Everything you need to know about ranked-choice voting in one spot. Click to learn more!

Final Priorities, Requirements, Definitions, and Selection Criteria; Race to the Top-District rule (2013)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
New Administrative State Banner.png
What is a significant rule?

Significant regulatory action is a term used to describe an agency rule that has had or might have a large impact on the economy, environment, public health, or state or local governments. These actions may also conflict with other rules or presidential priorities. As part of its role in the regulatory review process, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) determines which rules meet this definition.


Administrative State
Administrative State Icon Gold.png
Five Pillars of the Administrative State
•Agency control
• Executive control
• Judicial control
•Legislative control
• Public Control
Click here for more coverage of the administrative state on Ballotpedia.
Click here to access Ballotpedia's administrative state legislation tracker.


The Final Priorities, Requirements, Definitions, and Selection Criteria; Race to the Top-District rule is a significant rule issued by the U.S. Department of Education and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services effective September 5, 2013, that established priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria regarding the Race to the Top - District program, which aimed to promote innovation in local education agencies.[1]

HIGHLIGHTS
  • Name: Final Priorities, Requirements, Definitions, and Selection Criteria; Race to the Top-District
  • Code of Federal Regulations: 34 CFR chapter undefined
  • Agency: Office of the Deputy Secretary, Department of Education
  • Type of significant rule: Economically significant rule

    • Timeline

    The following timeline details key rulemaking activity:

    Background

    Education Policy
    Education Icon 200x200.png
    Education policy topics
    • Overview of trends in K-12 curricula development
    • Impact of school choice on rural school districts
    • Local school board authority across the 50 states
    • State policies on cellphone use in K-12 public schools
    • School choice in the United States
    • School choice glossary

    Other policy areas
    Click here for coverage of other policy areas on Ballotpedia

    The secretary of the Department of Education announced an initiative in 2012 to establish the Race to the Top-District (RTT-D) program in an effort to promote innovation in local education agencies. The U.S. Department of Education issued proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria on April 16, 2013, in an effort to direct the grant process for the RTT-D program. The proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria issued in the Federal Register outline the following goals of the program:[3]

    “ [T]he Race to the Top—District program will encourage and reward those LEAs or consortia of LEAs that have the leadership and vision to implement the strategies, structures, and systems needed to implement personalized, student-focused approaches to learning and teaching that will produce excellence and ensure equity for all students. The proposed priorities, definitions, requirements, and selection criteria in this notice are designed to help LEAs meet these goals.[3][4] ”


    The priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria aimed to "enable effective grant making, resulting in the selection of high-quality applicants who propose to implement activities that the Department believes are most likely to support bold, locally directed improvements in learning and teaching that would directly improve student achievement and educator effectiveness," according to the rule. Grants were awarded to local education agencies for the purpose of innovating teaching methods to promote student achievement. The last funding competition for this program was held in 2013.[1][5][6]

    Summary of the rule

    The following is a summary of the rule from the rule's entry in the Federal Register:

    “ The Secretary announces priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria under the Race to the Top—District program. The Secretary may use one or more of these priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria for competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2013 and later years.


    The Race to the Top—District program builds on the experience of States and districts in implementing reforms in the four core educational assurance areas through Race to the Top and other key programs and supports applicants that demonstrate how they can personalize education for all students in their schools. The U.S. Department of Education (Department) conducted one competition under the Race to the Top—District program in FY 2012, and we are maintaining the overall purpose and structure of the FY 2012 Race to the Top—District competition. These priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria are almost identical to the ones we used in the FY 2012 competition.[1][4]

    		”

    Summary of provisions

    The following is a summary of the provisions from the rule's entry in the Federal Register:[3]

    “ This document establishes priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria for the Race to the Top—District program.


    The Race to the Top—District program is designed to build on the momentum of other Race to the Top competitions by encouraging bold, innovative reform at the local level. The Race to the Top—District competition is aimed squarely at classrooms and the all-important relationship between educators and students. The priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria in this document are almost identical to those we used in the FY 2012 competition. The competition will again support applicants that demonstrate how they can personalize education for all students in their schools.

    In that regard, through this competition, the Department will encourage and reward those local educational agencies (LEAs) or consortia of LEAs that have the leadership and vision to implement the strategies, structures, and systems that the Department believes are needed to implement personalized, student-focused approaches to learning and teaching that will produce excellence and ensure equity for all students. The priorities, definitions, requirements, and selection criteria are designed to help LEAs meet these goals. As stated in the notice of proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria (NPP) (published in the Federal Register on April 16, 2013 (78 FR 22451)), most changes from the FY 2012 competition reflect minor language clarifications. The two substantive changes are the removal of the opportunity to apply for an optional budget supplement and the reduction of the minimum and maximum grant amount for which an applicant may apply. We believe these changes enable the Department to maximize the number of grantees that would receive funding under a competition, while still awarding grants of sufficient size to support bold improvements in learning and teaching. In addition, this document includes some revisions from the NPP. We discuss changes from the NPP in greater detail in the Analysis of Comments and Changes section.

    Under Priority 1, applicants must design a personalized learning environment that uses collaborative, data-based strategies and 21st-century tools, such as online learning platforms, computers, mobile devices, and learning algorithms, to deliver instruction and supports tailored to the needs and goals of each student, with the aim of enabling all students to graduate college- and career-ready. Implementation of a personalized learning environment is not achieved through a single solution or product but rather requires a multi-faceted approach that addresses the individual and collective needs of students, educators, and families and that dramatically transforms the learning environment in order to improve student outcomes.

    Through Race to the Top—District, the Department will continue to support high-quality proposals from applicants across a varied set of LEAs in order to create diverse models of personalized learning environments for use by LEAs across the Nation. For this reason, the Department is establishing four additional priorities. Priorities 2 through 5 support efforts to expand the types of reform efforts being implemented in LEAs in States that have received a Race to the Top Phase 1, 2, or 3 award and to LEAs in other States. Moreover, these priorities also help ensure that LEAs of varying sizes, both rural and non-rural, and with different local contexts, are able to implement innovative personalized learning environments for their students that can serve as models for other LEAs and help improve student achievement widely.

    Finally, we establish one additional priority to support applicants that propose to extend their reforms beyond the classroom and partner with public or private entities in order to address the social, emotional, and behavioral needs of students, particularly students who attend a high-need school.[4]

    		”

    Significant impact

    See also: Significant regulatory action

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) deemed this rule economically significant pursuant to Executive Order 12866. An agency rule can be deemed a significant rule if it has had or might have a large impact on the economy, environment, public health, or state or local governments. The term was defined by E.O. 12866, which was issued in 1993 by President Bill Clinton.[1]

    Text of the rule

    The full text of the rule is available below:[1]

    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 Federal Register, "Final Priorities, Requirements, Definitions, and Selection Criteria; Race to the Top-District," August 6, 2013
    2. ↑ Federal Register, "Final Priorities, Requirements, Definitions, and Selection Criteria: Race to the Top-District Program; Correction," September 5, 2013
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 Federal Register, "Proposed Priorities, Requirements, Definitions, and Selection Critiera-Race to the Top-District [CFDA Number: 84.416," April 16, 2013]
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    5. ↑ U.S. Department of Education, "Race to the Top District (RTT-D)," accessed May 10, 2023
    6. ↑ U.S. Department of Education, "Race to the Top District (RTT-D)," accessed May 10, 2023
    v • e
    The Administrative State
    MainThe Administrative State Project Badge.png
    Pillars
    Reporting
    Laws
    Administrative Procedure Act • Antiquities Act • Civil Service Reform Act • Clayton Antitrust Act • Communications Act of 1934 • Congressional Review Act • Electronic Freedom of Information Act • Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 • Federal Housekeeping Statute • Federal Reserve Act • Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914 • Freedom of Information Act • Government in the Sunshine Act • Independent Offices Appropriations Act of 1952 • Information Quality Act • Interstate Commerce Act • National Labor Relations Act • Paperwork Reduction Act • Pendleton Act • Privacy Act of 1974 • Regulatory Flexibility Act • REINS Act • REINS Act (Wisconsin) • Securities Act of 1933 • Securities Exchange Act of 1934 • Sherman Antitrust Act • Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act • Truth in Regulating Act • Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    Cases
    Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner • A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States • Association of Data Processing Service Organizations v. Camp • Auer v. Robbins • Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council • Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe • Federal Trade Commission (FTC) v. Standard Oil Company of California • Field v. Clark • Food and Drug Administration v. Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corporation • Humphrey's Executor v. United States • Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) v. Chadha • J.W. Hampton Jr. & Company v. United States • Lucia v. SEC • Marshall v. Barlow's • Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency • Mistretta v. United States • National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) v. Sebelius • National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning Company • National Labor Relations Board v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. • Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan • Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corporation • Skidmore v. Swift & Co. • United States v. Lopez • United States v. Western Pacific Railroad Co. • Universal Camera Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board • Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council • Wayman v. Southard • Weyerhaeuser Company v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service • Whitman v. American Trucking Associations • Wickard v. Filburn • Wiener v. United States
    Terms
    Adjudication (administrative state) • Administrative judge • Administrative law • Administrative law judge • Administrative state • Arbitrary-or-capricious test • Auer deference • Barrier to entry • Bootleggers and Baptists • Chevron deference (doctrine) • Civil servant • Civil service • Code of Federal Regulations • Codify (administrative state) • Comment period • Compliance costs • Congressional Record • Coordination (administrative state) • Deference (administrative state) • Direct and indirect costs (administrative state) • Enabling statute • Ex parte communication (administrative state) • Executive agency • Federal law • Federal Register • Federalism • Final rule • Formal rulemaking • Formalism (law) • Functionalism (law) • Guidance (administrative state) • Hybrid rulemaking • Incorporation by reference • Independent federal agency • Informal rulemaking • Joint resolution of disapproval (administrative state) • Major rule • Negotiated rulemaking • Nondelegation doctrine • OIRA prompt letter • Organic statute • Pragmatism (law) • Precautionary principle • Promulgate • Proposed rule • Publication rulemaking • Regulatory budget • Regulatory capture • Regulatory dark matter • Regulatory impact analysis • Regulatory policy officer • Regulatory reform officer • Regulatory review • Rent seeking • Retrospective regulatory review • Risk assessment (administrative state) • Rulemaking • Separation of powers • Significant regulatory action • Skidmore deference • Statutory authority • Substantive law and procedural law • Sue and settle • Sunset provision • Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions • United States Code • United States Statutes at Large
    Bibliography
    Agencies
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Final_Priorities,_Requirements,_Definitions,_and_Selection_Criteria;_Race_to_the_Top-District_rule_(2013)&oldid=9170478"