Office of Innovation and Improvement; Overview Information: Investing in Innovation Fund; Notice Inviting Applications for New Awards for Fiscal Year (FY) 2010, 12072-12086 [2010-5139]
Download as PDF
12072
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Notices
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Office of Innovation and Improvement;
Overview Information: Investing in
Innovation Fund; Notice Inviting
Applications for New Awards for Fiscal
Year (FY) 2010
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
(CFDA) Numbers:
84.396A (Scale-up grants), 84.396B
(Validation grants), and 84.396C
(Development grants).
Dates:
Applications Available: March 12, 2010.
Deadline for Notice of Intent to Apply:
April 1, 2010.
Deadline for Transmittal of
Applications: May 11, 2010.
Dates of Pre-Application Workshops:
March 19, 2010, in Baltimore,
Maryland; March 24, 2010, in Denver,
Colorado; and March 30, 2010, in
Atlanta, Georgia.
Deadline for Intergovernmental Review:
July 12, 2010.
Full Text of Announcement
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES2
I. Funding Opportunity Description
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) local
educational agencies (LEAs), and (2)
nonprofit organizations in partnership
with (a) one or more LEAs or (b) a
consortium of schools. The purpose of
this program is to provide competitive
grants to applicants with a record of
improving student achievement and
attainment 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), closing achievement gaps,
decreasing dropout rates, increasing
high school graduation rates, or
increasing college enrollment and
completion rates.
These grants will (1) allow eligible
entities to expand and develop
innovative practices that 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)
support eligible entities in identifying
and documenting best practices that can
be shared and taken to scale based on
demonstrated success.
Under this program, the Department
is awarding three types of grants: ‘‘Scaleup’’ grants, ‘‘Validation’’ grants, and
‘‘Development’’ grants. Applicants must
specify which type of grant they are
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:37 Mar 11, 2010
Jkt 220001
seeking at the time of application.
Among the three grant types, there are
differences in terms of the evidence that
an applicant is 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
is eligible to receive. The following is an
overview of the three types of grants:
(1) Scale-up grants 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, increasing high school graduation
rates, or increasing college enrollment
and completion rates, and that the effect
of implementing the proposed practice,
strategy, or program will be substantial
and important. An applicant for a Scaleup grant may also demonstrate success
through an intermediate variable
strongly correlated with these outcomes,
such as teacher or principal
effectiveness.
An applicant for a Scale-up grant
must 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, an
applicant for a Scale-up grant must
provide evidence of its capacity (e.g., in
terms of qualified personnel, financial
resources, or management capacity) to
scale up to a State, regional, or national
level, working directly or through
partners either during or following the
grant period. We recognize that LEAs
are not typically responsible for taking
to scale their practices, strategies, or
programs in other LEAs and States.
However, all applicants, including
LEAs, can and should partner with
others (e.g., State educational agencies)
to disseminate and take to scale their
effective practices, strategies, and
programs.
Peer reviewers will review all eligible
Scale-up grant applications. However, if
an application does not meet the
definition of strong evidence in this
notice, the Department will not consider
the application for funding.
Successful applicants for Scale-up
grants will receive more funding than
successful applicants for Validation or
Development grants.
(2) Validation grants 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
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
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, increasing high school graduation
rates, or increasing college enrollment
and completion rates and that, with
further study, the effect of implementing
the proposed practice, strategy, or
program may prove to be substantial
and important. Thus, applications for
Validation grants do not need to have
the same level of research evidence to
support the proposed project as is
required for Scale-up grants. An
applicant may also demonstrate success
through an intermediate variable
strongly correlated with these outcomes,
such as teacher or principal
effectiveness.
An applicant for a Validation grant
must 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, an
applicant for a Validation grant must
provide evidence of its capacity (e.g., in
terms of qualified personnel, financial
resources, or management capacity) to
scale up to a State or regional level,
working directly or through partners
either during or following the grant
period. As noted earlier, we recognize
that LEAs are not typically responsible
for taking to scale their practices,
strategies, or programs in other LEAs
and States. However, all applicants,
including LEAs, can and should partner
with others to disseminate and take to
scale their effective practices, strategies,
and programs.
Peer reviewers will review all eligible
Validation grant applications. However,
if an application does not meet the
definition of moderate evidence in this
notice, the Department will not consider
the application for funding.
Successful applicants for Validation
grants will receive more funding than
successful applicants for Development
grants.
(3) Development grants provide
funding to support high-potential and
relatively untested practices, strategies,
or programs whose efficacy should be
systematically studied. An applicant
must 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
E:\FR\FM\12MRN2.SGM
12MRN2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Notices
hypotheses, including related research
or theories in education and other
sectors. Thus, applications for
Development grants do not need to
provide the same level of evidence to
support the proposed project as is
required for Validation or Scale-up
grants.
An applicant for a Development grant
must estimate the number of students to
be served by the project, and provide
evidence of the applicant’s 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, or management capacity) to
further develop and bring the project to
a larger scale directly or through
partners either during or following the
grant period. As noted earlier, we
recognize that LEAs are not typically
responsible for taking to scale their
practices, strategies, or programs. Again,
however, all applicants can and should
partner with others to disseminate and
take to scale their effective practices,
strategies, and programs.
Peer reviewers will review all eligible
Development grant applications.
However, if an application is not
supported by a reasonable hypothesis
for the proposed project, the Department
will not consider the application for
funding.
Priorities: These priorities are from
the notice of final priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection
criteria (NFP) for this program,
published elsewhere in this issue of the
Federal Register. This notice contains
four absolute priorities and four
competitive preference priorities that
are explained in the following
paragraphs.
Absolute Priorities: For FY 2010 and
any subsequent year in which we make
awards from the list of unfunded
applicants from this competition, these
priorities are absolute priorities. Under
34 CFR 75.105(c)(3) we consider only
applications that address one of these
priorities.
Applicants for all types of grants must
choose one of the four absolute
priorities and address that priority in its
application. Applicants will address the
selected absolute priority in the project
narrative by addressing the Selection
Criteria.
These priorities are:
Absolute Priority 1—Innovations That
Support Effective Teachers and
Principals
Under this priority, the Department
provides funding to support practices,
strategies, or programs that are designed
to increase the number or percentages of
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:37 Mar 11, 2010
Jkt 220001
teachers or principals who are highly
effective teachers or principals or
reduce the number or percentages of
teachers or principals who are
ineffective, especially for teachers of
high-need students, by identifying,
recruiting, developing, placing,
rewarding, and retaining highly
effective teachers or principals (or
removing ineffective teachers or
principals). In such initiatives, teacher
or principal effectiveness should be
determined through an evaluation
system that is rigorous, transparent, and
fair; performance should be
differentiated using multiple rating
categories of effectiveness; multiple
measures of 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 and principal
involvement.
Absolute Priority 2—Innovations That
Improve the Use of Data
Under this priority, the Department
provides funding to support strategies,
practices, or programs that are designed
to (a) 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 and improve student
achievement, student growth, or
teacher, principal, school, or LEA
performance and productivity; or (b)
enable data aggregation, analysis, and
research. Where LEAs and schools are
required to do so under the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act of 1965,
as amended (ESEA), these data must be
disaggregated using the student
subgroups 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
limited English proficiency, students
with disabilities, and student gender).
Absolute Priority 3—Innovations That
Complement the Implementation of
High Standards and High-Quality
Assessments
Under this priority, the Department
provides funding for practices,
strategies, or programs that are designed
to support States’ efforts to transition to
standards and assessments that measure
students’ progress toward college- and
career-readiness, including curricular
and instructional practices, strategies, or
programs in core academic subjects (as
defined in section 9101(11) of the ESEA)
that are aligned with high academic
content and achievement standards and
with high-quality assessments based on
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
12073
those standards.1 Proposed projects may
include, but are not limited to,
practices, strategies, or programs that
are designed to: (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 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 high
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.
Under this priority, an eligible
applicant must propose a project that is
based on standards that are at least as
rigorous as its State’s standards. If the
proposed project is based on standards
other than those adopted by the eligible
applicant’s State, the applicant must
explain how the standards are aligned
with and at least as rigorous as the
eligible applicant’s State’s standards as
well as how the standards differ.
Absolute Priority 4—Innovations That
Turn Around Persistently LowPerforming Schools
Under this priority, the Department
provides funding to support strategies,
practices, or programs that are designed
to turn around schools that are in any
of the following categories: (a)
Persistently lowest-achieving schools
(as defined in the final requirements for
the School Improvement Grants
program) 2; (b) Title I schools that are in
1 Consistent with the Race to the Top Fund, the
Department interprets the core academic subject of
‘‘science’’ under section 9101(11) to include STEM
education (science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics) which encompasses a wide range of
disciplines, including science.
2 Under the final requirements for the School
Improvement Grants program, ‘‘persistently lowestachieving schools’’ means, as determined by the
State, (a)(1) any Title I school in improvement,
corrective action, or restructuring that (i) is among
the lowest-achieving five percent of Title I schools
in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring
or the lowest-achieving five Title I schools in
improvement, corrective action, or restructuring in
the State, whichever number of schools is greater;
or (ii) is a high school that has had a graduation
rate as defined in 34 CFR 200.19(b) that is less than
60 percent over a number of years; and (2) any
secondary school that is eligible for, but does not
receive, Title I funds that (i) is among the lowest-
E:\FR\FM\12MRN2.SGM
Continued
12MRN2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES2
12074
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Notices
corrective action or restructuring under
section 1116 of the ESEA; or (c)
secondary schools (both middle and
high schools) eligible for but not
receiving Title I funds that, if receiving
Title I funds, would be in corrective
action or restructuring under section
1116 of the ESEA. These schools are
referred to as Investing in Innovation
Fund Absolute Priority 4 schools.
Proposed projects must include
strategies, practices, or programs that
are designed to turn around Investing in
Innovation Fund Absolute Priority 4
schools through either whole-school
reform or targeted approaches to reform.
Applicants addressing this priority must
focus on either:
(a) Whole-school reform, including,
but not limited to, comprehensive
interventions to assist, augment, or
replace Investing in Innovation Fund
Absolute Priority 4 schools, including
the school turnaround, restart, closure,
and transformation models of
intervention supported under the
Department’s School Improvement
Grants program (see Final Requirements
for School Improvement Grants as
Amended in January 2010 (January 28,
2010) at https://www2.ed.gov/programs/
sif/faq.html); or
(b) Targeted approaches to reform,
including, but not limited to: (1)
Providing more time for students to
learn core academic content by
expanding or augmenting the school
day, school week, or school year, or by
increasing instructional time for core
academic subjects (as defined in section
9101(11) of the ESEA); (2) integrating
‘‘student supports’’ into the school
model to address non-academic barriers
to student achievement; or (3) creating
multiple pathways for students to earn
regular high school diplomas (e.g., by
operating schools that serve the needs of
over-aged, under-credited, or other
students with an exceptional need for
support and flexibility pertaining to
when they attend school; awarding
credit based on demonstrated evidence
of student competency; and offering
dual-enrollment options).
Competitive Preference Priorities: For
FY 2010 and any subsequent year in
which we make awards from the list of
unfunded applicants from this
competition, these priorities are
competitive preference priorities.
Applicants for all types of grants may
achieving five percent of secondary schools or the
lowest-achieving five secondary schools in the State
that are eligible for, but do not receive, Title I funds,
whichever number of schools is greater; or (ii) is a
high school that has had a graduation rate as
defined in 34 CFR 200.19(b) that is less than 60
percent over a number of years. See https://
www2.ed.gov/programs/sif/faq.html.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:37 Mar 11, 2010
Jkt 220001
choose to address one or more of the
four competitive preference priorities.
Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i) we will
award points as ’’all or nothing’’ (i.e.,
one point or zero points) to competitive
preference priorities 5, 6, and 7 and up
to two points to competitive preference
priority 8, depending on how well the
application addresses the priority.
These priorities are:
Competitive Preference Priority 5—
Innovations for Improving Early
Learning Outcomes (Zero or One Point)
We give competitive preference to
applications for projects that would
implement innovative practices,
strategies, or programs that are designed
to improve educational outcomes for
high-need students who are young
children (birth through 3rd grade) by
enhancing the quality of early learning
programs. To meet this priority,
applications must focus on (a)
improving young children’s school
readiness (including social, emotional,
and cognitive readiness) so that children
are prepared for success in core
academic subjects (as defined in section
9101(11) of the ESEA); (b) improving
developmental milestones and
standards and aligning them 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.
Competitive Preference Priority 6—
Innovations That Support College
Access and Success (Zero or One Point)
We give competitive preference to
applications for projects that would
implement innovative practices,
strategies, or programs that are designed
to enable kindergarten through grade 12
(K–12) students, particularly high
school students, to successfully prepare
for, enter, and graduate from a two- or
four-year college. To meet this priority,
applications must include practices,
strategies, or programs for K–12
students that (a) address students’
preparedness and expectations related
to college; (b) help students understand
issues of college affordability and the
financial aid and college application
processes; and (c) provide support to
students from peers and knowledgeable
adults.
Competitive Preference Priority 7—
Innovations To Address the Unique
Learning Needs of Students With
Disabilities and Limited English
Proficient Students (Zero or One Point)
We give competitive preference to
applications for projects that would
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
implement innovative practices,
strategies, or programs that are designed
to address the unique learning needs of
students with disabilities, including
those who are assessed based on
alternate academic achievement
standards, or the linguistic and
academic needs of limited English
proficient students. To meet this
priority, applications must provide for
the implementation of particular
practices, strategies, or programs that
are designed to improve academic
outcomes, close achievement gaps, and
increase college- and career-readiness,
including increasing high school
graduation rates (as defined in this
notice), for students with disabilities or
limited English proficient students.
Competitive Preference Priority 8—
Innovations That Serve Schools in Rural
LEAs (Up to Two Points)
We give competitive preference to
applications for projects that would
implement innovative practices,
strategies, or programs that are designed
to 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. To meet
this priority, applications must include
practices, strategies, or programs that
are designed to improve student
achievement or student growth, close
achievement gaps, decrease dropout
rates, increase high school graduation
rates, or improve teacher and principal
effectiveness in one or more rural LEAs.
Definitions:
The Secretary establishes the
following definitions for the Investing in
Innovation Fund. We may apply these
definitions in any year in which this
program is in effect.
Definitions Related to Evidence
Strong evidence means evidence from
previous studies whose designs can
support causal conclusions (i.e., studies
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 (as defined in this notice)
experimental study (as defined in this
notice) or well-designed and wellimplemented (as defined in this notice)
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 (as defined in
this notice) randomized controlled,
E:\FR\FM\12MRN2.SGM
12MRN2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Notices
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 (as defined in this notice)
experimental or quasi-experimental
study (as defined in this notice)
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 welldesigned and well-implemented (as
defined in this notice) experimental or
quasi-experimental study (as defined in
this notice) 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.
Well-designed and well-implemented
means, with respect to an experimental
or quasi-experimental study (as defined
in this notice), that the study meets the
What Works Clearinghouse evidence
standards, with or without reservations
(see https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/
references/idocviewer/
doc.aspx?docid=19&tocid=1 and in
particular the description of ‘‘Reasons
for Not Meeting Standards’’ at https://
ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/references/
idocviewer/
Doc.aspx?docId=19&tocId=4#reasons).
Experimental study means a study
that employs random assignment of, for
example, students, teachers, classrooms,
schools, or districts 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 average 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
17:37 Mar 11, 2010
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 3 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
comparison group time series, such as
schools not participating in the program
or schools participating in the program
in a different geographic area,
substantially 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
3 A single subject or single case design is an
adaptation of an interrupted time series design that
relies on the comparison of treatment effects on a
single subject or group of single subjects. There is
little confidence that findings based on this design
would be the same for other members of the
population. In some single subject designs,
treatment reversal or multiple baseline designs are
used to increase internal validity. In a treatment
reversal design, after a pretreatment or baseline
outcome measurement is compared with a post
treatment measure, the treatment would then be
stopped for a period of time, a second baseline
measure of the outcome would be taken, followed
by a second application of the treatment or a
different treatment. A multiple baseline design
addresses concerns about the effects of normal
development, timing of the treatment, and amount
of the treatment with treatment-reversal designs by
using a varying time schedule for introduction of
the treatment and/or treatments of different lengths
or intensity.
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
12075
discontinuity design, participants are
assigned to a treatment or comparison
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 comparison 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.
Other Definitions
Applicant means the entity that
applies for a grant under this program
on behalf of an eligible applicant (i.e.,
an LEA or a partnership in accordance
with section 14007(a)(1)(B) of the
ARRA).
Official partner means any of the
entities required to be part of a
partnership under section 14007(a)(1)(B)
of the ARRA.
Other partner means any entity, other
than the applicant and any official
partner, that may be involved in a
proposed project.
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
assessment questions, tools, and
processes that are embedded in
instruction and are used by teachers and
students to provide timely feedback for
purposes of adjusting instruction to
improve learning.
Interim assessment means an
assessment that is given at regular and
specified intervals throughout the
school year, is designed to evaluate
students’ knowledge and skills relative
to a specific set of academic standards,
and produces results that can be
aggregated (e.g., by course, grade level,
school, or LEA) in order to inform
teachers and administrators at the
E:\FR\FM\12MRN2.SGM
12MRN2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES2
12076
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Notices
student, classroom, school, and LEA
levels.
Highly effective principal means a
principal 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, and
students of each gender), achieve high
rates (e.g., one and one-half grade levels
in an academic year) of student growth.
Eligible applicants may include
multiple measures, provided that
principal effectiveness is evaluated, in
significant part, based on student
growth. Supplemental measures may
include, for example, high school
graduation rates; college enrollment
rates; evidence of providing supportive
teaching and learning conditions,
support for ensuring effective
instruction across subject areas for a
well-rounded education, strong
instructional leadership, and positive
family and community engagement; or
evidence of attracting, developing, and
retaining high numbers of effective
teachers.
Highly effective teacher means a
teacher whose students achieve high
rates (e.g., one and one-half grade levels
in an academic year) of student growth.
Eligible applicants may include
multiple measures, provided that
teacher effectiveness is evaluated, in
significant part, based on student
growth. Supplemental measures may
include, for example, multiple
observation-based assessments of
teacher performance or evidence of
leadership roles (which may include
mentoring or leading professional
learning communities) that increase the
effectiveness of other teachers in the
school or LEA.
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 attend high-minority
schools, 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, who are
homeless, who are in foster care, who
have been incarcerated, who have
disabilities, or who are limited English
proficient.
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 the different
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:37 Mar 11, 2010
Jkt 220001
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, and students of
each 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 the 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, and students of each
gender). To be considered a regionallevel project, a project must serve
students in more than one LEA. The
exception to this requirement would be
a project implemented in a State in
which the State educational agency is
the sole educational agency for all
schools and thus may be considered an
LEA under section 9101(26) of the
ESEA. Such a State would meet the
definition of regional for the purposes of
this notice.
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. Eligible 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/
eligible09/. For the RLIS:
https://www.ed.gov/programs/reaprlisp/
eligibility.html.
Student achievement means—
(a) For tested grades and subjects: (1)
A student’s score on the State’s
assessments under section 1111(b)(3) of
the ESEA; and, as appropriate, (2) other
measures of student learning, such as
those described in paragraph (b) of this
definition, provided they are rigorous
and comparable across classrooms; and
(b) For non-tested grades and subjects:
alternative measures of student learning
and performance such as student scores
on pre-tests and end-of-course tests;
student performance on English
language proficiency assessments; and
other measures of student achievement
that are rigorous and comparable across
classrooms.
Student growth means the change in
student achievement data for an
individual student between two or more
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
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.
High school graduation rate means a
four-year adjusted cohort graduation
rate consistent with 34 CFR 200.19(b)(1)
and may also include an extended-year
adjusted cohort graduation rate
consistent with 34 CFR 200.19(b)(1)(v) if
the State in which the proposed project
is implemented has been approved by
the Secretary to use such a rate under
Title I of the ESEA.
Regular high school diploma means,
consistent with 34 CFR 200.19(b)(1)(iv),
the standard high school diploma that is
awarded to students in the State and
that is fully aligned with the State’s
academic content standards or a higher
diploma and does not include a General
Education Development (GED)
credential, certificate of attendance, or
any alternative award.
Program Authority: Section 14007 of
title XIV of the ARRA, Pub. L. 111–5 as
amended by section 307 of division D of
Pub. L. 111–117 (H.R. 3288), the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010.
Applicable Regulations: (a) The
Education Department General
Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) in
34 CFR parts 74, 75, 77, 79, 80, 81, 82,
84, 85, 86, 97, 98, and 99.
(b) The notice of final priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection
criteria (NFP) for this program,
published elsewhere in this issue of the
Federal Register.
Note: The regulations in 34 CFR part 79
apply to all applicants except federally
recognized Indian tribes.
Note: The regulations in 34 CFR part 86
apply to institutions of higher education
only.
II. Award Information
Types of Award: Cooperative
agreements (for Scale-up grants) and
discretionary grants (for Validation
grants and Development grants).
Estimated Available Funds:
$643,500,000.
Contingent upon the availability of
funds and the quality of applications,
we may make additional awards in FY
2011 from the list of unfunded
applicants from this competition.
Estimated Range of Awards:
Scale-up grants: Up to $50,000,000.
Validation grants: Up to $30,000,000.
Development grants: Up to
$5,000,000.
E:\FR\FM\12MRN2.SGM
12MRN2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Notices
Estimated Average Size of Awards:
Scale-up grants: $40,000,000.
Validation grants: $17,500,000.
Development grants: $3,000,000.
Estimated Number of Awards:
Scale-up grants: Up to 5 awards.
Validation grants: Up to 100 awards.
Development grants: Up to 100
awards.
Note: The Department is not bound by any
estimates in this notice.
Project Period: 36–60 months.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES2
III. Eligibility Information and Program
Requirements
The Secretary establishes 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 eligible 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. An
eligible applicant that is a partnership
applying under section 14007(a)(1)(B) of
the ARRA must designate one of its
official partners (as defined in this
notice) to serve as the applicant in
accordance with the Department’s
regulations governing group
applications in 34 CFR 75.127 through
75.129.
• Eligibility Requirements: To be
eligible for an award, an eligible
applicant must—except as specifically
set forth in the Note About Eligibility for
an Eligible Applicant That Includes a
Nonprofit Organization that follows:
(1)(A) 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); or
(B) Have demonstrated success in
significantly increasing student
academic achievement for all groups of
students described in that section;
(2) Have made significant
improvements in other areas, such as
graduation rates or increased
recruitment and placement of highquality teachers and principals, as
demonstrated with meaningful data;
(3) Demonstrate that it has established
one or more partnerships with the
private sector, which may include
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:37 Mar 11, 2010
Jkt 220001
philanthropic organizations, and that
the private sector will provide matching
funds in order to help bring results to
scale; and
(4) In the case of an eligible applicant
that includes a nonprofit organization,
provide in the application the names of
the LEAs with which the nonprofit
organization will partner, or the names
of the schools in the consortium with
which it will partner. If an eligible
applicant that includes a nonprofit
organization intends to partner with
additional LEAs or schools that are not
named in the application, it must
describe in the application the
demographic and other characteristics
of these LEAs and schools and the
process it will use to select them as
either official or other partners. An
applicant must identify its specific
partners before a grant award will be
made.
Note About LEA Eligibility: For purposes
of this program, an LEA is an LEA located
within one of the 50 States, the District of
Columbia, or the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico.
Note about Eligibility for an Eligible
Applicant that Includes a Nonprofit
Organization: The authorizing statute (as
amended) specifies that an eligible applicant
that includes a nonprofit organization is
considered to have met the requirements in
paragraphs (1) and (2) of the eligibility
requirements for this program if the nonprofit
organization has a record of significantly
improving student achievement, attainment,
or retention. For an eligible applicant that
includes a nonprofit organization, the
nonprofit organization must demonstrate that
it has a record of significantly improving
student achievement, attainment, or retention
through its record of work with an LEA or
schools. Therefore, an eligible applicant that
includes a nonprofit organization does not
necessarily need to include as a partner for
its Investing in Innovation Fund grant an
LEA or a consortium of schools that meets
the requirements in paragraphs (1) and (2).
In addition, the authorizing statute (as
amended) specifies that an eligible
applicant that includes a nonprofit
organization is considered to have met
the requirements of paragraph (3) of the
eligibility requirements for this program
if the eligible applicant demonstrates
that it will meet the requirement
relating to private-sector matching.
• Evidence Standards: To be eligible
for an award, an application for a Scaleup grant must be supported by strong
evidence (as defined in this notice), an
application for a Validation grant must
be supported by moderate evidence (as
defined in this notice), and an
application for a Development grant
must be supported by a reasonable
hypothesis.
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
12077
• 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 eligible
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 eligible applicant must obtain
matching funds or in-kind donations
equal to at least 20 percent of its grant
award. Selected eligible applicants must
submit evidence of the full 20 percent
private-sector matching funds following
the peer review of applications. An
award will not be made unless the
applicant provides adequate evidence
that the full 20 percent private-sector
match has been committed or the
Secretary approves the eligible
applicant’s request to reduce the
matching-level requirement.
The Secretary may consider
decreasing the 20 percent matching
requirement in the most exceptional
circumstances, on a case-by-case basis.
An eligible applicant that anticipates
being unable to meet the 20 percent
matching requirement must include in
the application a request to the
Secretary to reduce the matching-level
requirement, along with a statement of
the basis for the request.
• Subgrants: In the case of an eligible
applicant that is a partnership between
a nonprofit organization and (1) one or
more LEAs or (2) a consortium of
schools, the partner serving as the
applicant may make subgrants to one or
more official partners (as defined in this
notice).
• Limits on Grant Awards: No grantee
may receive more than two grant awards
under this program. In addition, no
grantee may receive more than $55
million in grant awards under this
program in a single year’s competition.
• Evaluation: A grantee must comply
with the requirements of any evaluation
of the program conducted by the
Department. In addition, the grantee is
required to conduct an independent
evaluation (as defined in this notice) of
its 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 will
E:\FR\FM\12MRN2.SGM
12MRN2
12078
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Notices
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES2
be to ensure that the evaluations are of
the highest quality and to encourage
commonality in evaluation approaches
across funded projects where such
commonality is feasible and useful.
Finally, the grantee must make broadly
available through formal (e.g., peerreviewed journals) or informal (e.g.,
newsletters) mechanisms, and in print
or electronically, the results of any
evaluations it conducts of its funded
activities. For Scale-up and Validation
grants, the grantee must also ensure the
data from their evaluations are made
available to third-party researchers
consistent with applicable privacy
requirements.
• Participation in ‘‘Communities of
Practice’’: Grantees are 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.
IV. Application and Submission
Information
1. Submission of Proprietary
Information:
Given the types of projects that may
be proposed in applications for the
Investing in Innovation Fund, some
applications may include proprietary
information as it relates to confidential
commercial information. Confidential
commercial information is defined as
information the disclosure of which
could reasonably be expected to cause
substantial competitive harm. Upon
submission, applicants should identify
any information contained in their
application that they consider to be
confidential commercial information.
Doing so will assist the Department in
making any future determination
regarding public release of the
application. Applicants are encouraged
to identify only the specific information
that the applicant considers to be
proprietary and list the page numbers
on which this information can be found
in the appropriate Appendix section of
their application. In addition to
identifying the page number on which
that information can be found, eligible
applicants will assist the Department in
making determinations on public
release of the application by being as
specific as possible in identifying the
information they consider proprietary.
Please note that, in many instances,
identification of entire pages of
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:37 Mar 11, 2010
Jkt 220001
documentation would not be
appropriate.
2. Address to Request Application
Package:
ED Pubs, U.S. Department of
Education, P.O. Box 22207, Alexandria,
VA 22304. Telephone, toll free: 1–877–
433–7827. FAX: (703) 605–6794. If you
use a telecommunications device for the
deaf (TDD), call, toll free: 1–877–576–
7734.
You can contact ED Pubs at its Web
site, also: https://www.EDPubs.ed.gov or
at its e-mail address:
edpubs@inet.ed.gov.
If you request an application package
from ED Pubs, be sure to identify this
program or competition as follows:
CFDA numbers 84.396A, 84.396B, or
84.396C.
Also, you can download the
application package at the i3 Web site:
https://www2.ed.gov/programs/
innovation/.
Individuals with disabilities can
obtain a copy of the application package
in an accessible format (e.g., braille,
large print, audiotape, or computer
diskette) by calling the program contact
number or by writing to the e-mail
address listed under Accessible Format
in section VIII of this notice.
3. Content and Form of Application
Submission: Requirements concerning
the content of an application, together
with the forms you must submit, are in
the application package for this
competition.
Notice of Intent to Apply: April 1,
2010.
We will be able to develop a more
efficient process for reviewing grant
applications if we understand the
number of applicants that intend to
apply for funding under this
competition. Therefore, the Secretary
strongly encourages each potential
applicant to notify us of the applicant’s
intent to submit an application for
funding by sending a short e-mail
message. This short e-mail should
provide (1) the applicant organization’s
name and address, (2) the type of grant
for which the applicant intends to
apply, (3) the one absolute priority the
applicant intends to address, and (4) all
competitive preference priorities the
applicant intends to address. The
Secretary requests that this e-mail be
sent to i3intent@ed.gov with ‘‘Intent to
Apply’’ in the e-mail subject line.
Applicants that do not provide this email notification may still apply for
funding.
Page Limit: The application narrative
(Part III of the application) is where you,
the applicant, address the selection
criteria that reviewers use to evaluate
your application. Applicants are
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
strongly encouraged to limit the
application narrative (Part III) to not
more than the following page limits:
Scale-up grants—50 pages, Validation
grants—35 pages, and Development
grants—25 pages. Applicants are also
strongly encouraged not to include
lengthy appendices that contain
information that could not be included
in the narrative. Applications should
use the following standards:
• A ‘‘page’’ is 8.5″ x 11″, on one side
only, with 1″ margins at the top, bottom,
and both sides.
• Double space (no more than three
lines per vertical inch) all text in the
application narrative, including titles,
headings, footnotes, quotations,
references, and captions, as well as all
text in charts, tables, figures, and
graphs.
• Use a font that is either 12 point or
larger or no smaller than 10 pitch
(characters per inch).
• Use one of the following fonts:
Times New Roman, Courier, Courier
New, or Arial. An application submitted
in any other font (including Times
Roman or Arial Narrow) will not be
accepted.
The suggested page limit does not
apply to Part I, the cover sheet; Part II,
the budget section, including the
narrative budget justification; Part IV,
the assurances and certifications; or the
one-page abstract, the resumes, the
bibliography, or the letters of support.
However, the suggested page limit does
apply to all of the application narrative
section [Part III].
4. Submission Dates and Times:
Applications Available: March 12,
2010.
Deadline for Notice of Intent to
Apply: April 1, 2010.
Deadline for Transmittal of
Applications: May 11, 2010.
Dates of Pre-Application Workshops:
March 19, 2010, in Baltimore, Maryland;
March 24, 2010, in Denver, Colorado;
and March 30, 2010, in Atlanta, Georgia.
These pre-application workshops are
designed to provide technical assistance
to interested applicants for all three
types of grants. Detailed information
regarding the pre-application workshop
locations and times, along with the online registration form, can be found on
the Investing in Innovation Fund
website at https://www2.ed.gov/
programs/innovation/.
Applications for grants under this
competition must be submitted
electronically using the Electronic Grant
Application System (e-Application)
accessible through the Department’s eGrants site. For information (including
dates and times) about how to submit
your application electronically, or in
E:\FR\FM\12MRN2.SGM
12MRN2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Notices
paper format by mail or hand delivery
if you qualify for an exception to the
electronic submission requirement,
please refer to section IV.7. Other
Submission Requirements of this notice.
We do not consider an application
that does not comply with the deadline
requirements.
Individuals with disabilities who
need an accommodation or auxiliary aid
in connection with the application
process should call the program contact
number or write to the e-mail address
listed under For Further Information
Contact in section VII of this notice. If
the Department provides an
accommodation or auxiliary aid to an
individual with a disability in
connection with the application
process, the individual’s application
remains subject to all other
requirements and limitations in this
notice.
Deadline for Intergovernmental
Review: July 12, 2010.
5. Intergovernmental Review: This
competition is subject to Executive
Order 12372 and the regulations in 34
CFR part 79. Information about
Intergovernmental Review of Federal
Programs under Executive Order 12372
is in the application package for this
competition.
6. Funding Restrictions: We reference
regulations outlining funding
restrictions in the Applicable
Regulations section of this notice.
7. Other Submission Requirements:
Applications for grants under this
program competition must be submitted
electronically unless you qualify for an
exception to this requirement in
accordance with the instructions in this
section.
a. Electronic Submission of
Applications.
Applications for grants under the
Investing in Innovation Fund—CFDA
Numbers 84.396A, 84.396B, and
84.396C must be submitted
electronically using e-Application,
accessible through the Department’s eGrants Web site at:
https://e-grants.ed.gov.
We will reject your application if you
submit it in paper format unless, as
described elsewhere in this section, you
qualify for one of the exceptions to the
electronic submission requirement and
submit, no later than two weeks before
the application deadline date, a written
statement to the Department that you
qualify for one of these exceptions.
Further information regarding
calculation of the date that is two weeks
before the application deadline date is
provided later in this section under
Exception to Electronic Submission
Requirement.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:37 Mar 11, 2010
Jkt 220001
While completing your electronic
application, you will be entering data
online that will be saved into a
database. You may not e-mail an
electronic copy of a grant application to
us.
Please note the following:
• You must complete the electronic
submission of your grant application by
4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the
application deadline date.
E-Application will not accept an
application for this competition after
4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the
application deadline date. Therefore, we
strongly recommend that you do not
wait until the application deadline date
to begin the application process.
• The hours of operation of the eGrants Web site are 6 a.m. Monday until
7 p.m. Wednesday; and 6 a.m. Thursday
until 8 p.m. Sunday, Washington, DC
time. Please note that, because of
maintenance, the system is unavailable
between 8 p.m. on Sundays and 6 a.m.
on Mondays, and between 7 p.m. on
Wednesdays and 6 a.m. on Thursdays,
Washington, DC time. Any
modifications to these hours are posted
on the e-Grants Web site.
• You will not receive additional
point value because you submit your
application in electronic format, nor
will we penalize you if you qualify for
an exception to the electronic
submission requirement, as described
elsewhere in this section, and submit
your application in paper format.
• You must submit all documents
electronically, including all information
you typically provide on the following
forms: The Application for Federal
Assistance (SF 424), the Department of
Education Supplemental Information for
SF 424, Budget Information—NonConstruction Programs (ED 524), and all
necessary assurances and certifications.
You must attach any narrative sections
of your application as files in a .DOC
(document), .RTF (rich text), or .PDF
(Portable Document) format. If you
upload a file type other than the three
file types specified in this paragraph or
submit a password protected file, we
will not review that material.
• Your electronic application must
comply with any page limit
requirements described in this notice.
• Prior to submitting your electronic
application, you may wish to print a
copy of it for your records.
• After you electronically submit
your application, you will receive an
automatic acknowledgment that will
include a PR/Award number (an
identifying number unique to your
application).
• Within three working days after
submitting your electronic application,
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
12079
fax a signed copy of the SF 424 to the
Application Control Center after
following these steps:
(1) Print SF 424 from e-Application.
(2) The applicant’s Authorizing
Representative must sign this form.
(3) Place the PR/Award number in the
upper right hand corner of the hardcopy signature page of the SF 424.
(4) Fax the signed SF 424 to the
Application Control Center at (202)
245–6272.
• We may request that you provide us
original signatures on other forms at a
later date.
Application Deadline Date Extension
in Case of e-Application Unavailability:
If you are prevented from electronically
submitting your application on the
application deadline date because eApplication is unavailable, we will
grant you an extension of one business
day to enable you to transmit your
application electronically, by mail, or by
hand delivery. We will grant this
extension if—
(1) You are a registered user of eApplication and you have initiated an
electronic application for this
competition; and
(2)(a) E-Application is unavailable for
60 minutes or more between the hours
of 8:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m., Washington,
DC time, on the application deadline
date; or
(b) E-Application is unavailable for
any period of time between 3:30 p.m.
and 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC, time, on
the application deadline date.
We must acknowledge and confirm
these periods of unavailability before
granting you an extension. To request
this extension or to confirm our
acknowledgment of any system
unavailability, you may contact either
(1) the program contact number or write
to the e-mail address listed elsewhere in
this notice under For Further
Information Contact (see VII. Agency
Contact) or (2) the e-Grants help desk at
1–888–336–8930. If e-Application is
unavailable due to technical problems
with the system and, therefore, the
application deadline is extended, an
e-mail will be sent to all registered users
who have initiated an e-Application.
Extensions referred to in this section
apply only to the unavailability of eApplication.
Exception to Electronic Submission
Requirement: You qualify for an
exception to the electronic submission
requirement, and may submit your
application in paper format, if you are
unable to submit an application through
e-Application because—
• You do not have access to the
Internet; or
E:\FR\FM\12MRN2.SGM
12MRN2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES2
12080
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Notices
• You do not have the capacity to
upload large documents to eApplication; and
• No later than two weeks before the
application deadline date (14 calendar
days or, if the fourteenth calendar day
before the application deadline date
falls on a Federal holiday, the next
business day following the Federal
holiday), you mail or fax a written
statement to the Department, explaining
which of the two grounds for an
exception prevents you from using the
Internet to submit your application. If
you mail your written statement to the
Department, it must be postmarked no
later than two weeks before the
application deadline date. If you fax
your written statement to the
Department, we must receive the faxed
statement no later than two weeks
before the application deadline date.
Address and mail or fax your
statement to: Thelma Leenhouts, U.S.
Department of Education, 400 Maryland
Avenue, SW., Room 4W302,
Washington, DC 20202–5900. FAX:
(202) 401–4123.
Your paper application must be
submitted in accordance with the mail
or hand delivery instructions described
in this notice.
b. Submission of Paper Applications
by Mail.
If you qualify for an exception to the
electronic submission requirement, you
may mail (through the U.S. Postal
Service or a commercial carrier) your
application to the Department. You
must mail the original and two copies
of your application, on or before the
application deadline date, to the
Department at the following address:
U.S. Department of Education,
Application Control Center, Attention:
(CFDA Numbers 84.396A, 84.396B, or
84.396C), LBJ Basement Level 1, 400
Maryland Avenue, SW., Washington,
DC 20202–4260.
You must show proof of mailing
consisting of one of the following:
(1) A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service
postmark.
(2) A legible mail receipt with the
date of mailing stamped by the U.S.
Postal Service.
(3) A dated shipping label, invoice, or
receipt from a commercial carrier.
(4) Any other proof of mailing
acceptable to the Secretary of the U.S.
Department of Education.
If you mail your application through
the U.S. Postal Service, we do not
accept either of the following as proof
of mailing:
(1) A private metered postmark.
(2) A mail receipt that is not dated by
the U.S. Postal Service.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:37 Mar 11, 2010
Jkt 220001
If your application is postmarked after
the application deadline date, we will
not consider your application.
Note: The U.S. Postal Service does not
uniformly provide a dated postmark. Before
relying on this method, you should check
with your local post office.
c. Submission of Paper Applications
by Hand Delivery.
If you qualify for an exception to the
electronic submission requirement, you
(or a courier service) may deliver your
paper application to the Department by
hand. You must deliver the original and
two copies of your application, by hand,
on or before the application deadline
date, to the Department at the following
address: U.S. Department of Education,
Application Control Center, Attention:
(CFDA Numbers 84.396A, 84.396B, or
84.396C), 550 12th Street, SW., Room
7041, Potomac Center Plaza,
Washington, DC 20202–4260.
The Application Control Center
accepts hand deliveries daily between 8
a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC
time, except Saturdays, Sundays, and
Federal holidays.
Note for Mail or Hand Delivery of Paper
Applications: If you mail or hand deliver
your application to the Department—
(1) You must indicate on the envelope
and—if not provided by the Department—in
Item 11 of the SF 424 the CFDA number,
including suffix letter, if any, of the
competition under which you are submitting
your application; and
(2) The Application Control Center will
mail to you a notification of receipt of your
grant application. If you do not receive this
grant notification within 15 business days
from the application deadline date, you
should call the U.S. Department of Education
Application Control Center at (202) 245–
6288.
V. Application Review Information
1. Selection Criteria: The selection
criteria for this competition are from the
notice of final priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria, for
this program, published elsewhere in
this issue of the Federal Register. We
may apply these selection criteria in any
year in which this program is in effect.
The peer review process is explained in
detail in the Review and Selection
Process section of this notice.
The selection criteria are as follows.
The points assigned to each criterion are
indicated in parentheses next to the
criterion. For each type of grant,
applicants may earn up to a total of 100
points.
1. Scale-up Grants.
A. Need for the Project and Quality of
the Project Design (up to 15 points).
The Secretary considers the need for
the project and quality of the design of
the proposed project.
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
In determining the need for the
project and quality of the design of the
proposed project, the Secretary
considers the following factors:
(1) The extent to which the proposed
project represents an exceptional
approach to the priorities the eligible
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).
(2) The extent to which the proposed
project has a clear set of goals and an
explicit strategy, with actions that are
(a) aligned with the priorities the
eligible applicant is seeking to meet,
and (b) 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 (up to
20 points).
The Secretary considers the strength
of the existing research evidence,4
including the internal validity (strength
of causal conclusions) and external
validity (generalizability) of the effects
reported in prior research, on whether
the proposed project will improve
student achievement or student growth,
close achievement gaps, decrease
dropout rates, increase high school
graduation rates, or increase college
enrollment and completion rates.
Eligible applicants may also
demonstrate success through an
intermediate variable that is strongly
correlated with improving these
outcomes, such as teacher or principal
effectiveness.
In determining the strength of the
existing research evidence, the Secretary
considers the following factors:
(1) The extent to which the eligible
applicant demonstrates that there is
strong evidence (as defined in this
notice) that its implementation of the
proposed practice, strategy, or program
will have a statistically significant,
substantial, and important effect on
improving student achievement or
student growth, closing achievement
gaps, decreasing dropout rates,
increasing high school graduation rates,
or increasing college enrollment and
completion rates.
(2) 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, increase high school graduation
rates, or increase college enrollment and
4 For additional information on the evidence for
Scale-up grants, see Table 1 later in this section.
E:\FR\FM\12MRN2.SGM
12MRN2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Notices
completion rates. The evidence in
support of the importance and
magnitude of the effect would be the
research-based evidence provided by
the eligible applicant to support the
proposed project.
C. Experience of the Eligible
Applicant (up to 15 points).
The Secretary considers the
experience of the eligible applicant in
implementing the proposed project.
In determining the experience of the
eligible applicant, the Secretary
considers the following factors:
(1) The past performance of the
eligible applicant in implementing
large, complex, and rapidly growing
projects.
(2) The extent to which an eligible
applicant provides information and data
demonstrating that—
(a) In the case of an eligible applicant
that is an LEA, the LEA has—
(i) Significantly closed the
achievement gaps between groups of
students described in section 1111(b)(2)
of the ESEA, or significantly increased
student achievement for all groups of
students described in such section; and
(ii) Made significant improvements in
other areas, such as graduation rates or
increased recruitment and placement of
high-quality teachers and principals, as
demonstrated with meaningful data; or
(b) In the case of an eligible applicant
that includes a nonprofit organization,
the nonprofit organization has
significantly improved student
achievement, attainment, or retention
through its record of work with an LEA
or schools.
D. Quality of the Project Evaluation
(up to 15 points).
The Secretary considers the quality of
the evaluation to be conducted of the
proposed project.
In determining the quality of the
evaluation, the Secretary considers the
following factors:
(1) The extent to which the methods
of evaluation will include a welldesigned experimental study or, if a
well-designed experimental study of the
project is not possible, the extent to
which the methods of evaluation will
include a well-designed quasiexperimental study.
(2) The extent to which, for either an
experimental study or a quasiexperimental study, the study will be
conducted of the practice, strategy, or
program as implemented at scale.
(3) 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.
(4) The extent to which the evaluation
will provide sufficient information
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:37 Mar 11, 2010
Jkt 220001
about the key elements and approach of
the project so as to facilitate replication
or testing in other settings.
(5) The extent to which the proposed
project plan includes sufficient
resources to carry out the project
evaluation effectively.
(6) The extent to which the proposed
evaluation is rigorous, independent, and
neither the program developer nor the
project implementer will evaluate the
impact of the project.
Note: We encourage eligible 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 Bring to
Scale (up to 15 points).
The Secretary considers the quality of
the eligible applicant’s strategy and
capacity to bring the proposed project to
scale on a national, regional, or State
level.
In determining the quality of the
strategy and capacity to bring the
proposed project to scale, the Secretary
considers:
(1) The number of students proposed
to be reached by the proposed project
and the capacity of the eligible
applicant and any other partners to
reach the proposed number of students
during the course of the grant period.
(2) The eligible applicant’s capacity
(e.g., in terms of qualified personnel,
financial resources, or management
capacity) to bring the proposed 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.
(3) 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 and 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.
(4) The eligible applicant’s estimate of
the cost of the proposed project, which
includes the start-up and operating costs
per student per year (including indirect
costs) for reaching the total number of
students proposed to be served by the
project. The eligible applicant must
include an estimate of the costs for the
eligible applicant or others (including
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
12081
other partners) to reach 100,000,
500,000, and 1,000,000 students.
(5) The mechanisms the eligible
applicant will use to broadly
disseminate information on its project
so as to support replication.
F. Sustainability (up to 10 points).
The Secretary considers the adequacy
of resources to continue the proposed
project after the grant period ends.
In determining the adequacy of
resources for the proposed project, the
Secretary considers the following
factors:
(1) The extent to which the eligible
applicant demonstrates that it has the
resources to operate the project beyond
the length of the Scale-up grant,
including a multi-year financial and
operating model and accompanying
plan; the demonstrated commitment of
any other partners; and evidence of
broad support from stakeholders (e.g.,
State educational agencies, teachers’
unions) critical to the project’s longterm success.
(2) The potential and planning for the
incorporation of project purposes,
activities, or benefits into the ongoing
work of the eligible applicant and any
other partners at the end of the Scaleup grant.
G. Quality of the Management Plan
and Personnel (up to 10 points).
The Secretary considers the quality of
the management plan and personnel for
the proposed project.
In determining the quality of the
management plan and personnel for the
proposed project, the Secretary
considers:
(1) 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 tasks related to the
sustainability and scalability of the
proposed project.
(2) The qualifications, including
relevant training and experience, of the
project director and key project
personnel, especially in managing large,
complex, and rapidly growing projects.
(3) 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 (up to 20 points).
The Secretary considers the need for
the project and quality of the design of
the proposed project.
In determining the need for the
project and quality of the design of the
E:\FR\FM\12MRN2.SGM
12MRN2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES2
12082
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Notices
proposed project, the Secretary
considers the following factors:
(1) The extent to which the proposed
project represents an exceptional
approach to the priorities the eligible
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).
(2) The extent to which the proposed
project has a clear set of goals and an
explicit strategy, with actions that are
(a) aligned with the priorities the
eligible applicant is seeking to meet,
and (b) expected to result in achieving
the goals, objectives, and outcomes of
the proposed project.
(3) The extent to which the proposed
project is consistent with the research
evidence supporting the proposed
project, taking into consideration any
differences in context.
B. Strength of Research, Significance
of Effect, and Magnitude of Effect (up to
15 points).
The Secretary considers the strength
of the existing research evidence,
including the internal validity (strength
of causal conclusions) and external
validity (generalizability) of the effects
reported in prior research, on whether
the proposed project will improve
student achievement or student growth,
close achievement gaps, decrease
dropout rates, increase high school
graduation rates, or increase college
enrollment and completion rates.
Eligible applicants may also
demonstrate success through an
intermediate variable that is strongly
correlated with improving these
outcomes, such as teacher or principal
effectiveness.
In determining the strength of the
existing research evidence,5 the
Secretary considers the following
factors:
(1) The extent to which the eligible
applicant demonstrates that there is
moderate evidence (as defined in this
notice) that the proposed practice,
strategy, or program will have a
statistically significant, substantial, and
important effect on improving student
achievement or student growth, closing
achievement gaps, decreasing dropout
rates, increasing high school graduation
rates, or increasing college enrollment
and completion rates.
(2) 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,
5 For additional information on the evidence for
Validation grants, see Table 1 later in this section.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:37 Mar 11, 2010
Jkt 220001
close achievement gaps, decrease
dropout rates, increase high school
graduation rates, or increase college
enrollment and completion rates. The
evidence in support of the importance
and magnitude of the effect would be
the research-based evidence provided
by the eligible applicant to support the
proposed project.
C. Experience of the Eligible
Applicant (up to 20 points).
The Secretary considers the
experience of the eligible applicant in
implementing the proposed project.
In determining the experience of the
eligible applicant, the Secretary
considers the following factors:
(1) The past performance of the
eligible applicant in implementing
complex projects.
(2) The extent to which an eligible
applicant provides information and data
demonstrating that—
(a) In the case of an eligible applicant
that is an LEA, the LEA has—
(i) Significantly closed the
achievement gaps between groups of
students described in section 1111(b)(2)
of the ESEA, or significantly increased
student achievement for all groups of
students described in such section; and
(ii) Made significant improvements in
other areas, such as graduation rates or
increased recruitment and placement of
high-quality teachers and principals, as
demonstrated with meaningful data; or
(b) In the case of an eligible applicant
that includes a nonprofit organization,
the nonprofit organization has
significantly improved student
achievement, attainment, or retention
through its record of work with an LEA
or schools.
D. Quality of the Project Evaluation
(up to 15 points).
The Secretary considers the quality of
the evaluation to be conducted of the
proposed project.
In determining the quality of the
evaluation, the Secretary considers the
following factors:
(1) The extent to which the methods
of evaluation will include a welldesigned experimental study or welldesigned quasi-experimental study.
(2) 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.
(3) The extent to which the evaluation
will provide sufficient information
about the key elements and approach of
the project so as to facilitate replication
or testing in other settings.
(4) The extent to which the proposed
project plan includes sufficient
resources to carry out the project
evaluation effectively.
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
(5) The extent to which the proposed
evaluation is rigorous, independent, and
neither the program developer nor the
project implementer will evaluate the
impact of the project.
Note: We encourage eligible 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/.
E. Strategy and Capacity to Bring to
Scale (up to 10 points).
The Secretary considers the quality of
the eligible applicant’s strategy and
capacity to bring the proposed project to
scale on a State or regional level.
In determining the quality of the
strategy and capacity to bring the
proposed project to scale, the Secretary
considers:
(1) The number of students proposed
to be reached by the proposed project
and the capacity of the eligible
applicant and any other partners to
reach the proposed number of students
during the course of the grant period.
(2) The eligible applicant’s capacity
(e.g., in terms of qualified personnel,
financial resources, or management
capacity) to bring the proposed project
to scale on a State or regional level (as
appropriate, based on the results of the
proposed project) working directly, or
through other partners, either during or
following the end of the grant period.
(3) 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.
(4) The eligible applicant’s estimate of
the cost of the proposed project, which
includes the start-up and operating costs
per student per year (including indirect
costs) for reaching the total number of
students proposed to be served by the
project. The eligible applicant must
include an estimate of the costs for the
eligible applicant or others (including
other partners) to reach 100,000,
250,000, and 500,000 students.
(5) The mechanisms the eligible
applicant will use to broadly
disseminate information on its project to
support further development,
expansion, or replication.
F. Sustainability (up to 10 points).
The Secretary considers the adequacy
of resources to continue to develop the
proposed project.
E:\FR\FM\12MRN2.SGM
12MRN2
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Notices
In determining the adequacy of
resources for the proposed project, the
Secretary considers the following
factors:
(1) The extent to which the eligible
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.
(2) The potential and planning for the
incorporation of project purposes,
activities, or benefits into the ongoing
work of the eligible applicant and any
other partners at the end of the
Validation grant.
G. Quality of the Management Plan
and Personnel (up to 10 points).
The Secretary considers the quality of
the management plan and personnel for
the proposed project.
In determining the quality of the
management plan and personnel for the
proposed project, the Secretary
considers:
(1) 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 tasks related to the
sustainability and scalability of the
proposed project.
(2) The qualifications, including
relevant training and experience, of the
project director and key project
personnel, especially in managing
complex projects.
(3) 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.
A. Need for the Project and Quality of
the Project Design (up to 25 points).
The Secretary considers the need for
the project and quality of the design of
the proposed project.
In determining the need for the
project and quality of the design of the
proposed project, the Secretary
considers the following factors:
(1) The extent to which the proposed
project represents an exceptional
approach to the priorities the eligible
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).
(2) The extent to which the proposed
project has a clear set of goals and an
explicit strategy, with the goals,
objectives, and outcomes to be achieved
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:37 Mar 11, 2010
Jkt 220001
by the proposed project clearly specified
and measurable and linked to the
priorities the eligible applicant is
seeking to meet.
B. Strength of Research, Significance
of Effect, and Magnitude of Effect (up to
10 points).
The Secretary considers the strength
of the existing research evidence,6
including reported practice, theoretical
considerations, and the significance and
magnitude of any effects reported in
prior research, on whether the proposed
project will improve student
achievement or student growth, close
achievement gaps, decrease dropout
rates, increase high school graduation
rates, or increase college enrollment and
completion rates. Eligible applicants
may also demonstrate success through
an intermediate variable that is strongly
correlated with improving these
outcomes, such as teacher or principal
effectiveness.
In determining the strength of the
existing research evidence, the Secretary
considers the following factors:
(1) The extent to which the eligible
applicant demonstrates that there are
research-based findings or reasonable
hypotheses that support the proposed
project, including related research in
education and other sectors.
(2) 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.
(3) The extent to which the eligible
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,
increasing high school graduation rates,
or increasing college enrollment and
completion rates.
C. Experience of the Eligible
Applicant (up to 25 points).
The Secretary considers the
experience of the eligible applicant in
implementing the proposed project or a
similar project.
In determining the experience of the
eligible applicant, the Secretary
considers the following factors:
(1) The past performance of the
eligible applicant in implementing
projects of the size and scope proposed
by the eligible applicant.
(2) The extent to which an eligible
applicant provides information and data
demonstrating that—
6 For additional information on the evidence for
Development grants, see Table 1 later in this
section.
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
12083
(a) In the case of an eligible applicant
that is an LEA, the LEA has—
(i) Significantly closed the
achievement gaps between groups of
students described in section 1111(b)(2)
of the ESEA, or significantly increased
student achievement for all groups of
students described in such section; and
(ii) Made significant improvements in
other areas, such as graduation rates or
increased recruitment and placement of
high-quality teachers and principals, as
demonstrated with meaningful data; or
(b) In the case of an eligible applicant
that includes a nonprofit organization,
the nonprofit organization has
significantly improved student
achievement, attainment, or retention
through its record of work with an LEA
or schools.
D. Quality of the Project Evaluation
(up to 15 points).
The Secretary considers the quality of
the evaluation to be conducted of the
proposed project.
In determining the quality of the
evaluation, the Secretary considers the
following factors.
(1) The extent to which the methods
of evaluation are appropriate to the size
and scope of the proposed project.
(2) 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.
(3) 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.
(4) The extent to which the proposed
project plan includes sufficient
resources to carry out the project
evaluation effectively.
Note: We encourage eligible 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 Bring to Scale (up to 5
points).
The Secretary considers the quality of
the eligible applicant’s strategy and
capacity to further develop and bring to
scale the proposed project.
In determining the quality of the
strategy and capacity to further develop
and bring to scale the proposed project,
the Secretary considers:
(1) The number of students proposed
to be reached by the proposed project
E:\FR\FM\12MRN2.SGM
12MRN2
12084
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Notices
and the capacity of the eligible
applicant and any other partners to
reach the proposed number of students
during the course of the grant period.
(2) The eligible applicant’s capacity
(e.g., in terms of qualified personnel,
financial resources, or management
capacity) to further develop and bring to
scale the proposed practice, strategy, or
program, or to work with others
(including other partners) to ensure that
the proposed practice, strategy, or
program can be further developed and
brought to scale, based on the findings
of the proposed project.
(3) 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.
(4) The eligible applicant’s estimate of
the cost of the proposed project, which
includes the start-up and operating costs
per student per year (including indirect
costs) for reaching the total number of
students proposed to be served by the
project. The eligible applicant must
include an estimate of the costs for the
eligible applicant or others (including
other partners) to reach 100,000,
250,000, and 500,000 students.
(5) The mechanisms the eligible
applicant will use to broadly
disseminate information on its project
so as to support further development or
replication.
F. Sustainability (up to 10 points).
The Secretary considers the adequacy
of resources to continue to develop or
expand the proposed practice, strategy,
or program after the grant period ends.
In determining the adequacy of
resources for the proposed project, the
Secretary considers the following
factors:
(1) The extent to which the eligible
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.
(2) The potential and planning for the
incorporation of project purposes,
activities, or benefits into the ongoing
work of the eligible applicant and any
other partners at the end of the
Development grant.
G. Quality of the Management Plan
and Personnel (up to 10 points).
The Secretary considers the quality of
the management plan and personnel for
the proposed project.
In determining the quality of the
management plan and personnel for the
proposed project, the Secretary
considers:
(1) 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.
(2) 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.
TABLE 1—DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE THREE TYPES OF INVESTING IN INNOVATION FUND GRANTS IN TERMS OF THE
EVIDENCE REQUIRED TO SUPPORT THE PROPOSED PRACTICE, STRATEGY, OR PROGRAM
Validation grants
Development grants
Strength of Research .....................
Internal Validity (Strength of Causal Conclusions) and External Validity (Generalizability).
Strong evidence ............................
High internal validity and high external validity.
Prior Research Studies Supporting
Effectiveness or Efficacy of the
Proposed Practice, Strategy, or
Program.
(1) More than one well-designed
and well-implemented experimental study or well-designed
and well-implemented quasi-experimental study; or (2) one
large, well-designed and wellimplemented randomized controlled, multisite trial.
Moderate evidence .......................
(1) High internal validity and moderate external validity; or (2)
moderate internal validity and
high external validity.
(1) At least one well-designed and
well-implemented experimental
or quasi-experimental study,
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.
The same as, or very similar to,
that proposed for support under
the Validation grant.
Participants or settings may have
been more limited than those
proposed to receive the treatment under the Validation grant.
Reasonable hypotheses.
Theory and reported practice suggest the potential for efficacy
for at least some participants
and settings.
(1) 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; and (2) 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.
Practice, Strategy, or Program in
Prior Research.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES2
Scale-up grants
The same as that proposed for
support under the Scale-up
grant.
Participants and settings included
the kinds of participants and
settings proposed to receive the
treatment under the Scale-up
grant.
Effect in prior research was statis- Effect in prior research would be
tically significant, and would be
likely to be statistically signifilikely to be statistically significant in a sample of the size
cant in a sample of the size
proposed for the Validation
proposed for the Scale-up grant.
grant.
Participants and Settings in Prior
Research.
Significance of Effect .....................
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:37 Mar 11, 2010
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\12MRN2.SGM
The same as, or similar to, that
proposed for support under the
Development grant.
Participants or settings may have
been more limited than those
proposed to receive the treatment under the Development
grant.
Practice, strategy, or program
warrants further study to investigate efficacy.
12MRN2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Notices
12085
TABLE 1—DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE THREE TYPES OF INVESTING IN INNOVATION FUND GRANTS IN TERMS OF THE
EVIDENCE REQUIRED TO SUPPORT THE PROPOSED PRACTICE, STRATEGY, OR PROGRAM—Continued
Scale-up grants
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES2
Magnitude of Effect ........................
Validation grants
Development grants
Based on prior research, substantial and important for the target
population for the Scale-up
project.
Based on prior research, substantial and important, with the potential of the same for the target population for the Validation
project.
Based on prior implementation,
promising for the target population for the Development
project.
2. Review and Selection Process: The
Department will screen applications
submitted in accordance with the
requirements in this notice, and will
determine which applications are
eligible to be read based on whether
they have met eligibility and other
statutory requirements.
For all three grant reviews, the
Department will use independent
reviewers from various backgrounds and
professions including: Prekindergarten–12 teachers and
principals, college and university
educators, researchers and evaluators,
social entrepreneurs, strategy
consultants, grant makers and managers,
and others with education expertise.
The Department will thoroughly screen
all reviewers for conflicts of interest to
ensure a fair and competitive review
process.
Reviewers will read, prepare a written
evaluation, and score the applications
assigned to their panel, using the
selection criteria provided in this
notice.
To be eligible for an award, an
application for a Scale-up grant must be
supported by strong evidence (as
defined in this notice) and an
application for a Validation grant must
be supported by moderate evidence (as
defined in this notice). For Scale-up and
Validation grant applications, peer
reviewers will review and score all
eligible applications. If eligible
applicants have chosen to address the
competitive preference priorities and
receive points for the competitive
preference priorities, those points will
be added to the eligible applicant’s
score. The Department may ask Scale-up
grant finalists to send a team to the
Department’s headquarters in
Washington, DC to present their
proposed project to a panel of reviewers.
The panel will take this opportunity to
gain a more comprehensive
understanding of the applicant’s
proposed project. At the conclusion of
the presentation process, reviewers will
complete their scoring of the
applications based on the selection
criteria.
To be eligible for an award, an
application for a Development grant
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:37 Mar 11, 2010
Jkt 220001
must be supported by a reasonable
hypothesis. For Development grant
applications, the Department intends to
conduct a two-tier review process to
review and score all eligible
applications. Reviewers will review and
score all eligible Development
applications on the following five
criteria: A. Need for the Project and
Quality of the Project Design; C.
Experience of the Eligible Applicant; E.
Strategy and Capacity to Further
Develop and Bring to Scale; F.
Sustainability; and G. Quality of the
Management Plan and Personnel. If
eligible applicants have chosen to
address the competitive preference
priorities, reviewers will review and
score those competitive preference
priorities. If points are awarded, those
points will be added to the eligible
applicant’s score. Eligible applications
that score highly on these five criteria
will then have the remaining two
criteria reviewed and scored by a
different panel of reviewers. The
remaining criteria are as follows: B.
Strength of Research, Significance, of
Effect, and Magnitude of Effect and D.
Quality of the Project Evaluation.
For all three types of applications, the
Secretary prepares a rank order of
applications based solely on the
evaluation of their quality according to
the selection criteria. In accordance
with 34 CFR 75.217(c)(3), the Secretary
will make final awards after considering
the rank ordering and other information
including an applicant’s performance
and use of funds and compliance
history under a previous award under
any Department program. In making
awards under any future competitions,
the Secretary will consider an
applicant’s past performance, including
the quality of the evaluation produced
by the applicant under a previous
Investing in Innovation grant.
VI. Award Administration Information
1. Award Notices: If your application
is successful, we notify your U.S.
Representative and U.S. Senators and
send you a Grant Award Notification
(GAN). We may notify you informally,
also.
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4703
If your application is not evaluated or
not selected for funding, we notify you.
2. Administrative and National Policy
Requirements: We identify
administrative and national policy
requirements in the application package
and reference these and other
requirements in the Applicable
Regulations section of this notice.
We reference the regulations outlining
the terms and conditions of an award in
the Applicable Regulations section of
this notice and include these and other
specific conditions in the GAN. The
GAN also incorporates your approved
application as part of your binding
commitments under the grant.
3. Reporting: At the end of your
project period, each grantee must
submit a final performance report,
including financial information, as
directed by the Secretary. If you receive
a multi-year award, you must submit an
annual performance report that provides
the most current performance and
financial expenditure information as
directed by the Secretary under 34 CFR
75.720(a) and (b). The Secretary may
also require more frequent performance
reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For
specific requirements on reporting,
please go to https://www.ed.gov/fund/
grant/apply/appforms/appforms.html.
In addition to these reporting
requirements, each grantee that receives
Investing in Innovation funds must also
meet the reporting requirements that
apply to all ARRA-funded programs.
Specifically, each grantee must submit
reports, within 10 days after the end of
each calendar quarter, that contain the
information required under section
1512(c) of the ARRA in accordance with
any guidance issued by the Office of
Management and Budget or the
Department (ARRA division A, section
1512(c)).
In addition, for each year of the
program, each grantee must submit a
report to the Secretary, at such time and
in such manner as the Secretary may
require, that describes—
1. The uses of funds within the
defined area of the proposed project;
2. How the applicant distributed the
funds it received;
E:\FR\FM\12MRN2.SGM
12MRN2
12086
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Notices
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES2
3. The number of jobs estimated to be
saved or created with the funds; and
4. The project’s progress in reducing
inequities in the distribution of highly
qualified teachers, implementing a
longitudinal data system, and
developing and implementing valid and
reliable assessments for English
language learners and students with
disabilities.
4. Performance Measures: The overall
purpose of the Investing in Innovation
program is to expand the
implementation of, and investment in,
innovative practices that are
demonstrated to have an impact on
improving student achievement or
student growth for high-need students.
We have established several
performance measures for each of the
three types of the Investing in
Innovation grants.
Scale-Up Grants
Short-term performance measures: (1)
The percentage of grantees that reach
their annual target number of students
as specified in the application; (2) the
percentage of programs, practices, or
strategies supported by a Scale-up grant
with ongoing well-designed and
independent evaluations that will
provide evidence of their effectiveness
at improving student outcomes at scale;
(3) the percentage of programs,
practices, or strategies supported by a
Scale-up grant with ongoing evaluations
that are providing high-quality
implementation data and performance
feedback that allow for periodic
assessment of progress toward achieving
intended outcomes; and (4) the cost per
student actually served by the grant.
Long-term performance measures: (1)
The percentage of grantees that reach
the targeted number of students
specified in the application; (2) the
percentage of programs, practices, or
strategies supported by a Scale-up grant
that implement a completed welldesigned, well-implemented and
independent evaluation that provides
evidence of their effectiveness at
improving student outcomes at scale; (3)
the percentage of programs, practices, or
strategies supported by a Scale-up grant
with a completed well-designed, wellimplemented and independent
evaluation that provides information
about the key elements and the
approach of the project so as to facilitate
replication or testing in other settings;
and (4) the cost per student for
programs, practices or strategies that
were proven to be effective at improving
educational outcomes for students.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:37 Mar 11, 2010
Jkt 220001
Validation Grants
Short-term performance measures: (1)
The percentage of grantees that reach
their annual target number of students
as specified in the application; (2) the
percentage of programs, practices, or
strategies supported by a Validation
grant with ongoing well-designed and
independent evaluations that will
provide evidence of their effectiveness
at improving student outcomes; (3) the
percentage of programs, practices, or
strategies supported by a Validation
grant with ongoing evaluations that are
providing high-quality implementation
data and performance feedback that
allow for periodic assessment of
progress toward achieving intended
outcomes; and (4) the cost per student
actually served by the grant.
Long-term performance measures: (1)
The percentage of grantees that reach
the targeted number of students
specified in the application; (2) the
percentage of programs, practices, or
strategies supported by a Validation
grant that implement a completed welldesigned, well-implemented and
independent evaluation that provides
evidence of their effectiveness at
improving student outcomes; (3) the
percentage of programs, practices, or
strategies supported by a Validation
grant with a completed well-designed,
well-implemented and independent
evaluation that provides information
about the key elements and the
approach of the project so as to facilitate
replication or testing in other settings;
and (4) the cost per student for
programs, practices, or strategies that
were proven to be effective at improving
educational outcomes for students.
Development Grants
Short-term performance measures: (1)
The percentage of grantees whose
projects are being implemented with
fidelity to the approved design; (2) the
percentage of programs, practices, or
strategies supported by a Development
grant with ongoing evaluations that
provide evidence of their promise for
improving student outcomes; (3) the
percentage of programs, practices, or
strategies supported by a Development
grant with ongoing evaluations that are
providing high-quality implementation
data and performance feedback that
allow for periodic assessment of
progress toward achieving intended
outcomes; and (4) the cost per student
actually served by the grant.
Long-term performance measures: (1)
The percentage of programs, practices,
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
or strategies supported by a
Development grant with a completed
evaluation that provides evidence of
their promise for improving student
outcomes; (2) the percentage of
programs, practices, or strategies
supported by a Development grant with
a completed evaluation that provides
information about the key elements and
approach of the project so as to facilitate
further development, replication, or
testing in other settings; and (3) the cost
per student for programs, practices, or
strategies that were proven promising at
improving educational outcomes for
students.
VII. Agency Contact
For Further Information Contact:
Margo Anderson, U.S. Department of
Education, Office of Innovation and
Improvement, 400 Maryland Avenue,
SW., Room 4W302, Washington, DC
20202–5900, Telephone: (202) 453–7122
or by e-mail: i3@ed.gov.
If you use a TDD, call the Federal
Relay Service, toll free, at 1–800–877–
8339.
VIII. Other Information
Accessible Format: Individuals with
disabilities can obtain this document
and a copy of the application package in
an accessible format (e.g., Braille, large
print, audiotape, or computer diskette)
on request to the program contact
number or e-mail address listed under
For Further Information Contact in
section VII of this notice
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.
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/.
Dated: March 4, 2010.
James H. Shelton III,
Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and
Improvement.
[FR Doc. 2010–5139 Filed 3–8–10; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 4000–01–P
E:\FR\FM\12MRN2.SGM
12MRN2
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 48 (Friday, March 12, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12072-12086]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-5139]
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 /
Notices
[[Page 12072]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Office of Innovation and Improvement; Overview Information:
Investing in Innovation Fund; Notice Inviting Applications for New
Awards for Fiscal Year (FY) 2010
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Numbers:
84.396A (Scale-up grants), 84.396B (Validation grants), and
84.396C (Development grants).
Dates:
Applications Available: March 12, 2010.
Deadline for Notice of Intent to Apply: April 1, 2010.
Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: May 11, 2010.
Dates of Pre-Application Workshops: March 19, 2010, in Baltimore,
Maryland; March 24, 2010, in Denver, Colorado; and March 30, 2010, in
Atlanta, Georgia.
Deadline for Intergovernmental Review: July 12, 2010.
Full Text of Announcement
I. Funding Opportunity Description
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) local educational agencies
(LEAs), and (2) nonprofit organizations in partnership with (a) one or
more LEAs or (b) a consortium of schools. The purpose of this program
is to provide competitive grants to applicants with a record of
improving student achievement and attainment 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), closing achievement gaps,
decreasing dropout rates, increasing high school graduation rates, or
increasing college enrollment and completion rates.
These grants will (1) allow eligible entities to expand and develop
innovative practices that 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) support eligible entities in
identifying and documenting best practices that can be shared and taken
to scale based on demonstrated success.
Under this program, the Department is awarding three types of
grants: ``Scale-up'' grants, ``Validation'' grants, and ``Development''
grants. Applicants must specify which type of grant they are seeking at
the time of application. Among the three grant types, there are
differences in terms of the evidence that an applicant is 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 is eligible to receive. The following is an overview of the
three types of grants:
(1) Scale-up grants 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, increasing high school graduation rates, or increasing
college enrollment and completion rates, and that the effect of
implementing the proposed practice, strategy, or program will be
substantial and important. An applicant for a Scale-up grant may also
demonstrate success through an intermediate variable strongly
correlated with these outcomes, such as teacher or principal
effectiveness.
An applicant for a Scale-up grant must 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, an applicant for a Scale-up grant must
provide evidence of its capacity (e.g., in terms of qualified
personnel, financial resources, or management capacity) to scale up to
a State, regional, or national level, working directly or through
partners either during or following the grant period. We recognize that
LEAs are not typically responsible for taking to scale their practices,
strategies, or programs in other LEAs and States. However, all
applicants, including LEAs, can and should partner with others (e.g.,
State educational agencies) to disseminate and take to scale their
effective practices, strategies, and programs.
Peer reviewers will review all eligible Scale-up grant
applications. However, if an application does not meet the definition
of strong evidence in this notice, the Department will not consider the
application for funding.
Successful applicants for Scale-up grants will receive more funding
than successful applicants for Validation or Development grants.
(2) Validation grants 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, increasing high
school graduation rates, or increasing college enrollment and
completion rates and that, with further study, the effect of
implementing the proposed practice, strategy, or program may prove to
be substantial and important. Thus, applications for Validation grants
do not need to have the same level of research evidence to support the
proposed project as is required for Scale-up grants. An applicant may
also demonstrate success through an intermediate variable strongly
correlated with these outcomes, such as teacher or principal
effectiveness.
An applicant for a Validation grant must 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, an applicant for a Validation grant must
provide evidence of its capacity (e.g., in terms of qualified
personnel, financial resources, or management capacity) to scale up to
a State or regional level, working directly or through partners either
during or following the grant period. As noted earlier, we recognize
that LEAs are not typically responsible for taking to scale their
practices, strategies, or programs in other LEAs and States. However,
all applicants, including LEAs, can and should partner with others to
disseminate and take to scale their effective practices, strategies,
and programs.
Peer reviewers will review all eligible Validation grant
applications. However, if an application does not meet the definition
of moderate evidence in this notice, the Department will not consider
the application for funding.
Successful applicants for Validation grants will receive more
funding than successful applicants for Development grants.
(3) Development grants provide funding to support high-potential
and relatively untested practices, strategies, or programs whose
efficacy should be systematically studied. An applicant must 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
[[Page 12073]]
hypotheses, including related research or theories in education and
other sectors. Thus, applications for Development grants do not need to
provide the same level of evidence to support the proposed project as
is required for Validation or Scale-up grants.
An applicant for a Development grant must estimate the number of
students to be served by the project, and provide evidence of the
applicant's 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, or
management capacity) to further develop and bring the project to a
larger scale directly or through partners either during or following
the grant period. As noted earlier, we recognize that LEAs are not
typically responsible for taking to scale their practices, strategies,
or programs. Again, however, all applicants can and should partner with
others to disseminate and take to scale their effective practices,
strategies, and programs.
Peer reviewers will review all eligible Development grant
applications. However, if an application is not supported by a
reasonable hypothesis for the proposed project, the Department will not
consider the application for funding.
Priorities: These priorities are from the notice of final
priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria (NFP) for
this program, published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal
Register. This notice contains four absolute priorities and four
competitive preference priorities that are explained in the following
paragraphs.
Absolute Priorities: For FY 2010 and any subsequent year in which
we make awards from the list of unfunded applicants from this
competition, these priorities are absolute priorities. Under 34 CFR
75.105(c)(3) we consider only applications that address one of these
priorities.
Applicants for all types of grants must choose one of the four
absolute priorities and address that priority in its application.
Applicants will address the selected absolute priority in the project
narrative by addressing the Selection Criteria.
These priorities are:
Absolute Priority 1--Innovations That Support Effective Teachers and
Principals
Under this priority, the Department provides funding to support
practices, strategies, or programs that are designed to increase the
number or percentages of teachers or principals who are highly
effective teachers or principals or reduce the number or percentages of
teachers or principals who are ineffective, especially for teachers of
high-need students, by identifying, recruiting, developing, placing,
rewarding, and retaining highly effective teachers or principals (or
removing ineffective teachers or principals). In such initiatives,
teacher or principal effectiveness should be determined through an
evaluation system that is rigorous, transparent, and fair; performance
should be differentiated using multiple rating categories of
effectiveness; multiple measures of 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 and principal
involvement.
Absolute Priority 2--Innovations That Improve the Use of Data
Under this priority, the Department provides funding to support
strategies, practices, or programs that are designed to (a) 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 and improve student achievement,
student growth, or teacher, principal, school, or LEA performance and
productivity; or (b) enable data aggregation, analysis, and research.
Where LEAs and schools are required to do so under the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA), these data must be
disaggregated using the student subgroups 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 limited English proficiency, students with
disabilities, and student gender).
Absolute Priority 3--Innovations That Complement the Implementation of
High Standards and High-Quality Assessments
Under this priority, the Department provides funding for practices,
strategies, or programs that are designed to support States' efforts to
transition to standards and assessments that measure students' progress
toward college- and career-readiness, including curricular and
instructional practices, strategies, or programs in core academic
subjects (as defined in section 9101(11) of the ESEA) that are aligned
with high academic content and achievement standards and with high-
quality assessments based on those standards.\1\ Proposed projects may
include, but are not limited to, practices, strategies, or programs
that are designed to: (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 high
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Consistent with the Race to the Top Fund, the Department
interprets the core academic subject of ``science'' under section
9101(11) to include STEM education (science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics) which encompasses a wide range of
disciplines, including science.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under this priority, an eligible applicant must propose a project
that is based on standards that are at least as rigorous as its State's
standards. If the proposed project is based on standards other than
those adopted by the eligible applicant's State, the applicant must
explain how the standards are aligned with and at least as rigorous as
the eligible applicant's State's standards as well as how the standards
differ.
Absolute Priority 4--Innovations That Turn Around Persistently Low-
Performing Schools
Under this priority, the Department provides funding to support
strategies, practices, or programs that are designed to turn around
schools that are in any of the following categories: (a) Persistently
lowest-achieving schools (as defined in the final requirements for the
School Improvement Grants program) \2\; (b) Title I schools that are in
[[Page 12074]]
corrective action or restructuring under section 1116 of the ESEA; or
(c) secondary schools (both middle and high schools) eligible for but
not receiving Title I funds that, if receiving Title I funds, would be
in corrective action or restructuring under section 1116 of the ESEA.
These schools are referred to as Investing in Innovation Fund Absolute
Priority 4 schools.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Under the final requirements for the School Improvement
Grants program, ``persistently lowest-achieving schools'' means, as
determined by the State, (a)(1) any Title I school in improvement,
corrective action, or restructuring that (i) is among the lowest-
achieving five percent of Title I schools in improvement, corrective
action, or restructuring or the lowest-achieving five Title I
schools in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring in the
State, whichever number of schools is greater; or (ii) is a high
school that has had a graduation rate as defined in 34 CFR 200.19(b)
that is less than 60 percent over a number of years; and (2) any
secondary school that is eligible for, but does not receive, Title I
funds that (i) is among the lowest-achieving five percent of
secondary schools or the lowest-achieving five secondary schools in
the State that are eligible for, but do not receive, Title I funds,
whichever number of schools is greater; or (ii) is a high school
that has had a graduation rate as defined in 34 CFR 200.19(b) that
is less than 60 percent over a number of years. See https://www2.ed.gov/programs/sif/faq.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed projects must include strategies, practices, or programs
that are designed to turn around Investing in Innovation Fund Absolute
Priority 4 schools through either whole-school reform or targeted
approaches to reform. Applicants addressing this priority must focus on
either:
(a) Whole-school reform, including, but not limited to,
comprehensive interventions to assist, augment, or replace Investing in
Innovation Fund Absolute Priority 4 schools, including the school
turnaround, restart, closure, and transformation models of intervention
supported under the Department's School Improvement Grants program (see
Final Requirements for School Improvement Grants as Amended in January
2010 (January 28, 2010) at https://www2.ed.gov/programs/sif/faq.html);
or
(b) Targeted approaches to reform, including, but not limited to:
(1) Providing more time for students to learn core academic content by
expanding or augmenting the school day, school week, or school year, or
by increasing instructional time for core academic subjects (as defined
in section 9101(11) of the ESEA); (2) integrating ``student supports''
into the school model to address non-academic barriers to student
achievement; or (3) creating multiple pathways for students to earn
regular high school diplomas (e.g., by operating schools that serve the
needs of over-aged, under-credited, or other students with an
exceptional need for support and flexibility pertaining to when they
attend school; awarding credit based on demonstrated evidence of
student competency; and offering dual-enrollment options).
Competitive Preference Priorities: For FY 2010 and any subsequent
year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applicants from
this competition, these priorities are competitive preference
priorities. Applicants for all types of grants may choose to address
one or more of the four competitive preference priorities. Under 34 CFR
75.105(c)(2)(i) we will award points as ''all or nothing'' (i.e., one
point or zero points) to competitive preference priorities 5, 6, and 7
and up to two points to competitive preference priority 8, depending on
how well the application addresses the priority.
These priorities are:
Competitive Preference Priority 5--Innovations for Improving Early
Learning Outcomes (Zero or One Point)
We give competitive preference to applications for projects that
would implement innovative practices, strategies, or programs that are
designed to improve educational outcomes for high-need students who are
young children (birth through 3rd grade) by enhancing the quality of
early learning programs. To meet this priority, applications must focus
on (a) improving young children's school readiness (including social,
emotional, and cognitive readiness) so that children are prepared for
success in core academic subjects (as defined in section 9101(11) of
the ESEA); (b) improving developmental milestones and standards and
aligning them 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.
Competitive Preference Priority 6--Innovations That Support College
Access and Success (Zero or One Point)
We give competitive preference to applications for projects that
would implement innovative practices, strategies, or programs that are
designed to enable kindergarten through grade 12 (K-12) students,
particularly high school students, to successfully prepare for, enter,
and graduate from a two- or four-year college. To meet this priority,
applications must include practices, strategies, or programs for K-12
students that (a) address students' preparedness and expectations
related to college; (b) help students understand issues of college
affordability and the financial aid and college application processes;
and (c) provide support to students from peers and knowledgeable
adults.
Competitive Preference Priority 7--Innovations To Address the Unique
Learning Needs of Students With Disabilities and Limited English
Proficient Students (Zero or One Point)
We give competitive preference to applications for projects that
would implement innovative practices, strategies, or programs that are
designed to address the unique learning needs of students with
disabilities, including those who are assessed based on alternate
academic achievement standards, or the linguistic and academic needs of
limited English proficient students. To meet this priority,
applications must provide for the implementation of particular
practices, strategies, or programs that are designed to improve
academic outcomes, close achievement gaps, and increase college- and
career-readiness, including increasing high school graduation rates (as
defined in this notice), for students with disabilities or limited
English proficient students.
Competitive Preference Priority 8--Innovations That Serve Schools in
Rural LEAs (Up to Two Points)
We give competitive preference to applications for projects that
would implement innovative practices, strategies, or programs that are
designed to 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. To meet this
priority, applications must include practices, strategies, or programs
that are designed to improve student achievement or student growth,
close achievement gaps, decrease dropout rates, increase high school
graduation rates, or improve teacher and principal effectiveness in one
or more rural LEAs.
Definitions:
The Secretary establishes the following definitions for the
Investing in Innovation Fund. We may apply these definitions in any
year in which this program is in effect.
Definitions Related to Evidence
Strong evidence means evidence from previous studies whose designs
can support causal conclusions (i.e., studies 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 (as defined in this notice) experimental
study (as defined in this notice) or well-designed and well-implemented
(as defined in this notice) 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 (as
defined in this notice) randomized controlled,
[[Page 12075]]
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 (as defined in this
notice) experimental or quasi-experimental study (as defined in this
notice) 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 (as defined in this notice) experimental or quasi-
experimental study (as defined in this notice) 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.
Well-designed and well-implemented means, with respect to an
experimental or quasi-experimental study (as defined in this notice),
that the study meets the What Works Clearinghouse evidence standards,
with or without reservations (see https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/references/idocviewer/doc.aspx?docid=19&tocid=1 and in particular the
description of ``Reasons for Not Meeting Standards'' at https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/references/idocviewer/Doc.aspx?docId=19&tocId=4#reasons).
Experimental study means a study that employs random assignment of,
for example, students, teachers, classrooms, schools, or districts 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 average 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 \3\ 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 comparison group
time series, such as schools not participating in the program or
schools participating in the program in a different geographic area,
substantially increases the reliability of the findings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ A single subject or single case design is an adaptation of
an interrupted time series design that relies on the comparison of
treatment effects on a single subject or group of single subjects.
There is little confidence that findings based on this design would
be the same for other members of the population. In some single
subject designs, treatment reversal or multiple baseline designs are
used to increase internal validity. In a treatment reversal design,
after a pretreatment or baseline outcome measurement is compared
with a post treatment measure, the treatment would then be stopped
for a period of time, a second baseline measure of the outcome would
be taken, followed by a second application of the treatment or a
different treatment. A multiple baseline design addresses concerns
about the effects of normal development, timing of the treatment,
and amount of the treatment with treatment-reversal designs by using
a varying time schedule for introduction of the treatment and/or
treatments of different lengths or intensity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 comparison 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 comparison 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.
Other Definitions
Applicant means the entity that applies for a grant under this
program on behalf of an eligible applicant (i.e., an LEA or a
partnership in accordance with section 14007(a)(1)(B) of the ARRA).
Official partner means any of the entities required to be part of a
partnership under section 14007(a)(1)(B) of the ARRA.
Other partner means any entity, other than the applicant and any
official partner, that may be involved in a proposed project.
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 assessment questions, tools, and
processes that are embedded in instruction and are used by teachers and
students to provide timely feedback for purposes of adjusting
instruction to improve learning.
Interim assessment means an assessment that is given at regular and
specified intervals throughout the school year, is designed to evaluate
students' knowledge and skills relative to a specific set of academic
standards, and produces results that can be aggregated (e.g., by
course, grade level, school, or LEA) in order to inform teachers and
administrators at the
[[Page 12076]]
student, classroom, school, and LEA levels.
Highly effective principal means a principal 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, and students of each gender), achieve high rates (e.g.,
one and one-half grade levels in an academic year) of student growth.
Eligible applicants may include multiple measures, provided that
principal effectiveness is evaluated, in significant part, based on
student growth. Supplemental measures may include, for example, high
school graduation rates; college enrollment rates; evidence of
providing supportive teaching and learning conditions, support for
ensuring effective instruction across subject areas for a well-rounded
education, strong instructional leadership, and positive family and
community engagement; or evidence of attracting, developing, and
retaining high numbers of effective teachers.
Highly effective teacher means a teacher whose students achieve
high rates (e.g., one and one-half grade levels in an academic year) of
student growth. Eligible applicants may include multiple measures,
provided that teacher effectiveness is evaluated, in significant part,
based on student growth. Supplemental measures may include, for
example, multiple observation-based assessments of teacher performance
or evidence of leadership roles (which may include mentoring or leading
professional learning communities) that increase the effectiveness of
other teachers in the school or LEA.
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 attend high-minority schools,
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, who are homeless, who are in foster care, who have been
incarcerated, who have disabilities, or who are limited English
proficient.
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 the 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, and students of each 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 the 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, and students of each gender). To be
considered a regional-level project, a project must serve students in
more than one LEA. The exception to this requirement would be a project
implemented in a State in which the State educational agency is the
sole educational agency for all schools and thus may be considered an
LEA under section 9101(26) of the ESEA. Such a State would meet the
definition of regional for the purposes of this notice.
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. Eligible
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/eligible09/. For the RLIS: https://www.ed.gov/programs/reaprlisp/eligibility.html.
Student achievement means--
(a) For tested grades and subjects: (1) A student's score on the
State's assessments under section 1111(b)(3) of the ESEA; and, as
appropriate, (2) other measures of student learning, such as those
described in paragraph (b) of this definition, provided they are
rigorous and comparable across classrooms; and
(b) For non-tested grades and subjects: alternative measures of
student learning and performance such as student scores on pre-tests
and end-of-course tests; student performance on English language
proficiency assessments; and other measures of student achievement that
are rigorous and comparable across classrooms.
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.
High school graduation rate means a four-year adjusted cohort
graduation rate consistent with 34 CFR 200.19(b)(1) and may also
include an extended-year adjusted cohort graduation rate consistent
with 34 CFR 200.19(b)(1)(v) if the State in which the proposed project
is implemented has been approved by the Secretary to use such a rate
under Title I of the ESEA.
Regular high school diploma means, consistent with 34 CFR
200.19(b)(1)(iv), the standard high school diploma that is awarded to
students in the State and that is fully aligned with the State's
academic content standards or a higher diploma and does not include a
General Education Development (GED) credential, certificate of
attendance, or any alternative award.
Program Authority: Section 14007 of title XIV of the ARRA, Pub. L.
111-5 as amended by section 307 of division D of Pub. L. 111-117 (H.R.
3288), the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010.
Applicable Regulations: (a) The Education Department General
Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) in 34 CFR parts 74, 75, 77, 79, 80,
81, 82, 84, 85, 86, 97, 98, and 99.
(b) The notice of final priorities, requirements, definitions, and
selection criteria (NFP) for this program, published elsewhere in this
issue of the Federal Register.
Note: The regulations in 34 CFR part 79 apply to all applicants
except federally recognized Indian tribes.
Note: The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 apply to institutions
of higher education only.
II. Award Information
Types of Award: Cooperative agreements (for Scale-up grants) and
discretionary grants (for Validation grants and Development grants).
Estimated Available Funds: $643,500,000.
Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of
applications, we may make additional awards in FY 2011 from the list of
unfunded applicants from this competition.
Estimated Range of Awards:
Scale-up grants: Up to $50,000,000.
Validation grants: Up to $30,000,000.
Development grants: Up to $5,000,000.
[[Page 12077]]
Estimated Average Size of Awards:
Scale-up grants: $40,000,000.
Validation grants: $17,500,000.
Development grants: $3,000,000.
Estimated Number of Awards:
Scale-up grants: Up to 5 awards.
Validation grants: Up to 100 awards.
Development grants: Up to 100 awards.
Note: The Department is not bound by any estimates in this
notice.
Project Period: 36-60 months.
III. Eligibility Information and Program Requirements
The Secretary establishes 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 eligible 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. An eligible applicant that is a
partnership applying under section 14007(a)(1)(B) of the ARRA must
designate one of its official partners (as defined in this notice) to
serve as the applicant in accordance with the Department's regulations
governing group applications in 34 CFR 75.127 through 75.129.
Eligibility Requirements: To be eligible for an award, an
eligible applicant must--except as specifically set forth in the Note
About Eligibility for an Eligible Applicant That Includes a Nonprofit
Organization that follows:
(1)(A) 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); or
(B) Have demonstrated success in significantly increasing student
academic achievement for all groups of students described in that
section;
(2) Have made significant improvements in other areas, such as
graduation rates or increased recruitment and placement of high-quality
teachers and principals, as demonstrated with meaningful data;
(3) Demonstrate that it has established one or more 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
(4) In the case of an eligible applicant that includes a nonprofit
organization, provide in the application the names of the LEAs with
which the nonprofit organization will partner, or the names of the
schools in the consortium with which it will partner. If an eligible
applicant that includes a nonprofit organization intends to partner
with additional LEAs or schools that are not named in the application,
it must describe in the application the demographic and other
characteristics of these LEAs and schools and the process it will use
to select them as either official or other partners. An applicant must
identify its specific partners before a grant award will be made.
Note About LEA Eligibility: For purposes of this program, an
LEA is an LEA located within one of the 50 States, the District of
Columbia, or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
Note about Eligibility for an Eligible Applicant that Includes a
Nonprofit Organization: The authorizing statute (as amended)
specifies that an eligible applicant that includes a nonprofit
organization is considered to have met the requirements in
paragraphs (1) and (2) of the eligibility requirements for this
program if the nonprofit organization has a record of significantly
improving student achievement, attainment, or retention. For an
eligible applicant that includes a nonprofit organization, the
nonprofit organization must demonstrate that it has a record of
significantly improving student achievement, attainment, or
retention through its record of work with an LEA or schools.
Therefore, an eligible applicant that includes a nonprofit
organization does not necessarily need to include as a partner for
its Investing in Innovation Fund grant an LEA or a consortium of
schools that meets the requirements in paragraphs (1) and (2).
In addition, the authorizing statute (as amended) specifies that an
eligible applicant that includes a nonprofit organization is considered
to have met the requirements of paragraph (3) of the eligibility
requirements for this program if the eligible applicant demonstrates
that it will meet the requirement relating to private-sector matching.
Evidence Standards: To be eligible for an award, an
application for a Scale-up grant must be supported by strong evidence
(as defined in this notice), an application for a Validation grant must
be supported by moderate evidence (as defined in this notice), and an
application for a Development grant must be supported by a reasonable
hypothesis.
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
eligible 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 eligible applicant must
obtain matching funds or in-kind donations equal to at least 20 percent
of its grant award. Selected eligible applicants must submit evidence
of the full 20 percent private-sector matching funds following the peer
review of applications. An award will not be made unless the applicant
provides adequate evidence that the full 20 percent private-sector
match has been committed or the Secretary approves the eligible
applicant's request to reduce the matching-level requirement.
The Secretary may consider decreasing the 20 percent matching
requirement in the most exceptional circumstances, on a case-by-case
basis. An eligible applicant that anticipates being unable to meet the
20 percent matching requirement must include in the application a
request to the Secretary to reduce the matching-level requirement,
along with a statement of the basis for the request.
Subgrants: In the case of an eligible applicant that is a
partnership between a nonprofit organization and (1) one or more LEAs
or (2) a consortium of schools, the partner serving as the applicant
may make subgrants to one or more official partners (as defined in this
notice).
Limits on Grant Awards: No grantee may receive more than
two grant awards under this program. In addition, no grantee may
receive more than $55 million in grant awards under this program in a
single year's competition.
Evaluation: A grantee must comply with the requirements of
any evaluation of the program conducted by the Department. In addition,
the grantee is required to conduct an independent evaluation (as
defined in this notice) of its 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 will
[[Page 12078]]
be to ensure that the evaluations are of the highest quality and to
encourage commonality in evaluation approaches across funded projects
where such commonality is feasible and useful. Finally, the grantee
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. For Scale-up and Validation grants, the grantee must
also ensure the data from their evaluations are made available to
third-party researchers consistent with applicable privacy
requirements.
Participation in ``Communities of Practice'': Grantees are
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.
IV. Application and Submission Information
1. Submission of Proprietary Information:
Given the types of projects that may be proposed in applications
for the Investing in Innovation Fund, some applications may include
proprietary information as it relates to confidential commercial
information. Confidential commercial information is defined as
information the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to
cause substantial competitive harm. Upon submission, applicants should
identify any information contained in their application that they
consider to be confidential commercial information. Doing so will
assist the Department in making any future determination regarding
public release of the application. Applicants are encouraged to
identify only the specific information that the applicant considers to
be proprietary and list the page numbers on which this information can
be found in the appropriate Appendix section of their application. In
addition to identifying the page number on which that information can
be found, eligible applicants will assist the Department in making
determinations on public release of the application by being as
specific as possible in identifying the information they consider
proprietary. Please note that, in many instances, identification of
entire pages of documentation would not be appropriate.
2. Address to Request Application Package:
ED Pubs, U.S. Department of Education, P.O. Box 22207, Alexandria,
VA 22304. Telephone, toll free: 1-877-433-7827. FAX: (703) 605-6794. If
you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call, toll
free: 1-877-576-7734.
You can contact ED Pubs at its Web site, also: https://www.EDPubs.ed.gov or at its e-mail address: edpubs@inet.ed.gov.
If you request an application package from ED Pubs, be sure to
identify this program or competition as follows: CFDA numbers 84.396A,
84.396B, or 84.396C.
Also, you can download the application package at the i3 Web site:
https://www2.ed.gov/programs/innovation/.
Individuals with disabilities can obtain a copy of the application
package in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape,
or computer diskette) by calling the program contact number or by
writing to the e-mail address listed under Accessible Format in section
VIII of this notice.
3. Content and Form of Application Submission: Requirements
concerning the content of an application, together with the forms you
must submit, are in the application package for this competition.
Notice of Intent to Apply: April 1, 2010.
We will be able to develop a more efficient process for reviewing
grant applications if we understand the number of applicants that
intend to apply for funding under this competition. Therefore, the
Secretary strongly encourages each potential applicant to notify us of
the applicant's intent to submit an application for funding by sending
a short e-mail message. This short e-mail should provide (1) the
applicant organization's name and address, (2) the type of grant for
which the applicant intends to apply, (3) the one absolute priority the
applicant intends to address, and (4) all competitive preference
priorities the applicant intends to address. The Secretary requests
that this e-mail be sent to i3intent@ed.gov with ``Intent to Apply'' in
the e-mail subject line. Applicants that do not provide this e-mail
notification may still apply for funding.
Page Limit: The application narrative (Part III of the application)
is where you, the applicant, address the selection criteria that
reviewers use to evaluate your application. Applicants are strongly
encouraged to limit the application narrative (Part III) to not more
than the following page limits: Scale-up grants--50 pages, Validation
grants--35 pages, and Development grants--25 pages. Applicants are also
strongly encouraged not to include lengthy appendices that contain
information that could not be included in the narrative. Applications
should use the following standards:
A ``page'' is 8.5'' x 11'', on one side only, with 1''
margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.
Double space (no more than three lines per vertical inch)
all text in the application narrative, including titles, headings,
footnotes, quotations, references, and captions, as well as all text in
charts, tables, figures, and graphs.
Use a font that is either 12 point or larger or no smaller
than 10 pitch (characters per inch).
Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier,
Courier New, or Arial. An application submitted in any other font
(including Times Roman or Arial Narrow) will not be accepted.
The suggested page limit does not apply to Part I, the cover sheet;
Part II, the budget section, including the narrative budget
justification; Part IV, the assurances and certifications; or the one-
page abstract, the resumes, the bibliography, or the letters of
support. However, the suggested page limit does apply to all of the
application narrative section [Part III].
4. Submission Dates and Times:
Applications Available: March 12, 2010.
Deadline for Notice of Intent to Apply: April 1, 2010.
Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: May 11, 2010.
Dates of Pre-Application Workshops: March 19, 2010, in Baltimore,
Maryland; March 24, 2010, in Denver, Colorado; and March 30, 2010, in
Atlanta, Georgia.
These pre-application workshops are designed to provide technical
assistance to interested applicants for all three types of grants.
Detailed information regarding the pre-application workshop locations
and times, along with the on-line registration form, can be found on
the Investing in Innovation Fund website at https://www2.ed.gov/programs/innovation/.
Applications for grants under this competition must be submitted
electronically using the Electronic Grant Application System (e-
Application) accessible through the Department's e-Grants site. For
information (including dates and times) about how to submit your
application electronically, or in
[[Page 12079]]
paper format by mail or hand delivery if you qualify for an exception
to the electronic submission requirement, please refer to section IV.7.
Other Submission Requirements of this notice.
We do not consider an application that does not comply with the
deadline requirements.
Individuals with disabilities who need an accommodation or
auxiliary aid in connection with the application process should call
the program contact number or write to the e-mail address listed under
For Further Information Contact in section VII of this notice. If the
Department provides an accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual
with a disability in connection with the application process, the
individual's application remains subject to all other requirements and
limitations in this notice.
Deadline for Intergovernmental Review: July 12, 2010.
5. Intergovernmental Review: This competition is subject to
Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79.
Information about Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs under
Executive Order 12372 is in the application package for this
competition.
6. Funding Restrictions: We reference regulations outlining funding
restrictions in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice.
7. Other Submission Requirements:
Applications for grants under this program competition must be
submitted electronically unless you qualify for an exception to this
requirement in accordance with the instructions in this section.
a. Electronic Submission of Applications.
Applications for grants under the Investing in Innovation Fund--
CFDA Numbers 84.396A, 84.396B, and 84.396C must be submitted
electronically using e-Application, accessible through the Department's
e-Grants Web site at: https://e-grants.ed.gov.
We will reject your application if you submit it in paper format
unless, as described elsewhere in this section, you qualify for one of
the exceptions to the electronic submission requirement and submit, no
later than two weeks before the application deadline date, a written
statement to the Department that you qualify for one of these
exceptions. Further information regarding calculation of the date that
is two weeks before the application deadline date is provided later in
this section under Exception to Electronic Submission Requirement.
While completing your electronic application, you will be entering
data online that will be saved into a database. You may not e-mail an
electronic copy of a grant application to us.
Please note the following:
You must complete the electronic submission of your grant
application by 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application
deadline date. E-Application will not accept an application for this
competition after 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application
deadline date. Therefore, we strongly recommend that you do not wait
until the application deadline date to begin the application process.
The hours of operation of the e-Grants Web site are 6 a.m.
Monday until 7 p.m. Wednesday; and 6 a.m. Thursday until 8 p.m. Sunday,
Washington, DC time. Please note that, because of maintenance, the
system is unavailable between 8 p.m. on Sundays and 6 a.m. on Mondays,
and between 7 p.m. on Wednesdays and 6 a.m. on Thursdays, Washington,
DC time. Any modifications to these hours are posted on the e-Grants
Web site.
You will not receive additional point value because you
submit your application in electronic format, nor will we penalize you
if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission
requirement, as described elsewhere in this section, and submit your
application in paper format.
You must submit all documents electronically, including
all information you typically provide on the following forms: The
Application for Federal Assistance (SF 424), the Department of
Education Supplemental Information for SF 424, Budget Information--Non-
Construction Programs (ED 524), and all necessary assurances and
certifications. You must attach any narrative sections of your
application as files in a .DOC (document), .RTF (rich text), or .PDF
(Portable Document) format. If you upload a file type other than the
three file types specified in this paragraph or submit a password
protected file, we will not review that material.
Your electronic application must comply with any page
limit requirements described in this notice.
Prior to submitting your electronic application, you may
wish to print a copy of it for your records.
After you electronically submit your application, you will
receive an automatic acknowledgment that will include a PR/Award number
(an identifying number unique to your application).
Within three working days after submitting your electronic
application, fax a signed copy of the SF 424 to the Application Control
Center after following these steps:
(1) Print SF 424 from e-Application.
(2) The applicant's Authorizing Representative must sign this form.
(3) Place the PR/Award number in the upper right hand corner of the
hard-copy signature page of the SF 424.
(4) Fax the signed SF 424 to the Application Control Center at
(202) 245-6272.
We may request that you provide us original signatures on
other forms at a later date.
Application Deadline Date Extension in Case of e-Application
Unavailability: If you are prevented from electronically submitting
your application on the application deadline date because e-Application
is unavailable, we will grant you an extension of one business day to
enable you to transmit your application electronically, by mail, or by
hand delivery. We will grant this extension if--
(1) You are a registered user of e-Application and you have
initiated an electronic application for this competition; and
(2)(a) E-Application is unavailable for 60 minutes or more between
the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the
application deadline date; or
(b) E-Application is unavailable for any period of time between
3:30 p.m. and 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC, time, on the application
deadline date.
We must acknowledge and confirm these periods of unavailability
before granting you an extension. To request this extension or to
confirm our acknowledgment of any system unavailability, you may
contact either (1) the program contact number or write to the e-mail
address listed elsewhere in this notice under For Further Information
Contact (see VII. Agency Contact) or (2) the e-Grants help desk at 1-
888-336-8930. If e-Application is unavailable due to technical problems
with the system and, therefore, the application deadline is extended,
an e-mail will be sent to all registered users who have initiated an e-
Application. Extensions referred to in this section apply only to the
unavailability of e-Application.
Exception to Electronic Submission Requirement: You qualify for an
exception to the electronic submission requirement, and may submit your
application in paper format, if you are unable to submit an application
through e-Application because--
You do not have access to the Internet; or
[[Page 12080]]
You do not have the capacity to upload large documents to
e-Application; and
No later than two weeks before the application deadline
date (14 calendar days or, if the fourteenth calendar day before the
application deadline date falls on a Federal holiday, the next business
day following the Federal holiday), you mail or fax a written statement
to the Department, explaining which of the two grounds for an exception
prevents you from using the Internet to submit your application. If you
mail your written statement to the Department, it must be postmarked no
later than two weeks before the application deadline date. If you fax
your written statement to the Department, we must receive the faxed
statement no later than two weeks before the application deadline date.
Address and mail or fax your statement to: Thelma Leenhouts, U.S.
Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Room 4W302,
Washington, DC 20202-5900. FAX: (202) 401-4123.
Your paper application must be submitted in accordance with the
mail or hand delivery instructions described in this notice.
b. Submission of Paper Applications by Mail.
If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission
requirement, you may mail (through the U.S. Postal Service or a
commercial carrier) your application to the Department. You must mail
the original and two copies of your application, on or before the
application deadline date, to the Department at the following address:
U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention:
(CFDA Numbers 84.396A, 84.396B, or 84.396C), LBJ Basement Level 1, 400
Maryland Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20202-4260.
You must show proof of mailing consisting of one of the following:
(1) A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark.
(2) A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the
U.S. Postal Service.
(3) A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial
carrier.
(4) Any other proof of mailing acceptable to the Secretary of the
U.S. Department of Education.
If you mail your application through the U.S. Postal Service, we do
not accept either of the following as proof of mailing:
(1) A private metered postmark.
(2) A mail receipt that is not dated by the U.S. Postal Service.
If your application is postmarked after the application deadline
date, we will not consider your application.
Note: The U.S. Postal Service does not uniformly provide a dated
postmark. Before relying on this method, you should check with your
local post office.
c. Submission of Paper Applications by Hand Delivery.
If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission
requirement, you (or a courier service) may deliver your paper
application to the Department by hand. You must deliver the original
and two copies of your application, by hand, on or before the
application deadline date, to the Department at the following address:
U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention:
(CFDA Numbers 84.396A, 84.396B, or 84.396C), 550 12th Street, SW., Room
7041, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-4260.
The Application Control Center accepts hand deliveries daily
between 8 a.m. and