Investing in Innovation, 52214-52228 [E9-24387]
Download as PDF
52214
ACTION:
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 195 / Friday, October 9, 2009 / Notices
Notice of meeting.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
SUMMARY: In accordance with Section
10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–463),
announcement is made of the following
committee meeting:
Name of Committee: Board on Coastal
Engineering Research.
Date of Meeting: November 12–13,
2009.
Place: Rooms 3M60 and 3M70, GAO
Building, Headquarters, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, 441 G Street NW.,
Washington, DC 20314.
Time: 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. (November 12,
2009).
8 a.m. to 12 p.m. (November 13,
2009).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Inquiries and notice of intent to attend
the meeting may be addressed to COL
Gary E. Johnston, Executive Secretary,
Engineer Research and Development
Center, Waterways Experiment Station,
3909 Halls Ferry Road, Vicksburg, MS
39180–6199.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The Board provides broad policy
guidance and review of plans and fund
requirements for the conduct of research
and development of research projects in
consonance with the needs of the
coastal engineering field and the
objectives of the Chief of Engineers.
Proposed Agenda: This meeting is
devoted to an Executive Session of the
Board to review in detail actions
underway on three Board initiatives or
concerns, which include: (1) To review
the Data Collection and Dissemination
Framework being developed jointly
with the National Ocean Service; (2) to
review the proposed PgMP for the
Sustainable Approach for Coastal and
Estuarine Systems (SUSTAIN); and (3)
to review the interim Report on National
Shoreline Management Study and the
plans for completing the study.
The meeting is open to the public, but
since the meeting will be held in a
government facility and seating capacity
of the meeting room is limited, advance
notice of intent to attend is required. A
list of attendees will be provided to
security.
Gary E. Johnston,
Colonel, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9–24437 Filed 10–8–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3720–58–P
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:05 Oct 08, 2009
Jkt 220001
Department of the Army
Board of Visitors, United States
Military Academy (USMA)
Department of the Army, DoD.
Meeting notice.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the
Federal Advisory Committee Act of
1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended),
the Government in the Sunshine Act of
1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and
41 CFR 102–3.150, the Department of
Defense announces that the following
Federal advisory committee meeting
will take place:
Name of Committee: United States
Military Academy Board of Visitors.
Date: Friday, October 23, 2009.
Time: 9 a.m.–11:30 a.m. Members of
the public wishing to attend the meeting
will need to show photo identification
in order to gain access to the meeting
location. All participants are subject to
security screening.
Location: Superintendent’s
Conference Room, Taylor Hall, West
Point, NY.
Purpose of the Meeting: This is the
2009 Annual Meeting of the USMA
Board of Visitors (BoV). Members of the
Board will be provided updates on
Academy issues.
Agenda: The Academy leadership
will provide the Board updates on the
following: Middle States Accreditation,
USMA Mission and Vision, Academic
Instruction, Physical Instruction, A76
Commercial Activity Study, Base
Realignment and Closure (BRAC),
Residential Communities Initiative
(RCI), FY 09 Budget Year End Closeout,
Admissions-Diversity, Honor
Committee, and Annual Report. The
Board will discuss proposed meeting
dates for the 2010 Organizational
meeting.
Public’s Accessibility to the Meeting:
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b and 41 CFR
102–3.140 through 102–3.165 and the
availability of space, this meeting is
open to the public. Seating is on a firstcome basis.
Committee’s Designated Federal
Officer or Point of Contact: Ms. Joy A.
Pasquazi, (845) 938–5078,
Joy.Pasquazi@us.army.mil.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
Joy A. Pasquazi, (845) 938–5078, (Fax:
845–938–3214) or via e-mail:
Joy.Pasquazi@us.army.mil.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Any
member of the public is permitted to file
a written statement with the USMA
Board of Visitors. Written statements
should be sent to the Designated Federal
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Officer (DFO) at: United States Military
Academy, Office of the Secretary of the
General Staff (MASG), 646 Swift Road,
West Point, NY 10996–1905 or faxed to
the Designated Federal Officer (DFO) at
(845) 938–3214. Written statements
must be received no later than five
working days prior to the next meeting
in order to provide time for member
consideration. By rule, no member of
the public attending open meetings will
be allowed to present questions from the
floor or speak to any issue under
consideration by the Board.
Brenda S. Bowen,
Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. E9–24440 Filed 10–8–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3710–08–P
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
[Docket ID ED–2009–OII–0012]
RIN 1855–AA06
Investing in Innovation
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
(CFDA) Numbers: 84.396A, 84.396B
and 84.396C.
AGENCY: Office of Innovation and
Improvement, Department of Education.
ACTION: Notice of proposed priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection
criteria.
SUMMARY: The Secretary of Education
(Secretary) proposes priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection
criteria under the Investing in
Innovation Fund. The Secretary may use
these priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria for
competitions of the Investing in
Innovation Fund for fiscal year (FY)
2010 and later years. We intend for the
priorities, requirements, definitions, and
selection criteria to support the efforts
of local educational agencies (LEAs) and
nonprofit organizations (as defined in
this notice) that have strong track
records of improving student
achievement (as defined in this notice)
to expand their work; identify,
document, and share best practices; and
take successful practices ‘‘to scale.’’
DATES: We must receive your comments
on or before November 9, 2009.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments
through the Federal eRulemaking Portal
or via postal mail, commercial delivery,
or hand delivery. We will not accept
comments by fax or by e-mail. Please
submit your comments only one time in
order to ensure that we do not receive
duplicate copies. In addition, please
include the Docket ID and the term
E:\FR\FM\09OCN1.SGM
09OCN1
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 195 / Friday, October 9, 2009 / Notices
‘‘Investing in Innovation’’ at the top of
your comments.
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov to submit
your comments electronically.
Information on using Regulations.gov,
including instructions for accessing
agency documents, submitting
comments, and viewing the docket, is
available on the site under ‘‘How To Use
This Site.’’ A direct link to the docket
page is also available at https://
www.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2009/
10/10062009a.html.
• Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery,
or Hand Delivery. If you mail or deliver
your comments about these proposed
priorities, requirements, definitions, and
selection criteria, address them to Office
of Innovation and Improvement
(Attention: Investing in Innovation
Comments), U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW.,
room 4W321, Washington, DC 20202.
• Privacy Note: The Department’s
policy for comments received from
members of the public (including those
comments submitted by mail,
commercial delivery, or hand delivery)
is to make these submissions available
for public viewing in their entirety on
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
https://www.regulations.gov. Therefore,
commenters should be careful to
include in their comments only
information that they wish to make
publicly available on the Internet.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mia
Howerton. Telephone: (202) 205–0417;
or Erin McHugh. Telephone: (202) 401–
1304. Or by e-mail: i3@ed.gov. Note that
we will not accept comments by e-mail.
If you use a telecommunications
device for the deaf (TDD), call the
Federal Relay Service, toll free, at 1–
800–877–8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Invitation To Comment: We invite
you to submit comments regarding this
notice. To ensure that your comments
have maximum effect in developing the
notice of final priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria, we
urge you to identify clearly the specific
proposed priority, requirement,
definition, or selection criterion your
comment addresses.
We invite you to assist us in
complying with the specific
requirements of Executive Order 12866
and its overall requirement of reducing
regulatory burden that might result from
the proposed priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria. Please
let us know of any further ways we
could reduce potential costs or increase
potential benefits while preserving the
effective and efficient administration of
the program.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:05 Oct 08, 2009
Jkt 220001
During and after the comment period,
you may inspect all public comments
about this notice by accessing
Regulations.gov. You may also inspect
the comments in person, in room
4W335, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC, between the hours of
8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Washington,
DC time, Monday through Friday of
each week except Federal holidays.
Assistance to Individuals With
Disabilities in Reviewing the
Rulemaking Record: On request we will
provide an appropriate accommodation
or auxiliary aid to an individual with a
disability who needs assistance to
review the comments or other
documents in the public rulemaking
record for this notice. If you want to
schedule an appointment for this type of
accommodation or auxiliary aid, please
contact the person listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Purpose of Program: The Investing in
Innovation Fund, established under
section 14007 of the American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA),
provides funding to support (1) LEAs,
and (2) nonprofit organizations in
partnership with (a) one or more LEAs
or (b) a consortium of schools (as
defined in this notice). The purpose of
the program is to provide competitive
grants to applicants with a record of
improving student achievement, in
order to expand the implementation of,
and investment in, innovative practices
that are demonstrated to have an impact
on improving student achievement or
student growth (as defined in this
notice) for high-need students (as
defined in this notice), as well as to
promote school readiness, close
achievement gaps, decrease dropout
rates, increase high school graduation
rates, and improve teacher and school
leader effectiveness.
These grants will (1) allow eligible
entities to expand and develop their
work so that their work can serve as
models of best practices, (2) allow
eligible entities to work in partnership
with the private sector and the
philanthropic community, and (3)
identify and document best practices
that can be shared and taken to scale
based on demonstrated success.
Program Authority: American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009,
Division A, Section 14007, Public Law
No. 111–5.
Background
The Statutory Context
On February 17, 2009, President
Obama signed into law the ARRA (Pub.
L. 111–5), historic legislation designed
to stimulate the economy, support job
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
52215
creation, and invest in critical sectors,
including education. The ARRA lays the
foundation for education reform by
supporting investments in innovative
strategies that are most likely to lead to
improved results for students, long-term
gains in school and LEA capacity for
success, and increased productivity and
effectiveness.
The ARRA provides $98.2 billion to
the Department for direct expenditures
on education. Within this amount, $650
million was authorized and
appropriated for the Investing in
Innovation Fund (referred to as the
‘‘Innovation Fund’’ in the ARRA), for a
competitive grant program to enable
LEAs and nonprofit organizations with
a record of improving kindergartenthrough-grade-12 (K–12) student
achievement to: expand their work;
identify, document, and share best
practices; and take successful practices
to scale.
Education Reform Areas
One of the overall goals of the ARRA
is to improve student achievement
through school improvement and
reform. Within the context of the ARRA,
the Investing in Innovation Fund
focuses on four key assurances, or
education reform areas, that will help
achieve this goal: (1) Improvements in
teacher effectiveness and ensuring that
all schools have effective teachers, (2)
gathering information to improve
student learning, teacher performance,
and college and career readiness
through enhanced data systems, (3)
progress toward college- and careerready standards and rigorous
assessments, and (4) improving
achievement in low-performing schools
through intensive support and effective
interventions.
Overview of the Investing in Innovation
Fund
The Department intends to use the
Investing in Innovation Fund to support
the overarching ARRA goal of
improving student achievement by
aligning four of the priorities proposed
in this notice directly with the four
ARRA reform areas. In this notice we
propose four additional priorities that
are aligned with other Department
reform goals in the areas of early
learning, college access, students with
disabilities and limited English
proficient students, and rural LEAs.
Finally, we propose to require that all
funded projects provide educational or
other services to support high-need
students.
In this notice, the Department
proposes to award three types of grants
within the Investing in Innovation
E:\FR\FM\09OCN1.SGM
09OCN1
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
52216
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 195 / Friday, October 9, 2009 / Notices
Fund: ‘‘Scale-up’’ grants, ‘‘Validation’’
grants, and ‘‘Development’’ grants. We
have defined each of these types of
grants in the section that follows.
Projects funded under each of the
three types of grants would provide
services to high-need students and
would focus on priorities directly tied to
the reform areas of the ARRA;
applicants could also choose to meet the
additional priority areas. Among the
three grant types, there would be
differences in terms of the evidence that
an applicant would be required to
submit in support of its proposed
project; the expectations for scaling up
successful projects during or after the
grant period, either directly or through
partners; and the funding that a
successful applicant would receive.
The intent of these requirements is to
ensure that program funds are used to
expand and take to scale the most
promising practices, strategies, and
programs. We are proposing definitions
and criteria that would be used to
evaluate the available evidence
supporting a proposed project, in terms
of the strength of the research, the
significance of the effect, and the
magnitude of the effect for each type of
grant. As such, we are particularly
interested in receiving comments on
these proposed definitions and selection
criteria, and whether, in evaluating the
magnitude of the effect, we should
specify a minimum effect size and, if so,
what that effect size should be. We also
are interested in your comments on how
to ensure that projects that are
innovative and comprehensive in scope
or that may show a cumulative effect
over time are properly considered, given
the proposed definitions and selection
criteria. We are cognizant of the need to
balance our interest in innovation with
the importance of research-based
evidence, and welcome comments on
how best to achieve the proper balance.
We also are interested in receiving
comments on the criteria we are
proposing to evaluate the costeffectiveness of a proposed practice,
strategy, or program. We believe that an
important aspect of evaluating
applications under the Investing in
Innovation Fund is assessing the extent
to which a proposal is feasible and can
be brought to scale in a cost-effective
manner. So that we can judge the costeffectiveness of a proposed project, we
propose that applicants provide
estimated start-up and operating costs
per student (including indirect costs) for
reaching the total number of students
proposed to be served by the project, as
well as for the applicant or others to
reach 100,000, 250,000, and 500,000
students for Development grants and
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:05 Oct 08, 2009
Jkt 220001
Validation grants; and to reach 100,000,
500,000, and 1,000,000 students for
Scale-up grants. We are interested in
your comments on whether there are
other methods of determining costeffectiveness that would be more
informative or less burdensome.
Following is an overview of the three
types of grants we are proposing to
award:
1. Scale-up grants would provide
funding to scale up practices, strategies,
or programs for which there is strong
evidence (as defined in this notice) that
the proposed practice, strategy, or
program will have a statistically
significant effect on improving student
achievement or student growth, closing
achievement gaps, decreasing dropout
rates, or increasing high school
graduation rates, and that the effect of
implementing the proposed practice,
strategy, or program will be substantial
and important. We also propose that an
applicant for a Scale-up grant could
demonstrate success through an
intermediate variable directly correlated
with these outcomes, such as teacher or
school leader effectiveness or
improvements in school climate.
We further propose that an applicant
for a Scale-up grant estimate the number
of students to be reached by the
proposed project and provide evidence
of its capacity to reach the proposed
number of students during the course of
the grant. In addition, we propose that
an applicant for a Scale-up grant
provide evidence of its capacity (e.g., in
terms of qualified personnel, financial
resources, management capacity) to
scale up to a State, regional, or national
level (as defined in this notice), working
directly or through partners either
during or following the end of the grant
period. We recognize that LEAs are not
typically responsible for taking to scale
their practices, strategies, or programs to
other LEAs and States. Applicants can
and should partner with others (e.g.,
service centers, State educational
agencies, institutions of higher
education) to disseminate and take to
scale their effective practices, strategies,
and programs.
Successful applicants for Scale-up
grants would receive larger levels of
funding than successful applicants for
Validation or Development grants.
2. Validation grants would provide
funding to support practices, strategies,
or programs that show promise, but for
which there is currently only moderate
evidence (as defined in this notice) that
the proposed practice, strategy, or
program will have a statistically
significant effect on improving student
achievement or student growth, closing
achievement gaps, decreasing dropout
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
rates, or increasing high school
graduation rates, and that with further
study, the effect of implementing the
proposed practice, strategy, or program
may prove to be substantial and
important. Thus, proposals for
Validation grants would not need to
have the same level of research evidence
to support the proposed project that
would be required for Scale-up grants.
We also propose that applicants could
demonstrate success through an
intermediate variable directly correlated
with these outcomes, such as teacher or
school leader effectiveness or
improvements in school climate.
An applicant for a Validation grant
would have to estimate the number of
students to be reached by the proposed
project and provide evidence of its
capacity to reach the proposed number
of students during the course of the
grant. In addition, we propose that an
applicant for a Validation grant provide
evidence of its capacity (e.g., in terms of
qualified personnel, financial resources,
management capacity) to scale up to a
State or regional level, working directly
or through partners either during or
following the end of the grant period. As
noted earlier, we recognize that LEAs
are not typically responsible for taking
to scale their practices, strategies, or
programs to other LEAs and States.
Applicants can and should partner with
others to disseminate and take to scale
their effective practices, strategies, and
programs.
Successful applicants for Validation
grants would receive more funding than
successful applicants for Development
grants.
3. Development grants would provide
funding to support new, high-potential,
and relatively untested practices,
strategies, or programs whose efficacy
should be systematically studied. An
applicant would have to provide
evidence that the proposed practice,
strategy, or program, or one similar to it,
has been attempted previously, albeit on
a limited scale or in a limited setting,
and yielded promising results that
suggest that more formal and systematic
study is warranted. An applicant must
provide a rationale for the proposed
practice, strategy, or program that is
based on research findings or reasonable
hypotheses, including related research
or theories in education and other
sectors. Thus, proposals for
Development grants would not need to
provide the same level of evidence to
support the proposed project that would
be required for Validation or Scale-up
grants.
We also propose that an applicant for
a Validation grant estimate the number
of students to be served by the project,
E:\FR\FM\09OCN1.SGM
09OCN1
52217
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 195 / Friday, October 9, 2009 / Notices
and provide evidence of its ability to
implement and appropriately evaluate
the proposed project and, if positive
results are obtained, its capacity (e.g., in
terms of qualified personnel, financial
resources, management capacity) to
further develop and bring the project to
a larger scale directly or through
partners either during or following the
end of the grant period. As noted earlier,
we recognize that LEAs are not typically
responsible for taking to scale their
practices, strategies, or programs.
Applicants can and should partner with
others to disseminate and take to scale
their effective practices, strategies, and
programs.
To summarize, in terms of the
evidence required to support the
proposed practice, strategy, or program,
the major differences between Scale-up,
Validation, and Development grants are
(see Table 1): (1) The strength of the
research; (2) the significance of the
effect; and (3) the magnitude of the
effect.
TABLE 1—DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE THREE TYPES OF INVESTING IN INNOVATION GRANTS IN TERMS OF THE EVIDENCE
REQUIRED TO SUPPORT THE PROPOSED PRACTICE, STRATEGY, OR PROGRAM
Scale-up grants
Strength of Research .....................
Significance of Effect .....................
Magnitude of Effect ........................
Validation grants
Strong evidence ............................
Statistically significant ...................
Substantial and important .............
Moderate evidence .......................
Statistically significant ...................
Potential to be substantial and important.
In addition, the three types of grants
differ in terms of the expectations to
scale up successful projects during or
following the end of the grant period,
either directly or through partners, and
the level of funding that would be
available. (See Table 2).
It is our intent to make one or more
awards for each type of grant (Scale-up,
Validation, Development), assuming
that we receive applications for each
Development grants
Reasonable hypotheses.
Warrants further study.
Promising.
type of grant that are of sufficient
quality. We will announce specific
funding ranges for each type of grant in
the notice inviting applications for this
program.
TABLE 2—DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE THREE TYPES OF INVESTING IN INNOVATION GRANTS IN TERMS OF EXPECTATIONS
TO SCALE UP AND THE FUNDING TO BE PROVIDED
Scale-up grants
Scale up ......................................
Funding to be provided ...............
Validation grants
National, Regional, or State .......
Highest .......................................
Regional or State .......................
Moderate ....................................
Proposed Priorities
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
Types of Priorities
The Secretary proposes eight
priorities for the Investing in Innovation
Fund. Proposed Priorities 1, 2, 3, and 4
are proposed as absolute priorities and
are aligned with the four reform areas
under the ARRA; all applicants must
apply under one of these four priorities.
Proposed Priorities 5, 6, 7, and 8 are
proposed as competitive preference
priorities and are aligned with other key
education reform goals of the
Department. We may apply one or more
of the competitive preference priorities
to one or more of the three types of
grants (Scale-up, Validation,
Development grants).
We may choose, in the notice of final
priorities, requirements, definitions, and
selection criteria, to change the
designation of any of these priorities to
absolute, competitive preference, or
invitational priorities, or to include the
substance of these priorities in the
selection criteria.
Under an absolute priority, as
specified by 34 CFR 75.105(c)(3), we
would consider only applications that
meet the priority. Under a competitive
preference priority, we would give
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:05 Oct 08, 2009
Jkt 220001
competitive preference to an application
by (1) awarding additional points,
depending on the extent to which the
application meets the priority (34 CFR
75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) selecting an
application that meets the priority over
an application of comparable merit that
does not meet the priority (34 CFR
75.105(c)(2)(ii)). With an invitational
priority, we would signal our interest in
receiving applications that meet the
priority; however, consistent with 34
CFR 75.105(c)(1), we would not give an
application that meets an invitational
priority preference over other
applications.
Proposed Absolute Priorities
Proposed Absolute Priority 1—
Innovations That Support Effective
Teachers and School Leaders
Background. Research indicates that
teacher quality is a critical contributor
to student learning.1 Yet we know that
1 See, e.g., Kane, Thomas J., Jonah E. Rockoff, and
Douglas O. Staiger (2006), ‘‘What Does Certification
Tell Us About Teacher Effectiveness? Evidence
from New York City,’’ NBER Working Paper No.
12155; Rivkin, Steven G., Eric A. Hanushek, and
John F. Kain (2005), ‘‘Teachers, Schools, and
Academic Achievement,’’ Econometrica, 73(2),
417–458; Rockoff, Jonah. E. (2004), ‘‘The Impact of
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Development grants
Further develop and scale.
Modest.
there is dramatic variation in teacher
effectiveness across schools and LEAs,
as well as inequity in the distribution of
effective teachers between high- and
low-poverty schools. We also know that
it is difficult to predict teacher
effectiveness based on the qualifications
that teachers bring to the job.2
Furthermore, studies show that school
leadership is a major contributing factor
to what students learn at school and that
strong teachers are more likely to teach
in schools with strong principals.3
Absolute priority 1 is intended to
support projects that promote practices,
strategies, or programs to increase the
number and percentage of effective
teachers and school leaders, or help
reduce the inequities in the distribution
of effective teachers and school leaders.
Individual Teachers on Students’ Achievement:
Evidence from Panel Data,’’ American Economic
Review 94(2), 247–52; Aaronson, Daniel, Lisa
Barrow, and William Sander (2003), ‘‘Teacher and
Student Achievement in the Chicago Public High
Schools,’’ Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago Working
Paper 2002–28.
2 Rivkin, Hanushek, and Kain (2005); Kane,
Rockoff, and Staiger (2006).
3 Leithwood, Kenneth, Karen Seashore Louis,
Stephen Anderson, and Kyla Sahlstrom (2004),
‘‘How Leadership Influences Student Learning,’’
Wallace Foundation Learning from Leadership
Project.
E:\FR\FM\09OCN1.SGM
09OCN1
52218
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 195 / Friday, October 9, 2009 / Notices
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
It is also designed to encourage the use
of teacher and school leader evaluation
systems that are tied to student growth.
Statement of the Proposed Absolute
Priority. Under proposed absolute
priority 1, the Department would
provide funding to support practices,
strategies, or programs that increase the
number or percentages of highly
effective teachers and school leaders or
reduce the number or percentages of
ineffective teachers and school leaders,
especially for high-need students, by
identifying, recruiting, developing,
placing, rewarding, and retaining highly
effective teachers and school leaders (or
removing ineffective teachers and
school leaders). In such initiatives,
teacher or school leader effectiveness
should be determined by an evaluation
system that is rigorous, transparent, and
fair; performance should be
differentiated using multiple rating
categories of effectiveness; multiple
measures of teachers’ effectiveness
should be taken into account, with data
on student growth as a significant factor;
and the measures should be designed
and developed with teacher
involvement.
Proposed Absolute Priority 2—
Innovations That Improve the Use of
Data
Background. Section 14005(d)(3) of
the ARRA requires States receiving State
Fiscal Stabilization funds to establish a
longitudinal data system that includes
the elements described in section
6401(e)(2) of the America COMPETES
Act (20 U.S.C. 9871). Providing student
achievement or student growth data to
teachers and principals, including
estimates of individual teacher impact
on student achievement or student
growth, is key to driving education
reform in general and improvements in
the classroom, in particular.4 This
priority is designed to increase the
availability and use of practices,
strategies, and programs that provide
teachers, principals, administrators,
families, and other stakeholders with
the data they need to inform and
improve school and classroom
instructional practices, decisionmaking, and overall effectiveness.
Statement of the Proposed Absolute
Priority. Under proposed absolute
priority 2, the Department would
provide funding to support strategies,
practices, or programs that encourage
and facilitate the evaluation, analysis,
and use of student achievement or
student growth data by educators,
4 See, e.g., The Data Quality Campaign at
https://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/using-datasystems/roadmap-for-states.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:05 Oct 08, 2009
Jkt 220001
families, and other stakeholders in order
to inform decision-making; improve
student achievement or student growth,
and teacher, school leader, school, or
LEA performance and productivity; or
enable data aggregation, analysis, and
research. Where applicable, these data
would be disaggregated using the
student subgroups described in section
1111(b)(3)(C)(xiii) of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965, as
amended (ESEA) (economically
disadvantaged students, students from
major racial and ethnic groups, migrant
students, students with limited English
proficiency, students with disabilities,
student gender).
Proposed Absolute Priority 3—
Innovations That Complement the
Implementation of High Standards and
High-Quality Assessments
Background. A third key ARRA
reform area is improving State academic
content standards and student academic
achievement standards so that they
build toward college and career
readiness, and implementing highquality assessments aligned with those
standards. In order to make the
transition to such standards and
assessments, States will need support
in: Developing, acquiring,
disseminating, and implementing highquality curricular instructional
materials and assessments; developing
or acquiring and delivering high-quality
professional development to support the
transition to new standards,
assessments, and instructional
materials; and engaging in other
strategies that align the standards and
information from assessments with
classroom practices that meet the needs
of all students, including high-need
students.
Statement of the Proposed Absolute
Priority. Under proposed absolute
priority 3, the Department would
provide funding for practices, strategies,
or programs that support States’ efforts
to transition to college- and careerreadiness standards and assessments,
including curricular and instructional
practices, strategies, or programs in core
academic subjects that are aligned with
high academic content and achievement
standards and with high-quality
assessments based on those standards.
Proposals may include practices,
strategies, or programs that: (a) Increase
the success of under-represented
student populations in academically
rigorous courses and programs (such as
Advanced Placement or International
Baccalaureate courses; dual enrollment
programs; early college high schools;
and science, technology, engineering,
and mathematics courses, especially
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
those that incorporate rigorous and
relevant project-, inquiry-, or designbased contextual learning
opportunities); (b) increase the
development and use of formative
assessments or interim assessments, or
other performance-based tools and
metrics that are aligned with student
content and academic achievement
standards; or (c) translate the standards
and information from assessments into
classroom practices that meet the needs
of all students, including high-need
students.
Proposed Absolute Priority 4—
Innovations That Turn Around
Persistently Low-Performing Schools
Background. Although there are noted
examples of successful school reform
efforts, persistently low-performing
schools (as defined in this notice)
continue to plague this country’s system
of public education and fail to
adequately educate our Nation’s youth
to succeed in a global economy. It is
imperative that we as a Nation serve our
most educationally needy schools in
order to ensure that all students are
prepared for the challenges of the global
economy.
Statement of the Proposed Absolute
Priority. Under proposed absolute
priority 4, the Department would
provide funding to support strategies,
practices, or programs that turn around
persistently low-performing schools
through either whole-school reform or
targeted approaches to reform.
Applicants addressing this priority must
focus on either:
(a) Whole-school reform, such as
comprehensive interventions to assist,
augment, or replace persistently lowperforming schools; or
(b) Targeted approaches to reform,
including, but not limited to: (1)
Providing more time for students to
learn core academic content by
expanding the school day, school week,
or the school year, or by increasing
instructional time for core academic
subjects during the day and in the
summer; (2) integrating student
supports to address non-academic
barriers to student achievement; or (3)
creating multiple pathways for students
to earn regular high school diplomas
(e.g., transfer schools, awarding credit
based on demonstrated evidence of
student competency, offering dualenrollment options).
Proposed Competitive Preference
Priorities
As stated previously, we are
proposing four competitive preference
priorities that we may choose to apply
to one or more of the three types of
E:\FR\FM\09OCN1.SGM
09OCN1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 195 / Friday, October 9, 2009 / Notices
grants (Scale-up, Validation, and
Development grants).
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
Proposed Competitive Preference
Priority 5—Innovations for Improving
Early Learning Outcomes
Background. Research demonstrates
the importance of efforts to build early
language and literacy skills, as well as
skills with numbers and spatial
thinking, as a means of eliminating the
differences in student achievement or
student growth that develop between
children from low-income families and
children from middle-income families
during their school years.5 Investing in
early learning programs to prevent the
development of these gaps in skills can
reduce the need for more costly and
difficult interventions, including
referrals to special education, later on in
a child’s life.6 In addition, research
indicates that investments in young
children can yield dramatic economic
benefits over the course of those
children’s lives in the form of reduced
incidence of crime and increased
employment. This proposed competitive
preference priority aligns with the
Department’s efforts to increase the
quality of existing early learning
programs and expand access to highquality early learning programs,
particularly for children from lowincome families.
Statement of Proposed Competitive
Preference Priority 5. We propose to
give competitive preference to proposals
that include practices, strategies, or
programs to improve educational
outcomes for high-need students who
are young children (birth through 3rd
grade) by enhancing the quality of early
learning programs. Proposals must focus
on (a) improving young children’s
school readiness (including social,
emotional, and cognitive) so that
children are prepared for success in core
academic subjects; (b) improving and
aligning developmental milestones and
standards with appropriate outcome
measures; and (c) improving alignment,
collaboration, and transitions between
early learning programs that serve
children from birth to age three, in
preschools, and in kindergarten through
third grade.
Proposed Competitive Preference
Priority 6—Innovations That Support
College Access and Success
Background. One way to help meet
the President’s goal of restoring the
5 National
Research Council. 1998. Preventing
Reading Difficulties in Young Children.
6 Schweinhart, L.J. (2002, June). How the
HighScope Perry Preschool Study Grew: A
Researcher’s Tale. Phi Delta Kappa Center for
Evaluation, Development, and Research. (No. 32).
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:05 Oct 08, 2009
Jkt 220001
52219
United States to first in the world in the
percentage of citizens holding college
degrees is to increase the number of
high school students with access to
college who are prepared to succeed in
an institution of higher education.
Proposed competitive preference
priority 6 would fund practices,
strategies, and programs that prepare K–
12 students for success in college.
Statement of Proposed Competitive
Preference Priority 6. We propose to
give competitive preference to proposals
for practices, strategies, or programs that
enable K–12 students, particularly high
school students, to successfully prepare
for, enter, and graduate from a two- or
four-year college. Proposals must
include practices, strategies, or
programs for K–12 students that address
students’ preparedness and expectations
related to college; help students
understand issues of college
affordability and the financial aid and
college application processes; and
provide support to students from peers
and knowledgeable adults.
Proposed Competitive Preference
Priority 8—Innovations That Serve
Schools in Rural LEAs
Background. Solutions to educational
challenges in rural areas frequently
differ from what works in urban and
suburban communities.7 This proposed
competitive preference priority
recognizes the need to bring education
innovation and reform to all regions of
the country, including rural LEAs.
Statement of Proposed Competitive
Preference Priority 8. We propose to
give competitive preference to proposals
that focus on the unique challenges of
high-need students in schools within a
rural LEA (as defined in this notice) and
address the particular challenges faced
by students in these schools. Proposals
must include practices, strategies, or
programs that improve student
achievement or student growth, close
achievement gaps, decrease dropout
rates, increase high school graduation
rates, or improve teacher and school
leader effectiveness in one or more rural
LEAs.
Proposed Competitive Preference
Priority 7—Innovations To Address the
Unique Learning Needs of Students
With Disabilities and Limited English
Proficient Students
Proposed Requirements
Background. One of the primary goals
of the ESEA, as well as the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA),
is to improve the quality of education
for all students, including students with
disabilities and students who are
limited English proficient. In particular,
the ESEA requires each State and LEA
to work toward narrowing achievement
gaps and demonstrate high levels of
progress for these two groups of
students. However, as evidenced by
results on State assessments under
section 1111(b)(3) of the ESEA, schools
often lack appropriate and effective
strategies to enable a greater share of
students with disabilities and limited
English proficient students to meet high
standards.
Statement of Proposed Competitive
Preference Priority 7. We propose to
give competitive preference to proposals
that include innovative strategies,
practices, or programs to address the
unique learning needs of students with
disabilities, or the linguistic and
academic needs of limited English
proficient students. Proposals must
focus on particular practices, strategies,
or programs that are designed to
improve academic outcomes and
increase graduation rates for students
with disabilities or limited English
proficient students.
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Background
The Investing in Innovation Fund
would provide support to LEAs, and
nonprofit organizations that partner
with one or more LEAs or a consortium
of schools that apply and successfully
compete for a Scale-up, Validation, or
Development grant. What follows are
the statutory and proposed eligibility
requirements for LEAs and nonprofit
organizations.
Proposed Requirements
The Secretary proposes the following
requirements for the Investing in
Innovation Fund. We may apply these
requirements in any year in which this
program is in effect.
Providing Innovations that Improve
Achievement for High-Need Students:
All applicants must implement
practices, strategies, or programs for
high-need students (as defined in this
notice).
Eligible applicants: Entities eligible to
apply for Investing in Innovation Fund
grants include: (a) an LEA or (b) a
partnership between a nonprofit
organization and (1) one or more LEAs
or (2) a consortium of schools.
Eligibility requirements: 8 To be
eligible for an award, an eligible
7 Status of Education in Rural America. (2007).
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for
Educational Statistics.
8 We note that at the time of publication of this
notice, the pending House and Senate
appropriations bills would, if enacted, make
E:\FR\FM\09OCN1.SGM
Continued
09OCN1
52220
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 195 / Friday, October 9, 2009 / Notices
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
applicant must meet several statutory
requirements and one additional
requirement. The requirements in
paragraphs (1), (2), (3), and (4) that
follow are statutory; we are including
them here for clarity. We are requesting
comment on the proposed requirement
in paragraph (5).
To be eligible for an award, an
applicant must:
(1) Have significantly closed the
achievement gaps between groups of
students described in section 1111(b)(2)
of the ESEA (economically
disadvantaged students, students from
major racial and ethnic groups, students
with limited English proficiency,
students with disabilities);
(2) Have exceeded the State’s annual
measurable objectives consistent with
section 1111(b)(2) of the ESEA for two
or more consecutive years or have
demonstrated success in significantly
increasing student achievement for all
groups of students described in that
section through another measure, such
as measures described in section
1111(c)(2) of the ESEA (i.e., the National
Assessment of Educational Progress);
(3) Have made significant
improvements in other areas, such as
graduation rates or increased
recruitment and placement of highquality teachers and school leaders, as
demonstrated with other meaningful
data;
(4) Demonstrate that they have
established partnerships with the
private sector, which may include
philanthropic organizations, and that
the private sector will provide matching
funds in order to help bring results to
scale; and
(5) In the case of a nonprofit
organization, provide in its application
the names of the LEAs with which it
will partner, or the names of the schools
in the consortium with which it will
partner. If a nonprofit organization
applicant intends to partner with
additional LEAs or schools that are not
named in its application, it must
technical changes to provisions of the authorizing
legislation for this program. (See https://
thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/?&dbname=
cp111&sid=cp111LTV8y&refer=&r_n=hr220.111&
item=&sel=TOC_1120308&; and https://
thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/?&dbname
=cp111&sid=cp111M6VRe&refer=&r_n=sr066.111&
item=&sel=TOC_904504&). These changes would
modify the eligibility requirements currently set
forth in section 14007(b)(2) and (c) by: (1) Making
minor alterations to the sections concerning the
basis for awards and the special eligibility rule, and
(2) removing the reference to State measurable
annual achievement objectives. In addition to these
minor changes to the eligibility requirements,
enactment of the proposed legislation would
authorize eligible entities that include a partnership
with a nonprofit organization, to make subgrants
within the partnership.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:05 Oct 08, 2009
Jkt 220001
describe in its application the
demographics and other characteristics
of these LEAs and schools and the
process it will use to select them as
partners. An applicant must identify its
specific partners before a grant award
will be made.
Note about LEA Eligibility: To be eligible
for an award, an LEA applicant must be
located within one of the 50 States, the
District of Columbia, or the Commonwealth
of Puerto Rico.
Note about Eligibility for an Entity that
Includes a Nonprofit Organization: To be
eligible for an award, the statute requires that
an application submitted by a nonprofit
organization, in partnership with one or more
LEAs or a consortium of schools, be
considered to have met the eligibility
requirements in paragraphs (1), (2), and (3)
described earlier in this notice, if the
nonprofit organization has a record of
meeting those requirements. We are
proposing that a nonprofit organization
applicant be considered to have met these
eligibility requirements through its record of
work with an LEA. Therefore, an applicant
that is a nonprofit organization would not
necessarily need to select as a partner for its
Investing in Innovation Fund grant an LEA
or a consortium of schools that meets the
eligibility requirements in paragraphs (1), (2),
and (3) described earlier. Rather, the
nonprofit organization would have to
demonstrate that it has a record of meeting
those requirements through the assistance it
has provided to one or more LEAs in the
past.
Funding Categories: An applicant
must state in its application whether it
is applying for a Scale-up, Validation, or
Development grant. An applicant may
not submit an application for the same
proposed project under more than one
type of grant. An applicant will be
considered for an award only for the
type of grant for which it applies.
Cost Sharing or Matching: To be
eligible for an award, an applicant must
demonstrate that it has established one
or more partnerships with an entity or
organization in the private sector, which
may include philanthropic
organizations, and that the entity or
organization in the private sector will
provide matching funds in order to help
bring project results to scale. An
applicant must obtain matching funds
or in-kind donations equal to at least 20
percent of its grant award. The Secretary
may consider decreasing the 20 percent
matching requirement in the most
exceptional circumstances, on a case-bycase basis. An applicant that anticipates
being unable to meet the 20 percent
matching requirement must include in
its application a request to the Secretary
to reduce the matching level
requirement, along with a statement of
the basis for the request.
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Evaluation: An applicant receiving
funds under this program must comply
with the requirements of any evaluation
of the program conducted by the
Department. In addition, an applicant is
required to conduct an independent
evaluation (as defined in this notice) of
its proposed project and must agree,
along with its independent evaluator, to
cooperate with any technical assistance
provided by the Department or its
contractor. The purpose of this technical
assistance would be to ensure that the
evaluations are of the highest quality
and to encourage commonality in
evaluation approaches across funded
projects where it is feasible and useful
to do so. Finally, an applicant receiving
funds under this program must make
broadly 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
Participation in ‘‘Communities of
Practice’’: Grantees will be required to
participate in, organize, or facilitate, as
appropriate, communities of practice for
the Investing in Innovation Fund. A
community of practice is a group of
grantees that agrees to interact regularly
to solve a persistent problem or improve
practice in an area that is important to
them. Establishment of communities of
practice under the Investing in
Innovation Fund will enable grantees to
meet, discuss, and collaborate with each
other regarding grantee projects.
Proposed Definitions
Background
Several important terms associated
with the Investing in Innovation Fund
are not defined in the ARRA.
Proposed Definitions
The Secretary proposes the following
definitions for the Investing in
Innovation Fund.9 We may apply one or
more of these definitions in any year in
which this program is in effect.
1. Definitions Related to Evidence
Strong evidence means evidence from
previous studies whose designs can
support causal conclusions (i.e., studies
9 In this notice, we use many of the same
definitions that were in the Race to the Top notice
of proposed priorities, requirements, definitions,
and selection criteria (see https://www.ed.gov/
legislation/FedRegister/proprule/2009-3/
072909d.html). The comment period for the Race to
the Top program is now closed, and we are
considering the comments on the definitions, as
well as other sections of that notice. In the final
notice for the Investing in Innovation Fund, we will
align our definitions, as appropriate, with those
included in the final notice for the Race to the Top
program.
E:\FR\FM\09OCN1.SGM
09OCN1
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 195 / Friday, October 9, 2009 / Notices
with high internal validity), and studies
that in total include enough of the range
of participants and settings to support
scaling up to the State, regional, or
national level (i.e., studies with high
external validity). The following are
examples of strong evidence: (1) More
than one well-designed and wellimplemented experimental study (as
defined in this notice) or well-designed
and well-implemented quasiexperimental study (as defined in this
notice) that supports the effectiveness of
the practice, strategy, or program; or (2)
one large, well-designed and wellimplemented randomized controlled,
multisite trial that supports the
effectiveness of the practice, strategy, or
program.
Moderate evidence means evidence
from previous studies whose designs
can support causal conclusions (i.e.,
studies with high internal validity) but
have limited generalizability (i.e.,
moderate external validity), or studies
with high external validity but moderate
internal validity. The following would
constitute moderate evidence: (1) At
least one well-designed and wellimplemented experimental or quasiexperimental study supporting the
effectiveness of the practice strategy, or
program, with small sample sizes or
other conditions of implementation or
analysis that limit generalizability; (2) at
least one well-designed and wellimplemented experimental or quasiexperimental study that does not
demonstrate equivalence between the
intervention and comparison groups at
program entry but that has no other
major flaws related to internal validity;
or (3) correlational research with strong
statistical controls for selection bias and
for discerning the influence of internal
factors.
Experimental study means a study
that employs random assignment of
students, teachers, classrooms, or
schools to participate in a project being
evaluated (treatment group) or not to
participate in the project (control
group). The effect of the project is the
difference in outcomes between the
treatment and control groups.
Quasi-experimental study means an
evaluation design that attempts to
approximate an experimental design
and can support causal conclusions (i.e.,
minimizes threats to internal validity,
such as selection bias, or allows them to
be modeled). Well-designed quasiexperimental studies include carefully
matched comparison group designs (as
defined in this notice), interrupted time
series designs (as defined in this notice),
or regression discontinuity designs (as
defined in this notice).
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:05 Oct 08, 2009
Jkt 220001
Carefully matched comparison group
design means a type of quasiexperimental study that attempts to
approximate an experimental study.
More specifically, it is a design in which
project participants are matched with
non-participants based on key
characteristics that are thought to be
related to the outcome. These
characteristics include, but are not
limited to: (1) Prior test scores and other
measures of academic achievement
(preferably, the same measures that the
study will use to evaluate outcomes for
the two groups); (2) demographic
characteristics, such as age, disability,
gender, English proficiency, ethnicity,
poverty level, parents’ educational
attainment, and single- or two-parent
family background; (3) the time period
in which the two groups are studied
(e.g., the two groups are children
entering kindergarten in the same year
as opposed to sequential years); and (4)
methods used to collect outcome data
(e.g., the same test of reading skills
administered in the same way to both
groups).
Interrupted time series design means
a type of quasi-experimental study in
which the outcome of interest is
measured multiple times before and
after the treatment for program
participants only. If the program had an
impact, the outcomes after treatment
will have a different slope or level from
those before treatment. That is, the
series should show an ‘‘interruption’’ of
the prior situation at the time when the
program was implemented. Adding a
nonequivalent control group time series,
such as schools not participating in the
program or schools participating in the
program in a different geographic area,
increases the reliability of the findings.
Regression discontinuity design study
means, in part, a quasi-experimental
study design that closely approximates
an experimental study. In a regression
discontinuity design, participants are
assigned to a treatment or control group
based on a numerical rating or score of
a variable unrelated to the treatment
such as the rating of an application for
funding. Another example would be
assignment of eligible students,
teachers, classrooms, or schools above a
certain score (‘‘cut score’’) to the
treatment group and assignment of those
below the score to the control group.
Independent evaluation means that
the evaluation is designed and carried
out independent of, but in coordination
with, any employees of the entities who
develop a practice, strategy, or program
and are implementing it. This
independence helps ensure the
objectivity of an evaluation and
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
52221
prevents even the appearance of a
conflict of interest.
2. Other Definitions
Consortium of schools means two or
more public elementary or secondary
schools acting collaboratively for the
purpose of applying for and
implementing an Investing in
Innovation Fund grant jointly with an
eligible nonprofit organization.
Nonprofit organization means an
entity that meets the definition of
‘‘nonprofit’’ under 34 CFR 77.1(c), or an
institution of higher education as
defined by section 101(a) of the Higher
Education Act of 1965, as amended.
Formative assessment means an
assessment that is embedded in
instruction and is used by teachers to
provide timely feedback on student
understanding and to adjust ongoing
teaching and learning effectively.
Interim assessment means an
assessment given at regular and
specified intervals throughout the
school year, and is designed to evaluate
students’ knowledge and skills relative
to a specific set of academic standards,
the results of which can be aggregated
(e.g., by course, grade level, school, or
LEA) in order to inform teachers and
administrators at the student, classroom,
school, and LEA levels.
Highly effective school leader means a
principal or other school leader whose
students, overall and for each subgroup
as described in section
1111(b)(3)(C)(xiii) of the ESEA (i.e.,
economically disadvantaged students,
students from major racial and ethnic
groups, migrant students, students with
disabilities, students with limited
English proficiency, student gender),
demonstrate high rates (e.g., more than
one grade level in an academic year) of
student growth. Applicants may
supplement this definition as they see
fit so long as school leader effectiveness
is judged, in significant measure, by
student growth.
Highly effective teacher means a
teacher whose students achieve high
rates (e.g., more than one grade level in
an academic year) of student growth.
Applicants may supplement this
definition as they see fit so long as
teacher effectiveness is judged, in
significant measure, by student growth.
High-need student means a student at
risk of educational failure, or otherwise
in need of special assistance and
support, such as students who are living
in poverty, who are far below grade
level, who are over-age and undercredited, who have left school before
receiving a regular high school diploma,
who are at risk of not graduating with
a regular high school diploma on time,
E:\FR\FM\09OCN1.SGM
09OCN1
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
52222
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 195 / Friday, October 9, 2009 / Notices
who are homeless, who are in foster
care, who have been incarcerated, who
have disabilities, or who are limited
English proficient.
Persistently low-performing schools
means Title I schools in corrective
action or restructuring in the State and
the secondary schools (both middle and
high schools) in the State that are
equally as low-achieving as these Title
I schools and are eligible for, but do not
receive, Title I funds.
National level, as used in reference to
a Scale-up grant, describes a project that
is able to be effective in a wide variety
of communities and student populations
around the country, including rural and
urban areas, as well as with different
groups of students described in section
1111(b)(3)(C)(xiii) of the ESEA (i.e.,
economically disadvantaged students,
students from major racial and ethnic
groups, migrant students, students with
disabilities, students with limited
English proficiency, student gender).
Regional level, as used in reference to
a Scale-up or Validation grant, describes
a project that is able to serve a variety
of communities and student populations
within a State or multiple States,
including rural and urban areas, as well
as with different groups of students
described in section 1111(b)(3)(C)(xiii)
of the ESEA (i.e., economically
disadvantaged students, students from
major racial and ethnic groups, migrant
students, students with disabilities,
students with limited English
proficiency, student gender).
Rural LEA means an LEA that is
eligible under the Small Rural School
Achievement (SRSA) program or the
Rural and Low-Income School (RLIS)
program authorized under Title VI, Part
B of the ESEA. Applicants may
determine whether a particular LEA is
eligible for these programs by referring
to information on the following
Department Web sites. For the SRSA:
https://www.ed.gov/programs/reapsrsa/
eligible08/. For the RLIS:
https://www.ed.gov/programs/reaprlisp/
eligibility.html.
Student achievement means, at a
minimum—
(a) For tested grades and subjects: A
student’s score on the State’s
assessments under section 1111(b)(3) of
the ESEA and may also include other
measures of learning, as appropriate,
such as those described in paragraph (b)
of this definition.
(b) For non-tested grades and subjects:
An alternative academic measure of
student learning and performance (e.g.,
performance on interim assessments or
on other classroom-based assessments;
rates at which students are on track to
graduate from high school; percentage of
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:05 Oct 08, 2009
Jkt 220001
students enrolled and achieving at
successful levels in Advanced
Placement, pre-Advanced Placement,
International Baccalaureate, or dualenrollment courses).
Student growth means the change in
student achievement data for an
individual student between two or more
points in time. Growth may be
measured by a variety of approaches,
but any approach used must be
statistically rigorous and based on
student achievement data, and may also
include other measures of student
learning in order to increase the
construct validity and generalizability of
the information.
Proposed Selection Criteria
Background
The proposed selection criteria are
intended to ensure that applicants—
regardless of grant type—can
demonstrate that they have the
experience and capacity to expand or
develop practices, strategies, or
programs that will have a positive
impact on improving student
achievement or student growth, closing
achievement gaps, decreasing dropout
rates, or increasing high school
graduation rates.
Proposed Selection Criteria
The Secretary proposes the following
selection criteria for evaluating an
application under the Investing in
Innovation Fund. We may apply one or
more of these criteria in any year in
which this program is in effect. In the
notice inviting applications or the
application package, or both, we will
announce the maximum possible points
assigned to each criterion.
1. Scale-Up Grants
A. Need for the Project and Quality of
the Project Design
(1) The Secretary considers the need
for the project and quality of the design
of the proposed project.
(2) In determining the need for the
project and quality of the design of the
proposed project, the Secretary
considers the following factors:
(a) The extent to which the proposed
project represents an exceptional
approach to the priorities the applicant
is seeking to meet (i.e., addresses a
largely unmet need, particularly for
high-need students, and is a practice,
strategy, or program that has not already
been widely adopted).
(b) The extent to which the proposed
project has a clear set of goals and an
explicit strategy (i.e., logic model), with
actions that are (i) aligned with the
priorities the applicant is seeking to
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
meet, and (ii) expected to result in
achieving the goals, objectives, and
outcomes of the proposed project.
B. Strength of Research, Significance of
Effect, and Magnitude of Effect
(1) The Secretary considers the
strength of the existing research
evidence and the significance of effect
in support of the proposed project, as
well as the magnitude of the effect on
improving student achievement or
student growth, closing achievement
gaps, decreasing dropout rates, or
increasing high school graduation rates.
Applicants may also demonstrate
success through an intermediate
variable that is directly correlated with
improving these outcomes, such as
teacher or school leader effectiveness, or
improvements in school climate.
(2) In determining the strength of the
existing research evidence and the
significance of effect to support the
proposed project, as well as the
magnitude of the effect, the Secretary
considers the following factors:
(a) The extent to which the applicant
demonstrates that there is strong
evidence that the proposed practice,
strategy, or program will have a
statistically significant effect on
improving student achievement or
student growth, closing achievement
gaps, decreasing dropout rates, or
increasing high school graduation rates,
and that the effect will be substantial
and important.
(b) The importance and magnitude of
the effect expected to be obtained by the
proposed project, including the extent
to which the project will substantially
and measurably improve student
achievement or student growth, close
achievement gaps, decrease dropout
rates, or increase high school graduation
rates. The evidence in support of the
importance and magnitude of the effect
would be the research-based evidence
provided by the applicant to support the
proposed project.
C. Experience of the Applicant
(1) The Secretary considers the
experience of the applicant in
implementing the proposed project.
(2) In determining the experience of
the applicant, the Secretary considers
the following factors:
(a) The past performance of the
applicant in implementing large,
complex, and rapidly growing projects.
(b) The extent to which an applicant
provides information and data
demonstrating that it has (or has
supported an LEA in taking actions that
have)—
(i) Significantly closed the
achievement gaps between groups of
E:\FR\FM\09OCN1.SGM
09OCN1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 195 / Friday, October 9, 2009 / Notices
students described in section 1111(b)(2)
of the ESEA;
(ii) Exceeded the State’s annual
measurable objectives consistent with
section 1111(b)(2) of the ESEA for two
or more consecutive years or
demonstrated success in significantly
increasing student achievement for all
groups of students described in that
section through another measure, such
as measures described in section
1111(c)(2) of the ESEA (i.e., the National
Assessment of Educational Progress);
and
(iii) Made significant improvements
in other areas, such as graduation rates
or increased recruitment and placement
of high-quality teachers and school
leaders, as demonstrated with other
meaningful data.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
D. Quality of the Project Evaluation
1. The Secretary considers the quality
of the evaluation to be conducted of the
proposed project.
2. In determining the quality of the
evaluation, the Secretary considers the
following factors:
(a) The extent to which the methods
of evaluation will include an
experimental study or, if a welldesigned experimental study of the
project cannot be conducted, the extent
to which the methods of evaluation will
include a well-designed quasiexperimental study.
(b) The extent to which, for either an
experimental study or quasiexperimental study, the study will be
conducted of the practice, strategy, or
program as implemented at scale.
(c) The extent to which the methods
of evaluation will provide high-quality
implementation data and performance
feedback, and permit periodic
assessment of progress toward achieving
intended outcomes.
(d) The extent to which the evaluation
will provide sufficient information
about the key elements and approach of
the project to facilitate replication or
testing in other settings.
(e) The extent to which the proposed
project plan includes sufficient
resources to effectively carry out the
project evaluation.
(f) The extent to which the proposed
evaluation is rigorous, independent, and
neither the program developer nor the
project implementer is evaluating the
impact of the project.
Note: We encourage applicants to review
the following technical assistance resources
on evaluation: (1) What Works Clearinghouse
Procedures and Standards Handbook: https://
ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/references/idocviewer/
doc.aspx?docid=19&tocid=1; and (2) IES/
NCEE Technical Methods papers: https://
ies.ed.gov/ncee/tech_methods/.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:05 Oct 08, 2009
Jkt 220001
E. Strategy and Capacity To Scale
1. The Secretary considers the quality
of the applicant’s strategy and capacity
to bring the proposed project to scale on
a national, regional, or State level.
2. In determining the quality of the
strategy and capacity to scale, the
Secretary considers:
(a) The number of students to be
reached by the proposed project and the
applicant’s capacity to reach the
proposed number of students during the
course of the grant period.
(b) The applicant’s capacity (e.g., in
terms of qualified personnel, financial
resources, management capacity) to
bring the project to scale on a national,
regional, or State level working directly,
or through partners, either during or
following the end of the grant period.
(c) The feasibility of the proposed
project to be replicated successfully, if
positive results are obtained, in a variety
of settings and with a variety of student
populations. Evidence of this ability
includes the proposed project’s
demonstrated success in multiple
settings with different types of students,
the availability of resources and
expertise required for implementing the
project with fidelity, and the proposed
project’s evidence of relative ease of use
or user satisfaction.
(d) The applicant’s estimate of the
cost of the proposed project, which
includes start-up and operating costs
per student (including indirect costs) for
reaching the total number of students
proposed to be served by the project, as
well as for the applicant or others to
reach 100,000, 500,000, and 1,000,000
students.
(e) The mechanisms the applicant will
use to broadly disseminate information
on its project to support replication.
F. Sustainability
1. The Secretary considers the
adequacy of resources to continue the
proposed project after the grant period
ends.
2. In determining the adequacy of
resources for the proposed project, the
Secretary considers the following
factors:
(a) The extent to which the applicant
demonstrates that it has the resources to
operate the project beyond the length of
the Scale-up grant, including a multiyear financial and operating model and
accompanying plan; the demonstrated
commitment of current and future
partners; and evidence of broad support
from stakeholders (e.g., State
educational agencies, teachers’ unions)
critical to the project’s long-term
success.
(b) The potential and planning for the
incorporation of project purposes,
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
52223
activities, or benefits into the ongoing
work of the LEA, schools, or nonprofit
organization at the end of the Scale-up
grant.
G. Quality of the Management Plan and
Personnel
1. The Secretary considers the quality
of the management plan and personnel
for the proposed project.
2. In determining the quality of the
management plan and personnel for the
proposed project, the Secretary
considers:
(a) The adequacy of the management
plan to achieve the objectives of the
proposed project on time and within
budget, including clearly defined
responsibilities, timelines, and
milestones for accomplishing project
tasks, as well as plans for sustainability
and scalability of the proposed project.
(b) The qualifications, including
relevant training and experience, of the
project director and key project
personnel, especially in managing large,
complex, and rapidly growing projects.
(c) The qualifications, including
relevant expertise and experience, of the
project director and key personnel of the
independent evaluator, especially in
designing and conducting large-scale
experimental and quasi-experimental
studies of educational initiatives.
2. Validation Grants
A. Need for the Project and Quality of
the Project Design
(1) The Secretary considers the need
for the project and quality of the design
of the proposed project.
(2) In determining the need for the
project and quality of the design of the
proposed project, the Secretary
considers the following factors:
(a) The extent to which the proposed
project represents an exceptional
approach to the priorities the applicant
is seeking to meet (i.e., addresses a
largely unmet need, particularly for
high-need students, and is a practice,
strategy, or program that has not already
been widely adopted).
(b) The extent to which the proposed
project has a clear set of goals and an
explicit strategy (i.e., logic model), with
actions that are (1) aligned with the
priorities the applicant is seeking to
meet, and (2) expected to result in
achieving the goals, objectives, and
outcomes of the proposed project.
B. Strength of Research, Significance of
Effect, and Magnitude of Effect
(1) The Secretary considers the
strength of the existing research
evidence and the significance of effect
in support of the proposed project, as
E:\FR\FM\09OCN1.SGM
09OCN1
52224
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 195 / Friday, October 9, 2009 / Notices
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
well as the magnitude of the effect on
improving student achievement, closing
achievement gaps, decreasing dropout
rates, or increasing high school
graduation rates. Applicants may also
demonstrate success through an
intermediate variable that is directly
correlated with these outcomes, such as
teacher or school leader effectiveness, or
improvements in school climate.
(2) In determining the strength of the
existing research evidence and the
significance of the effect to support the
proposed project, as well as the
magnitude of the effect the Secretary
considers the following factors:
(a) The extent to which the applicant
demonstrates that there is moderate
evidence that the proposed practice,
strategy, or program will have a
statistically significant effect on
improving student achievement or
student growth, closing achievement
gaps, decreasing dropout rates, or
increasing high school graduation rates
and that with further study, the effect
may prove to be substantial and
important.
(b) The importance and magnitude of
the effect expected to be obtained by the
proposed project, including the
likelihood that the project will
substantially and measurably improve
student achievement or student growth,
close achievement gaps, decrease
dropout rates, or increase high school
graduation rates. The evidence in
support of the importance and
magnitude of the effect would be the
research-based evidence provided by
the applicant to support the proposed
project.
as measures described in section
1111(c)(2) of the ESEA (i.e., the National
Assessment of Educational Progress);
and
(iii) Made significant improvements
in other areas, such as graduation rates
or increased recruitment and placement
of high-quality teachers and school
leaders, as demonstrated with other
meaningful data.
C. Experience of the Applicant
(1) The Secretary considers the
experience of the applicant in
implementing the proposed project.
(2) In determining the experience of
the applicant, the Secretary considers
the following factors:
(a) The past performance of the
applicant in implementing complex
projects.
(b) The extent to which an applicant
provides information and data
demonstrating that it has (or supported
an LEA in taking actions that have)—
(i) Significantly closed the
achievement gaps between groups of
students described in section 1111(b)(2)
of the ESEA;
(ii) Exceeded the State’s annual
measurable objectives consistent with
section 1111(b)(2) of the ESEA for two
or more consecutive years or
demonstrated success in significantly
increasing student achievement for all
groups of students described in that
section through another measure, such
Note: We encourage applicants to review
the following technical assistance resources
on evaluation: (1) What Works Clearinghouse
Procedures and Standards Handbook: https://
ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/references/idocviewer/
doc.aspx?docid=19&tocid=1; and (2) IES/
NCES Technical Methods papers: https://
ies.ed.gov/ncee/tech_methods/.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:05 Oct 08, 2009
Jkt 220001
D. Quality of the Project Evaluation
1. The Secretary considers the quality
of the evaluation to be conducted of the
proposed project.
2. In determining the quality of the
evaluation, the Secretary considers the
following factors:
(a) The extent to which the methods
of evaluation will include a welldesigned experimental or well-designed
quasi-experimental study.
(b) The extent to which the methods
of evaluation will provide high-quality
implementation data and performance
feedback, and permit periodic
assessment of progress toward achieving
intended outcomes.
(c) The extent to which the evaluation
will provide sufficient information
about the key elements and approach of
the project to facilitate replication or
testing in other settings.
(d) The extent to which the proposed
project plan includes sufficient
resources to effectively carry out the
project evaluation.
(e) The extent to which the proposed
evaluation is rigorous, independent, and
neither the program developer nor the
project implementer is evaluating the
impact of the project.
E. Strategy and Capacity To Scale
1. The Secretary considers the quality
of the applicant’s strategy and capacity
to bring the proposed project to scale on
a State or regional level.
2. In determining the quality of the
strategy and capacity to scale, the
Secretary considers:
(a) The number of students proposed
to be reached by the proposed project
and the applicant’s capacity to reach the
proposed number of students during the
course of the grant period.
(b) The applicants capacity (e.g., in
terms of qualified personnel, financial
resources, management capacity) to
bring the project to scale on a State or
regional level (as appropriate, based on
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
the findings of the proposed project)
working directly, or through partners,
either during or following the end of the
grant period.
(c) The feasibility of the proposed
project to be replicated successfully, if
positive results are obtained, in a variety
of settings and with a variety of student
populations. Evidence of this ability
includes the availability of resources
and expertise required for implementing
the project with fidelity, and the
proposed project’s evidence of relative
ease of use or user satisfaction.
(d) The applicant’s estimate of the
cost of the proposed project, which
includes start-up and operating costs
per student (including indirect costs) for
reaching the total number of students
proposed to be served by the project, as
well as for the applicant or others to
reach 100,000, 250,000, and 500,000
students.
(e) The mechanisms the applicant will
use to broadly disseminate information
on its project to support further
development, expansion, or replication.
F. Sustainability
1. The Secretary considers the
adequacy of resources to continue to
develop the proposed project.
2. In determining the adequacy of
resources for the proposed project, the
Secretary considers the following
factors:
(a) The extent to which the applicant
demonstrates that it has the resources,
as well as the support of stakeholders
(e.g., State educational agencies,
teachers’ unions), to operate the project
beyond the length of the Validation
grant.
(b) The potential and planning for the
incorporation of project purposes,
activities, or benefits into the ongoing
work of the LEA, schools, or nonprofit
organization at the end of the Validation
grant.
G. Quality of the Management Plan and
Personnel
1. The Secretary considers the quality
of the management plan and personnel
for the proposed project.
2. In determining the quality of the
management plan and personnel for the
proposed project, the Secretary
considers:
(a) The adequacy of the management
plan to achieve the objectives of the
proposed project on time and within
budget, including clearly defined
responsibilities, timelines, and
milestones for accomplishing project
tasks, as well as plans for sustainability
and scalability of the proposed project.
(b) The qualifications, including
relevant training and experience, of the
E:\FR\FM\09OCN1.SGM
09OCN1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 195 / Friday, October 9, 2009 / Notices
project director and key project
personnel, especially in managing
complex projects.
(c) The qualifications, including
relevant expertise and experience, of the
project director and key personnel of the
independent evaluator, especially in
designing and conducting experimental
and quasi-experimental studies of
educational initiatives.
3. Development Grants
We anticipate using a two-tier process
to review the applications for
Development grants. This two-tier
review would include a pre-application
process to select applicants that would
be invited to submit a full application.
We anticipate that the pre-application
process will require an applicant to
submit a short summary of its proposed
project and that we will use some or all
of the selection criteria that follow to
rate the proposed projects, but with a
particular focus on the need for the
project and quality of the project design
and the strength of research,
significance of effect, and magnitude of
effect in support of the proposed
project. Applicants that are rated highly
in the pre-application phase would be
invited to submit a full application,
from which the awards for Development
grants would be made.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
A. Need for the Project and Quality of
the Project Design
(1) The Secretary considers the need
for the project and quality of the design
of the proposed project.
(2) In determining the need for the
project and quality of the design of the
proposed project, the Secretary
considers the following factors:
(a) The extent to which the proposed
project represents an exceptional
approach to the priorities the applicant
is seeking to meet (i.e., addresses a
largely unmet need, particularly for
high-need students, and is a practice
that has not already been widely
adopted).
(b) The extent to which the proposed
project has a clear set of goals and an
explicit strategy (i.e., logic model), with
the goals, objectives, and outcomes to be
achieved by the proposed project clearly
specified and measurable and linked to
the priorities the applicant is seeking to
meet.
B. Strength of Research, Significance of
Effect, and Magnitude of Effect
(1) The Secretary considers the
strength of the existing research
evidence to support the proposed
project and the significance of effect in
support of the proposed project, as well
as the magnitude of the effect on
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:05 Oct 08, 2009
Jkt 220001
improving student achievement or
student growth, closing achievement
gaps, decreasing dropout rates, or
increasing high school graduation rates.
Applicants may also demonstrate
success through an intermediate
variable that is directly correlated with
improving these outcomes, such as
teacher or school leader effectiveness, or
improvements in school climate.
(2) In determining the strength of the
existing research evidence, the
significance of effect to support the
proposed project, and the magnitude of
effect, the Secretary considers the
following factors:
(a) The extent to which the applicant
demonstrates that there are researchbased findings or reasonable hypotheses
that support the proposed project,
including related research in education
and other sectors.
(b) The extent to which the proposed
project has been attempted previously,
albeit on a limited scale or in a limited
setting, with promising results that
suggest that more formal and systematic
study is warranted.
(c) The extent to which the applicant
demonstrates that, if funded, the
proposed project likely will have a
positive impact, as measured by the
importance or magnitude of the effect,
on improving student achievement or
student growth, closing achievement
gaps, decreasing dropout rates, or
increasing high school graduation rates.
C. Experience of the Applicant
(1) The Secretary considers the
experience of the applicant in
implementing the proposed project or a
similar project.
(2) In determining the experience of
the applicant, the Secretary considers
the following factors:
(a) The past performance of the
applicant in implementing projects of
the size and scope proposed by the
applicant.
(b) The extent to which an applicant
provides information and data
demonstrating that it has (or supported
an LEA in taking actions that)—
(i) Significantly closed the
achievement gaps between groups of
students described in section 1111(b)(2)
of the ESEA;
(ii) Exceeded the State’s annual
measurable objectives consistent with
section 1111(b)(2) of the ESEA for two
or more consecutive years or has
demonstrated success in significantly
increasing student achievement for all
groups of students described in that
section through another measure, such
as measures described in section
1111(c)(2) of the ESEA (i.e., the National
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
52225
Assessment of Educational Progress);
and
(iii) Made significant improvements
in other areas, such as graduation rates
or increased recruitment and placement
of high-quality teachers and school
leaders, as demonstrated with other
meaningful data.
D. Quality of the Project Evaluation
1. The Secretary considers the quality
of the evaluation to be conducted of the
proposed project.
2. In determining the quality of the
evaluation, the Secretary considers the
following factors.
(a) The extent to which the methods
of evaluation are appropriate to the size
and scope of the proposed project.
(b) The extent to which the methods
of evaluation will provide high-quality
implementation data and performance
feedback, and permit periodic
assessment of progress toward achieving
intended outcomes.
(c) The extent to which the evaluation
will provide sufficient information
about the key elements and approach of
the project to facilitate further
development, replication, or testing in
other settings.
(d) The extent to which the proposed
project plan includes sufficient
resources to effectively carry out the
project evaluation.
Note: We encourage applicants to review
the following technical assistance resources
on evaluation: (1) What Works Clearinghouse
Procedures and Standards Handbook: https://
ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/references/idocviewer/
doc.aspx?docid=19&tocid=1; and (2) IES/
NCEE Technical Methods papers: https://
ies.ed.gov/ncee/tech_methods/.
E. Strategy and Capacity to Further
Develop and Scale
1. The Secretary considers the quality
of the applicant’s strategy and capacity
to further develop and scale the
proposed project.
2. In determining the quality of the
strategy and capacity to further develop
and scale the proposed project, the
Secretary considers:
(a) The number of students proposed
to be reached by the proposed project
and the applicant’s capacity to reach the
proposed number of students during the
course of the grant period.
(b) The applicant’s capacity (e.g., in
terms of qualified personnel, financial
resources, management capacity) to
further develop and scale the proposed
practice, strategy, or program, or to work
with others to ensure that the proposed
practice, strategy, or program can be
further developed and scaled, based on
the findings of the proposed project.
(c) The feasibility of the proposed
project to be replicated successfully, if
E:\FR\FM\09OCN1.SGM
09OCN1
52226
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 195 / Friday, October 9, 2009 / Notices
positive results are obtained, in a variety
of settings and with a variety of student
populations. Evidence of this ability
includes the availability of resources
and expertise required for implementing
the project with fidelity, and the
proposed project’s evidence of relative
ease of use or user satisfaction.
(d) The applicant’s estimate of the
cost of the proposed project, which
includes the start-up and operating costs
per student (including indirect costs) for
reaching the total number of students
proposed to be served by the project as
well as for the applicant or others to
reach 100,000, 250,000, and 500,000
students.
(e) The mechanisms the applicant will
use to broadly disseminate information
on its project to support further
development or replication.
F. Sustainability
1. The Secretary considers the
adequacy of resources to continue to
develop or expand the proposed
practice, strategy, or program after the
grant period ends.
2. In determining the adequacy of
resources for the proposed project, the
Secretary considers the following
factors:
(a) The extent to which the applicant
demonstrates that it has the resources,
as well as the support from stakeholders
(e.g., State educational agencies,
teachers’ unions) to operate the project
beyond the length of the Development
grant.
(b) The potential and planning for the
incorporation of project purposes,
activities, or benefits into the ongoing
work of the LEA, schools, or nonprofit
organization at the end of the
Development grant.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
G. Quality of the Management Plan and
Personnel
1. The Secretary considers the quality
of the management plan and personnel
for the proposed project.
2. In determining the quality of the
management plan and personnel for the
proposed project, the Secretary
considers:
(a) The adequacy of the management
plan to achieve the objectives of the
proposed project on time and within
budget, including clearly defined
responsibilities, timelines, and
milestones for accomplishing project
tasks.
(b) The qualifications, including
relevant training and experience, of the
project director and key project
personnel, especially in managing
projects of the size and scope of the
proposed project.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:05 Oct 08, 2009
Jkt 220001
Final Priorities, Requirements,
Definitions, and Selection Criteria: We
will announce the final priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection
criteria in a notice in the Federal
Register. We will determine the final
priorities, requirements, definitions, and
selection criteria after considering
responses to this notice and other
information available to the Department.
This notice does not preclude us from
proposing additional priorities,
requirements, definitions, or selection
criteria, subject to meeting applicable
rulemaking requirements.
Note: This notice does not solicit
applications. In any year in which we choose
to use these priorities, requirements, and
selection criteria, we invite applications
through a notice in the Federal Register.
Executive Order 12866: Under
Executive Order 12866, the Secretary
must determine whether this regulatory
action is ‘‘significant’’ and, therefore,
subject to the requirements of the
Executive Order and subject to review
by OMB. Section 3(f) of Executive Order
12866 defines a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ as an action likely to result in
a rule that may (1) have an annual effect
on the economy of $100 million or
more, or adversely affect a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition,
jobs, the environment, public health or
safety, or State, local, or tribal
governments, or communities in a
material way (also referred to as an
‘‘economically significant’’ rule);
(2) create serious inconsistency or
otherwise interfere with an action taken
or planned by another agency; (3)
materially alter the budgetary impacts of
entitlement grants, user fees, or loan
programs or the rights and obligations of
recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel
legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President’s priorities, or
the principles set forth in the Executive
order. Pursuant to the Executive order,
it has been determined that this
regulatory action will have an annual
effect on the economy of more than
$100 million because the amount of
government transfers provided through
the Investing in Innovation Fund will
exceed that amount. Therefore, this
action is ‘‘economically significant’’ and
subject to OMB review under section
3(f)(1) of the Executive order.
The potential costs associated with
this proposed regulatory action are
those resulting from statutory
requirements and those we have
determined as necessary for
administering this program effectively
and efficiently.
In assessing the potential costs and
benefits—both quantitative and
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
qualitative—of this proposed regulatory
action, we have determined that the
benefits of the proposed priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection
criteria justify the costs.
We have determined, also, that this
proposed regulatory action does not
unduly interfere with State, local, and
tribal governments in the exercise of
their governmental functions.
Need for Federal Regulatory Action
These proposed priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection
criteria are needed to implement the
Investing in Innovation Fund. The
Secretary does not believe that the
statute, by itself, provides a sufficient
level of detail to ensure that the program
achieves the greatest national impact in
promoting educational innovation. The
authorizing language is very brief and
provides only broad parameters
governing the program. The proposals
discussed in this notice would provide
greater clarity on the types of activities
the Department seeks to fund, and
permit the Department to use selection
criteria that are closely aligned with the
Secretary’s priorities.
In the absence of specific selection
criteria for the Investing in Innovation
Fund, the Department would use the
general selection criteria in 34 CFR
75.210 of the Education Department
General Administrative Regulations in
selecting grant recipients. The Secretary
does not believe the use of those general
criteria would be appropriate for the
Investing in Innovation Fund grant
competition, because they do not focus
on the educational reform and
innovation activities most likely to raise
student achievement and eliminate
persistent disparities in achievement
across different populations of students.
Regulatory Alternatives Considered
The Department considered a variety
of possible priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria before
deciding to propose those included in
this notice. The proposed priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection
criteria are those that the Secretary
believes best capture the purposes of the
program while clarifying what the
Secretary expects the program to
accomplish and ensuring that program
activities are aligned with Departmental
priorities. The proposals would also
provide eligible applicants with
flexibility in selecting activities to apply
to carry out under the program. The
Secretary believes that the proposals,
thus, appropriately balance a limited
degree of specificity with broad
flexibility in implementation. We seek
E:\FR\FM\09OCN1.SGM
09OCN1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 195 / Friday, October 9, 2009 / Notices
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
public comment on whether we have
achieved the optimal balance.
Summary of Costs and Benefits
The Secretary believes that the
proposed priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria would
not impose significant costs on eligible
LEAs, nonprofit organizations, or other
entities that would receive assistance
through the Investing in Innovation
Fund. The Secretary also believes that
the benefits of implementing the
proposals contained in this notice
outweigh any associated costs.
The Secretary believes that the
proposed priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria would
result in selection of high-quality
applications to implement activities that
are most likely to have a significant
national impact on educational reform
and improvement. Through the
proposals discussed in this notice, the
Secretary seeks to provide clarity as to
the scope of activities he expects to
support with program funds and the
expected burden of work involved in
preparing an application and
implementing a project under the
program. The pool of possible
applicants is very large; during school
year 2007–08, 9,729 LEAs across the
country (about 65 percent of all LEAs)
made adequate yearly progress.
Although not every one of those LEAs
would necessarily meet all the
eligibility requirements, the number of
LEAs that would meet them is likely to
be in the thousands. Potential
applicants, both LEAs and nonprofit
organizations, would need to consider
carefully the effort that will be required
to prepare a strong application, their
capacity to implement a project
successfully, and their chances of
submitting a successful application.
The Secretary believes that the costs
imposed on applicants by the proposed
priorities, requirements, definitions, and
selection criteria would be limited to
paperwork burden related to preparing
an application and that the benefits of
implementing these proposals would
outweigh any costs incurred by
applicants. The costs of carrying out
activities would be paid for with
program funds and with matching funds
provided by private-sector partners.
Thus, the costs of implementation
would not be a burden for any eligible
applicants, including small entities.
However, under the proposed selection
criteria the Secretary would assess the
extent to which an applicant would be
able to sustain a project once Federal
funding through the Investing in
Innovation Fund is no longer available.
Thus, eligible applicants should
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:05 Oct 08, 2009
Jkt 220001
propose activities that they will be able
to sustain without funding from the
program and, thus, in essence, should
include in their project plan the specific
steps they will take for sustained
implementation of the proposed project.
The proposed priorities would
provide flexibility on the topics and
types of grant activities applicants could
propose. The proposal for the three
types of grants—Scale-up, Validation,
and Development grants—would allow
potential applicants to determine which
type of grant they are best suited to
apply for, based on their own priorities,
resources, and capacity to implement
grant activities.
52227
we are providing for the burden hours
associated with the requirements and
selection criteria proposed in this
notice.
Estimates for Scale-up Grants: We
estimate 100 applicants for Scale-up
grants, and that each applicant would
spend approximately 120 hours of staff
time to address the application
requirements and criteria, prepare the
application, and obtain necessary
clearances. The total number of hours
for all Scale-up applicants is an
estimated 12,000 hours (100 applicants
times 120 hours equals 12,000 hours).
Estimates for Validation Grants: We
estimate 500 applicants for Validation
grants, and that each applicant would
Accounting Statement
spend approximately 120 hours of staff
As required by OMB Circular A–4
time to address the application
(available at https://
requirements and criteria, prepare the
www.Whitehouse.gov/omb/Circulars/
application, and obtain necessary
a004/a-4.pdf), in the following table, we clearances. The total number of hours
have prepared an accounting statement
for all Validation applicants is an
showing the classification of the
estimated 60,000 hours (500 applicants
expenditures associated with the
times 120 hours equals 60,000 hours).
Estimates for Development Grants:
provisions of this proposed regulatory
We estimate 2000 pre-applications and
action. This table provides our best
100 full applications for Development
estimate of the Federal payments to be
grants. We estimate that pre-applicants
made to LEAs and nonprofit
will spend approximately 60 hours of
organizations under this program as a
result of this proposed regulatory action. staff time to address the pre-application
requirements and criteria, prepare the
Expenditures are classified as transfers
pre-application, and obtain all necessary
to those entities.
clearances for the pre-application. We
TABLE—ACCOUNTING STATEMENT estimate that full applicants will spend
CLASSIFICATION OF ESTIMATED EX- approximately 60 hours of staff time to
address the full application
PENDITURES
requirements and criteria, prepare the
full application, and obtain all
Transfers
Category
(in millions)
necessary clearances for the full
application. The total number of hours
Annual Monetized
$643.5
for all Development pre-applicants and
Transfers.
full applicants is an estimated 126,000
From Whom to Whom Federal Government
to LEAs, nonprofits. hours ((2000 pre-applicants times 60
hours equals 120,000 hours) plus (100
full applicants times 60 hours equals
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
6,000 hours)).
The requirements and selection
Total Estimates: Across the three
criteria proposed in this notice will
grant types, we estimate the average
require the collection of information
total cost per hour of the LEA and
that is subject to review by the Office of nonprofit organization staff who carry
Management and Budget (OMB) under
out this work to be $25.00 an hour. The
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
total estimated cost for all applicants
(44 U.S.C. 3501–3520). It is our plan to
would be $4,950,000 ($25.00 times
offer a comment period for the
198,000 (12,000 + 60,000 + 126,000)
information collection at the time of the hours equals $4,950,000).
notice of final priorities, requirements,
Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification
definitions, and selection criteria. At
that time, the Department will submit
The Secretary certifies that this
the information collection to OMB for
proposed regulatory action will not have
its review and provide the specific
a significant economic impact on a
burden hours associated with each of
substantial number of small entities.
the requirements and selection criteria
The small entities that this proposed
for comment. However, because it is
regulatory action will affect are small
likely that the information collection
LEAs or nonprofit organizations
will be reviewed under emergency OMB applying for and receiving funds under
processing, the Department encourages
this program. The Secretary believes
the public to comment on the estimates
that the costs imposed on applicants by
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\09OCN1.SGM
09OCN1
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
52228
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 195 / Friday, October 9, 2009 / Notices
the proposed priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria would
be limited to paperwork burden related
to preparing an application and that the
benefits of implementing these
proposals would outweigh any costs
incurred by applicants.
Participation in this program is
voluntary. For this reason, the proposed
priorities, requirements, definitions, and
selection criteria would impose no
burden on small entities in general.
Eligible applicants would determine
whether to apply for funds, and have
the opportunity to weigh the
requirements for preparing applications,
and any associated costs, against the
likelihood of receiving funding and the
requirements for implementing projects
under the program. Eligible applicants
most likely would apply only if they
determine that the likely benefits exceed
the costs of preparing an application.
The likely benefits include the potential
receipt of a grant as well as other
benefits that may accrue to an entity
through its development of an
application, such as the use of that
application to spur educational reforms
and improvements without additional
Federal funding.
The U.S. Small Business
Administration Size Standards defines
as ‘‘small entities’’ for-profit or
nonprofit institutions with total annual
revenue below $7,000,000 or, if they are
institutions controlled by small
governmental jurisdictions (that are
comprised of cities, counties, towns,
townships, villages, school districts, or
special districts), with a population of
less than 50,000. The Urban Institute’s
National Center for Charitable Statistics
reported that of 203,635 nonprofit
organizations that had an educational
mission and reported revenue to the IRS
by July 2009, 200,342 (or about 98
percent) had revenues of less than $5
million. In addition, there are 12,484
LEAs in the country that meet the
definition of small entity. However, the
Secretary believes that only a small
number of these entities would be
interested in applying for funds under
this program, thus reducing the
likelihood that the proposals contained
in this notice would have a significant
economic impact on small entities.
In addition, the Secretary believes
that the proposed priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection
criteria discussed in this notice do not
impose any additional burden on small
entities applying for a grant than they
would face in the absence of the
proposed action. That is, the length of
the applications those entities would
submit in the absence of the regulatory
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:05 Oct 08, 2009
Jkt 220001
action and the time needed to prepare
an application would likely be the same.
Further, the proposed action may help
small entities determine whether they
have the interest, need, or capacity to
implement activities under the program
and, thus, prevent small entities that do
not have such an interest, need, and
capacity from absorbing the burden of
applying.
This proposed regulatory action
would not have a significant economic
impact on small entities once they
receive a grant because they would be
able to meet the costs of compliance
using the funds provided under this
program and with any matching funds
provided by private-sector partners.
The Secretary invites comments from
small nonprofit organizations and small
LEAs as to whether they believe this
proposed regulatory action would have
a significant economic impact on them
and, if so, requests evidence to support
that belief.
Intergovernmental Review: This
program is subject to Executive Order
12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR
part 79. One of the objectives of the
Executive order is to foster an
intergovernmental partnership and a
strengthened federalism. The Executive
order relies on processes developed by
State and local governments for
coordination and review of proposed
Federal financial assistance.
This document provides early
notification of our specific plans and
actions for this program.
Accessible Format: Individuals with
disabilities can obtain this document in
an accessible format (e.g., braille, large
print, audiotape, or computer diskette)
on request to the program contact
person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
Electronic Access to This Document:
You can view this document, as well as
all other documents of this Department
published in the Federal Register, in
text or Adobe Portable Document
Format (PDF) on the Internet at the
following site: https://www.ed.gov/news/
fedregister.
To use PDF you must have Adobe
Acrobat Reader, which is available free
at this site. If you have questions about
using PDF, call the U.S. Government
Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at
1–888–293–6498; or in the Washington,
DC, area at (202) 512–1530.
Note: The official version of this document
is the document published in the Federal
Register. Free Internet access to the official
edition of the Federal Register and the Code
of Federal Regulations is available on GPO
Access at: https://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/
index.html.
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Dated: October 6, 2009.
Arne Duncan,
Secretary of Education.
[FR Doc. E9–24387 Filed 10–8–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Notice of Intent To Prepare an
Environmental Impact Statement for a
Proposed Federal Loan Guarantee To
Support Construction and Start-up of
the Taylorville Energy Center in
Taylorville, IL
AGENCY: Department of Energy, Loan
Guarantee Program.
ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an
environmental impact statement and
conduct a public scoping meeting.
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of
Energy (DOE) announces its intent to
prepare an environmental impact
statement (EIS) pursuant to the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as
amended (NEPA), the Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA
regulations, and the DOE NEPA
implementing procedures to assess the
potential environmental impacts for its
proposed action of issuing a Federal
loan guarantee to Christian County
Generation, L.L.C. (CCG) (DOE/EIS–
0430). CCG submitted an application to
DOE under the Federal loan guarantee
program pursuant to the Energy Policy
Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005) to support
construction and start-up of the
Taylorville Energy Center in Taylorville,
Illinois (‘‘the Facility’’).1
CCG is a limited liability company
that is currently owned by Tenaska
Taylorville, LLC, an affiliate of Tenaska,
Inc., an Omaha, Nebraska-based power
development company, and by MDL
Holding Company, L.L.C. of Louisville,
Kentucky. CCG proposes to develop the
Facility on an 886-acre parcel of land.
As proposed, the approximately 730
megawatt (gross) electric generation
Facility would utilize integrated
gasification combined-cycle technology
to produce electricity from Illinois
bituminous coal. Synthesis gas
processing would also allow the
separation and capture of carbon
dioxide (CO2) and the manufacture of
pipeline-quality Substitute Natural Gas
(‘‘SNG’’ or ‘‘methane’’). SNG would be
used in a power block with two
combustion turbines and one steam
turbine. The Facility would be designed
1 The amount requested for the loan guarantee is
not being disclosed at this time because it is
business sensitive. Moreover, should DOE approve
a loan guarantee, the amount may differ from the
original request.
E:\FR\FM\09OCN1.SGM
09OCN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 195 (Friday, October 9, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52214-52228]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-24387]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
[Docket ID ED-2009-OII-0012]
RIN 1855-AA06
Investing in Innovation
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Numbers: 84.396A, 84.396B
and 84.396C.
AGENCY: Office of Innovation and Improvement, Department of Education.
ACTION: Notice of proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and
selection criteria.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Secretary of Education (Secretary) proposes priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria under the Investing
in Innovation Fund. The Secretary may use these priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria for competitions of
the Investing in Innovation Fund for fiscal year (FY) 2010 and later
years. We intend for the priorities, requirements, definitions, and
selection criteria to support the efforts of local educational agencies
(LEAs) and nonprofit organizations (as defined in this notice) that
have strong track records of improving student achievement (as defined
in this notice) to expand their work; identify, document, and share
best practices; and take successful practices ``to scale.''
DATES: We must receive your comments on or before November 9, 2009.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal
or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. We will not
accept comments by fax or by e-mail. Please submit your comments only
one time in order to ensure that we do not receive duplicate copies. In
addition, please include the Docket ID and the term
[[Page 52215]]
``Investing in Innovation'' at the top of your comments.
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov to submit your comments electronically. Information
on using Regulations.gov, including instructions for accessing agency
documents, submitting comments, and viewing the docket, is available on
the site under ``How To Use This Site.'' A direct link to the docket
page is also available at https://www.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2009/10/10062009a.html.
Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery, or Hand Delivery. If you
mail or deliver your comments about these proposed priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria, address them to
Office of Innovation and Improvement (Attention: Investing in
Innovation Comments), U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland
Avenue, SW., room 4W321, Washington, DC 20202.
Privacy Note: The Department's policy for comments
received from members of the public (including those comments submitted
by mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery) is to make these
submissions available for public viewing in their entirety on the
Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. Therefore,
commenters should be careful to include in their comments only
information that they wish to make publicly available on the Internet.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mia Howerton. Telephone: (202) 205-
0417; or Erin McHugh. Telephone: (202) 401-1304. Or by e-mail:
i3@ed.gov. Note that we will not accept comments by e-mail.
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the
Federal Relay Service, toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Invitation To Comment: We invite you to submit comments regarding
this notice. To ensure that your comments have maximum effect in
developing the notice of final priorities, requirements, definitions,
and selection criteria, we urge you to identify clearly the specific
proposed priority, requirement, definition, or selection criterion your
comment addresses.
We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific
requirements of Executive Order 12866 and its overall requirement of
reducing regulatory burden that might result from the proposed
priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria. Please
let us know of any further ways we could reduce potential costs or
increase potential benefits while preserving the effective and
efficient administration of the program.
During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public
comments about this notice by accessing Regulations.gov. You may also
inspect the comments in person, in room 4W335, 400 Maryland Avenue,
SW., Washington, DC, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.,
Washington, DC time, Monday through Friday of each week except Federal
holidays.
Assistance to Individuals With Disabilities in Reviewing the
Rulemaking Record: On request we will provide an appropriate
accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability who
needs assistance to review the comments or other documents in the
public rulemaking record for this notice. If you want to schedule an
appointment for this type of accommodation or auxiliary aid, please
contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Purpose of Program: The Investing in Innovation Fund, established
under section 14007 of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of
2009 (ARRA), provides funding to support (1) LEAs, and (2) nonprofit
organizations in partnership with (a) one or more LEAs or (b) a
consortium of schools (as defined in this notice). The purpose of the
program is to provide competitive grants to applicants with a record of
improving student achievement, in order to expand the implementation
of, and investment in, innovative practices that are demonstrated to
have an impact on improving student achievement or student growth (as
defined in this notice) for high-need students (as defined in this
notice), as well as to promote school readiness, close achievement
gaps, decrease dropout rates, increase high school graduation rates,
and improve teacher and school leader effectiveness.
These grants will (1) allow eligible entities to expand and develop
their work so that their work can serve as models of best practices,
(2) allow eligible entities to work in partnership with the private
sector and the philanthropic community, and (3) identify and document
best practices that can be shared and taken to scale based on
demonstrated success.
Program Authority: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009,
Division A, Section 14007, Public Law No. 111-5.
Background
The Statutory Context
On February 17, 2009, President Obama signed into law the ARRA
(Pub. L. 111-5), historic legislation designed to stimulate the
economy, support job creation, and invest in critical sectors,
including education. The ARRA lays the foundation for education reform
by supporting investments in innovative strategies that are most likely
to lead to improved results for students, long-term gains in school and
LEA capacity for success, and increased productivity and effectiveness.
The ARRA provides $98.2 billion to the Department for direct
expenditures on education. Within this amount, $650 million was
authorized and appropriated for the Investing in Innovation Fund
(referred to as the ``Innovation Fund'' in the ARRA), for a competitive
grant program to enable LEAs and nonprofit organizations with a record
of improving kindergarten-through-grade-12 (K-12) student achievement
to: expand their work; identify, document, and share best practices;
and take successful practices to scale.
Education Reform Areas
One of the overall goals of the ARRA is to improve student
achievement through school improvement and reform. Within the context
of the ARRA, the Investing in Innovation Fund focuses on four key
assurances, or education reform areas, that will help achieve this
goal: (1) Improvements in teacher effectiveness and ensuring that all
schools have effective teachers, (2) gathering information to improve
student learning, teacher performance, and college and career readiness
through enhanced data systems, (3) progress toward college- and career-
ready standards and rigorous assessments, and (4) improving achievement
in low-performing schools through intensive support and effective
interventions.
Overview of the Investing in Innovation Fund
The Department intends to use the Investing in Innovation Fund to
support the overarching ARRA goal of improving student achievement by
aligning four of the priorities proposed in this notice directly with
the four ARRA reform areas. In this notice we propose four additional
priorities that are aligned with other Department reform goals in the
areas of early learning, college access, students with disabilities and
limited English proficient students, and rural LEAs. Finally, we
propose to require that all funded projects provide educational or
other services to support high-need students.
In this notice, the Department proposes to award three types of
grants within the Investing in Innovation
[[Page 52216]]
Fund: ``Scale-up'' grants, ``Validation'' grants, and ``Development''
grants. We have defined each of these types of grants in the section
that follows.
Projects funded under each of the three types of grants would
provide services to high-need students and would focus on priorities
directly tied to the reform areas of the ARRA; applicants could also
choose to meet the additional priority areas. Among the three grant
types, there would be differences in terms of the evidence that an
applicant would be required to submit in support of its proposed
project; the expectations for scaling up successful projects during or
after the grant period, either directly or through partners; and the
funding that a successful applicant would receive.
The intent of these requirements is to ensure that program funds
are used to expand and take to scale the most promising practices,
strategies, and programs. We are proposing definitions and criteria
that would be used to evaluate the available evidence supporting a
proposed project, in terms of the strength of the research, the
significance of the effect, and the magnitude of the effect for each
type of grant. As such, we are particularly interested in receiving
comments on these proposed definitions and selection criteria, and
whether, in evaluating the magnitude of the effect, we should specify a
minimum effect size and, if so, what that effect size should be. We
also are interested in your comments on how to ensure that projects
that are innovative and comprehensive in scope or that may show a
cumulative effect over time are properly considered, given the proposed
definitions and selection criteria. We are cognizant of the need to
balance our interest in innovation with the importance of research-
based evidence, and welcome comments on how best to achieve the proper
balance.
We also are interested in receiving comments on the criteria we are
proposing to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a proposed practice,
strategy, or program. We believe that an important aspect of evaluating
applications under the Investing in Innovation Fund is assessing the
extent to which a proposal is feasible and can be brought to scale in a
cost-effective manner. So that we can judge the cost-effectiveness of a
proposed project, we propose that applicants provide estimated start-up
and operating costs per student (including indirect costs) for reaching
the total number of students proposed to be served by the project, as
well as for the applicant or others to reach 100,000, 250,000, and
500,000 students for Development grants and Validation grants; and to
reach 100,000, 500,000, and 1,000,000 students for Scale-up grants. We
are interested in your comments on whether there are other methods of
determining cost-effectiveness that would be more informative or less
burdensome.
Following is an overview of the three types of grants we are
proposing to award:
1. Scale-up grants would provide funding to scale up practices,
strategies, or programs for which there is strong evidence (as defined
in this notice) that the proposed practice, strategy, or program will
have a statistically significant effect on improving student
achievement or student growth, closing achievement gaps, decreasing
dropout rates, or increasing high school graduation rates, and that the
effect of implementing the proposed practice, strategy, or program will
be substantial and important. We also propose that an applicant for a
Scale-up grant could demonstrate success through an intermediate
variable directly correlated with these outcomes, such as teacher or
school leader effectiveness or improvements in school climate.
We further propose that an applicant for a Scale-up grant estimate
the number of students to be reached by the proposed project and
provide evidence of its capacity to reach the proposed number of
students during the course of the grant. In addition, we propose that
an applicant for a Scale-up grant provide evidence of its capacity
(e.g., in terms of qualified personnel, financial resources, management
capacity) to scale up to a State, regional, or national level (as
defined in this notice), working directly or through partners either
during or following the end of the grant period. We recognize that LEAs
are not typically responsible for taking to scale their practices,
strategies, or programs to other LEAs and States. Applicants can and
should partner with others (e.g., service centers, State educational
agencies, institutions of higher education) to disseminate and take to
scale their effective practices, strategies, and programs.
Successful applicants for Scale-up grants would receive larger
levels of funding than successful applicants for Validation or
Development grants.
2. Validation grants would provide funding to support practices,
strategies, or programs that show promise, but for which there is
currently only moderate evidence (as defined in this notice) that the
proposed practice, strategy, or program will have a statistically
significant effect on improving student achievement or student growth,
closing achievement gaps, decreasing dropout rates, or increasing high
school graduation rates, and that with further study, the effect of
implementing the proposed practice, strategy, or program may prove to
be substantial and important. Thus, proposals for Validation grants
would not need to have the same level of research evidence to support
the proposed project that would be required for Scale-up grants. We
also propose that applicants could demonstrate success through an
intermediate variable directly correlated with these outcomes, such as
teacher or school leader effectiveness or improvements in school
climate.
An applicant for a Validation grant would have to estimate the
number of students to be reached by the proposed project and provide
evidence of its capacity to reach the proposed number of students
during the course of the grant. In addition, we propose that an
applicant for a Validation grant provide evidence of its capacity
(e.g., in terms of qualified personnel, financial resources, management
capacity) to scale up to a State or regional level, working directly or
through partners either during or following the end of the grant
period. As noted earlier, we recognize that LEAs are not typically
responsible for taking to scale their practices, strategies, or
programs to other LEAs and States. Applicants can and should partner
with others to disseminate and take to scale their effective practices,
strategies, and programs.
Successful applicants for Validation grants would receive more
funding than successful applicants for Development grants.
3. Development grants would provide funding to support new, high-
potential, and relatively untested practices, strategies, or programs
whose efficacy should be systematically studied. An applicant would
have to provide evidence that the proposed practice, strategy, or
program, or one similar to it, has been attempted previously, albeit on
a limited scale or in a limited setting, and yielded promising results
that suggest that more formal and systematic study is warranted. An
applicant must provide a rationale for the proposed practice, strategy,
or program that is based on research findings or reasonable hypotheses,
including related research or theories in education and other sectors.
Thus, proposals for Development grants would not need to provide the
same level of evidence to support the proposed project that would be
required for Validation or Scale-up grants.
We also propose that an applicant for a Validation grant estimate
the number of students to be served by the project,
[[Page 52217]]
and provide evidence of its ability to implement and appropriately
evaluate the proposed project and, if positive results are obtained,
its capacity (e.g., in terms of qualified personnel, financial
resources, management capacity) to further develop and bring the
project to a larger scale directly or through partners either during or
following the end of the grant period. As noted earlier, we recognize
that LEAs are not typically responsible for taking to scale their
practices, strategies, or programs. Applicants can and should partner
with others to disseminate and take to scale their effective practices,
strategies, and programs.
To summarize, in terms of the evidence required to support the
proposed practice, strategy, or program, the major differences between
Scale-up, Validation, and Development grants are (see Table 1): (1) The
strength of the research; (2) the significance of the effect; and (3)
the magnitude of the effect.
Table 1--Differences Between the Three Types of Investing in Innovation Grants in Terms of the Evidence Required
To Support the Proposed Practice, Strategy, or Program
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scale-up grants Validation grants Development grants
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Strength of Research................. Strong evidence........ Moderate evidence...... Reasonable hypotheses.
Significance of Effect............... Statistically Statistically Warrants further study.
significant. significant.
Magnitude of Effect.................. Substantial and Potential to be Promising.
important. substantial and
important.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, the three types of grants differ in terms of the
expectations to scale up successful projects during or following the
end of the grant period, either directly or through partners, and the
level of funding that would be available. (See Table 2).
It is our intent to make one or more awards for each type of grant
(Scale-up, Validation, Development), assuming that we receive
applications for each type of grant that are of sufficient quality. We
will announce specific funding ranges for each type of grant in the
notice inviting applications for this program.
Table 2--Differences Between the Three Types of Investing in Innovation Grants in Terms of Expectations To Scale
up and the Funding To Be Provided
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scale-up grants Validation grants Development grants
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scale up............................. National, Regional, or Regional or State...... Further develop and
State. scale.
Funding to be provided............... Highest................ Moderate............... Modest.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Priorities
Types of Priorities
The Secretary proposes eight priorities for the Investing in
Innovation Fund. Proposed Priorities 1, 2, 3, and 4 are proposed as
absolute priorities and are aligned with the four reform areas under
the ARRA; all applicants must apply under one of these four priorities.
Proposed Priorities 5, 6, 7, and 8 are proposed as competitive
preference priorities and are aligned with other key education reform
goals of the Department. We may apply one or more of the competitive
preference priorities to one or more of the three types of grants
(Scale-up, Validation, Development grants).
We may choose, in the notice of final priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria, to change the designation of any
of these priorities to absolute, competitive preference, or
invitational priorities, or to include the substance of these
priorities in the selection criteria.
Under an absolute priority, as specified by 34 CFR 75.105(c)(3), we
would consider only applications that meet the priority. Under a
competitive preference priority, we would give competitive preference
to an application by (1) awarding additional points, depending on the
extent to which the application meets the priority (34 CFR
75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) selecting an application that meets the
priority over an application of comparable merit that does not meet the
priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(ii)). With an invitational priority, we
would signal our interest in receiving applications that meet the
priority; however, consistent with 34 CFR 75.105(c)(1), we would not
give an application that meets an invitational priority preference over
other applications.
Proposed Absolute Priorities
Proposed Absolute Priority 1--Innovations That Support Effective
Teachers and School Leaders
Background. Research indicates that teacher quality is a critical
contributor to student learning.\1\ Yet we know that there is dramatic
variation in teacher effectiveness across schools and LEAs, as well as
inequity in the distribution of effective teachers between high- and
low-poverty schools. We also know that it is difficult to predict
teacher effectiveness based on the qualifications that teachers bring
to the job.\2\ Furthermore, studies show that school leadership is a
major contributing factor to what students learn at school and that
strong teachers are more likely to teach in schools with strong
principals.\3\ Absolute priority 1 is intended to support projects that
promote practices, strategies, or programs to increase the number and
percentage of effective teachers and school leaders, or help reduce the
inequities in the distribution of effective teachers and school
leaders.
[[Page 52218]]
It is also designed to encourage the use of teacher and school leader
evaluation systems that are tied to student growth.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See, e.g., Kane, Thomas J., Jonah E. Rockoff, and Douglas O.
Staiger (2006), ``What Does Certification Tell Us About Teacher
Effectiveness? Evidence from New York City,'' NBER Working Paper No.
12155; Rivkin, Steven G., Eric A. Hanushek, and John F. Kain (2005),
``Teachers, Schools, and Academic Achievement,'' Econometrica,
73(2), 417-458; Rockoff, Jonah. E. (2004), ``The Impact of
Individual Teachers on Students' Achievement: Evidence from Panel
Data,'' American Economic Review 94(2), 247-52; Aaronson, Daniel,
Lisa Barrow, and William Sander (2003), ``Teacher and Student
Achievement in the Chicago Public High Schools,'' Federal Reserve
Bank of Chicago Working Paper 2002-28.
\2\ Rivkin, Hanushek, and Kain (2005); Kane, Rockoff, and
Staiger (2006).
\3\ Leithwood, Kenneth, Karen Seashore Louis, Stephen Anderson,
and Kyla Sahlstrom (2004), ``How Leadership Influences Student
Learning,'' Wallace Foundation Learning from Leadership Project.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Statement of the Proposed Absolute Priority. Under proposed
absolute priority 1, the Department would provide funding to support
practices, strategies, or programs that increase the number or
percentages of highly effective teachers and school leaders or reduce
the number or percentages of ineffective teachers and school leaders,
especially for high-need students, by identifying, recruiting,
developing, placing, rewarding, and retaining highly effective teachers
and school leaders (or removing ineffective teachers and school
leaders). In such initiatives, teacher or school leader effectiveness
should be determined by an evaluation system that is rigorous,
transparent, and fair; performance should be differentiated using
multiple rating categories of effectiveness; multiple measures of
teachers' effectiveness should be taken into account, with data on
student growth as a significant factor; and the measures should be
designed and developed with teacher involvement.
Proposed Absolute Priority 2--Innovations That Improve the Use of Data
Background. Section 14005(d)(3) of the ARRA requires States
receiving State Fiscal Stabilization funds to establish a longitudinal
data system that includes the elements described in section 6401(e)(2)
of the America COMPETES Act (20 U.S.C. 9871). Providing student
achievement or student growth data to teachers and principals,
including estimates of individual teacher impact on student achievement
or student growth, is key to driving education reform in general and
improvements in the classroom, in particular.\4\ This priority is
designed to increase the availability and use of practices, strategies,
and programs that provide teachers, principals, administrators,
families, and other stakeholders with the data they need to inform and
improve school and classroom instructional practices, decision-making,
and overall effectiveness.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See, e.g., The Data Quality Campaign at https://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/using-data-systems/roadmap-for-states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Statement of the Proposed Absolute Priority. Under proposed
absolute priority 2, the Department would provide funding to support
strategies, practices, or programs that encourage and facilitate the
evaluation, analysis, and use of student achievement or student growth
data by educators, families, and other stakeholders in order to inform
decision-making; improve student achievement or student growth, and
teacher, school leader, school, or LEA performance and productivity; or
enable data aggregation, analysis, and research. Where applicable,
these data would be disaggregated using the student subgroups described
in section 1111(b)(3)(C)(xiii) of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA) (economically disadvantaged
students, students from major racial and ethnic groups, migrant
students, students with limited English proficiency, students with
disabilities, student gender).
Proposed Absolute Priority 3--Innovations That Complement the
Implementation of High Standards and High-Quality Assessments
Background. A third key ARRA reform area is improving State
academic content standards and student academic achievement standards
so that they build toward college and career readiness, and
implementing high-quality assessments aligned with those standards. In
order to make the transition to such standards and assessments, States
will need support in: Developing, acquiring, disseminating, and
implementing high-quality curricular instructional materials and
assessments; developing or acquiring and delivering high-quality
professional development to support the transition to new standards,
assessments, and instructional materials; and engaging in other
strategies that align the standards and information from assessments
with classroom practices that meet the needs of all students, including
high-need students.
Statement of the Proposed Absolute Priority. Under proposed
absolute priority 3, the Department would provide funding for
practices, strategies, or programs that support States' efforts to
transition to college- and career-readiness standards and assessments,
including curricular and instructional practices, strategies, or
programs in core academic subjects that are aligned with high academic
content and achievement standards and with high-quality assessments
based on those standards. Proposals may include practices, strategies,
or programs that: (a) Increase the success of under-represented student
populations in academically rigorous courses and programs (such as
Advanced Placement or International Baccalaureate courses; dual
enrollment programs; early college high schools; and science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics courses, especially those that
incorporate rigorous and relevant project-, inquiry-, or design-based
contextual learning opportunities); (b) increase the development and
use of formative assessments or interim assessments, or other
performance-based tools and metrics that are aligned with student
content and academic achievement standards; or (c) translate the
standards and information from assessments into classroom practices
that meet the needs of all students, including high-need students.
Proposed Absolute Priority 4--Innovations That Turn Around Persistently
Low-Performing Schools
Background. Although there are noted examples of successful school
reform efforts, persistently low-performing schools (as defined in this
notice) continue to plague this country's system of public education
and fail to adequately educate our Nation's youth to succeed in a
global economy. It is imperative that we as a Nation serve our most
educationally needy schools in order to ensure that all students are
prepared for the challenges of the global economy.
Statement of the Proposed Absolute Priority. Under proposed
absolute priority 4, the Department would provide funding to support
strategies, practices, or programs that turn around persistently low-
performing schools through either whole-school reform or targeted
approaches to reform. Applicants addressing this priority must focus on
either:
(a) Whole-school reform, such as comprehensive interventions to
assist, augment, or replace persistently low-performing schools; or
(b) Targeted approaches to reform, including, but not limited to:
(1) Providing more time for students to learn core academic content by
expanding the school day, school week, or the school year, or by
increasing instructional time for core academic subjects during the day
and in the summer; (2) integrating student supports to address non-
academic barriers to student achievement; or (3) creating multiple
pathways for students to earn regular high school diplomas (e.g.,
transfer schools, awarding credit based on demonstrated evidence of
student competency, offering dual-enrollment options).
Proposed Competitive Preference Priorities
As stated previously, we are proposing four competitive preference
priorities that we may choose to apply to one or more of the three
types of
[[Page 52219]]
grants (Scale-up, Validation, and Development grants).
Proposed Competitive Preference Priority 5--Innovations for Improving
Early Learning Outcomes
Background. Research demonstrates the importance of efforts to
build early language and literacy skills, as well as skills with
numbers and spatial thinking, as a means of eliminating the differences
in student achievement or student growth that develop between children
from low-income families and children from middle-income families
during their school years.\5\ Investing in early learning programs to
prevent the development of these gaps in skills can reduce the need for
more costly and difficult interventions, including referrals to special
education, later on in a child's life.\6\ In addition, research
indicates that investments in young children can yield dramatic
economic benefits over the course of those children's lives in the form
of reduced incidence of crime and increased employment. This proposed
competitive preference priority aligns with the Department's efforts to
increase the quality of existing early learning programs and expand
access to high-quality early learning programs, particularly for
children from low-income families.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ National Research Council. 1998. Preventing Reading
Difficulties in Young Children.
\6\ Schweinhart, L.J. (2002, June). How the HighScope Perry
Preschool Study Grew: A Researcher's Tale. Phi Delta Kappa Center
for Evaluation, Development, and Research. (No. 32).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Statement of Proposed Competitive Preference Priority 5. We propose
to give competitive preference to proposals that include practices,
strategies, or programs to improve educational outcomes for high-need
students who are young children (birth through 3rd grade) by enhancing
the quality of early learning programs. Proposals must focus on (a)
improving young children's school readiness (including social,
emotional, and cognitive) so that children are prepared for success in
core academic subjects; (b) improving and aligning developmental
milestones and standards with appropriate outcome measures; and (c)
improving alignment, collaboration, and transitions between early
learning programs that serve children from birth to age three, in
preschools, and in kindergarten through third grade.
Proposed Competitive Preference Priority 6--Innovations That Support
College Access and Success
Background. One way to help meet the President's goal of restoring
the United States to first in the world in the percentage of citizens
holding college degrees is to increase the number of high school
students with access to college who are prepared to succeed in an
institution of higher education. Proposed competitive preference
priority 6 would fund practices, strategies, and programs that prepare
K-12 students for success in college.
Statement of Proposed Competitive Preference Priority 6. We propose
to give competitive preference to proposals for practices, strategies,
or programs that enable K-12 students, particularly high school
students, to successfully prepare for, enter, and graduate from a two-
or four-year college. Proposals must include practices, strategies, or
programs for K-12 students that address students' preparedness and
expectations related to college; help students understand issues of
college affordability and the financial aid and college application
processes; and provide support to students from peers and knowledgeable
adults.
Proposed Competitive Preference Priority 7--Innovations To Address the
Unique Learning Needs of Students With Disabilities and Limited English
Proficient Students
Background. One of the primary goals of the ESEA, as well as the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), is to improve the
quality of education for all students, including students with
disabilities and students who are limited English proficient. In
particular, the ESEA requires each State and LEA to work toward
narrowing achievement gaps and demonstrate high levels of progress for
these two groups of students. However, as evidenced by results on State
assessments under section 1111(b)(3) of the ESEA, schools often lack
appropriate and effective strategies to enable a greater share of
students with disabilities and limited English proficient students to
meet high standards.
Statement of Proposed Competitive Preference Priority 7. We propose
to give competitive preference to proposals that include innovative
strategies, practices, or programs to address the unique learning needs
of students with disabilities, or the linguistic and academic needs of
limited English proficient students. Proposals must focus on particular
practices, strategies, or programs that are designed to improve
academic outcomes and increase graduation rates for students with
disabilities or limited English proficient students.
Proposed Competitive Preference Priority 8--Innovations That Serve
Schools in Rural LEAs
Background. Solutions to educational challenges in rural areas
frequently differ from what works in urban and suburban communities.\7\
This proposed competitive preference priority recognizes the need to
bring education innovation and reform to all regions of the country,
including rural LEAs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Status of Education in Rural America. (2007). U.S.
Department of Education, National Center for Educational Statistics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Statement of Proposed Competitive Preference Priority 8. We propose
to give competitive preference to proposals that focus on the unique
challenges of high-need students in schools within a rural LEA (as
defined in this notice) and address the particular challenges faced by
students in these schools. Proposals must include practices,
strategies, or programs that improve student achievement or student
growth, close achievement gaps, decrease dropout rates, increase high
school graduation rates, or improve teacher and school leader
effectiveness in one or more rural LEAs.
Proposed Requirements
Background
The Investing in Innovation Fund would provide support to LEAs, and
nonprofit organizations that partner with one or more LEAs or a
consortium of schools that apply and successfully compete for a Scale-
up, Validation, or Development grant. What follows are the statutory
and proposed eligibility requirements for LEAs and nonprofit
organizations.
Proposed Requirements
The Secretary proposes the following requirements for the Investing
in Innovation Fund. We may apply these requirements in any year in
which this program is in effect.
Providing Innovations that Improve Achievement for High-Need
Students: All applicants must implement practices, strategies, or
programs for high-need students (as defined in this notice).
Eligible applicants: Entities eligible to apply for Investing in
Innovation Fund grants include: (a) an LEA or (b) a partnership between
a nonprofit organization and (1) one or more LEAs or (2) a consortium
of schools.
Eligibility requirements: \8\ To be eligible for an award, an
eligible
[[Page 52220]]
applicant must meet several statutory requirements and one additional
requirement. The requirements in paragraphs (1), (2), (3), and (4) that
follow are statutory; we are including them here for clarity. We are
requesting comment on the proposed requirement in paragraph (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ We note that at the time of publication of this notice, the
pending House and Senate appropriations bills would, if enacted,
make technical changes to provisions of the authorizing legislation
for this program. (See https://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/?&dbname=cp111&sid=cp111LTV8y&refer=&r_n=hr220.111&item=&sel=TOC_1120308&; and https://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/?&dbname=cp111&sid=cp111M6VRe&refer=&r_n=sr066.111&item=&sel=TOC_904504&). These changes would modify the eligibility requirements
currently set forth in section 14007(b)(2) and (c) by: (1) Making
minor alterations to the sections concerning the basis for awards
and the special eligibility rule, and (2) removing the reference to
State measurable annual achievement objectives. In addition to these
minor changes to the eligibility requirements, enactment of the
proposed legislation would authorize eligible entities that include
a partnership with a nonprofit organization, to make subgrants
within the partnership.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To be eligible for an award, an applicant must:
(1) Have significantly closed the achievement gaps between groups
of students described in section 1111(b)(2) of the ESEA (economically
disadvantaged students, students from major racial and ethnic groups,
students with limited English proficiency, students with disabilities);
(2) Have exceeded the State's annual measurable objectives
consistent with section 1111(b)(2) of the ESEA for two or more
consecutive years or have demonstrated success in significantly
increasing student achievement for all groups of students described in
that section through another measure, such as measures described in
section 1111(c)(2) of the ESEA (i.e., the National Assessment of
Educational Progress);
(3) Have made significant improvements in other areas, such as
graduation rates or increased recruitment and placement of high-quality
teachers and school leaders, as demonstrated with other meaningful
data;
(4) Demonstrate that they have established partnerships with the
private sector, which may include philanthropic organizations, and that
the private sector will provide matching funds in order to help bring
results to scale; and
(5) In the case of a nonprofit organization, provide in its
application the names of the LEAs with which it will partner, or the
names of the schools in the consortium with which it will partner. If a
nonprofit organization applicant intends to partner with additional
LEAs or schools that are not named in its application, it must describe
in its application the demographics and other characteristics of these
LEAs and schools and the process it will use to select them as
partners. An applicant must identify its specific partners before a
grant award will be made.
Note about LEA Eligibility: To be eligible for an award, an LEA
applicant must be located within one of the 50 States, the District
of Columbia, or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
Note about Eligibility for an Entity that Includes a Nonprofit
Organization: To be eligible for an award, the statute requires that
an application submitted by a nonprofit organization, in partnership
with one or more LEAs or a consortium of schools, be considered to
have met the eligibility requirements in paragraphs (1), (2), and
(3) described earlier in this notice, if the nonprofit organization
has a record of meeting those requirements. We are proposing that a
nonprofit organization applicant be considered to have met these
eligibility requirements through its record of work with an LEA.
Therefore, an applicant that is a nonprofit organization would not
necessarily need to select as a partner for its Investing in
Innovation Fund grant an LEA or a consortium of schools that meets
the eligibility requirements in paragraphs (1), (2), and (3)
described earlier. Rather, the nonprofit organization would have to
demonstrate that it has a record of meeting those requirements
through the assistance it has provided to one or more LEAs in the
past.
Funding Categories: An applicant must state in its application
whether it is applying for a Scale-up, Validation, or Development
grant. An applicant may not submit an application for the same proposed
project under more than one type of grant. An applicant will be
considered for an award only for the type of grant for which it
applies.
Cost Sharing or Matching: To be eligible for an award, an applicant
must demonstrate that it has established one or more partnerships with
an entity or organization in the private sector, which may include
philanthropic organizations, and that the entity or organization in the
private sector will provide matching funds in order to help bring
project results to scale. An applicant must obtain matching funds or
in-kind donations equal to at least 20 percent of its grant award. The
Secretary may consider decreasing the 20 percent matching requirement
in the most exceptional circumstances, on a case-by-case basis. An
applicant that anticipates being unable to meet the 20 percent matching
requirement must include in its application a request to the Secretary
to reduce the matching level requirement, along with a statement of the
basis for the request.
Evaluation: An applicant receiving funds under this program must
comply with the requirements of any evaluation of the program conducted
by the Department. In addition, an applicant is required to conduct an
independent evaluation (as defined in this notice) of its proposed
project and must agree, along with its independent evaluator, to
cooperate with any technical assistance provided by the Department or
its contractor. The purpose of this technical assistance would be to
ensure that the evaluations are of the highest quality and to encourage
commonality in evaluation approaches across funded projects where it is
feasible and useful to do so. Finally, an applicant receiving funds
under this program must make broadly 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
Participation in ``Communities of Practice'': Grantees will be
required to participate in, organize, or facilitate, as appropriate,
communities of practice for the Investing in Innovation Fund. A
community of practice is a group of grantees that agrees to interact
regularly to solve a persistent problem or improve practice in an area
that is important to them. Establishment of communities of practice
under the Investing in Innovation Fund will enable grantees to meet,
discuss, and collaborate with each other regarding grantee projects.
Proposed Definitions
Background
Several important terms associated with the Investing in Innovation
Fund are not defined in the ARRA.
Proposed Definitions
The Secretary proposes the following definitions for the Investing
in Innovation Fund.\9\ We may apply one or more of these definitions in
any year in which this program is in effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ In this notice, we use many of the same definitions that
were in the Race to the Top notice of proposed priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria (see https://www.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister/proprule/2009-3/072909d.html).
The comment period for the Race to the Top program is now closed,
and we are considering the comments on the definitions, as well as
other sections of that notice. In the final notice for the Investing
in Innovation Fund, we will align our definitions, as appropriate,
with those included in the final notice for the Race to the Top
program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Definitions Related to Evidence
Strong evidence means evidence from previous studies whose designs
can support causal conclusions (i.e., studies
[[Page 52221]]
with high internal validity), and studies that in total include enough
of the range of participants and settings to support scaling up to the
State, regional, or national level (i.e., studies with high external
validity). The following are examples of strong evidence: (1) More than
one well-designed and well-implemented experimental study (as defined
in this notice) or well-designed and well-implemented quasi-
experimental study (as defined in this notice) that supports the
effectiveness of the practice, strategy, or program; or (2) one large,
well-designed and well-implemented randomized controlled, multisite
trial that supports the effectiveness of the practice, strategy, or
program.
Moderate evidence means evidence from previous studies whose
designs can support causal conclusions (i.e., studies with high
internal validity) but have limited generalizability (i.e., moderate
external validity), or studies with high external validity but moderate
internal validity. The following would constitute moderate evidence:
(1) At least one well-designed and well-implemented experimental or
quasi-experimental study supporting the effectiveness of the practice
strategy, or program, with small sample sizes or other conditions of
implementation or analysis that limit generalizability; (2) at least
one well-designed and well-implemented experimental or quasi-
experimental study that does not demonstrate equivalence between the
intervention and comparison groups at program entry but that has no
other major flaws related to internal validity; or (3) correlational
research with strong statistical controls for selection bias and for
discerning the influence of internal factors.
Experimental study means a study that employs random assignment of
students, teachers, classrooms, or schools to participate in a project
being evaluated (treatment group) or not to participate in the project
(control group). The effect of the project is the difference in
outcomes between the treatment and control groups.
Quasi-experimental study means an evaluation design that attempts
to approximate an experimental design and can support causal
conclusions (i.e., minimizes threats to internal validity, such as
selection bias, or allows them to be modeled). Well-designed quasi-
experimental studies include carefully matched comparison group designs
(as defined in this notice), interrupted time series designs (as
defined in this notice), or regression discontinuity designs (as
defined in this notice).
Carefully matched comparison group design means a type of quasi-
experimental study that attempts to approximate an experimental study.
More specifically, it is a design in which project participants are
matched with non-participants based on key characteristics that are
thought to be related to the outcome. These characteristics include,
but are not limited to: (1) Prior test scores and other measures of
academic achievement (preferably, the same measures that the study will
use to evaluate outcomes for the two groups); (2) demographic
characteristics, such as age, disability, gender, English proficiency,
ethnicity, poverty level, parents' educational attainment, and single-
or two-parent family background; (3) the time period in which the two
groups are studied (e.g., the two groups are children entering
kindergarten in the same year as opposed to sequential years); and (4)
methods used to collect outcome data (e.g., the same test of reading
skills administered in the same way to both groups).
Interrupted time series design means a type of quasi-experimental
study in which the outcome of interest is measured multiple times
before and after the treatment for program participants only. If the
program had an impact, the outcomes after treatment will have a
different slope or level from those before treatment. That is, the
series should show an ``interruption'' of the prior situation at the
time when the program was implemented. Adding a nonequivalent control
group time series, such as schools not participating in the program or
schools participating in the program in a different geographic area,
increases the reliability of the findings.
Regression discontinuity design study means, in part, a quasi-
experimental study design that closely approximates an experimental
study. In a regression discontinuity design, participants are assigned
to a treatment or control group based on a numerical rating or score of
a variable unrelated to the treatment such as the rating of an
application for funding. Another example would be assignment of
eligible students, teachers, classrooms, or schools above a certain
score (``cut score'') to the treatment group and assignment of those
below the score to the control group.
Independent evaluation means that the evaluation is designed and
carried out independent of, but in coordination with, any employees of
the entities who develop a practice, strategy, or program and are
implementing it. This independence helps ensure the objectivity of an
evaluation and prevents even the appearance of a conflict of interest.
2. Other Definitions
Consortium of schools means two or more public elementary or
secondary schools acting collaboratively for the purpose of applying
for and implementing an Investing in Innovation Fund grant jointly with
an eligible nonprofit organization.
Nonprofit organization means an entity that meets the definition of
``nonprofit'' under 34 CFR 77.1(c), or an institution of higher
education as defined by section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of
1965, as amended.
Formative assessment means an assessment that is embedded in
instruction and is used by teachers to provide timely feedback on
student understanding and to adjust ongoing teaching and learning
effectively.
Interim assessment means an assessment given at regular and
specified intervals throughout the school year, and is designed to
evaluate students' knowledge and skills relative to a specific set of
academic standards, the results of which can be aggregated (e.g., by
course, grade level, school, or LEA) in order to inform teachers and
administrators at the student, classroom, school, and LEA levels.
Highly effective school leader means a principal or other school
leader whose students, overall and for each subgroup as described in
section 1111(b)(3)(C)(xiii) of the ESEA (i.e., economically
disadvantaged students, students from major racial and ethnic groups,
migrant students, students with disabilities, students with limited
English proficiency, student gender), demonstrate high rates (e.g.,
more than one grade level in an academic year) of student growth.
Applicants may supplement this definition as they see fit so long as
school leader effectiveness is judged, in significant measure, by
student growth.
Highly effective teacher means a teacher whose students achieve
high rates (e.g., more than one grade level in an academic year) of
student growth. Applicants may supplement this definition as they see
fit so long as teacher effectiveness is judged, in significant measure,
by student growth.
High-need student means a student at risk of educational failure,
or otherwise in need of special assistance and support, such as
students who are living in poverty, who are far below grade level, who
are over-age and under-credited, who have left school before receiving
a regular high school diploma, who are at risk of not graduating with a
regular high school diploma on time,
[[Page 52222]]
who are homeless, who are in foster care, who have been incarcerated,
who have disabilities, or who are limited English proficient.
Persistently low-performing schools means Title I schools in
corrective action or restructuring in the State and the secondary
schools (both middle and high schools) in the State that are equally as
low-achieving as these Title I schools and are eligible for, but do not
receive, Title I funds.
National level, as used in reference to a Scale-up grant, describes
a project that is able to be effective in a wide variety of communities
and student populations around the country, including rural and urban
areas, as well as with different groups of students described in
section 1111(b)(3)(C)(xiii) of the ESEA (i.e., economically
disadvantaged students, students from major racial and ethnic groups,
migrant students, students with disabilities, students with limited
English proficiency, student gender).
Regional level, as used in reference to a Scale-up or Validation
grant, describes a project that is able to serve a variety of
communities and student populations within a State or multiple States,
including rural and urban areas, as well as with different groups of
students described in section 1111(b)(3)(C)(xiii) of the ESEA (i.e.,
economically disadvantaged students, students from major racial and
ethnic groups, migrant students, students with disabilities, students
with limited English proficiency, student gender).
Rural LEA means an LEA that is eligible under the Small Rural
School Achievement (SRSA) program or the Rural and Low-Income School
(RLIS) program authorized under Title VI, Part B of the ESEA.
Applicants may determine whether a particular LEA is eligible for these
programs by referring to information on the following Department Web
sites. For the SRSA: https://www.ed.gov/programs/reapsrsa/eligible08/. For the RLIS: https://www.ed.gov/programs/reaprlisp/eligibility.html.
Student achievement means, at a minimum--
(a) For tested grades and subjects: A student's score on the
State's assessments under section 1111(b)(3) of the ESEA and may also
include other measures of learning, as appropriate, such as those
described in paragraph (b) of this definition.
(b) For non-tested grades and subjects: An alternative academic
measure of student learning and performance (e.g., performance on
interim assessments or on other classroom-based assessments; rates at
which students are on track to graduate from high school; percentage of
students enrolled and achieving at successful levels in Advanced
Placement, pre-Advanced Placement, International Baccalaureate, or
dual-enrollment courses).
Student growth means the change in student achievement data for an
individual student between two or more points in time. Growth may be
measured by a variety of approaches, but any approach used must be
statistically rigorous and based on student achievement data, and may
also include other measures of student learning in order to increase
the construct validity and generalizability of the information.
Proposed Selection Criteria
Background
The proposed selection criteria are intended to ensure that
applicants--regardless of grant type--can demonstrate that they have
the experience and capacity to expand or develop practices, strategies,
or programs that will have a positive impact on improving student
achievement or student growth, closing achievement gaps, decreasing
dropout rates, or increasing high school graduation rates.
Proposed Selection Criteria
The Secretary proposes the following selection criteria for
evaluating an application under the Investing in Innovation Fund. We
may apply one or more of these criteria in any year in which this
program is in effect. In the notice inviting applications or the
application package, or both, we will announce the maximum possible
points assigned to each criterion.
1. Scale-Up Grants
A. Need for the Project and Quality of the Project Design
(1) The Secretary considers the need for the project and quality of
the design of the proposed project.
(2) In determining the need for the project and quality of the
design of the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following
factors:
(a) The extent to which the proposed project represents an
exceptional approach to the priorities the applicant is seeking to meet
(i.e., addresses a largely unmet need, particularly for high-need
students, and is a practice, strategy, or program that has not already
been widely adopted).
(b) The extent to which the proposed project has a clear set of
goals and an explicit strategy (i.e., logic model), with actions that
are (i) aligned with the priorities the applicant is seeking to meet,
and (ii) expected to result in achieving the goals, objectives, and
outcomes of the proposed project.
B. Strength of Research, Significance of Effect, and Magnitude of
Effect
(1) The Secretary considers the strength of the existing research
evidence and the significance of effect in support of the proposed
project, as well as the magnitude of the effect on improving student
achievement or student growth, closing achievement gaps, decreasing
dropout rates, or increasing high school graduation rates. Applicants
may also demonstrate success through an intermediate variable that is
directly correlated with improving these outcomes, such as teacher or
school leader effectiveness, or improvements in school climate.
(2) In determining the strength of the existing research evidence
and the significance of effect to support the proposed project, as well
as the magnitude of the effect, the Secretary considers the following
factors:
(a) The extent to which the applicant demonstrates that there is
strong evidence that the proposed practice, strategy, or program will
have a statistically significant effect on improving student
achievement or student growth, closing achievement gaps, decreasing
dropout rates, or increasing high school graduation rates, and that the
effect will be substantial and important.
(b) The importance and magnitude of the effect expected to be
obtained by the proposed project, including the extent to which the
project will substantially and measurably improve student achievement
or student growth, close achievement gaps, decrease dropout rates, or
increase high school graduation rates. The evidence in support of the
importance and magnitude of the effect would be the research-based
evidence provided by the applicant to support the proposed project.
C. Experience of the Applicant
(1) The Secretary considers the experience of the applicant in
implementing the proposed project.
(2) In determining the experience of the applicant, the Secretary
considers the following factors:
(a) The past performance of the applicant in implementing large,
complex, and rapidly growing projects.
(b) The extent to which an applicant provides information and data
demonstrating that it has (or has supported an LEA in taking actions
that have)--
(i) Significantly closed the achievement gaps between groups of
[[Page 52223]]
students described in section 1111(b)(2) of the ESEA;
(ii) Exceeded the State's annual measurable objectives consistent
with section 1111(b)(2) of the ESEA for two or more consecutive years
or demonstrated success in significantly increasing student achievement
for all groups of students described in that section through another
measure, such as measures described in section 1111(c)(2) of the ESEA
(i.e., the National Assessment of Educational Progress); and
(iii) Made significant improvements in other areas, such as
graduation rates or increased recruitment and placement of high-quality
teachers and school leaders, as demonstrated with other meaningful
data.
D. Quality of the Project Evaluation
1. The Secretary considers the quality of the evaluation to be
conducted of the proposed project.
2. In determining the quality of the evaluation, the Secretary
considers the following factors:
(a) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will include an
experimental study or, if a well-designed experimental study of the
project cannot be conducted, the extent to which the methods of
evaluation will include a well-designed quasi-experimental study.
(b) The extent to which, for either an experimental study or quasi-
experimental study, the study will be conducted of the practice,
strategy, or program as implemented at scale.
(c) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will provide
high-quality implementation data and performance feedback, and permit
periodic assessment of progress toward achieving intended outcomes.
(d) The extent