Race to the Top - Early Learning Challenge Grant Application

RTT-ELC Application Final for Submission to OMB 08-22-2013

Race to the Top - Early Learning Challenge Grant Application

OMB: 1810-0710

Document [docx]

Download: docx | pdf

Race to the Top-Early Learning Challenge Application

Race to the Top - Early Learning Challenge

Application for Initial Funding

CFDA Number: 84.412

U.S. Department of Education

Washington, DC 20202

OMB Number: XXXX-XXXX

Expiration Date:

Paperwork Burden Statement

According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless such collection displays a valid OMB control number. The valid OMB control number for this information collection is XXXX-XXXX. The time required to complete this information collection is estimated to average 225 hours per response, including the time to review instructions, search existing data resources, gather the data needed, and complete and review the information collection. If you have any comments concerning the accuracy of the time estimate(s) or suggestions for improving this form, please write to: U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Ave., SW, Washington, DC 20210-4537 or email ICDocketMgr@ed.gov and reference the OMB Control Number XXXX-XXXX. If you have comments or concerns regarding the status of your individual submission of this form, write directly to: Race to the Top-Early Learning Challenge, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Ave., S.W., Room 3E245, Washington, DC 20202-6200

APPLICATION FOR INITIAL FUNDING UNDER

RACE TO THE TOP – EARLY LEARNING CHALLENGE

I. INTRODUCTION 5

II. APPLICATION INSTRUCTIONS 10

III. DEFINITIONS 14

IV. APPLICATION ASSURANCES AND CERTIFICATIONS 21

V. ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS 25

VI. SELECTION CRITERIA 27

VII. COMPETITION PRIORITIES 77

VIII. BUDGET 82

IX. APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS 99

X. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS 102

XI. PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS 103

XII. CONTRACTING FOR SERVICES 106

XIII. PARTICIPATING STATE AGENCY MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING 107

XIV. SCORING RUBRIC 113

XV. APPLICATION SUBMISSION PROCEDURES 118

XVI. APPLICATION CHECKLIST 121

XVII. APPENDIX TABLE OF CONTENTS 124

XVII. Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs 125

Dear Colleague:

On May 25, 2011, we announced a new $500 million State-level grant competition, the Race to the Top-Early Learning Challenge (RTT-ELC). Since that time, the U.S. Departments of Education and Health and Human Services have awarded RTT-ELC grants to fourteen States to improve the quality of early learning and development programs and close the achievement gap for children with high needs.

Today, we are releasing the final priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria for a new RTT-ELC competition, along with the application. We have endeavored to maintain consistency with the 2011 competition, making only small changes to improve clarity and effectiveness of the program. Just as in the first competition, we challenge States to build a coordinated system of early learning and development that ensures that many more children from low-income families and disadvantaged children, from birth to age five, have access to dramatically improved early learning and development programs and are able to start kindergarten with a strong foundation for future learning.

This competition represents an unprecedented opportunity for States to focus deeply on their birth through five early learning and development systems and build a more unified approach to supporting young children and their families — one that increases access and quality and helps ensure that children enter kindergarten with the skills, knowledge, and dispositions they need to be successful. The RTT-ELC competition will provide incentives and supports to States that commit to and deliver high-quality early learning and development programs statewide and improve outcomes for children.

The priorities and selection criteria aim to establish a comprehensive approach that better coordinates, implements, and evaluates high-quality early learning and development programs with a focus on giving families the information and support they need to encourage their child’s development and learning and to select the best program for their child.

In the last two years, RTT-ELC has been a catalyst for a vigorous national dialogue about how best to reform early learning and development programs and make sure that children enter kindergarten ready to succeed in school and in life. This year in his State of the Union address, President Obama called on Congress to expand access to high-quality preschool to every child in America. As part of that effort, the President will propose a series of new investments that will establish a continuum of high-quality early learning for a child – beginning at birth and continuing to age 5. By doing so, the President would invest critical resources where we know the return on our dollar is the highest: in our youngest children.

We are heartened by and grateful for your participation thus far, and will continue having transparent and candid dialogues about early learning. Together, we can improve the capacity of all States to improve early learning programs for high-need children.

Sincerely,

/s/ /s/

Deborah S. Delisle George H. Sheldon

Assistant Secretary of Elementary Acting Assistant Secretary for

and Secondary Education, Children and Families,

U.S. Department of Education. U.S. Department of Health and

Human Services.

I. INTRODUCTION

“Every dollar we invest in high-quality early childhood education can save more than seven dollars later on -- by boosting graduation rates, reducing teen pregnancy, even reducing violent crime. In states that make it a priority to educate our youngest children,… studies show students grow up more likely to read and do math at grade level, graduate high school, hold a job, form more stable families of their own. We know this works. So let’s do what works and make sure none of our children start the race of life already behind. Let’s give our kids that chance.” (President Obama, State of Union Address, February 12, 2013)

A critical focus of the Obama Administration is supporting America’s youngest learners and helping ensure that children, especially young children with high needs, such as those who are low-income, English learners, and children with disabilities or developmental delays, 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, social emotional and cognitive outcomes, enhance school readiness, and help close the wide school readiness gap^¹^²that exists between children with high needs and their peers at the time they enter kindergarten.^³ ^⁴

To address these educational gaps, the Administration has identified, as high priorities, strengthening the quality of early learning and development programs and increasing access to high-quality early learning programs for all children, including those with high needs. This commitment to early education is reflected in the RTT-ELC competition that we are announcing in the Notice Inviting Applications (the notice).

On April 16, 2013 Secretaries Duncan and Sebelius announced the RTT-ELC, a $300 million State-level grant competition to be held in 2013 and authorized under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), as amended by section 1832(b) of the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011, and the Department of Education Appropriations Act, 2012 (Title III of the Division F of P.L. 112-74, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012). The Departments are administering this competition jointly. At its core, RTT-ELC demonstrates a strong commitment by the Administration to stimulate a national effort to make sure all children enter kindergarten ready to succeed. Through the RTT-ELC, the Administration seeks 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 it most. This competition represents an opportunity for States to focus deeply on their early learning and development systems for children from birth through age five. It is 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.

The RTT-ELC competition does not create new early learning and development programs, nor is it a vehicle for maintenance of the status quo. Rather, the RTT-ELC program will support States that demonstrate their commitment to integrating and aligning resources and policies across all of the State agencies that administer public funds related to early learning and development. It will further provide incentives to the States that commit to and implement high-quality early learning and development programs statewide.

Current State early learning and development systems

Many early learning and development programs and services co-exist within States, including Head Start/Early Head Start programs, the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) program (pursuant to the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act (42 U.S.C. 9858 et seq.)), State-funded preschool, programs authorized under section 619 of part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and part C of IDEA, and other State and locally supported programs. Each of these programs has its own funding stream and accompanying requirements, standards, expectations, policies, and procedures. Each also has its own unique strengths and makes unique contributions to young children and their families. For States, the challenges to be addressed by RTT-ELC are to sustain and build on the strengths of these programs, acknowledge and appreciate their differences, reduce inefficiency, improve quality, and ultimately deliver a coordinated set of services and experiences that support young children’s success in school and beyond.

The RTT-ELC vision for State early learning and development systems

Through the RTT-ELC competition, we intend to fund applications that demonstrate a State’s commitment and capacity to building a statewide system that raises the quality of early learning and development programs so that all children receive the support they need to enter kindergarten ready to succeed. A commitment to building school readiness for children entering kindergarten is at the heart of this competition.

The bar to receive an RTT-ELC grant will be high. RTT-ELC is organized around five key areas of reform. These five key areas represent the foundation of an effective early learning and development reform agenda that is focused on school readiness and ongoing academic success. They are central to this competition’s priorities, requirements, and selection criteria, and are as follows:

(A) Successful State Systems;

(B) High-Quality, Accountable Programs;

(D) A Great Early Childhood Education Workforce; and

(E) Measuring Outcomes and Progress.

The first two of these, (A) and (B), are core areas of focus for this competition. As such, they are referred to throughout the notice as “Core Areas,” and applicants are required to respond to all selection criteria under these Core Areas. The reform areas in (C), (D), and (E) are areas where applicants will direct targeted attention to specific activities that are relevant to their State’s context. In the notice, we refer to these areas as “Focused Investment Areas,” and applicants are required to address each Focused Investment Area but not all of the selection criteria under them. A discussion of the five key areas of reform follows.

A. Successful State Systems

Successful State early learning and development systems are built on broad-based stakeholder participation and effective governance structures. They are guided by clearly articulated goals and strategies designed to deliver a coordinated set of programs, policies, and services that are responsive to the needs of children and families and effectively prepare young children for school success. The RTT-ELC Fiscal Year (FY) 2013 competition will support States that demonstrate a commitment to creating and implementing a successful statewide early learning and development system and that effectively organize and align that system to provide the diversity of services and supports needed by children and families. Such a system can provide continuity and consistent levels of quality across delivery mechanisms and levels of care and education. Thus, under the priorities established for this competition, States must propose and implement ambitious plans for successful State systems of early learning and development that will have broad impact and can--

• Improve program quality and outcomes for young children;

• Increase the number of children with high needs attending high-quality early learning and development programs; and

• Help close the achievement gap between children with high needs and their peers by supporting efforts to increase kindergarten readiness.

B. High-Quality, Accountable Programs

The RTT-ELC competition will support States that develop a common set of program standards used statewide. This will help align programs such as Head Start, CCDF, IDEA, and Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Act (ESEA), and State-funded preschool to create a more unified statewide system of early learning and development. In addition, each State grantee must design and implement a tiered quality rating and improvement system that is based on consistent and demanding statewide program standards and that establishes meaningful program ratings. RTT-ELC promotes broad participation in the State’s tiered quality rating and improvement system across a range of programs, active program improvement, and the publication of program ratings so that families can make informed decisions about which programs can best serve the needs of their children.

C. Promoting Early Learning and Development Outcomes for Children

The RTT-ELC competition is based on the premise that effective programs and services for young children must be built on a set of early learning and development standards that define what children should know and be able to do at different stages of development. These standards provide guidelines, articulate developmental milestones, and set expectations for the healthy growth and development of young children. This competition rewards States that will implement high-quality early learning and development standards and comprehensive systems of assessments aligned with these standards. The implementation of these standards and assessments will ensure that early childhood educators have the information they need to understand and support young children’s growth and development across a broad range of domains so that significantly more young children enter kindergarten ready to succeed.

Improving early learning and development outcomes also requires that children are healthy and supported by their families. Services that address health and family supports are thus critical, and health and family engagement are key elements in high-quality early learning and development programs. RTT-ELC is designed to support States that focus on increasing access to quality programs and services that promote health and engage families in the care and education of their young children.

D. A Great Early Childhood Education Workforce

In early learning and development settings, nothing matters more to children’s success than the adults caring for and teaching them, and the RTT-ELC FY 2013 competition acknowledges the importance of a strong early childhood workforce. Ensuring that children are ready for success in kindergarten depends on well-trained adults who have acquired the necessary knowledge, skills, and abilities to effectively support the learning and development of every child. Thus, the competition will reward States that work closely with postsecondary institutions and other parties to define a set of workforce competencies that are tied to the State’s early learning and development standards. Further, the competition encourages States to increase retention and improve educator quality by supporting their workforce with professional development, career advancement opportunities, differentiated compensation, and incentives to improve their knowledge, skills, and abilities.

E. Measuring Outcomes and Progress

Collecting, organizing, and understanding evidence of young children’s progress across a range of domains is essential to ensuring that early learning and development programs are of high quality and that they meet the needs of every child. States are therefore encouraged to implement comprehensive data systems and to use the data to improve instruction, practices, services, and policies. In addition, through both a selection criterion and a competitive preference priority, States will be rewarded for implementing kindergarten entry assessments statewide that provide information across all domains of early learning and development, inform efforts to close the school readiness gap, and inform instruction in the early elementary school grades.

By organizing this program around the five key reform areas described in this section, the RTT-ELC FY 2013 competition will help lead the way for States to challenge and rethink the status quo. Not every State will receive an RTT-ELC award through this competition, but every State can use this competition as an opportunity to commit to comprehensively strengthening its early learning and development system and ensuring that more children, including those with high needs, have access to high-quality early learning and development programs and services.

II. APPLICATION INSTRUCTIONS

Background Information

Before you begin work on your RTT-ELC application, it may be helpful to understand the parts of the application. Each of these is described below.

Requirements:
- Eligibility requirements specify what applicants must have in place in order to compete for a grant. Staff from the Education Department (“ED”) and the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) will make the eligibility determination.
- Application requirements list the elements that must be included in a complete application.
- Program requirements specify what applicants must do if they win a grant (e.g., reporting, participating in technical assistance activities, publishing findings).
Definitions set forth the meaning of critical terms in the notice; defined terms are indicated by initial capitalization.
Priorities:
- An absolute priority is a priority that all applicants must address fully in order to win; these will be assessed by peer reviewers as either “yes” or “no.” If an applicant does not meet the competition’s absolute priority, it will not be awarded a grant.
- A competitive preference priority is one that earns the applicant extra, or “competitive preference,” points.
- An invitational priority is one that will not be scored, but is of interest to the Secretaries. If an applicant addresses an invitational priority, then the applicant may apply funds from the grant, if awarded, to work associated with this priority.
Selection criteria are the focal point of the application and the peer review. Applicants write narrative responses to these criteria, and reviewers judge their responses. Selection criteria in this competition may be supplemented by—
- Evidence, including data tables and additional information the State believes will be helpful to peer reviewers; and
- Performance measures, or data-driven indicators that States complete to define the outcomes they expect to deliver under the grant.
Finally, scoring rubrics list the maximum number of points that can be earned for each selection criterion and competitive priority; in addition, they include other instructions that reviewers will follow when judging applications. All rubrics that will be provided to reviewers are included in this application, for the applicant’s information.

About the Race to the Top-Early Learning Challenge Application

The RTT-ELC application asks you to address a variety of areas. There are two Core Areas that you must address: (A) Successful State Systems and (B) High-Quality, Accountable Programs. In addition, there are three Focused Investment Areas that address: (C) Promoting Early Learning and Development Outcomes for Children; (D) A Great Early Childhood Education Workforce; and (E) Measuring Outcomes and Progress. Within these three Focused Investment Areas, you 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 each of the Focused Investment Areas: (D) A Great Early Childhood Education Workforce; and (E) Measuring Outcomes and Progress.

Page Length Recommendations

Within the application, you will notice that there is a recommended page length for your response to each selection criterion; these are indicated in the application narrative box associated with each selection criterion. While you are not required to abide by these page limits, reviewers generally prefer brevity.

We recommend that you limit your total page count (that is, the narrative responses to all selection criteria in section VI) to no more than 150 pages of State-authored text, and that you limit your appendices to no more than an additional 150 pages. For all responses, we request that the following standards be used:

• A “page” is 8.5" x 11", on one side only, with 1" margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.

• Number each page.

• Set the line spacing for the narratives to 1.5 spacing, and use a 12 point Times New Roman font.

We strongly request that you follow the recommended page limits, although the Secretaries will consider applications of greater length.

Writing Application Responses

The application provides space for you to address the selection criteria and priorities.

Selection Criteria

Each selection criterion may have multiple parts: the narrative, evidence (often including data tables), and performance measures. Not all selection criteria contain all of these pieces.

Narrative: All selection criteria include a narrative section. This is where you write your response to the criterion. Please type your narrative in the text box provided in this application.

Evidence: Some selection criteria ask you to provide specific evidence; this is indicated in the application. You may provide additional evidence for any criterion if you think it will help reviewers evaluate your application. Keep in mind that too much additional information could have the effect of distracting the reviewers from what is critical.

You must provide the evidence as part of your narrative response to the selection criterion, or include it as an attachment in the Appendix. If you put it in an Appendix, you must provide a clear reference to the Appendix within your narrative.

Tables: Many selection criteria ask you to provide specific evidence in data tables; these tables are included in the application immediately following the narrative. The tables provide you with a framework for presenting information and provide reviewers with a consistent way to look at this information. You must complete the tables as part of your response. Feel free to provide additional data, in the form of graphs, tables, or diagrams, if it will help reviewers understand critical facts about your State. You may use the narrative to explain and describe the significance of the data as it relates to your State Plan.

Performance measures: Several selection criteria ask applicants to provide performance measures, generally including baseline data and annual targets for key outcomes the State will deliver over the term of the grant. Tables for the requested performance measures are included in the application immediately following the narrative and data tables (if any). In addition, you may provide additional performance measures, baseline data, and targets for any criteria you choose. Peer reviewers will consider, as part of their evaluation of a State’s application, the extent to which the State has set “ambitious yet achievable” annual targets; the State will be held accountable for achieving these targets, should it win a grant.

Note: If your State does not have data that are requested in the data tables or in the baseline performance measures, indicate “not available” in the table. Use your narrative to provide any additional explanation that may be necessary to make your point.

Appendix

Your application will include an Appendix. The Appendix must begin with a complete Table of Contents that provides reviewers with easy access to any attachment they are looking for. Each attachment in the Appendix must be described in the narrative associated with the relevant selection criterion, together with a rationale for how its inclusion supports the State Plan. Please also include in the narrative a cross-reference to the attachment’s location in the Appendix.

Competition Priorities

The RTT-ELC competition also includes absolute, competitive, and invitational priorities. You must address the absolute priority throughout the application; you do not write a separate response to this priority. The absolute priority must be met in order for an applicant to receive funding.

A State that chooses to address a competitive preference priority may earn extra points under that priority. Follow the instructions associated with each competitive priority that you choose to address. A State may address either one, two, three or all four of the competitive preference priorities.

Invitational priorities extend the scope or reach of the application; applicants are invited to address the invitational priority and apply funds from this grant to it, but do not earn additional points for doing so.

The competition priorities can be found in section VII of the application. Responding to the competitive and invitational priorities is optional.

Competition Description and Scoring Rubric

For information on the competition review and selection process, see (a) the section entitled, Review and Selection Process, in the notice; and (b) section XIV, Scoring Rubric in the application (Appendix B in the notice). In addition, point values have been included throughout the application.

Technical Assistance Planning Workshops

To assist States in preparing their applications and to respond to questions, ED and HHS intend to host a Pre-Application Webinar on September 4, 2013 and a Planning Workshop on September 10, 2013. In these sessions, the Departments will provide potential applicants with an orientation to the application.

Frequently Asked Questions: The Departments will also prepare answers to frequently asked questions, in order to assist States as they complete their applications. These questions and answers will be posted on the RTT-ELC Web site at www.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop-earlylearningchallenge. We may update the document as needed throughout the competition, so please check the website regularly.

III. DEFINITIONS

Note: All definitions below are taken from the notice.

Children with High Needs means children from birth through kindergarten entry who are from Low-Income 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(7) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (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 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;

(d) Measures of the Quality of Adult-Child 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 center-based 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, 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 MIECHV; Early Head Start; and Part C of IDEA.^⁵

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;

(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 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;

(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

(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;

(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;

(d) Is valid and reliable for its intended purposes and for the target populations and aligned to the Early Learning and Development Standards.

Results of the assessment should be used to inform efforts to close the school readiness gap at kindergarten entry, to inform instruction in the early elementary school grades, and to inform parents about their children’s status and involve them in decisions about their children’s education. This assessment must not be used to prevent children’s entry into kindergarten or as a single measure for high-stakes decisions.

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 Adult-Child 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 of and areas for improvement for early learning professionals.

Participating Program means an Early Learning and Development Program that elects to carry out activities described in the State Plan.

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, State-funded preschool, home visiting, Title I of ESEA, the Head Start State Collaboration Grant, and the Title V Maternal and Child Health Services Block Grant, the State’s Child Care Licensing Agency, and the State educational 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, 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.

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 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;

(d) Culturally and linguistically responsive strategies are successfully used to engage families, help them build protective factors, and strengthen their capacity to support 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 follow-up 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.

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 and emotional development and reduce challenging behaviors; (f) incorporates feedback from experts at the State’s postsecondary institutions and other early learning and development experts and Early Childhood Educators; and (g) includes knowledge of protective factors and effective approaches to partnering with families and building families’ knowledge, skills, and capacity to promote children’s health and development.

IV. APPLICATION ASSURANCES AND CERTIFICATIONS

Race to the Top – Early Learning Challenge

(CFDA No. 84.412)

Legal Name of Applicant
(Office of the Governor):

Applicant’s Mailing Address:

Employer Identification Number:

Organizational DUNS:

Lead Agency:

Contact Name:

(Single point of contact for communication)

Lead Agency Contact Phone:

Lead Agency Contact Email Address:

Required Applicant Signatures (Must include signatures from an authorized representative of each Participating State Agency. Insert additional signature blocks as needed below. To simplify the process, signatories may sign on separate Application Assurance forms.):

To the best of my knowledge and belief, all of the information and data in this application are true and correct.

I further certify that I have read the application, am fully committed to it, and will support its implementation:

Governor or Authorized Representative of the Governor (Printed Name):

Telephone:

Signature of Governor or Authorized Representative of the Governor:

Date:

Lead Agency Authorized Representative (Printed Name):

Agency Name:

Signature of Lead Agency Authorized Representative:

Date:

Participating State Agency Authorized Representative (Printed Name):

Agency Name:

Signature of Participating State Agency Authorized Representative:

Date:

Participating State Agency Authorized Representative (Printed Name):

Agency Name:

Signature of Participating State Agency Authorized Representative:

Date:

Participating State Agency Authorized Representative (Printed Name):

Agency Name:

Signature of Participating State Agency Authorized Representative:

Date:

Participating State Agency Authorized Representative (Printed Name):

Agency Name:

Signature of Participating State Agency Authorized Representative:

Date:

State Attorney General Certification

State Attorney General or Authorized Representative of the Attorney General Certification

I certify 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:

State Attorney General or Authorized Representative of the Attorney General (Printed Name):

Telephone:

Signature of the State Attorney General or Authorized Representative of the Attorney General :

Date:

Accountability, Transparency, and Reporting Assurances

The Governor or his/her authorized representative assures that the State will comply with all applicable assurances in OMB Standard Forms 424B and D (Assurances for Non-Construction and Construction Programs), including the assurances relating to the legal authority to apply for assistance; access to records; conflict of interest; merit systems; nondiscrimination; Hatch Act provisions; labor standards, including Davis-Bacon prevailing wages; flood hazards; historic preservation; protection of human subjects; animal welfare; lead-based paint; Single Audit Act; and the general agreement to comply with all applicable Federal laws, executive orders, and regulations.

With respect to the certification regarding lobbying in Department Form 80-0013, no Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the making or renewal of Federal grants under this program; the State will complete and submit Standard Form-LLL, "Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying," when required (34 C.F.R. Part 82, Appendix B); and the State will require the full certification, as set forth in 34 C.F.R. Part 82, Appendix A, in the award documents for all subawards at all tiers.
The State and other entities will comply with the following provisions of the Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR), as applicable: 34 CFR

Part 74 -- Administration of Grants and Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, and Other Non-Profit Organizations; 34 CFR Part 76 -- State-Administered Programs, including the construction requirements in section 75.600 through 75.617 that are incorporated by reference in section 76.600; 34 CFR Part 77 -- Definitions that Apply to Department Regulations; 34 CFR Part 80 -- Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments, including the procurement provisions; 34 CFR Part 81 -- General Education Provisions Act—Enforcement; 34 CFR Part 82 -- New Restrictions on Lobbying; and with the debarment and suspension regulations found at 2 CFR Part 3485.

Governor or Authorized Representative of the Governor (Printed Name):

Signature:

Date:

V. ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS

The State must meet the following requirements to be eligible to compete for funding under this program:

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. (See section XIII.) 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.

List of Participating State Agencies:

The applicant should list below all Participating State Agencies that administer public funds related to early learning and development, including at a minimum: the agencies that administer or supervise the administration of CCDF, the section 619 of part B of IDEA and part C of IDEA programs, State-funded preschool, home visiting, Title I of ESEA, the Head Start State Collaboration Grant, and the Title V Maternal and Child Care Block Grant, as well as the State Advisory Council on Early Childhood Education and Care, the State’s Child Care Licensing Agency, and the State Education Agency.

For each Participating State Agency, the applicant should provide a cross-reference to the place within the application where the MOU or other binding agreement can be found. Insert additional rows if necessary. The Departments will determine eligibility.

Participating State Agency Name (Indicate the Lead Agency)	MOU Location in Application	Funds/Program(s) administered by the Participating State Agency

(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 non-profit organization under section 511(h)(2)(B).

The State certifies that it has an active MIECHV program in the State, either through the State or through an eligible non-profit organization. The Departments will determine eligibility.

 Yes

 No

VI. SELECTION CRITERIA

Selection criteria are the focal point of the application and peer review. A panel of peer reviewers will evaluate the applications based on the extent to which the selection criteria are addressed.

Core Areas -- Sections (A) and (B)

States must 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. (20 points)

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;

(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.

In the text box below, the State shall write its full response to this selection criterion. The State shall include the evidence listed below and describe in its narrative how each piece of evidence demonstrates the State’s success in meeting the criterion; the State may also include any additional information it believes will be helpful to peer reviewers. If the State has included relevant attachments in the Appendix, these should be described in the narrative below and clearly cross-referenced to allow the reviewers to locate them easily.

Evidence for (A)(1):

The completed background data tables providing the State’s baseline data for--
- The number and percentage of children from Low-Income families in the State, by age (see Table (A)(1)-1);
- The number and percentage of Children with High Needs from special populations in the State (see Table (A)(1)-2); and
- The number of Children with High Needs in the State who are enrolled in Early Learning and Development Programs, by age, race, and ethnicity. (see Table (A)(1)-3).
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 completed table that shows the number of Children with High Needs participating in each type of Early Learning and Development Program for each of the previous five years (2009-2013) (see Table (A)(1)-4) to the present.
The completed table that shows the number of Children with High Needs participating in each type of Early Learning and Development Program for each of the previous five years (2009-2013) (see Table (A)(1)-5) to the present.
The completed table that describes 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 (see Table (A)(1)-6).
The completed table that describes the elements of a Comprehensive Assessment System currently required within the State by different types of Early Learning and Development Programs or systems (see Table (A)(1)-7).
The completed table that describes the elements of high-quality health promotion practices currently required within the State by different types of Early Learning and Development Programs or systems (see Table (A)(1)-8).
The completed table that describes 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 (see Table (A)(1)-9).
The completed table that describes 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 (see Table (A)(1)-10).
The completed table that describes the current status of postsecondary institutions and other professional development providers in the State that issue credentials or degrees to Early Childhood Educators (see Table (A)(1)-11).
The completed table that describes the current status of the State’s Kindergarten Entry Assessment (see Table (A)(1)-12).
The completed table that describes all early learning and development data systems currently used in the State (see Table (A)(1)-13).

(Enter narrative here – recommended maximum of ten pages)

Table (A)(1)-1: Children from Low-Income^⁷ families, by age
	Number of children from Low-Income families in the State	Children from Low-Income families as a percentage of all children in the State
Infants under age 1
Toddlers ages 1 through 2
Preschoolers ages 3 to kindergarten entry
Total number of children, birth to kindergarten entry, from low-income families
[Enter text here to indicate data source and clarify or explain any of these data if needed]

Table (A)(1)-2: Special populations of Children with High Needs The State should use these data to guide its thinking about where specific activities may be required to address special populations’ unique needs. The State will describe such activities throughout its application.
Special populations: Children who . . .	Number of children (from birth to kindergarten entry) in the State who…	Percentage of children (from birth to kindergarten entry) in the State who…
Have disabilities or developmental delays^⁸
Are English learners^⁹
Reside on “Indian Lands”
Are migrant^¹⁰
Are homeless^¹¹
Are in foster care
Other as identified by the State Describe:
[Enter text here to indicate data source and clarify or explain any of these data if needed.]

Table (A)(1)-3: Participation of Children with High Needs in different types of Early Learning and Development Programs, by age Note: A grand total is not included in this table since some children participate in multiple Early Learning and Development programs.
Type of Early Learning and Development Program	Number of Children with High Needs participating in each type of Early Learning and Development Program, by age
Type of Early Learning and Development Program	Infants under age 1	Toddlers ages 1 through 2	Preschoolers ages 3 until kindergarten entry	Total
State-funded preschool Specify: Data Source and Year:
Early Head Start and Head Start^¹² Data Source and Year:
Programs and services funded by IDEA Part C and Part B, section 619 Data Source and Year:
Programs funded under Title I of ESEA Data Source and Year:
Programs receiving funds from the State’s CCDF program Data Source and Year:
Other Specify: Data Source and Year:
Other Specify: Data Source and Year:
Add additional rows as needed. [Enter text here to clarify or explain any of these data if needed.]

Table (A)(1)-3b: Participation of Children in Early Learning and Development Programs in the State, by Race/Ethnicity Note: A grand total is not included in this table since some children participate in multiple Early Learning and Development programs.
Type of Early Learning and Development Program in the State	Number of Hispanic children	Number of Non-Hispanic American Indian or Alaska Native Children		Number of Non-Hispanic Asian Children		Number of Non-Hispanic Black or African American Children		Number of Non-Hispanic Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Children		Number of Non-Hispanic Children of Two or more races		Number of Non-Hispanic White Children
State-funded preschool Specify:
Early Head Start and Head Start^¹³
Early Learning and Development Programs funded by IDEA, Part C
Early Learning and Development Programs funded by IDEA, Part B, section 619
Early Learning and Development Programs funded under Title I of ESEA
Early Learning and Development Programs receiving funds from the State’s CCDF program
Other Describe:
[Enter text here to indicate data source and clarify or explain any of these data if needed.]
Table (A)(1)-4: Historical data on funding for Early Learning and Development
Type of investment			Funding for each of the Past 5 Fiscal Years
Type of investment			2009		2010		2011		2012		2013
Supplemental State spending on Early Head Start and Head Start^¹⁴
State-funded preschool Specify:
State contributions to IDEA Part C
State contributions for special education and related services for children with disabilities, ages 3 through kindergarten entry
Total State contributions to CCDF^¹⁵
State match to CCDF Exceeded/Met/Not Met (if exceeded, indicate amount by which match was exceeded)
TANF spending on Early Learning and Development Programs^¹⁶
Other State contributions Specify:
Other State contributions Specify:
Total State contributions:
[Enter text here to indicate data source and clarify or explain any of these data, including the State’s fiscal year end date. Include 2013 if data are available.]

Table (A)(1)-5: Historical data on the participation of Children with High Needs in Early Learning and Development Programs in the State Note: A grand total is not included in this table since some children participate in multiple Early Learning and Development programs.
Type of Early Learning and Development Program	Total number of Children with High Needs participating in each type of Early Learning and Development Program for each of the past 5 years^¹⁷
Type of Early Learning and Development Program	2009	2010	2011^¹⁸	2012¹⁷	2013¹⁷
State-funded preschool (annual census count; e.g., October 1 count) Specify:
Early Head Start and Head Start^¹⁹ (funded enrollment)
Programs and services funded by IDEA Part C and Part B, section 619 (annual December 1 count)
Programs funded under Title I of ESEA (total number of children who receive Title I services annually, as reported in the Consolidated State Performance Report )
Programs receiving CCDF funds (average monthly served)
Other Describe:
[Enter text here to indicate data source and clarify or explain any of these data if needed. Include 2013 if data are available. The final column of data should match that reported in Table (A)(1)-3.]

Table (A)(1)-6 : Current status of the State’s Early Learning and Development Standards Please place an “X” in the boxes to indicate where the State’s Early Learning and Development Standards address the different age groups by Essential Domain of School Readiness
Essential Domains of School Readiness	Age Groups
Essential Domains of School Readiness	Infants	Toddlers	Preschoolers
Language and literacy development
Cognition and general knowledge (including early math and early scientific development)
Approaches toward learning
Physical well-being and motor development
Social and emotional development
[Enter text to explain or clarify information as needed]

Table (A)(1)-7: Elements of a Comprehensive Assessment System currently required within the State Please place an “X” in the boxes to indicate where an element of a Comprehensive Assessment System is currently required.
Types of programs or systems	Elements of a Comprehensive Assessment System
Types of programs or systems	Screening Measures	Formative Assessments	Measures of Environmental Quality	Measures of the Quality of Adult-Child Interactions	Other
State-funded preschool Specify:
Early Head Start and Head Start^²⁰
Programs funded under IDEA Part C
Programs funded under IDEA Part B, section 619
Programs funded under Title I of ESEA
Programs receiving CCDF funds
Current Quality Rating and Improvement System requirements Specify by tier (add rows if needed):
State licensing requirements
Other Describe:
[Edit the labels on the above rows as needed, and enter text here to clarify or explain any of the data, if necessary.]

Table (A)(1)-8: Elements of high-quality health promotion practices currently required within the State
Please place an “X” in the boxes to indicate where the elements of high-quality health promotion practices are currently required.
Types of Programs or Systems	Elements of high-quality health promotion practices
Types of Programs or Systems	Health and safety requirements	Developmental, behavioral, and sensory screening, referral, and follow-up	Health promotion, including physical activity and healthy eating habits	Health literacy	Other
State-funded preschool Specify
Early Head Start and Head Start
Programs funded under IDEA Part C
Programs funded under IDEA Part B, section 619
Programs funded under Title I of ESEA
Programs receiving CCDF funds
Current Quality Rating and Improvement System requirements Specify by tier (add rows if needed):
State licensing requirements
Other Describe:
[Edit the labels on the above rows as needed, and enter text here to clarify or explain any of the data, if necessary.]

Table (A)(1)-9: Elements of a high-quality family engagement strategy currently required within the State Please describe the types of high-quality family engagement strategies required in the State. Types of strategies may, for example, include 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 family literacy programs, parent involvement in decision making, and parent leadership development.
Types of Programs or Systems	Describe Family Engagement Strategies Required Today
State-funded preschool Specify:
Early Head Start and Head Start
Programs funded under IDEA Part C
Programs funded under IDEA Part B, section 619
Programs funded under Title I of ESEA
Programs receiving CCDF funds
Current Quality Rating and Improvement System requirements Specify by tier (add rows if needed):
State licensing requirements
Other Describe:
[Edit the labels on the above rows as needed, and enter text here to clarify or explain any of the data, if necessary.]

Table (A)(1)-10: Status of all early learning and development workforce credentials^²¹ currently available in the State
List the early learning and development workforce credentials in the State	If State has a workforce knowledge and competency framework, is the credential aligned to it? (Yes/No/ Not Available)	Number and percentage of Early Childhood Educators who have the credential		Notes (if needed)
		#	%	Notes (if needed)




[Add additional rows as needed and enter text here to clarify or explain any of the data, if necessary.]

Table (A)(1)-11: Summary of current postsecondary institutions and other professional development providers in the State that issue credentials or degrees to Early Childhood Educators
List postsecondary institutions and other professional development providers in the State that issue credentials or degrees to Early Childhood Educators	Number of Early Childhood Educators that received an early learning credential or degree from this entity in the previous year	Does the entity align its programs with the State’s current Workforce Knowledge and Competency Framework and progression of credentials? (Yes/No/ Not Available)



[Add additional rows as needed and enter text here to clarify or explain any of the data, if necessary.]

Table (A)(1)-12: Current status of the State’s Kindergarten Entry Assessment
State’s Kindergarten Entry Assessment	Essential Domains of School Readiness
State’s Kindergarten Entry Assessment	Language and literacy	Cognition and general knowledge (including early mathematics and early scientific development)	Approaches toward learning	Physical well-being and motor development	Social and emotional development
Domain covered? (Y/N)
Domain aligned to Early Learning and Development Standards? (Y/N)
Instrument(s) used? (Specify)
Evidence of validity and reliability? (Y/N)
Evidence of validity for English learners? (Y/N)
Evidence of validity for children with disabilities? (Y/N)
How broadly administered? (If not administered statewide, include date for reaching statewide administration)
Results included in Statewide Longitudinal Data System? (Y/N)

Table (A)(1)-13: Profile of all early learning and development data systems currently used in the State
List each data system currently in use in the State that includes early learning and development data	Essential Data Elements Place an “X” for each Essential Data Element (refer to the definition) included in each of the State’s data systems
	Unique child identifier	Unique Early Childhood Educator identifier	Unique program site identifier	Child and family demographic information	Early Childhood Educator demographic information	Data on program structure and quality	Child-level program participation and attendance



[Add additional rows as needed and enter text here to clarify or explain any of the data, if necessary.]

(A)(2) Articulating the State’s rationale for its early learning and development reform agenda and goals. (20 points)

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 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 Tables (A)(1)6-13 and 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.

(Enter narrative here – recommended maximum of ten pages)

Identification of the two or more selection criteria that the State has chosen to address in Focused Investment Area (C):

Please check the box to indicate which selection criterion or criteria in Focused Investment Area (D) the State is choosing to address

 (C)(1) Developing and using statewide, high-quality Early Learning and Development Standards.

 (C)(2) Supporting effective uses of Comprehensive Assessment Systems.

 (C)(3) Identifying and addressing the health, behavioral, and developmental needs of Children with High Needs to improve school readiness.

 (C)(4) Engaging and supporting families.

Identification of the one or more selection criteria that the State has chosen to address in Focused Investment Area (D):

Please check the box to indicate which selection criterion or criteria in Focused Investment Area (D) the State is choosing to address

 (D)(1) Developing a Workforce Knowledge and Competency Framework and a progression of credentials.

 (D)(2) Supporting Early Childhood Educators in improving their knowledge, skills, and abilities.

Identification of the one or more selection criteria that the State has chosen to address in Focused Investment Area (E):

Please check the box to indicate which selection criterion or criteria in Focused Investment Area (E) the State is choosing to address

 (E)(1) Understanding the status of children’s learning and development at kindergarten entry.

 (E)(2) Building or enhancing an early learning data system to improve instruction, practices, services, and policies.

(A)(3) Aligning and coordinating early learning and development across the State. (10 points)

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--

(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 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; public television stations, and postsecondary institutions.

In scoring the selection criterion, peer reviewers will determine, based on the evidence the State submits, whether each element of the selection criterion is implemented or planned; the quality of the implementation or plan (see the definition of a High-Quality Plan for the components reviewers will be judging); the extent to which the different types of Early Learning and Development Programs in the State are included and addressed; and the extent to which the unique needs of the State’s special populations of Children with High Needs are considered and addressed. The State is responsible for providing clear and detailed information to assist the peer reviewers in making these determinations.

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.
The completed table that lists Governance-related roles and responsibilities (see Table (A)(3)-1).
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):

The completed table that includes 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 (see Table (A)(3)-2).

A copy of every letter of intent or support from Early Learning Intermediary Organizations and local early learning councils. (Letters should be referenced in the narrative but must be included in the Appendix with a table.)

Evidence for (A)(3)(c)(2):

A copy of every letter of intent or support from other stakeholders. (Letters should be referenced in the narrative but must be included in the Appendix with a table.)

(Enter narrative here – recommended maximum of five pages)

Table (A)(3)-1: Governance-related roles and responsibilities
Participating State Agency	Governance-related roles and responsibilities











Other Entities
State advisory council on early childhood education and care
State Interagency Coordinating Council for Part C of IDEA
Other Specify:
Other Specify:

Table (A)(3)-2: Early Learning Intermediary Organizations and local early learning councils (if applicable)
List every Intermediary Organization and local early earning council (if applicable) in the State	Did this entity provide a letter of intent or support which is included in the Appendix (Y/N)?


[Add additional rows as needed and enter text here to clarify or explain any of the data, if necessary.]

(A)(4) Developing a budget to implement and sustain the work of this grant. (15 points)

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; MIECHV 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;

(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.

The State’s response to (A)(4)(b) will be addressed in the Budget Section (section VIII of the application) and reviewers will evaluate the State’s Budget Section response when scoring (A)(4). In the text box below, the State shall write its full response to (A)(4)(a) and (A)(4)(c) and may also include any additional information it believes will be helpful to peer reviewers. If the State has included relevant attachments in the Appendix, these should be described in the narrative below and clearly cross-referenced to allow the reviewers to locate them easily.

Evidence for (A)(4)(a):

The completed table listing the existing funds to be used to achieve the outcomes in the State Plan (see Table (A)(4)-1).
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 (completed in section VIII).
The narratives that accompany and explain the budget, and describe how it connects to the State Plan (also completed in section VIII).

(Enter narrative here, in particular to address (A)(4)(a) & (A)(4)(c) – recommended maximum of eight pages)

Table (A)(4) – 1 Existing other Federal, State, private, and local funds to be used to achieve the outcomes in the State Plan.
Source of Funds	Fiscal Year 2012	Fiscal Year 2013	Fiscal Year 2014	Fiscal Year 2015	Total
<Source 1>
<Source 2>
<Source 3>


[Add additional rows as needed and enter text here to clarify or explain any of the data, if necessary.]

B. High-Quality, Accountable Programs

(B)(1) Developing and adopting a common, statewide Tiered Quality Rating and Improvement System. (10 points)

The extent to which the State and its Participating State Agencies have developed and adopted, or have a High-Quality 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 program quality levels, and reflect high expectations of program excellence commensurate with nationally recognized standards that lead to improved learning outcomes for children; and

Evidence for (B)(1):

The completed table that lists 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), (see Table (B)(1)-1).
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 selection criterion (B)(1)(a), submit--

A copy of the tiered Program Standards;
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
Documentation of how the tiers meaningfully differentiate levels of quality.

(Enter narrative here – recommended maximum of five pages)

Table (B)(1)-1: Status of all Program Standards currently used in the State
	Program Standards Elements^²² If the Program Standards address the element, place an “X” in that box
List each set of existing Program Standards currently used in the State; specify which programs in the State use the standards	Early Learning and Develop-ment Standards	Comprehensive Assessment Systems	Qualified workforce	Family engage-ment	Health promotion	Effective data practices	Other




[Add additional rows as needed and enter text here to clarify or explain any of the data, if necessary.]

(B)(2) Promoting participation in the State’s Tiered Quality Rating and Improvement System. (15 points)

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 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 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 co-payments, providing incentives to high-quality 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).

In the text box below, the State shall write its full response to this selection criterion. The State may also include any additional information it believes will be helpful to peer reviewers. If the State has included relevant attachments in the Appendix, these should be described in the narrative below and clearly cross-referenced to allow the reviewers to locate them easily.

Additionally, the State must provide baseline data and set targets for the performance measure under (B)(2)(c).

Evidence for (B)(2):

Any supporting evidence the State believes will be helpful to peer reviewers.

(Enter narrative here – recommended maximum of five pages)

Performance Measures for (B)(2)(c): Increasing the number and percentage of Early Learning and Development Programs participating in the statewide Tiered Quality Rating and Improvement System
Type of Early Learning and Development Program in the State	Number of programs in the State	Baseline and Annual Targets -- Number and percentage of Early Learning and Development Programs in the Tiered Quality Rating and Improvement System
		Baseline (Today)		Target- end of calendar year 2014		Target -end of calendar year 2015		Target- end of calendar year 2016		Target- end of calendar year 2017
		#	%	#	%	#	%	#	%	#	%
State-funded preschool Specify:
Early Head Start and Head Start^²³
Programs funded by IDEA, Part C
Programs funded by IDEA, Part B, section 619
Programs funded under Title I of ESEA
Programs receiving from CCDF funds
Other Describe:
[Please indicate if baseline data are actual or estimated; describe the methodology used to collect the data, including any error or data quality information; and please include any definitions you used that are not defined in the notice.]

(B)(3) Rating and monitoring Early Learning and Development Programs. (15 points)

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.

(Enter narrative here – recommended maximum of five pages)

(B)(4) Promoting access to high-quality Early Learning and Development Programs for Children with High Needs. (20 points)

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

(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.

Additionally, the State must provide baseline data and set targets for the performance measures under (B)(4)(c)(1) and (B)(4)(c)(2).

Evidence for (B)(4):

Any supporting evidence the State believes will be helpful to peer reviewers.

(Enter narrative here – recommended maximum of five pages)

Performance Measure for (B)(4)(c)(1): Increasing the number of Early Learning and Development Programs in the top tiers of the Tiered Quality Rating and Improvement System.
	Baseline (Today)	Target- end of calendar year 2014	Target- end of calendar year 2015	Target- end of calendar year 2016	Target- end of calendar year 2017
Total number of programs covered by the Tiered Quality Rating and Improvement System
Number of programs in Tier 1
Number of programs in Tier 2
Number of programs in Tier 3
Number of programs in Tier 4
Include a row for each tier in the State’s Tiered Quality Rating and Improvement System, customize the labeling of the tiers, and indicate the highest and lowest tier. [Please indicate if baseline data are actual or estimated; describe the methodology used to collect the data, including any error or data quality information. Also, if applicable, describe in your narrative how programs participating in the current Tiered Quality Rating and Improvement System will be transitioned to the updated Tiered Quality Rating and Improvement System.]

Performance Measures for (B)(4)(c)(2): 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 Tiered Quality Rating and Improvement System.
Type of Early Learning and Development Program in the State	Number of Children with High Needs served by programs in the State	Baseline and Annual Targets -- Number and percent of Children with High Needs Participating in Programs that are in the top tiers of the Tiered Quality Rating and Improvement System
		Baseline (Today)		Target- end of calendar year 2014		Target -end of calendar year 2015		Target- end of calendar year 2016		Target- end of calendar year 2017
		#	%	#	%	#	%	#	%	#	%
State-funded preschool Specify:
Early Head Start and Head Start^²⁴
Early Learning and Development Programs funded by IDEA, Part C
Early Learning and Development Programs funded by IDEA, Part B, section 619
Early Learning and Development Programs funded under Title I of ESEA
Early Learning and Development Programs receiving funds from the State’s CCDF program
Other Describe:
[Please list which tiers the State has included as “top tiers,” indicate whether baseline data are actual or estimated; and describe the methodology used to collect the data, including any error or data quality information.]

(B)(5) Validating the effectiveness of State Tiered Quality Rating and Improvement Systems. (15 points)

The extent to which the State has a High-Quality Plan to design and implement evaluations--working with an independent evaluator and, when 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), that the tiers in the State’s Tiered Quality Rating and Improvement System accurately reflect differential levels of program quality; and

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.

.In the text box below, the State shall write its full response to this selection criterion. The State may also include any additional information it believes will be helpful to peer reviewers. If the State has included relevant attachments in the Appendix, these should be described in the narrative below and clearly cross-referenced to allow the reviewers to locate them easily.

Evidence for (B)(5):

Any supporting evidence the State believes will be helpful to peer reviewers.

(Enter narrative here – recommended maximum of five pages)

Focused Investment Areas -- Sections (C), (D), and (E)

The 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).

C. Promoting Early Learning and Development Outcomes for Children

Note: The total available points for (C)(1) through (C)(4) = 60. The 60 available points will be divided by the number of selection criteria that the applicant chooses to address so that each selection criterion is worth the same number of points. For example, if the applicant chooses to address all four selection criteria in the Focused Investment Area, each criterion will be worth up to 15 points

The applicant must address two or more 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 high-quality 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;

(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 that they are shared with parents and families along with suggestions for appropriate strategies they can use at home to support their children’s learning and development; and

(d) Includes evidence that 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.

.If the State chooses to respond to this selection criterion, the State shall write its full response in the text box below. The State shall include the evidence listed below and describe in its narrative how each piece of evidence demonstrates the State’s success in meeting the criterion; the State may also include any additional information it believes will be helpful to peer reviewers. If the State has included relevant attachments in the Appendix, these should be described in the narrative below and clearly cross-referenced to allow the reviewers to locate them easily.

Evidence for (C)(1)(a) and (b):

To the extent the State has implemented Early Learning and Development Standards that meet the elements in selection criteria (C)(1)(a) and (b), submit--
- Proof of use by all types of Early Learning and Development Programs in the State;
- The State’s Early Learning and Development Standards for:

Infants and toddlers
Preschoolers

Documentation that the standards are developmentally, linguistically, and culturally appropriate for all children, including children with disabilities and developmental delays and English learners;
Documentation that the standards address all Essential Domains of School Readiness and that they are of high quality; and
Documentation of the alignment between the State’s Early Learning and Development Standards and the State’s K-3 standards.

(Enter narrative here – recommended maximum of three pages)

(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 Early Learning and Development Programs;

(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, and to effectively solicit and use family input on children’s development and needs; and

(e) Articulating guidelines and procedures for sharing assessment data and results with parents, involving them in decisions about their children’s care and education, and helping them identify concrete actions they can take to address developmental issues identified through the assessment process.

If the State chooses to respond to this selection criterion, the State shall write its full response in the text box below. The State may also include any additional information it believes will be helpful to peer reviewers. If the State has included relevant attachments in the Appendix, these should be described in the narrative below and clearly cross-referenced to allow the reviewers to locate them easily.

Evidence for (C)(2):

Any supporting evidence the State believes will be helpful to peer reviewers.

(Enter narrative here – recommended maximum of three pages)

(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; promoting children’s physical, social, and emotional development across the levels of its Program Standards; and involving families as partners and building parents’ capacity to promote their children’s physical, social, and emotional health;

(b) Increasing the number of Early Childhood Educators who are trained and supported on an ongoing basis in meeting the health standards;

(c) Promoting healthy eating habits, improving nutrition, expanding physical activity, and providing information and guidance to families to promote healthy habits at home;

(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 well-child care; and

(e) Developing a comprehensive approach to increase the capacity and improve the overall quality of Early Learning and Development Programs to support and address the social and emotional development (including infant-early childhood mental health) of children from birth to age five.

If the State chooses to respond to this selection criterion, the State shall write its full response in the text box below. The State shall include the evidence listed below and describe in its narrative how each piece of evidence demonstrates the State’s success in meeting the criterion; the State may also include any additional information it believes will be helpful to peer reviewers. If the State has included relevant attachments in the Appendix, these should be described in the narrative below and clearly cross-referenced to allow the reviewers to locate them easily.

Additionally, States must provide baseline data and set targets for the performance measures under (C)(3)(d).

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 selection criterion (C)(3)(a), submit--
- 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; social and emotional development; family involvement and capacity-building; 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 and referral of and follow-up for all Children with High Needs, and how families will be engaged in the process; how the State will promote the participation of Children with High Needs in ongoing health care as part of a schedule of well-child 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.

Evidence for (C)(3)(e):

Any supporting evidence the State believes will be helpful to peer reviewers.

(Enter narrative here – recommended maximum of three pages)

Performance Measures for (C)(3)(d) Leveraging existing resources to meet ambitious yet achievable annual statewide targets.
	Baseline and annual targets
	Baseline (Today, if known) If unknown please use narrative to explain plan for defining baseline and setting and meeting annual targets	Target for end of calendar year 2014	Target for end of calendar year 2015	Target for end of calendar year 2016	Target for end of calendar year 2017
Number of Children with High Needs screened
Number of Children with High Needs referred for services who received follow-up/treatment
Number of Children with High Needs who participate in ongoing health care as part of a schedule of well child care
Of these participating children, the number or percentage of children who are up-to-date in a schedule of well child care
[Please indicate if baseline data are actual or estimated; describe the methodology used to collect the data, including any error or data quality information; and please include any definitions you used that are not defined in the notice.]

(C)(4) Engaging and supporting families.

The extent to which the State has a High-Quality Plan to provide culturally 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 and help families build protective factors;

(b) Increasing the number and percentage of Early Childhood Educators trained and supported on an ongoing 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 home visiting programs, family resource centers, family support networks, and other family-serving agencies and organizations, 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 selection criterion (C)(4)(a), submit--
- 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
- 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):

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.

(Enter narrative here – recommended maximum of three pages)

D. A Great Early Childhood Education Workforce

Note: The total available points for (D)(1) and (D)(2) = 40. The 40 available points will be divided by the number of selection criteria that the applicant chooses to address so that each selection criterion is worth the same number of points. For example, if the applicant chooses to address both selection criteria in Focused Investment Area (D), each criterion will be worth up to 20 points.

The applicant must address one or more selection criteria within Focused Investment Area (D).

(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.

may also include any additional information it believes will be helpful to peer reviewers. If the State has included relevant attachments in the Appendix, these should be described in the narrative below and clearly cross-referenced to allow the reviewers to locate them easily.

Evidence for (D)(1):

To the extent the State has developed a common, statewide Workforce Knowledge and Competency Framework that meets the elements in selection criterion (D)(1), submit:

The Workforce Knowledge and Competencies;
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 III) and is designed to promote children’s learning and development and improve outcomes.

(Enter narrative here – recommended maximum of five pages)

(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-

(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;

(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 (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;

(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 with programs 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, or data or information about the population of Children with High Needs in the State).

Additionally, the State must provide baseline data and set targets for the performance measure under (D)(2)(d)(1) and (D)(2)(d)(2).

(Enter narrative here – recommended maximum of five pages)

Performance Measures for (D)(2)(d)(1): Increasing the number of Early Childhood Educators receiving credentials from postsecondary institutions and professional development providers with programs that are aligned to the Workforce Knowledge and Competency Framework
	Baseline (Today)	Target - end of calendar year 2014	Target - end of calendar year 2015	Target - end of calendar year 2016	Target – end of calendar year 2017
Total number of “aligned” institutions and providers
Total number of Early Childhood Educators credentialed by an “aligned” institution or provider
[Please indicate whether baseline data are actual or estimated and describe the methodology used to collect the data, including any error or data quality information; and please include any definitions you used that are not defined in the notice. If baseline data are not currently available please describe in your High-Quality Plan in your narrative how and when you will have baseline data available.]

Performance Measures for (D)(2)(d)(2): Increasing number and percentage of Early Childhood Educators who are progressing to higher levels of credentials that align with the Workforce Knowledge and Competency Framework.
Progression of credentials (Aligned to Workforce Knowledge and Competency Framework)	Baseline and Annual Targets -- Number and percentage of Early Childhood Educators who have moved up the progression of credentials, aligned to the Workforce Knowledge and Competency Framework, in the prior year
	Baseline (Today)		Target- end of calendar year 2014		Target- end of calendar year 2015		Target- end of calendar year 2016		Target- end of calendar year 2017
	#	%	#	%	#	%	#	%	#	%
Credential Type 1 Specify:
Credential Type 2 Specify:
Credential Type 3 Specify:
Credential Type 4 Specify:
Include a row for each credential in the State’s proposed progression of credentials, customize the labeling of the credentials, and indicate the highest and lowest credential. [Please indicate if baseline data are actual or estimated; describe the methodology used to collect the data, including any error or data quality information.]

E. Measuring Outcomes and Progress

Note: The total available points for (E)(1) and (E)(2) = 40. The 40 available points will be divided by the number of selection criteria that the applicant chooses to address so that each selection criterion is worth the same number of points. For example, if the applicant chooses to address both selection criteria in Focused Investment Area (E), each criterion will be worth up to 20 points.

The applicant must address one or more selection criteria within Focused Investment Area (E).

(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 the 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 ESEA).

Evidence for (E)(1):

Any supporting evidence the State believes will be helpful to peer reviewers.

(Enter narrative here – recommended maximum of eight pages)

(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 to share with parents and other community stakeholders; 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.

(Enter narrative here – recommended maximum of eight pages)

VII. COMPETITION PRIORITIES

Note about Absolute Priorities: Absolute priorities describe items that a State must address in order to receive a grant.

Priority 1: Absolute Priority -- Promoting School Readiness for Children with High Needs.

To meet this 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 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.

Applicants do not write a separate response to this priority. Rather, they address this priority throughout their responses to the selection criteria. Applications must meet the absolute priority to be considered for funding. A State meets the absolute priority if a majority of reviewers determines that the State has met the absolute priority.

Note about Competitive Preference Priorities: Competitive preference priorities can earn the applicant extra or “competitive preference” points.

Priority 2: Competitive Preference Priority -- Including All Early Learning and Development Programs in the Tiered Quality Rating and Improvement System. (10 points)

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 High-Quality Plan to implement no later than June 30^th 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.

If the State chooses to respond to this competitive preference priority, the State shall write its full response in the text box below. The State may also include any additional information it believes will be helpful to peer reviewers. If the State has included relevant attachments in the Appendix, these should be described in the narrative below and clearly cross-referenced to allow the reviewers to locate them easily.

In scoring this priority, peer reviewers will determine, based on the evidence the State submits, whether each element of the priority is implemented or planned; the quality of the implementation or plan (see the definition of a High-Quality Plan for the components reviewers will be judging); and the extent to which the different types of Early Learning and Development Programs in the State are included and addressed. The State is responsible for providing clear and detailed information to assist the peer reviewers in making these determinations.

(Enter narrative here – recommended maximum of eight pages)

Priority 3: Competitive Preference Priority -- Understanding the Status of Children’s Learning and Development at Kindergarten Entry. (10 points)

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.

For Competitive Preference Priority 3, a State will earn all ten (10) competitive preference priority points if a majority of reviewers determines that the State has met the competitive preference priority. A State earns zero points if a majority of reviewers determines that the applicant has not met the competitive preference priority.

Applicants do not write a separate response to this priority. Rather, applicants address Competitive Preference Priority 3 by writing to selection criterion (E)(1).

Priority 4: Competitive Preference Priority -- Creating Preschool through Third Grade Approaches to Sustain Improved Early Learning Outcomes through the Early Elementary Grades. (10 points)

Priority 4 is designed to build upon the State’s High-Quality Plan to improve birth through age five early learning outcomes, and to sustain and extend improved early learning outcomes 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 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, and building families’ capacity to address these needs;

(c) Implementing teacher preparation and professional development programs and strategies that emphasize developmental science and the importance of protective factors, pedagogy, and the delivery of developmentally appropriate content, strategies for identifying and addressing the needs of children experiencing social and emotional challenges, and effective family engagement strategies for educators, administrators, and related personnel serving children from preschool through third grade;

(d) Implementing model systems of collaboration both within and between Early Learning and Development Programs and elementary schools to engage and support families and 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 inform families and 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.

(Enter narrative here )

Priority 5: Competitive Preference Priority -- Addressing the Needs of Children in Rural Areas. (5 points)

The State will meet this priority based on the extent to which it describes:

(a) How it will implement approaches to address the unique needs (e.g., limited access to resources) of children in rural areas, including rural areas with small populations; and

(b) How these approaches are designed to close educational and opportunity gaps for Children with High Needs, increase the number and percentage of Low-Income children who are enrolled in high-quality Early Learning and Development Programs; and enhance the State’s integrated system of high-quality early learning programs and services.

In scoring this priority, peer reviewers will determine, based on the evidence the State submits, whether each element of the priority is implemented or planned; the quality of the implementation or plan; and the extent to which the different types of Early Learning and Development Programs in the State are included and addressed. The State is responsible for providing clear and detailed information to assist the peer reviewers in making these determinations.

(Enter narrative here )

Note about Invitational Priorities: Invitational priorities signal areas the Departments are particularly interested in; however, addressing these priorities will not earn applicants any additional points.

Priority 6: Invitational Priority -- 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.

(Enter narrative here )

VIII. BUDGET

AWARD INFORMATION

Budget Requirements: To support States in planning their budgets, the Departments have developed the following budget caps for each State. We will not consider for funding an application from a State that proposes a budget that exceeds the applicable cap set for that State. 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.^²⁵

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.

The State must include in its budget the amount of funds it intends to distribute through MOUs, interagency agreements, contracts, subgrants, or other mechanisms authorized by State procurement laws to localities, Early Learning Intermediary Organizations, Participating Programs, or other partners.

The State must set aside $400,000 from its grant funds for the purpose of participating in RTT–ELC grantee technical assistance activities facilitated by ED or HHS.

Grant Period: The grant period for this award is December 31, 2013 through December 31, 2017.

BUDGET INSTRUCTIONS

(Evidence for selection criterion (A)(4)(b))

In the following budget section, the State is responding to selection criterion (A)(4)(b). The State should use its budgets and budget narratives to provide a detailed description of how it plans to use Federal RTT-ELC grant funds and funds from other sources (Federal, State, private, and local) to support projects under the State Plan. States’ budget tables and narratives, when taken together, should also address the specific elements of selection criterion (A)(4)(b), including by describing how the State will effectively and efficiently use funding from this grant to achieve the outcomes in the State Plan and do so 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

The budget narratives should be of sufficient scope and detail for the Departments to determine if the costs are necessary, reasonable, and allowable. For further guidance on Federal cost principles, an applicant may wish to consult OMB Circular A-87. (See www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars).

We expect the State to provide a detailed budget by category for each Participating State Agency that rolls up into the total statewide budget. We further expect that the budgets of each Participating State Agency reflect the work associated with fully implementing the High-Quality Plans described under the selection criteria and Competitive Preference Priority 2 and describe each Participating State Agency’s budgetary role^²⁶ in carrying out the State Plan.

For purposes of the budget, we expect that the State will link its proposed High-Quality Plans to “projects” that the State believes are necessary in order to implement its plans. The State might choose to design some projects that address only one criterion’s High-Quality Plan, while other projects might address several similarly-focused criteria as one group. For example, the State might choose to have one “management project” focused on criterion (A)(3), organizing and aligning the early learning and development system to achieve success. It might have another “workforce project” that addresses criteria (D)(1) and (D)(2) under the Great Early Childhood Education Workforce section.

Some projects may be done entirely by one Participating State Agency, while others may be done by multiple agencies in collaboration with one another. The State, together with its Participating State Agencies, will define the projects required to implement the State Plan and will determine which Participating State Agencies will be involved in each project, as shown below.

Shape1

Total Statewide Budget

Shape4 Shape3 Shape2

Agency 3 Budget

Agency 2 Budget

Agency 1 Budget

+ + =

Shape9 Shape8 Shape7 Shape6 Shape5

Shape12 Shape11 Shape10

Project 3

Project 2

Project 1

To support the budgeting process, we strongly suggest that applicants use the RTT-ELC budget spreadsheets prepared by the Departments to build their budgets. These spreadsheets must be submitted together with, but in a file separate from, the application.^²⁷ These spreadsheets have formulas built into them that are intended to help States produce the budget tables required within this section.

The following information must be included in the State’s budget:

Budget Summaries: In this section, the State provides overall budget summary information by budget category, Participating State Agency, and project.
1. Budget Summary by Budget Category. This is the cover sheet for the budget. (See Budget Table I-1.) States should complete this table as the final step in their budgeting process, and include this table as the first page of the State’s budget. (Note: Each row in this table is calculated by adding together the corresponding rows in each of the Participating State Agency Budget by Category tables. If the State uses the budget spreadsheets provided, these “roll-up” calculations are done automatically.)
2. Budget Summary by Participating State Agency. This summary lists the total annual budget for each Participating State Agency. (See Budget Table I-2.) States should complete this table after completing Budget Table II-1 for each Participating State Agency (see Part II: Participating State Agency Budgets). If the State uses the budget spreadsheets provided, these “roll-up” calculations are done automatically for the State.
3. Budget Summary by Project. This summary lists the total annual budget for each of the projects. (See Budget Table I-3.) States should complete this table after completing Budget Table II-2 for each Participating State Agency (see Part II: Participating State Agency Budgets). If the State uses the budget spreadsheets provided, these “roll-up” calculations are done automatically for the State.
4. Budget Summary Narrative. This budget narrative accompanies the three Budget Summary Tables and provides the rationale for the budget. The narrative should include, for example, an overview of each Participating State Agency’s budgetary responsibilities and descriptions of each project that the State has included in its budget.

Budgets for Each Participating State Agency. In this section, the State describes each Participating State Agency’s budgetary responsibilities.^²⁸ The State should replicate this section for each Participating State Agency and for each Participating State Agency complete the following:
1. Participating State Agency By Budget Category. This is the budget for each Participating State Agency by budget category for each year for which funding is requested. (See Budget Table II-1.)
2. Participating State Agency By Project. This table lists the Participating State Agency’s proposed budget for each project in which it is involved. (See Budget Table II-2.)
3. Participating State Agency Budget Narrative. This budget narrative describes the Participating State Agency’s budget category line items and addresses how the Participating State Agency’s budget will support the implementation of each project in which it is involved.

The State should replicate Budget Part II for each Participating State Agency as follows:

For Participating State Agency 1: Budget by Category, Budget by Project, Narrative
For Participating State Agency 2: Budget by Category, Budget by Project, Narrative

Budget Part I: Summary

Budget part I -Tables

Budget Table I-1: Budget Summary by Budget Category--The State must include the budget totals for each budget category for each year of the grant. These line items are derived by adding together the corresponding line items from each of the Participating State Agency Budget Tables.

Budget Table I-1: Budget Summary by Budget Category (Evidence for selection criterion (A)(4)(b))
Budget Categories	Grant Year 1 (a)	Grant Year 2 (b)	Grant Year 3 (c)	Grant Year 4 (d)	Total (e)
1. Personnel
2. Fringe Benefits
3. Travel
4. Equipment
5. Supplies
6. Contractual
7. Training Stipends
8. Other
9. Total Direct Costs (add lines 1-8)
10. Indirect Costs*
11. Funds to be distributed to localities, Early Learning Intermediary Organizations, Participating Programs and other partners.
12. Funds set aside for participation in grantee technical assistance
13. Total Grant Funds Requested (add lines 9-12)
14. Funds from other sources used to support the State Plan
15. Total Statewide Budget (add lines 13-14)
Columns (a) through (d): For each grant year for which funding is requested, show the total amount requested for each applicable budget category. Column (e): Show the total amount requested for all grant years. Line 6: Show the amount of funds allocated through contracts with vendors for products to be acquired and/or professional services to be provided. A State may apply its indirect cost rate only against the first $25,000 of each contract included in line 6. Line 10: If the State plans to request reimbursement for indirect costs, complete the Indirect Cost Information form at the end of this Budget section. Note that indirect costs are not allocated to line 11. Line 11: Show the amount of funds to be distributed to localities, Early Learning Intermediary Organizations, Participating Programs, and other partners through MOUs, interagency agreements, contracts, or other mechanisms authorized by State procurement laws. States are not required to provide budgets for how the localities, Early Learning Intermediary Organizations, Participating Programs, and other partners will use these funds. However, the Departments expect that, as part of the administration and oversight of the grant, States will monitor and track all expenditures to ensure that localities, Early Learning Intermediary Organizations, Participating Programs, and other partners spend these funds in accordance with the State Plan. Line 12: The State must set aside $400,000 from its grant funds for the purpose of participating in RTT–ELC grantee technical assistance activities facilitated by ED or HHS. This is primarily to be used for travel and may be allocated to Participating State Agencies evenly across the four years of the grant. Line 13: This is the total funding requested under this grant. Line 14: Show total funding from other sources (including Federal, State, private, or local) being used to support the State Plan and describe these funding sources in the budget narrative.

Budget Table I-2: Budget Summary by Participating State Agency--The State must include the budget totals for each Participating State Agency for each year of the grant. These line items should be consistent with the totals of each of the Participating State Agency Budgets provided in Budget Tables II-1.

Budget Table I-2: Budget Summary by Participating State Agency (Evidence for selection criterion (A)(4)(b))
Participating State Agency	Grant Year 1 (a)	Grant Year 2 (b)	Grant Year 3 (c)	Grant Year 4 (d)	Total (e)
<Agency 1>
<Agency 2>
<Agency 3>




Total Statewide Budget

Budget Table I-3: Budget Summary by Project--The State must include the proposed budget totals for each project for each year of the grant. These line items are the totals, for each project, across all of the Participating State Agencies’ project budgets, as provided in Budget Tables II-2.

Budget Table I-3: Budget Summary by Project (Evidence for selection criterion (A)(4)(b))
Projects	Grant Year 1 (a)	Grant Year 2 (b)	Grant Year 3 (c)	Grant Year 4 (d)	Total (e)
<Project 1>
<Project 2>
<Project 3>










Total Statewide Budget

Budget Part I -Narrative

Describe, in the text box below, the overall structure of the State’s budget for implementing the State Plan, including

A list of each Participating State Agency, together with a description of its budgetary and project responsibilities;
A list of projects and a description of how these projects taken together will result in full implementation of the State Plan;
For each project:
- The designation of the selection criterion or competitive preference priority the project addresses;
- An explanation of how the project will be organized and managed in order to ensure the implementation of the High-Quality Plans described in the selection criteria or competitive preference priorities; and
Any information pertinent to understanding the proposed budget for each project.

(Enter narrative here – recommended maximum of five pages)

BUDGET PART II: PARTICIPATING STATE AGENCY

The State must complete Budget Table II-1, Budget Table II-2, and a narrative for each Participating State Agency with budgetary responsibilities. Therefore, the State should replicate the Budget Part II tables and narrative for each Participating State Agency, and include them in this section as follows:

Participating State Agency 1: Budget Table II-1, Budget Table II-2, narrative.
Participating State Agency 2: Budget Table II-1, Budget Table II-2, narrative.

Budget part II -Tables

Budget Table II-1: Participating State Agency Budget By Budget Category--The State must include the Participating State Agency’s budget totals for each budget category for each year of the grant.

Budget Table II-1: Participating State Agency (Evidence for selection criterion (A)(4)(b)) <Participating State Agency Name>
Budget Categories	Grant Year 1 (a)	Grant Year 2 (b)	Grant Year 3 (c)	Grant Year 4 (d)	Total (e)
1. Personnel
2. Fringe Benefits
3. Travel
4. Equipment
5. Supplies
6. Contractual
7. Training Stipends
8. Other
9. Total Direct Costs (add lines 1-8)
10. Indirect Costs*
11. Funds to be distributed to localities, Early Learning Intermediary Organizations, Participating Programs and other partners.
12. Funds set aside for participation in grantee technical assistance
13. Total Grant Funds Requested (add lines 9-12)
14. Funds from other sources used to support the State Plan
15. Total Budget (add lines 13-14)
Columns (a) through (d): For each grant year for which funding is requested, show the total amount requested for each applicable budget category. Column (e): Show the total amount requested for all grant years. Line 6: Show the amount of funds allocated through contracts with vendors for products to be acquired and/or professional services to be provided. A State may apply its indirect cost rate only against the first $25,000 of each contract included in line 6. Line 10: If the State plans to request reimbursement for indirect costs, complete the Indirect Cost Information form at the end of this Budget section. Note that indirect costs are not allocated to line 11. Line 11: Show the amount of funds to be distributed to localities, Early Learning Intermediary Organizations, Participating Programs, and other partners through MOUs, interagency agreements, contracts, or other mechanisms authorized by State procurement laws. States are not required to provide budgets for how the localities, Early Learning Intermediary Organizations, Participating Programs, and other partners will use these funds. However, the Departments expect that, as part of the administration and oversight of the grant, States will monitor and track all expenditures to ensure that localities, Early Learning Intermediary Organizations, Participating Programs, and other partners spend these funds in accordance with the State Plan. Line 12: The Participating State Agency’s allocation of the $400,000 the State must set aside from its Total Grant Funds Requested for the purpose of participating in RTT–ELC grantee technical assistance activities facilitated by ED or HHS. This is primarily to be used for travel and may be allocated evenly across the four years of the grant. Line 13: This is the total funding requested under this grant. Line 14: Show total funding from other sources (including Federal, State, private, or local) being used to support the State Plan and describe these funding sources in the budget narrative.

Budget Table II-2: Participating State Agency Budget By Project--The State must include the Participating State Agency’s proposed budget totals for each project for each year of the grant.

Budget Table II-2: Participating State Agency (Evidence for selection criterion (A)(4)(b)) <Participating State Agency Name>
Project	Grant Year 1 (a)	Grant Year 2 (b)	Grant Year 3 (c)	Grant Year 4 (d)	Total (e)
<Project 1>
<Project 2>
<Project 3>


Total Budget

Budget part ii - Narrative

Describe, in the text box below, the Participating State Agency’s budget, including--

How the Participating State Agency plans to organize its operations in order to manage the RTT-ELC funds and accomplish the work set forth in the MOU or other binding agreement and scope of work;
For each project in which the Participating State Agency is involved, and consistent with the MOU or other binding agreement and scope of work:
- An explanation of the Participating State Agency’s roles and responsibilities
- An explanation of how the proposed project annual budget was derived
A detailed explanation of each budget category line item, including the information below.

1) Personnel

Provide:

The title and role of each position to be compensated under this grant.
The salary for each position.
The amount of time, such as hours or percentage of time, to be expended by each position.
Any additional basis for cost estimates or computations.

Explain:

The importance of each position to the success of specific. If curriculum vitae, an organizational chart, or other supporting information will be helpful to reviewers, attach in the Appendix and describe its location.

2) Fringe Benefits

Provide:

The fringe benefit percentages for all personnel.
The basis for cost estimates or computations.

3) Travel

Provide:

An estimate of the number of trips.
An estimate of transportation and/or subsistence costs for each trip.

Any additional basis for cost estimates or computations.

Explain:

The purpose of the travel, how it relates to project goals, and how it will contribute to project success.

4) Equipment

Provide:

The type of equipment to be purchased.
The estimated unit cost for each item to be purchased.
The definition of equipment used by the State.
Any additional basis for cost estimates or computations.

Explain:

The justification of the need for the items of equipment to be purchased.

5) Supplies

Provide:

An estimate of materials and supplies needed, by nature of expense or general category (e.g., instructional materials, office supplies).
The basis for cost estimates or computations.

6) Contractual

Provide:

The products to be acquired and/or the professional services to be provided.
The estimated cost per expected procurement.
For professional services contracts, the amounts of time to be devoted to the project, including the costs to be charged to this proposed grant award.
A brief statement that the State has followed the procedures for procurement under 34 CFR Parts 74.40 - 74.48 and Part 80.36.
Any additional basis for cost estimates or computations.

Explain:

The purpose and relation to the State Plan or specific project.

Note: Because grantees must use appropriate procurement procedures to select contractors, applicants should not include information in their grant applications about specific contractors that may be used to provide services or goods for the proposed project if a grant is awarded.

7) Training Stipends

Note:

The training stipend line item only pertains to costs associated with long-term training programs and college or university coursework that results in a credential or degree, not workshops or short-term training supported by this program.
Salary stipends paid to teachers and other early learning personnel for participating in short-term professional development should be reported in Personnel (line 1).

Provide:

Descriptions of training stipends to be provided, consistent with the “note” above.
The cost estimates and basis for these estimates.

Explain:

The purpose of the training.

8) Other

Provide:

Other items by major type or category.
The cost per item (printing = $500, postage = $750).
Any additional basis for cost estimates or computations.

Explain:

The purpose of the expenditures.

9) Total Direct Costs

Provide:

The sum of expenditures, across all budget categories in lines 1-8, for each year of the budget.

10) Indirect Costs

Provide:

Identify and apply the indirect cost rate. (See the section that follows, Budget: Indirect Cost Information.)

11) Funds distributed to localities, Early Learning Intermediary Organizations, Participating Programs, or other partners through MOUs, interagency agreements, contracts, or other mechanisms authorized by State procurement laws.

Provide:

The specific activities to be done by localities, Early Learning Intermediary Organizations, Participating Programs, or other partners.
The estimated cost of each activity.
The approximate number of localities, Early Learning Intermediary Organizations, Participating Programs, or other partners involved in each activity.
The total cost of each activity (across all localities, Early Learning Intermediary Organizations, Participating Programs and other partners).
Any additional basis for cost estimates or computations.

Explain:

The purpose of each activity and its relation to the State Plan or specific project.

Note: States are not required to provide budgets for how the localities, Early Learning Intermediary Organizations, Participating Programs, and other partners will use these funds. However, the Departments expects that, as part of the administration and oversight of the grant, States will monitor and track all expenditures to ensure that localities, Early Learning Intermediary Organizations, Participating Programs, and other partners spend these funds in accordance with the State Plan.

12) Funds set aside for participation in grantee technical assistance

Provide:

The amount per year set aside for this Participating State Agency.

Note: The State must set aside $400,000 from its Total Grant Funds Requested for the purpose of participating in RTT–ELC grantee technical assistance activities facilitated by ED or HHS. This is primarily to be used for travel and may be allocated to Participating State Agencies evenly across the four years of the grant.

13) Total Funds Requested

Provide:

The sum of expenditures in lines 9-12, for each year of the budget.

14) Other Funds Allocated to the State Plan

Provide:

A description of the sources of other funds the State is using to support the projects in the State Plan.
A description of how the quality set-asides in CCDF will be used for activities and services described in the State Plan, if applicable.
Any financial contributions being made by private entities such as foundations.

Explain:

Each funding source, the activities being funded and their relation to the State Plan or specific project, and any requirements placed on the use of funds or timing of the activity.

15) Total Budget

Provide:

The sum of expenditures in lines 13 and 14, for each year of the budget

(Enter narrative here – recommended maximum of five pages)

BUDGET: INDIRECT COST INFORMATION

To request reimbursement for indirect costs, please answer the following questions:

Does the State have an Indirect Cost Rate Agreement approved by the Federal government?

Shape13 YES

Shape14 NO

If yes to question 1, please provide the following information:

Period Covered by the Indirect Cost Rate Agreement (mm/dd/yyyy):

From: ___/___/______ To: ___/___/______

Approving Federal agency: ___ED ___HHS ___Other

(Please specify agency): __________________

Directions for this form:

Indicate whether or not the State has an Indirect Cost Rate Agreement that was approved by the Federal government.

If “No” is checked, the Departments generally will authorize grantees to use a temporary rate of 10 percent of budgeted salaries and wages subject to the following limitations:

(a) The grantee must submit an indirect cost proposal to its cognizant agency within 90 days after the grant award notification is issued; and

(b) If after the 90-day period, the grantee has not submitted an indirect cost proposal to its cognizant agency, the grantee may not charge its grant for indirect costs until it has negotiated an indirect cost rate agreement with its cognizant agency.

If “Yes” is checked, indicate the beginning and ending dates covered by the Indirect Cost Rate Agreement. In addition, indicate whether ED, HHS, or another Federal agency (Other) issued the approved agreement. If “Other” was checked, specify the name of the agency that issued the approved agreement.

IX. APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS

(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 memorandum of understanding (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 an 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 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 (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.

X. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

Any State that applies for a grant under this competition must ensure that it has in place the necessary processes and systems to comply with the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 170 should it receive funding under the competition. This does not apply if the State has an exception under 2 CFR 170.110(b).

A State receiving funds under an RTT-ELC grant must submit an annual report that must include, in addition to the standard elements, a description of the State’s progress to date on its goals, timelines, and budgets, as well as actual performance compared to the annual targets the State established in its application with respect to each performance measure. Further, a State receiving funds under this program is accountable for meeting the goals, timelines, budget, and annual targets established in the application; adhering to an annual fund drawdown schedule that is tied to meeting these goals, timelines, budget, and annual targets; and fulfilling and maintaining all other conditions for the conduct of the project. The Departments will monitor a State’s progress in meeting the State’s goals, timelines, budget, and annual targets and in fulfilling other applicable requirements. In addition, we may collect additional data as part of a State’s annual reporting requirements.

To support a collaborative process with the State, we may require that applicants who are selected to receive an award enter into a written performance or cooperative agreement. If we determine that a State is not meeting its goals, timelines, budget, or annual targets or is not fulfilling other applicable requirements, we will take appropriate action, which could include establishing a collaborative process or taking enforcement measures with respect to this grant, such as placing the State in high-risk status, putting the State on reimbursement payment status, or delaying or withholding funds.

XI. PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS

A State that receives a grant must meet the following requirements:

(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 (CCDF) administrator, State agency coordinators from both Part B section 619 and Part C of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (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 (Public Law. 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 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 criterion (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 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.

XII. CONTRACTING FOR SERVICES

Generally, all procurement transactions by State or local educational agencies made with RTT-ELC grant funds must be conducted in a manner providing full and open competition, consistent with the standards in section 80.36 of the Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR). This section requires that grantees use their own procurement procedures (which reflect State and local laws and regulations) to select contractors, provided that those procedures meet certain standards described in EDGAR.

Because grantees must use appropriate procurement procedures to select contractors, applicants should not include information in their grant applications about specific contractors that may be used to provide services or goods for the proposed project if a grant is awarded.

XIII. PARTICIPATING STATE AGENCY MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

RACE TO THE TOP-EARLY LEARNING CHALLENGE

PARTICIPATING STATE AGENCY

MODEL MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

(Appendix C of the Race to the Top-Early Learning Challenge
Notice Inviting Applications)

Background for Memorandum of Understanding

Each Participating State Agency identified in a State’s Race to the Top-Early Learning Challenge (RTT-ELC) State Plan is required to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) or other binding agreement with the State’s Lead Agency that specifies the scope of the work that will be implemented by the Participating State Agency. The purpose of the MOU or other binding agreement is to define a relationship between the Lead Agency and the Participating State Agency that is specific to the RTT-ELC competition; the MOU or other binding agreement is not meant to detail all typical aspects of grant coordination or administration.

To support States in working efficiently with their Participating State Agencies to affirm each Participating State Agency’s participation in the State Plan, ED and HHS have produced a model MOU, which is attached. This model MOU may serve as a template for States; however, States are not required to use it. States may use a document other than the model MOU, as long as it includes the key features noted below and in the model MOU. States should consult with their State attorneys on what is most appropriate. States may allow multiple Participating State Agencies to sign a single MOU or other binding agreement, with customized exhibits for each Participating State Agency, if the State so chooses.

At a minimum, an RTT-ELC MOU or other binding agreement should include the following key features, each of which is described in detail below and exemplified in the attached model MOU: (i) terms and conditions; (ii) a scope of work; and, (iii) authorized signatures.

(i) Terms and conditions: Each Participating State Agency must sign a standard set of terms and conditions that includes, at a minimum, key roles and responsibilities of the Lead Agency and the Participating State Agency; State recourse for non-performance by the Participating State Agency; and assurances that make clear what the Participating State Agency is agreeing to do.

(ii) Scope of work: RTT-ELC MOUs or other binding agreements must include a preliminary scope of work (included in the model RTT-ELC MOU as Exhibit I) that is completed by each Participating State Agency. The scope of work must be signed and dated by an authorized Participating State Agency official and an authorized Lead Agency official. In the interest of time and in consideration of the effort it will take for the Lead Agency and Participating State Agencies to develop detailed work plans for RTT-ELC, the scope of work submitted by Participating State Agencies and Lead Agencies as part of a State’s application may be preliminary. Preliminary scopes of work must, at a minimum, identify all applicable portions of the State Plan that the Participating State Agency is agreeing to implement and include the required assurances. (Note that in order for a State to be eligible for the RTT-ELC competition, the Lead Agency must have executed with each Participating State Agency an MOU or other binding agreement, which the State must attach to its application and which must describe the Participating State Agency’s level of participation in the grant and must include the required assurances.)

If a State is awarded an RTT-ELC grant, Participating State Agencies will have up to 90 days to complete final scopes of work, which must contain detailed work plans that are consistent with each Participating State Agency’s preliminary scope of work and with the State’s grant application, and must include the Participating State Agencies’ specific goals, activities, timelines, budgets, and key personnel.

(iii) Authorized Signatures: The signatures on the MOU or other binding agreement demonstrate an acknowledgement of the relationship between the Participating State Agency and the Lead Agency. With respect to the relationship between the Participating State Agency and the Lead Agency, the Lead Agency’s counter-signature on the MOU or other binding agreement indicates that the Participating State Agency’s commitment is consistent with the requirement that a Participating State Agency implement all applicable portions of the State Plan.

MODEL PARTICIPATING STATE AGENCY
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

This Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) is entered into by and between ____________________________ (“Lead Agency”) and _____________________________ (“Participating State Agency”). The purpose of this agreement is to establish a framework of collaboration, as well as articulate specific roles and responsibilities in support of the State in its implementation of an approved Race to the Top-Early Learning Challenge grant project.

ASSURANCES

The Participating State Agency hereby certifies and represents that it:

1) Agrees to be a Participating State Agency and will implement those portions of the State Plan indicated in Exhibit I, if the State application is funded;

2) Agrees to use, to the extent applicable and consistent with the State Plan and Exhibit I:

(a) A set of statewide Early Learning and Development Standards;

(b) A set of statewide Program Standards;

(d) A statewide Workforce Knowledge and Competency Framework and progression of credentials.

(Please note that Participating State Agencies must provide these assurances in order for the State to be eligible for a Race to the Top-Early Learning Challenge grant.)

3) Has all requisite power and authority to execute and fulfill the terms of this MOU;

4) Is familiar with the State’s Race to the Top-Early Learning Challenge grant application and is supportive of and committed to working on all applicable portions of the State Plan;

5) Will provide a Final Scope of Work only if the State’s application is funded and will do so in a timely fashion but no later than 90 days after a grant is awarded; and will describe the Participating State Agency’s specific goals, activities, timelines, budgets, and key personnel (“Participating State Agency Plan”) in a manner that is consistent with the Preliminary Scope of Work (Exhibit I), with the Budget included in section VIII of the State Plan (including existing funds, if any, that the Participating State Agency is using for activities and services that help achieve the outcomes of the State Plan; and

6) Will comply with all of the terms of the Race to the Top-Early Learning Challenge Grant, this agreement, and all applicable Federal and State laws and regulations, including laws and regulations applicable to the Race to the Top-Early Learning Challenge program, and the applicable provisions of EDGAR (34 CFR Parts 75, 77, 79, 80, 82, 84, 86, 97, 98 and 99), and the suspension and debarment regulations in 2 CFR Part 3485.

II. PROJECT ADMINISTRATION

A. PARTICIPATING STATE AGENCY RESPONSIBILITIES

In assisting the Lead Agency in implementing the tasks and activities described in the State’s Race to the Top-Early Learning Challenge grant application, the Participating State Agency will:

1) Implement the Participating State Agency Scope of Work as identified in Exhibit I of this agreement;

2) Abide by the governance structure outlined in the State Plan;

3) Abide by the Participating State Agency’s Budget included in section VIII of the State Plan (including the existing funds from Federal, State, private and local sources, if any, that the Participating State Agency is using to achieve the outcomes in the RTT-ELC State Plan);

4) Actively participate in all relevant meetings or other events that are organized or sponsored by the State, by the U.S. Department of Education (“ED”), or by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”);

5) Post to any Web site specified by the State, ED, or HHS, in a timely manner, all non-proprietary products and lessons learned developed using Federal funds awarded under the RTT-ELC grant;

6) Participate, as requested, in any evaluations of this grant conducted by the State, ED, or HHS;

7) Be responsive to State, ED, or HHS requests for project information including on the status of the project, project implementation, outcomes, and any problems anticipated or encountered, consistent with applicable local, State and Federal privacy laws.

B. LEAD AGENCY RESPONSIBILITIES

In assisting the Participating State Agencies in implementing their tasks and activities described in the State’s Race to the Top-Early Learning Challenge application, the Lead Agency will:

1) Work collaboratively with the Participating State Agency and support the Participating State Agency in carrying out the Participating State Agency Scope of Work, as identified in Exhibit I of this agreement;

2) Timely award the portion of Race to the Top-Early Learning Challenge grant funds designated for the Participating State Agency in the State Plan during the course of the project period and in accordance with the Participating State Agency’s Scope of Work, as identified in Exhibit I, and in accordance with the Participating State Agency’s Budget, as identified in section VIII of the State’s application;

3) Provide feedback on the Participating State Agency’s status updates, any interim reports, and project plans and products;

4) Keep the Participating State Agency informed of the status of the State’s Race to the Top-Early Learning Challenge grant project and seek input from the Participating State Agency, where applicable, through the governance structure outlined in the State Plan;

5) Facilitate coordination across Participating State Agencies necessary to implement the State Plan; and

6) Identify sources of technical assistance for the project.

C. JOINT RESPONSIBILITIES

1) The Lead Agency and the Participating State Agency will each appoint a key contact person for the Race to the Top-Early Learning Challenge grant.

2) These key contacts from the Lead Agency and the Participating State Agency will maintain frequent communication to facilitate cooperation under this MOU, consistent with the State Plan and governance structure.

3) Lead Agency and Participating State Agency personnel will work together to determine appropriate timelines for project updates and status reports throughout the grant period.

4) Lead Agency and Participating State Agency personnel will negotiate in good faith toward achieving the overall goals of the State’s Race to the Top-Early Learning Challenge grant, including when the State Plan requires modifications that affect the Participating State Agency, or when the Participating State Agency’s Scope of Work requires modifications.

D. STATE RECOURSE IN THE EVENT OF PARTICIPATING STATE AGENCY’S FAILURE TO PERFORM

If the Lead Agency determines that the Participating State Agency is not meeting its goals, timelines, budget, or annual targets, or is in some other way not fulfilling applicable requirements, the Lead Agency will take appropriate enforcement action, which could include initiating a collaborative process by which to attempt to resolve the disagreements between the Lead Agency and the Participating State Agency, or initiating such enforcement measures as are available to the Lead Agency, under applicable State or Federal law.

III. MODIFICATIONS

This Memorandum of Understanding may be amended only by written agreement signed by each of the parties involved, in consultation with ED.

IV. DURATION

This Memorandum of Understanding shall be effective, beginning with the date of the last signature hereon and, if a Race to the Top- Early Learning Challenge grant is received by the State, ending upon the expiration of the Race to the Top- Early Learning Challenge grant project period.

V. SIGNATURES

Authorized Representative of Lead Agency:

___________________________________________________________

Signature Date

___________________________________________________________

Print Name Title

Authorized Representative of Participating State Agency:

___________________________________________________________

Signature Date

___________________________________________________________

Print Name Title

EXHIBIT I – PARTICIPATING STATE AGENCY SCOPE OF WORK

The Participating State Agency hereby agrees to participate in the State Plan, as described in the State’s application, and more specifically commits to undertake the tasks and activities described in detail below.

Selection Criterion	Participating Party	Type of Participation
Example Row—shows an example of criterion (B)(1) for the State agency that oversees state-funded preschool, IDEA, and Head Start Collab Office	State-funded preschool IDEA preschool special ed Head Start Collab Office	Representatives from each program are sitting on the state committee to define statewide QRIS program standards
	Head Start Collab Office	Responsible for cross-walking Head Start performance standards with the new Program Standards
(B)(1)
(B)(2)
(B)(3)
(B)(4)
(B)(5)
(C)(1)
(C)(2)
(C)(3)
(C)(4)
(D)(1)
(D)(2)
(E)(1)
(E)(2)

__________________________________________________________________________

Signature (Authorized Representative of Lead Agency) Date

__________________________________________________________________________

Signature (Authorized Representative of Participating State Agency) Date

XIV. SCORING RUBRIC

I. Introduction

To help ensure inter-reviewer reliability and transparency for the RTT-ELC applicants, ED and HHS have created and are publishing a rubric for scoring State applications. The pages that follow detail the rubric and allocation of point values that reviewers will be using. The rubric will be used by reviewers to ensure consistency across and within review panels.

The rubric allocates points to each selection criterion. In all, the RTT-ELC scoring rubric includes 17 selection criteria and four competitive preference priorities. These collectively add up to 315 points. The selection criteria are divided into two sections: Core Areas and Focused Investment Areas.

Applicants must respond to all of the selection criteria within each of the two Core Areas: (A) Successful State Systems and (B) High-Quality, Accountable Programs.
Applicants have more flexibility within each of the Focused Investment Areas: (C) Promoting Early Learning and Development Outcomes for Children; (D) A Great Early Childhood Education Workforce; and (E) Measuring Outcomes and Progress. In these sections, applicants may select which selection criteria to address; focusing on those that the State believes will have the most impact on school readiness for its Children with High Needs, given that State’s context and the current status of its early learning and development activities. The Focused Investment Areas must be addressed as follows.

Focused Investment Areas

The applicant must select and address--

At least two selection criteria from Focused Investment Area (C) Promoting Early Learning and Development Outcomes for Children; and
At least one selection criterion from each of Focused Investment Areas (D) A Great Early Childhood Education Workforce and (E) Measuring Outcomes and Progress.

Each Focused Investment Area (C), (D), and (E) is worth a specific number of points; these points will be evenly divided across the selection criteria that the applicant chooses to address in that section.

Priorities

Applicants must address the absolute priority throughout their applications; they do not write separately to this priority. The absolute priority must be met in order for an applicant to receive funding.

Applications that choose to address a competitive preference priority will earn extra points under that priority if the reviewers determine that the response is of high quality. Applicants may choose to write to the invitational priority to extend the scope of the application; applicants are invited to address this and may apply funds from this grant to implement activities under it, but do not earn additional points for doing so.

Reviewers will be required to make thoughtful judgments about the quality of the State’s application and will be assessing, based on the criteria, the comprehensiveness, feasibility, and likely impact of the State’s application. Reviewers will also be asked to evaluate, for example, the extent to which the State has set ambitious but achievable annual targets in its application. Reviewers will also need to make informed judgments about the State’s goals, the rationales for the Focused Investment Areas, the activities the State has chosen to undertake, and the timelines and credibility of the State’s plans.

This appendix includes information about the point values for each criterion and priority, guidance on scoring, and the rubric that we will provide to reviewers.

II. Points Overview

The chart below shows the maximum number of points that are assigned to each criterion.

Race to the Top-Early Learning Challenge: Points Overview	Points Available	Percent

A. Successful State Systems
(A)(1) Demonstrating past commitment to early learning and development.	20
(A)(2) Articulating the State’s rationale for its early learning and development reform agenda and goals.	20
(A)(3) Aligning and coordinating work across the State	10
(A)(4) Developing a budget to implement and sustain the work	15
Core Area A Subtotal	65	23

B. High-Quality, Accountable Programs
(B)(1) Developing and adopting a common, statewide Tiered Quality Rating and Improvement System	10
(B)(2) Promoting participation in the State’s Tiered Quality Rating and Improvement System	15
(B)(3) Rating and monitoring Early Learning and Development Programs	15
(B)(4) Promoting access to high-quality Early Learning and Development Programs	20
(B)(5) Validating the State’s Tiered Quality Rating and Improvement System	15
Core Area B Subtotal	75	27

C. Promoting Early Learning and Development Outcomes for Children
(C)(1) Developing and using statewide, high-quality Early Learning and Development Standards	60 (divided evenly across the criteria addressed)
(C)(2) Supporting effective uses of Comprehensive Assessment Systems
(C)(3) Identifying and addressing health, behavioral, and developmental needs
(C)(4) Engaging and supporting families
Focused Investment Area C Subtotal	60	21

D. A Great Early Childhood Education Workforce
(D)(1) Developing Workforce Knowledge and Competency Framework and a progression of credentials	40 (divided evenly across the criteria addressed)
(D)(2) Supporting Early Childhood Educators	40 (divided evenly across the criteria addressed)
Focused Investment Area D Subtotal	40	14

E. Measuring Outcomes and Progress
(E)(1) Understanding the status of children at kindergarten entry	40 (divided evenly across the criteria addressed)
(E)(2) Building or enhancing an early learning data system	40 (divided evenly across the criteria addressed)
Focused Investment Area E Subtotal	40	14

Total Points Available for Selection Criteria	280
Competitive Priority 2: Including all Early Learning and Development Programs in the TQRIS	10
Competitive Priority 3: Understanding Status of Children’s Learning and Development at Kindergarten Entry 10
Competitive Priority 4: Creating Preschool through Third Grade Approaches to Sustain Improved Early Learning Outcomes through the Early Elementary Grades 10
Competitive Priority 5: Addressing the Needs of Children in Rural Areas 5
Grand Total	315

III. About Scoring

General Notes about Scoring

There are two terms that we use repeatedly in the notice: High-Quality Plan and “ambitious yet achievable” goals or targets. These are anchor terms for both applicants to understand and reviewers to use in guiding their scoring. We discuss each below.

A High-Quality Plan. In determining the quality of a State’s plan for a given selection criterion or competitive preference priority, reviewers will assess the extent to which the plan meets the definition (as provided in the notice) of a High-Quality Plan, including whether it is feasible and has a high probability of successful implementation and contains the following components--

(a) The key goals;

(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, as well as the unique needs of special populations of Children with High Needs.

Using the information provided to them in the application, reviewers will assess the extent to which the proposed plan in a specific selection criterion is a High-Quality Plan that is credible, feasible to implement, and likely to result in the outcomes the State has put forward.

Ambitious yet achievable. In determining whether a State has ambitious yet achievable goals or targets for a given selection criterion, reviewers will examine the State’s goals or targets in the context of the State’s plan and the evidence submitted (if any) in support of the plan. Reviewers will not be looking for any specific targets nor will they necessarily reward higher targets above lower ones with higher scores. Rather, reviewers will reward States for developing goals and targets that, in light of each State’s plan and the current context and status of the work in that State, are shown to be “ambitious yet achievable.”

About Assigning Points

Reviewers will assign points to an application for each selection criterion in Core Areas (A) and (B) and for each selection criterion that the State has chosen to address within Focused Investment Areas (C), (D), and (E).

Quality Rubric

The following scoring rubric will be used to guide the reviewers in scoring selection criteria and priorities. (See “General Notes about Scoring” for more information about how reviewers will assess High-Quality Plans and “ambitious yet achievable” targets and goals.)

	Percentage of Available Points Awarded
High-quality response	80-100%
Medium/high-quality response	50-80%
Medium/low-quality response	20-50%
Low-quality response	0-20%

About Priorities

There are three types of priorities in the RTT-ELC competition.

Applicants should address the absolute priority across the entire application and should not address it separately. It will be assessed by reviewers after they have fully reviewed and evaluated the entire application, to ensure that the application has met the priority. If an application has not met the priority, it will be eliminated from the competition. A State meets the absolute priority if a majority of reviewers determines that the State has met the absolute priority.
Applicants earn points under the competitive preference priorities in a manner similar to how they earn points under the selection criteria.
- Priority 2 is worth up to 10 points.
- Priority 3 is worth 10 points; all 10 points are earned if the competitive preference priority is met. A State will earn competitive preference priority points if a majority of reviewers determines that the State has met the competitive preference priority. No points are earned if a majority of reviewers determine that the applicant has not met the competitive preference priority. A State meets the competitive preference priority by addressing selection criterion (E)(1) and earning a score of at least 70 percent of the maximum points available for that criterion.

Priority 4 is worth up to 10 points.
Priority 5 is worth up to 5 points.

The invitational priority is addressed in its own separate section. While applicants are invited to write to the invitational priority, they will not earn points under the invitational priority.

In the Event of a Tie

If two or more applications have the same score and there is not sufficient funding to support all of the tied applicants, the applicants’ overall scores on Core Area (B) will be used to break the tie.

XV. APPLICATION SUBMISSION PROCEDURES

Please note that you must follow the Application Procedures as described in the Federal Register notice announcing the grant competition.

Submission Information and Deadline.

Applications for grants under this competition must be submitted by mail or hand delivery. The Departments strongly recommends the use of overnight mail. Applications postmarked on the deadline date but arriving late will not be read.

The deadline for submission of applications is October 16, 2013.

Application Submission Format.

The Secretaries strongly request the applicant to limit the application text narrative to no more than 150 pages and limit appendices to no more than 150 pages. A “page” is 8.5" x 11", on one side only, with 1" margins at the top, bottom, and both sides. Line spacing for the narratives is set to 1.5 spacing, and the font used is 12 point Times New Roman. Each page in the application should have a page number. The Secretaries strongly request that applicants follow the recommended page limits, although the Secretaries will consider applications of greater length.

Applicants for a grant under this competition must submit: (1) an electronic copy of the application; and (2) signed originals of certain sections of the application. Applicants must submit their application in electronic format on a CD or DVD, with CD-ROM or DVD-ROM preferred.

We strongly recommend that the applicant submit three CDs or DVDs. Each of these three CDs or DVDs should include the the following four files:

1. A single file that contains the body of the application, including required budget tables, that has been converted into a .PDF (Portable Document) format so that the .PDF is searchable. Note that a .PDF created from a scanned document will not be searchable.

2. A single file in a .PDF format that contains all application appendices.

3. A single file in a .PDF format that contains all of the required signature pages. The signature pages may be scanned and turned into a PDF. Applicants should also include all signed MOUs or other binding agreements for each Participating State Agency in the application; and

4. A single, separate file of the completed electronic budget spreadsheets (e.g., .XLS or .XLSX formats) that includes the required budget tables and budget justifications (the spreadsheets will not be reviewed by peer reviewers but will be used by the Departments for budget reviews).

Each of these items must be clearly labeled with the State’s name, city, state, and any other relevant identifying information. States must not password-protect these files. Additionally, please ensure that: (1) all three CDs or DVDs contain the same four files; (2) the files are not corrupted; and (3) all files print correctly. The Departments are not responsible for reviewing any information that is not able to be opened or printed from your application package.

In addition to the electronic files, applicants must submit a signed original of section IV of the application and one copy of that signed original. Section IV of the application includes the Application Assurances and Certifications. The Departments will not review any paper submissions of the application narrative and appendices. All applications must be submitted by mail or hand delivery. Whether you submit an application by mail or hand delivery, you must indicate on the envelope the CFDA number, including suffix letter, if any, of the competition under which you are submitting your application.

We must receive all grant applications by 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on October 16, 2013. We will not accept an application for this competition after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. Therefore, we strongly recommend that applicants arrange for mailing or hand delivery of their application in advance of the application deadline date.

Submission of Applications by Mail.

States choosing to submit their application (i.e., the three CDs or DVDs containing the four application files, the signed paper original of section IV of the application, and the copy of that original) by mail (either through the U.S. Postal Service or a commercial carrier) should use the following mailing address:

U.S. Department of Education

Application Control Center

Attention: (CFDA Number 84.412A)

LBJ Basement Level 1

400 Maryland Avenue, SW.

Washington, DC 20202-4260

We must receive applications on or before the application deadline date. Therefore, to avoid delays, we strongly recommend sending applications via overnight delivery. If we receive an application after the application deadline, we will not consider that application.

Submission of Applications by Hand Delivery.

States choosing to submit their application (i.e., the three CDs or DVDs containing the four application files, the signed paper original of section IV of the application, and the copy of that original) by hand delivery (including via a courier service) should use the following address:

U.S. Department of Education

Application Control Center

Attention: (CFDA Number 84.412A)

550 12th Street, SW.

Room 7041, Potomac Center Plaza

Washington, DC 20202-4260

The Application Control Center accepts hand deliveries daily between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, except Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays.

If we receive an application after the application deadline, we will not consider that application.

Envelope Requirements and Receipt.

When an applicant submits its application, whether by mail or hand delivery--

(1) It must indicate on the envelope that the CFDA number of the competition under which it is submitting its application is 84.412A; and

(2) The Application Control Center will mail to the applicant a notification of receipt of the grant application. If the applicant does not receive this notification within 15 business days from the application deadline date, it should call the Application Control Center at (202) 245-6288.

In accordance with 34 CFR 75.216(b) and (c), an application will not be evaluated for funding if the applicant does not comply with all of the procedural rules that govern the submission of the application or the application does not contain the information required under the program.

XVI. APPLICATION CHECKLIST

Please use the following checklist to ensure that your application is complete:

Formatting Recommendations (page 11)

 Are all the pages 8.5" x 11", on one side only, with 1" margins at the top, bottom, and both sides?

 Are all pages numbered?

 Is the line spacing for the narratives set to 1.5 spacing, and the font to 12 point Times New Roman?

Application Assurances and Certifications (page 21)

 Is all of the requested information included on the Race to the Top–Early Learning Challenge Application Assurances and Certifications page?

 SIGNATURE REQUIRED – Has the Governor or his/her authorized representative signed and dated the Application Assurances and Certifications?

 SIGNATURE REQUIRED – Has an authorized representative from the Lead Agency signed the Application Assurances and Certifications?

SIGNATURE REQUIRED -- Has an authorized representative from each Participating State Agency signed the Application Assurances and Certifications? (Note: all Participating State Agencies must sign the application. See definition of Participating State Agency, page 18)

State Attorney General Certification (page 23)

 SIGNATURE REQUIRED – Has the State Attorney General or his/her authorized representative signed the Certifications?

Accountability, Transparency, Reporting, and Other Assurances and Certifications (page 24)

 SIGNATURE REQUIRED – Has the Governor or his/her authorized representative signed the other Assurances and Certifications?

Eligibility Requirements (page 25)

 Has the State Provided a list of the Participating State Agencies?

 Has the State completed an MOU with each Participating State Agency?

 Does each MOU include the necessary assurances?

 SIGNATURE REQUIRED – Has every Participating State Agency signed an MOU that includes a preliminary Scope of Work, using Exhibit I or an equivalent model?

 SIGNATURE REQUIRED – Has the Lead Agency counter-signed every MOU and preliminary Scope of Work?

 Has the State certified that it is participating in the home visiting program, consistent with the requirement on page 25?

Selection Criteria

Core Areas (page 27)

(A) Successful State Systems and (B) High-Quality, Accountable Programs

 Has the State responded to each of the selection criteria in Core Areas (A) and (B)?

Focused Investment Areas

 Has the State responded to at least two of the selection criteria in section (C)?

(D) A Great Early Childhood Education Workforce (page 69)

 Has the State responded to at least one of the selection criteria in (D)?

(E) Measuring Outcomes and Progress (page 74)

 Has the State responded to at least one of the selection criteria in (E)?

OPTIONAL: Competition Priorities (page 77)

 Competitive Preference Priority 2: Including all Early Learning and Development Programs in the Tiered Quality Rating and Improvement System.

 Competitive Preference Priority 3: Understanding the Status of Children’s Learning and Development at Kindergarten Entry (if the State has chosen to write to (E)(1)).

 Competitive Preference Priority 4: Creating Preschool through Third Grade Approaches to Sustain Improved Early Learning Outcomes through the Early Elementary Grades.

 Competitive Preference Priority 5: Addressing the Needs of Children in Rural Areas.

 Invitational Priority 6: Encouraging Private-Sector Support.

Budget (page 82)

 Has the State completed the following elements of the Budget?

 Budget Part I: Summary Tables and Narratives

 Budget Part II: Participating State Agency Budget Tables and Narratives, for each Participating State Agency

 Indirect Costs form

 Has the State created its budget spreadsheets?

Appendix (page 123)

 Has the State created a table of contents for its appendix?

 Has the State included all required documents per the instructions in the application?

 OPTIONAL: Has the State included supporting information the State believes will be helpful to peer reviewers?

Application Requirements (page 99)

 Has the State fulfilled all of the application requirements?

Application Submission Procedures (page 117)

 Has the State complied with the submission format requirements, including the application deadline for submission?

 Does the State’s submission include three CDs or DVDs, each containing the following four separate files?

Body of the application narrative, including budget tables, that has been converted into a searchable .PDF document. Note that a .PDF created from a scanned document will not be searchable.
Single file in a .PDF format that contains all application appendices
Single file in a .PDF format that contains all required signature pages
Completed electronic budget spreadsheets

 Has the State submitted originals of all the required Signature pages?

XVII. APPENDIX TABLE OF CONTENTS

The Appendix must include a complete Table of Contents, which includes the page number or attachment number, attachment title, and relevant selection criterion. A sample table of contents form is included below. Each attachment in the Appendix must be described in the narrative text of the relevant selection criterion, with a rationale for how its inclusion supports the narrative and the location of the attachment in the Appendix.

#	Attachment Title	Relevant Selection Criterion

1 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.

2Reynolds, 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 http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2011/06/08/science.1203618.abstract doi: 10.1126/science.1203618

3Princiotta, 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.

4 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.

5 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.

6 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.

7Low-Income is defined as having an income of up to 200% of the Federal poverty rate.

8For purposes of this application, children with disabilities or developmental delays are defined as children birth through kindergarten entry that have an Individual Family Service Plan (IFSP) or an Individual Education Plan (IEP).

9For purposes of this application, children who are English learners are children birth through kindergarten entry who have home languages other than English.

10 For purposes of this application, children who are migrant are children birth through kindergarten entry who meet the definition of “migratory child” in ESEA section 1309(2).

11 The term “homeless children” has the meaning given the term ”“homeless children and youths” in section 725(2) of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (425 U.S.C. 11434a(2)).

12 Including children participating in Migrant Head Start Programs and Tribal Head Start Programs.

13 Including Migrant and Tribal Head Start located in the State.

14 Including children participating in Migrant Head Start Programs and Tribal Head Start Programs.

15 Total State contributions to CCDF must include Maintenance of Effort (MOE), State Match, and any State contributions exceeding State MOE or Match.

16Include TANF transfers to CCDF as well as direct TANF spending on Early Learning and Development Programs.

17 Include all Children with High Needs served with both Federal dollars and State supplemental dollars.

18Note to Reviewers: The number of children served reflects a mix of Federal, State, and local spending. Head Start, IDEA, and CCDF all received additional Federal funding under the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which may be reflected in increased numbers of children served in 2009-2011.

19Including children participating in Migrant Head Start Programs and Tribal Head Start Programs.

20 Including Migrant and Tribal Head Start located in the State.

21 Includes both credentials awarded and degrees attained.

22Please refer to the definition of Program Standards for more information on the elements.

23 Including Migrant and Tribal Head Start located in the State.

24 Including Migrant and Tribal Head Start located in the State.

25 Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, 2011. American Community Survey (ACS) 1-year Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS) data.

26 Participating State Agency’s budgetary roles should be consistent with the scope of work outlined in the Participating State Agency’s MOU or other binding agreement.

27 See Application Submission Procedures, section XV. Please note that the RTT-ELC budget spreadsheets will not be used by the reviewers to judge or score the State’s application. However, these spreadsheets do produce tables that States may use in completing the budget tables that the State submits as part of its application. In addition, the budget spreadsheets will be used by the Departments for budget reviews.

28 Participating State Agency’s budgetary roles should be consistent with the scope of work outlined in the Participating State Agency’s MOU or other binding agreement.

File Type	application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
File Modified	0000-00-00
File Created	2021-01-23

Race to the Top - Early Learning Challenge Grant Application