Rtt-elc Npp Frn

Vol. 78

Monday,

No. 97

May 20, 2013

Part III

Department of Education
34 CFR Chapter II

Department of Health and Human Services

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

45 CFR Subtitle A, Subchapter A
Proposed Priorities, Requirements, Definitions, and Selection Criteria—Race
to the Top – Early Learning Challenge; Proposed Rule

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:01 May 17, 2013

Jkt 229001

PO 00000

Frm 00001

Fmt 4717

Sfmt 4717

E:\FR\FM\20MYP3.SGM

20MYP3

29500

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 97 / Monday, May 20, 2013 / Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Chapter II
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
45 CFR Subtitle A, Subchapter A
[Docket ID ED–2013–OESE–0046]
RIN 1801–AA13

Proposed Priorities, Requirements,
Definitions, and Selection Criteria—
Race to the Top—Early Learning
Challenge
[CFDA Number: 84.412A.]

Department of Education and
Department of Health and Human
Services.
ACTION: Proposed priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection
criteria.
AGENCY:

The Secretary of Education
and Secretary of Health and Human
Services (‘‘the Secretaries’’) propose
priorities, requirements, definitions, and
selection criteria under the Race to the
Top—Early Learning Challenge (RTT–
ELC) Grant program. The Secretaries
may use one or more of these priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection
criteria for competitions in fiscal year
(FY) 2013 and later years.
The U.S. Department of Education
(ED) and the U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services (HHS)
(collectively, ‘‘the Departments’’)
conducted the first competition under
the RTT–ELC program in FY 2011 and
awarded grants to nine States. In FY
2012, the five next highest-rated
applicants on the slate of high-scoring
applications from the FY 2011
competition were funded at up to 50
percent of the funds each requested in
their FY 2011 applications.
We propose to maintain the overall
purpose and structure of the FY 2011
RTT–ELC competition in future
competitions. These proposed priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection
criteria are almost identical to the ones
used in the FY 2011 competition. We
describe the changes at the beginning of
each section of this document.
DATES: We must receive your comments
on or before June 19, 2013, and we
encourage you to submit comments well
in advance of this date.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments
through the Federal eRulemaking Portal
or via postal mail, commercial delivery,
or hand delivery. We will not accept
comments by fax or by email. To ensure
we do not receive duplicate comments,

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

SUMMARY:

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:01 May 17, 2013

Jkt 229001

please submit your comments only
once. In addition, please include the
Docket ID and the term ‘‘Early Learning
Challenge Grant-Comments’’ at the top
of your comments.
Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: Go to
www.regulations.gov to submit your
comments electronically. Information
on using Regulations.gov, including
instructions for accessing agency
documents, submitting comments, and
viewing the docket, is available on the
site under ‘‘Are you new to the site?’’
Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery, or
Hand Delivery. If you mail or deliver
your comments about these proposed
priorities, requirements, definitions, or
selection criteria, address them to the
Office of Elementary and Secondary
Education (Attention: Early Learning
Challenge Grant—Comments), U.S.
Department of Education, 400 Maryland
Avenue SW., room 3E245, Washington,
DC 20202–6200.
Privacy Note: The Departments’ policies
are to make all comments received from
members of the public available for public
viewing in their entirety on the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov.
Therefore, commenters should be careful to
include in their comments only information
that they wish to make publically available.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Miriam Lund. Telephone: (202) 401–
2871 or by email: [email protected].
If you use a telecommunications
device for the deaf (TDD) or a text
telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay
Service (FRS), toll free, at 1–800–877–
8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Summary
Purpose of This Regulatory Action:
The purpose of this document is to
propose priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria for the
RTT–ELC program that will enable
effective grant making and result in
high-quality proposals from States. The
RTT–ELC program focuses Federal
financial resources on improving early
learning and development for young
children by supporting States’ efforts to
increase the number and percentage of
low-income and disadvantaged children
in each age group of infants, toddlers,
and preschoolers who are enrolled in
high-quality early learning and
development programs; design and
implement an integrated system of highquality early learning and development
programs and services directly resulting
in more children, especially those with
high needs, entering kindergarten ready
to succeed in school and in life; and
ensure that any use of assessments
conforms with the recommendations of

PO 00000

Frm 00002

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

the National Research Council 1 reports
on early childhood.2
Summary of the Major Provisions of
This Regulatory Action: The RTT–ELC
program is designed to build on the
momentum of other Race to the Top
competitions by improving State
systems of early care and education in
order to prepare more children for
kindergarten. The priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection
criteria proposed in this document are
almost identical to those we used in the
FY 2011 competition. Through future
competitions using these proposed
priorities, requirements, definitions, and
selection criteria, we will again invite
applicants to demonstrate how they can
transform their early learning systems
with better coordination among various
State Participating Agencies,3 improved
standards, and meaningful education
and training for early childhood
educators.
In that regard, through future
competitions, the Department will
encourage and reward States that have
the leadership and vision to develop
successful State systems that:
• Support an ambitious early learning
and reform agenda;
• Align and raise standards for
existing early learning programs,
including Head Start, public preschool,
childcare, home visiting, Part B, Section
619 and Part C programs under the
Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act (IDEA), and private preschools;
• Provide information to families
about the quality of programs;
• Promote early learning and
development outcomes across Essential
Domains of School Readiness for all
children, reflected in clear standards
that detail what children should know
and be able to do and are measured
through comprehensive assessment
systems;
• Build a great early childhood
education workforce, supported by
strategies to train, support, and retain
high-quality teachers, providers, and
administrators; and
• Measure outcomes and progress
using Comprehensive Assessment
1 National Research Council. (2008). Early
Childhood Assessment: Why, What, and How.
Committee on Developmental Outcomes and
Assessments for Young Children, C.E. Snow and
S.B. Van Hemel, Editors. Board on Children, Youth,
and Families, Board on Testing and Assessment,
Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and
Education. Washington, DC: The National
Academies Press. www.nap.edu/
catalog.php?record_id=12446.
2 See Department of Defense and Full-Year
Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011, Division B,
§ 1832(b), Public Law 112–10 (April 15, 2011).
3 Terms with initial capitalization are defined in
the Definition section of this document.

E:\FR\FM\20MYP3.SGM

20MYP3

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 97 / Monday, May 20, 2013 / Proposed Rules
Systems and Kindergarten Entry
Assessments (KEA); and develop or
enhance data systems.
These proposed priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection
criteria are designed to help States meet
these goals and are almost identical to
those we used in the FY 2011
competition with the exception of minor
language clarifications and five
substantive changes. We are proposing
to (1) Revise the KEA priority(Proposed
Priority 3) to simplify scoring; (2) revise
and rename the priority designed to
sustain and build upon early learning
outcomes from preschool-through-third
grade (Proposed Priority 4); (3) revise
the requirements to reduce the
maximum grant amounts for which an
applicant may apply;(4) revise the
program requirements to require that
States have an operational State
Advisory Council on Early Childhood
Education and Care, and that this
council include the administrator from
the State’s Child Care and Development
Fund program, representatives from
both Part B and Part C of IDEA, and
State agency representatives responsible
for health and mental health; and (5)add
a new eligibility requirement excluding
States that previously received funding
for a RTT–ELC grant.
We believe these proposed changes
will improve the peer review
evaluation; strengthen the gains from
early learning outcomes from preschool
through the early elementary school
years; and enable the Departments to
maximize the number of grantees that
would receive funding while still
awarding grants of sufficient size to
support ambitious yet achievable early
learning reforms.
The remaining priorities proposed in
this notice (priorities 1, 2, and 5) are
unchanged from those we used in the
FY 2011 competition.
Costs and Benefits: The cost imposed
on applicants by these priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection
criteria would be limited to paperwork
burden related to preparing an
application. Benefits would outweigh
any costs to applicants. The costs of
carrying out activities would be paid for
with RTT–ELC grant funds. The costs of
implementation would not be a burden
for any eligible applicant, including
small entities. Please refer to the
Regulatory Impact Analysis in this
document for a more complete
discussion of the costs and benefits of
this regulatory action.
This document provides an
accounting statement that estimates that
approximately $300 million will
transfer from the Federal Government to
States under this program. Please refer

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:01 May 17, 2013

Jkt 229001

to the accounting statement in this
document for a more detailed
discussion.
Invitation to Comment: We invite you
to submit comments on this document.
To ensure that your comments have
maximum effect in developing the final
priorities, requirements, definitions, and
selection criteria, we urge you to
identify clearly the specific proposed
priority, requirement, definition, and or
selection criterion that each comment
addresses.
We invite you to assist us in
complying with the specific
requirements of Executive Orders 12866
and 13563 and their overall requirement
of reducing regulatory burden that
might result from these proposed
priorities, requirements, definitions, and
selection criteria. Please let us know of
any further ways we could reduce
potential costs or increase potential
benefits while preserving the effective
and efficient administration of the
program.
During and after the comment period,
you may inspect all public comments
about this notice by accessing
Regulations.gov. You may also inspect
the comments in person in room 3E245,
400 Maryland Avenue SW., LBJ
Building, Washington, DC 20202–6200,
between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:00
p.m., Washington, DC time, Monday
through Friday of each week except
Federal holidays.
Assistance to Individuals with
Disabilities in Reviewing the
Rulemaking Record: On request we will
provide an appropriate accommodation
or auxiliary aid to an individual with a
disability who needs assistance to
review the comments or other
documents in the public rulemaking
record for this notice. If you want to
schedule an appointment for this type of
accommodation or auxiliary aid, please
contact the person listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Purpose of Program
The purpose of the RTT–ELC program
is to improve the quality of early
learning and development and close the
educational gaps for Children with High
Needs. This program focuses on
improving early learning and
development for young children by
supporting States’ efforts to increase the
number and percentage of low-income
and disadvantaged children, in each age
group of infants, toddlers, and
preschoolers, who are enrolled in highquality early learning and development
programs; and to design and implement
an integrated system of high-quality
early learning and development
programs and services.

PO 00000

Frm 00003

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

29501

Program Authority: Sections 14005 and
14006, Division A, of the American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act of 2009, as amended
by section 1832(b) of Division B of Pub. L.
112–10, the Department of Defense and FullYear Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011,
and the Department of Education
Appropriations Act, 2012 (Title III of
Division F of Pub. L. 112–74, the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012).

Backgound
The Statutory Context and Program
Overview
Race to the Top—Early Learning
Challenge
A critical focus of the Departments is
supporting America’s youngest learners
and helping ensure that children,
especially Children with High Needs,
enter kindergarten ready to succeed in
school and in life. A robust body of
research demonstrates that high-quality
early learning and development
programs and services can improve
young children’s health, socialemotional, and cognitive outcomes;
enhance school readiness; and help
close the educational gaps 4 5 that exist
between Children with High Needs and
their peers at the time they enter
kindergarten.6 7
To address this educational gap, the
Departments have identified, as high
priorities, strengthening the quality of
existing early learning and development
programs and increasing access to highquality Early Learning and Development
Programs for all children, especially for
Children with High Needs.
On May 25, 2011, Secretaries Arne
Duncan and Kathleen Sebelius
announced the RTT–ELC, a new $500
million State-level grant competition
authorized under the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
(ARRA), as amended by section 1832(b)
of the Department of Defense and FullYear Continuing Appropriations Act,
4 Camilli, G., Vargas, S., Ryan, S., & Barnett, W.
S. (2010). Meta-analysis of the effects of early
education interventions on cognitive and social
development. Teachers College Record, 112(3),
579–620.
5 Reynolds, A.J., Temple, J.A., Ou, S., Arteaga,
I.A., & White, B.A.B. (2011). School-based early
childhood education and age-28 well-being: effects
by timing, dosage, and subgroups. Science,
Retrieved from www.sciencemag.org/content/early/
2011/06/08/science.1203618.abstract doi: 10.1126/
science.1203618.
6 Princiotta, D., Flanagan, K. D., and Germino
Hausken, E. (2006). Fifth Grade: Findings From The
Fifth-Grade Follow-up of the Early Childhood
Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 1998–99
(ECLS–K). (NCES 2006–038) U.S. Department of
Education.
7 Halle, T., Forry, N., Hair, E., Perper, K.,
Wandner, L., Wessel, J., & Vick, J.(2009). Disparities
in Early Learning and Development: Lessons from
the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study—Birth
Cohort (ECLS–B). Washington, DC: Child Trends.

E:\FR\FM\20MYP3.SGM

20MYP3

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

29502

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 97 / Monday, May 20, 2013 / Proposed Rules

2011. Through the RTT–ELC program,
the Departments seek to help close the
educational gaps between Children with
High Needs and their peers by
supporting State efforts to build strong
systems of early learning and
development that provide increased
access to high-quality programs for the
children who need them most.
The FY 2011 RTT–ELC competition 8
represented an unprecedented
opportunity for States to focus deeply
on their early learning and development
systems for children from birth through
age five. (See notice inviting
applications for the competition,
published in the Federal Register on
August 26, 2011 (76 FR 53564)).
Through the FY 2011 RTT–ELC
competition, States were given an
opportunity to build a more unified
approach to supporting young children
and their families—an approach that
increases access to high-quality early
learning and development programs and
services, and helps ensure that children
enter kindergarten with the skills,
knowledge, and dispositions toward
learning they need to be successful in
school and in life.
In December 2011, the Departments
made awards to the nine highest-scoring
applications from the FY 2011 RTT–ELC
competition: California, Delaware,
Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota,
North Carolina, Ohio, Rhode Island, and
Washington.
On December 23, 2011, Public Law
112–74, the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2012, which made
$550 million available for the Race to
the Top Fund, was signed into law. This
legislation authorized the Secretary of
Education to make Race to the Top
Fund awards on ‘‘the basis of previously
submitted applications.’’
On April 9, 2012, the Departments
announced that approximately $133
million of the $550 million appropriated
for the Race to the Top Fund would be
made available to the next five highest
scoring applicants from the FY 2011
RTT–ELC competition. These five
applicants, each of which received
approximately 75 percent or more of the
available points under the competition,
received awards: Colorado, Illinois, New
Mexico, Oregon, and Wisconsin.
The FY 2011 RTT–ELC competition
identified five key reform areas
representing the foundation of an
8 Section 437(d)(1) of GEPA exempts the
Secretary of Education from rulemaking
requirements governing the first grant competition
under a new or substantially revised program
authority. We utilized this authority to forgo formal
rulemaking for the FY2011 RTT–ELC competition,
instead soliciting informal public participation
through the ED.gov Web site.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:01 May 17, 2013

Jkt 229001

effective early learning and
development reform agenda focused on
school readiness and ongoing
educational success. These areas, which
provided a framework for the
competition’s priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria, are as
follows:
(A) Successful State Systems;
(B) High-Quality, Accountable
Programs;
(C) Promoting Early Learning and
Development Outcomes for Children;
(D) A Great Early Childhood
Education Workforce; and
(E) Measuring Outcomes and Progress.
The first two of these reform areas, (A)
and (B), are core areas of focus for this
program (‘‘Core Areas’’), and applicants
under the FY 2011 RTT–ELC
competition were required to respond to
all selection criteria under these Core
Areas. The reform areas in (C), (D), and
(E) that targeted attention to specific
activities are relevant to individual
States (‘‘Focused Investment Areas’’).
Applicants were required to address
each Focused Investment Area but not
each of the selection criteria under
them.
In this notice, we propose specific
priorities, requirements, definitions, and
selection criteria that the Departments
could choose to use in future
competitions. The priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection
criteria proposed in this notice are in
large part identical to those in the FY
2011 notice inviting applications.
Proposed Priorities
Changes from the FY 2011 competition
Priority 3
We propose to revise Priority 3 by
deleting sub-bullet (1). This change will
simplify scoring by requiring all
applicants to address the KEA in one
location in the application: selection
criterion (E)(1). The revised priority is:
‘‘Understanding the Status of Children’s
Learning and Development at
Kindergarten Entry. To meet this
priority, the State must, in its
application address selection criterion
(E)(1) and earn a score of at least 70
percent of the maximum points
available for that criterion.’’
The original priority for the reader’s
reference was: ‘‘Understanding the
Status of Children’s Learning and
Development at Kindergarten Entry.
—To meet this priority, the State must,
in its application—
—Demonstrate that it has already
implemented a Kindergarten Entry
Assessment that meets selection
criterion (E)(1) by indicating that all

PO 00000

Frm 00004

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

elements in Table (A)(1)-12 are met;
or
—Address selection criterion (E)(1) and
earn a score of at least 70 percent of
the maximum points available for that
criterion.’’
Priority 4
We propose to revise Priority 4 to
emphasize the importance of sustaining
and building upon early learning
outcomes from preschool through the
early elementary school years. We
propose this revision to improve all
transitions for children across the birththrough-third-grade continuum and to
encourage States to be focused on
increasing the percentage of children
able to read and do mathematics at
grade level by the end of the third grade.
The revised priority is: ‘‘Creating
Approaches to Sustain Improved Early
Learning Outcomes through the Early
Elementary Grades.
Priority 4 is designed to sustain and
build upon early learning outcomes
through the early elementary school
years. To meet this priority, the State
must have a High-Quality Plan to
improve the overall quality, alignment,
and continuity of teaching and learning
to serve children from preschool
through third grade by engaging in
activities such as—
(a) Enhancing the State’s
kindergarten-through-third-grade
standards to align them with the State’s
Early Learning and Development
Standards across all Essential Domains
of School Readiness;
(b) Identifying and addressing the
health, behavioral, and developmental
needs of Children with High Needs from
preschool through third grade;
(c) Implementing teacher preparation
and professional development programs
and strategies that emphasize
developmental science, pedagogy, and
the delivery of developmentally
appropriate content for teachers serving
children from preschool through grade
3;
(d) Implementing model systems of
collaboration both within and between
early learning and development
programs and elementary schools to
improve all transitions for children
across the birth through third grade
continuum;
(e) Building or enhancing data
systems to monitor the status of
children’s learning and development
from preschool through third grade to
support student progress in meeting
critical educational benchmarks in the
early elementary grades;
(f) Initiatives designed to increase the
percentage of children who are able to

E:\FR\FM\20MYP3.SGM

20MYP3

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 97 / Monday, May 20, 2013 / Proposed Rules
read and do mathematics at grade level
by the end of the third grade; and
(g) Leveraging existing Federal, State,
and local resources, including but not
limited to funds received under Title I
and Title II of ESEA, as amended, and
IDEA.’’
The original priority for the reader’s
reference was: ‘‘Sustaining Program
Effects in the Early Elementary Grades.
The Departments are particularly
interested in applications that describe
the State’s High-Quality Plan to sustain
and build upon improved early learning
outcomes throughout the early
elementary school years, including by—
(a) Enhancing the State’s current
standards for kindergarten through
grade 3 to align them with the Early
Learning and Development Standards
across all Essential Domains of School
Readiness;
(b) Ensuring that transition planning
occurs for children moving from Early
Learning and Development Programs to
elementary schools;
(c) Promoting health and family
engagement, including in the early
grades;
(d) Increasing the percentage of
children who are able to read and do
mathematics at grade level by the end of
the third grade; and
(e) Leveraging existing Federal, State,
and local resources, including but not
limited to funds received under Title I
and Title II of ESEA, as amended, and
IDEA.’’
Proposed Priorities: The Secretaries
propose five priorities. The Departments
may apply one or more of these
priorities in any year in which a
competition for program funds is held.
Priority 1: Promoting School
Readiness for Children with High Needs.
To meet this proposed priority, the
State’s application must
comprehensively and coherently
address how the State will build a
system that increases the quality of
Early Learning and Development
Programs for Children with High Needs
so that they enter kindergarten ready to
succeed.
The State’s application must
demonstrate how it will improve the
quality of Early Learning and
Development Programs by integrating
and aligning resources and policies
across Participating State Agencies and
by designing and implementing a
common, statewide Tiered Quality
Rating and Improvement System. In
addition, to achieve the necessary
reforms, the State must make strategic
improvements in those areas that will
most significantly improve program
quality and outcomes for Children with
High Needs. Therefore, the State must

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:01 May 17, 2013

Jkt 229001

address those criteria from within each
of the Focused Investment Areas
(sections (C) Promoting Early Learning
and Development Outcomes for
Children, (D) A Great Early Childhood
Education Workforce, and (E) Measuring
Outcomes and Progress) that it believes
will best prepare its Children with High
Needs for kindergarten success.
Priority 2: Including all Early Learning
and Development Programs in the
Tiered Quality Rating and Improvement
System.
Proposed Priority 2 is designed to
increase the number of children from
birth to kindergarten entry who are
participating in programs that are
governed by the State’s licensing system
and quality standards, with the goal that
all licensed or State-regulated programs
will participate. The State will meet this
priority based on the extent to which
the State has in place, or has a HighQuality Plan to implement no later than
June 30th of the fourth year of the
grant—
(a) A licensing and inspection system
that covers all programs that are not
otherwise regulated by the State and
that regularly care for two or more
unrelated children for a fee in a
provider setting; provided that if the
State exempts programs for reasons
other than the number of children cared
for, the State may exclude those entities
and reviewers will determine whether
an applicant has met this priority only
on the basis of non-excluded entities;
and
(b) A Tiered Quality Rating and
Improvement System in which all
licensed or State-regulated Early
Learning and Development Programs
participate.
Priority 3: Understanding the Status
of Children’s Learning and Development
at Kindergarten Entry.
To meet this proposed priority, the
State must, in its application, address
selection criterion (E)(1) and earn a
score of at least 70 percent of the
maximum points available for that
criterion.
Priority 4: Creating Preschool through
Third Grade Approaches to Sustain
Improved Early Learning Outcomes
through the Early Elementary Grades.
Proposed Priority 4 is designed to
sustain and build upon early learning
outcomes from preschool through the
early elementary school years, including
by leveraging existing Federal, State,
and local resources. The State will meet
this priority based on the extent to
which it describes a High-Quality Plan
to improve the overall quality,
alignment, and continuity of teaching
and learning to serve children from

PO 00000

Frm 00005

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

29503

preschool through third grade through
such activities as—
(a) Enhancing the State’s
kindergarten-through-third-grade
standards to align them with the State’s
Early Learning and Development
Standards across all Essential Domains
of School Readiness;
(b) Identifying and addressing the
health, behavioral, and developmental
needs of Children with High Needs from
preschool through third grade;
(c) Implementing teacher preparation
and professional development programs
and strategies that emphasize
developmental science, pedagogy, and
the delivery of developmentally
appropriate content for teachers serving
children from preschool through grade
3;
(d) Implementing model systems of
collaboration both within and between
early learning and development
programs and elementary schools to
improve all transitions for children
across the birth through third grade
continuum;
(e) Building or enhancing data
systems to monitor the status of
children’s learning and development
from preschool through third grade to
support student progress in meeting
critical educational benchmarks in the
early elementary grades; and
(f) Other efforts designed to increase
the percentage of children who are able
to read and do mathematics at grade
level by the end of the third grade.
Priority 5: Encouraging Private-Sector
Support.
The State will meet this priority based
on the extent to which it describes how
the private sector will provide financial
and other resources to support the State
and its Participating State Agencies or
Participating Programs in the
implementation of the State Plan.
Types of Priorities
When inviting applications for a
competition using one or more
priorities, we designate the type of each
priority as absolute, competitive
preference, or invitational through a
notice in the Federal Register. The
effect of each type of priority follows:
Absolute priority: Under an absolute
priority, we consider only applications
that meet the priority (34 CFR
75.105(c)(3)).
Competitive preference priority:
Under a competitive preference priority,
we give competitive preference to an
application by (1) awarding additional
points, depending on the extent to
which the application meets the priority
(34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) selecting
an application that meets the priority
over an application of comparable merit

E:\FR\FM\20MYP3.SGM

20MYP3

29504

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 97 / Monday, May 20, 2013 / Proposed Rules

that does not meet the priority (34 CFR
75.105(c)(2)(ii)).
Invitational priority: Under an
invitational priority, we are particularly
interested in applications that meet the
priority. However, we do not give an
application that meets the priority a
preference over other applications (34
CFR 75.105(c)(1)).
Proposed Eligibility Requirements
Changes from the FY 2011 competition

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Eligibility Requirement 1(a)
We propose to eliminate the eligibility
requirement requiring an operational
State Advisory Council on Early
Childhood Education and Care due to
the elimination of Federal funding for
this activity and the difficulty in
determining whether a State has an
operational State Advisory Council at
the time of application. We have made
this a program requirement instead,
which will mean that the Council does
not need to be operational at the time of
application but must be reinstated or
maintained throughout the grant period.
We also propose to add a new
eligibility requirement excluding States
that previously received funding for a
RTT–ELC grant. This proposed
eligibility requirement would increase
the number of States with ambitious
early learning reforms that promote
early learning and development
outcomes for all children.
The revised eligibility requirement is:
The State has not previously received an
RTT–ELC grant.
Eligibility Requirement (1)(c)
In eligibility requirement (1)(c), we
propose a revision that states the
applicant must have an active Maternal,
Infant, and Early Childhood Home
Visiting (MIECHV) program in the State.
In the FY 2011 competition, we required
applicants to have submitted their
MIECHV plans for FY 2010 and an
application for formula funding under
the MIECHV program. However, we are
proposing to update this requirement to
reflect that all States that currently have
an active MIECHV program would be
eligible for funding.
The revised eligibility requirement is:
‘‘(c) There must be an active Maternal,
Infant, and Early Childhood Home
Visiting (MIECHV) program in the State,
either through the State under section
511(c) of Title V of the Social Security
Act, as added by section 2951 of the
Affordable Care Act of 2010 (Pub. L.
111–148), or through an eligible nonprofit organization under section
511(h)(2)(B).)).
The original eligibility requirement
for the reader’s reference was: ‘‘(c) The

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:01 May 17, 2013

Jkt 229001

State must have submitted in FY 2010
an updated MIECHV State plan and FY
2011 Application for formula funding
under the Maternal, Infant, and Early
Childhood Home Visiting program (see
section 511 of Title V of the Social
Security Act, as added by section 2951
of the Affordable Care Act of 2010 (P.L.
111–148)).’’
Proposed Eligibility Requirements:
The Secretaries propose the following
requirements a State must meet in order
to be eligible to receive funds under this
competition. We may apply one or more
of these requirements in any year in
which this program is in effect.
1. Eligible Applicants: States that
meet the following requirements:
(a) The State has not previously
received an RTT–ELC grant.
(b) The Lead Agency must have
executed with each Participating State
Agency a memorandum of
understanding (MOU) or other binding
agreement that the State must attach to
its application, describing the
Participating State Agency’s level of
participation in the grant. At a
minimum, the MOU or other binding
agreement must include an assurance
that the Participating State Agency
agrees to use, to the extent applicable—
(1) A set of statewide Early Learning
and Development Standards;
(2) A set of statewide Program
Standards;
(3) A statewide Tiered Quality Rating
and Improvement System; and
(4) A statewide Workforce Knowledge
and Competency Framework and
progression of credentials.
(c) There must be an active Maternal,
Infant, and Early Childhood Home
Visiting (MIECHV) program in the State,
either through the State under section
511(c) of Title V of the Social Security
Act, as added by section 2951 of the
Affordable Care Act of 2010 (Pub. L.
111–148), or through an eligible nonprofit organization under section
511(h)(2)(B).
Proposed Application Requirements
Changes from the FY 2011
Competition: The Departments are not
proposing any substantive changes to
the application requirements that were
included in the FY 2011 competition;
however we made minor language
changes for clarity.
The Secretaries propose the following
application requirements for the
application a State would submit for
funding under this competition. We
may apply one or more of these
requirements in any year in which this
program is in effect.
Each applicant must meet the
following application requirements:

PO 00000

Frm 00006

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

(a) The State’s application must be
signed by the Governor or an authorized
representative; an authorized
representative from the Lead Agency;
and an authorized representative from
each Participating State Agency.
(b) The State must submit a
certification from the State Attorney
General or an authorized representative
that the State’s description of, and
statements and conclusions in its
application concerning, State law,
statute, and regulation are complete and
accurate and constitute a reasonable
interpretation of State law, statute, and
regulation.
(c) The State must complete the
budget spreadsheets that are provided in
the application package and submit the
completed spreadsheet as part of its
application. These spreadsheets should
be included on the CD or DVD that the
State submits as its application.
(d) The State must submit preliminary
scopes of work for each Participating
State Agency as part of the executed
MOU or other binding agreement. Each
preliminary scope of work must
describe the portions of the State’s
proposed plans that the Participating
State Agency is agreeing to implement.
If a State is awarded a RTT–ELC grant,
the State will have up to 90 days to
complete final scopes of work for each
Participating State Agency.
(e) The State must include a budget
that details how it will use grant funds
awarded under this competition, and
funds from other Federal, State, private,
and local sources to achieve the
outcomes of the State Plan (as described
in proposed selection criterion
(A)(4)(a)), and how the State will use
funds awarded under this program to—
(1) Achieve its ambitious yet
achievable targets for increasing the
number and percentage of Early
Learning and Development Programs
that are participating in the State’s
Tiered Quality Rating and Improvement
System (as described in selection
criterion (B)(2)(c)); and
(2) Achieve its ambitious yet
achievable targets for increasing the
number and percentage of Children with
High Needs who are enrolled in Early
Learning and Development Programs
that are in the top tiers of the State’s
Tiered Quality Rating and Improvement
System (as described in selection
criterion (B)(4)(c)).
(f) The State must provide an overall
summary for the State Plan and a
rationale for why it has chosen to
address the selected criteria in each
Focused Investment Area, including—
• How the State’s choices build on its
progress to date in each Focused
Investment Area (as outlined in Tables

E:\FR\FM\20MYP3.SGM

20MYP3

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 97 / Monday, May 20, 2013 / Proposed Rules
(A)(1) 6–13 and the narrative under
(A)(1)); and
• Why these selected criteria will best
achieve the State’s ambitious yet
achievable goals for improving program
quality, improving outcomes for
Children with High Needs statewide,
and closing the educational gaps
between Children with High Needs and
their peers.
(g) The State, within each Focused
Investment Area, must select and
address—
• Two or more selection criteria
within Focused Investment Area (C)
Promoting Early Learning and
Development Outcomes for Children;
and
• One or more selection criteria
within Focused Investment Areas (D) A
Great Early Childhood Education
Workforce and (E) Measuring Outcomes
and Progress.
(h) Where the State is submitting a
High-Quality Plan, the State must
include in its application a detailed
plan that is feasible and includes, but
need not be limited to—
(1) The key goals;
(2) The key activities to be
undertaken; the rationale for the
activities; and, if applicable, where in
the State the activities will be initially
implemented, and where and how they
will be scaled up over time to
eventually achieve statewide
implementation;
(3) A realistic timeline, including key
milestones, for implementing each key
activity;
(4) The party or parties responsible for
implementing each activity and other
key personnel assigned to each activity;
(5) Appropriate financial resources to
support successful implementation of
the plan;
(6) The information requested as
supporting evidence, if any, together
with any additional information the
State believes will be helpful to peer
reviewers in judging the credibility of
the plan;
(7) The information requested or
required in the performance measures,
where applicable;
(8) How the State will address the
needs of the different types of Early
Learning and Development Programs, if
applicable; and
(9) How the State will meet the
unique needs of Children with High
Needs.
Proposed Program Requirements
Changes From the FY 2011 Competition
Program Requirement (a)
In program requirement (a), we
propose requiring States to have an

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:01 May 17, 2013

Jkt 229001

operational State Advisory Council on
Early Childhood Education and Care
that meets the requirements described
in section 642B(b) of the Head Start Act
(42 U.S.C. 9837(b)). The coordinated
system of early learning and
development plays a unique and
important role interweaving the work
required by the RTT–ELC grant. In
addition, the State Advisory Council on
Early Childhood Education and Care
must include the State’s Child Care and
Development Fund administrator; State
agency coordinators from both Part B
section 619 and Part C of IDEA, and
State agency representatives responsible
for health and mental health. These
State agency representatives explicitly
oversee the child care work in the States
and their participation adds value and
raises the bar because of their content
knowledge on child care subsidy,
quality, and Quality Rating and
Improvement System development.
We further propose to reorganize this
program requirement into three
paragraphs. Paragraph (a) Will address
the State Advisory Council on Early
Childhood Education and Care,
paragraph (b) will address the IDEA,
Part B and Part C programs and the
Child Care Development Program, and
paragraph (c) will require States to have
an active Maternal, Infant, and Early
Childhood Home Visiting (MIECHV)
program for the duration of the grant.
The remaining paragraphs in this
requirement will be redesignated
accordingly. These proposed changes
will ensure State agencies continue to
meet throughout the duration of their
grant to assess implementation of their
early learning activities for infants,
toddlers, and preschoolers.
The revised Program Requirements
are: ‘‘(a) The State must have an
operational State Advisory Council on
Early Childhood Education and Care
that meets the requirements described
in section 642B(b) of the Head Start Act
(42 U.S.C. 9837(b)). In addition, the
State Advisory Council on Early
Childhood Education and Care must
include the State’s Child Care and
Development Fund administrator, State
agency coordinators from both Part B,
section 619 and Part C of IDEA, and
State agency representatives responsible
for health and mental health;
(b) The State must continue to
participate in the programs authorized
under section 619 of Part B of IDEA and
Part C of IDEA and in the Child Care
Development Fund (CCDF) program.
(c) States must continue to have an
active Maternal, Infant, and Early
Childhood Home Visiting (MIECHV)
program (pursuant to section 511 of
Title V of the Social Security Act, as

PO 00000

Frm 00007

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

29505

added by section 2951 of the Affordable
Care Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111–148)) for
the duration of the grant, whether
operated by the State or by an eligible
non-profit organization.’’
The original program requirements
were: ‘‘(a) The State must continue to
participate in the programs authorized
under section 619 of Part B of IDEA and
Part C of IDEA; in the CCDF program;
and in the Maternal, Infant, and Early
Childhood Home Visiting (MIECHV)
program (pursuant to section 511 of
Title V of the Social Security Act, as
added by section 2951 of the Affordable
Care Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111–148)) for
the duration of the grant.’’
Proposed Program Requirements: The
Secretaries propose the following
program requirements for States
receiving funds under this competition.
We may apply one or more of these
requirements in any year in which this
program is in effect.
(a) The State must have an operational
State Advisory Council on Early
Childhood Education and Care that
meets the requirements described in
section 642B(b) of the Head Start Act
(42 U.S.C. 9837(b)). In addition, the
State Advisory Council on Early
Childhood Education and Care must
include the State’s Child Care and
Development Fund administrator, State
agency coordinators from both Part B
section 619 and Part C of IDEA, and
State agency representatives responsible
for health and mental health.
(b) The State must continue to
participate in the programs authorized
under section 619 of Part B of IDEA and
Part C of IDEA and in the CCDF
program.
(c) States must continue to have an
active Maternal, Infant, and Early
Childhood Home Visiting (MIECHV)
program (pursuant to section 511 of
Title V of the Social Security Act, as
added by section 2951 of the Affordable
Care Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111–148)) for
the duration of the grant, whether
operated by the State or by an eligible
non-profit organization.
(d) The State is prohibited from
spending funds from the grant on the
direct delivery of health services.
(e) The State must participate in RTT–
ELC grantee technical assistance
activities facilitated by ED or HHS,
individually or in collaboration with
other State grantees in order to share
effective program practices and
solutions and collaboratively solve
problems, and must set aside $400,000
from its grant funds for this purpose.
(f) The State must—
(1) Comply with the requirements of
any evaluation sponsored by ED or HHS

E:\FR\FM\20MYP3.SGM

20MYP3

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

29506

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 97 / Monday, May 20, 2013 / Proposed Rules

of any of the State’s activities carried
out with the grant;
(2) Comply with the requirements of
any cross-State evaluation—as part of a
consortium of States—of any of the
State’s proposed reforms, if that
evaluation is coordinated or funded by
ED or HHS, including by using common
measures and data collection
instruments and collecting data
necessary to the evaluation;
(3) Together with its independent
evaluator, if any, cooperate with any
technical assistance regarding
evaluations provided by ED or HHS.
The purpose of this technical assistance
will be to ensure that the validation of
the State’s Tiered Quality Rating and
Improvement System and any other
evaluations conducted by States or their
independent evaluators, if any, are of
the highest quality and to encourage
commonality in approaches where such
commonality is feasible and useful;
(4) Submit to ED and HHS for review
and comment its design for the
validation of its Tiered Quality Rating
and Improvement System (as described
in selection criteria (B)(5)) and any other
evaluations of activities included in the
State Plan, including any activities that
are part of the State’s Focused
Investment Areas, as applicable; and
(5) Make widely available through
formal (e.g., peer-reviewed journals) or
informal (e.g., newsletters) mechanisms,
and in print or electronically, the results
of any evaluations it conducts of its
funded activities.
(g) The State must have a longitudinal
data system that includes the 12
elements described in section
6401(e)(2)(D) of the America
COMPETES Act by the date required
under the State Fiscal Stabilization
Fund (SFSF) grant and in accordance
with Indicator (b)(1) of its approved
SFSF plan.
(h) The State must comply with the
requirements of all applicable Federal,
State, and local privacy laws, including
the requirements of the Family
Educational Rights and Privacy Act, the
Health Insurance Portability
Accountability Act, and the privacy
requirements in IDEA, and their
applicable regulations.
(i) The State must ensure that the
grant activities are implemented in
accordance with all applicable Federal,
State, and local laws.
(j) The State must provide researchers
with access, consistent with the
requirements of all applicable Federal
State, and local privacy laws, to data
from its Tiered Quality Rating and
Improvement System and from the
Statewide Longitudinal Data System
and the State’s coordinated early

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:01 May 17, 2013

Jkt 229001

learning data system (if applicable) so
that they can analyze the State’s quality
improvement efforts and answer key
policy and practice questions.
(k) Unless otherwise protected as
proprietary information by Federal or
State law or a specific written
agreement, the State must make any
work (e.g., materials, tools, processes,
systems) developed under its grant
freely available to the public, including
by posting the work on a Web site
identified or sponsored by ED or HHS.
Any Web sites developed under this
grant must meet government or
industry-recognized standards for
accessibility (www.section508.gov/).
(l) Funds made available under an
RTT–ELC grant must be used to
supplement, not supplant, any Federal,
State, or local funds that, in the absence
of the funds awarded under this grant,
would be available for increasing access
to and improving the quality of Early
Learning and Development Programs.
(m) For a State that is awarded an
RTT–ELC grant, the State will have up
to 90 days from the grant award
notification date to complete final
scopes of work for each Participating
State Agency. These final scopes of
work must contain detailed work plans
that are consistent with their
corresponding preliminary scopes of
work and with the State’s grant
application, and must include the
Participating State Agency’s specific
goals, activities, timelines, budgets, key
personnel, and annual targets for key
performance measures for the portions
of the State’s proposed plans that the
Participating State Agency is agreeing to
implement.
Proposed Budget Requirements
Changes From the FY 2011 competition
Budget Requirement
We propose reducing the funding
band amounts from the FY 2011 levels
to maximize the number of States that
we can fund while providing each
winning State with a large enough grant
to support comprehensive plans. As in
the FY 2011 competition, the
Departments developed the following
categories by ranking every State
according to its share of the national
population of children ages birth
through five years old from Low-Income
families and identifying the natural
breaks in the rank order. Then, based on
population, budget caps were developed
for each category.9
9 Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Census
Bureau, 2009. American Community Survey (ACS)
1-year Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS) data.

PO 00000

Frm 00008

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

Proposed Budget Requirements
The Secretaries propose the following
budget requirements for States receiving
funds under this competition. We may
apply these requirements in any year in
which this program is in effect.
Category 1—Up to $75 million—
Florida, New York, Texas.
Category 2—Up to $52.5 million—
Arizona, Georgia, Michigan,
Pennsylvania.
Category 3—Up to $45 million—
Alabama, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Missouri, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Puerto
Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee,
Virginia.
Category 4—Up to $37.5 million—
Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, District
of Columbia, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa,
Kansas, Maine, Mississippi, Montana,
Nebraska, New Hampshire, Nevada,
North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah,
Vermont, West Virginia, Wyoming.
Proposed Definitions
Changes from the FY 2011
competition: The Departments are not
proposing any substantive changes to
the definitions used in the FY 2011
competition. We propose only minor
changes were made to the definitions of
the terms ‘‘High Quality Plan’’ and to
‘‘Participating State Agency’’ to provide
clarity.
Proposed Definitions: The Secretaries
propose the following definitions for
this program. We may apply one or
more of these definitions in any year in
which this program is in effect.
Children with High Needs means
children from birth through
kindergarten entry who are from LowIncome families or otherwise in need of
special assistance and support,
including children who have disabilities
or developmental delays; who are
English learners; who reside on ‘‘Indian
lands’’ as that term is defined by section
8013(6) of the ESEA; who are migrant,
homeless, or in foster care; and other
children as identified by the State.
Common Education Data Standards
(CEDS) means voluntary, common
standards for a key set of education data
elements (e.g., demographics, program
participation, transition, course
information) at the early learning, K–12,
and postsecondary levels developed
through a national collaborative effort
being led by the National Center for
Education Statistics. CEDS focus on
standard definitions, code sets, and
technical specifications of a subset of
key data elements and are designed to
increase data interoperability,
portability, and comparability across
Early Learning and Development
Programs and agencies, States, local

E:\FR\FM\20MYP3.SGM

20MYP3

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 97 / Monday, May 20, 2013 / Proposed Rules
educational agencies, and
postsecondary institutions.
Comprehensive Assessment System
means a coordinated and
comprehensive system of multiple
assessments, each of which is valid and
reliable for its specified purpose and for
the population with which it will be
used, that organizes information about
the process and context of young
children’s learning and development in
order to help Early Childhood Educators
make informed instructional and
programmatic decisions and that
conforms to the recommendations of the
National Research Council reports on
early childhood.
A Comprehensive Assessment System
includes, at a minimum—
(a) Screening Measures;
(b) Formative Assessments;
(c) Measures of Environmental
Quality; and
(d) Measures of the Quality of AdultChild Interactions.
Data System Oversight Requirements
means policies for ensuring the quality,
privacy, and integrity of data contained
in a data system, including—
(a) A data governance policy that
identifies the elements that are collected
and maintained; provides for training on
internal controls to system users;
establishes who will have access to the
data in the system and how the data
may be used; sets appropriate internal
controls to restrict access to only
authorized users; sets criteria for
determining the legitimacy of data
requests; establishes processes that
verify the accuracy, completeness, and
age of the data elements maintained in
the system; sets procedures for
determining the sensitivity of each
inventoried element and the risk of
harm if those data were improperly
disclosed; and establishes procedures
for disclosure review and auditing; and
(b) A transparency policy that informs
the public, including families, Early
Childhood Educators, and programs, of
the existence of data systems that house
personally identifiable information,
explains what data elements are
included in such a system, enables
parental consent to disclose personally
identifiable information as appropriate,
and describes allowable and potential
uses of the data.
Early Childhood Educator means any
professional working in an Early
Learning and Development Program,
including but not limited to centerbased and family child care providers;
infant and toddler specialists; early
intervention specialists and early
childhood special educators; home
visitors; related services providers;
administrators such as directors,

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:01 May 17, 2013

Jkt 229001

supervisors, and other early learning
and development leaders; Head Start
teachers; Early Head Start teachers;
preschool and other teachers; teacher
assistants; family service staff; and
health coordinators.
Early Learning and Development
Program means any (a) State-licensed or
State-regulated program or provider,
regardless of setting or funding source,
that provides early care and education
for children from birth to kindergarten
entry, including, but not limited to, any
program operated by a child care center
or in a family child care home; (b)
preschool program funded by the
Federal Government or State or local
educational agencies (including any
IDEA-funded program); (c) Early Head
Start and Head Start program; and (d) a
non-relative child care provider who is
not otherwise regulated by the State and
who regularly cares for two or more
unrelated children for a fee in a
provider setting. A State should include
in this definition other programs that
may deliver early learning and
development services in a child’s home,
such as the Maternal, Infant and Early
Childhood Home Visiting; Early Head
Start; and Part C of IDEA.10
Early Learning and Development
Standards means a set of expectations,
guidelines, or developmental milestones
that—
(a) Describe what all children from
birth to kindergarten entry should know
and be able to do and their disposition
toward learning;
(b) Are appropriate for each age group
(e.g., infants, toddlers, and
preschoolers); for English learners; and
for children with disabilities or
developmental delays;
(c) Cover all Essential Domains of
School Readiness; and
(d) Are universally designed and
developmentally, culturally, and
linguistically appropriate.
Early Learning Intermediary
Organization means a national,
statewide, regional, or community-based
organization that represents one or more
networks of Early Learning and
Development Programs in the State and
that has influence or authority over
them. Such Early Learning Intermediary
Organizations include, but are not
limited to, Child Care Resource and
Referral Agencies; State Head Start
Associations; Family Child Care
Associations; State affiliates of the
National Association for the Education
10 Note: Such home-based programs and services
will most likely not participate in the State’s Tiered
Quality Rating and Improvement System unless the
State has developed a set of Tiered Program
Standards specifically for home-based programs
and services.

PO 00000

Frm 00009

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

29507

of Young Children; State affiliates of the
Council for Exceptional Children’s
Division of Early Childhood; statewide
or regional union affiliates that
represent Early Childhood Educators;
affiliates of the National Migrant and
Seasonal Head Start Association; the
National Tribal, American Indian, and
Alaskan Native Head Start Association;
and the National Indian Child Care
Association.
Essential Data Elements means the
critical child, program, and workforce
data elements of a coordinated early
learning data system, including—
(a) A unique statewide child identifier
or another highly accurate, proven
method to link data on that child,
including Kindergarten Entry
Assessment data, to and from the
Statewide Longitudinal Data System
and the coordinated early learning data
system (if applicable);
(b) A unique statewide Early
Childhood Educator identifier;
(c) A unique program site identifier;
(d) Child and family demographic
information, including indicators
identifying the criteria that States use to
determine whether a child is a Child
with High Needs;
(e) Early Childhood Educator
demographic information, including
data on educational attainment and
State credential or licenses held, as well
as professional development
information;
(f) Program-level data on the
program’s structure, quality, child
suspension and expulsion rates, staff
retention, staff compensation, work
environment, and all applicable data
reported as part of the State’s Tiered
Quality Rating and Improvement
System; and
(g) Child-level program participation
and attendance data.
Essential Domains of School
Readiness means the domains of
language and literacy development,
cognition and general knowledge
(including early mathematics and early
scientific development), approaches
toward learning, physical well-being
and motor development (including
adaptive skills), and social and
emotional development.
Formative Assessment (also known as
a classroom-based or ongoing
assessment) means assessment
questions, tools, and processes—
(a) That are—
(1) Specifically designed to monitor
children’s progress in meeting the Early
Learning and Development Standards;
(2) Valid and reliable for their
intended purposes and their target
populations; and

E:\FR\FM\20MYP3.SGM

20MYP3

29508

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 97 / Monday, May 20, 2013 / Proposed Rules

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

(3) Linked directly to the curriculum;
and
(b) The results of which are used to
guide and improve instructional
practices.
High-Quality Plan means any plan
developed by the State to address a
selection criterion or priority in this
notice that is feasible and has a high
probability of successful
implementation and at a minimum
includes—
(a) The key goals;
(b) The key activities to be
undertaken; the rationale for the
activities; and, if applicable, where in
the State the activities will be initially
implemented, and where and how they
will be scaled up over time to
eventually achieve statewide
implementation;
(c) A realistic timeline, including key
milestones, for implementing each key
activity;
(d) The party or parties responsible
for implementing each activity and
other key personnel assigned to each
activity;
(e) Appropriate financial resources to
support successful implementation of
the plan;
(f) The information requested as
supporting evidence, if any, together
with any additional information the
State believes will be helpful to peer
reviewers in judging the credibility of
the plan;
(g) The information requested in the
performance measures, where
applicable;
(h) How the State will address the
needs of the different types of Early
Learning and Development Programs, if
applicable; and
(i) How the State will meet the needs
of Children with High Needs.
Kindergarten Entry Assessment means
an assessment that—
(a) Is administered to children during
the first few months of their admission
into kindergarten;
(b) Covers all Essential Domains of
School Readiness;
(c) Is used in conformance with the
recommendations of the National
Research Council11 reports on early
childhood; and
(d) Is valid and reliable for its
intended purposes and for the target
populations and aligned to the Early
Learning and Development Standards.
11 National Research Council. (2008). Early
Childhood Assessment: Why, What, and How.
Committee on Developmental Outcomes and
Assessments for Young Children, C.E. Snow and
S.B. Van Hemel, Editors. Board on Children, Youth,
and Families, Board on Testing and Assessment,
Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and
Education. Washington, DC: The National
Academies Press. www.nap.edu/
catalog.php?record_id=12446.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:01 May 17, 2013

Jkt 229001

Results of the assessment should be
used to inform efforts to close the school
readiness gap at kindergarten entry and
to inform instruction in the early
elementary school grades. This
assessment should not be used to
prevent children’s entry into
kindergarten.
Lead Agency means the State-level
agency designated by the Governor for
the administration of the RTT–ELC
grant; this agency is the fiscal agent for
the grant. The Lead Agency must be one
of the Participating State Agencies.
Low-Income means having an income
of up to 200 percent of the Federal
poverty rate.
Measures of Environmental Quality
means valid and reliable indicators of
the overall quality of the early learning
environment.
Measures of the Quality of AdultChild Interactions means the measures
obtained through valid and reliable
processes for observing how teachers
and caregivers interact with children,
where such processes are designed to
promote child learning and to identify
strengths and areas for improvement for
early learning professionals.
Participating State Agency means a
State agency that administers public
funds related to early learning and
development and is participating in the
State Plan. The following State agencies
are required Participating State
Agencies: the agencies that administer
or supervise the administration of
CCDF, the section 619 of Part B of IDEA
and Part C of IDEA programs, Statefunded preschool, home visiting, Title I
of ESEA, the Head Start State
Collaboration Grant, and the Title V
Maternal and Child Care Block Grant,
the State’s Child Care Licensing Agency,
and the State Education Agency. Other
State agencies, such as the agencies that
administer or supervise the
administration of Child Welfare, Mental
Health, Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families (TANF), Community-Based
Child Abuse Prevention, the Child and
Adult Care Food Program, and the Adult
Education and Family Literacy Act
(AEFLA) may be Participating State
Agencies if they elect to participate in
the State Plan as well as the State
Advisory Council on Early Childhood
Education and Care.
Participating Program means an Early
Learning and Development Program that
elects to carry out activities described in
the State Plan.
Program Standards means the
standards that serve as the basis for a
Tiered Quality Rating and Improvement
System and define differentiated levels
of quality for Early Learning and
Development Programs. Program

PO 00000

Frm 00010

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

Standards are expressed, at a minimum,
by the extent to which—
(a) Early Learning and Development
Standards are implemented through
evidence-based activities, interventions,
or curricula that are appropriate for each
age group of infants, toddlers, and
preschoolers;
(b) Comprehensive Assessment
Systems are used routinely and
appropriately to improve instruction
and enhance program quality by
providing robust and coherent evidence
of—
(1) Children’s learning and
development outcomes; and
(2) Program performance;
(c) A qualified workforce improves
young children’s health, social,
emotional, and educational outcomes;
(d) Strategies are successfully used to
engage families in supporting their
children’s development and learning.
These strategies may include, but are
not limited to, parent access to the
program, ongoing two-way
communication with families, parent
education in child development,
outreach to fathers and other family
members, training and support for
families as children move to preschool
and kindergarten, social networks of
support, intergenerational activities,
linkages with community supports and
adult and family literacy programs,
parent involvement in decision making,
and parent leadership development;
(e) Health promotion practices
include health and safety requirements;
developmental, behavioral, and sensory
screening, referral, and follow up; and
the promotion of physical activity,
healthy eating habits, oral health and
behavioral health, and health literacy
among parents; and
(f) Effective data practices include
gathering Essential Data Elements and
entering them into the State’s Statewide
Longitudinal Data System or other early
learning data system, using these data to
guide instruction and program
improvement, and making this
information readily available to
families.
Screening Measures means age and
developmentally appropriate, valid, and
reliable instruments that are used to
identify children who may need followup services to address developmental,
learning, or health needs in, at a
minimum, the areas of physical health,
behavioral health, oral health, child
development, vision, and hearing.
State means any of the 50 States, the
District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico.
State Plan means the plan submitted
as part of the State’s RTT–ELC
application.

E:\FR\FM\20MYP3.SGM

20MYP3

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 97 / Monday, May 20, 2013 / Proposed Rules
Statewide Longitudinal Data System
means the State’s longitudinal
education data system that collects and
maintains detailed, high-quality,
student- and staff-level data that are
linked across entities and that over time
provide a complete academic and
performance history for each student.
The Statewide Longitudinal Data
System is typically housed within the
State educational agency but includes or
can be connected to early childhood,
postsecondary, and labor data.
Tiered Quality Rating and
Improvement System means the system
through which the State uses a set of
progressively higher Program Standards
to evaluate the quality of an Early
Learning and Development Program and
to support program improvement. A
Tiered Quality Rating and Improvement
System consists of four components: (a)
Tiered Program Standards with multiple
rating categories that clearly and
meaningfully differentiate program
quality levels; (b) monitoring to evaluate
program quality based on the Program
Standards; (c) supports to help programs
meet progressively higher standards
(e.g., through training, technical
assistance, financial support); and (d)
program quality ratings that are
publically available; and includes a
process for validating the system.
Workforce Knowledge and
Competency Framework means a set of
expectations that describes what Early
Childhood Educators (including those
working with children with disabilities
and English learners) should know and
be able to do. The Workforce Knowledge
and Competency Framework, at a
minimum, (a) Is evidence-based; (b)
incorporates knowledge and application
of the State’s Early Learning and
Development Standards, the
Comprehensive Assessment Systems,
child development, health, and
culturally and linguistically appropriate
strategies for working with families; (c)
includes knowledge of early
mathematics and literacy development
and effective instructional practices to
support mathematics and literacy
development in young children; (d)
incorporates effective use of data to
guide instruction and program
improvement; (e) includes effective
behavior management strategies that
promote positive social emotional
development and reduce challenging
behaviors; and (f) incorporates feedback
from experts at the State’s
postsecondary institutions and other
early learning and development experts
and Early Childhood Educators.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:01 May 17, 2013

Jkt 229001

Proposed Selection Criteria
Changes from the FY 2011 competition
Selection Criteria A(1)(a); A(1)(b); and
(E)(1)(c)
Regarding selection criteria A(1)(a),
A(1)(b), and (E)(1)(c), we propose two
minor changes for the purpose of
demonstrating past commitment.
Successful State Systems selection
criteria A(1)(a) and A(1)(b) have been
updated to remove the reference to
‘‘January 2007’’ and change it to ‘‘the
previous five years.’’ Additionally, in
the Measuring Outcomes and Process
selection criterion (E)(1)(c), we have
updated the school year referenced from
‘‘2014–2015’’ to ‘‘ending during the
fourth year of the grant.’’
Selection Criteria (D)(2)(a)
In A Great Early Childhood Education
Workforce selection criterion (D)(2)(a),
additional language was added
requiring proposed professional
development opportunities be
supported by evidence (e.g.,
evaluations, developmental theory, or
data or information) demonstrating
improved outcomes for Children with
High Needs.
The revised selection criterion is: (a)
Providing and expanding access to
effective professional development
opportunities that—
(1) Are aligned with the State’s
Workforce Knowledge and Competency
Framework;
(2) Tightly link training with
professional development approaches,
such as coaching and mentoring; and
(3) Are supported by strong evidence
(e.g. available evaluations,
developmental theory, and/or data or
information) as to why these policies
and incentives will be effective in
improving outcomes for Children with
High Needs.
The original selection criterion for the
reader’s reference was: ‘‘(a) Providing
and expanding access to effective
professional development opportunities
that are aligned with the State’s
Workforce Knowledge and Competency
Framework;’’.
Selection Criterion (D)(2)(b)
Additional language has been
incorporated into selection criterion
(D)(2)(b) of criteria (D)(2) Supporting
Early Childhood Educators in improving
their knowledge, skills, and abilities.
The new language would require strong
evidence as to why these policies and
incentives will be effective in improving
child outcomes.
The revised selection criterion is: (b)
Implementing effective policies and

PO 00000

Frm 00011

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

29509

incentives (e.g., scholarships,
compensation and wage supplements,
tiered reimbursement rates, other
financial incentives, management
opportunities) to promote professional
improvement and career advancement
along an articulated career pathway
that—
(1) Are aligned with the State’s
Workforce Knowledge and Competency
Framework;
(2) Tightly link training with
professional development approaches,
such as coaching and mentoring; and
(3) Are supported by strong evidence
(e.g. available evaluations,
developmental theory, or data or
information) as to why these policies
and incentives will be effective in
improving outcomes for Children with
High Needs.
The original selection criterion for the
reader’s reference was: (b) Implementing
policies and incentives (e.g.,
scholarships, compensation and wage
supplements, tiered reimbursement
rates, other financial incentives,
management opportunities) that
promote professional improvement and
career advancement along an articulated
career pathway that is aligned with the
Workforce Knowledge and Competency
Framework, and that are designed to
increase retention.
Proposed Selection Criteria
The Secretaries propose the following
selection criteria for evaluating an
application under this program. We may
apply one or more of these criteria in
any year in which this program is in
effect. The Secretaries propose that they
may use:
• One or more of the selection criteria
established in the notice of final
priorities, requirements, definitions, and
selection criteria;
• Any of the selection criteria in 34
CFR 75.210;
• Criteria based on the statutory
requirements for the RTT–ECL program
in accordance with 34 CFR 75.209; or
• Any combination of these when
establishing selection criteria for any
RTT–ELC competition.
The Secretaries propose that they may
further define each criterion by selecting
specific factors for it. The Secretaries
may select these factors from any
selection criterion in the list below. In
the notice inviting applications, the
application package, or both we will
announce the specific selection criteria
that apply to a competition and the
maximum possible points assigned to
each criterion.
Core Areas—Sections (A) (Successful
State Systems) and (B) (High-Quality,
Accountable Programs) States must

E:\FR\FM\20MYP3.SGM

20MYP3

29510

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 97 / Monday, May 20, 2013 / Proposed Rules

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

address in their application all of the
selection criteria in the Core Areas.
A. Successful State Systems
(A)(1) Demonstrating past
commitment to early learning and
development.
The extent to which the State has
demonstrated past commitment to and
investment in high-quality, accessible
Early Learning and Development
Programs and services for Children with
High Needs, as evidenced by the
State’s—
(a) Financial investment, from five
years ago to the present, in Early
Learning and Development Programs,
including the amount of these
investments in relation to the size of the
State’s population of Children with
High Needs during this time period;
(b) Increasing, from the previous five
years to the present, the number of
Children with High Needs participating
in Early Learning and Development
Programs;
(c) Existing early learning and
development legislation, policies, or
practices; and
(d) Current status in key areas that
form the building blocks for a high
quality early learning and development
system, including Early Learning and
Development Standards,
Comprehensive Assessment Systems,
health promotion practices, family
engagement strategies, the development
of Early Childhood Educators,
Kindergarten Entry Assessments, and
effective data practices.
Evidence for (A)(1):
• The number and percentage of
children from Low-Income families in
the State, by age;
• The number and percentage of
Children with High Needs from special
populations in the State; and
• The number of Children with High
Needs in the State who are enrolled in
Early Learning and Development
Programs, by age.
• Data currently available, if any, on
the status of children at kindergarten
entry (across Essential Domains of
School Readiness, if available),
including data on the readiness gap
between Children with High Needs and
their peers.
• Data currently available, if any, on
program quality across different types of
Early Learning and Development
Programs.
• The number of Children with High
Needs participating in each type of
Early Learning and Development
Program for each of the previous five
years to the present.
• The number of Children with High
Needs participating in each type of

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:01 May 17, 2013

Jkt 229001

Early Learning and Development
Program for each of the previous five
years to the present.
• The current status of the State’s
Early Learning and Development
Standards, for each of the Essential
Domains of School Readiness, by age
group of infants, toddlers, and
preschoolers.
• The elements of a Comprehensive
Assessment System currently required
within the State by different types of
Early Learning and Development
Programs or systems.
• The elements of high-quality health
promotion practices currently required
within the State by different types of
Early Learning and Development
Programs or systems.
• The elements of a high-quality
family engagement strategy currently
required within the State by different
types of Early Learning and
Development Programs or systems.
• All early learning and development
workforce credentials currently
available in the State, including whether
credentials are aligned with a State
Workforce Knowledge and Competency
Framework and the number and
percentage of Early Childhood
Educators who have each type of
credential.
• The current status of postsecondary
institutions and other professional
development providers in the State that
issue credentials or degrees to Early
Childhood Educators.
• The current status of the State’s
Kindergarten Entry Assessment.
• All early learning and development
data systems currently used in the State.
Performance Measures for (A)(1):
• None required.
(A)(2) Articulating the State’s
rationale for its early learning and
development reform agenda and goals.
The extent to which the State clearly
articulates a comprehensive early
learning and development reform
agenda that is ambitious yet achievable,
builds on the State’s progress to date (as
demonstrated in selection criterion
(A)(1)), is likely to result in improved
school readiness for Children with High
Needs, and includes—
(a) Ambitious yet achievable goals for
improving program quality, improving
outcomes for Children with High Needs
statewide, and closing the educational
gaps between Children with High Needs
and their peers;
(b) An overall summary of the State
Plan that clearly articulates how the
High-Quality Plans proposed under
each selection criterion, when taken
together, constitute an effective reform
agenda that establishes a clear and

PO 00000

Frm 00012

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

credible path toward achieving these
goals; and
(c) A specific rationale that justifies
the State’s choice to address the selected
criteria in each Focused Investment
Area (C), (D), and (E), including why
these selected criteria will best achieve
these goals.
Evidence for (A)(2):
• The State’s goals for improving
program quality statewide over the
period of this grant.
• The State’s goals for improving
child outcomes statewide over the
period of this grant.
• The State’s goals for closing the
readiness gap between Children with
High Needs and their peers at
kindergarten entry.
• Identification of the two or more
selection criteria that the State has
chosen to address in Focused
Investment Area (C).
• Identification of the one or more
selection criteria that the State has
chosen to address in Focused
Investment Area (D).
• Identification of the one or more
selection criteria that the State has
chosen to address in Focused
Investment Area (E).
• For each Focused Investment Area
(C), (D), and (E), a description of the
State’s rationale for choosing to address
the selected criteria in that Focused
Investment Area, including how the
State’s choices build on its progress to
date in each Focused Investment Area
(as outlined in the narrative under
(A)(1) in the application) and why these
selected criteria will best achieve the
State’s ambitious yet achievable goals
for improving program quality,
improving outcomes for Children with
High Needs statewide, and closing the
educational gap between Children with
High Needs and their peers.
Performance Measures for (A)(2):
• None required.
(A)(3) Aligning and coordinating early
learning and development across the
State.
The extent to which the State has
established, or has a High-Quality Plan
to establish, strong participation in and
commitment to the State Plan by
Participating State Agencies and other
early learning and development
stakeholders by—
(a) Demonstrating how the
Participating State Agencies and other
partners, if any, will identify a
governance structure for working
together that will facilitate interagency
coordination, streamline decision
making, effectively allocate resources,
and create long-term sustainability, and
describing—

E:\FR\FM\20MYP3.SGM

20MYP3

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 97 / Monday, May 20, 2013 / Proposed Rules
(1) The organizational structure for
managing the grant and how it builds
upon existing interagency governance
structures such as children’s cabinets,
councils, and commissions, if any
already exist and are effective;
(2) The governance-related roles and
responsibilities of the Lead Agency, the
State Advisory Council on Early
Childhood Education and Care, each
Participating State Agency, and the
State’s Interagency Coordinating
Council for Part C of IDEA, and other
partners, if any;
(3) The method and process for
making different types of decisions (e.g.,
policy, operational) and resolving
disputes; and
(4) The plan for when and how the
State will involve representatives from
Participating Programs, Early Childhood
Educators or their representatives,
parents and families, including parents
and families of Children with High
Needs, and other key stakeholders in the
planning and implementation of the
activities carried out under the grant;
(b) Demonstrating that the
Participating State Agencies are strongly
committed to the State Plan, to the
governance structure of the grant, and to
effective implementation of the State
Plan, by including in the MOUs or other
binding agreements between the State
and each Participating State Agency—
(1) Terms and conditions that reflect
a strong commitment to the State Plan
by each Participating State Agency,
including terms and conditions
designed to align and leverage the
Participating State Agencies’ existing
funding to support the State Plan;
(2) ‘‘Scope-of-work’’ descriptions that
require each Participating State Agency
to implement all applicable portions of
the State Plan and a description of
efforts to maximize the number of Early
Learning and Development Programs
that become Participating Programs; and
(3) A signature from an authorized
representative of each Participating
State Agency; and
(c) Demonstrating commitment to the
State Plan from a broad group of
stakeholders that will assist the State in
reaching the ambitious yet achievable
goals outlined in response to selection
criterion (A)(2)(a), including by
obtaining—
(1) Detailed and persuasive letters of
intent or support from Early Learning
Intermediary Organizations, and, if
applicable, local early learning councils;
and
(2) Letters of intent or support from
such other stakeholders as Early
Childhood Educators or their
representatives; the State’s legislators;
local community leaders; State or local

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:01 May 17, 2013

Jkt 229001

school boards; representatives of private
and faith-based early learning programs;
other State and local leaders (e.g.,
business, community, tribal, civil rights,
education association leaders); adult
education and family literacy State and
local leaders; family and community
organizations; representatives from the
disability community, the English
learner community, and entities
representing other Children with High
Needs(e.g., parent councils, nonprofit
organizations, local foundations, tribal
organizations, and community-based
organizations); libraries and children’s
museums; health providers; and
postsecondary institutions.
Evidence for (A)(3) (a) and (b):
• For (A)(3)(a)(1): An organizational
chart that shows how the grant will be
governed and managed.
• Governance-related roles and
responsibilities.
• A copy of all fully executed MOUs
or other binding agreements that cover
each Participating State Agency. (MOUs
or other binding agreements should be
referenced in the narrative but must be
included in the Appendix to the
application).
Evidence for (A)(3)(c)(1):
• A list of every Early Learning
Intermediary Organization and local
early learning council (if applicable) in
the State that indicates which
organizations and councils have
submitted letters of intent or support.
• A copy of every letter of intent or
support from Early Learning
Intermediary Organizations and local
early learning councils.
Evidence for (A)(3)(c)(2):
• A copy of every letter of intent or
support from other stakeholders.
Performance Measures for (A)(3):
• None required.
(A)(4) Developing a budget to
implement and sustain the work of this
grant.
The extent to which the State Plan—
(a) Demonstrates how the State will
use existing funds that support early
learning and development from Federal,
State, private, and local sources (e.g.,
CCDF; Title I and II of ESEA; IDEA;
Striving Readers Comprehensive
Literacy Program; State preschool; Head
Start Collaboration funding; Maternal,
Infant, and Early Childhood Home
Visiting Program; Title V MCH Block
Grant; TANF; Medicaid; child welfare
services under Title IV (B) and (E) of the
Social Security Act; Statewide
Longitudinal Data System; foundation;
other private funding sources) for
activities and services that help achieve
the outcomes in the State Plan,
including how the quality set-asides in
CCDF will be used;

PO 00000

Frm 00013

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

29511

(b) Describes, in both the budget
tables and budget narratives, how the
State will effectively and efficiently use
funding from this grant to achieve the
outcomes in the State Plan, in a manner
that—
(1) Is adequate to support the
activities described in the State Plan;
(2) Includes costs that are reasonable
and necessary in relation to the
objectives, design, and significance of
the activities described in the State Plan
and the number of children to be served;
and
(3) Details the amount of funds
budgeted for Participating State
Agencies, localities, Early Learning
Intermediary Organizations,
Participating Programs, or other
partners, and the specific activities to be
implemented with these funds
consistent with the State Plan, and
demonstrates that a significant amount
of funding will be devoted to the local
implementation of the State Plan; and
(c) Demonstrates that it can be
sustained after the grant period ends to
ensure that the number and percentage
of Children with High Needs served by
Early Learning and Development
Programs in the State will be
maintained or expanded.
Evidence for (A)(4)(a):
• The existing funds to be used to
achieve the outcomes in the State Plan.
• Description of how these existing
funds will be used for activities and
services that help achieve the outcomes
in the State Plan.
Evidence for (A)(4)(b):
• The State’s budget.
• The narratives that accompany and
explain the budget, and describes how
it connects to the State Plan.
Performance Measures for (A)(4):
• None required.
B. High-Quality, Accountable Programs
(B)(1) Developing and adopting a
common, statewide Tiered Quality
Rating and Improvement System.
The extent to which the State and its
Participating State Agencies have
developed and adopted, or have a HighQuality Plan to develop and adopt, a
Tiered Quality Rating and Improvement
System that—
(a) Is based on a statewide set of tiered
Program Standards that include—
(1) Early Learning and Development
Standards;
(2) A Comprehensive Assessment
System;
(3) Early Childhood Educator
qualifications;
(4) Family engagement strategies;
(5) Health promotion practices; and
(6) Effective data practices;
(b) Is clear and has standards that are
measurable, meaningfully differentiate

E:\FR\FM\20MYP3.SGM

20MYP3

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

29512

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 97 / Monday, May 20, 2013 / Proposed Rules

program quality levels, and reflect high
expectations of program excellence
commensurate with nationally
recognized standards that lead to
improved learning outcomes for
children; and
(c) Is linked to the State licensing
system for Early Learning and
Development Programs.
Evidence for (B)(1):
• Each set of existing Program
Standards currently used in the State
and the elements that are included in
those Program Standards (Early
Learning and Development Standards,
Comprehensive Assessment Systems,
Qualified Workforce, Family
Engagement, Health Promotion,
Effective Data Practices, and Other).
• To the extent the State has
developed and adopted a Tiered Quality
Rating and Improvement System based
on a common set of tiered Program
Standards that meet the elements in
criterion (B)(1)(a), submit—
Æ A copy of the tiered Program
Standards;
Æ Documentation that the Program
Standards address all areas outlined in
the definition of Program Standards,
demonstrate high expectations of
program excellence commensurate with
nationally recognized standards, and are
linked to the States licensing system;
and
Æ Documentation of how the tiers
meaningfully differentiate levels of
quality.
Performance Measures for (B)(1):
• None required.
(B)(2) Promoting Participation in the
State’s Tiered Quality Rating and
Improvement System.
The extent to which the State has
maximized, or has a High-Quality Plan
to maximize, program participation in
the State’s Tiered Quality Rating and
Improvement System by—
(a) Implementing effective policies
and practices to reach the goal of having
all publicly funded Early Learning and
Development Programs participate in
such a system, including programs in
each of the following categories—
(1) State-funded preschool programs;
(2) Early Head Start and Head Start
programs;
(3) Early Learning and Development
Programs funded under section 619 of
Part B of IDEA and Part C of IDEA;
(4) Early Learning and Development
Programs funded under Title I of the
ESEA; and
(5) Early Learning and Development
Programs receiving funds from the
State’s CCDF program;
(b) Implementing effective policies
and practices designed to help more
families afford high-quality child care

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:01 May 17, 2013

Jkt 229001

and maintain the supply of high-quality
child care in areas with high
concentrations of Children with High
Needs (e.g., maintaining or increasing
subsidy reimbursement rates, taking
actions to ensure affordable copayments, providing incentives to highquality providers to participate in the
subsidy program); and
(c) Setting ambitious yet achievable
targets for the numbers and percentages
of Early Learning and Development
Programs that will participate in the
Tiered Quality Rating and Improvement
System by type of Early Learning and
Development Program (as listed in
(B)(2)(a)(1) through (5) above).
Evidence for (B)(2):
• Any supporting evidence the State
believes will be helpful to peer
reviewers.
Performance Measures for (B)(2)(c):
General goals to be provided at time
of application, including baseline data
and annual targets:
• Number and percentage of Early
Learning and Development Programs
participating in the statewide Tiered
Quality Rating and Improvement
System, by type of Early Learning and
Development Program.
(B)(3) Rating and monitoring Early
Learning and Development Programs.
The extent to which the State and its
Participating State Agencies have
developed and implemented, or have a
High-Quality Plan to develop and
implement, a system for rating and
monitoring the quality of Early Learning
and Development Programs
participating in the Tiered Quality
Rating and Improvement System by—
(a) Using a valid and reliable tool for
monitoring such programs, having
trained monitors whose ratings have an
acceptable level of inter-rater reliability,
and monitoring and rating the Early
Learning and Development Programs
with appropriate frequency; and
(b) Providing quality rating and
licensing information to parents with
children enrolled in Early Learning and
Development Programs (e.g., displaying
quality rating information at the
program site) and making program
quality rating data, information, and
licensing history (including any health
and safety violations) publicly available
in formats that are written in plain
language, and are easy to understand
and use for decision making by families
selecting Early Learning and
Development Programs and families
whose children are enrolled in such
programs.
Evidence for (B)(3):
• Any supporting evidence the State
believes will be helpful to peer
reviewers.

PO 00000

Frm 00014

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

Performance Measures for (B)(3):
• None required.
(B)(4) Promoting access to highquality Early Learning and Development
Programs for Children with High Needs.
The extent to which the State and its
Participating State Agencies have
developed and implemented, or have a
High-Quality Plan to develop and
implement, a system for improving the
quality of the Early Learning and
Development Programs participating in
the Tiered Quality Rating and
Improvement System by—
(a) Developing and implementing
policies and practices that provide
support and incentives for Early
Learning and Development Programs to
continuously improve (e.g., through
training, technical assistance, financial
rewards or incentives, higher subsidy
reimbursement rates, compensation);
(b) Providing supports to help
working families who have Children
with High Needs access high-quality
Early Learning and Development
Programs that meet those needs (e.g.,
providing full-day, full-year programs;
transportation; meals; family support
services); and
(c) Setting ambitious yet achievable
targets for increasing—
(1) The number of Early Learning and
Development Programs in the top tiers
of the Tiered Quality Rating and
Improvement System; and
(2) The number and percentage of
Children with High Needs who are
enrolled in Early Learning and
Development Programs that are in the
top tiers of the Tiered Quality Rating
and Improvement System.
Evidence for (B)(4):
• Any supporting evidence the State
believes will be helpful to peer
reviewers.
Performance Measures for (B)(4)(c):
General goals to be provided at time
of application, including baseline data
and annual targets:
• Number of Early Learning and
Development Programs in the top tiers
of the Tiered Quality Rating and
Improvement System, by type of Early
Learning and Development Program.
• Number and Percentage of Children
with High Needs who are enrolled in
Early Learning and Development
Programs that that are in the top tiers of
the Tiered Quality Rating and
Improvement System, by type of Early
Learning and Development Program.
(B)(5) Validating the effectiveness of
State Tiered Quality Rating and
Improvement Systems.
The extent to which the State has a
High-Quality Plan to design and
implement evaluations—working with
an independent evaluator and, when

E:\FR\FM\20MYP3.SGM

20MYP3

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 97 / Monday, May 20, 2013 / Proposed Rules

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

warranted, as part of a cross-State
evaluation consortium—of the
relationship between the ratings
generated by the State’s Tiered Quality
Rating and Improvement System and
the learning outcomes of children
served by the State’s Early Learning and
Development Programs by—
(a) Validating, using research-based
measures, as described in the State Plan
(which also describes the criteria that
the State used or will use to determine
those measures), whether the tiers in the
State’s Tiered Quality Rating and
Improvement System accurately reflect
differential levels of program quality;
and
(b) Assessing, using appropriate
research designs and measures of
progress (as identified in the State Plan),
the extent to which changes in quality
ratings are related to progress in
children’s learning, development, and
school readiness.
Focused Investment Areas—Sections
(C), (D), and (E)
Each State must address in its
application—
(1) Two or more of the selection
criteria in Focused Investment Area (C);
(2) One or more of the selection
criteria in Focused Investment Area (D);
and
(3) One or more of the selection
criteria in Focused Investment Area (E).
Evidence for (B)(5):
• Any supporting evidence the State
believes will be helpful to peer
reviewers.
Performance Measures for (B)(5):
• None required.
C. Promoting Early Learning and
Development Outcomes for Children.
The applicant must address at least
two of the selection criteria within
Focused Investment Area (C), which are
as follows:
(C)(1) Developing and using
statewide, high-quality Early Learning
and Development Standards.
The extent to which the State has a
High-Quality Plan to put in place highquality Early Learning and Development
Standards that are used statewide by
Early Learning and Development
Programs and that—
(a) Includes evidence that the Early
Learning and Development Standards
are developmentally, culturally, and
linguistically appropriate across each
age group of infants, toddlers, and
preschoolers, and that they cover all
Essential Domains of School Readiness;
(b) Includes evidence that the Early
Learning and Development Standards
are aligned with the State’s K–3
academic standards in, at a minimum,
early literacy and mathematics;

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:01 May 17, 2013

Jkt 229001

(c) Includes evidence that the Early
Learning and Development Standards
are incorporated in Program Standards,
curricula and activities, Comprehensive
Assessment Systems, the State’s
Workforce Knowledge and Competency
Framework, and professional
development activities; and
(d) The State has supports in place to
promote understanding of and
commitment to the Early Learning and
Development Standards across Early
Learning and Development Programs.
Evidence for (C)(1)(a) and (b):
• To the extent the State has
implemented Early Learning and
Development Standards that meet the
elements in criteria (C)(1)(a) and (b),
submit—
Æ Proof of use by all types of Early
Learning and Development Programs in
the State;
Æ The State’s Early Learning and
Development Standards for:
—Infants and toddlers
—Preschoolers
Æ Documentation that the standards
are developmentally, linguistically and
culturally appropriate for all children,
including children with disabilities and
developmental delays and English
Learners;
Æ Documentation that the standards
address all Essential Domains of School
Readiness and that they are of highquality; and
Æ Documentation of the alignment
between the State’s Early Learning and
Development Standards and the State’s
K–3 standards.
Performance Measures for (C)(1):
• None required.
(C)(2) Supporting effective uses of
Comprehensive Assessment Systems.
The extent to which the State has a
High-Quality Plan to support the
effective implementation of
developmentally appropriate
Comprehensive Assessment Systems
by—
(a) Working with Early Learning and
Development Programs to select
assessment instruments and approaches
that are appropriate for the target
populations and purposes;
(b) Working with Early Learning and
Development Programs to strengthen
Early Childhood Educators’
understanding of the purposes and uses
of each type of assessment included in
the Comprehensive Assessment
Systems;
(c) Articulating an approach for
aligning and integrating assessments
and sharing assessment results, as
appropriate, in order to avoid
duplication of assessments and to
coordinate services for Children with
High Needs who are served by multiple

PO 00000

Frm 00015

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

29513

Early Learning and Development
Programs; and
(d) Training Early Childhood
Educators to appropriately administer
assessments and interpret and use
assessment data in order to inform and
improve instruction, programs, and
services.
Evidence for (C)(2):
• Any supporting evidence the State
believes will be helpful to peer
reviewers.
Performance Measures for (C)(2):
• None required.
(C)(3) Identifying and addressing the
health, behavioral, and developmental
needs of Children with High Needs to
improve school readiness.
The extent to which the State has a
High-Quality Plan to identify and
address the health, behavioral, and
developmental needs of Children with
High Needs by—
(a) Establishing a progression of
standards for ensuring children’s health
and safety; ensuring that health and
behavioral screening and follow-up
occur; and promoting children’s
physical, social, and emotional
development across the levels of its
Program Standards;
(b) Increasing the number of Early
Childhood Educators who are trained
and supported on an on-going basis in
meeting the health standards;
(c) Promoting healthy eating habits,
improving nutrition, expanding
physical activity; and
(d) Leveraging existing resources to
meet ambitious yet achievable annual
targets to increase the number of
Children with High Needs who—
(1) Are screened using Screening
Measures that align with the Medicaid
Early Periodic Screening, Diagnostic
and Treatment benefit (see section
1905(r)(5) of the Social Security Act) or
the well-baby and well-child services
available through the Children’s Health
Insurance Program (42 CFR 457.520),
and that, as appropriate, are consistent
with the Child Find provisions in IDEA
(see sections 612(a)(3) and 635(a)(5) of
IDEA);
(2) Are referred for services based on
the results of those screenings, and,
where appropriate, received follow-up;
and
(3) Participate in ongoing health care
as part of a schedule of well-child care,
including the number of children who
are up to date in a schedule of wellchild care.
Evidence for (C)(3)(a):
• To the extent the State has
established a progression of health
standards across the levels of Program
Standards that meet the elements in
criterion (C)(3)(a), submit—

E:\FR\FM\20MYP3.SGM

20MYP3

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

29514

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 97 / Monday, May 20, 2013 / Proposed Rules

Æ The progression of health standards
used in the Program Standards and the
State’s plans for improvement over time,
including documentation demonstrating
that this progression of standards
appropriately addresses health and
safety standards; developmental,
behavioral, and sensory screening,
referral, and follow-up; health
promotion including healthy eating
habits, improved nutrition, and
increased physical activity; oral health;
and social and emotional development;
and health literacy among parents and
children.
Evidence for (C)(3)(b):
• To the extent the State has existing
and projected numbers and percentages
of Early Childhood Educators who
receive training and support in meeting
the health standards, the State must
submit documentation of these data. If
the State does not have these data, the
State must outline its plan for deriving
them.
Evidence for (C)(3)(c):
Any supporting evidence the State
believes will be helpful to peer
reviewers.
Evidence for (C)(3)(d):
• Documentation of the State’s
existing and future resources that are or
will be used to address the health,
behavioral, and developmental needs of
Children with High Needs. At a
minimum, documentation must address
the screening, referral, and follow-up of
all Children with High Needs; how the
State will promote the participation of
Children with High Needs in ongoing
health care as part of a schedule of wellchild care; how the State will promote
healthy eating habits and improved
nutrition as well as increased physical
activity for Children with High Needs;
and how the State will promote health
literacy for children and parents.
Performance Measures for (C)(3)(d):
General goals to be provided at time
of application, including baseline data
and annual targets:
• Number of Children with High
Needs Screened.
• Number of Children with High
Needs referred for services and received
follow-up/treatment.
• Number of Children with High
Needs that participate in ongoing health
care as part of a schedule of well-child
care.
• Of these participating Children with
High Needs, the number or percentage
of children who are up-to-date in
receiving services as part of a schedule
of well-child care.
(C)(4) Engaging and supporting
families.
The extent to which the State has a
High-Quality Plan to provide culturally

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:01 May 17, 2013

Jkt 229001

and linguistically appropriate
information and support to families of
Children with High Needs in order to
promote school readiness for their
children by—
(a) Establishing a progression of
culturally and linguistically appropriate
standards for family engagement across
the levels of its Program Standards,
including activities that enhance the
capacity of families to support their
children’s education and development;
(b) Increasing the number and
percentage of Early Childhood
Educators trained and supported on an
on-going basis to implement the family
engagement strategies included in the
Program Standards; and
(c) Promoting family support and
engagement statewide, including by
leveraging other existing resources such
as through home visiting programs,
other family-serving agencies, and
through outreach to family, friend, and
neighbor caregivers.
Evidence for (C)(4)(a):
• To the extent the State has
established a progression of family
engagement standards across the levels
of Program Standards that meet the
elements in criterion (C)(4)(a), submit—
Æ The progression of culturally and
linguistically appropriate family
engagement standards used in the
Program Standards that includes
strategies successfully used to engage
families in supporting their children’s
development and learning. A State’s
family engagement standards must
address, but need not be limited to:
parent access to the program, ongoing
two-way communication with families,
parent education in child development,
outreach to fathers and other family
members, training and support for
families as children move to preschool
and kindergarten, social networks of
support, intergenerational activities,
linkages with community supports and
adult and family literacy programs,
parent involvement in decision making,
and parent leadership development; and
Æ Documentation that this
progression of standards includes
activities that enhance the capacity of
families to support their children’s
education and development.
Evidence for (C)(4)(b):
• To the extent the State has existing
and projected numbers and percentages
of Early Childhood Educators who
receive training and support on the
family engagement strategies included
in the Program Standards, the State
must submit documentation of these
data. If the State does not have these
data, the State must outline its plan for
deriving them.
Evidence for (C)(4)(c):

PO 00000

Frm 00016

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

• Documentation of the State’s
existing resources that are or will be
used to promote family support and
engagement statewide, including
through home visiting programs and
other family-serving agencies and the
identification of new resources that will
be used to promote family support and
engagement statewide.
Performance Measures for (C)(4)
• None required.
D. A Great Early Childhood Education
Workforce
The applicant must address at least
one of the selection criteria within
Focused Investment Area (D), which are
as follows:
(D)(1) Developing a Workforce
Knowledge and Competency Framework
and a progression of credentials.
The extent to which the State has a
High-Quality Plan to—
(a) Develop a common, statewide
Workforce Knowledge and Competency
Framework designed to promote
children’s learning and development
and improve child outcomes;
(b) Develop a common, statewide
progression of credentials and degrees
aligned with the Workforce Knowledge
and Competency Framework; and
(c) Engage postsecondary institutions
and other professional development
providers in aligning professional
development opportunities with the
State’s Workforce Knowledge and
Competency Framework.
Evidence for (D)(1):
• To the extent the State has
developed a common, statewide
Workforce Knowledge and Competency
Framework that meets the elements in
criterion (D)(1), submit:
Æ The Workforce Knowledge and
Competencies;
Æ Documentation that the State’s
Workforce Knowledge and Competency
Framework addresses the elements
outlined in the definition of Workforce
Knowledge and Competency Framework
in the Program Definitions section of
this notice and is designed to promote
children’s learning and development
and improve outcomes.
Performance Measures for (D)(1)
• None required.
(D)(2) Supporting Early Childhood
Educators in improving their knowledge,
skills, and abilities.
The extent to which the State has a
High-Quality Plan to improve the
effectiveness and retention of Early
Childhood Educators who work with
Children with High Needs, with the goal
of improving child outcomes by—
(a) Providing and expanding access to
effective professional development
opportunities that—

E:\FR\FM\20MYP3.SGM

20MYP3

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 97 / Monday, May 20, 2013 / Proposed Rules
(1) Are aligned with the State’s
Workforce Knowledge and Competency
Framework;
(2) Tightly link training with
professional development approaches,
such as coaching and mentoring; and
(3) Are supported by strong evidence
(e.g. available evaluations,
developmental theory, and/or data or
information) as to why these policies
and incentives will be effective in
improving outcomes for Children with
High Needs;
(b) Implementing effective policies
and incentives (e.g., scholarships,
compensation and wage supplements,
tiered reimbursement rates, other
financial incentives, management
opportunities) to promote professional
improvement and career advancement
along an articulated career pathway
that—
(1) Are aligned with the State’s
Workforce Knowledge and Competency
Framework;
(2) Tightly link training with
professional development approaches,
such as coaching and mentoring; and
(3) Are supported by strong evidence
provided (e.g. available evaluations,
developmental theory, or data or
information) as to why these policies
and incentives will be effective in
improving outcomes for Children with
High Needs;
(c) Publicly reporting aggregated data
on Early Childhood Educator
development, advancement, and
retention; and
(d) Setting ambitious yet achievable
targets for—
(1) Increasing the number of
postsecondary institutions and
professional development providers
with programs that are aligned to the
Workforce Knowledge and Competency
Framework and the number of Early
Childhood Educators who receive
credentials from postsecondary
institutions and professional
development providers that are aligned
to the Workforce Knowledge and
Competency Framework; and
(2) Increasing the number and
percentage of Early Childhood
Educators who are progressing to higher
levels of credentials that align with the
Workforce Knowledge and Competency
Framework.
Evidence for (D)(2):
• Evidence to support why the
proposed professional development
opportunities, policies, and incentives
will be effective in improving outcomes
for Children with High Needs (e.g.
available evaluations, developmental
theory, and/or data or information about
the population of Children with High
Needs in the State).

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:01 May 17, 2013

Jkt 229001

Performance Measures for (D)(2)(d):
General goals to be provided at time
of application, including baseline data
and annual targets:
• (D)(2)(d)(1): Number of
postsecondary institutions and
professional development providers that
are aligned to the State’s Workforce
Knowledge and Competency
Framework, and the number of Early
Childhood Educators receiving
credentials from those aligned
postsecondary institutions or
professional development providers.
• (D)(2)(d)(2): Number and percentage
of Early Childhood Educators who are
progressing to higher levels of
credentials that align with the State’s
Workforce Knowledge and Competency
Framework.
E. Measuring Outcomes and Progress
The applicant must address at least
one of the selection criteria within
Focused Investment Area (E), which are
as follows:
(E)(1) Understanding the status of
children’s learning and development at
kindergarten entry.
The extent to which the State has a
High-Quality Plan to implement,
independently or as part of a cross-State
consortium, a common, statewide
Kindergarten Entry Assessment that
informs instruction and services in the
early elementary grades and that—
(a) Is aligned with the State’s Early
Learning and Development Standards
and covers all Essential Domains of
School Readiness;
(b) Is valid, reliable, and appropriate
for the target population and for the
purpose for which it will be used,
including for English learners and
children with disabilities;
(c) Is administered beginning no later
than the start of school year ending
during the fourth year of the grant to
children entering a public school
kindergarten; States may propose a
phased implementation plan that forms
the basis for broader statewide
implementation;
(d) Is reported to the Statewide
Longitudinal Data System, and to the
early learning data system, if it is
separate from the Statewide
Longitudinal Data System, as permitted
under and consistent with the
requirements of Federal, State, and local
privacy laws; and
(e) Is funded, in significant part, with
Federal or State resources other than
those available under this grant, (e.g.,
with funds available under section 6111
or 6112 of the ESEA).
Evidence for (E)(1):

PO 00000

Frm 00017

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

29515

• Any supporting evidence the State
believes will be helpful to peer
reviewers.
Performance Measures for (E)(1):
• None required.
(E)(2) Building or enhancing an early
learning data system to improve
instruction, practices, services, and
policies.
The extent to which the State has a
High-Quality Plan to enhance the State’s
existing Statewide Longitudinal Data
System or to build or enhance a
separate, coordinated, early learning
data system that aligns and is
interoperable with the Statewide
Longitudinal Data System, and that
either data system—
(a) Has all of the Essential Data
Elements;
(b) Enables uniform data collection
and easy entry of the Essential Data
Elements by Participating State
Agencies and Participating Programs;
(c) Facilitates the exchange of data
among Participating State Agencies by
using standard data structures, data
formats, and data definitions such as
Common Education Data Standards to
ensure interoperability among the
various levels and types of data;
(d) Generates information that is
timely, relevant, accessible, and easy for
Early Learning and Development
Programs and Early Childhood
Educators to use for continuous
improvement and decision making; and
(e) Meets the Data System Oversight
Requirements and complies with the
requirements of Federal, State, and local
privacy laws.
Evidence for (E)(2):
• Any supporting evidence the State
believes will be helpful to peer
reviewers.
Performance Measures for (E)(2):
• None required.
Final Priorities, Requirements,
Definitions, and Selection Criteria:
We will announce the final priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection
criteria in the Federal Register. We will
determine the final priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection
criteria, after considering responses to
this notice and other information
available to the Departments. This
notice does not preclude us from
proposing additional priorities,
requirements, definitions, or selection
criteria, subject to meeting applicable
rulemaking requirements.
Note: This notice does not solicit
applications. In any year in which we choose
to these priorities, requirements, definitions,
and selection criteria, we invite applications
through a notice in the Federal Register.

E:\FR\FM\20MYP3.SGM

20MYP3

29516

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 97 / Monday, May 20, 2013 / Proposed Rules

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
Regulatory Impact Analysis
Under Executive Order 12866, the
Secretaries must determine whether this
regulatory action is ‘‘significant’’ and,
therefore, subject to the requirements of
the Executive order and subject to
review by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive
Order 12866 defines a ‘‘significant
regulatory action’’ as an action likely to
result in a rule that may—
(1) Have an annual effect on the
economy of $100 million or more, or
adversely affect a sector of the economy,
productivity, competition, jobs, the
environment, public health or safety, or
State, local or tribal governments or
communities in a material way (also
referred to as an ‘‘economically
significant’’ rule);
(2) Create serious inconsistency or
otherwise interfere with an action taken
or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary
impacts of entitlement grants, user fees,
or loan programs or the rights and
obligations of recipients thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues
arising out of legal mandates, the
President’s priorities, or the principles
stated in the Executive order.
This proposed regulatory action
would have an annual effect on the
economy of more than $100 million
because the Departments anticipate
more than that amount will be
appropriated for RTT–ELC and awarded
as grants. Therefore, this proposed
action is ‘‘economically significant’’ and
subject to review by OMB under section
3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866.
Notwithstanding this determination, we
have assessed the potential costs and
benefits, both quantitative and
qualitative, of this proposed regulatory
action and have determined that the
benefits would justify the costs.
The Departments also reviewed this
proposed regulatory action under
Executive Order 13563, which
supplements and explicitly reaffirms the
principles, structures, and definitions
governing regulatory review established
in Executive Order 12866. To the extent
permitted by law, Executive Order
13563 requires that an agency—
(1) Propose or adopt regulations only
upon a reasoned determination that
their benefits justify their costs
(recognizing that some benefits and
costs are difficult to quantify);
(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the
least burden on society, consistent with
obtaining regulatory objectives and
taking into account—among other things
and to the extent practicable—the costs
of cumulative regulations;

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:01 May 17, 2013

Jkt 229001

(3) In choosing among alternative
regulatory approaches, select those
approaches that maximize net benefits
(including potential economic,
environmental, public health and safety,
and other advantages; distributive
impacts; and equity);
(4) To the extent feasible, specify
performance objectives, rather than the
behavior or manner of compliance a
regulated entity must adopt; and
(5) Identify and assess available
alternatives to direct regulation,
including economic incentives—such as
user fees or marketable permits—to
encourage the desired behavior, or
provide information that enables the
public to make choices.
Executive Order 13563 also requires
an agency ‘‘to use the best available
techniques to quantify anticipated
present and future benefits and costs as
accurately as possible.’’ The Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs of
OMB has emphasized that these
techniques may include ‘‘identifying
changing future compliance costs that
might result from technological
innovation or anticipated behavioral
changes.’’
We are proposing these priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection
criteria only on a reasoned
determination that their benefits would
justify their costs. In choosing among
alternative regulatory approaches, we
selected those approaches that would
maximize net benefits.
Based on the analysis that follows, the
Departments believe that this regulatory
action is consistent with the principles
in Executive Order 13563.
We also have determined that this
proposed regulatory action would not
unduly interfere with State, local, and
tribal governments in the exercise of
their governmental functions.
In this regulatory impact analysis we
discuss the need for regulatory action,
the potential costs and benefits, net
budget impacts, assumptions,
limitations, and data sources, as well as
regulatory alternatives we considered.
Discussion of Costs and Benefits
The Secretaries believe that the
proposed priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria would
not impose significant costs on eligible
States. States that applied for a grant
under the FY 2011 RTT–ELC
competition reported that they found
the application process to be useful in
organizing their early childhood
planning efforts because the priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection
criteria provided them with direction
and structure for developing a State
High-Quality Early Learning plan.

PO 00000

Frm 00018

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

Several unfunded States then used their
prepared application as their State’s
strategic early learning plan. In
addition, the proposed priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection
criteria, in particular those related to
maintaining conditions of reform
required under the FY 2011 RTT–ELC
competition, would require
continuation of existing commitments
and investments rather than the
imposition of additional burdens and
costs for applicant States. The
Departments believe, therefore, that
those States that previously applied but
did not receive funding would incur
minimal costs in developing an
application.
In addition, because the Departments
are maintaining the criteria and
priorities of the FY 2011 competition,
States that did not previously apply can
draw upon the posted applications and
reviewer comments from the FY 2011
competition. These resources will
minimize burden for all applicants. The
Departments believe therefore that the
benefits of developing an application for
this competition outweigh the costs.
We believe that States will
significantly benefit from the
application process because it will
require them to build strong
relationships between State agencies
and early learning non-profit
organizations and consider how to use
Federal, State, and local funding
streams to best support early learning. A
further benefit is that the proposed
priorities, requirements, definitions, and
selection criteria would result in the
selection of high-quality grantees that
are most likely to successfully
implement RTT–ELC grants in the
manner that the Departments believe
will best enable the program to achieve
its objective of creating the conditions
for effective reform in State early
learning systems.
The proposed priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection
criteria clarify the scope of activities the
Secretaries expect to support with
program funds. The pool of possible
interested applicants is limited to State
applicants that have not previously
received an RTT–ELC grant. Potential
applicants need to consider carefully
the effort that will be required to
prepare a strong application, their
capacity to implement projects
successfully, and their chances of
submitting a successful application.
Program participation is voluntary.
The Secretaries believe that the costs
imposed on applicants by the proposed
priorities, requirements, definitions, and
selection criteria would be limited to
paperwork burden related to preparing

E:\FR\FM\20MYP3.SGM

20MYP3

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 97 / Monday, May 20, 2013 / Proposed Rules
an application and that the benefits of
implementing these proposals would
outweigh any costs incurred by
applicants. The costs of carrying out
activities associated with the
application would be paid for with
program funds. Thus, the costs of
implementation would not be a burden
for eligible applicants, including small
entities.
Elsewhere in this document, under
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we
identify and explain burdens
specifically associated with information
collection requirements.

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Regulatory Alternatives Considered
An alternative to promulgating these
priorities, requirements, definitions, and
selection criteria would be to use FY
2013 Race to the Top funds to make
awards to the remaining highest-scoring
unfunded applications from the FY
2011 RTT–ELC competition. However,
the Departments have determined that
funding applications from the FY 2011
competition would result in funding
applications that are likely outdated and
of only moderate quality, having
received fewer than 75 percent of the
total points available in the FY 2011
competition. The Departments have
determined that $300 million is a
sufficient amount to hold a high-quality
competition and that holding a new
competition will result in higher quality
applications than those submitted in FY
2011, due to progress made in early
learning systems during the last two
years.
The Departments also could have
decided to make significant changes to
the priorities, requirements, definitions,
and selection criteria rather than making
only the few changes proposed here.
However, we have determined that
making significant changes would be
unduly burdensome on applicants who
will rely on their FY 2011 efforts to
prepare an updated application and that
maintaining substantially the same
priorities, requirements, definitions, and
selection criteria will better enable the
Departments to conduct an evaluation of
the performance of grantees under the
RTT–ELC program overall.
To assist the Departments in
complying with the requirements of
Executive Order 12866, the Secretaries
invite comments on whether there may
be further opportunities to reduce any
potential costs or increase potential
benefits resulting from these proposed
priorities, requirements, definitions, and
selection criteria without impeding the
effective and efficient administration of
the RTT–ELC program.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:01 May 17, 2013

Jkt 229001

Accounting Statement
As required by OMB Circular A–4
(available at www.whitehouse.gov/sites/
default/files/omb/assets/omb/circulars/
a004/a-4.pdf), in the following table we
have prepared an accounting statement
showing the classification of the
expenditures associated with the
provisions of this regulatory action. This
table provides our best estimate of the
Federal payments to be made to States
under this program as a result of this
regulatory action. Expenditures are
classified as transfers to States.

29517

impact of collection requirements on
respondents.
We estimate that each applicant
would spend approximately 225 hours
of staff time to address the proposed
priorities, requirements, definitions, and
selection criteria, prepare the
application, and obtain necessary
clearances. The total number of hours
for all applicants will vary based on the
number of applications. Based on the
number of applications received in the
FY 2011 competition, we expect to
receive approximately 38 applications
for these funds. The total number of
ACCOUNTING STATEMENT CLASSIFICA- hours for all expected applicants is an
estimated 8,550 hours. We estimate the
TION OF ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES
total cost per hour of the applicant-level
[in millions]
staff who carry out this work to be $30
per hour. The total estimated cost for all
Category
Transfers
applicants would be $256,500. We have
submitted a new Information Collection
Annualized Monetized $300,000,000.
Request (ICR) for the information
Transfers.
collection requirements, under OMB
From Whom To
From the Federal
Whom?
Government to
control number 1810—New, to OMB.
States.
If you want to comment on the
proposed information collection
The FY 2013 RTT–ELC competition
requirements, please submit your
process would provide approximately
comments through the Federal
$300 million in competitive grants to
eRulemaking Portal at by selecting
eligible applicants.
Docket ID number [insert FDMS Docket
number] or via postal mail, commercial
Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification
delivery, or hand delivery. Please note
The Secretaries certify that this
that comments submitted by fax or
proposed regulatory action will not have
email and those submitted after the
a significant economic impact on a
comment period will not be accepted.
substantial number of small entities.
Written requests for information or
This proposed regulatory action will not
comments submitted by postal mail or
have a significant economic impact on
delivery should be addressed to the
small entities (such as subaward
Director of the Information Collection
recipients) as States are not small
Clearance Division, U.S. Department of
entities within the meaning of the
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW.,
Regulatory Flexibility Act.
LBJ, Room 2E117, Washington, DC
The Secretaries invite comments from
20202–4537.
small entities as to whether they believe
FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
this proposed regulatory action would
Electronically
mail
have a significant economic impact on
[email protected]. Please do not
them and, if so, request evidence to
send comments here.
support that belief.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
Departments, in accordance with the
As part of its continuing effort to
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA)
reduce paperwork and respondent
(44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the
burden, the Departments will conduct a general public and Federal agencies
preclearance consultation program to
with an opportunity to comment on
provide the general public and Federal
proposed, revised, and continuing
agencies with an opportunity to
collections of information. This helps
comment on proposed collections of
the Departments assess the impact of the
information in accordance with the
information collection requirements and
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) minimize the public’s reporting burden.
(44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This helps
It also helps the public understand the
ensure that: The public understands the Departments’ information collection
Departments’ collection instructions,
requirements and provide the requested
respondents can provide the requested
data in the desired format. The
data in the desired format, reporting
Departments are soliciting comments on
burden (time and financial resources) is the proposed information collection
minimized, collection instruments are
request (ICR) that is described below.
clearly understood, and the
The Departments are especially
Departments can properly assess the
interested in public comment

PO 00000

Frm 00019

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

E:\FR\FM\20MYP3.SGM

20MYP3

29518

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 97 / Monday, May 20, 2013 / Proposed Rules

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

addressing the following issues: (1) Is
this collection necessary to the proper
functions of the Departments; (2) will
this information be processed and used
in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate
of burden accurate; (4) how might the
Departments enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to
be collected; and (5) how might the
Departments minimize the burden of
this collection on the respondents,
including through the use of
information technology. Please note that
written comments received in response
to this notice will be considered public
records.
Intergovernmental Review: This
program is subject to Executive Order
12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR
part 79. One of the objectives of the
Executive order is to foster an
intergovernmental partnership and a
strengthened federalism. The Executive
order relies on processes developed by

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:01 May 17, 2013

Jkt 229001

State and local governments for
coordination and review of proposed
Federal financial assistance.
This document provides early
notification of the Departments’ specific
plans and actions for this program.
Accessible Format: Individuals with
disabilities can obtain this document in
an accessible format (e.g., braille, large
print, audiotape, or compact disc) on
request to the program contact person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.
Electronic Access to This Document:
The official version of this document is
the document published in the Federal
Register. Free Internet access to the
official edition of the Federal Register
and the Code of Federal Regulations is
available via the Federal Digital System
at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site you
can view this document, as well as all
other documents from both Departments
published in the Federal Register, in

PO 00000

Frm 00020

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 9990

text or Adobe Portable Document
Format (PDF). To use PDF you must
have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is
available free at the site.
You may also access documents of the
Departments published in the Federal
Register by using the article search
feature at: www.federalregister.gov.
Specifically, through the advanced
search feature at this site, you can limit
your search to documents published by
either Department.
Dated: May 14, 2013.
Deborah S. Delisle,
Assistant Secretary for Elementary and
Secondary Education, U.S. Department of
Education.
George Sheldon,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Children and
Families, U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services.
[FR Doc. 2013–11821 Filed 5–17–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000–1–P

E:\FR\FM\20MYP3.SGM

20MYP3