LEAs, and schools should consider their individual
State privacy statutes when addressing these privacy issues in the
establishment of a statewide longitudinal data system.
Changes: We moved the references to FERPA from the criteria in (C)
to a footnote in that same section.
Comments: Several commenters stated that the Department should
harmonize Federal policy to ensure that individual privacy protections
are safeguarded in a way that does not interfere with timely and
necessary information sharing. Some commenters expressed concern that
States may face challenges in fully implementing statewide longitudinal
data systems while meeting the requirements of FERPA unless current
FERPA regulations regarding data-sharing among State agencies are
revised. They recommended that the FERPA regulations be revised to
explicitly allow for interagency data exchanges so the Administration's
policy goals for Race to the Top can be realized.
Discussion: The Department recognizes that further clarity on FERPA
and the America COMPETES Act will facilitate States' ability to develop
and implement statewide longitudinal data systems that contain all 12
data elements outlined in the America COMPETES Act. The establishment
of a statewide longitudinal data system with the necessary
functionality to incorporate all 12 of the COMPETES Act elements, by
itself, does not violate FERPA. The actual implementation of such a
system (including the disclosure and redisclosure of personally
identifiable information from education records) also does not violate
FERPA provided that States follow FERPA's specific requirements. For
example, the Department's current interpretation of FERPA is not a
barrier to importing data into an educational agency from another State
agency, since FERPA only applies to the personally identifiable
information contained in education records. In the following
discussions, in response to specific questions from commenters, we
provide greater detail about how a statewide longitudinal data system
may be established and implemented in compliance with FERPA. The
Department is not aware of any other Federal laws that would prohibit
or pose barriers to a State establishing a statewide longitudinal data
system. To the extent that State laws present barriers to the
development of a statewide longitudinal data system in compliance with
the ARRA, the State will likely need to take specific actions to
address those barriers. The Department will provide further
clarification in this area as warranted.
Changes: None.
Comments: Some commenters asked the Department to clearly explain
how post-secondary institutions, K-12, and pre-kindergarten-K education
systems can share restricted student information.
Discussion: As stated previously, the establishment of a statewide
longitudinal data system with the necessary functionality to
incorporate all 12 of the COMPETES Act elements, including the sharing
of data between pre-kindergarten-12 and postsecondary data systems, by
itself, does not violate FERPA. States also may implement a statewide
longitudinal data system that includes the disclosure and redisclosure
of personally identifiable information from education records in a
manner that complies with FERPA. In addition to complying with FERPA,
any sharing of student data must also comply with the requirements of
34 CFR 104.42(b)(4) (the regulations implementing section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act), generally prohibiting postsecondary institutions
from making pre-admission inquiries about an applicant's disability
status.
We first address the question of the disclosure and redisclosure of
personally identifiable information in the pre-kindergarten context.
The disclosure of personally identifiable information from pre-
kindergarten to LEAs is not affected by FERPA with respect to pre-
kindergarten programs that do not receive funding from the Department,
as FERPA does not apply to those programs. With respect to pre-
kindergarten programs that receive funding from the Department, the
non-consensual disclosure of personally identifiable information from
the students' pre-kindergarten education records to LEAs is permitted
under the enrollment exception in the FERPA regulations, provided that
certain notification and access requirements are met. (20 U.S.C.
1232g(b)(1)(B); 34 CFR 99.31(a)(2) and 99.34).
The second issue raised by commenters involved the sharing of
information between postsecondary institutions and SEAs. Similar to the
pre-kindergarten context, the non-consensual disclosure of personally
identifiable information from K-12 education records to a postsecondary
institution is permitted under the enrollment exception, provided the
notification and access conditions are met. Postsecondary institutions
may disclose personally identifiable information to an SEA under the
evaluation exception if the SEA has the authority to conduct an audit
or evaluation of the postsecondary institution's education programs.
(20 U.S.C. 1232g(b)(1)(C), (b)(3), and (b)(5); 34 CFR 99.31(a)(3) and
99.35). States that have not established the requisite authority may do
so in a number of ways, such as: (1) Creating an entity in the State to
house the statewide longitudinal data system and endowing that entity
with the authority to conduct evaluations of elementary, secondary, and
postsecondary education programs; or (2) granting authority at the SEA
or IHE level to conduct evaluations of elementary, secondary and
postsecondary education programs. States may grant authority through
various vehicles, including for example, Executive Orders, regulations
and legislation. In some States the formation documents for SEAs, IHEs
or other educational entities may already grant the necessary
authority; however, explicit statutory authority is not required by
FERPA.
The Department recognizes that there is considerable variation
among States' governance structures and laws, and that using this
exception to obtain personally identifiable information from
postsecondary institutions may be difficult. The Department is
currently reviewing its regulations and policies in this area and will
be in close communications with States over the next several months
regarding these issues. Of course, the Department also is available,
upon request, to provide States with technical assistance on how to
implement a statewide longitudinal data system that meets the
requirements of FERPA.
Changes: None.
Comment: A few commenters requested that the Department provide
specific guidance about the de-identification process that all States
must adhere to in order to share potentially identifiable information
about students.
Discussion: It is not possible to prescribe or identify a single
method to minimize the risk of disclosing personally identifiable
information in redacted records or statistical information that will
apply in every circumstance, including determining whether defining a
minimum cell size is an appropriate means to protect the
[[Page 59745]]
confidentiality of aggregated data and, if so, selection of an
appropriate number. This is because determining whether a particular
set of methods for de-identifying data and limiting disclosure risk is
adequate cannot be made without examining the underlying data sets,
other data that have been released, publicly available directories, and
other data that are linked or can be linked to the information in
question. For these reasons, we are unable to provide examples of rules
and policies that necessarily meet the de-identification requirements
in 34 CFR 99.31(b). The releasing party is responsible for conducting
its own analysis and identifying the best methods to protect the
confidentiality of information from education records it chooses to
release. We recommend that State educational authorities, educational
agencies and institutions, and other parties refer to the examples and
methods described in the notice of proposed rulemaking to amend its
FERPA regulations that the Department published in the Federal Register
on March 24, 2008 (73 FR 15574, 15584) (FERPA notice of proposed
rulemaking) and refer to the Federal Committee on Statistical
Methodology's Statistical Policy Working Paper 22,
http://www.fcsm.gov/working-papers/spwp22.html, for additional guidance.
Further, as noted in the preceding paragraph and in the preamble to
the FERPA NPRM, use of minimum cell sizes or data suppression is only
one of several ways in which information from education records may be
de-identified before release. Statistical Policy Working Paper 22
describes other disclosure limitation methods, such as ``top coding''
and ``data swapping,'' which may be more suitable than simple data
suppression for releasing the maximum amount of information to the
public without breaching confidentiality requirements. Decisions
regarding whether to use data suppression or some other method or
combination of methods to avoid disclosing personally identifiable
information in statistical information must be made on a case-by-case
basis.
With regard to issues with ESEA reporting in particular,
determining the minimum cell size to ensure statistical reliability of
information is a completely different analysis than that used to
determine the appropriate minimum cell size to ensure confidentiality.
Changes: None.
Selection Criterion (C)(3): Using data to improve instruction
(proposed Selection Criterion (B)(3)):
Comment: One commenter recommended that a State describe in its
plan the State and LEA roles and responsibilities related to using data
to improve instruction, including how the plan would ensure that LEAs
are primarily responsible for creating instructional improvement
systems with assistance and support from the State. One commenter
recommended that the Department increase the explicit emphasis on
adoption and implementation of local data and instructional improvement
systems.
Discussion: Application requirement (e)(4) requires States to
describe, for each Reform Plan Criteria that it chooses to address, the
parties responsible for implementing the activities. We therefore do
not feel it is necessary to specify in the criterion itself that a
State should describe its roles and responsibilities and that of its
LEAs. However, we agree with the commenters that criterion (C)(3)(i)
concerns local instructional improvement systems, and we are revising
it to clarify this. We are also clarifying that the plans under this
criterion should include efforts to increase the acquisition and
adoption of such systems.
Changes: Criterion (C)(3)(i) now begins, ``Increase the
acquisition, adoption, and use of local instructional improvement
systems.''
Comment: Some commenters suggested that a State be evaluated on the
degree to which it can demonstrate collaboration and cooperation with
and among LEAs. Several commenters recommended that the Department
include an incentive for States and LEAs to learn from outstanding LEAs
in data development and reporting in order to improve vertical
alignment of the State's education system.
Discussion: As described elsewhere in this notice, States receiving
Race to the Top funds, along with their LEAs and schools, are expected
to identify and share promising practices, make work freely available
to others and make data available in appropriate ways that comply with
FERPA to stakeholders and researchers. Specifically, criterion
(A)(1)(ii) provides for the evaluation of a State based on the extent
to which the participating LEAs are strongly committed to the State's
plans and to effective implementation of reform in the four education
areas. Criterion (A)(2)(i)(b) asks the State to demonstrate how it will
support participating LEAs in successfully implementing the education
reform plans the State has proposed, through such activities as
identifying promising practices, evaluating these practices'
effectiveness, ceasing ineffective practices, widely disseminating and
replicating the effective practices statewide, holding participating
LEAs accountable for progress and performance, and intervening where
necessary. In addition, under criterion (C)(3)(i), a State will be
evaluated on the extent to which it, in collaboration with its
participating LEAs, has a high-quality plan to increase the LEAs'
acquisition, adoption, and use of local instructional improvement
systems that provide teachers, principals, and administrators with the
information and resources they need to improve their instructional
practices, decision-making, and overall effectiveness. This could
include facilitating collaboration between LEAs. Given these existing
criteria, we do not believe a change is necessary.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested that the Department allow States
to focus on early childhood care and development data systems
exclusively, without penalty for not including K-12 instructional
improvement systems.
Discussion: While we believe it is important for instructional
improvement systems to include tools for improving early childhood
care, we decline to make the commenter's suggested change. Section
14005(c) of the ARRA requires a State, when applying for a Race to the
Top grant, to describe the status of the State's progress in each of
the four assurance areas in section 14005(d), including improving the
collection and use of data. We believe the assurance in the ARRA
related to the use of data is intended to cover all levels of the
educational system.
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters recommended revising criterion
(C)(3)(i) to include other stakeholders, in addition to teachers and
principals, who can benefit from using data to improve instruction,
such as youth development professionals in after-school and summer
programs, mentoring and after-school learning organizations, expanded
learning time partners, early childhood providers, and program
directors.
Discussion: We understand that there are other stakeholders outside
of the school who play critical roles in education. Criterion (C)(2)
addresses how data from a statewide longitudinal data system can be
used by a wide range of stakeholders, whereas criterion (C)(3)(i) is
focused on how data are specifically used in instructional improvement
systems to improve instructional practices, decision-making, and
overall effectiveness during the school day. We believe the list of
stakeholders in criterion (C)(3)(i) is appropriate given this focus,
therefore, we do not believe it is necessary to
[[Page 59746]]
revise this criterion. However, nothing in this notice would prevent a
State from specifying in its plan additional stakeholders who may use
instructional improvement systems.
Changes: None.
Comment: Some commenters stated that, in addition to making data
available, there must also be an equal focus on building the capacity
of educators and school leaders to analyze and use this information.
They argued that a State should describe how it will support its LEAs
in providing effective, collaboratively designed and research-based
professional development, including pre-service training to teachers,
principals and administrators on how to analyze and use these data. One
commenter suggested that professional development opportunities include
a focus on using multiple sources of information to assess student
academic performance; using a variety of strategies to analyze data;
using data to identify barriers for success, design strategies for
improvement, and plan daily instruction; benchmarking successful
schools with similar demographics to identify strategies for
improvement; and, creating a school environment that makes data-driven
decisions.
One commenter suggested that a State should articulate the means by
which it will require educators seeking certification or re-
certification to receive training and show competence in the analysis,
interpretation, and use of data. Several commenters suggested that time
during the school day should be dedicated to data analysis and action
planning for teachers. Another commenter suggested that a State be
required to explain how it will promote an environment (e.g., a climate
of autonomy) in which teachers, principals, and administrators have the
support and conditions to make decisions based on the results of the
data analyses.
Discussion: We agree with commenters that States must support their
LEAs in providing effective professional development. We are adding a
new criterion (C)(3)(ii) to encourage States to support participating
LEAs and schools that are using local instructional improvement systems
to provide effective professional development to teachers, principals,
and administrators on how to use these systems and the resulting data
to support continuous instructional improvement. We are also
clarifying, in criterion (C)(3)(i), that the purpose of instructional
improvement systems is to provide educators with the resources they
need, as well as the information they need. In addition, criterion
(D)(5) addresses the need for high-quality professional development.
The Department also encourages States to utilize current Federal
education funding, for example Title II-A Improving Teacher Quality
State grants, as a funding mechanism to provide further professional
development to teachers in the use of data in the classroom.
We do not believe we should require a State to articulate the means
by which it will require educators seeking certification or re-
certification to receive training and show competence in the analysis,
interpretation, and use of data. A State may address this issue in its
plan if it chooses.
Changes: Criterion (C)(3)(ii) has been added to provide that a
State will be evaluated based on the extent to which it has a high-
quality plan to support LEAs and schools that are using instructional
improvement systems (as defined in this notice) in providing effective
professional development to teachers, principals, and administrators on
how to use these systems and the resulting data to support continuous
instructional improvement. As a result of this addition, proposed
criterion (C)(3)(ii) has been redesignated (C)(3)(iii). We have also
revised criterion (C)(3)(i) to clarify that instructional improvement
systems should provide educators with the ``information and resources
they need to inform and improve their instructional practices,
decision-making, and overall effectiveness.''
Comment: One commenter did not support making data available and
accessible to researchers. This commenter stated that large urban
districts are deluged with requests for information and access to data,
which diverts time and resources from student-centered activities, and
that this misconstrues the purpose of Race to the Top to improve
student achievement and close achievement gaps. Rather than making data
available to researchers for the purposes specified in criterion
(C)(3)(iii), this commenter suggested that the data be available
instead to evaluation contractors and State and Federal officials.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's concern about the
resources needed to share data with researchers. However, we believe it
is very important that researchers, consistent with FERPA, including 34
CFR Part 99, be able to conduct studies to improve instruction. We
therefore decline to make the recommended change to make the data
available only to evaluation contractors and State and Federal
officials.
Changes: None.
Comment: Many commenters suggested that the Department clarify that
instructional improvement systems should identify students who are off-
track to graduation or have dropped out of school. These commenters
said that early warning indicators can be used by LEAs and States to
develop and implement options that will keep students on track, or put
them back on track, to graduation.
Discussion: We agree with the commenter that instructional
improvement systems should provide early warning indicators about
students at risk of educational failure and are revising the definition
of instructional improvement systems accordingly. We also are revising
criterion (C)(3)(iii) to be consistent with criterion (C)(3)(ii) and to
clarify that the data from instructional improvement systems, together
with statewide longitudinal data system data, should be made available
and accessible to researchers.
Changes: We have revised the definition of instructional
improvement systems to clarify that such systems may also integrate
instructional data with other student-level data such as attendance,
discipline, grades, credit accumulation, and student survey results to
provide early warning indicators of a student's risk of educational
failure. We have also revised criterion (C)(3)(iii) to clarify that the
data from ``instructional improvement systems,'' together with
statewide longitudinal data system data, should be made available and
accessible to researchers.
Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department clarify the
definition of instructional improvement systems to reference use of
technology-based tools and other strategies to systemically manage
cycles of continuous instructional improvement. A few commenters
suggested that instructional improvement systems should be research-
based. Some commenters suggested that the definition of this term
should state that the purposes of these systems are to: Ensure that
every student has access to instructional materials that are current
and aligned to these standards; differentiate instruction; provide
individualized learning; gather input and feedback from stakeholders;
translate data into knowledge; drive innovation; use knowledge to
create networks of best practices; and inform decision-making.
Discussion: In response to these comments, we are clarifying the
[[Page 59747]]
definition of instructional improvement systems. However, we are not
specifying additional purposes of instructional improvement systems, as
this could inadvertently discourage States and LEAs from developing new
and innovative strategies for addressing students' learning needs.
In response to the commenters who indicated that instructional
improvement systems should be research-based, we believe that much
research has been done on the effectiveness of using data to inform
instructional decisions. Instructional improvement systems provide
teachers and instructional leaders with the evidence they need to make
informed instructional decisions. Therefore, such systems are a
critical element of any classroom-based, evidence-driven approach to
instruction.
Changes: We have revised the definition of instructional
improvement systems to reference that such systems are ``technology-
based tools and other strategies that provide teachers, principals, and
administrators with meaningful support and actionable data to
systemically manage continuous instructional improvement * * *.'' In
addition, we have included summative assessments as an additional
example of information gathering on instructional improvement.
Performance Measures and Minimum Evidence for Selection Criteria
(C)(1), (C)(2), and (C)(3)
Comment: Several commenters recommended specific performance
measures for criteria (C)(1), (C)(2), and (C)(3). For instance, one
commenter recommended that data performance measures include indices or
rankings on districts' and schools' actual provision of basic resources
and opportunities that the ARRA contemplates. Another commenter
encouraged the Department to include a performance measure that States
must ensure data are in a format and in a language that families can
access and understand, consistent with the myriad roles parents are
required to play under the ESEA. Another commenter recommended that
performance measures for criterion (C)(2) include the results of
surveys of stakeholders. One commenter suggested that performance
measures be used to evaluate the extent to which the output from the
statewide longitudinal data system is geared to stakeholder needs.
Discussion: A State may propose its own performance measure(s) for
the section on Data Systems to Support Instruction. Rather than
requiring particular performance measures for this section, we are
choosing to give a State the flexibility to define its own measures
that are tailored to the context of its statewide longitudinal data
system.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested that criterion (C)(3)(iii) require
minimum evidence to ensure that competing applications are judged in a
consistent manner. Another commenter recommended that minimum evidence
should include the adoption and publication of procedures for the
request and release of longitudinal data for research purposes. In
addition, this commenter suggested that evidence include the State's
partnerships with national researchers to evaluate the effectiveness of
the instructional practices in each participating LEA.
Discussion: We believe that the basic elements of a plan, as
specified in Application Requirement (e), should be sufficient to yield
consistent judging on this criterion. We therefore decline to require
the specific minimum evidence suggested by the commenters.
D. Great Teachers and Leaders
Selection Criterion (D)(1): Providing High-Quality Pathways for
Aspiring Teachers and Principals (Proposed Criterion (C)(1)):
Comment: Many commenters recommended changes to the proposed
definition of alternative certification routes. Two commenters
suggested changing the term to ``alternative routes to certification''
to be consistent with the terminology in criterion (D)(1). Some
commenters recommended that the definition refer to school districts
and nonprofit organizations as providers of programs offering
alternative routes to certification. A few commenters sought to ensure
that programs offering alternative routes to certification be selective
in accepting candidates into their programs. Many commenters objected
to defining an alternative route to certification as one that includes
clinical or student teaching experience, claiming that such experiences
are characteristic of traditional preparation programs, and that other
kinds of training, such as intensive mentoring support during the first
months of teaching, are more valuable than clinical or student teaching
experiences. However, one commenter supported field-based experiences
for principals, and other commenters stated that administrators seeking
alternative routes to certification should have prior teaching
experience.
Commenters also had different views on the level and type of
coursework that should be part of alternative routes to certification.
One commenter supported alternative routes to certification involving
limited amounts of coursework, one commenter disagreed, and a third
commenter specifically recommended requiring substantive coursework in
reading and math content and teaching methods.
Several commenters recommended that the definition include a
requirement that all alternative routes to certification ensure that
graduates of such programs have the skills to address the needs of all
students. One commenter expressed concern that alternative routes to
certification, given their shortened timeframe, are not designed to
ensure that teachers develop the skills needed to effectively instruct
students with disabilities. The commenter recommended strengthening
both traditional and alternative route preparation programs so that all
teachers are more skilled in teaching students with disabilities.
Two commenters sought changes aimed at ensuring that graduates of
alternative routes to certification receive the same level of
certification as teachers and leaders who complete traditional
preparation programs. Similarly, a few commenters recommended that the
Department require States to verify that teachers certified through
alternative routes to certification are treated equally and fairly in
hiring under all State regulations and statutes, while another
commenter suggested sanctioning States that treat alternative routes to
certification as a ``route of last resort.'' On the other hand, one
commenter stated that teachers certified through alternative routes
generally should not be assigned to high-need schools because of their
limited experience.
Discussion: In response to these comments, the Department is making
a number of changes to the definition of alternative certification
routes. First, we agree that the various terms used in the Race to the
Top program should be consistent; therefore, we are changing the
proposed term ``alternative certification routes'' to ``alternative
routes to certification'' in this notice. We also agree that the NPP
was unclear regarding providers of alternative routes to certification,
and are changing the definition to clarify that qualified providers of
States' teacher and administrator preparation programs include both
institutions of higher education and other providers that operate
independently from institutions of higher education. In addition, we
agree that providers of alternative routes to certification, as with
all preparation programs, should be selective in enrolling individuals
in their programs
[[Page 59748]]
and, therefore, are changing the definition to ensure that qualified
providers of teacher and principal preparation programs are selective
in the candidates they accept.
The Department believes it is important to provide prospective
teachers and principals with direct school and classroom experiences as
part of their preparation. Because alternative routes to certification
are accelerated and vary in delivery models, there are a variety of
ways, in addition to clinical or student teaching experiences, to
provide this experience, such as through practicum and job embedded
experiences, coupled with intensive mentoring or support during the
first months of teaching, as suggested by the commenters. We agree with
the commenters and are revising the definition to refer to school-based
experiences and ongoing support such as effective mentoring and
coaching.
As to the extent of the coursework required by programs providing
alternative routes to certification, the Department believes that
States are in the best position to determine the courses and coursework
that could be reduced or limited as a part of any alternative route to
certification program, consistent with the needs of local schools, the
accelerated nature of alternative routes to certification, and the wide
range of previous education and experience that candidates bring to
these programs. The Department, therefore, declines to change the
definition to specify the amount or type of coursework that must be
included in programs providing alternative routes to certification. We
are specifying in the final definition, however, that alternative
routes to certification should include standard features such as
demonstration of subject-matter mastery and high-quality instruction in
pedagogy.
We also believe that programs providing alternative route to
certification should not award levels of certification that are
different from the certifications available from traditional
preparation programs, which could limit the opportunities for teachers
to teach and leaders to lead; rather, alternative routes to
certification programs, whether for teachers or principals, should be
considered different pathways to certification with the same rigor as
other State-approved routes. The Department's view is that States,
LEAs, and schools should treat individuals prepared through State-
approved alternative routes to certification in the same manner as
those prepared and certified through traditional teacher and principal
preparation programs, and we are changing the definition to reflect
this view.
The Department agrees that there is a need to strengthen
preparation programs to prepare teachers and principals to meet the
needs of all students. We are revising the definition of alternative
routes to certification to clarify that such routes should prepare
teachers and principals to address the needs of all students, including
English language learners and students with disabilities.
Changes: We have changed the term ``alternative certification
routes'' to ``alternative routes to certification.'' We also have made
the following changes: (1) Revised clause (a) to clarify that ``other
providers'' refers to ``other providers operating independently from
institutions of higher education''; (2) added a new clause (b) to
clarify that alternative routes to certification programs must be
selective in accepting candidates; (3) re-designated proposed clause
(b) as new clause (c) and changed ``clinical/student teaching
experiences'' to ``supervised, school-based experiences and ongoing
support such as effective mentoring and coaching;'' (4) re-designated
proposed clause (c) as new clause (d); and (5) re-designated proposed
clause (d) as new clause (e) and revised it to clarify that upon
completion, programs providing alternative routes to certification must
award the same level of certification that traditional preparation
programs award upon completion. We have also revised the definition of
alternative routes to certification to clarify that such routes should
include ``standard features such as demonstration of subject-matter
mastery, and high-quality instruction in pedagogy and in addressing the
needs of all students in the classroom including English language
learners and students with disabilities.''
Comment: Many commenters suggested that the Race to the Top
competition places too much emphasis on alternative routes to
certification and recommended that the Department eliminate the focus
on alternative routes and expand the criterion to include multiple
routes. Several commenters expressed concern that alternative routes to
certification are not as effective as traditional routes. Those
commenters argued that alternative routes to certification do not
provide the necessary skill sets to impact teaching and learning, and
do not attract educators with the necessary background to provide
instructional leadership. A few commenters questioned whether criterion
(D)(1) is necessary. One commenter recommended that the Department not
require States to require alternative routes for principals. A few
commenters argued that research shows that alternative routes have not
been as effective as traditional programs. One commenter suggested that
the Department focus on the quality of pathways to certification rather
than the number of those pathways. Multiple commenters suggested that
States develop common standards of performance for those entering the
profession, regardless of the route taken. One commenter recommended
that the Department establish safeguards to ensure that alternative
routes successfully prepare candidates to meet a consistent set of
standards that govern teacher licensure. A few generally supportive
commenters recommended monitoring these routes to ensure quality
programs, and requiring States to provide evidence of a quality control
process for their certification programs.
Discussion: The Department agrees that we should encourage the
creation of high-quality pathways for aspiring teachers and principals
through both traditional and alternative routes to certification. We
are therefore adding criterion (D)(1)(iii), under which States will be
rewarded for having a process for monitoring, evaluating, and
identifying areas of teacher and principal shortage and for preparing
teachers and principals to fill these areas of shortage.
At the same time, we believe it is important to retain the original
substance of proposed criterion (C)(1), regarding alternative routes to
certification, for two reasons. First, to increase the supply of high-
quality talent entering the field of education we must reduce the
barriers to entry into the education profession, especially for high-
achieving individuals, such as individuals who have changed careers and
recent college graduates who have the potential to be good educators.
Alternative routes to certification are typically optimized for such
new entrants into the profession. Second, the Secretary believes that
competition between traditional and alternative certification providers
will help increase the quality of all programs. To provide clarity, and
to emphasize the importance of alternative routes actually being in
use, we are separating proposed criterion (C)(1) into two criteria,
(D)(1)(i) and (D)(1)(ii).
To further support the notion that all teacher and administrator
preparation programs must train candidates to become high-performing
professionals, we proposed in the NPP and establish in this final
notice, criterion (D)(4). This
[[Page 59749]]
criterion is intended to shine a light on the quality of all
preparation programs in the State by providing both potential
candidates and schools recruiting graduates with valuable information
about which programs are actually best preparing candidates for
success. We are also adding criterion (D)(4)(ii), which encourages
States to expand preparation and credentialing options and programs
that are successful at producing effective teachers and principals.
Together, we believe that criteria (D)(1) and (D)(4) provide a
combination of rewards, incentives, and transparency that could result
in significant quality improvements in educator preparation and
recruitment.
Finally, we do not believe we should remove principals from this
criterion. Well-prepared principals are critical to providing the
instructional leadership necessary to support teaching and learning in
our schools. We know that chronically underperforming schools too often
have poor leadership, and that poor leadership drives away good
teachers. The focus on principal preparation is therefore critical.
Changes: Criterion (D)(1) now reads, ``Providing high-quality
pathways for aspiring teachers and principals: The extent to which the
State has--
(i) 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;
(ii) Alternative routes to certification (as defined in this
notice) that are in use; and
(iii) A process for monitoring, evaluating, and identifying areas
of teacher and principal shortage and for preparing teachers and
principals to fill these areas of shortage.''
In addition, we have added criterion (D)(4)(ii), which encourages
States to ``expand preparation and credentialing options and programs
that are successful at producing effective teachers and principals
(both as defined in this notice).''
Comment: One commenter recommended including an additional
requirement that States demonstrate the extent to which their
alternative routes for STEM teachers draw upon nationally recognized
models.
Discussion: The Department places great emphasis in Race to the Top
on STEM, as evidenced by the fact that we have established a
competitive preference priority for STEM proposals in this notice. We
also recognize the importance of using models that have shown success
in raising student achievement in STEM areas. However, we do not
believe it is necessary to require that States demonstrate the extent
to which their alternative routes to certification for STEM teachers
utilize nationally recognized models. We expect that all alternative
routes to certification, including those for STEM teachers, would
include standard features such as demonstration of subject-matter
mastery, and high-quality instruction in pedagogy and in addressing the
needs of all students in the classroom including English language
learners and student with disabilities. As previously stated, we are
adding language to the definition of alternative routes to
certification that clarifies this point.
Changes: None.
Comment: Two commenters recommended that a portion of the Race to
the Top funds be used to promote new approaches to alternative routes
to certification, incentivizing existing programs to adopt research-
based and effective strategies.
Discussion: The Department recognizes that there are many research-
based, innovative practices that can help teachers, principals, and
others improve student achievement. Nothing in this notice prevents
States from engaging in or supporting such innovation. The Department
notes that it recently announced proposed priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria for the Investing in Innovation
Fund. Established under section 14007 of the ARRA, the Investing in
Innovation fund will provide competitive grants to expand the
implementation of innovative practices that show the promise of
significantly improving K-12 student achievement for high-need
students, as well as help close the achievement gap, and improve
teacher and principal effectiveness. The grants will allow eligible
entities to expand their work and serve as models of best practices.
LEAs and nonprofit organizations interested in developing new
approaches to improve teacher and principal effectiveness in meeting
the needs of high-need students and scaling-up such strategies may wish
to consider applying for an Investing in Innovation grant.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended that, instead of asking States
to show the extent to which they encourage alternative routes to
certification, States should be required to demonstrate the extent to
which teacher preparation programs partner with high-need LEAs and
schools to meet the specific personnel needs of those LEAs and schools.
Discussion: The Department agrees that creating partnerships
between effective teacher preparation programs and high-need LEAs and
schools could be an effective strategy to meet personnel needs. As
discussed earlier, we are adding criterion (D)(1)(iii), which is
focused on identifying areas of teacher and principal shortage and
preparing teachers and principals to fill them. States could address
part of this criterion by establishing the partnerships suggested by
the commenter.
Changes: None.
Selection Criterion (D)(2): Improving Teacher and Principal
Effectiveness Based on Performance (Proposed Criterion (C)(2)):
Comment: Several commenters recommended requiring that teacher and
principal evaluations be conducted at the local level and that States
only provide support rather than be directly involved in the evaluation
process. Many commenters also stated that the consequences of those
evaluations (e.g., performance pay) should also be decided at a local
level. Those commenters argued that local school systems are better
able to identify effective and ineffective educators, allowing for
meaningful comparisons and interpretations across schools. Another
commenter recommended adding an assurance encouraging States to provide
local control to principals over issues such as hiring, leadership team
appointments, school-based funding, and scheduling flexibility. Two
commenters suggested replacing ``differentiating'' in the title of
criterion (D)(2) (proposed criterion (C)(2)) with ``evaluating.'' Other
commenters stated that the focus of this criterion should be primarily
on improving the performance of teachers and principals in order to
improve student achievement.
Discussion: It was the Department's intent that LEAs would be the
entities conducting teacher and principal evaluations and making
informed decisions, based on the evaluations, regarding teacher and
principal development, compensation, promotion, retention, tenure, and
removal. We are revising criterion (D)(2) to clarify that participating
LEAs (as defined in this notice) should perform these functions and
States should have a plan for ensuring that participating LEAs do so.
While differentiating performance is an important component of
evaluation systems, we agree that criterion (D)(2) is focused on
improving teacher and principal effectiveness, and we are changing the
title to make this clear. We
[[Page 59750]]
also have made the development of evaluation systems (rather than
differentiation) the centerpiece of this criterion by revising (D)(2)
to encourage the design and implementation of high-quality evaluation
systems, and to promote their use for feedback, professional
improvement, and decision-making.
Changes: We have revised criterion (D)(2) to clarify that the
State's role is to ``ensure that participating LEAs'' perform the
functions described in criterion (D)(2). We have also replaced
``differentiating'' with ``improving'' in the title of criterion
(D)(2). We have also reframed this criterion so that it focuses on the
creation and use of evaluation systems.
Comment: One commenter recommended changing criterion (D)(2)(i)
(proposed criterion (C)(2)(a)) to read ``Establish and provide a clear
description of a system to measure impact on student growth (as defined
in this notice) that uses a rigorous statistical approach.''
Discussion: We accept the commenter's suggested language, in part.
We do not, however, believe it is necessary to include in criterion
(D)(2)(i) that the measure of student growth uses a rigorous
statistical approach. The definition of student growth in this notice
already provides that the approaches used to measure growth must be
rigorous. We are changing criterion (D)(2)(i) to reflect the first part
of the commenter's suggested language. We are also clarifying that
growth should be measured for each individual student.
Changes: Criterion (D)(2)(i) has been revised to read, ``Establish
clear approaches to measuring student growth (as defined in this
notice) and measure it for each individual student.''
Comment: One commenter asked for clarification regarding the word
``overall'' in the proposed definition of an effective principal.
Discussion: The word ``overall'' in the definition of effective
principal refers to the performance of all of the students in the
school, taken as a whole. The analogue from the ESEA is the ``all
students'' group used in AYP determinations. We are removing the
reference to section 1111(b)(2)(C)(v)(II) of the ESEA from the
definition of effective principal because, as noted elsewhere, a new
paragraph (g) in the Application Requirements section of this notice
explains that references to ESEA subgroups throughout the notice are
the subgroups described in section 1111(b)(2)(C)(v)(II) of the ESEA.
Changes: We have removed the parenthetical ``(described in section
1111(b)(2)(C)(v)(II) of the ESEA)'' from the definition of effective
principal.
Comment: Many commenters stated that the proposed definition of
effective principal relies too heavily on standardized test scores as
the sole measure of effectiveness. Several commenters recommended that
the definition be changed to require States to expand the definition
beyond student growth to include multiple measures such as
effectiveness as a leader; effective fiscal management; student,
community, and parental engagement; effective school safety; evidence
of providing a supportive teaching and learning environment;
discipline; college matriculation rates; college readiness rates; and
data on staff turnover rates and working conditions. One commenter
suggested balancing the evaluation of principals by including data from
State assessments and other data on student learning in all core
academic subjects, so as to avoid ``narrowing the curriculum.'' Other
commenters emphasized the principal's role in creating a positive
school climate, engaging students, increasing the number of effective
teachers, continuous improvement, connecting learning to solving
community problems, implementing school-wide practices that drive
substantial student achievement gains, and preparing students for
success in work and post-secondary education. One commenter suggested
supplementing the definition to state that an effective principal is
one who demonstrates growth in the number and percentage of effective
and highly effective teachers within the school through demonstrated
success in strategies such as teacher recruitment and selection,
retention, high quality data-driven professional development, feedback
and coaching to individual teachers, counseling out, and fair
dismissals.
Discussion: The Department believes that student growth must be a
significant factor in determining principal effectiveness. However, we
agree with commenters that data on student growth should not be used as
the sole means of evaluating principals and that States, LEAs, and
schools should supplement student growth with other measures of
effectiveness. Accordingly, we are revising the definition of effective
principal to require that they do so. While we cannot include in the
definition all of the measures recommended by the commenters, we
believe it is important to include several examples for illustrative
purposes and are adding examples of the following measures in the
definition of effective principal: high school graduation rates and
college enrollment rates, as well as evidence of providing supportive
teaching and learning conditions, strong instructional leadership, and
positive family and community engagement. We also are making minor
changes to the definition for purposes of clarification.
Changes: We have changed the definition of effective principal as
follows: (a) Replaced ``States may supplement this definition as they
see fit'' with ``States, LEAs, or schools must include multiple
measures;'' (b) added ''Supplemental measures may include, for example,
high school graduation rates and college enrollment rates, as well as
evidence of providing supportive teaching and learning conditions,
strong instructional leadership, and positive family and community
engagement;'' and (c) replaced ``so long as principal effectiveness is
judged, in significant measure by student growth'' with ``provided that
principal effectiveness is evaluated, in significant part, by student
growth.''
Comment: One commenter supported the definition of effective
teacher and agreed that student growth should be used as a measure of
teacher effectiveness along with other supplemental measures. However,
many commenters stated that the proposed definition relies too heavily
on standardized test scores and recommended requiring supplemental
measures. Another commenter recommended giving States the flexibility
to define effective teachers using models that make sense in their
States. Several commenters suggested that the definition include
examples of supplemental measures such as using research-based teaching
practices, implementing practices that have been documented in the
classrooms of teachers who are driving substantial student achievement
gains, and using feedback and student performance data to improve
teaching.
Discussion: As noted in our response to commenters' concerns that
student growth data should not be used as the sole means to evaluate
principals, we agree with commenters that States, LEAs, and schools
should include multiple measures in determining teacher effectiveness.
We are, therefore, changing the definition to require States, LEAs, or
schools to take into account data on student growth as a significant
measure of teacher effectiveness, but also to include multiple
measures. We also are adding multiple observation-based assessments of
teacher performance as an example of
[[Page 59751]]
a supplemental measure in the definition of effective teacher.
Changes: We have defined effective teacher to mean ``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, LEAs, or schools must include multiple measures, provided that
teacher effectiveness is evaluated, in significant part, by student
growth (as defined in this notice). Supplemental measures may include,
for example, multiple observation-based assessments of teacher
performance.''
Comment: One commenter recommended that the definition of effective
teacher be changed to require student growth to be a ``predominant
measure,'' rather than a ``significant measure,'' of teacher
effectiveness. The commenter noted that using student growth as a
``significant measure'' for judging teacher effectiveness would allow
other factors to outweigh a teacher's impact on student achievement.
Discussion: We believe that having student growth as a significant
factor in determining teacher effectiveness is a sufficiently rigorous
standard. The revised definition also provides States, LEAs, and
schools with more flexibility in determining the appropriate use of
supplemental measures without outweighing the importance of teachers'
impact on student growth in determining teacher effectiveness.
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters suggested that the definition of
effective teacher acknowledge and address the need to mentor and
support new teachers who disproportionately work in struggling schools.
Discussion: We agree that professional development, including
mentoring and coaching, are important aspects of teacher effectiveness.
For this reason, criterion (D)(2)(iv)(a) focuses on using evaluations
to inform decisions regarding developing effective teachers and
principals, including by providing relevant coaching, induction
support, and/or professional development. Criterion (D)(5) also
provides for evaluation of the extent to which a State has a high-
quality plan for its participating LEAs to provide effective, data-
informed professional development, coaching, induction, and common
planning and collaboration time to teachers and principals. We believe
these criteria address the need for mentoring and other forms of
professional development for teachers and therefore, are not changing
the definition of effective teacher in the manner recommended by the
commenter.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter strongly recommended including high school
graduation rates as a measure to evaluate teacher effectiveness in
order to provide a disincentive to ``creaming'' students and to signal
the importance of preventing students from dropping out.
Discussion: We believe it could be misleading to include high
school graduation rates as a required or supplemental measure of
teacher effectiveness, because, more than other measures, graduation
rates typically reflect the work of many teachers and school
administrators. Accordingly, we have included graduation rates as an
example of a supplemental measure of effectiveness in the definitions
of effective principal and highly effective principal.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended that effective teacher be
defined as a teacher whose students, overall and for each subgroup,
demonstrate acceptable rates of student growth. The commenter noted
that the definition of effective principal refers to ``each subgroup''
and expressed concern that the omission of ``each subgroup'' in the
definition of effective teacher could be misinterpreted to mean that
teachers could be deemed effective (or highly effective) even if their
students from different subgroups are not making sufficient learning
gains.
Discussion: The Department included the performance of subgroups in
the definitions of effective principal and highly effective principal
because there would generally be a sufficiently large number of
students in a particular subgroup at the school level to evaluate
principal effectiveness. However, it is generally unlikely that a class
would have a sufficient number of students in any particular subgroup
on which to base an evaluation of a teacher's effectiveness.
Changes: None.
Comment: Some commenters recommended that, instead of defining
effective teacher, this notice should encourage the use of proven
tactics for improving teacher effectiveness (e.g., lowering class sizes
or innovative solutions for addressing the challenges teachers face).
Other commenters suggested encouraging States to develop and use
performance assessments of teachers that reliably and validly assess
the use of teaching practices known to be associated with student
achievement gains and to experiment with a range of strategies to
incorporate evidence of student learning and accomplishment into
teacher evaluation tools. One commenter recommended that educators
should use research data and scientific recommendation as a basis for
instruction and developing appropriate methods.
Discussion: Throughout this final notice, the Department encourages
States, LEAs, and schools to use proven strategies for improving
teacher effectiveness and addressing other challenges teachers face.
For example, Invitational Priority 6--School-Level Conditions for
Reform, Innovation, and Learning focuses on providing schools with
flexibility and autonomy, such as creating school climates and cultures
that remove obstacles to, and actively support, student engagement and
achievement, and implementing strategies to effectively engage families
and communities in supporting the academic success of their students.
Criterion (C)(3) focuses on using data to improve instruction by
increasing the acquisition, adoption, and use of local instructional
improvement systems that provide teachers and principals with the
information they need to inform and improve instructional practices;
supporting LEAs and schools that use these systems in providing
professional development on how to use these systems to support
instructional improvement; and making data available and accessible to
researchers so they can evaluate the effectiveness of instructional
materials, strategies, and approaches. Criteria (D)(2)(iv)(a) and
(D)(5) emphasize that the supports provided to teachers and principals
should be ongoing and informed by data and evaluations.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter expressed concern that data on student
growth are available only for the limited number of subjects included
in the annual assessments required under the ESEA. The commenter
recommended that we clarify that alternative measures of student
performance should be used for teachers teaching subjects that are not
tested under the ESEA. Another commenter asked how teacher
effectiveness would be determined when there are no data on student
growth, such as might be the case for novice teachers and teachers
teaching subjects or grades that are not tested under the ESEA.
Discussion: As defined in this notice, the term student growth
means the change in student achievement (as defined in this notice) for
an individual student between two or more points in time. In turn, the
definition of student achievement includes alternative measures of
student performance for
[[Page 59752]]
non-tested grades and subjects. As noted elsewhere, we are adding, in
the definition of student achievement, a number of examples of
alternative measures of student performance for both tested and non-
tested grades and subjects and clarifying that for tested grades and
subjects, student achievement must include a student's score on the
State assessments required under the ESEA (which will allow for the
determination of student growth) and may include other measures of
student learning as well. Therefore, we do not believe that additional
language needs to be added to the definition of effective teacher.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter expressed concern that the definition of
effective teacher equates effectiveness with advancing students one
grade level in an academic year. The commenter stated that this
approach ignores the fact that research has not identified a standard
for student gains in a given school year in a given subject. Another
commenter requested clarification regarding the meaning of ``at least
one grade level in an academic year'' as used in the definition of
effective teacher. Another commenter inquired whether States that use
summative tests to measure one or more years of student growth would
need to change their assessment system.
Discussion: We included ``at least one grade level in an academic
year'' as an example of an acceptable rate of student growth in the
definition of effective teacher (and effective principal). We
recognized that this example of an acceptable rate of student growth
may not be appropriate for all students and therefore, did not include
it as a requirement but rather as an example. We believe States, LEAs,
and schools should determine what constitutes an acceptable rate of
student growth for purposes of assessing teacher (or principal)
effectiveness.
Changes: None.
Comment: As with the definition of effective principal, many
commenters expressed concern about using student growth as the sole
measure for defining a highly effective principal. Some commenters
stated that a good measure of a highly effective principal is success
in attracting, developing, and retaining effective teachers. Another
commenter, however, stated that significant growth in student
achievement would suffice as evidence of a highly effective principal's
ability to improve teacher effectiveness.
Discussion: As noted earlier, the Secretary believes that student
growth must be included as a significant factor in evaluating principal
and teacher effectiveness. However, he understands and appreciates
commenters' concerns that student growth should not be used as the sole
means to evaluate principals and teachers. Therefore, we are changing
the definition of highly effective principal, consistent with the
changes to the definition of effective principal, to require States,
LEAs, or schools to take into account multiple measures, in addition to
data on student growth, in defining a highly effective principal. We
agree with commenters that success in attracting, developing, and
retaining high numbers of effective teachers would be a good measure of
a highly effective principal and are adding this to the definition
along with other examples of supplemental measures. We also are making
minor technical changes for clarity and removing the statutory
reference to section 1111(b)(2)(C)(v)(II) of the ESEA, regarding
student subgroups. We are removing the statutory reference to the ESEA
because, as noted elsewhere, a new paragraph (g) in the Application
Requirements section of this notice explains that references to ESEA
subgroups throughout the notice are the subgroups described in section
1111(b)(2)(C)(v)(II) of the ESEA.
Changes: We have changed the definition of highly effective
principal to read as follows: ``Highly effective principal means a
principal whose students, overall and for each subgroup, achieve high
rates (e.g., one and one-half grade levels in an academic year) of
student growth (as defined in this notice). States, LEAs, or schools
must include multiple measures, provided that principal effectiveness
is evaluated, in significant part, by student growth (as defined in
this notice). Supplemental measures may include, for example, high
school graduation rates; college enrollment rates; evidence of
providing supportive teaching and learning conditions, strong
instructional leadership, and positive family and community engagement;
or evidence of attracting, developing, and retaining high numbers of
effective teachers.''
Comment: One commenter noted that the definition of highly
effective principal refers to ``high rates of student growth'' and
recommended modifying the definition of student growth accordingly.
Discussion: We believe that States' definition of highly effective
principal should demonstrate high rates of student growth for their
students overall, and for each subgroup. The Department believes that
one and one-half grade levels of growth in an academic year is a good
example of a high rate of student growth. We recognize, however, that
this example of ``high rates of student growth'' may not be appropriate
for all students. We included ``one and one-half grade levels in an
academic year'' as an example, not a requirement. We believe States,
LEAs, and schools should determine what constitutes a high rate of
student growth, as the definitions of highly effective principal (and
highly effective teacher) clearly permit. We, therefore, do not believe
it is necessary to revise the definition of student growth, as
requested by the commenter.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested that successful completion of a
State-approved principal licensure program that builds the knowledge,
skills, and attitudes to effectively lead people, lead learning, and
manage school operations should be included as a measure of a highly
effective principal.
Discussion: States, LEAs, and schools may choose to use successful
completion of a State-approved principal licensure program as a
supplemental measure of a highly effective principal. However, we
decline to include it as an example of a supplemental measure in the
definition of a highly effective principal because we believe that
principal effectiveness is best determined by measuring results and
outcomes.
Changes: None.
Comment: Some commenters commended the Department for focusing the
definition of teacher effectiveness on student achievement and growth.
Other commenters recommended adding language that would allow States
and LEAs to supplement student growth with multiple measures determined
on the State or local level. Other commenters suggested that States and
LEAs be required to supplement their definitions of student growth with
multiple measures. Commenters also recommended that such measures
include the use of evidence-based practices for improving student
achievement, the use of feedback and professional development
opportunities, and leadership activities such as mentoring or leading
an instructional community.
One commenter did not believe the definition should include a
teacher's commitment and ability to use feedback and performance data
to improve instructional practices. The commenter reasoned that a
teacher who improves student achievement is using (1) practices that
are both effective for student learning and healthy for social and
emotional development of students and (2) feedback to improve practice.
One commenter urged the Department
[[Page 59753]]
to have ``an equity focus on those current highly qualified teacher
proxies that have some research base grounded in student achievement:
Novice and out of field teaching.'' Another commenter suggested that
the definition provide individual school districts with the flexibility
to establish policies to determine whether a teacher is highly
effective in order to ``recognize that a wide range of conditions can
vary from district to district that would make a state-wide definition
inappropriate for evaluation, promotion, or compensation purposes.''
Discussion: We agree with commenters that States, LEAs, and schools
should be required to supplement their definition of a highly effective
teacher with multiple measures. We are, therefore, revising the
definition to require that States, LEAs, or schools include multiple
measures. In addition, we are including examples of supplemental
measures that States, LEAs, and schools might use, including leadership
roles.
Changes: We have revised the definition of highly effective teacher
to mean a teacher whose students achieve high rates (e.g., one and one-
half grade levels in an academic year) of student growth (as defined in
this notice). States, LEAs, or schools must include multiple measures,
provided that teacher effectiveness is evaluated, in significant part,
by student growth (as defined in this notice). Supplemental measures
may include, for example, multiple observation-based assessments of
teacher performance or evidence of leadership roles (which may include
mentoring or leading professional learning communities) that increase
the effectiveness of other teachers in the school or LEA.
Comment: One commenter suggested that adopting the definitions of
effective teacher and highly effective teacher in the NPP would be at
odds with the value-added system prescribed in the State Fiscal
Stabilization Fund.
Discussion: The definitions of effective teacher and highly
effective teacher in this notice are not at odds with the requirements
of the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund. The Race to the Top definitions
are broad enough to give States, LEAs, and schools sufficient
flexibility to determine the approach to measuring growth that works
best for them, giving them a variety of ways to comply with the
requirements of the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested that standardized tests are not
created to measure teacher effectiveness and therefore are an invalid
measure of effectiveness.
Discussion: We believe students' standardized test scores are one
of many measures that can be used to determine student growth. However,
we recognize that teacher effectiveness should not be determined solely
on the basis of standardized test scores, which is why we are
requiring, in this final notice, the use of student growth as a
significant factor in teacher evaluations that must include multiple
measures.
Changes: None.
Comment: Commenters stressed that it is imperative that there is
common ground on how to develop, fairly compensate, and accurately
evaluate teachers. A few commenters stated that there should be
collaboration between teachers and principals in determining
appropriate measures for evaluation.
Discussion: We agree about the importance of involving teachers and
principals in the design and development of these evaluation systems,
and are adding in this final notice language requiring such systems to
be designed and developed with teacher and principal involvement.
Changes: We have revised criterion (D)(2)(ii) to read, ``Design and
implement rigorous, transparent, and fair evaluation systems for
teachers and principals that (a) differentiate effectiveness using
multiple rating categories that take into account data on student
growth (as defined in this notice) as a significant factor, and (b) are
designed and developed with teacher and principal involvement.''
Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department replace the
word ``rating'' with ``personnel evaluation'' to account for a more
nuanced approach with multiple measures.
Discussion: We believe that the reference to ``rating categories''
in criterion (D)(2)(ii) is sufficiently clear that the criterion does
not need to be revised.
Changes: None.
Comment: A large number of commenters recommended changes to the
proposed definition of student growth. Some suggested that we include
in the definition the use of non-achievement-based measures of student
learning, performance-based or portfolio assessments, and interim
assessments. Other commenters suggested including in the definition the
specific amount of growth required. Some commenters supported the
proposed definition's emphasis on individual growth, while others
called for comparisons among ``like populations,'' such as students
with disabilities or English language learners. One commenter warned
that the use of a growth-based model could make teachers unwilling to
serve students with disabilities. Some commenters urged the Department
to require specific models, such as value-added, while others urged the
Department not to require specific models in order to leave States with
the flexibility to develop their own measures of student growth. One
commenter was concerned that the definition ``amounts to another all or
nothing model'' and pointed out that research on student growth
cautions against making judgments about student growth using solely two
data points, and suggested that we reconsider this approach.
Discussion: Our purpose, in the context of a competitive grant
program intended to provide leading-edge States with incentives to
develop and test innovative education reform ideas, is to give States
freedom to create their own systems for measuring student growth within
a few key parameters. We believe that the proposed definition strikes
this balance and that, therefore, significant changes are not needed.
We acknowledge that LEAs or schools may reasonably want to measure
student growth using more than two data points. We are changing the
phrase ``two points in time'' to ``two or more points in time'' to
permit the use of interim assessments or achievement data collected
across multiple years. We are also editing the second sentence for
clarity; this includes deleting the phrase ``in order to increase the
construct validity and generalizability of the information.''
Changes: We have revised the definition of student growth to read
as follows: ``Student growth means the change in student achievement
(as defined in this notice) for an individual student between two or
more points in time. A State may also include other measures that are
rigorous and comparable across classrooms.''
Comment: Numerous commenters expressed their support for evaluating
teachers and principals based on student achievement or growth. One
commenter stated that principal evaluations should include an
aggregation of data on student growth. Several of these commenters,
however, asserted that student growth data have limitations, including
a lack of common definitions between States, difficulty in
disaggregating a teacher's effect on student achievement from other
effects, and the lack of data for all grade levels and subject areas.
Additionally, many commenters expressed their disapproval of the
proposed criteria regarding using student achievement data or student
[[Page 59754]]
growth for the evaluation of teachers and principals. In support of
their arguments, those commenters cited factors such as the current
limitations of student assessments, and the inadequacy of assessments
as an evaluation factor. Several of those commenters claimed that there
is a lack of research or evidence demonstrating that the use of such
data for teacher and principal evaluations has any positive impact on
teacher, principal, or student performance. One commenter disagreed
with the Department's statement that ``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.''
The commenter argued that the research the Department cites (i.e., Kane
et al.) actually demonstrates that teaching experience and whether a
teacher is fully certified does indeed have substantial impact on
students' achievement. Other commenters argued that research indicates
growth models are unstable and too vulnerable to multiple sources of
error and to other student and school factors separate and apart from
student achievement. Additionally, many commenters offered reasons for
not using student assessments as a factor in teacher and principal
evaluations, including the claims that: Using student achievement data
to make employment decisions may lead to corruption, students are not
held accountable for the results of State assessments, and that such a
policy would detract from other priorities, such as equitable
distribution of effective teachers. Another commenter argued that
measuring teacher effectiveness ignores the organizational context of
schools and inappropriately defaults to a single measure of student
test scores as the basis to evaluate, compensate, and dismiss teachers.
Discussion: Research shows that teacher quality is a critical
contributor to student learning, and that differences between teachers
are persistent. Kane et al. found in their study that the certification
status of teachers (e.g., certified, uncertified, and alternative
certified) ``has at most small impacts on student test performance.''
At the same time, they found that, ``among those with the same
certification status, there are large and persistent differences in
teacher effectiveness.'' They also reported that evidence suggests that
teachers' classroom performance during their first two years of
teaching is a more reliable indicator of a teacher's future
effectiveness than their certification status.\4\ Another study used
data from Chicago public high schools to estimate the importance of
teachers on student achievement in mathematics and found that, ``one
semester with a teacher rated two standard deviations higher in quality
could add 0.3 to 0.5 grade equivalents, or 25 to 45 percent of an
average school year, to a student's math score performance.'' The study
further concluded that the resulting teacher quality ratings ``remain
relatively stable for an individual instructor over time.'' \5\ A
recent study of New York City public charter schools concluded that
charter schools that pay teachers in part based on evaluations of their
performance have more positive effects on student achievement.\6\ In
light of this evidence, the Department believes that the best indicator
we have today for teacher (and by extension principal) quality is
student academic growth, but that (as noted above) this data must be
supplemented with additional measures. At the same time, the Secretary
appreciates that growth models are not yet perfect, that there are some
challenges to using student growth data, and that there is more work to
be done in this area. For this reason, we do not stipulate which
approach States, LEAs, or schools should use to measure student growth
so long as the approach used is rigorous and comparable across
classrooms (see the definition of student growth). The criteria and
definitions in this notice reflect the Department's belief that student
growth data should be used as a significant factor in determining
teacher and principal effectiveness; that evaluation systems should use
multiple measures; that these evaluation systems should be rigorous,
transparent, and fair; and that they should be designed and developed
with teacher and principal involvement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See, Kane, Thomas J., Jonah E. Rockoff, and Douglas O.
Staiger (2006), ``What Does Certification Tell Us About Teacher
Effectiveness? Evidence from New York City.''
\5\ Daniel Aaronson, 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.
\6\ Hoxby, Caroline M., Sonali Murarka, and Jenny Kang. ``How
New York City's Charter Schools Affect Achievement, August 2009
Report.'' Second report in series. Cambridge, MA: New York City
Charter Schools Evaluation Project, September 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We do not agree that using student growth data as a part of a
rigorous, transparent, and fair evaluation system that is designed and
developed with teacher and principal involvement will lead to
corruption or detract from other priorities. We contend that
implementing fair and transparent evaluation systems developed with the
involvement of both teachers and principals, and that include student
growth as a significant factor in evaluations, will lead to greater
trust between teachers and principals, enable meaningful decision-
making and support, and push educators to remain focused on the
ultimate priority -- improving student achievement.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department encourage
the development of research-based rubrics and/or innovative teacher
performance evaluation programs.
Discussion: We encourage LEAs to be innovative and draw on rigorous
research in creating evaluation systems; this is an area that has high
leverage and is ripe for change. However, in order to avoid creating a
one-size-fits-all policy or stifling innovation, we decline to name
specific tools that LEAs should use in their evaluation systems.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department consider
designating NAEP as the standard test for every State to measure
student achievement.
Discussion: Race to the Top will use both the NAEP and the
assessments required under the ESEA to measure student achievement.
Each test has its benefits and its drawbacks; together, we believe they
will offer the Nation an appropriate ``picture'' of how Race to the Top
States are performing.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended removing the phrase ``targeted
professional development'' from criterion (D)(2)(iv)(a) (proposed
criterion (C)(2)(d)(i)). The commenter's rationale was that the
Department should promote a comprehensive system for managing and
developing human capital rather than a one-to-one system based on
remediation. In addition, the commenter asserted that the Department
should be explicit that professional development must be for the
purpose of increasing student achievement.
Discussion: We agree with the commenter that the term ``targeted
professional development'' does not connote the appropriately broad
range of professional development and support for teachers and
principals originally envisioned by the Department. We are therefore
changing this criterion to include the phrase ``providing relevant
coaching, induction support, and/or professional development.'' We do,
however, want to make clear that in the context of criterion (D)(2), we
are encouraging LEAs and schools to consider how they will use
teachers' and principals'
[[Page 59755]]
evaluations to inform their specific professional development plans. In
other criteria, such as (D)(5) and (C)(3)(ii), we encourage a broad
range of professional development activities. We also believe that, by
specifying that professional development should be responsive to
evaluations that use student growth as a significant factor, we make
clear in this final notice that professional development should be
oriented around supporting teachers and principals in increasing
student achievement.
Changes: We have split proposed criterion (C)(2)(d)(i) into two
parts. We have combined the first part with proposed criterion
(C)(2)(c), resulting in criterion (D)(2)(iii), which reads, ``Conduct
annual evaluations of teachers and principals that include timely and
constructive feedback; as part of such evaluations, provide teachers
and principals with data on student growth for their students, classes,
and schools.'' The second part has been designated criterion
(D)(2)(iv)(a), which specifies that evaluations should inform decisions
regarding ``Developing teachers and principals, including by providing
relevant coaching, induction support, and/or professional
development.''
Comment: A few commenters recommended that the Department include a
clear statement indicating that State reform plans should specify that
teachers and principals will be assessed on more than a single year of
data.
Discussion: We believe it is important to use accurate data when
evaluating teacher and principal performance, and that those
evaluations should be done at least annually and should involve timely
and constructive feedback. To make it clear, however, that annual
evaluations do not have to be conducted based on only one year of
information, we have revised the definition of student growth to
clarify that student growth should be measured using achievement data
between ``two or more points in time,'' rather than between only two
points in time.
Changes: We have revised the definition of student growth so that
it means the change in achievement data for an individual student
between ``two or more points in time.''
Comment: A number of commenters supported the use of student growth
data in determining compensation and promotions. A few commenters
stated that the Department needs to specify how to structure
performance pay (e.g., how to offer it for teachers of subjects that
are not tested). However, many commenters expressed their opposition to
pay based on student achievement or growth data. Several commenters
stated that there is no evidence suggesting that performance pay linked
to achievement data leads to improved educational outcomes. Several
commenters asserted that performance pay places an undue emphasis on
teachers and principals as individuals as opposed to parts of the
education system as a whole. One commenter recommended that Race to the
Top funds be used to design tests in pilot districts that could test
the effectiveness of alternative compensation programs.
Discussion: The Department believes that we need to do much more to
shine a spotlight on and reward excellence in teaching and school
leadership, and that one way to do so is through compensation and
promotion. At the same time, we recognize that rewarding excellence
while fulfilling the demands of fairness and the need to maintain a
collaborative school environment is a delicate task that requires
cooperation between LEA leadership, principals, and teachers.
We also recognize that pay-for-performance systems in education are
controversial and spark much debate. Some States, LEAs, and schools
have experimented with such models and shown relative success and
promise, while others have experienced less encouraging results. The
ARRA also includes funds for the Teacher Incentive Fund, which will
award grants to LEAs to develop performance-based compensation models.
While research on pay-for-performance plans is limited, there is
evidence to suggest that a well-designed performance-based pay system
can lead to improved student achievement.\7\ Studies indicate that the
most effective and successful pay-for-performance systems incorporate
factors such as using multiple measures for evaluating performance;
making student growth just one measure of performance; having a clearly
identified purpose (e.g.. improving student achievement, improving
recruitment and retention, or attracting teachers to hard-to-staff
schools); and creating collaboration among teachers, principals, and
other stakeholders. The Department believes that criterion (D)(2)
incorporates these factors by specifying that evaluation systems for
teacher and principals should use multiple measures, take into account
student growth as a significant factor, and be designed and developed
with teacher and principal involvement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See e.g., Joshua H. Barnett, Gary W. Ritter, Marcus A.
Winters, and Jay P. Greene, ``Evaluation of Year One of the
Achievement Challenge Pilot Project in the Little Rock Public School
District,'' University of Arkansas, January 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We also note that the criterion refers to decisions regarding
promotion and retention as well as compensation because we believe that
great teaching and school leadership should be recognized and rewarded
as much as possible, and that talented educators should have
opportunities for increased responsibilities and other retention
incentives, where appropriate, as well as for additional compensation.
Changes: We have reorganized criterion (D)(2) to make it clearer
that the decisions discussed in criterion (D)(2)(iv) should be based on
the evaluation systems discussed in criterion (D)(2)(ii) and the
evaluations discussed in criterion (D)(2)(iii). We have also added
``retaining'' to the list of decisions in criterion (D)(2)(iv)(b).
Comment: Numerous commenters argued that performance pay would
create perverse incentives for teachers to work only with student
groups most likely to demonstrate improvement, thereby marginalizing
difficult-to-teach student groups and communities, including low-income
communities, English language learners, and students with disabilities.
Discussion: As contemplated in the notice, performance pay would be
based on teacher and principal evaluations that, as discussed
previously, use student growth--not raw student achievement data or
proficiency levels--as a significant factor. Thus, teachers whose
pupils start behind their peers or who are working with students with
disabilities or English language learners are in no way penalized. This
final notice also gives States, LEAs, and/or schools sufficient
flexibility to take these concerns of commenters into account when
creating systems for evaluation, compensation, and promotion. We also
note that the Department is placing an emphasis on attracting teachers
to hard-to-staff subjects, specialty areas, and schools in criterion
(D)(3).
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters recommended including language
requiring States to provide additional responsibilities for effective
teachers. Many of the commenters included specific examples of
professional opportunities States or LEAs should provide to highly
effective teachers, such as serving as a community liaison, induction
leader, or curriculum developer after earning an endorsement on their
teacher's license.
Discussion: The Department believes that it is critical to
adequately compensate and promote our best
[[Page 59756]]
teachers and principals. These professionals are the role models and
leaders of our schools and are essential to implementing effective
educational reforms and improving student achievement. For these
reasons, this notice makes clear that highly effective teachers and
principals should have an opportunity to obtain additional compensation
and responsibilities for their high performance.
We believe that LEAs and schools, in collaboration with their
teachers and principals, are best situated to determine the timing and
types of additional responsibilities that should be given to their
staff and that it would be inappropriate for the Department to set
requirements around this issue.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended replacing the word ``tenure''
with ``continuing employment status'' for the sake of clarity.
Discussion: The Department believes the word ``tenure'' is more
widely understood and declines to make the suggested change.
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters expressed concern that, while proposed
criterion (C)(2)(iii) mentions using information to grant tenure and
dismiss teachers, it does not focus on the need to retain teachers. One
of these commenters stated that dismissals are going to involve a very
small percentage of teachers and principals. The commenter further
stated that both rural and urban schools may have difficulty attracting
and retaining effective teachers. One commenter cited the difficulties
in attracting and retaining effective or highly effective teachers in
extremely rural areas. The commenter further stated that school
districts in rural areas are forced to hire beginning teachers who
cannot be considered effective or highly effective as defined in the
NPP. A couple of commenters believed that robust, strong, and fair
evaluation systems are important for attracting and retaining highly
qualified, effective teachers and principals to high-poverty schools.
Discussion: The Department concurs that recruiting and retaining
effective and highly effective teachers and principals is critical for
States and LEAs to meet their goals for education reform and improve
student achievement, particularly in high-poverty and/or high-minority
schools. For this reason, criterion (D)(3) discusses the equitable
distribution of effective teachers and principals in high-poverty and/
or high-minority schools and encourages States and LEAs to provide
incentives and strategies to attract and retain effective teachers and
principals. Criteria (D)(2)(iv)(a) and (D)(5) also encourage States to
support LEAs in providing professional development and undertaking
other efforts, especially those informed by data and evaluations, to
make their existing teachers more effective. We are also revising
criterion (D)(2)(iv)(b) to specifically clarify that teacher and
principal evaluations should inform retention decisions.
Changes: We have revised criterion (D)(2)(iv)(b) to read as
follows, ``Compensating, promoting, and retaining teachers and
principals, including by providing opportunities for highly effective
teachers and principals (both as defined in this notice) to obtain
additional compensation and be given additional responsibilities.''
Comment: Many commenters supported using evaluations in making
employment decisions, such as those regarding teacher and principal
tenure, dismissal, displacement, and layoff. Most of these commenters
supported using multiple measures in these evaluations and not basing
such employment decisions primarily or solely on assessment results.
Discussion: We agree that rigorous, transparent, and fair
evaluation systems should be used to inform a variety of decisions,
including development, compensation, retention, tenure, certification,
and removal. As discussed earlier, we are requiring that evaluation
systems include multiple measures and that student growth be a
significant factor, and we are revising criterion (D)(2) to make it
clearer that the decisions under criterion (D)(2)(iv) should be based
on the evaluation systems discussed in criterion (D)(2)(ii) and the
evaluations discussed in criterion (d)(2)(iii). For purposes of
clarity, we are dividing proposed criterion (C)(2)(d)(iii) into two
criteria and adding decisions regarding full certification to one of
the criteria.
Changes: Proposed criterion (C)(2)(d)(iii) has been reorganized as
criteria (D)(2)(iv)(c) and (D)(2)(iv)(d). Criterion (D)(2)(iv)(c)
addresses the use of evaluation systems to inform decisions regarding
whether to grant tenure and/or full certification to teachers and
principals, and criterion (D)(2)(iv)(d) addresses removing ineffective
tenured and untenured teachers and principals after they have had ample
opportunities to improve. For both criteria, we have clarified that
these decisions should be made using rigorous standards and
streamlined, transparent, and fair procedures.
Comment: Some commenters suggested that the Department should
clarify the statement that the removal of teachers and principals must
only occur after they have received ample support and opportunities to
improve their performance yet have failed to do so. A few commenters
recommended that we clarify the term ``ample opportunities'' and
specify the amount of time that low-performing teachers should have to
improve their performance (e.g., as one school year).
Discussion: Providing teachers and principals with the needed
support to improve the effectiveness of instruction and student
outcomes is a critical element of Race to the Top, and removing
ineffective professionals from schools is important as well.
Race to the Top includes a number of criteria, in addition to
criterion (D)(2), that are dedicated to teacher and principal
professional development and supports; parts of criteria (B)(3) and
(C)(3) and all of criterion (D)(5) concern this issue, including
discussions of professional collaboration and planning time,
individualized development plans, training and support in the analysis
and use of data, classroom observations with immediate feedback, and
other activities critical to supporting and improving teacher and
principal capacity. These supports are paired, in the Race to the Top
criteria, with criteria that focus on rigorous, fair and transparent
teacher and principal evaluation systems that should include providing
feedback on areas where professional improvements are needed.
We decline to specify the amount of time teachers should be given
to make improvements in their performance, beyond specifying that they
should have ``ample opportunities to improve.'' It is the
responsibility of the LEA and school to provide their students with
effective teachers and principals, to provide their teachers and
principals with effective support, and to take action when appropriate.
We have deleted the phrase ``but have not done so'' to reflect this.
Changes: We have removed the phrase ``but have not done so'' from
criterion (D)(2)(iv)(d).
Comment: One commenter argued that aspects of criterion (D)(2)
(proposed criterion (C)(2)) may contravene the Personnel Evaluation
Standards that, according to the commenter, have been federally
accredited.
Discussion: The Personnel Evaluation Standards referenced by the
commenter are not federally accredited or approved by the Department.
They are voluntary guidelines published by a private organization and
are in no way binding on the Department or its grantees.
Changes: None.
Comment: A few commenters recommended that States should have a
[[Page 59757]]
flexible amount of time to develop evaluation systems that link data on
student growth to teachers and principals in order to allow time for
the development of advanced assessment systems. Other commenters
recommended that this notice reflect an understanding of the timeframe
that may be necessary to build a comprehensive and fair teacher and
principal evaluation system that takes student growth data into account
given the state of the research in this area and the practical
considerations in establishing such a system. The commenter stated that
the proposed criterion would compel States to rush into imposing
current value-added indicators of student learning on current
evaluation systems rather than developing new advanced systems.
Discussion: The notice does not state a specific timeframe for
States to develop assessment systems and teacher and principal
evaluation systems. Through their applications, States must provide,
for each Reform Plan Criterion in this notice, a detailed plan for the
use of grant funds that includes, among other things, (1) the key
activities to be undertaken; (2) the timeline for implementing the
activities; and (3) annual targets (where applicable) with respect to
performance measures for the four school years beginning with the 2010-
2011 school year. (See Application Requirements, section (e), for a
complete list of requirements). It is through this process that States
have the flexibility to define the timeframe for implementing their
activities, including systems development. States' applications will be
judged, in part, on whether their activities and targets are ambitious
yet achievable. As a result, we believe that this final notice
appropriately encourages States and LEAs to strike the right balance
between speed and thoughtfulness. We emphasize, however, that States
should not wait to develop improved evaluation systems until higher-
quality assessments are available, as doing so would delay this
essential progress by years and, in the process, harm student
achievement. We expect that these evaluation systems will improve over
time, as LEAs learn from their own experiences and from the experiences
of others, and as States develop higher-quality assessments, the
results of which will improve the measures of student growth that feed
into these evaluation systems.
Changes: None.
Comment: A number of commenters recommended requiring States to
include in their plans a commitment to adhere to due process rights and
existing State statutes concerning tenure and dismissal. A few
commenters recommended requiring States to comply with local collective
bargaining agreements or involve employee representatives where there
is no collective bargaining agreement. One commenter specifically
suggested requiring that collective bargaining be the vehicle for
implementing performance pay schemes in local school districts.
Discussion: In order to successfully implement many of the plans
under criterion (D)(2), LEAs in collective bargaining States will need
to work collaboratively with their local unions. Because this work and
collaboration are so important, States will earn points based on the
extent to which the local union leadership in their participating LEAs
have signed the MOUs between the States and the LEAs indicating their
intent to work in partnership with the LEAs in implementing the plans,
including by addressing contractual issues such as local bargaining
agreements. (See criterion (A)(1)). In addition, criterion (D)(2)(ii)
creates incentives for LEAs to design and implement rigorous,
transparent, and fair evaluation systems with teacher and principal
involvement, while criterion (D)(2)(iv)(d) encourages LEAs to make
decisions regarding removal using rigorous standards, and streamlined,
transparent, and fair procedures.
Changes: None.
Selection Criterion (D)(3): Ensuring Equitable Distribution of
Teachers and Principals (Proposed Criterion (C)(3)):
Comment: One commenter recommended adding a definition of high-
minority school and defining the term as a school in the highest
quartile of schools in a State with respect to enrollment of minority
students. The commenter also recommended adding a definition of low-
minority school and defining the term as a school in the lo