Investing in Innovation Fund, 12004-12071 [2010-5147]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 48 (Friday, March 12, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 12004-12071]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-5147]



[[Page 12003]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Part II





Department of Education





-----------------------------------------------------------------------



34 CFR Part Chapter II



Investing in Innovation Fund; Final Rule and Notice

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Rules 
and Regulations

[[Page 12004]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

34 CFR Chapter II

[Docket ID ED-2009-OII-0012]
RIN 1855-AA06


Investing in Innovation Fund

AGENCY: Office of Innovation and Improvement, Department of Education.

ACTION: Final priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection 
criteria.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Secretary of Education (Secretary) establishes priorities, 
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria under the Investing 
in Innovation Fund. The Secretary may use these priorities, 
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria in any year in which 
this program is in effect.

DATES: These priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection 
criteria are effective May 11, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Telephone: (202) 453-7122; or by e-
mail: i3@ed.gov; or by mail: (Attention: Margo Anderson, Investing in 
Innovation), U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., 
room 4W302, Washington, DC 20202.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    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.
    Background: One of the overall goals of the ARRA is to improve 
student achievement and attainment through school improvement and 
reform. Within the context of the ARRA, the Investing in Innovation 
Fund focuses on four education reform areas that will help achieve this 
goal: (1) Improving teacher and principal effectiveness and ensuring 
that all schools have effective teachers and principals, (2) gathering 
information to improve student learning, teacher performance, and 
college and career readiness through enhanced data systems, (3) 
implementing college-and career-ready standards and rigorous 
assessments aligned with those standards, and (4) improving achievement 
in low-performing schools through intensive support and effective 
interventions. The Department is using the Investing in Innovation Fund 
to support the overarching ARRA goal of improving student achievement 
and attainment by establishing four absolute priorities that are 
directly aligned with the four education reform areas under the ARRA. 
We are also establishing in this notice four competitive preference 
priorities that are aligned with Department reform goals in the 
following areas: (1) Early learning, (2) college access and success, 
(3) serving students with disabilities and limited English proficient 
students, and (4) serving students in rural LEAs. Finally, we are 
requiring that all projects funded under this program be designed to 
serve high-need students (as defined in this notice).
    Under this program, the Department is awarding three types of 
grants: ``Scale-up'' grants, ``Validation'' grants, and ``Development'' 
grants. 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

[[Page 12005]]

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 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.
    To summarize, in terms of the evidence required to support the 
proposed practice, strategy, or program, the major differences between 
Scale-up, Validation, and Development grants are (see Table 1): (1) The 
strength of the research; (2) the significance of the effect; and (3) 
the magnitude of the effect.

  Table 1--Differences Between the Three Types of Investing in Innovation Fund Grants in Terms of the Evidence
                         Required To Support the Proposed Practice, Strategy, or Program
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Scale-up grants           Validation grants        Development grants
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Strength of Research.............  Strong evidence..........  Moderate evidence.......  Reasonable hypotheses.
Internal Validity (Strength of     High internal validity     (1) High internal         Theory and reported
 Causal Conclusions) and External   and high external          validity and moderate     practice suggest the
 Validity (Generalizability).       validity.                  external validity; or     potential for efficacy
                                                               (2) moderate internal     for at least some
                                                               validity and high         participants and
                                                               external validity.        settings.
Prior Research Studies Supporting  (1) More than one well-    (1) At least one well-    (1) Evidence that the
 Effectiveness or Efficacy of the   designed and well-         designed and well-        proposed practice,
 Proposed Practice, Strategy, or    implemented experimental   implemented               strategy, or program,
 Program.                           study or well-designed     experimental or quasi-    or one similar to it,
                                    and well-implemented       experimental study,       has been attempted
                                    quasi-experimental         with small sample sizes   previously, albeit on a
                                    study; or (2) one large,   or other conditions of    limited scale or in a
                                    well-designed and well-    implementation or         limited setting, and
                                    implemented randomized     analysis that limit       yielded promising
                                    controlled, multisite      generalizability; (2)     results that suggest
                                    trial.                     at least one well-        that more formal and
                                                               designed and well-        systematic study is
                                                               implemented               warranted; and (2) a
                                                               experimental or quasi-    rationale for the
                                                               experimental study that   proposed practice,
                                                               does not demonstrate      strategy, or program
                                                               equivalence between the   that is based on
                                                               intervention and          research findings or
                                                               comparison groups at      reasonable hypotheses,
                                                               program entry but that    including related
                                                               has no other major        research or theories in
                                                               flaws related to          education and other
                                                               internal validity; or     sectors.
                                                               (3) correlational
                                                               research with strong
                                                               statistical controls
                                                               for selection bias and
                                                               for discerning the
                                                               influence of internal
                                                               factors.
Practice, Strategy, or Program in  The same as that proposed  The same as, or very      The same as, or similar
 Prior Research.                    for support under the      similar to, that          to, that proposed for
                                    Scale-up grant.            proposed for support      support under the
                                                               under the Validation      Development grant.
                                                               grant.
Participants and Settings in       Participants and settings  Participants or settings  Participants or settings
 Prior Research.                    included the kinds of      may have been more        may have been more
                                    participants and           limited than those        limited than those
                                    settings proposed to       proposed to receive the   proposed to receive the
                                    receive the treatment      treatment under the       treatment under the
                                    under the Scale-up grant.  Validation grant.         Development grant.

[[Page 12006]]

 
Significance of Effect...........  Effect in prior research   Effect in prior research  Practice, strategy, or
                                    was statistically          would be likely to be     program warrants
                                    significant, and would     statistically             further study to
                                    be likely to be            significant in a sample   investigate efficacy.
                                    statistically              of the size proposed
                                    significant in a sample    for the Validation
                                    of the size proposed for   grant.
                                    the Scale-up grant.
Magnitude of Effect..............  Based on prior research,   Based on prior research,  Based on prior
                                    substantial and            substantial and           implementation,
                                    important for the target   important, with the       promising for the
                                    population for the Scale-  potential of the same     target population for
                                    up project.                for the target            the Development
                                                               population for the        project.
                                                               Validation project.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the three types of grants differ in terms of the 
expectations to scale up successful projects during or following the 
grant period, either directly or through partners, and the level of 
funding that would be available. (See Table 2.)

 Table 2--Differences Between the Three Types of Investing in Innovation Fund Grants in Terms of Expectations to
                                     Scale Up and the Funding To Be Provided
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Scale-up grants           Validation grants        Development grants
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scale up.........................  National, Regional, or     Regional or State.......  Further develop and
                                    State.                                               scale.
Funding to be provided...........  Highest..................  Moderate................  Modest.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Major Changes in the Final Priorities, Requirements, Definitions, and 
Selection Criteria

    The Department published a notice of proposed priorities, 
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria (NPP) for this 
program in the Federal Register on October 9, 2009 (74 FR 52214-52228). 
We received comments on the NPP from 346 commenters, including from 
LEAs, nonprofit organizations, professional associations, parents, and 
private citizens. We used these comments to revise, improve, and 
clarify the priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection 
criteria. In addition to minor technical and editorial changes, there 
are several substantive differences between the priorities, 
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria proposed in the NPP 
and the final priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection 
criteria that we establish in this notice. Those substantive changes 
are summarized in this section and discussed in greater detail in the 
Analysis of Comments and Changes that follows. We do not discuss minor 
technical or editorial changes, nor do we address comments that 
suggested changes that we are not authorized to make under the law.

Priorities

    We are making the following changes to the priorities for this 
program:
     We are revising Absolute Priority 1--Innovations that 
Support Effective Teachers and School Leaders by substituting the term 
``principal'' for the term ``school leader'' and clarifying that, to 
meet this priority, projects must increase the number or percentages of 
highly effective teachers or principals or reduce the number or 
percentages of ineffective teachers or principals; projects need not 
serve both teachers and principals to meet the priority. We are also 
revising the discussion of the teacher and principal evaluation systems 
that should be used in projects under this priority by stating that the 
measures used to determine effectiveness should be designed with 
teacher and principal involvement.
     We are revising Absolute Priority 3--Innovations that 
Complement the Implementation of High Standards and High-Quality 
Assessments to clarify that an eligible applicant must propose a 
project that is based on standards that are at least as rigorous as its 
State's standards. Further, we are revising the priority to clarify 
that 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.
     We are revising Absolute Priority 4--Innovations That Turn 
Around Persistently Low-Performing Schools to specify the schools for 
which reform projects may be implemented under this priority; as noted 
later in this section, we are removing the definition of persistently 
low-performing schools. In addition, we are revising the priority to 
include in paragraph (a) additional examples of the comprehensive 
intervention approaches to whole-school reform and to clarify in 
paragraph (b)(3) the examples for creating multiple pathways for 
students to earn regular high school diplomas.
     We are revising Competitive Preference Priority 7--
Innovations to Address the Unique Learning Needs of Students with 
Disabilities and Limited English Proficient Students by specifying 
that, to meet this priority, projects must focus on 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 these students.

Requirements

    We are making the following changes to the requirements for this 
program:
     We are making clarifying changes to the requirements in 
order to better differentiate between eligible applicants (i.e., LEAs, 
under section 14007(a)(1)(A) of the ARRA; and partnerships between 
nonprofit organizations and (1) one or more LEAs or (2) a consortium of 
schools, under section 14007(a)(1)(B) of the ARRA) and the applicant 
(i.e., the single entity that applies to the Department on behalf of 
the eligible

[[Page 12007]]

applicant, which could be itself or a section 14007(a)(1)(B) 
partnership).
     As discussed in the NPP, proposed paragraphs (1) through 
(4) of the eligibility requirements of this program repeated 
requirements prescribed by section 14007 of the ARRA. Section 307 of 
Division D of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 (P.L. 111-117), 
which was signed into law on December 16, 2009, makes several 
amendments to these statutory requirements, which we are incorporating 
in the final eligibility requirements. The major substantive changes 
include the following:
     Consistent with the amendments to section 14007(b) of the 
ARRA, we are revising proposed paragraph (1) of the eligibility 
requirements to require that, to be eligible for an award under this 
program, an eligible applicant must (A) have significantly closed the 
achievement gaps between groups of students described in section 
1111(b)(2) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as 
amended (ESEA), or (B) have demonstrated success in significantly 
increasing student academic achievement for all groups of students 
described in such section. We are also eliminating proposed paragraph 
(2) of the eligibility requirements, which would have required that an 
eligible applicant have exceeded the State's annual measurable 
objectives consistent with section 1111(b)(2) of the ESEA for two or 
more consecutive years or have demonstrated success in significantly 
increasing student achievement for all groups of students described in 
that section through another measure, such as measures described in 
section 1111(c)(2) of the ESEA (i.e., the National Assessment of 
Educational Progress).
     Consistent with the amendments to section 14007(c) of the 
ARRA, we are revising the Note about Eligibility for an Eligible 
Applicant that Includes a Nonprofit Organization to specify that an 
eligible applicant that includes a nonprofit organization is considered 
to have met paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) (proposed paragraph (3)) of 
the eligibility requirements for this program if the nonprofit 
organization has a record of significantly improving student 
achievement, attainment, or retention. In addition, we are revising the 
Note to specify that an eligible applicant that includes a nonprofit 
organization is considered to have met paragraph (3) (proposed 
paragraph (4)) of the eligibility requirements if it demonstrates that 
it will meet the requirement relating to private-sector matching.
     We are establishing a requirement that, 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.
     We are revising the Cost Sharing or Matching requirement 
with respect to the timing of submission of evidence of the private-
sector match. Selected eligible applicants are now required to submit 
evidence of the full 20 percent private-sector matching funds to 
support the proposed project following the peer review of applications. 
An award will not be made unless the eligible 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.
     Section 307 of Division D of the Consolidated 
Appropriations Act, 2010, amended the ARRA with respect to a grantee's 
ability to make subgrants under this program. Under new section 
14007(d) of the ARRA, in the case of an eligible entity 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 fiscal agent 
(i.e., the applicant applying on behalf of the eligible applicant) may 
make subgrants to one or more of the other entities in the partnership 
(referred to in this notice as official partners). We are revising the 
requirements for this program to reflect this statutory change.
     We are establishing 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.
     We are revising the Evaluation requirement to establish 
that, in addition to making the results of any evaluation broadly 
available, Scale-up and Validation grantees must also ensure the data 
from their evaluations are made available to third-party researchers 
consistent with applicable privacy requirements.

Definitions

    We are making the following changes to the definitions for this 
program. In addition to providing further clarity on the meaning of 
terms, these changes are intended to ensure consistency in the use and 
definition of terms in this program and other programs supported with 
ARRA funds where appropriate.
     We are removing the term persistently low-performing 
schools.
     We are replacing the term highly effective school leader 
with highly effective principal and revising the definition of this 
term.
     We are revising the definitions of the following terms: 
Formative assessment, highly effective teacher, high-need student, 
regional level, and student achievement.
     We are adding definitions of the following terms: 
Applicant, official partner, other partner, high school graduation 
rate, regular high school diploma, and well-designed and well-
implemented (with respect to an experimental or quasi-experimental 
study).

Selection Criteria

    We are making the following changes to the selection criteria for 
this program:
     Consistent with the Eligible Applicants requirement and 
the definitions of applicant, official partner, and other partner, we 
are revising the selection criteria for this program, where 
appropriate, to clarify the entities for which the criteria apply.
     We no longer intend to use a two-tier process to review 
applications for Development grants. Thus, we are removing, from the 
selection criteria for Development grants the discussion of a two-tier 
application process (including pre-applications) for those grants.
     We are revising Selection Criterion A (Need for the 
Project and Quality of the Project Design) for Validation grants to 
include, among the factors for which the Secretary will consider the 
quality of the proposed project design, the extent to which the 
proposed project is consistent with the research evidence supporting 
the proposed project, taking into consideration any differences in 
context.
     We are revising Selection Criterion B (Strength of 
Research, Significance of Effect, and Magnitude of Effect) for all 
three types of grants to include college enrollment and completion 
rates among the student achievement and attainment outcomes for which 
the Secretary will consider the effect of a proposed project. In 
addition, we are revising the criterion for Scale-up and Validation 
grants to clarify that the strength of the existing research evidence 
includes the internal validity (strength of causal conclusions) and 
external validity (generalizability) of the effects reported in prior 
research. We are also revising the criterion for Development grants to 
clarify that the strength of the existing research evidence includes 
reported practice,

[[Page 12008]]

theoretical considerations, and the significance and magnitude of any 
effects reported in prior research.
     We are revising Selection Criterion C (Experience of the 
Eligible Applicant) for all three types of grants to reflect the 
amendments to the authorizing statute discussed earlier in this notice. 
Under Selection Criterion C (2) (proposed Selection Criterion C 
(2)(b)), the Secretary now considers, in the case of an eligible 
applicant that is an LEA, the extent to which the eligible applicant 
provides information and data demonstrating that it has (A) 
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 (B) 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. In the 
case of an eligible applicant that includes a nonprofit organization, 
the Secretary now considers the extent to which the eligible applicant 
provides information and data demonstrating that the nonprofit 
organization has significantly improved student achievement, 
attainment, or retention through its record of work with an LEA or 
schools. These changes are consistent with the changes to the 
eligibility requirements for this program discussed earlier in this 
notice.

Analysis of Comments and Changes

    An analysis of the comments received on, and any changes to, the 
priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria since 
publication of the NPP for this program follows.

    Note about general comments: We received many comments 
expressing general support or making general recommendations for 
this program. In most cases, these comments were effectively 
duplicated by other comments expressing support or making specific 
recommendations for the program's proposed priorities, requirements, 
definitions, or approval criteria, which we discuss in the sections 
that follow. We accordingly do not discuss those general comments 
here. In other cases, we interpreted a general comment as applying 
specifically to the priorities, requirements, definitions, or 
selection criteria and address the comment.


    Note about comments on program issues not covered in NPP: We 
received a number of comments relating to program issues that may 
have been discussed in communications from the Department but were 
not proposed for public comment in the NPP for this program. These 
issues include: Specific funding ranges or award amounts for the 
grant categories, the number of grant awards, uses of funds, length 
of grant periods, and technical assistance for applicants. We do not 
address comments on these issues here. We note, however, that 
information on these issues will be made available through other 
Department documents including the notice inviting applications for 
this program.

Types of Grants

    Comment: A number of commenters expressed support for this 
program's three-tiered grant structure. Several commenters supported 
the Department's attempt to balance the need to cultivate new programs 
with support for existing programs proven to be effective. However, a 
number of commenters recommended revising the grant categories or 
structure of the program. Many commenters recommended that the 
Department structure the program to include only two types of grants--
Scale-up grants and Development grants--and to eliminate Validation 
grants. Similarly, one commenter recommended that the Validation and 
Scale-up grants be merged into a single category so that reviewers 
could consider the size of the target population, the complexity of the 
project, and other factors without restrictions on scaling targets. A 
number of other commenters recommended that the Department change the 
structure of this program to focus on funding a large number of small 
projects rather than larger projects that would be supported under the 
Scale-up grant category.
    Discussion: The Department believes that the structure of this 
program and the use of three categories of grants present an 
appropriate balance between support for the development of promising 
yet relatively untested ideas and the growth and scaling of practices 
that have made demonstrable improvements in student achievement and 
attainment outcomes. In addition, we believe that the scaling targets 
provided for the three grant types are needed by applicants in 
developing their proposed projects. Consequently, we do not believe 
changes such as those recommended by the commenters are warranted.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter asked how the scale of implementation 
(State, regional, or national) differs between Validation and 
Development grants.
    Discussion: Validation grants will be implemented on a broader 
scale than Development grants because of both the corresponding level 
of evidence and the funding provided for the practice, strategy, or 
program. The level of implementation for Validation grants is State or 
regional, but the level of implementation for Development grants would 
typically not extend to a statewide level.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter requested that the Department remove the 
term ``new'' from the description of the Development grants, noting 
that practices that are promising and untested (consistent with this 
category of grant) may not necessarily be new.
    Discussion: We agree with the commenter that the practices proposed 
in projects for a Development grant need not necessarily be new. We are 
removing the term ``new'' from the description of the Development 
grants.
    Changes: We are removing the term ``new'' from the description of 
the Development grants.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department allow, under 
the Development grant category, funding for small-scale projects that 
focus on the needs of relatively small populations of high-need 
students.
    Discussion: An applicant would not be prohibited from proposing 
under the Development grant category a project that focuses on small 
populations of high-need students, provided that the project addresses 
one of the absolute priorities of the program.
    Changes: None.

Priorities

Priorities--General

    Comment: One commenter suggested that the Department draw explicit 
connections between the final priorities in the Investing in Innovation 
Fund and the final priorities in the Race to the Top Fund program so 
that projects can be successfully scaled at the State level. Another 
commenter recommended adding a competitive preference priority for 
projects that are aligned with activities supported by other programs 
administered by the Department (e.g., School Improvement Grants, 
Education Technology Grants, Teacher Quality Enhancement Grants) or by 
other Federal agencies (e.g., Community Development Block Grants).
    Discussion: The absolute priorities under the Investing in 
Innovation Fund are aligned with the four education reform areas under 
the ARRA and complement the absolute priority of the Race to the Top 
Fund program, which requires States to submit applications that 
comprehensively address these same four reform areas. As noted 
elsewhere in this notice, we are revising the priorities, requirements, 
definitions, and selection criteria for this program, as appropriate, 
to ensure consistency between this program and other

[[Page 12009]]

programs supported with ARRA funds, including the Race to the Top Fund 
program.
    We encourage eligible applicants to align and coordinate activities 
under this program with activities supported with other ARRA funding, 
as well as activities funded through other Department and Federal 
programs. Because this program is designed to align with the ARRA's 
four education reform areas and complement activities in other programs 
supported with ARRA funds, we do not believe it is necessary to add a 
competitive preference priority for eligible applicants that align and 
coordinate activities and funding from multiple sources.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: A number of commenters expressed support for the four 
absolute priorities as reflecting key areas where reform is needed in 
education. One commenter, however, expressed concern that requiring 
applicants to submit an application under one absolute priority 
contributes to a ``silo effect'' whereby individual projects are 
narrowly focused and implemented in isolation or in a manner that is 
disconnected from other key reform areas.
    A few commenters requested clarification as to whether applicants 
could or should address more than one absolute priority. Some 
commenters recommended adding an absolute priority for projects that 
are based on comprehensive and multi-dimensional reform strategies that 
cut across the education reform areas. Other commenters recommended 
adding a competitive preference priority for projects that address more 
than one absolute priority or that address one absolute priority and 
demonstrate capacity and expertise in other absolute priority areas. 
Commenters also recommended that the Department require applicants to 
describe their work in each of the education reform areas, or how their 
proposed project would contribute to improvements across the spectrum 
of education reform. Some of these commenters asserted that lasting 
reform requires action in multiple or all of the ARRA reform areas.
    Discussion: An applicant must identify one absolute priority under 
which it is submitting its application. Given the diversity of 
applications that we are likely to receive, we are requiring eligible 
applicants to write to one absolute priority to ensure that we can 
assess the quality of the applications within a given reform area. 
Although it must identify the absolute priority under which it is 
submitting its application, an eligible applicant is not prohibited 
from submitting an application that addresses multiple absolute 
priorities if that is necessary to describing the effort for which the 
applicant is seeking funds. However, such applications will not receive 
additional ``credit'' for doing so. All points will be assigned based 
on how well the eligible applicant addresses the selection criteria.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: A number of commenters recommended that the Department add 
a competitive preference priority for applications that serve high-need 
students. Several of these commenters stated that including a priority 
for projects that focus on high-need students would promote innovation 
and direct attention toward meeting the needs of these typically 
underserved students. Two of these commenters also recommended 
including a competitive preference priority for innovative programs in 
literacy instruction for students in secondary schools. Several 
commenters recommended adding a competitive preference priority for 
projects that propose to serve disconnected youth, particularly youth 
in secondary schools and youth who have dropped out of school. Other 
commenters recommended focusing on projects that propose to create or 
improve pathways to postsecondary education for high-need and 
disconnected students. One commenter suggested focusing priorities on 
projects that serve economically disadvantaged students, Native 
American students, and students from diverse ethnic and racial 
backgrounds.
    Discussion: Under the requirements for this program, all projects 
funded under this program must focus on high-need students (as defined 
in this notice). It would, therefore, serve no purpose also to award 
competitive preference points for projects that propose to serve high-
need students. We note that we define high-need student as a student at 
risk of educational failure or otherwise in need of special assistance 
and support. While we provide examples of students at risk of 
educational failure or otherwise in need of special assistance and 
support in the definition of high-need student, those examples are not 
intended to be an exhaustive or exclusive list. An eligible applicant 
has flexibility in determining the types of students that meet the 
definition.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department clarify 
whether an applicant may propose to serve only certain student 
subgroups or students only in specific settings. The commenter 
requested that the Department clarify the relationship between the 
competitive preference priorities, which target specific groups of 
students (e.g., students with disabilities and limited English 
proficient students), and the absolute priorities, which do not appear 
to be so targeted. Another commenter suggested clarifying whether 
applications targeting multiple student subgroups would receive 
competitive preference points.
    Discussion: An eligible applicant may propose a project that 
targets or serves only certain student subgroups or only students 
served in particular settings, provided that the project serves high-
need students consistent with the definition of high-need student. 
However, an eligible applicant would not receive competitive preference 
points under this program simply for proposing a project to serve 
multiple student subgroups.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: We received numerous comments recommending that we add 
absolute priorities to address a wide array of other issues and 
concerns. Many commenters recommended that absolute priorities be added 
to focus on particular subject areas. For example, commenters suggested 
adding a priority for projects that improve vocabulary and increase the 
use of vocabulary assessments. One commenter recommended adding a 
priority for innovations in science education. Another commenter 
recommended adding a priority for eligible applicants that propose 
innovative ways to instruct students in the subjects of science, 
technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM). A number of other 
commenters suggested adding a priority for projects that propose to 
improve, reform, or increase access to art and music education. A few 
commenters recommended adding a priority for innovations in career and 
technical education and focusing on career-readiness outcomes, such as 
technical skill attainment and performance on work-readiness 
assessments.
    A few commenters recommended adding an absolute priority for 
innovations that offer customized educational experiences for students 
based on individual learning needs and preferences. Two of these 
commenters asserted that such innovations provide a more flexible, 
student-centered approach to education and produce schools that are 
``student-based.''
    Several commenters suggested adding an absolute priority for 
projects that propose to increase high school graduation rates, such as 
dropout recovery programs. Other commenters recommended adding an 
absolute

[[Page 12010]]

priority for projects that focus on college readiness and transition to 
college. One commenter recommended that the absolute priorities 
explicitly reference middle schools because, according to the 
commenter, middle schools provide the foundation for high school 
graduation and college- and career-readiness.
    In addition to recommendations to add absolute priorities, we 
received a number of comments recommending that we re-designate 
competitive preference priorities as absolute priorities. For example, 
a few commenters recommended changing the competitive preference 
priority on serving schools in rural LEAs to an absolute priority. 
Likewise, one commenter recommended that the competitive preference 
priority on supporting college access and success be changed to an 
absolute priority and several commenters recommended that the 
competitive preference priority on improving early learning outcomes be 
changed to an absolute priority.
    Discussion: While we recognize the importance of the issues and 
topics mentioned by the commenters, we decline to include additional 
absolute priorities for this program. As stated elsewhere in this 
notice, the Department is using the Investing in Innovation Fund to 
support the overarching ARRA goal of improving student achievement and 
attainment by establishing four absolute priorities that are directly 
aligned with the four education reform areas under the ARRA. We believe 
that adding other absolute priorities would detract from this goal.
    We note, in addition, that all applications for Investing in 
Innovation Fund grants will be assessed in part on the extent to which 
the proposed projects will have an impact on student achievement and 
attainment outcomes including the following: improving student 
achievement or growth, closing achievement gaps, decreasing dropout 
rates, increasing high school graduation rates, and increasing college 
enrollment and completion rates (see Selection Criterion B (Strength of 
Research, Significance of Effect, and Magnitude of Effect) for each 
type of grant).
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter recommended eliminating all the competitive 
preference priorities stating that they complicate the application 
process and constrain innovation.
    Discussion: The Department routinely utilizes competitive 
preference priorities in grant competitions without any undue 
difficulty for either the agency or applicants. As noted elsewhere in 
this notice, we are including competitive preference priorities that 
are aligned with the Department's reform goals. We believe that these 
competitive preference priorities complement, rather than detract from, 
the four ARRA reform areas. Furthermore, we do not believe that 
including competitive preference priorities constrains innovation. We 
have written the competitive preference priorities around broad general 
topics, within which eligible applicants are free to propose a range of 
innovative projects. We note that eligible applicants are not required 
to address the competitive preference priorities. For these reasons, we 
have concluded that no changes to the competitive preference priorities 
should be made in response to this comment.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department change the 
absolute priorities to competitive preference priorities because, 
according to the commenter, the competitive preference priorities 
deserve equal status with the absolute priorities. One commenter 
recommended combining some of the absolute priorities with the 
competitive preference priorities.
    Discussion: Changing the absolute priorities to competitive 
preference priorities or combining absolute priorities with competitive 
priorities would, in effect, diminish the focus of this program on the 
four ARRA education reform areas because it would allow projects that 
do not address any of the four reform areas to be funded. Therefore, we 
decline to make the changes recommended by commenters.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department permit 
applicants to address more than one competitive preference priority. 
Several commenters recommended that the Department clarify whether 
applications receive additional points for addressing more than one 
competitive preference priority.
    Discussion: The notice inviting applications for this program 
(NIA), published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register, 
states that competitive preference points will be awarded on an ``all 
or nothing'' basis (i.e., one point or zero points) for Competitive 
Preference Priorities 5, 6, and 7, depending on how well an application 
addresses the priority. For Competitive Preference Priority 8, we will 
award up to two points, depending on how well an application addresses 
this priority. Applications may address more than one competitive 
preference priority; however, the Department will not award additional 
points simply for addressing more than one competitive preference 
priority.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: A number of commenters recommended that the Department add 
a competitive preference priority for applicants that partner with 
specific entities. For example, some commenters recommended adding a 
competitive preference priority for applicants that partner with 
nonprofit organizations in order to help ensure that projects are 
innovative and can be scaled up successfully. One commenter stated that 
competitive preference points should be awarded to LEA applicants who 
propose projects that involve collaboration with other LEAs and charter 
schools. Another commenter recommended adding a competitive preference 
priority for applicants that partner with a State educational agency to 
ensure that funded activities can be implemented statewide. One 
commenter suggested that applicants who partner with institutions of 
higher education should be given competitive preference points in light 
of the focus of the ARRA on improving college- and career-readiness. 
One commenter recommended adding a competitive preference priority for 
applicants that partner with a community-based organization in order to 
be consistent with the Department's general support for community-
oriented schools and partnerships between communities and schools. A 
few commenters recommended adding a competitive preference priority for 
applicants that propose innovative partnerships to support program 
effectiveness and sustainability including interdisciplinary 
partnerships.
    Discussion: We believe that eligible applicants should form 
partnerships with those entities that they believe will yield the best 
possible application and produce the best possible results. We do not 
believe it would be appropriate for the Department to judge who the 
best partners would be for a particular project and therefore decline 
to add a competitive preference priority for eligible applicants that 
partner with a specific entity.
    We note that there appears to be some confusion about the roles and 
responsibilities of ``eligible applicants,'' ``applicants,'' ``fiscal 
agents,'' and ``partners'' under this program. Therefore, and as 
discussed in greater detail in the Requirements section of this 
preamble, we are adding definitions for the terms applicant, official 
partner, and other partner and using these terms, as appropriate, 
throughout this notice.

[[Page 12011]]

    Changes: As discussed elsewhere in this notice, we are adding 
definitions for the terms applicant, official partner, and other 
partner. We use these terms, as appropriate, throughout this notice.
    Comment: One commenter recommended adding a competitive preference 
priority for eligible applicants that include charter schools in their 
proposed projects.
    Discussion: As discussed elsewhere in this notice, depending on its 
legal status under State law, a charter school may be eligible to apply 
under this program in the following ways: As an LEA on its own if it is 
considered an LEA under State law; As a nonprofit organization, in a 
partnership with one or more LEAs or a consortium of schools (provided 
the charter school meets the definition of nonprofit organization under 
this program); or in a partnership with a nonprofit organization as an 
LEA or as part of a consortium of schools. Adding a competitive 
preference priority for charter schools would provide an unfair 
advantage to eligible applicants that include these schools. Therefore, 
we decline to make the change recommended by the commenter.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter recommended adding a competitive preference 
priority for eligible applicants that propose projects that encourage 
and support effective teacher professional development and 
collaboration. Another commenter recommended adding a competitive 
preference priority for projects that propose innovative approaches to 
attracting and developing school leaders.
    Discussion: Absolute Priority 1 focuses on projects that increase 
the number or percentages of highly effective teachers or principals 
(or reduce the number or percentages of ineffective teachers or 
principals) by identifying, recruiting, developing, placing, rewarding, 
and retaining highly effective teachers or principals (or removing 
ineffective teachers or principals). It is unnecessary to include both 
an absolute priority and a competitive preference priority focused on 
improving teacher or principal effectiveness. Therefore, we decline to 
follow the commenters' recommendations.
    As explained in our responses to comments regarding Absolute 
Priority 1, we are changing the term, ``school leader'' to 
``principal'' in order to clarify our intent to focus this priority on 
increasing the number and percentages of highly effective principals.
    Changes: We are changing the term ``school leader'' to 
``principal'' in the priorities, requirements, definitions, and 
selection criteria for this program and using the latter term in our 
response to comments. However, we are retaining references to ``school 
leader'' that commenters made in their statements.
    Comment: A number of commenters recommended that the Department add 
a priority for projects that focus on improving outcomes related to 
school support services, school climate, school diversity, school 
safety, or parent or community involvement. Some commenters recommended 
adding a competitive preference priority for eligible applicants that 
propose initiatives to promote caring and culturally-responsive 
teachers as well as classrooms and schools that support positive social 
climates. One commenter recommended adding a competitive preference 
priority for projects that propose innovative approaches to reducing 
the use of alcohol, tobacco, and other addictive drugs. Another 
commenter recommended adding a competitive preference priority for 
projects proposing innovative approaches to reducing the incidence of 
crime, violence, and ``uncivil behavior'' (including bullying) in 
schools. One commenter recommended that the Department modify the 
proposed priorities to address student engagement, character education, 
and life skills; the commenter asserted that the proposed priorities 
ignore factors not directly associated with instruction that impact a 
student's ability to achieve academically.
    Some commenters recommended adding a priority for innovations that 
improve the social and other nonacademic supports that schools provide 
to students and families, such as assistance with child care, housing, 
transportation, and making college-related decisions. A number of 
commenters recommended adding a new priority or revising the proposed 
priorities to support innovative approaches to increase parental 
involvement. One commenter recommended focusing specifically on parent 
and community involvement in education in rural LEAs because, according 
to the commenter, rural LEAs face barriers such as limited 
transportation options, limited extracurricular programming, and 
limited community-based educational resources in promoting parent and 
community involvement in education.
    One commenter recommended adding an absolute priority that would 
require all projects to promote diverse student populations in schools 
with respect to demographic factors such as race, ethnicity, and parent 
socioeconomic status and educational attainment. A few commenters 
recommended adding an absolute priority for innovative reforms to 
reduce racial and economic segregation and isolation and to assess the 
potential effects of a proposed project on the racial and economic 
segregation and isolation of students. One commenter suggested that the 
Department emphasize increasing the economic and racial diversity of 
institutions of higher education.
    A number of commenters recommended that the Department add an 
absolute or competitive preference priority for innovative projects 
that engage communities in education reform, including increasing the 
representation of community stakeholders in reform-oriented policy- and 
decision-making.
    Discussion: While we recognize the importance of the issues and 
topics mentioned by the commenters, we decline to include additional 
priorities or revise the proposed priorities for this program as the 
commenters recommend. As stated elsewhere in this notice, the 
Department is using the Investing in Innovation Fund to support the 
overarching ARRA goal of improving student achievement and attainment. 
All applications for Investing in Innovation Fund grants will be 
assessed in part on the extent to which the proposed projects will have 
an impact on student achievement and attainment outcomes including the 
following: Improving student achievement or growth, closing achievement 
gaps, decreasing dropout rates, increasing high school graduation 
rates, and increasing college enrollment and completion rates. However, 
in providing evidence of the effects of their proposed projects, 
eligible applicants may also utilize intermediate variables that are 
strongly correlated with improving those outcomes (see Selection 
Criteria). These intermediate variables may include variables on the 
issues and topics mentioned by the commenters.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: A few commenters recommended that the Department include a 
competitive preference priority related to data collection and 
evaluation of project outcomes. One commenter recommended adding a 
competitive preference priority for eligible applicants that use 
systems for collecting project data that produce high-quality, 
reliable, and comparable data in order to ensure that funded projects 
can be properly evaluated. Another commenter recommended requiring 
systems for collecting project data to be created or utilized to 
support the innovation pursued under the

[[Page 12012]]

priority. One commenter recommended adding a competitive preference 
priority for consortia applicants that demonstrate the capacity to 
collect and analyze consortium-level project data (as opposed to State-
level data). Another commenter recommended that the Department add a 
competitive preference priority for applicants that propose innovative 
designs for evaluating project implementation and for disseminating 
project results and best practices.
    Discussion: Under the requirements for this program, any eligible 
applicant receiving funds must conduct an independent evaluation of its 
proposed project and comply with the requirements of any evaluation of 
the program conducted by the Department (see Evaluation requirement). 
Further, all applications will be judged in part on the quality of the 
eligible applicant's plan to evaluate its proposed project (see 
Selection Criterion D (Quality of the Project Evaluation)). Therefore, 
it is unnecessary to include a competitive preference priority focused 
on data collection and project evaluation as suggested by the 
commenters.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department add a 
competitive preference priority for an applicant that provides 
confirmation in its application that it has secured matching funds from 
the private sector or philanthropic community.
    Discussion: To be eligible for an award under this program, 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. Further, the Cost Sharing or 
Matching requirement for this program specifies that an eligible 
applicant must obtain matching funds or in-kind donations from the 
private sector equal to at least 20 percent of its grant award. Because 
these requirements apply to all applicants, it would serve no purpose 
to give competitive preference to eligible applicants that confirm 
receipt of matching funds in their applications. Therefore, we decline 
to make the change requested by the commenter.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: A few commenters recommended that the Department add a 
competitive preference priority for eligible applicants that propose 
projects that are based on well-conducted experimental studies or that 
have demonstrated records of success in implementing or scaling up 
research-based projects. Another commenter recommended that the 
Department investigate whether society believes it is morally 
imperative that educational practices be based on rigorous research.
    Discussion: All applications will be judged in part on the strength 
of the research in support of the proposed project and on the 
experience of the applicant (see Selection Criterion B (Strength of 
Research, Significance of Effect, and Magnitude of Effect) and 
Selection Criterion C (Experience of the Eligible Applicant)). 
Therefore, we do not believe it is necessary to add the competitive 
preference priority recommended by the commenter.
    With regard to the recommendation that the Department investigate 
whether society believes it is morally imperative that educational 
practices be based on rigorous research, this is not the purpose of the 
Investing in Innovation Fund. Therefore, we decline to follow the 
commenter's recommendation.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department add a 
competitive preference priority for projects that would be implemented 
throug