Final Priorities, Requirements, Definitions, and Selection Criteria-Investing in Innovation Fund, 18681-18709 [2013-07016]
Download as PDF
Vol. 78
Wednesday,
No. 59
March 27, 2013
Part II
Department of Education
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
34 CFR Subtitle A
Final Priorities, Requirements, Definitions, and Selection Criteria—Investing
in Innovation Fund; Applications for New Awards; Investing in Innovation
Fund, Development Grants; Rule and Notice
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:50 Mar 26, 2013
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4717
Sfmt 4717
E:\FR\FM\27MRR2.SGM
27MRR2
18682
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 27, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Subtitle A
RIN 1855–AA09
[Docket No. ED–2012–OII–0027]
Final Priorities, Requirements,
Definitions, and Selection Criteria—
Investing in Innovation Fund
Office of Innovation and
Improvement, Department of Education.
ACTION: Final priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria.
AGENCY:
[CFDA Numbers: 84.411A, 84.411B, and
84.411C]
SUMMARY: The Assistant Deputy
Secretary for Innovation and
Improvement announces priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection
criteria under the Investing in
Innovation Fund (i3). The Assistant
Deputy Secretary may use one or more
of these priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria for
competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2013
and later years.
We clarify and redesign key aspects of
the program by incorporating lessons
learned from past i3 competitions.
Specifically, we intend to improve the
i3 program to better achieve its purposes
and goal by making changes that will
result in accelerating the identification
of promising solutions to pressing
challenges in K–12 public education,
supporting the evaluation of the efficacy
of such solutions, and developing new
approaches to scaling effective practices
to serve more students.
DATES: These priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria are
effective April 26, 2013.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Carol Lyons, U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW.,
Room 4W203 LBJ, Washington, DC
20202. Telephone: (202) 453–7122 or by
email: i3@ed.gov.
If you use a telecommunications
device for the deaf (TDD) or a text
telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay
Service (FRS), toll free, at 1–800–877–
8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Executive Summary
Purpose of This Regulatory Action:
The purpose of this action is to establish
priorities, requirements, definitions, and
selection criteria that will enable
effective grant making, resulting in the
selection of high-quality applicants who
propose to implement activities that are
most likely to have a significant national
impact on educational reform and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:50 Mar 26, 2013
Jkt 229001
improvement. This document refines
the selection criteria for the i3 program
to better articulate the expectations for
the three types of i3 grants, provides
greater clarity regarding the program’s
evidence standards, widens the range of
these standards by broadening the types
of evidence that can be used to support
Development grants, and identifies a
comprehensive set of priorities that the
Secretary may select from to use in an
i3 grant competition for any given year.
Summary of the Major Provisions of
This Regulatory Action: This document
establishes priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria that
allow the Department to improve the
design of the i3 program to better
achieve its purposes and goals.
This document includes 11 priorities
that the Secretary may select from when
establishing priorities for each type of
grant (i.e., Development, Validation, and
Scale-up) in an i3 competition in a
given year. These priorities represent a
range of education topics:
• Improving the effectiveness of
teachers or principals;
• Improving low-performing schools;
• Improving science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics (STEM)
education;
• Improving academic outcomes for
students with disabilities;
• Improving academic outcomes for
English learners (ELs);
• Improving parent and family
engagement;
• Improving cost-effectiveness and
productivity;
• Effective use of technology;
• Enabling broad adoption of effective
practices; serving rural communities;
and
• Supporting novice applicants.
Of these priorities, ten were proposed
and one is added in response to public
comment. Specifically, in order to
expand the reach of the i3 program and
encourage entities that have not applied
previously for an i3 grant, we add a
priority for ‘‘novice i3 applicants,’’
meaning applicants that have never
received an i3 grant.
The Secretary will consider several
factors when selecting the priorities to
use in a given competition, including
the Department’s policy priorities, the
need for new solutions in a particular
priority area, the availability of other
funding sources to support a particular
priority area, and the results and lessons
learned from i3 competitions.
This document also clarifies and
strengthens the requirements and
definitions for the i3 program. For
example, the i3 program focuses on K–
12 public education. Therefore, we
clarify that all i3 grantees must
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
implement practices that serve students
who are in grades K–12 at some point
during the funding period. Further, we
strengthen the project evaluation
requirement so that i3 grantees will
conduct high-quality evaluations that
rigorously measure the effect of an i3supported practice, at the proposed
level of scale, on a relevant outcome (as
defined in this document). We also
revise the evidence standards and
definitions so that applicants can better
understand what is required to meet
each level of evidence.
Finally, this document establishes
new selection criteria designed to
ensure that applications selected for
funding have the potential to generate
substantial improvements in student
achievement and other key outcomes
and include well-articulated plans for
the implementation and evaluation of
the proposed project. Specifically, we
include selection factors that consider a
proposed project’s significance, the
quality of the project design, the
management plan, and the project
evaluation, as well as the qualifications
of key personnel.
This document includes some
revisions from the proposed priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection
criteria (NPP) (published in the Federal
Register on December 14, 2012 (77 FR
74407)). We discuss changes from the
NPP in greater detail in the Analysis of
Comments and Changes. We do not
discuss minor technical or editorial
changes.
Costs and Benefits: The Secretary
believes that these priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection
criteria do not impose significant costs
on eligible local educational agencies
(LEAs), nonprofit organizations, or other
entities that would receive assistance
through the i3 program.
The Secretary believes that the costs
imposed on applicants by these
priorities, requirements, definitions, and
selection criteria are limited to
paperwork burden related to preparing
an application and that the benefits of
implementing them outweigh any costs
incurred by applicants. The costs of
carrying out activities would be paid for
with program funds and with matching
funds provided by private-sector
partners. Thus, the costs of
implementation would not be a burden
for any eligible applicants, including
small entities. Please refer to the
Regulatory Impact Analysis section in
this preamble for a more complete
discussion of the costs and benefits of
this regulatory action.
This document provides an
accounting statement that estimates that
approximately $140 million will
E:\FR\FM\27MRR2.SGM
27MRR2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 27, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
transfer from the Federal Government to
LEAs and nonprofit organizations under
this program. Please refer to the
accounting statement in this preamble
for a more detailed discussion.
Purpose of Program: The i3 program
is designed to generate and validate
solutions to persistent educational
challenges and to support the expansion
of effective solutions across the country
to serve substantially larger numbers of
students. The central design element of
the i3 program is its multi-tier structure
that links the amount of funding that an
applicant may receive to the quality of
the evidence supporting the efficacy of
the proposed project. Applicants
proposing practices supported by
limited evidence can receive relatively
small grants that support the
development and initial evaluation of
promising practices and help to identify
new solutions to pressing challenges;
applicants proposing practices
supported by evidence from rigorous
evaluations, such as large randomized
controlled trials, can receive sizable
grants to support expansion across the
Nation. This structure provides
incentives for applicants to build
evidence of effectiveness of their
proposed projects and to address the
barriers to serving more students across
schools, districts, and States so that
applicants can compete for more
sizeable grants.
As importantly, all i3 projects are
required to generate additional evidence
of effectiveness. All i3 grantees must use
part of their budgets to conduct
independent evaluations (as defined in
this document) of their projects. This
ensures that projects funded under the
i3 program contribute significantly to
improving the information available to
practitioners and policymakers about
which practices work, for which types
of students, and in what contexts.
The Department awards three types of
grants under this program:
‘‘Development’’ grants, ‘‘Validation’’
grants, and ‘‘Scale-up’’ grants. These
grants differ in terms of the level of
prior evidence of effectiveness required
for consideration of funding, the level of
scale the funded project should reach,
and consequently the amount of funding
available to support the project. We
provide an overview to clarify the
expectations for each grant type:
1. Development grants provide
funding to support the development or
testing of practices that are supported by
evidence of promise (as defined in this
document) or strong theory (as defined
in this document) and whose efficacy
should be systematically studied.
Development grants will support new or
substantially more effective practices for
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:50 Mar 26, 2013
Jkt 229001
addressing widely shared challenges.
Development projects are novel and
significant nationally, not projects that
simply implement existing practices in
additional locations or support needs
that are primarily local in nature.
All Development grantees must
evaluate the effectiveness of the project
at the level of scale proposed in the
application.
2. Validation grants provide funding
to support expansion of projects
supported by moderate evidence of
effectiveness (as defined in this
document) to the national or regional
level (as defined in this document).
Validation grants must further assess the
effectiveness of the i3-supported
practice through a rigorous evaluation,
with particular focus on the populations
for and the contexts in which the
practice is most effective. We expect
and consider it appropriate that each
applicant will propose to use the
Validation funding to build its capacity
to deliver the i3-supported practice,
particularly early in the funding period,
to successfully reach the level of scale
proposed in its application.
Additionally, we expect each applicant
to address any specific barriers to the
growth or scaling of the organization or
practice (including barriers related to
cost-effectiveness) in order to deliver
the i3-supported practice at the
proposed level of scale and provide
strategies to address these barriers as
part of its proposed scaling plan.
All Validation grantees must evaluate
the effectiveness of the practice that the
supported project implements and
expands. We expect that these
evaluations will be conducted in a
variety of contexts and for a variety of
students, will identify the core elements
of the practice, and will codify the
practices to support adoption or
replication by the applicant and other
entities.
3. Scale-up grants provide funding to
support expansion of projects supported
by strong evidence of effectiveness (as
defined in this document) to the
national level (as defined in this
document). In addition to improving
outcomes for an increasing number of
high-need students, Scale-up grants will
generate information about the students
and contexts for which a practice is
most effective. We expect that Scale-up
grants will increase practitioners’ and
policymakers’ understanding of
strategies that allow organizations or
practices to expand quickly and
efficiently while maintaining their
effectiveness.
Similar to Validation grants, all Scaleup grantees must evaluate the
effectiveness of the i3-supported
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
18683
practice that the project implements and
expands; this is particularly important
in instances in which the proposed
project includes changing the i3supported practice in order to more
efficiently reach the proposed level of
scale (for example, by developing
technology-enabled training tools). The
evaluation of a Scale-up grant must
identify the core elements of, and
codify, the i3-supported practice that
the project implements to support
adoption or replication by other entities.
We also expect that evaluations of
Scale-up grants will be conducted in a
variety of contexts and for a variety of
students in order to determine the
context(s) and population(s) for which
the i3-supported practice is most
effective.
Program Authority: American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA),
Division A, Section 14007, Pub. L. 111–5.
We published a notice of proposed
priorities, requirements, definitions, and
selection criteria for this program in the
Federal Register on December 14, 2012
(77 FR 74407). That notice contained
background information and our reasons
for proposing the particular priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection
criteria.
Public Comment: In response to our
invitation in the proposed priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection
criteria, 37 parties submitted comments.
We group major issues according to
subject. Generally, we do not address
technical and other minor changes.
Analysis of Comments and Changes:
An analysis of the comments and of any
changes in the priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria since
publication of the proposed priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection
criteria follows.
Priorities
Priorities—General
Comment: Two commenters
expressed support for the i3 program’s
proposed approach of selecting from a
variety of priorities, each containing
several possible project focus areas,
rather than using broad priorities as we
have in the past. One commenter stated
that the approach was strategic and
would allow the Department to consider
the sequencing of priority areas across
years. One commenter stated that the
proposed approach would allow
flexibility and creativity that would
facilitate wholesale transformation of
the education field.
Two commenters disagreed with the
proposed approach. One stated that
allowing the Department to select from
a wide range of priorities and focus
E:\FR\FM\27MRR2.SGM
27MRR2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
18684
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 27, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
areas renders the priorities meaningless,
and recommended that the Department
focus on a smaller range of priorities
that are designed to close achievement
gaps in low-performing schools.
Another commenter expressed concern
that the Department’s proposed
approach would narrow the range of
projects funded under the i3 program by
limiting the focus of the priorities to
preconceived ideas of what works best
in education. The commenter suggested
that focusing on areas of acute need or
encouraging applicants to address
particular challenges would
disadvantage applicants proposing more
comprehensive approaches.
Discussion: We appreciate the support
from commenters regarding the
proposed structure of the priorities. The
flexibility to select from a variety of
possible project focus areas (i.e., the
subparts under each priority) within a
given priority will allow the Secretary to
prioritize areas based on the education
environment in a given year. This
flexibility will ensure that the i3
program reflects priorities that are
important and relevant to the field on an
ongoing basis.
We recognize that the priorities have
several subparts; however the priorities
will not be rendered meaningless
because the notice inviting applications
for each competition will provide a
concise list of the priorities that
establish a coherent and manageable
focus. Further, we do not agree that this
approach will narrow the range of
projects funded under the i3 program,
nor will it disadvantage comprehensive
projects because the priorities—
although specific about the need or
challenge a project must address—do
not prescribe the intervention or
practice that an applicant could
propose. Moreover, the i3 program may
include a broader priority if the
particular issue warrants it.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter stated that
achieving college, career, and
citizenship-ready skills should be the
core focus of the i3 program. The
commenter explained that these skills
are necessary for deeper learning and
lifelong success. The commenter
suggested that requiring all i3 projects to
produce measures aligned with these
outcomes would benefit the i3 program
because the Department could then
make comparisons across projects.
Discussion: We agree that it is
essential for students to be prepared to
think critically, solve complex
problems, and communicate effectively.
While these ‘‘deeper learning’’ skills are
important for long-term success, given
the diversity of the projects under the i3
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:50 Mar 26, 2013
Jkt 229001
program, applicants have discretion in
determining the specific outcomes and
measures that are relevant to their
proposed projects. Moreover, nothing in
the authorizing statute or the priorities,
requirements, definitions, or selection
criteria for this program prohibits
eligible applicants from using deeper
learning outcomes to evaluate their
projects. In addition, subparts (d) and
(e) of proposed priority 8 (Effective Use
of Technology) are explicitly focused on
the types of skills that are of interest to
the commenter.
Further, ARRA established the i3
program to expand the implementation
of, and investment in, innovative
practices that are demonstrated to
improve student achievement or student
growth, close achievement gaps,
decrease dropout rates, or increase high
school graduation rates. Although we
are not requiring all applicants to
respond to any one specific measure, all
i3 grantees are required to implement
practices that are designed to improve
one of these measures for high-need
students (as defined in this document).
By providing grantees the discretion to
determine which measure is most
appropriate to their projects, we avoid
compelling grantees to adopt measures
that do not fit their project and strike a
reasonable balance between providing
an opportunity to compare similar
projects without greatly limiting the
types of projects that we could fund.
Changes: None.
Comment: A few commenters
recommended the Department add other
priorities, including priorities that focus
on improving college access,
transitioning between secondary and
postsecondary schooling, promoting
diversity, and implementing new
models for teaching and learning that
are based on the science of learning and
research on youth development.
One commenter noted the absence of
a priority focused on assessment literacy
and suggested that the Department
either create an additional priority
focused on building educators’
assessment literacy or include
references to assessment literacy in
proposed priorities 1 (Improving the
Effectiveness of Teachers or Principals),
2 (Improving Low-Performing Schools),
3 (Improving Science, Technology,
Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM)
Education), and 5 (Improving Academic
Outcomes for English Learners (ELs)), as
well as the definitions of ‘‘highly
effective teacher’’ and ‘‘highly effective
principal.’’ The commenter also
discussed the Accessible Portable Item
Profile (APIP) standards and the
importance of ensuring that the delivery
of digital test content is tailored to each
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
student’s specific accessibility needs so
that students can demonstrate what they
know and can do. The commenter
suggested the Department consider
whether the use of APIP should be a
separate priority or a requirement for
any applicant addressing proposed
priorities 2 (Improving Low-Performing
Schools), 4 (Improving Academic
Outcomes for Students with
Disabilities), 5 (Improving Academic
Outcomes for English Learners (ELs)), 7
(Improving Cost Effectiveness and
Productivity), and 8 (Effective Use of
Technology).
Discussion: Although we recognize
the importance of the issues and topics
mentioned by the commenters, we
decline to include additional priorities
or revise the proposed priorities in the
ways suggested.
As noted in the NPP, in any i3
competition we may include priorities
from the notice of final supplemental
priorities and definitions for
discretionary grant programs, published
in the Federal Register on December 15,
2010 (75 FR 78486), and corrected on
May 12, 2011 (76 FR 27637)
(Supplemental Priorities). Because the
Supplemental Priorities include
priorities on increasing postsecondary
success, including the academic
preparation for and persistence in
postsecondary education, and
promoting diversity, we conclude that it
is not necessary for the Department to
develop new priorities to address these
areas here. In addition, there is nothing
in the priorities that would preclude an
eligible applicant from proposing
projects that promote school and
classroom diversity, provided that the
proposed project otherwise meets the
requirements in the relevant priority.
Further, because promoting diversity
aligns with many of the other priorities
we establish, we do not think it is
necessary to add a new priority to
address this topic.
We also do not consider it necessary
to create a separate priority that focuses
on new models for teaching and
learning because many of the priorities
in this document would allow
applicants to propose new models for
teaching and learning while addressing
a content-specific challenge. For
example, under priority 1 (Improving
the Effectiveness of Teachers or
Principals), we include a subpart on
developing new models for teacher
preparation. Similarly, under priority 9
(Effective Use of Technology), we
include a subpart on developing and
implementing technology-enabled
strategies for teaching and learning
concepts and content that are difficult to
teach using traditional approaches. We
E:\FR\FM\27MRR2.SGM
27MRR2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 27, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
think that the development and
implementation of new models for
teaching and learning is most effective
when the models address a specific
challenge.
With regard to the recommendation
that we include assessment literacy in
several priority areas, although we agree
that it is important for teachers and
principals to understand and use data
and assessment results to improve
teaching, we do not think it is necessary
to prescribe assessment literacy as a
requirement because nothing prohibits
applicants from addressing it under the
priorities as written. Similarly, with
regard to the APIP standards, we agree
that assessments should be designed to
be accessible to all students and that the
use of standards to ensure
interoperability is critical to the
portability of assessments. While we
expect any i3 grant that is developing
and implementing assessments to
consider accessibility standards, given
the variety of projects that can be
funded under the i3 program, we do not
think it is appropriate for the
Department to prescribe a specific set of
standards.
Changes: None.
Comment: Four commenters
suggested revisions to several of the
proposed priorities that would
encourage the use of the principles of
universal design for learning (UDL).
Specifically, these commenters
provided revised text incorporating UDL
into subparts under proposed priorities
1 (Improving the Effectiveness of
Teachers or Principals), 2 (Improving
Low-Performing Schools), 3 (Improving
Science, Technology, Engineering, and
Mathematics (STEM) Education), 4
(Improving Academic Outcomes for
Students with Disabilities), 5
(Improving Academic Outcomes for
English Learners (ELs)), 6 (Improving
Parent and Family Engagement), and 8
(Effective Use of Technology). One
commenter explained that these
revisions would support the inclusion
of students with disabilities and their
interests in general education and the i3
program.
Discussion: There is nothing in the
priorities precluding an eligible
applicant from proposing projects that
use principles of UDL or that support
greater inclusion of students with
disabilities, provided that the proposed
project otherwise meets the
requirements of the relevant priority.
Given the variety of projects that can be
funded under the i3 program and our
intent to maximize the number of
potential applicants, we do not want to
prescribe a specific principle of
learning.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:50 Mar 26, 2013
Jkt 229001
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter
recommended the Department revise
priorities 1 (Improving the Effectiveness
of Teachers or Principals), 3 (Improving
Science, Technology, Engineering, and
Mathematics (STEM) Education), 5
(Improving Academic Outcomes for
English Learners (ELs)), and 8 (Effective
Use of Technology) to add specific
references to the use of high-quality,
multiplatform digital content and
services. The commenter explained that
digital tools make learning accessible to
all students and are essential to teacher
preparation and development. Further,
the commenter stated that multiplatform
digital content improves the services
provided to students with different
learning needs.
Discussion: There is nothing in these
priorities that would preclude an
eligible applicant from proposing
projects that utilize multiplatform
digital content and services, provided
that the proposed project otherwise
meets the requirements of the relevant
priority. Given the variety of projects
that can be funded under the i3 program
and our intent to maximize the number
of potential applicants, we do not want
to prescribe specific tools or approaches
that must be used.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter supported
the inclusion of subparts focused on
capacity building in proposed priority 2
(Improving Low-Performing Schools)
and recommended the Department
include similar provisions under
proposed priorities 1 (Improving the
Effectiveness of Teachers or Principals),
3 (Improving Science, Technology,
Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM)
Education), 4 (Improving Academic
Outcomes for Students with
Disabilities), 5 (Improving Academic
Outcomes for English Learners (ELs)),
and 6 (Improving Parent and Family
Engagement). The commenter stated
that projects under these priorities
would benefit from a similar capacity
building to support external
relationships at the partner, district, or
State level.
Discussion: The i3 program supports
the expansion and scaling of effective
programs by providing sufficient
funding to build organizational capacity
and to overcome barriers to reaching
additional students. The different tiers
of i3 grants provide a continuum for
funding effective programs that spans
initial, localized development to
implementation on a national scale. The
hope is that more effective practices will
replace less effective practices and lead
to increases in student achievement and
improvements in other student
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
18685
outcomes. Thus, a general expectation
under the i3 program, particularly for
the Scale-up and Validation grants, is
that applicants consider how to build
their capacity both internally and
externally to scale their projects to serve
more students. For that reason, we do
not think it is necessary to include
subparts in all of the priorities
identified by the commenter in order to
encourage grantees to build external
relationships.
Additionally, one of the goals of the
i3 program is to demonstrate how to
effectively build capacity amongst key
entities in K–12 public education (e.g.,
educators, schools, parents) in order to
improve student achievement for highneed students. However, the
Department believes that this is best
accomplished without being overly
prescriptive about the role of outside
entities.
We proposed two subparts under
priority 2 (Improving Low-Performing
Schools) that are specific to capacity
building and external partners because
initiatives to turn around lowperforming schools often benefit from
the involvement of diverse stakeholders.
To clarify that the intent of these
subparts is to improve school-,
district-, and State-level capacity to
support school turnaround efforts, we
are making technical revisions to
subparts (e) and (f) of the priority.
Changes: We have revised subpart (e)
under priority 2 (Improving LowPerforming Schools) to clarify that
projects must support the efforts of lowperforming schools or districts in their
turnaround efforts by increasing access
to, and use of, high-quality partners.
We also have revised subpart (f) under
this priority to clarify that projects must
be designed to increase district- or Statelevel capacity to turn around lowperforming schools, which would
encompass, among other things,
improvements to State and district
support and oversight of turnaround
efforts.
Comment: One commenter questioned
whether the Department has the
authority to include priorities or
definitions that reference diverse
student populations, racial and ethnic
groups, and gender. The commenter
further stated that it is generally illegal
for government programs to show
favoritism or use classifications based
on race, ethnicity, or sex.
Discussion: We agree that priority 3
(Improving Science, Technology,
Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM)
Education), and the requirement that all
i3 grants implement projects that are
designed to improve student
achievement for high-need students (as
E:\FR\FM\27MRR2.SGM
27MRR2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
18686
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 27, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
defined in this document) support
investments in and encourage
innovative strategies that are designed
to increase access to rigorous
educational opportunities for high-need
students or individuals traditionally
underrepresented in STEM fields.
However, we do not agree that this
priority and requirement show any
favoritism toward a specific population
group. Furthermore, recipients of any
Department of Education funding,
including i3 funds, must comply with
all of the nondiscrimination
requirements set forth in Title VI of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, Section 504 of
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Title IX
of the Education Amendments of 1972,
and the Age Discrimination Act of 1975.
On December 2, 2011, the Departments
of Education and Justice jointly issued
guidance that explains how educational
institutions can use generalized racebased approaches (i.e., approaches that
employ racial criteria, such as the
overall racial composition of
neighborhoods, but do not involve
decision-making on the basis of any
individual student’s race or treat
individual students differently because
of their race) within the framework of
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The ‘‘Guidance on the Voluntary Use of
Race to Achieve Diversity and Avoid
Racial Isolation in Elementary and
Secondary Schools’’ is available on the
Department’s Web site at www.ed.gov/
ocr/docs/guidance-ese-201111.pdf. For
additional information and assistance
on civil rights laws that may impose
additional requirements on recipients
and subrecipients of Federal financial
assistance, visit www2.ed.gov/policy/
gen/leg/recovery/notices/civilrights.html.
Changes: None.
Comment: In response to the
Department’s specific request for
comment, a few commenters supported
the establishment of a priority for
applicants that have never received, or
partnered with, an entity that has
received a grant under the i3 program.
The commenters stated that such a
priority would increase the pool of
innovative applicants. However, one
commenter expressed concern that such
a priority would discourage applicants
from partnering with multiple entities.
The commenter also suggested that
entities proposing to provide effective
services to students should be
encouraged to continue to partner with
multiple entities regardless of whether
they have been part of an i3 grant in the
past.
Discussion: We recognize that the
dual goals of supporting practices that
are both innovative and evidence-based
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:50 Mar 26, 2013
Jkt 229001
have the potential to limit the universe
of applicants. In order to expand the
reach of the i3 program and encourage
entities that have not applied previously
for an i3 grant, we will add a priority
for ‘‘novice i3 applicants,’’ meaning
applicants that have never received an
i3 grant. Although this priority will
provide an incentive for new applicants,
we do not think it will discourage
applicants with multiple partners from
applying for i3 grants, particularly given
the high volume of applications the i3
program, particularly the Development
grant competition, typically receives.
However, because we do not want to
discourage applicants from seeking
partnerships, we will focus the priority
only on entities that have never received
an i3 grant directly.
Changes: We have established a
priority (Supporting Novice i3
Applicants) for an eligible applicant that
has never directly received a grant
under this program. We may use this
priority to establish a separate
competition for applicants that have
never received an i3 grant or to select
an application that meets this priority
over an application of comparable merit
that does not meet this priority (see 34
CFR 75.105(c)(2)(ii)).
Proposed Priority 1—Improving the
Effectiveness of Teachers or Principals
Comment: One commenter
recommended including this priority
because it supports projects that will
bring more highly effective teachers into
high-need schools.
Discussion: We appreciate the
commenter’s support for this priority,
and agree with the importance of
ensuring that students have access to
highly effective teachers and principals.
That is why this priority focuses on all
dimensions of the teacher and principal
career path and seeks to identify
effective methods for recruiting,
preparing, supporting, evaluating, and
retaining effective principals and
teachers, particularly at schools that
serve high-need students.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter proposed
specific revisions to several of the
subparts under this priority to focus
more on school leadership, including
developing new or improved models for
principal preparation, such as leading
instruction, aligning resources across
classrooms, managing talent, and
increasing teacher retention. The
commenter proposed adding a new
subpart to support projects that develop
models of teacher and principal
certification and licensure. The
commenter also suggested that we revise
subpart (c) to include models for the
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
induction and support of novice
principals in addition to novice
teachers.
Discussion: We agree with the
commenter about the importance of
strong school leadership. Therefore, we
have revised the priority to include a
new subpart that specifically focuses on
principal preparation and to clarify that
projects under subpart (c) may propose
models of induction and support that
serve either teachers or principals.
However, we decline to add a subpart
regarding the development of models for
teacher and principal certification and
licensures. Certification and licensure
are typically State-level functions, and it
is not clear that an applicant for an i3
program could or should develop such
models, particularly as eligible entities
for i3 grants do not include State
agencies.
Changes: We have created a new
subpart (c) that specifically focuses on
principal preparation and training.
Additionally, we have revised proposed
subpart (c) to include models of
induction and support that serve
principals and re-designated it as
subpart (d). With the addition of the
new subpart, we re-designate proposed
subparts (d)–(i) so that they are now
labeled (e)–(j), respectively.
Comment: One commenter
recommended that the Department
require that projects focus on the
recruitment of teachers to also address
teacher retention. The commenter stated
that the greater challenge in high-need,
low-performing schools is teacher
retention. Thus, according to the
commenter, in order for recruitment
efforts to be cost-effective, projects must
also include components that provide
ongoing investment in newly recruited
teachers to ensure that they remain in
the profession for a minimum of three
to five years. The commenter also
suggested that this priority focus on
programs that begin recruitment and
preparation for future teachers as early
as middle and high school.
Discussion: We agree with the
commenter that recruitment without
effective induction, support, or other
retention strategies would have a
limited impact. However, we also
recognize that the parties responsible for
recruitment tend to be different than
those responsible for retention. That is
why we include different subparts
under the priority to focus on the
different dimensions of a teacher’s
career path. Although subpart (a)
focuses on recruitment models and
subpart (d) (initially proposed as
subpart (c)) addresses models of
induction and support to increase
teacher retention, nothing in either
E:\FR\FM\27MRR2.SGM
27MRR2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 27, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
subpart prohibits an applicant from
proposing to address both recruitment
and retention.
With regard to adding a subpart to
this priority for projects that begin
teacher recruitment as early as middle
or high school, it is not clear that a
project with this approach could be
implemented and evaluated in the
maximum funding period for a grant.
The Department’s current regulations
authorize the Secretary to approve a
project period up to 60 months (see 34
CFR 75.250). As most teachers complete
postsecondary education, a project
focusing on teacher recruitment with
middle school students would need a
minimum of 120 months (assuming one
year of middle school, four years of high
school, four years of postsecondary
education, and one year of work). Thus,
the necessary project period would be
significantly longer than what the
Department’s current regulations allow
and we do not think it would be
prudent to add a subpart that would
require a waiver of the regulations in
order to use it. In addition, we are not
aware of research that indicates that
recruitment at such an early age is likely
to be particularly effective.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested
revising subpart (b) of this priority to
specify that teacher training include
practices addressing family and
community engagement.
Discussion: We agree with the
commenter about the importance of
including parent and community
engagement in teacher training
programs. However, we think that
training is most effective when it is
specific to the needs of the students and
the surrounding community. For that
reason, we already include teacher
training related to parent and family
engagement at the school- or districtlevel instead of the pre-service or
preparation stage. Specifically, subpart
(b) under priority 6 (Improving Parent
and Family Engagement) would support
projects implementing initiatives that
are designed to enhance skills and
competencies of school staff to build
relationships and collaborate with
families.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested
revising proposed subpart (f) to specify
that the supports must be evidencebased and address cognitive, social,
emotional, and behavioral barriers to
student achievement. The commenter
also recommended adding a new
subpart under this priority for projects
that develop high-quality pathways into
schools. These would include nonuniversity-based programs that recruit,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:50 Mar 26, 2013
Jkt 229001
select, train, and recommend teachers or
principals to the State for certification
and licensure, and full-time residency
programs that develop national service
members, community volunteers, and
part-time educators to become
credentialed teachers.
Discussion: The i3 program already
requires that all projects meet certain
evidence standards. Therefore, we do
not think it is necessary to specify in
this priority that the projects must be
evidence-based. With regard to the
second recommendation, as nonuniversity-based programs could
address subpart (a) under this priority,
we do not think it is necessary to create
a separate subpart that targets a specific
type of entity or program.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter
recommended that proposed subpart (g),
increasing the equitable distribution of
effective teachers or principals across
schools, should also include efforts to
increase the actual number of effective
teachers within a high-need district. The
commenter noted that, without an equal
emphasis on increasing the number of
effective teachers, a project could meet
this priority by redistributing a
relatively small number of highly
effective teachers. The commenter
stated that professional learning
communities and induction programs
for early career teachers should be
supported in order to increase the
number of effective teachers within a
high-need district.
Discussion: We agree with the
commenter that the initial wording for
proposed subpart (g) (now subpart (h))
could result in projects that redistribute
only a small number of highly effective
teachers without significantly increasing
students’ access to them. Therefore, we
have revised the subpart to focus on
student access to effective teachers or
principals.
We also agree with the commenter
about the importance of increasing the
total number of effective teachers in
high-need districts. However, as
subparts (b), (c), and (g) (initially
proposed as subpart (f)) would support
projects designed to increase the
number of highly effective teachers, we
do not think it is necessary to include
the specific strategies recommended by
the commenter in current subpart (h)
(initially proposed as subpart (g)).
Changes: We have revised current
subpart (h) (initially proposed as
subpart (g)) under this priority to clarify
that projects addressing this subpart
must increase the equitable access to
effective teachers or principals for lowincome and high-need students, which
may include increasing the equitable
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
18687
distribution of effective teachers or
principals for low-income and highneed students across schools.
Comment: None.
Discussion: Under this priority,
subpart (i) (initially proposed as subpart
(h)) addresses the development and
implementation of models that improve
school conditions for teaching and
learning. We intend for this subpart to
promote the development and
implementation of projects that allow
highly effective teachers to serve more
students. With this change, we have
removed the explicit reference to
improving conditions for teaching and
learning because we consider it to be
included in the identified strategies. For
example, a new staffing model that
relieves effective teachers of some of
their administrative responsibilities in
order to enable them to teach online
classes to students in another school
could extend the influence of highly
effective teachers. We also have revised
this subpart to clarify that, in addressing
this subpart, projects could focus on
developing and implementing strategies
that allow effective teachers either to
serve more students or reduce the
burdens or challenges that impede them
from doing so.
Changes: We have revised subpart (i)
(initially proposed as subpart (h)) to
clarify the types of projects it is
intended to address. Specifically, this
subpart will support projects that
extend highly effective teachers’ reach
to serve more students, including
strategies such as new course designs,
staffing models, technology platforms,
or new opportunities for collaboration
that allow highly effective teachers to
reach more students, or approaches or
tools that reduce administrative and
other burdens while maintaining or
improving teacher effectiveness and
efficiency.
Comment: One commenter stated that
the demographic shift in the Nation is
increasing the number of multilingual
and multicultural classrooms and
recommended that the Department
address this shift by incorporating
language into this priority addressing
preparing teachers to work with diverse
populations.
Discussion: We agree that it is
important that teachers are prepared to
work with diverse student populations,
particularly given current demographic
shifts. There is nothing that would
preclude an eligible applicant from
proposing projects that improve the
effectiveness of teachers by increasing
their ability to work with diverse
student populations. However, in order
to ensure flexibility for all potential
applicants responding to this priority,
E:\FR\FM\27MRR2.SGM
27MRR2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
18688
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 27, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
we decline to specify the types of
student populations, which could
include diverse student populations,
with whom teachers must be prepared
work.
Changes: None.
Comment: Two commenters proposed
the addition of a new subpart for
projects that would improve the
development of teachers and external
partners working to implement
expanded learning opportunities in
schools. Another commenter expressed
support for several of the subparts but
recommended the addition of a new
subpart for projects that develop models
for labor-management partnerships
designed to improve teacher
effectiveness by having expert teachers
mentor and evaluate their peers.
Discussion: The commenters’
recommendations for new subparts are
already addressed by other priorities.
For example, subpart (a) of priority 2
(Improving Low-Performing Schools)
supports projects that expand learning
opportunities for both teachers and
students. Similarly, applicants could
propose projects that focus on labormanagement partnerships and peer
evaluations under subpart (f) (initially
proposed as subpart (e)), provided the
proposed projects otherwise meet the
requirements of the subpart. Thus, we
do not think it is necessary to add new
subparts under priority 1 (Improving the
Effectiveness of Teachers or Principals).
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter expressed
concern that this priority does not
encourage teachers to use practices that
would drive the development and
implementation of new ‘‘learning
environments.’’ The commenter
recommended the i3 program support
projects that would equip teachers with
knowledge of the science of learning
and youth development and with the
skills needed to analyze data and
develop assessments, to advance the use
of expanded learning time, to
collaborate effectively, and to make
better use of technology.
Discussion: We agree that it is
important for teachers to have the
knowledge and skills suggested by the
commenter. However, because these
topics are addressed in other priorities,
we decline to add additional subparts
under this priority. For example,
priority 2 (Improving Low-Performing
Schools) includes subparts that focus on
extending and enhancing learning time
and priority 8 (Effective Use of
Technology) includes subparts that
focus on developing methods and
resources to increase the use and
integration of technology to improve
teaching and learning.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:50 Mar 26, 2013
Jkt 229001
Changes: None.
Comment: None.
Discussion: As part of our internal
discussion of the comments on this
priority, we noted that a number of the
proposed subparts refer to ‘‘developing’’
models or methods. As all i3 grantees
must implement the practices they
develop to serve students who are in
grades K–12 at some point during the
funding period, we have revised these
subparts to clarify that the projects
under these subparts must both develop
and implement the proposed models or
methods.
Changes: We have revised subparts
(a), (b), and (d) (initially proposed as
subpart (c)) from ‘‘developing’’ to
‘‘developing and implementing’’ in
order to clarify our intent that
applications addressing these subparts
must implement the practices that they
develop during the project period.
Comment: None.
Discussion: As part of our internal
discussion of the comments on this
priority, we noted that subpart (f)
(initially proposed as subpart (e)),
included an inconsistency in the use of
‘‘teachers or principals.’’ Specifically,
the subpart focused on designing and
implementing ‘‘teacher or principal
evaluation systems,’’ but also referred to
feedback that guides professional
development for ‘‘teachers and
principals.’’ To ensure that applicants
understand that they may focus on
teachers or principals when submitting
projects under this subpart, we have
revised it so that we consistently refer
to ‘‘teachers or principals.’’
Changes: We have revised subpart (f)
(initially proposed as subpart (e)) from
‘‘* * * guides professional
development for teachers and
principals’’ to ‘‘* * * guides
professional development for teachers
or principals’’ in order to clarify our
intent that applications addressing this
subpart may focus on either teacher or
principal evaluation systems.
Proposed Priority 2—Improving LowPerforming Schools
Comment: One commenter
recommended that the Department
revise this proposed priority to include
the use of arts education to
academically engage students as an
example of strengthening the
instructional program in a whole-school
model. The commenter also
recommended adding a subpart for
projects proposing to develop arts
education programs and improve the
skills of arts educators. Another
commenter offered a similar
recommendation, suggesting the
Department revise subparts (a) and (d)
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
of this priority to include a focus on
student’s health and nutrition as a part
of designing whole-school models.
Discussion: Subpart (a) provides
examples of strategies that may be used
in whole school models. However, these
strategies are broad, concerning changes
to a school’s design, instructional
program, staffing, or culture. We do not
think it is appropriate for the
Department to prescribe the specifics of
how applicants must implement these
strategies (e.g., arts education), because
we want to ensure applicants have as
much flexibility as possible to propose
whole-school models that best meet the
needs of the students and schools they
are proposing to serve. As nothing in
this priority prohibits an applicant from
proposing to use arts education to
strengthen the instructional program in
a whole-school model, we do not
believe an additional subpart is
necessary.
We agree with the commenter that a
student’s health and nutrition affects the
student’s ability to learn. That is why
proposed subpart (a) references
strategies that address non-academic
factors that affect student learning and
proposed subpart (d) focuses on services
and strategies that address nonacademic barriers to student learning.
Because health and nutrition services
may be addressed under this priority,
we do not think it is necessary to create
a separate subpart that focuses only on
health services. Moreover, as noted
previously, applicants should have the
flexibility to identify the specific nonacademic barriers and strategies to
address those barriers that are relevant
to their particular project.
However, we have revised subpart (d)
to clarify that projects also may focus on
mitigating the effects of poverty,
including health and nutrition issues,
on student engagement in learning. In
addition, because we think it is
important that the social supports
provided under this priority relate to
improved student outcomes, we have
revised subpart (d) to focus on the
intended outcomes rather than the
specific type of strategies that an
applicant must be use.
Changes: We have revised subpart (d)
to focus on projects that are designed to
improve students’ non-cognitive
abilities and enhance student
engagement in learning, or that mitigate
the effects of poverty, including
physical, mental, or emotional health
issues, on student engagement in
learning.
Comment: One commenter discussed
the distinction between whole-school
reform efforts and ‘‘wraparound’’ social
supports that might result in targeted
E:\FR\FM\27MRR2.SGM
27MRR2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 27, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
interventions that do not affect all
students in a school. The commenter
encouraged the Department to look
beyond whole-school efforts because
some interventions may not be as
efficient or effective if offered to an
entire school population.
Discussion: We agree that wholeschool reform models may not be the
most appropriate option for all schools.
That is why under this priority we
include multiple subparts that address
different types of interventions for
turning around low-performing schools.
However, we disagree with the
commenter’s conclusion that a wholeschool reform model requires that all
students receive the same set of services
or interventions. For example, a whole
school reform model could strengthen a
school’s instructional program by
providing personalized learning
experiences that address each student’s
unique needs. Under this scenario, a
whole school reform model would be
used to provide each student with a
unique, as opposed to identical, set of
services.
Additionally, we consider wholeschool reform to be a powerful and
important approach that is effective, in
certain contexts, in improving student
outcomes. Therefore, we believe it is
important to include a subpart in this
priority that specifically addresses
whole-school reform models and have
revised subpart (a) to clarify that the
intent is to support projects that lead to
significant and sustained improvement
in individual student performance and
overall school performance and culture.
Although we agree that whole-school
reform efforts are distinct from targeted
approaches to reforming low-performing
schools, we also believe that it is
essential for applicants to ensure that
their proposed projects complement the
broader turnaround efforts of the school,
LEA, or State. We have revised the
requirements of this priority to clarify
this expectation.
Changes: We have revised subpart (a)
to clarify that projects addressing
subpart (a) must implement processes
that lead to significant and substantial
improvement in individual student
performance and overall school
performance and culture. In addition,
we have provided examples of the types
of strategies applicants may incorporate
into their proposed whole-school
models. We also have revised the
requirements of priority 2 to include a
condition that projects complement
broader reform efforts for turning
around low-performing schools.
Comment: Five commenters
recommended the Department revise the
language in subpart (a) ‘‘redesigning the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:50 Mar 26, 2013
Jkt 229001
school day, week, or year’’ to
‘‘extending or expanding the school day,
week, or year’’ in order to clarify that
before-, after-, and summer school
programs would meet this priority.
Three of these commenters also
suggested a similar revision to subpart
(e). One commenter noted that
extending the school year might reduce
summer learning loss, and provide
additional time for high school students
to focus more on work-based learning,
service-learning, or various other
learning opportunities.
Discussion: Applicants may propose
projects under subpart (a) that redesign
the school day by extending or
expanding the school day, week, or
year, including before-, after-, and
summer school programs, provided
their proposed projects meet the
requirements of the priority. We decline
to change the language of subpart (a) as
the commenter suggested because we do
not think adding time to the school day,
week, or year, unless done in
conjunction with other strategies or
reforms, is sufficient to meet the
requirements of this priority.
However, we recognize that extending
learning time is one way that schools
can change their organizational design,
and we have therefore revised subpart
(b) to include a greater focus on
organizational design. As proposed,
subpart (b) focused on changing
elements of a school’s organizational
design to mitigate non-academic barriers
to learning through strategies such as
differentiating staff roles, changing
student groups, or enhancing
instructional time. Because subpart (a)
addresses particular approaches for
school turnaround that can be
undertaken within a school’s existing
organization, we have modified subpart
(b) to include a greater focus on
extending and enhancing instructional
time and the organizational implications
associated with improving instruction
by extending learning time.
Changes: We have revised subpart (b)
to support projects that would change
elements of the school’s organizational
design to improve instruction by
differentiating staff roles and extending
and enhancing instructional time.
Comment: One commenter suggested
that, in addition to increasing the rigor
of instructional practices, subpart (a)
should address students’ access to
rigorous coursework at the secondary
level. The commenter also
recommended that the Department
create a new subpart under this priority
to support competency-based systems
that measure the effects of these
practices on increasing graduation rates
and student learning.
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
18689
Discussion: Nothing in this priority
prohibits an applicant from proposing to
strengthen the instructional program in
a whole-school model by increasing
students’ access to rigorous coursework
at the secondary level or implementing
a competency-based system. Because
these activities are permissible under
subpart (a) and we want to ensure
applicants have as much flexibility as
possible to propose whole-school
models that best meet the needs of the
students and schools they are proposing
to serve, we do not think it is necessary
to revise subpart (a) or establish a
separate subpart that addresses only
these approaches.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested
adding personalized instruction enabled
by technology as an example of a reform
strategy in subpart (a). The commenter
noted that using differentiated
instructional content allows for the
effective and efficient use of data in
determining the needs of students
struggling in low-performing schools.
Discussion: As noted in response to a
prior comment on priority 2, we do not
think it is appropriate for the
Department to prescribe how applicants
would strengthen the instructional
programs because we think it is
important for applicants to have as
much flexibility as possible to propose
whole-school models that best meet the
needs of the students and schools they
are proposing to serve. To that end, we
provide applicants discretion in
proposing how they would strengthen
the instructional program in a wholeschool model; and nothing prohibits
applicants from using personalized
instruction. For these reasons, we
decline to revise subpart (a). However,
we have revised subpart (a) under
priority 8 (Effective Use of Technology)
to clarify that to meet subpart (a),
projects must focus on personalized
instruction. As the subpart language
maintains that the learning experiences
must be adaptive and self-improving,
we do not think this change loses the
subpart’s focus on learning experiences
that improve or adapt based on
students’ needs in real-time.
Changes: We have revised subpart (a)
under priority 8 (Effective Use of
Technology) to clarify that the learning
experiences must be personalized to
individual students’ learning needs, as
opposed to simply providing adaptive
learning experiences.
Comment: Three commenters
suggested that the Department clarify
that the reference to external partners in
subpart (e) includes results-driven
organizations, intermediaries,
E:\FR\FM\27MRR2.SGM
27MRR2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
18690
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 27, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
professional providers, national service
members, and community volunteers.
Discussion: We think an applicant is
best suited to select the external
providers or partners for its project.
Because we do not want to narrow the
potential for external partnerships, we
decline to list the types of external
partners with which an applicant may
work.
To ensure projects under subpart (e)
are designed to increase schools’ and
districts’ access to high-quality partners,
we have revised this subpart to focus on
the intended outcomes for schools and
districts rather than on developing the
capacity of external partners.
Changes: As noted in response to a
prior comment on priority 2, we have
revised subpart (e) to clarify that
projects addressing it must support lowperforming schools or districts in their
turnaround efforts by increasing access
to and use of high-quality partners.
Comment: One commenter
recommended this priority be revised to
support fundamental changes to
schools’ governance and management
structures that impede school
innovations or educator and student
engagement.
Discussion: Subpart (f) under this
priority supports projects that are
designed to increase capacity at the
school, district, and State levels to
improve the support and oversight for
turnaround efforts. Thus, projects could
include a focus on improving
governance and management structures
that may impede a school’s turnaround
efforts. To clarify that applicants may
propose a variety of approaches under
this subpart (e.g., changing governance
and management structures), we have
revised it to focus on the intended
outcomes of increased capacity (i.e.,
better support and oversight), thus
encouraging applicants to develop
approaches that are appropriate to their
specific contexts and challenges.
Changes: As noted previously, we
have revised subpart (f) to clarify that
projects must be designed to increase
district- or State-level capacity to turn
around low-performing schools,
including improvements to State and
district support and oversight of
turnaround efforts.
Comment: None.
Discussion: Although recent reports
indicate that the Nation’s dropout rate is
decreasing, the rate is still much higher
than in other developed countries. To
address this, we have added a subpart
that specifically focuses on serving lowperforming high schools and their
turnaround efforts. This subpart is
written broadly to provide applicants
discretion in how best to serve these
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:50 Mar 26, 2013
Jkt 229001
schools and may include projects that
focus on the use of early warning
indicators to identify students who are
at risk of dropping out.
Changes: We have added subpart (g)
to this priority for projects that support
the implementation of turnaround
efforts in secondary schools.
Proposed Priority 3—Improving Science,
Technology, Engineering, and
Mathematics (STEM) Education
Comment: Two commenters
expressed general support for this
priority. One commenter stated that K–
12 education must continue to be a
priority in Federal programs and noted
that the i3 program has the potential to
identify effective science instruction
programs that could make use of
informal learning institutions, such as
science centers and museums. One
commenter reflected on the need for
high quality teachers in STEM subject
areas, and applauded the Department’s
recognition of this need.
Discussion: We appreciate the
commenter’s support for this priority
and agree with the importance of
ensuring students’ access to high-quality
STEM education. That is why this
priority focuses on students’ access to
rigorous STEM coursework and
learning, redesigning STEM course
content and instructional practices, and
improving the STEM teacher pipeline.
With regard to the need for high quality
teachers in STEM subject areas, subpart
(c) targets projects that propose to
develop new methods and resources for
recruiting individuals with STEM
expertise into teaching.
Also, as noted previously, all i3
grantees must implement (as well as
develop) practices that serve K–12
students at some point during the
funding period. Thus, we have revised
this subpart to clarify that the projects
must develop and implement methods
and resources for recruiting individuals
with STEM expertise into teaching.
Similarly, we have revised subpart (g) to
clarify that teachers or educators of
STEM subjects who participate in
projects addressing subpart (g) must
receive, not just have increased
opportunities for, high-quality
preparation and teacher development.
Changes: We have revised subpart (c)
to focus on projects that develop and
implement new methods and resources
for recruiting individuals with STEM
expertise into teaching. We also have
revised subpart (g) to clarify that
projects addressing subpart (g) must
increase the number of individuals from
groups traditionally underrepresented
in STEM, including minorities,
individuals with disabilities, and
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
women, who are teachers or educators
of STEM subjects and receive highquality preparation or professional
development.
Comment: Three commenters
recommended that the Department
include increased access to coursework
in environmental literacy as a subpart
under this priority. The commenters
stressed that environmental literacy is
critical to the Nation’s economy and
noted the correlation between
environmental education and student
engagement and achievement in STEM
subjects.
Discussion: We recognize the
importance of environmental education,
and it is part of STEM education. As
subpart (a) focuses on providing
students with increased access to
rigorous and engaging coursework in
STEM, which could include
environmental education, and in order
to ensure applicants have flexibility in
responding to this subpart, we do not
think it is appropriate to add a separate
subpart that focuses only on one STEM
subject.
Changes: None.
Comment: Two commenters
discussed concerns regarding student
access to STEM education. One
commenter recommended that the
Department encourage the development
and use of more online learning tools to
increase access to the most effective
STEM courses, while the other
commenter suggested that the
Department amend subparts (a), (b), and
(d) to require applicants to use highquality multiplatform digital content
and services.
Discussion: Nothing in this priority or
the authorizing statute prohibits an
applicant from proposing to use online
learning or multiplatform digital content
to increase student access to STEM
content. Thus, applicants have the
discretion to propose to use the
approaches specified by the commenter.
We decline to make the proposed
revisions, however, because we do not
want to prescribe the specific tools or
approaches an applicant must use to
increase students’ access to STEM
content.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter
recommended that, in addition to a
focus on expanding opportunities for
high-quality out-of-school and
extended-day activities under subpart
(e), the Department require STEMrelated community problem-solving and
service learning. Additionally, the
commenter suggested the Department
include a subpart for projects designed
to integrate STEM learning across other
K–12 academic areas.
E:\FR\FM\27MRR2.SGM
27MRR2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 27, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Discussion: Nothing in this priority or
the authorizing statute prohibits an
applicant from proposing to use service
learning in responding to subpart (e), so
long as the proposed project is designed
to provide students with opportunities
for deliberate practice that increases
STEM learning, engagement, and
expertise. We decline to make the
proposed, specific revisions because we
do not want to narrow or prescribe the
types of out-of-school or extended-day
activities that an applicant may propose.
Similarly, we decline to add a subpart
that would require applicants to
integrate STEM learning into other K–12
academic areas because we do not want
to prescribe how applicants would
propose to increase student access to
rigorous or engaging coursework in
STEM. Further, nothing in the statute or
priorities prohibits an applicant from
proposing a project that integrates
STEM learning across other K–12
academic areas. For example, under
subparts (a) and (b) of this priority as
well as subpart (a) of priority 2
(Improving Low-Performing Schools),
an applicant could propose integrating
STEM across other K–12 academic
areas, provided the applicant meets the
requirements of the priority under
which it is submitting its application.
Changes: None.
Comment: Two commenters
recommended adding language to
subpart (e) that would increase
opportunities for high-quality expanded
learning opportunities, including
extending the day, week, or year, or
before-, after-, or summer school
programs. The commenters stated that
implementing expanded learning
opportunities will provide students
with a well-rounded education that
focuses on multiple STEM subjects.
Discussion: We agree that expanding
STEM learning opportunities may
include extending the school day, week,
or year, or implementing before-,
after-, or summer school programs.
Therefore, we have revised the priority
to include this as an example of an
approach that may be used to address
subpart (e).
Changes: We have revised subpart (e)
to clarify that expanding STEM learning
opportunities may include extending
the day, week, or year, or implementing
before- or after-school or summer
learning programs.
Proposed Priority 4—Improving
Academic Outcomes for Students With
Disabilities
Comment: Four commenters proposed
specific revisions to this proposed
priority to reinforce the importance of
ensuring that students with disabilities
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:50 Mar 26, 2013
Jkt 229001
are provided with opportunities to
participate and progress in general
education classrooms. Additionally, the
commenters suggested that subpart (d)
include transition and postsecondary
programs, and they suggested including
two new subparts addressing postschool employment data collection and
the implementation of school-wide
initiatives that benefit all students, such
as UDL, multi-tiered systems of
supports, and positive behavior
interventions and supports.
Discussion: We agree with the
commenters about the importance of
providing students with disabilities
with opportunities to participate in
general education; and therefore have
revised subpart (c) accordingly.
Specifically, we clarify that projects
must be designed to accelerate student
achievement and the appropriate
transition from restrictive settings to
more inclusive settings or general
education classes or programs,
including strategies that improve
student learning and developmental
outcomes (i.e., academic, social,
emotional, or behavioral). We also note
that these projects may include
appropriate strategies to prevent
unnecessary suspensions and
expulsions from these more inclusive
settings, classes, or programs.
With regard to the commenters’
recommendation to focus on collecting
data on postsecondary and post-school
employment outcomes, we agree that
the data collection on, and
understanding the indicators that
predict success of, students with
disabilities in their transition to
postsecondary education is important.
However, given that the i3 program
focuses on K–12 education and that the
Secretary may only award grants with
project periods up to 60 months (see 34
CFR 75.250), we do not think it is
reasonable to add a subpart that focuses
only on post-secondary school
employment data. As such, we have
revised subpart (d), but we decline to
propose a new subpart focused solely on
employment data.
With regard to the commenters’
recommendation that we add a subpart
on school-wide initiatives that include
multi-tiered systems of support, we
agree it is important that the various
systems of support for students with
disabilities and their families are
coordinated across all service providers,
including schools, health care providers
and social service agencies. That is why
we included proposed subpart (a).
However, we recognize that as
proposed, subpart (a) focused only on
technical assistance programs.
Therefore, we have revised this subpart
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
18691
to provide for a broader focus that may
include school-wide programs.
Changes: We have revised three
subparts under this priority. Subpart (a)
has been revised to support projects that
implement coherent systems of support
that appropriately coordinate and
integrate programs to address the needs
of children and youth with disabilities
and improve the quality of for those
children and their families.
Subpart (c) has been revised to
support projects that design and
implement strategies that improve
student achievement for students with
disabilities in inclusive settings,
including accelerating student
development and the transition from
restrictive settings to inclusive settings,
including general education classes or
programs.
Subpart (d) has been revised to
support projects that improve secondary
and postsecondary data collection and
tracking of academic and related
outcomes for students with disabilities
to understand their transition into
postsecondary education and the factors
associated with their success.
Comment: One commenter expressed
support for this proposed priority and
encouraged the Department to fund
projects that would produce information
about interventions that are successful
in decreasing the achievement gap
between students with disabilities and
students without disabilities.
Discussion: All i3 grantees are
required to participate in communities
of practice and to produce evaluations
about the implementation and efficacy
of their projects. Therefore, we do not
think it is necessary to create a separate
requirement under this priority for
projects to produce information about
interventions that are successful in
decreasing the achievement gap
between students with disabilities and
students without disabilities.
Changes: None.
Proposed Priority 5—Improving
Academic Outcomes for English
Learners (ELs)
Comment: One commenter stated that
teachers of English for Speakers of Other
Languages (ESOL) often do not have the
necessary content knowledge to be the
primary educators for ELs. For this
reason, the commenter expressed
concern that the proposed priority
would not produce significant change
because it focuses too much on
improving ELs’ vocabulary. According
to the commenter, the priority would be
improved if it included systematic
reforms that ensure students who are
ELs are not marginalized. The
commenter recommended systemic
E:\FR\FM\27MRR2.SGM
27MRR2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
18692
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 27, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
reforms that include, for example,
specific supports and processes to
improve ELs’ transition between K–12
grades and from K–12 to postsecondary
education.
Discussion: We recognize that
systematic reforms are the most
comprehensive approach to addressing
ELs’ learning needs. However, we also
recognize that schools and LEAs may
have different needs regarding how to
best improve academic outcomes for
ELs. That is why under this priority we
include multiple subparts that address
different types of interventions, ranging
from systematic reform to specific gaps
or challenges for addressing ELs’
learning needs. For example, subpart (d)
allows for a systematic approach
because it focuses on projects that
provide school-wide professional
development for teachers,
administrators, and other personnel in
schools with a significant percentage of
students who are ELs. Because a subpart
under this priority does allow for
projects that focus on systematic reform
to improve student achievement for ELs
and because we think it is important to
also include subparts that focus on
specific gaps, we conclude that is not
appropriate for the Department to
prescribe that applicants must only
address ELs’ needs through systematic
reform.
Additionally, because one of the
primary goals of the i3 program is to
identify and document best practices,
we think it is important to maintain
subparts under this priority that would
support projects that focus on specific
challenges, needs, or gaps that affect all
students, including students who are
ELs.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter
recommended that the priority include
a subpart to develop and strengthen
teacher preparation programs that
provide substantial clinical experiences
and develop curricula to prepare
teachers of ELs. Specifically, the
commenter stated that the way in which
language is used for academic purposes
within a given domain and the
differences of individual ELs are
important; and, as a result, more
attention is needed to developing
teachers who can meet the widely
differing needs of ELs when the teachers
enter the classroom.
Discussion: Although we agree that
teachers entering the classroom should
be prepared to meet the needs of all of
their students, including ELs, we think
the limited funds available for the i3
program should be focused on
improving the skills of current EL
educators rather than on improving
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:50 Mar 26, 2013
Jkt 229001
teacher preparation programs’ focus on
ELs in particular. Therefore, we decline
to make the changes recommended by
this commenter.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter expressed
support for this proposed priority,
particularly subparts (c) and (d); and
recommended revising subpart (d) to
also focus on improving the capacity of
schools and districts to increase the
number of teachers trained to work with
linguistically diverse students.
Discussion: We agree that it is
important for schools and districts to
consider ways to increase the number of
current teachers trained to work with
ELs. We believe that this is already
reflected in the current priorities. For
example, nothing prohibits an applicant
from focusing on increasing the number
of teachers trained to work with ELs
under subparts (a) and (b) of priority 1
(Improving the Effectiveness of Teachers
or Principals). Moreover, in order to
avoid the marginalization of ELs, this
priority incorporates school-level
interventions that respond to student
needs.
Changes: None.
Comment: In response to the
Department’s specific request for
comment, three commenters
recommended the Department allow
applicants to propose projects that
address instruction in English and a
language other than English to meet
subpart (c). One commenter stated that
using a student’s native language to
learn a second language is consistent
with practices in many States and
districts that employ dual-language
immersion and other bilingual
methodologies. Thus, the commenter
suggested that limiting subpart (c) to
projects addressing instruction in
English only may reduce the number of
entities that could apply. Similarly,
another commenter stated that the
Department’s rules should not limit
school districts to a predetermined
instructional methodology because this
could limit the potential for learning
about effective instructional strategies
under the i3 program. One commenter
urged the Department to encourage
applicants to consider all products and
processes available when addressing
this proposed priority.
Discussion: The Department
appreciates the commenters’ responses
to this request for comment. We
conclude that we will continue to use
the phrase, ‘‘English or English and
another language’’ to ensure that we do
not inadvertently limit the potential
applicants under subpart (c) of this
priority.
Changes: None.
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Comment: One commenter expressed
concern that the proposed priority
reinforces false stereotypes by referring
to limitations or impediments of ELs. To
address this concern, the commenter
provided revised text to focus on the
range of academic language that all
students must master to fully engage in
their learning. The commenter also
suggested clarifying that applicants
applying under subpart (e) must focus
on all students who enter school as ELs
so that long-term outcomes of former
ELs are considered.
Discussion: We agree with the
commenter and have revised subpart (b)
to clarify that projects funded under it
need to provide sufficient exposure to,
engagement in, and acquisition of
academic language and literacy
practices necessary for preparing ELs to
be college and career ready. We also
have revised subpart (e) as the
commenter suggested.
Changes: We have revised subpart (b)
to clarify the skills a project needs to
address with regards to ELs’ acquisition
of academic language and literacy
practices. We also have revised subpart
(e) to clarify that teacher evaluation
systems implemented under this
priority define and measure the
effectiveness of teachers of students
who at some point have been identified
as ELs (i.e., both current and former
ELs).
Proposed Priority 6—Improving Parent
and Family Engagement
Comment: One commenter expressed
support for the proposed priority, and
appreciated the focus on providing
training to families to support their
children’s academic success, as well as
professional development for
administrators and teachers designed to
improve relationships between parents
and school staff.
Discussion: We appreciate the
commenter’s support for this priority.
Subpart (a) addresses the need for
building parents’ and families’
awareness of their role in improving
their children’s educational outcomes
while subpart (b) focuses on projects
designed to build relationships between
parents and school staff. Together these
subparts aim to increase family
engagement to improve support for
student and school achievement. In
order to further clarify that improving
students’ academic outcomes is the
ultimate goal of this priority, we have
included specific academic outcomes
under subpart (a).
Changes: We have revised subpart (a)
to clarify that training for parents and
families must provide the skills and
strategies that will help parents and
E:\FR\FM\27MRR2.SGM
27MRR2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 27, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
families improve their children’s
academic outcomes, including increased
engagement and persistence in school.
Comment: Three commenters
recommended that the Department
include, under subpart (a), training for
parents and families of students with
disabilities on ways to participate and
make progress in a grade-level general
education curriculum in the least
restrictive environment.
Discussion: All i3 grantees must
implement practices designed to
improve academic outcomes for highneed students (as defined in this
document). Therefore, projects
addressing this priority must serve highneed students, which may include
students with disabilities. Nothing in
this priority precludes an applicant
from proposing projects that focus on
parents and families of students with
disabilities, provided that the proposed
project otherwise meets the
requirements of the priority and
therefore we are not changing the
subpart language as requested.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested
revising subpart (d) to specify that the
data and information collected on
students’ progress must include targeted
‘‘parent-level’’ metrics, such as math
and verbal achievement, high school
graduation rates, college enrollment
rates, and number of credits
accumulated.
Discussion: Although we appreciate
the commenter’s recommendation that
the Department specify the data and
information that projects under subpart
(d) would need to collect, we do not
want to narrow the projects that could
be proposed or funded under this
priority by prescribing a required list of
metrics. Moreover, nothing in the
statute or priorities would preclude an
applicant from including ‘‘parent-level’’
metrics in addition to information about
students’ progress and performance.
However, we share the commenter’s
underlying concern that data about
student performance should, among
other things, be relevant and useful to
parents. Access to data does not ensure
its relevance or usefulness to parents.
Thus, we have revised subpart (d) to
clarify that the projects must improve
both parents’ access to and use of data
about students’ progress and
performance, as opposed to only
improving parents’ access to data.
Changes: We have revised subpart (d)
to clarify that projects addressing
subpart (d) must develop tools or
practices that provide students and
parents with improved, ongoing access
to, and use of, data and other
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:50 Mar 26, 2013
Jkt 229001
information about students’ progress
and performance.
Comment: One commenter stated that
the i3 program should make explicit
allowance for the training and
professional development of teachers,
school leaders, and other school-based
personnel regarding acquisition and
maintenance of the specific knowledge,
skills, and abilities required to
effectively engage families and
communities to improve student
outcomes. To that end, the commenter
provided specific revisions that require
evidence-based initiatives and access to
meaningful data to track students’
progress. Additionally, the commenter
proposed two new subparts under this
priority: (1) Purposefully connecting the
school with the family and community
through a school-based facilitator, and
(2) implementing initiatives that
develop family and community
leadership to sustain school
improvements.
Discussion: We agree with the
commenter about the importance of
enhancing teachers’ abilities to
effectively engage families to improve
student outcomes. That is why subpart
(b) supports projects designed to
enhance the skills and competencies of
school staff to build relationships and
collaborate with parents and families.
With regard to the commenter’s
proposal to require evidence-based
initiatives and access to meaningful data
to track students’ progress, we note that
this program requires projects to meet
specific evidence standards. Similarly,
all i3 grantees are required to conduct
evaluations that estimate the impact of
their projects on student outcomes.
Therefore, we do not think it is
necessary to specify evidence or data
collection requirements under this
priority.
We appreciate the commenter’s
recommendation that we add two new
subparts. However, as subpart (c) does
not preclude projects that would
support connecting school-based
facilitators with families and the
community, or projects that would
develop and implement initiatives that
bolster family and community
leadership for sustained school
improvement, we do not think it is
appropriate to add new subparts that
could limit applicants’ flexibility in
designing their proposed projects.
Additionally, although we recognize the
importance of community engagement,
we conclude that it is not necessary for
the Department to revise this priority to
address it because the Supplemental
Priorities include a priority that does so
and the i3 program could use that
priority. See priority 5 of the
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
18693
Supplemental Priorities, Improving
School Engagement, School
Environment, and School Safety and
Improving Family and Community
Engagement.
Changes: None.
Comment: None.
Discussion: As part of our internal
discussion of the comments about this
priority, we noted that proposed subpart
(b) refers to ‘‘school and other
administrative staff.’’ In order to ensure
applicants understand that we consider
teachers to be school staff, we have
revised subpart (b) to explicitly list
teachers in addition to school and other
administrative staff.
Changes: We have revised subpart (b)
to clarify that, when addressing this
subpart, applicants must implement
initiatives that are designed to enhance
the skills and competencies of teachers,
and of school and other administrative
staff in building relationships and
collaborating with students’ families,
particularly those who have been
underengaged with the school(s) in the
past, in order to support student
achievement and school improvement.
Proposed Priority 7—Improving CostEffectiveness and Productivity
Comment: One commenter expressed
concern about the focus on costeffectiveness because it may emphasize
budgetary issues over educational
‘‘ends.’’
Discussion: We appreciate and
recognize the commenter’s concern;
however, it is essential for schools and
LEAs to closely examine their spending
practices and reallocate resources to use
them more efficiently and costeffectively. The i3 program’s focus on
cost-effectiveness is consistent with the
Department’s broader initiative to
encourage and support schools, LEAs,
and States to ‘‘do more with less’’
through the adoption of promising
practices and the responsible use of
resources. We do not intend for this
focus to overshadow the importance of
the i3 program’s requirement of
implementing projects designed to
improve student achievement.
Additionally, we establish selection
criteria that peer reviewers will use to
consider the likelihood that a proposed
project will achieve what it is designed
to achieve and the extent to which a
proposed project substantially improves
outcomes. By using such criteria to
evaluate applications, the Department
encourages the adoption of costeffective practices while also providing
peer reviewers a mechanism to consider
the cost and expected outcomes
together.
Changes: None.
E:\FR\FM\27MRR2.SGM
27MRR2
18694
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 27, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Comment: One commenter suggested
revising this priority to specify the ways
in which projects are to improve costeffectiveness, including schoolcommunity partnerships.
Discussion: Under section 14007 of
the ARRA, in order to be eligible for i3
grants, applicants must demonstrate that
they have established partnerships with
the private sector and that the private
sector will provide matching funds to
help bring results to scale. Moreover, we
recognize that using external
partnerships is one approach to
improving cost-effectiveness. However,
because nothing in the ARRA or this
priority precludes an applicant from
proposing projects that improve costeffectiveness through such partnerships,
we do not think it is appropriate to
prescribe that applicants must use
school-community partnerships to meet
this priority.
Changes: None.
Proposed Priority 8—Effective Use of
Technology
Comment: One commenter expressed
strong support for this proposed
priority, and recommended that
applicants applying under any of the
other proposed priorities also identify
how technology would be used to
advance the proposed projects. The
commenter specifically cited proposed
priorities 1 (Improving the Effectiveness
of Teachers or Principals), 2 (Improving
Low-Performing Schools), and 6
(Improving Parent and Family
Engagement) as priorities under which
applicants should be expected to
address the use of technology in their
applications and receive preference for
doing so.
Discussion: While we encourage
applicants to propose projects that use
technology effectively, we do not think
it is appropriate to require all applicants
to design their projects around the use
of technology. Nothing in any priority or
the authorizing statute prohibits an
applicant from proposing to use
technology in a proposed project,
provided that the use of technology is
necessary for carrying out the proposed
project and that the project otherwise
meets the requirements of the priority.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter stated that
the topics included in the subparts
under this priority have been addressed
and improved over time. The
commenter further stated that adopting
existing, effective uses of technology,
such as online or blended learning,
must be promoted.
Discussion: The i3 program aims to
support expanding effective practices to
serve more students across schools,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:50 Mar 26, 2013
Jkt 229001
districts, and States and to identify new
solutions to pressing challenges. With
that goal in mind, we designed this
priority to support projects that focus on
adopting or augmenting existing
practices or developing new practices
that use technology effectively to
improve student achievement.
Changes: None.
Comment: Two commenters
recommended that the Department add
a new subpart under this priority for
projects that integrate technology into
expanded learning opportunities.
Discussion: Nothing in the
authorizing statute or this priority
precludes an applicant from proposing
a project that integrates technology into
expanded learning opportunities,
provided that the project otherwise
addresses the requirements of the
priority. For example, applicants have
discretion to propose such projects
under subpart (e). We think that the
applicants are best suited to determine
how to integrate the effective use of
technology into their proposed projects,
and we do not think it is appropriate to
create a subpart that focuses only on
integrating technology to expand
learning opportunities.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter agreed
with the focus on using technology to
improve instruction and increase access
to high-quality learning opportunities.
But the commenter also stated that the
priority should be strengthened by
encouraging applicants to approach
technology acquisition and use in a
manner that would provide teachers
more time for individualized instruction
and for establishing student-centered
classrooms. The commenter also
recommended that applicants
addressing this priority should be
expected to provide implementation
strategies that would ensure that
technology would be used to promote
equity rather than exacerbate existing
student achievement gaps. The
commenter also stated that applicants
should be required to ensure equitable
access to the necessary technology so
that no students are excluded due to a
lack or shortage of the necessary
technology.
Discussion: We agree with the
commenter’s recommendation that this
priority support projects designed to use
technology to provide students more
time for individualized instruction.
Therefore, we have modified subpart (a)
to clarify that the learning experiences
must be personalized and focus on
students with a variety of learning
needs.
We also agree that applicants
proposing projects under this priority
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
should consider how the proposed
implementation strategies would ensure
equitable access to the technology.
Section 427 of the General Education
Provisions Act (GEPA) addresses
equitable access by requiring all
applicants to provide a statement that
identifies access barriers to participation
in their projects and identifies solutions
to overcome those barriers.
With regard to the commenter’s
concern about shortage of the necessary
technology, we use selection criteria to
consider the extent to which the
applicant has planned for sufficient
resources to carry out the project. For
example, the selection criterion on the
quality of the management plan
includes a selection factor that
considers the extent to which the
applicant demonstrates it will have the
resources to operate the project at the
proposed level of scale during the grant
period. This selection factor provides
peer reviewers with a mechanism to
consider whether an applicant has
sufficient resources to carry out the
project, which may include whether the
applicant’s plan ensures equitable
access to the technology being
implemented.
However an applicant chooses to
ensure full and equitable access to the
technology being used in the proposed
project, we do not want projects funded
under this priority to exacerbate
inequities for students. Thus, we have
revised subpart (b) to clarify that
projects must provide students and
teachers with equitable access to
‘‘anytime, anywhere’’ learning materials
and experiences. We have also revised
subpart (c) to include closing
achievement gaps as a required outcome
for projects addressing the subpart. Both
of these revisions mitigate the risk that
existing inequities or gaps would be
compounded by projects addressing this
priority.
Changes: We have revised subpart (b)
to require applicants to propose projects
that provide students and teachers with
equitable ‘‘anytime, anywhere’’ access
to learning materials and experiences.
We have revised subpart (c) to require
that projects must, in addition to
improving student achievement (as
defined in this document), also be
designed to close achievement gaps.
Comment: Three commenters stated
that technology is critically important to
improving instruction for students with
disabilities, and recommended that the
Department revise subparts (c) and (f) to
require that technology methods,
resources, and integration be consistent
with principles of UDL.
Discussion: We recognize and agree
that technology is an effective tool for
E:\FR\FM\27MRR2.SGM
27MRR2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 27, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
improving instruction for students with
disabilities. However, we do not think it
is appropriate to prescribe a single
approach or principle that all applicants
must use when integrating technology
into their projects. Additionally,
nothing in the statute or the priority
prohibits an applicant from using the
approach or principle it determines to
be most suitable for its project.
In order to comply with the
requirements of the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990 and Section 504
of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as
amended, any technology used by
recipients must be accessible to
individuals with disabilities. For
additional information about the
application of these laws to technology,
please refer to www.ed.gov/ocr/letters/
colleague-201105-ese.pdf and
www.ed.gov/ocr/docs/dcl-ebook-faq201105.pdf. Provided the requirements
of the civil rights laws and the priority
are met, an applicant may propose a
project under this priority that uses
technology methods, resources, and
integration that are consistent with the
principles of UDL.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter urged the
Department to include in the priority
other educators who may not be
teachers of record, such as media
specialists or instructional aides, but
who have instructional responsibilities
in projects that are designed to use
technology to improve instructional
effectiveness.
Discussion: Nothing in the
authorizing statute or this priority
prohibits eligible applicants from
including staff who are not teachers but
have instructional responsibility in their
projects. We decline to specifically
reference these educators in the priority
to ensure applicants have the maximum
flexibility when developing their
proposals.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter described
this priority as ‘‘strongly written and
comprehensive.’’ Although the
commenter applauded the Department’s
commitment to encouraging adaptive
learning experience and ‘‘anytime,
anywhere’’ access to academic content
and learning, the commenter suggested
the Department clarify that
technological tools are understood to be
used for both instructional and
assessment purposes.
Discussion: The Department agrees
that ‘‘anytime, anywhere’’ access to
academic content may include
technological tools that are used for
purposes of instruction, assessment, or
both. Because we do not want to limit
the types of content and learning that
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:50 Mar 26, 2013
Jkt 229001
may be used in projects under subpart
(b), we have revised this subpart to
focus on access to learning materials
and experiences instead of access to
‘‘academic content.’’
Changes: We have revised subpart (b)
to focus on learning materials and
experiences.
Comment: None.
Discussion: As part of our internal
discussion of the comments about this
priority, we noted that proposed subpart
(f) did not include a reference to the
intended outcomes for projects
integrating technology with the
implementation of college- and careerready standards. In order for the use or
integration of technology to be effective,
we believe it is important that projects
addressing this subpart focus on
improving student and teacher
outcomes. Thus, to correct this
oversight, we have revised subpart (f) to
include these outcomes, as we have
done with other subparts, and to clarify
that embedded, real-time assessments
and feedback for students and teachers
are examples of projects that could be
proposed under this subpart.
Change: We have revised subpart (f)
to clarify that projects integrating
technology with the implementation of
rigorous college- and career-ready
standards must be designed to increase
student achievement (as defined in this
document), student engagement, and
teacher efficacy, such as by providing
embedded, real-time assessment and
feedback to students and teachers.
Comment: None.
Discussion: As part of our internal
discussion of the comments on this
priority, we noted an oversight in how
subpart (d) was phrased. Specifically,
the subpart only referred to the outcome
that would need to be achieved, but did
not clarify that projects addressing it
would need to implement strategies to
achieved the stated outcomes. As all i3
grantees must implement the practices
that serve students who are in grades K–
12 at some point during the funding
period, we have revised this subpart to
clarify that the projects addressing it
must implement strategies that improve
student proficiencies.
Changes: We have revised subpart (d)
in order to clarify our intent that
applications addressing this subpart
must implement strategies that improve
student proficiencies in complex skills,
such as critical thinking and
collaboration across academic
disciplines.
Proposed Priority 9—Formalizing and
Codifying Effective Practices
Comment: A few commenters
suggested clarifying that, under this
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
18695
proposed priority, an applicant must
address the proposed practice’s
effectiveness for all learners and
identify the practice’s critical
components for different teaching and
learning environments as well as for
diverse learners.
Discussion: A primary goal of this
priority is to enable broad adoption of
effective practices. We agree with the
commenters that an applicant
addressing this priority needs to
evaluate different forms of a practice in
order to determine whether the practice
may be adapted for diverse learners.
However, we recognize that some
practices may be developed for, or
targeted to, the needs of a specific
student population and, by its very
nature, may not be relevant or effective
for students outside of that target group.
For these reasons, we have revised the
priority to clarify that applicants must
address whether the proposed practice
is effective for diverse learners;
however, we decline to revise subpart
(c) to require that applicants develop
materials and tools on how to
implement the practice effectively for
all learners.
Changes: To clarify the goal of this
priority, we have changed its title from
‘‘Formalizing and Codifying Effective
Practices’’ to ‘‘Enabling Broad Adoption
of Effective Practices.’’ Further, in
response to comments, we have revised
subpart (b) to clarify that applicants
addressing this priority must identify
the adaptability of the practice’s critical
components to diverse learners as well
as to different teaching and learning
environments.
Comment: One commenter expressed
support for the Department’s placing a
high priority on sharing and
disseminating effective practices under
this proposed priority. However, the
commenter encouraged the Department
to only use this priority for the
Validation and Scale-up competitions
because projects under those categories
are based on moderate and strong
evidence of effectiveness.
Discussion: By establishing this
priority, the Department may use it for
any of the three types of grants under
the i3 program (i.e., Development,
Validation, and Scale-up). We agree
with the commenter that this priority is
most appropriate for i3 Scale-up and
Validation grants because projects
funded in those grant categories must be
supported, respectively, by strong and
moderate evidence of effectiveness.
However, we decline to specify that the
priority will be used only for a subset
of i3 competition because we do not
want to unnecessarily limit when this
E:\FR\FM\27MRR2.SGM
27MRR2
18696
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 27, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
priority can be used in future i3
competitions.
The Department will consider several
factors, including the level of evidence
or research available, when determining
which of the priorities would be most
appropriate for the different types of
grants offered in any given year under
the i3 program.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter urged the
Department to allow current i3 grantees
to apply to extend their grants under
this priority, which would allow for
additional years of implementation and
data collection. The commenter
explained that such an approach would
allow third-party evaluators to collect
the data necessary to demonstrate what
educational elements are required to
fundamentally change a student’s
academic trajectory. Without the option
of extending current i3 grants, the
commenter stated a concern that the
opportunity to learn from these grants
would be limited.
Discussion: We appreciate the
commenter’s concern. Although we
agree with the commenter about the
importance of maximizing the
opportunity to learn from current i3
grantees, the Department’s current
regulations authorize the Secretary to
approve a project period up to 60
months (see 34 CFR 75.250). We
decline, however, to make the suggested
change for two reasons. First, the
Department has, under limited
circumstances, allowed for a waiver of
the 60-month project period. More
importantly, the Department published
a notice of proposed rulemaking on
December 14, 2012 that proposed
amending this regulation to address this
specific situation. We have concluded
that the proposed revisions to EDGAR
are the appropriate place to address this
issue.
Changes: None.
Proposed Priority 10—Serving Rural
Communities
Comment: One commenter expressed
support for the proposed priority
because it is not limited to projects that
improve high school graduation rates
and college enrollment rates and,
therefore, offers a broader focus than the
previous rural priority used by the i3
program. However, another commenter
expressed concern that urban education
is not given a similar priority under the
proposed priorities as rural education,
and suggested the Department utilize a
separate slate for rural applicants rather
than establishing a separate rural
priority.
Discussion: We aim to ensure that
projects serving high-need students in
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:50 Mar 26, 2013
Jkt 229001
diverse contexts, including urban,
suburban, and rural communities, are
eligible to compete for i3 funding.
However, we acknowledge that rural
communities face unique challenges
(e.g., e more limited resources than
urban and suburban communities to
complete for Federal funds). We also
recognize that the solutions to
educational challenges may be different
in rural areas than in urban and
suburban communities and that there is
a need for solutions that are unique to
rural communities. For these reasons,
we have established this priority to
provide a mechanism for the
Department to consider rural projects
under a separate funding category,
which is effectively the same as
considering them as part of a separate
slate, while also providing applicants
proposing rural projects the ability to
select among the same absolute
priorities as other applicants. This
approach does not advantage or
disadvantage rural or non-rural
applicants—it just ensures that both sets
of applicants are competing against
other applicants that face similar
problems and challenges.
Changes: None.
Requirements
Comment: Several commenters
proposed revisions to the types of
entities that could apply for and receive
a grant under the i3 program. Four
commenters requested that the
Department change the categories of
eligible applicants for i3 grants to
include nonprofit organizations
applying on their own. The commenters
stated that nonprofit organizations
should have the ability to develop and
implement i3 grants alone, as opposed
to being eligible only in partnership
with LEAs or schools. However, another
commenter expressed concern that the
i3 program has become a revenue source
for nonprofit organizations, and
recommended that the Department
allow only LEAs to apply as the lead
applicant and fiscal agent for i3 grants.
Two commenters recommended the
Department change the eligible
applicants for i3 grants to include (1)
tribal educational agencies (TEAs), (2) a
nonprofit organization in partnership
with one or more TEAs, and (3) a
nonprofit organization in partnership
with one or more Bureau of Indian
Education (BIE) schools. These
commenters also stated that the
Department should clarify that BIE
schools meet the definition of ‘‘LEA’’
under the i3 program.
Discussion: Section 14007(a)(1) of the
ARRA specifies the types of entities that
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
are eligible to apply for funding under
this program. They are:
(a) An LEA
(b) A partnership between a nonprofit
organization and—
(1) One or more LEAs; or
(2) A consortium of schools.
The Department has no authority to
revise or expand these statutorily
prescribed eligibility requirements.
However, we do want to clarify that, as
public schools, BIE schools are eligible
to be part of the consortium of schools
in a partnership applying for an i3 grant.
A BIE school may also be eligible to
apply as an LEA on its own, or in
partnership with a nonprofit
organization as an LEA, because the
definition of ‘‘local educational agency’’
in section 9101(26) of the ESEA
includes a provision under which a BIE
school may be considered an LEA. If a
BIE school is an LEA, the BIE school
would be able to apply as an eligible
LEA on its own, or in partnership with
a nonprofit organization as an LEA,
consistent with the requirements for
eligible applicants under section
14007(a)(1).
Changes: None.
Comment: Two commenters
recommended the Department require
any LEA located on Indian lands to
consult with the appropriate tribes and
provide them with adequate time to
comment on the application prior to its
submission. The commenters explained
that an LEA’s engagement with the tribe
should include direct input regarding
native student education, ongoing
consultation and partnership, and the
sharing of best practices. The
commenters stated that any LEA that
does not participate in this consultation
should be ineligible to receive an i3
grant.
Discussion: We agree that any LEA
located on tribal lands, or proposing to
address native student education of a
particular tribe or tribes, should
coordinate with the appropriate tribe(s)
when developing an application and
implementing the project. Although
under the i3 program such coordination
is not required, we consider
collaboration and coordination among
project partners to be important to the
success of any project. For that reason,
we include a factor under the Quality of
the Management Plan selection criterion
that considers the extent to which the
applicant demonstrates that it will have
the resources to operate the project at
the proposed level of scale both during
the project period and beyond the
length of the grant, including the
demonstrated commitment of any
partners and evidence of broad support
from stakeholders critical to the
E:\FR\FM\27MRR2.SGM
27MRR2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 27, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
project’s long-term success. Therefore,
we do not feel it is necessary to make
consultation an eligibility requirement.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter criticized
the requirement that nonprofit
organizations must identify partner
districts or schools before an i3 grant is
awarded because this undermines the
development of effective partnerships.
The commenter stated that it is critically
important for nonprofit organizations
proposing to conduct turnaround
projects to ensure that the participating
superintendents and principals are
committed to the project, but the
nonprofit organization is in a stronger
position to select partners after
receiving a grant, not before. The
commenter proposed that the
Department require applicants who are
nonprofit organizations to specify the
types of districts or schools that will
participate in the project without
identifying specific partners.
Discussion: As noted previously,
section 14007(a)(1) of the ARRA
specifies the entities eligible for funding
under this program. Because the ARRA
specifies that a nonprofit organization is
only eligible to receive an i3 grant in
partnership with one or more LEAs or
a consortium of schools, we cannot
award a nonprofit organization an i3
grant without any identified LEAs or
schools.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter requested
that the Department clarify that entities
implementing programs that serve outof-school youth, such as students
beyond the compulsory school age or
students participating in alternative
education programs, are eligible to
apply for i3 grants.
One commenter questioned the value
of requiring that i3 projects to serve K–
12 students and expressed concern that
this requirement may result in
applicants changing the focus on their
planned interventions to serve a
population for whom the intervention is
not designed. The commenter further
stated that this requirement conflicts
with the requirement that i3 projects be
supported by evidence of effectiveness,
and distracts from the i3 program goal
of learning what works in education.
Discussion: This requirement clarifies
that the i3 program focuses on K–12
education. Although grantees are not
prohibited from serving out-of-school
youth or students who are beyond
compulsory school age, all grantees
must implement practices that serve
students who are in grades K–12 at
some point during the funding period.
We do not agree with the comment
that this requirement conflicts with the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:50 Mar 26, 2013
Jkt 229001
required evidence standards or the
program goal of learning what works in
education. This requirement aims to
ensure that all i3 grants support
students in grades K–12, but it does not
require applicants to propose projects
that are not designed to serve students
in the target population. As long as K–
12 students are served by the grantee at
some point during the funding period,
it is within the applicant’s discretion to
determine what intervention will best
address the competition’s priority and
meet the needs of the targeted student
population.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter expressed
support for the Department’s proposal to
strengthen the evidence standards
required for eligibility; and two other
commenters expressed concern
regarding the proposed evidence
standards themselves. One of these
commenters questioned whether tying
the evidence definitions to the What
Works Clearinghouse (WWC) Evidence
Standards was limiting because new
innovations that show promise would
not be able to move beyond the
Development grant level. One
commenter stated that the evidence
definitions needed to be weakened to be
more practical.
Discussion: A unique design feature of
the i3 program is how it links funding
to the quality and extent of existing
evidence showing the likelihood of a
proposed practice improving student
outcomes. We recognize that the new
definitions narrow the allowable
evaluation methodologies at the strong
and moderate evidence of effectiveness
levels; but note that the new evidence
standards also broaden the types of
evidence that can be used at the
Development level. Considering the
level of public investment and the
expectations that Scale-up and
Validation projects serve students at a
national or regional level, we believe it
is reasonable to require such projects to
have evidence of their effectiveness that
uses evaluation methodologies that are
most likely to support causal
conclusions. Moreover, this evidence
requirement provides incentives for
entities to conduct rigorous, highquality evaluations of existing
widespread practices so that they can
move beyond the Development grant
level.
Changes: None.
Comment: Two commenters stated
that the requirement that an eligible
nonprofit organization must have a
record of significantly improving
student achievement, attainment, or
retention is limiting because it seems to
exclude nonprofit organizations that (1)
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
18697
demonstrate success in designing and
implementing programs similar to those
for which there is moderate evidence of
success and (2) are implementing
programs that reflect programs
supported by evidence of promise or
strong theory but for which no direct
evaluation exists. Both commenters
suggested that the Department allow
nonprofit organizations to implement
these programs.
Discussion: The comment references
two different eligibility requirements:
(1) Eligible applicants must have a
record of significantly improving
student achievement, attainment, or
retention; and (2) the requirement that
i3 grants be supported by evidence—
Scale-up grants must be supported by
strong evidence of effectiveness,
Validation grants must be supported by
moderate evidence of effectiveness, and
Development grants must be supported
by evidence of promise or strong theory.
While we recognize these requirements
appear similar, we think it is important
to distinguish them in order to address
the comments fully.
First, the requirement for applicants
to have a record of significantly
improving student achievement,
attainment, or retention is statutory, and
the Department has no authority to
revise or remove it. Specifically, section
14007(b)(1) through (b)(3) and section
14007(c) of the ARRA require that, to be
eligible for an i3 grant, an applicant
have a record of improving student
achievement.
Second, while the requirement that
applicants have a record of significantly
improving student achievement refers to
the applicant’s past work with LEAs and
schools, the evidence standards refer to
evidence that the proposed intervention
is effective. That is, the applicant must
provide information on its history of
working to improve student outcomes,
as well as the evidence of effectiveness
of the proposed intervention. We
consider both of these requirements
important to the i3 program goal of
identifying and supporting the
replication of best practices in
education.
Finally, while we have provided
specific definitions for each level of
evidence, we have not prescribed
specific measures that must be used to
meet the statutory eligibility
requirement. We consider the applicant
to be best suited to present information
on how its past work has significantly
improved student achievement and to
determine the metrics it uses to measure
those accomplishments. This approach
provides an applicant with the
discretion to demonstrate its record of
improving student achievement but
E:\FR\FM\27MRR2.SGM
27MRR2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
18698
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 27, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
maintains the program’s structure of
linking the amount of funding that an
applicant may receive to the quality of
the evidence supporting the efficacy of
the proposed project. As noted earlier,
this structure provides incentives for
applicants to build evidence of
effectiveness of their proposed projects.
Changes: None.
Comment: Two commenters proposed
that the Department revise the statutory
eligibility requirement to require an
eligible applicant to have a record of
significantly closing the achievement
gaps between groups of students
described in section 1111(b)(2) of the
ESEA and students not in the subgroup
(e.g., the gap between students with
disabilities and students without
disabilities).
Discussion: As explained previously,
we have no authority to revise or
expand the statutorily prescribed
eligibility requirements; and, therefore,
we cannot require applicants to have a
record of significantly closing the
achievement gaps between students in a
particular subgroup and students not in
that particular subgroup.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter expressed
support for the Department’s proposal to
strengthen the evaluation requirement.
Discussion: We appreciate the support
for requiring each i3 grantee to conduct
an evaluation that will produce an
estimate of the impact of the i3supported practice (as implemented at
the proposed level of scale) on a
relevant outcome (as defined in this
document). This requirement also aims
to increase the evidence available on
existing practices.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter expressed
concern about the amount and timing of
the matching requirement. The
commenter stated that the requirement
for matching funds conflicts with the
Department’s interest in identifying
imaginative approaches to improving
education.
Discussion: Section 14007(b)(3) of the
ARRA specifically requires a privatesector match for grants awarded under
this program. We understand the
commenter’s concern about the
challenges of securing significant
private-sector investments. This
concern, however, is addressed by the
flexibility provided in the ‘‘Cost Sharing
or Matching’’ requirement, which
allows the Secretary to determine the
required amount of private-sector
matching funds or in-kind contributions
that eligible applicants must obtain
under an i3 competition in a given year.
Moreover, the requirement now
provides additional flexibility for the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:50 Mar 26, 2013
Jkt 229001
Secretary to announce in the notice
inviting applications when and how
selected eligible applicants must submit
evidence of the private-sector matching
funds. We expect the determination of
the amount of the private-sector match,
as well as the determination of when
and how evidence of the private-sector
match must be submitted, will be based
on an assessment of the capacity and
resources available in that particular
year. In addition, an eligible applicant
continues to have the option, under this
requirement, to request in its
application that the Secretary decrease
the private-sector match amount that a
particular applicant must provide.
Changes: None.
Comment: Three commenters
recommended that the i3 program
require that any learning materials,
professional development, or tools
created with i3 funding be made
publicly available as open educational
resources. The commenters specifically
cited the Creative Commons Attribution
license as an exemplar because,
according to the commenter, it is both
consistent with the Department of
Labor’s policy and clarifies how all
users can access and use resources
developed with Federal funds. One
commenter stated that, although the
Department’s current regulations reserve
the right to make content available for
government purposes, a policy similar
to the Creative Commons Attribution
license would provide a more
immediate indication of the return on
investment in i3-funded projects.
Discussion: The Department’s
regulations on project materials and
copyrightable intellectual property
produced with grant funds apply to all
grants awarded under this program.
Specifically, under 34 CFR 75.621,
grantees may copyright project materials
produced with Department grant funds.
However, 34 CFR 74.36 and 80.34 state
that the Department retains a nonexclusive and irrevocable license to
reproduce, publish, or otherwise use
project materials developed with grant
funds for government purposes.
Together these regulations allow i3
grantees to copyright innovative project
materials, thereby providing an
incentive for the grantees to disseminate
those materials through the commercial
marketplace, while also recognizing that
any such materials are the result of a
public investment to promote learning,
and can, if necessary, be made available
to the public by the Department.
Further, one of the primary objectives
of the i3 program is to identify and
document best practices that can be
shared and replicated. One way we do
so is through the requirement that all i3
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
grantees participate in communities of
practice. In addition, we establish
priority 9 (Enabling Broad Adoption of
Effective Practices) under which an
applicant must share knowledge about
the practice broadly and support the
implementation of the practice in other
settings and locations. We believe that
the approach set out in the Department’s
current regulations properly balances
the intellectual property interests of
grantees and the public’s interest in
ensuring that copyrightable material
produced with Department grant funds
is widely disseminated. For these
reasons, we decline to make the
suggested change.
Changes: None.
Definitions
Comment: One commenter urged the
Department to include definitions for
‘‘community engagement’’ and ‘‘family
engagement,’’ and proposed definitions
for the terms. The commenter’s
proposed definitions describe qualities
of effective engagement and include
explicit references to engagement being
an ongoing or continuous process.
Discussion: We appreciate the
commenter’s recommendation.
However, we also recognize that the
range of projects aimed at improving
parent and family engagement is vast,
and that the meaning of ‘‘parent and
family engagement’’ is evolving. To
ensure that we do not limit or narrow
the types of projects that could be
submitted under this program, we
decline to provide a specific definition.
Moreover, because priority 6 (Improving
Parent and Family Engagement) focuses
on specific gaps or needs related to
parent and family engagement, it does
not seem necessary to further define
these terms. Finally, because
community engagement is not part of
the priorities under this program, we
conclude that it is not necessity to
establish a definition.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter expressed
concern that the current definition of
‘‘high-need student’’ encompasses any
student who functions below gradelevel. The commenter suggested the
Department revise this definition to
mean students with traditional
achievement gaps, including lowincome students, racial and ethnic
minority students, ELs, or students with
disabilities.
Discussion: The definition of ‘‘highneed student’’ could include students
with traditional achievement gaps,
including low-income students, racial
and ethnic minority students, ELs, or
students with disabilities. However,
given the diversity of the projects that
E:\FR\FM\27MRR2.SGM
27MRR2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 27, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
could be funded under the i3 program,
we think it is important that an
applicant have the discretion to
determine which students are at risk of
educational failure, and to discuss how
the proposed project will meet the
needs of those students.
Changes: None.
Comment: Three commenters
recommended that the Department
revise the examples of supplemental
measures provided in the definition of
‘‘highly effective principal’’ to include
the percentage of students with
disabilities educated in general
classrooms.
Discussion: The supplemental
measures listed in the definition of
‘‘highly effective principal’’ are
examples and not exhaustive.
Applicants have the discretion to
consider other measures, including the
percentage of students with disabilities
in general education classrooms.
Because of this, and because of the
Department’s interest in maintaining
consistency in the definition of ‘‘highly
effective principal’’ across various
Department programs, we decline to
revise the definition to include
additional examples of supplemental
measures.
Changes: None.
Comment: A few commenters
proposed revisions to the definition of
‘‘highly effective teacher.’’ One
commenter stated that the proposed
definition narrowly conforms to the
traditional role of a teacher lecturing a
classroom and must be broadened to
include all educators. As student
learning occurs at individual rates, and
because learning can happen any time
and in any place, the commenter
suggested that a teacher’s effectiveness
rating should be more flexible and allow
for differentiated timetables for content
mastery, consistent with the learning at
any time, any place, and any pace.
Another commenter stated that the
proposed definition fails to reflect the
new world of teaching because it does
not recognize that multiple adults affect
student learning in schools using a
differential staffing model.
One commenter recommended the
definition be revised to clarify that the
measures of effectiveness for highly
effective teachers be based on standards
for teaching that relate to student
learning. The commenter suggested that,
in addition to student growth, standards
created by the National Board for
Professional Teaching Standards or the
Interstate New Teacher Assessment and
Support Consortium should be included
as measures of teacher effectiveness.
Three commenters recommended that
the Department revise the definition of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:50 Mar 26, 2013
Jkt 229001
‘‘highly effective teacher’’ to incorporate
additional supplemental measures that
are specific to teachers of students with
disabilities, including knowledge and
implementation of the principles of
UDL and assessments that measure
effectiveness of addressing diverse
learners’ needs.
Discussion: We recognize that the
classroom teacher is not the only
individual to affect student
achievement, and that learning may
occur outside of the traditional
classroom. However, as the definition of
‘‘highly effective teacher’’ refers to
‘‘student growth,’’ we conclude that the
definition would not need to take into
consideration differentiated timetables
for content mastery because the
definition for ‘‘student growth’’ does not
prescribe the two or more points in time
that needs to be used to measure a
change in student achievement. Further,
because multiple measures may be used
to determine teacher effectiveness, we
do not agree it is necessary to prescribe
that applicants use a specific set of
teaching standards.
The list of supplemental measures
provided in the definition of ‘‘highly
effective teacher’’ provides examples
and is not exhaustive. Applicants have
the discretion to consider other
measures, including measures proposed
by the commenters. Because the use of
the proposed supplemental measures is
possible under the current definition
and because of the Department’s interest
in maintaining consistency in the
definition of ‘‘highly effective teachers’’
across Department programs, we decline
to revise the definition to include
additional examples of supplemental
measures.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested
that the Department broaden the types
of assessments used in the definition of
‘‘student achievement.’’ The commenter
stated that assessments specified in the
definition should be as robust as the
skills students are expected to
demonstrate, including assessments that
measure a student’s ability to: master
core content, think critically and solve
complex problems, collaborate with
peers, be self-directed, and integrate
feedback.
Three commenters recommended that
the Department revise the definitions of
‘‘student achievement’’ and ‘‘student
growth’’ to include measures that are
evidence-based and comparable across
student groups.
Discussion: We agree that students
need to be proficient in a robust set of
skills. That is why the definition of
‘‘student achievement’’ includes, in
addition to the assessments required
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
18699
under section 1111(b)(3) of the ESEA,
other measures of student learning.
Because other measures of student
learning may be used under the current
definition, and because of the
Department’s interest in maintaining
consistency in the definitions of
‘‘student achievement’’ and ‘‘student
growth’’ across Department programs,
we decline to revise the definition.
Changes: None.
Comment: None.
Discussion: As part of our internal
review, we noted that we inadvertently
omitted the definition for ‘‘nonprofit
organization’’ from the notice of
proposed priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection. As we did not
propose, or have any intention of
making, a change to this definition, we
have added the definition that we have
used in prior i3 competitions.
Changes: We have defined ‘‘nonprofit
organization’’ to mean 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.
Comment: None.
Discussion: We have revised the
definitions of ‘‘moderate evidence of
effectiveness’’ and ‘‘strong evidence of
effectiveness’’ by adding the phrase
‘‘and overriding’’ to the second
parenthetical in sections (a) and (b) of
both definitions. The purpose of our
adding this phrase is to clarify the
meaning of the parenthetical, which was
intended to apply only to studies with
unfavorable outcomes that were so
substantial as to call into question the
potential effectiveness of the
intervention. The modification to the
parenthetical makes clear the narrow
scope of the parenthetical.
Changes: We have revised the second
parenthetical in sections (a) and (b) of
the definitions of ‘‘moderate evidence of
effectiveness’’ and ‘‘strong evidence of
effectiveness’’ to add the phrase ‘‘and
overriding.’’ The parenthetical now
reads ‘‘with no statistically significant
and overriding unfavorable impacts on
that outcome for relevant populations in
the study or in other studies of the
intervention reviewed by and reported
on by the What Works Clearinghouse.’’
Selection Criteria
The Department did not receive any
comments on the proposed selection
criteria. Therefore, we make no changes
to the selection criteria.
FINAL PRIORITIES:
Priority 1—Improving the
Effectiveness of Teachers or Principals.
E:\FR\FM\27MRR2.SGM
27MRR2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
18700
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 27, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
Under this priority, we provide
funding to projects that address one or
more of the following priority areas:
(a) Developing and implementing new
methods and sources for recruiting:
(1) Highly effective teachers (as
defined in this document);
(2) Highly effective principals (as
defined in this document); or
(3) Highly effective teachers and
principals (as defined in this
document).
(b) Developing and implementing
models for teacher preparation that
deepen pedagogical knowledge and
skills which have been demonstrated to
improve student achievement (as
defined in this document), such as
knowledge of instructional practices or
knowledge and skills in classroom
management, or that deepen
pedagogical content knowledge.
(c) Developing and implementing
models for principal preparation that
deepen leadership skills which have
been demonstrated to improve student
achievement (as defined in this
document).
(d) Developing and implementing
models of induction and support for
improving the knowledge and skills of
novice teachers or novice principals to
accelerate student performance,
including but not limited to strategies
designed to increase teacher retention or
improve teacher or principal
effectiveness.
(e) Creating career pathways with
differentiated opportunities and roles
for teachers or principals, which may
include differentiated compensation.
(f) Designing and implementing
teacher or principal evaluation systems
that provide clear, timely, and useful
feedback, including feedback that
identifies areas for improvement and
that guides professional development
for teachers or principals.
(g) Developing supports for the
ongoing development and performance
improvement of teachers, principals, or
instructional leaders, such as local and
virtual communities, tools, training, and
other mechanisms.
(h) Increasing the equitable access to
effective teachers or principals for lowincome and high-need students (as
defined in this document), which may
include increasing the equitable
distribution of effective teachers or
principals for low-income and highneed students across schools.
(i) Extending highly effective teachers’
reach to serve more students, including
strategies such as new course designs,
staffing models, technology platforms,
or new opportunities for collaboration
that allow highly effective teachers to
reach more students, or approaches or
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:50 Mar 26, 2013
Jkt 229001
tools that reduce administrative and
other burden while maintaining or
improving effectiveness.
(j) Projects addressing pressing needs
related to improving teacher or
principal effectiveness.
Priority 2—Improving Low-Performing
Schools.
Under this priority, we provide
funding to projects that address one or
more of the following priority areas:
(a) Designing whole-school models
and implementing processes that lead to
significant and sustained improvement
in individual student performance and
overall school performance and culture.
These models may incorporate such
strategies as providing strong school
leadership; strengthening the
instructional program; embedding
professional development that provides
teachers with frequent feedback to
increase the rigor and effectiveness of
their instructional practice; redesigning
the school day, week, or year; using data
to inform instruction and improvement;
establishing a school environment that
promotes a culture of high expectations;
addressing non-academic factors that
affect student achievement; and
providing ongoing mechanisms for
parent and family engagement.
(b) Changing elements of the school’s
organizational design to improve
instruction by differentiating staff roles
and extending and enhancing
instructional time.
(c) Recruiting, developing, or
retaining highly effective staff,
specifically teachers, principals, or
instructional leaders, to work in lowperforming schools.
(d) Implementing programs, supports,
or other strategies that improve
students’ non-cognitive abilities (e.g.,
motivation, persistence, or resilience)
and enhance student engagement in
learning or mitigate the effects of
poverty, including physical, mental, or
emotional health issues, on student
engagement in learning.
(e) Supporting the turnaround efforts
of low-performing schools or districts by
increasing access to, and use of, highquality partners.
(f) Increasing district- or State-level
capacity to turn around low-performing
schools, including improvements to
State and district support and oversight
of turnaround efforts.
(g) Projects that support the
implementation of turnaround efforts in
secondary schools.
(h) Projects addressing pressing needs
related to improving low-performing
schools.
Other requirements related to Priority
2:
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
To meet this priority, a project must
serve schools among (1) the lowestperforming schools in the State on
academic performance measures; (2)
schools in the State with the largest
within-school performance gaps
between student subgroups described in
section 1111(b)(2) of the ESEA; or (3)
secondary schools in the State with the
lowest graduation rate over a number of
years or the largest within-school gaps
in graduation rates between student
subgroups described in section
1111(b)(2) of the ESEA. Additionally,
projects funded under this priority must
complement the broader turnaround
efforts of the school(s), LEA(s), or
State(s) where the projects will be
implemented.
Priority 3—Improving Science,
Technology, Engineering, and
Mathematics (STEM) Education.
Under this priority, we provide
funding to projects that address one or
more of the following priority areas:
(a) Providing students with increased
access to rigorous and engaging
coursework in STEM.
(b) Redesigning STEM course content
and instructional practices to engage
students and increase student
achievement (as defined in this
document).
(c) Developing and implementing new
methods and resources for recruiting
individuals with content expertise in
STEM subject areas into teaching.
(d) Increasing the high-quality
preparation of, or professional
development for, teachers or other
educators in STEM subjects, through
activities that include building content
and pedagogical content knowledge.
(e) Expanding high-quality out-ofschool and extended-day activities,
including extending the day, week, or
year, or before- or after- school, or
summer learning programs, that provide
students with opportunities for
deliberate practice that increase STEM
learning, engagement, and expertise.
(f) Increasing the number of
individuals from groups traditionally
underrepresented in STEM, including
minorities, individuals with disabilities,
and women and girls, who access
rigorous and engaging coursework in
STEM and are prepared for
postsecondary study in STEM.
(g) Increasing the number of
individuals from groups traditionally
underrepresented in STEM, including
minorities, individuals with disabilities,
and women, who are teachers or
educators of STEM subjects and receive
high-quality preparation or professional
development.
(h) Projects addressing pressing needs
for improving STEM education.
E:\FR\FM\27MRR2.SGM
27MRR2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 27, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
Priority 4—Improving Academic
Outcomes for Students with Disabilities.
Under this priority, we provide
funding to projects that address one or
more of the following priority areas:
(a) Implementing coherent systems of
support that appropriately coordinate
and integrate programs to address the
needs of children and youth with
disabilities and improve the quality of
service for those children and their
families.
(b) Designing and implementing
teacher evaluation systems that define
and measure effectiveness of special
education teachers and related service
providers.
(c) Designing and implementing
strategies that improve student
achievement (as defined in this
document) for students with disabilities
in inclusive settings, including
strategies that improve learning and
developmental outcomes (i.e., academic,
social, emotional, or behavioral) and the
appropriate transition from restrictive
settings to inclusive settings or general
education classes or programs, and
appropriate strategies to prevent
unnecessary suspensions and
expulsions.
(d) Improving secondary and
postsecondary data collection and
tracking of academic and related
outcomes for students with disabilities
to understand their transition into
postsecondary education and the factors
associated with their success.
(e) Projects addressing pressing needs
related to improving academic outcomes
for students with disabilities.
Priority 5—Improving Academic
Outcomes for English Learners (ELs).
Under this priority, we provide
funding to projects that address one or
more of the following priority areas:
(a) Increasing the number and
proportion of ELs successfully
completing courses in core academic
subjects by developing, implementing,
and evaluating new instructional
approaches and tools that are sensitive
to the language demands necessary to
access challenging content, including
technology-based tools.
(b) Aligning and implementing the
curriculum and instruction used in
grades 6–12 for language development
and content courses to provide
sufficient exposure to, engagement in,
and acquisition of academic language
and literacy practices necessary for
preparing ELs to be college- and careerready.
(c) Preparing ELs to be on track to be
college- and career-ready when they
graduate from high school by
developing comprehensive,
developmentally appropriate, early
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:50 Mar 26, 2013
Jkt 229001
learning programs (birth-grade 3) that
are aligned with the State’s high-quality
early learning standards, designed to
improve readiness for kindergarten, and
support development of literacy and
academic skills in English or in English
and another language.
(d) Developing and implementing
school-wide professional development
for teachers, administrators, and other
personnel in schools in which a
significant percentage of students are
ELs.
(e) Designing and implementing
teacher evaluation systems that define
and measure the effectiveness of
teachers of students who at some point
have been identified as ELs (i.e., both
current and former ELs).
(f) Projects addressing pressing needs
related to improving academic outcomes
for ELs.
Priority 6—Improving Parent and
Family Engagement.
Under this priority, we provide
funding to projects that address one or
more of the following priority areas:
(a) Developing and implementing
initiatives that train parents and
families in the skills and strategies that
will support their students in improving
academic outcomes, including increased
engagement and persistence in school.
(b) Implementing initiatives that are
designed to enhance the skills and
competencies of teachers, and of school
and other administrative staff, in
building relationships and collaborating
with students’ families, particularly
those who have been underengaged
with the school(s) in the past, in order
to support student achievement and
school improvement.
(c) Implementing initiatives that
cultivate sustainable partnerships and
increase connections between parents
and school staff in order to support
student achievement and school
improvement.
(d) Developing tools or practices that
provide students and parents with
improved, ongoing access to, and use of,
data and other information about
students’ progress and performance.
(e) Projects addressing pressing needs
related to improving student outcomes
by improving parent and family
engagement.
Priority 7—Improving CostEffectiveness and Productivity.
Under this priority, we provide
funding to projects that address one of
the following areas:
(a) Substantially improving student
outcomes without commensurately
increasing per-student costs.
(b) Maintaining student outcomes
while substantially decreasing perstudent costs.
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
18701
(c) Substantially improving student
outcomes while substantially decreasing
per-student costs.
Other requirements related to Priority
7:
An application addressing this
priority must provide—
(1) A clear and coherent budget that
identifies expected student outcomes
before and after the practice, the cost
per student for the practice, and a clear
calculation of the cost per student
served;
(2) A compelling discussion of the
expected cost-effectiveness of the
practice compared with alternative
practices;
(3) A clear delineation of one-time
costs versus ongoing costs and a plan for
sustaining the project, particularly
ongoing costs, after the expiration of i3
funding;
(4) Identification of specific activities
designed to increase substantially the
cost-effectiveness of the practice, such
as re-designing costly components of the
practice (while maintaining efficacy) or
testing multiple versions of the practice
in order to identify the most costeffective approach; and
(5) A project evaluation that addresses
the cost-effectiveness of the proposed
practice.
Priority 8—Effective Use of
Technology.
Under this priority, we will provide
funding to projects that use technology
to address one or more of the following
priority areas:
(a) Providing access to learning
experiences that are personalized,
adaptive, and self-improving in order to
optimize the delivery of instruction to
learners with a variety of learning
needs.
(b) Providing students and teachers
with equitable ‘‘anytime, anywhere’’
access to learning materials and
experiences that they otherwise would
not have access to, such as rigorous
coursework that is not offered in a
particular school, or effective
professional development activities or
learning communities enabled by
technology.
(c) Developing new methods and
resources for teacher preparation or
professional development that increase
teachers’ abilities to utilize technology
to enhance their knowledge and skills to
improve student achievement (as
defined in this document) and to close
achievement gaps.
(d) Implementing strategies that
improve student proficiencies in
complex skills, such as critical thinking
and collaboration across academic
disciplines.
E:\FR\FM\27MRR2.SGM
27MRR2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
18702
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 27, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
(e) Developing and implementing
technology-enabled strategies for
teaching and learning concepts and
content (e.g., systems thinking) that are
difficult to teach using traditional
approaches, such as models and
simulations, collaborative virtual
environments, or ‘‘serious games’’.
(f) Integrating technology with the
implementation of rigorous college- and
career-ready standards to increase
student achievement (as defined in this
document), student engagement, and
teacher efficacy, such as by providing
embedded, real-time assessment and
feedback to students and teachers.
(g) Projects that increase the use of
technology for effective teaching and
learning.
Priority 9—Enabling Broad Adoption
of Effective Practices.
Under this priority, we provide
funding to projects that enable broad
adoption of effective practices. An
application proposing to address this
priority must, as part of its application:
(a) Identify the practice or practices
that the application proposes to prepare
for broad adoption, including
formalizing the practice (i.e., establish
and define key elements of the practice),
codifying (i.e., develop a guide or tools
to support the dissemination of
information on key elements of the
practice), and explaining why there is a
need for formalization and codification.
(b) Evaluate different forms of the
practice to identify the critical
components of the practice that are
crucial to its success and sustainability,
including the adaptability of critical
components to different teaching and
learning environments and to diverse
learners.
(c) Provide a coherent and
comprehensive plan for developing
materials, training, toolkits, or other
supports that other entities would need
in order to implement the practice
effectively and with fidelity.
(d) Commit to assessing the
replicability and adaptability of the
practice by supporting the
implementation of the practice in a
variety of locations during the project
period using the materials, training,
toolkits, or other supports that were
developed for the i3-supported practice.
Priority 10—Serving Rural
Communities.
Under this priority, we provide
funding to projects that address one of
the absolute priorities established for a
particular i3 competition and under
which the majority of students to be
served are enrolled in rural local
educational agencies (as defined in this
document).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:50 Mar 26, 2013
Jkt 229001
Priority 11—Supporting Novice i3
Applicants.
Eligible applicants that have never
directly received a grant under this
program.
Types of Priorities:
When inviting applications for a
competition using one or more
priorities, we designate the type of each
priority as absolute, competitive
preference, or invitational through a
notice in the Federal Register. The
effect of each type of priority follows:
Absolute priority: Under an absolute
priority, we consider only applications
that meet the priority (34 CFR
75.105(c)(3)).
Competitive preference priority:
Under a competitive preference priority,
we give competitive preference to an
application by (1) awarding additional
points, depending on the extent to
which the application meets the priority
(34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) selecting
an application that meets the priority
over an application of comparable merit
that does not meet the priority (34 CFR
75.105(c)(2)(ii)).
Invitational priority: Under an
invitational priority, we are particularly
interested in applications that meet the
priority. However, we do not give an
application that meets the priority a
preference over other applications (34
CFR 75.105(c)(1)).
Final Requirements:
1. Innovations that Improve
Achievement for High-Need Students:
All grantees must implement practices
that are designed to improve student
achievement (as defined in this
document) or student growth (as
defined in this document), close
achievement gaps, decrease dropout
rates, increase high school graduation
rates (as defined in this document), or
increase college enrollment and
completion rates for high-need students
(as defined in this document).
2. Innovations that Serve
Kindergarten-through-Grade-12 (K–12)
Students: All grantees must implement
practices that serve students who are in
grades K–12 at some point during the
funding period. To meet this
requirement, projects that serve early
learners (i.e., infants, toddlers, or
preschoolers) must provide services or
supports that extend into kindergarten
or later years, and projects that serve
postsecondary students must provide
services or supports during the
secondary grades or earlier.
3. Eligible Applicants: Entities eligible
to apply for i3 grants include either of
the following:
(a) An LEA.
(b) A partnership between a nonprofit
organization and—
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
(1) One or more LEAs; or
(2) A consortium of schools.
Statutory Eligibility Requirements:
Except as specifically set forth in the
Note about Eligibility for an Eligible
Applicant that Includes a Nonprofit
Organization that follows, to be eligible
for an award, an eligible applicant
must—
(a)(1) Have significantly closed the
achievement gaps between groups of
students described in section 1111(b)(2)
of the ESEA (economically
disadvantaged students, students from
major racial and ethnic groups, students
with limited English proficiency,
students with disabilities); or
(2) Have demonstrated success in
significantly increasing student
academic achievement for all groups of
students described in that section;
(b) Have made significant
improvements in other areas, such as
high school graduation rates (as defined
in this document) or increased
recruitment and placement of highquality teachers and principals, as
demonstrated with meaningful data;
(c) Demonstrate that it has established
one or more partnerships with the
private sector, which may include
philanthropic organizations, and that
organizations in the private sector will
provide matching funds in order to help
bring results to scale; and
(d) 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.
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
specifies that an eligible applicant that
includes a nonprofit organization meets
the requirements in paragraphs (a) and
(b) 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
E:\FR\FM\27MRR2.SGM
27MRR2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 27, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
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 i3 grant an LEA or a consortium
of schools that meets the requirements
in paragraphs (a) and (b) of the
eligibility requirements in this
document.
In addition, the authorizing statute
specifies that an eligible applicant that
includes a nonprofit organization meets
the requirements of paragraph (c) of the
eligibility requirements in this
document if the eligible applicant
demonstrates that it will meet the
requirement for private-sector matching.
4. Cost-Sharing or Matching Funds:
To be eligible for an award, an applicant
must demonstrate that one or more
private sector organizations, which may
include philanthropic organizations,
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 an
amount that the Secretary will specify
in the notice inviting applications for
the specific i3 competition. The
Secretary will announce in the notice
inviting applications when and how
selected eligible applicants must submit
evidence of the private-sector matching
funds.
The Secretary may consider
decreasing the matching requirement in
the most exceptional circumstances.
The Secretary will provide instructions
for how to request a reduction of the
matching requirement in the notice
inviting applications.
5. Evidence Standards: To be eligible
for an award, an application for a
Development grant must be supported
by one of the following:
(a) Evidence of promise (as defined in
this document);
(b) Strong theory (as defined in this
document); or
(c) Evidence of promise (as defined in
this document) or strong theory (as
defined in this document).
The Secretary will announce in the
notice inviting applications which
options will be used as the evidence
standard for a Development grant in a
given competition. Note that under (c),
applicants must identify whether the
application is supported by evidence of
promise (as defined in this document)
or strong theory (as defined in this
document).
To be eligible for an award, an
application for a Validation grant must
be supported by moderate evidence of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:50 Mar 26, 2013
Jkt 229001
effectiveness (as defined in this
document).
To be eligible for an award, an
application for a Scale-up grant must be
supported by strong evidence of
effectiveness (as defined in this
document).
6. Funding Categories: An applicant
will be considered for an award only for
the type of i3 grant (i.e., Development,
Validation, and Scale-up) for which it
applies. An applicant may not submit
an application for the same proposed
project under more than one type of
grant.
7. Limit on Grant Awards: (a) No
grantee may receive more than two new
grant awards of any type under the i3
program in a single year; (b) In any twoyear period, no grantee may receive
more than one new Scale-up or
Validation grant; and (c) No grantee may
receive in a single year new i3 grant
awards that total an amount greater than
the sum of the maximum amount of
funds for a Scale-up grant and the
maximum amount of funds for a
Development grant for that year. For
example, in a year when the maximum
award value for a Scale-up grant is $25
million and the maximum award value
for a Development grant is $5 million,
no grantee may receive in a single year
new grants totaling more than $30
million.
8. 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 and, if funded, as the grantee,
may make subgrants to one or more
entities in the partnership.
9. Evaluation: The grantee must
conduct an independent evaluation (as
defined in this document) of its project.
This evaluation must estimate the
impact of the i3-supported practice (as
implemented at the proposed level of
scale) on a relevant outcome (as defined
in this document). The grantee must
make broadly available digitally and
free of charge, through formal (e.g., peerreviewed journals) or informal (e.g.,
newsletters) mechanisms, the results of
any evaluations it conducts of its
funded activities. For Scale-up and
Validation grants, the grantee must also
ensure that the data from its evaluation
are made available to third-party
researchers consistent with applicable
privacy requirements.
In addition, the grantee and its
independent evaluator must agree to
cooperate with any technical assistance
provided by the Department or its
contractor and comply with the
requirements of any evaluation of the
program conducted by the Department.
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
18703
This includes providing to the
Department, within 100 days of a grant
award, an updated comprehensive
evaluation plan in a format and using
such tools as the Department may
require. Grantees must update this
evaluation plan at least annually to
reflect any changes to the evaluation.
All of these updates must be consistent
with the scope and objectives of the
approved application.
10. Communities of Practice: Grantees
must participate in, organize, or
facilitate, as appropriate, communities
of practice for the i3 program. 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.
11. Management Plan: Within 100
days of a grant award, the grantee must
provide an updated comprehensive
management plan for the approved
project in a format and using such tools
as the Department may require. This
management plan must include detailed
information about implementation of
the first year of the grant, including key
milestones, staffing details, and other
information that the Department may
require. It must also include a complete
list of performance metrics, including
baseline measures and annual targets.
The grantee must update this
management plan at least annually to
reflect implementation of subsequent
years of the project.
Final Definitions:
The Assistant Deputy Secretary
establishes the following definitions for
this program. We may apply one or
more of these definitions in any year in
which this program is in effect.
Consortium of schools means two or
more public elementary or secondary
schools acting collaboratively for the
purpose of applying for and
implementing an i3 grant jointly with an
eligible nonprofit organization.
Evidence of promise means there is
empirical evidence to support the
theoretical linkage between at least one
critical component and at least one
relevant outcome presented in the logic
model (as defined in this document) for
the proposed process, product, strategy,
or practice. Specifically, evidence of
promise means the following conditions
are met:
(a) There is at least one study that is
either a—
(1) Correlational study with statistical
controls for selection bias;
(2) Quasi-experimental study (as
defined in this document) that meets the
E:\FR\FM\27MRR2.SGM
27MRR2
18704
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 27, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
What Works Clearinghouse Evidence
Standards with reservations 1; or
(3) Randomized controlled trial (as
defined in this document) that meets the
What Works Clearinghouse Evidence
Standards with or without
reservations; 2 and
(b) Such a study found a statistically
significant or substantively important
(defined as a difference of 0.25 standard
deviations or larger), favorable
association between at least one critical
component and one relevant outcome
presented in the logic model for the
proposed process, product, strategy, or
practice.
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 (as defined in this document),
who are far below grade level, who have
left school before receiving a regular
high school diploma, who are at risk of
not graduating with a diploma on time,
who are homeless, who are in foster
care, who have been incarcerated, who
have disabilities, or who are English
learners.
High-minority school is defined by a
school’s LEA in a manner consistent
with the corresponding State’s Teacher
Equity Plan, as required by section
1111(b)(8)(C) of the ESEA. The
applicant must provide, in its i3
application, the definition(s) used.
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.
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
(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.
1 See What Works Clearinghouse Procedures and
Standards Handbook (Version 2.1, September 2011),
which can currently be found at the following link:
https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/
DocumentSum.aspx?sid=19.
2 See What Works Clearinghouse Procedures and
Standards Handbook (Version 2.1, September 2011),
which can currently be found at the following link:
https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/
DocumentSum.aspx?sid=19.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:50 Mar 26, 2013
Jkt 229001
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
academic 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.
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 process, product, strategy, or
practice and are implementing it.
Innovation means a process, product,
strategy, or practice that improves (or is
expected to improve) significantly upon
the outcomes reached with status quo
options and that can ultimately reach
widespread effective usage.
Large sample means a sample of 350
or more students (or other single
analysis units) who were randomly
assigned to a treatment or control group,
or 50 or more groups (such as
classrooms or schools) that contain 10
or more students (or other single
analysis units) and that were randomly
assigned to a treatment or control group.
Logic model (also referred to as theory
of action) means a well-specified
conceptual framework that identifies
key components of the proposed
process, product, strategy, or practice
(i.e., the active ‘‘ingredients’’ that are
hypothesized to be critical to achieving
the relevant outcomes) and describes
the relationships among the key
components and outcomes, theoretically
and operationally.
Moderate evidence of effectiveness
means one of the following conditions
is met:
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
(a) There is at least one study of the
effectiveness of the process, product,
strategy, or practice being proposed that:
meets the What Works Clearinghouse
Evidence Standards without
reservations; 3 found a statistically
significant favorable impact on a
relevant outcome (as defined in this
document) (with no statistically
significant and overriding unfavorable
impacts on that outcome for relevant
populations in the study or in other
studies of the intervention reviewed by
and reported on by the What Works
Clearinghouse); and includes a sample
that overlaps with the populations or
settings proposed to receive the process,
product, strategy, or practice.
(b) There is at least one study of the
effectiveness of the process, product,
strategy, or practice being proposed that:
meets the What Works Clearinghouse
Evidence Standards with reservations; 4
found a statistically significant favorable
impact on a relevant outcome (as
defined in this document) (with no
statistically significant and overriding
unfavorable impacts on that outcome for
relevant populations in the study or in
other studies of the intervention
reviewed by and reported on by the
What Works Clearinghouse); includes a
sample that overlaps with the
populations or settings proposed to
receive the process, product, strategy, or
practice; and includes a large sample (as
defined in this document) and a multisite sample (as defined in this
document). (Note: multiple studies can
cumulatively meet the large and multisite sample requirements as long as each
study meets the other requirements in
this paragraph).
Multi-site sample means more than
one site, where site can be defined as an
LEA, locality, or State.
National level describes the level of
scope or effectiveness of a process,
product, strategy, or practice that is able
to be effective in a wide variety of
communities, including rural and urban
areas, as well as with different groups
(e.g., economically disadvantaged, racial
and ethnic groups, migrant populations,
individuals with disabilities, English
learners, and individuals of each
gender).
Nonprofit organization means an
entity that meets the definition of
3 See What Works Clearinghouse Procedures and
Standards Handbook (Version 2.1, September 2011),
which can currently be found at the following link:
https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/
DocumentSum.aspx?sid=19.
4 See What Works Clearinghouse Procedures and
Standards Handbook (Version 2.1, September 2011),
which can currently be found at the following link:
https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/
DocumentSum.aspx?sid=19.
E:\FR\FM\27MRR2.SGM
27MRR2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 27, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
‘‘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.
Quasi-experimental design study
means a study using a design that
attempts to approximate an
experimental design by identifying a
comparison group that is similar to the
treatment group in important respects.
These studies, depending on design and
implementation, can meet What Works
Clearinghouse Evidence Standards with
reservations 5 (they cannot meet What
Works Clearinghouse Evidence
Standards without reservations).
Randomized controlled trial means a
study that employs random assignment
of, for example, students, teachers,
classrooms, schools, or districts to
receive the intervention being evaluated
(the treatment group) or not to receive
the intervention (the control group). The
estimated effectiveness of the
intervention is the difference between
the average outcome for the treatment
group and for the control group. These
studies, depending on design and
implementation, can meet What Works
Clearinghouse Evidence Standards
without reservations.6
Regional level describes the level of
scope or effectiveness of a process,
product, strategy, or practice that is able
to serve a variety of communities within
a State or multiple States, including
rural and urban areas, as well as with
different groups (e.g., economically
disadvantaged, racial and ethnic groups,
migrant populations, individuals with
disabilities, English learners, and
individuals of each gender). For an LEAbased project to be considered a
regional-level project, a process,
product, strategy, or practice must serve
students in more than one LEA, unless
the process, product, strategy, or
practice is implemented in a State in
which the State educational agency is
the sole educational agency for all
schools.
Relevant outcome means the student
outcome or outcomes (or the ultimate
outcome if not related to students) that
the proposed project is designed to
improve, consistent with the specific
goals of the project and the i3 program.
Rural local educational agency means
a local educational agency (LEA) that is
eligible under the Small Rural School
Achievement (SRSA) program or the
5 See What Works Clearinghouse Procedures and
Standards Handbook (Version 2.1, September 2011),
which can currently be found at the following link:
ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/DocumentSum.aspx?sid=19.
6 See What Works Clearinghouse Procedures and
Standards Handbook (Version 2.1, September 2011),
which can currently be found at the following link:
ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/DocumentSum.aspx?sid=19.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:50 Mar 26, 2013
Jkt 229001
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 Department’s Web
site at www2.ed.gov/nclb/freedom/local/
reap.html.
Strong evidence of effectiveness
means that one of the following
conditions is met:
(a) There is at least one study of the
effectiveness of the process, product,
strategy, or practice being proposed that:
meets the What Works Clearinghouse
Evidence Standards without
reservations; 7 found a statistically
significant favorable impact on a
relevant outcome (as defined in this
document) (with no statistically
significant and overriding unfavorable
impacts on that outcome for relevant
populations in the study or in other
studies of the intervention reviewed by
and reported on by the What Works
Clearinghouse); includes a sample that
overlaps with the populations and
settings proposed to receive the process,
product, strategy, or practice; and
includes a large sample (as defined in
this document) and a multi-site sample
(as defined in this document). (Note:
multiple studies can cumulatively meet
the large and multi-site sample
requirements as long as each study
meets the other requirements in this
paragraph).
(b) There are at least two studies of
the effectiveness of the process, product,
strategy, or practice being proposed,
each of which: meets the What Works
Clearinghouse Evidence Standards with
reservations; 8 found a statistically
significant favorable impact on a
relevant outcome (as defined in this
document) (with no statistically
significant and overriding unfavorable
impacts on that outcome for relevant
populations in the studies or in other
studies of the intervention reviewed by
and reported on by the What Works
Clearinghouse); includes a sample that
overlaps with the populations and
settings proposed to receive the process,
product, strategy, or practice; and
includes a large sample (as defined in
this document) and a multi-site sample
(as defined in this document).
Strong theory means a rationale for
the proposed process, product, strategy,
7 See What Works Clearinghouse Procedures and
Standards Handbook (Version 2.1, September 2011),
which can currently be found at the following link:
https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/
DocumentSum.aspx?sid=19.
8 See What Works Clearinghouse Procedures and
Standards Handbook (Version 2.1, September 2011),
which can currently be found at the following link:
https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/
DocumentSum.aspx?sid=19.
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
18705
or practice that includes a logic model
(as defined in this document).
Student achievement means—
(a) For grades and subjects in which
assessments are required under ESEA
section 1111(b)(3): (1) a student’s score
on such assessments and may include
(2) other measures of student learning,
such as those described in paragraph
(b), provided they are rigorous and
comparable across schools within an
LEA.
(b) For grades and subjects in which
assessments are not required under
ESEA section 1111(b)(3): alternative
measures of student learning and
performance such as student results on
pre-tests, end-of-course tests, and
objective performance-based
assessments; student learning
objectives; student performance on
English language proficiency
assessments; and other measures of
student achievement that are rigorous
and comparable across schools within
an LEA.
Student growth means the change in
student achievement (as defined in this
document) for an individual student
between two or more points in time. An
applicant may also include other
measures that are rigorous and
comparable across classrooms.
Final Selection Criteria:
The Secretary establishes the
following selection criteria for
evaluating an application under this
program. We may apply one or more of
these criteria in any year in which this
program is in effect. We propose that the
Secretary may use:
• One or more of the selection criteria
established in the notice of final
priorities, requirements, definitions, and
selection criteria;
• Any of the selection criteria in 34
CFR 75.210; criteria based on the
statutory requirements for the i3
program in accordance with 34 CFR
75.209; or
• Any combination of these when
establishing selection criteria for each
particular type of grant (Development,
Validation, and Scale-up) in any i3
competition. We propose that the
Secretary may further define each
criterion by selecting specific factors for
it. The Secretary may select these factors
from any selection criterion in the list
above. In the notice inviting
applications, the application package, or
both we will announce the specific
selection criteria that apply to a
competition and the maximum possible
points assigned to each criterion.
(a) Significance.
In determining the significance of the
proposed project, the Secretary will
E:\FR\FM\27MRR2.SGM
27MRR2
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
18706
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 27, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
consider one or more of the following
factors:
(1) The extent to which the proposed
project addresses a national need.
(2) The extent to which the proposed
project addresses a challenge for which
there is a national need for solutions
that are better than the solutions
currently available.
(3) The extent to which the proposed
project would implement a novel
approach as compared with what has
been previously attempted nationally.
(4) The extent of the expected impact
of the project on relevant outcomes (as
defined in this document), including the
estimated impact of the project on
student outcomes (particularly those
related to student achievement (as
defined in this document)) and the
breadth of the project’s impact,
compared with alternative practices or
methods of addressing similar needs.
(5) The extent to which the proposed
project demonstrates that it is likely to
have a meaningful impact on relevant
outcomes (as defined in this document),
particularly those related to student
achievement (as defined in this
document), if it were implemented and
evaluated in a variety of settings.
(6) The extent to which the proposed
project will substantially improve on
the outcomes achieved by other
practices, such as through better student
outcomes, lower cost, or accelerated
results.
(7) The importance and magnitude of
the proposed project’s expected impact
on a relevant outcome (as defined in
this document), particularly one related
to student achievement (as defined in
this document).
(8) The likelihood that the project will
have the estimated impact, including
the extent to which the applicant
demonstrates that unmet demand for the
proposed project or the proposed
services will enable the applicant to
reach the proposed level of scale.
(9) The feasibility of national
expansion if favorable outcomes are
achieved.
(b) Quality of the Project Design.
In determining the quality of the
project design, the Secretary will
consider one or more of the following
factors:
(1) The extent to which the proposed
project addresses the national need and
priorities the applicant is seeking to
meet.
(2) The extent to which the proposed
project addresses the absolute priority
the applicant is seeking to meet.
(3) The clarity and coherence of the
project goals, including the extent to
which the proposed project articulates
an explicit plan or actions to achieve its
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:50 Mar 26, 2013
Jkt 229001
goals (e.g., a fully developed logic
model of the proposed project).
(4) The extent to which the proposed
project has a clear set of goals and an
explicit plan or actions to achieve the
goals, including identification of any
elements of the project logic model that
require further testing or development.
(5) The extent to which the proposed
project will produce a fully codified
practice, including a fully articulated
logic model of the project by the end of
the project period.
(6) The clarity, completeness, and
coherence of the project goals and
whether the application includes a
description of project activities that
constitute a complete plan for achieving
those goals, including the identification
of potential risks to project success and
strategies to mitigate those risks.
(7) The extent to which the applicant
addresses potential risks to project
success and strategies to mitigate those
risks.
(8) The extent to which the applicant
will use grant funds to address a
particular barrier or barriers that
prevented the applicant, in the past,
from reaching the level of scale
proposed in the application.
(9) The extent to which the project
would build the capacity of the
applicant to scale up and sustain the
project or would create an organization
capable of expanding if successful
outcomes are achieved.
(10) The sufficiency of the resources
to support effective project
implementation, including the project’s
plan for ensuring funding after the
period of the Federal grant.
(11) The sufficiency of the resources
to support effective project
implementation.
(c) Quality of the Management Plan.
In determining the quality of the
management plan, the Secretary will
consider one or more of the following
factors:
(1) The extent to which the
management plan articulates key
responsibilities and well-defined
objectives, including the timelines and
milestones for completion of major
project activities, the metrics that will
be used to assess progress on an ongoing
basis, and annual performance targets
the applicant will use to monitor
whether the project is achieving its
goals.
(2) The clarity and coherence of the
applicant’s multi-year financial and
operating model and accompanying
plan to operate the project at a national
level (as defined in this document)
during the project period.
(3) The clarity and coherence of the
applicant’s multi-year financial and
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
operating model and accompanying
plan to operate the project at a national
or regional level (as defined in this
document) during the project period.
(4) The extent to which the applicant
demonstrates that it will have the
resources to operate the project at the
proposed level of scale during the
project period and beyond the length of
the grant, including the demonstrated
commitment of any partners and
evidence of broad support from
stakeholders critical to the project’s
long-term success (e.g., State
educational agencies, teachers’ unions).
(5) The extent of the demonstrated
commitment of any key partners or
evidence of broad support from
stakeholders whose participation is
critical to the project’s long-term
success.
(d) Personnel.
When evaluating the personnel of the
proposed project, the Secretary will
consider one or more of the following
factors:
(1) The adequacy of the project’s
staffing plan, particularly for the first
year of the project, including the
identification of the project director
and, in the case of projects with unfilled
key personnel positions at the beginning
of the project, that the staffing plan
identifies how critical work will
proceed.
(2) The qualifications and experience
of the project director and other key
project personnel and the extent to
which they have the expertise to
accomplish the proposed tasks.
(3) The extent to which the project
director has experience managing large,
complex, and rapidly growing projects.
(4) The extent to which the project
director has experience managing large,
complex projects.
(5) The extent to which the project
director has experience managing
projects of similar size and scope as the
proposed project.
(e) Quality of the Project Evaluation.
In determining the quality of the
project evaluation, the Secretary will
consider one or more of the following
factors:
(1) The clarity and importance of the
key questions to be addressed by the
project evaluation, and the
appropriateness of the methods for how
each question will be addressed.
(2) The extent to which the methods
of evaluation will, if well implemented,
produce evidence about the project’s
effectiveness that would meet the What
Works Clearinghouse Evidence
Standards without reservations.9
9 See What Works Clearinghouse Procedures and
Standards Handbook. (Version 2.1, September
E:\FR\FM\27MRR2.SGM
27MRR2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 27, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
(3) The extent to which the methods
of evaluation will, if well implemented,
produce evidence about the project’s
effectiveness that would meet the What
Works Clearinghouse Evidence
Standards with or without
reservations.10
(4) The extent to which the methods
of evaluation will provide valid and
reliable performance data on relevant
outcomes, particularly student
achievement outcomes.
(5) The extent to which the evaluation
will study the project at the proposed
level of scale, including, where
appropriate, generating information
about potential differential effectiveness
of the project in diverse settings and for
diverse student population groups.
(6) The extent to which the evaluation
will study the project at the proposed
level of scale, including in diverse
settings.
(7) The extent to which the evaluation
plan includes a clear and credible
analysis plan, including a proposed
sample size and minimum detectable
effect size that aligns with the expected
project impact, and an analytic
approach for addressing the research
questions.
(8) The extent to which the evaluation
plan includes a clear, well-documented,
and rigorous method for measuring
implementation of the critical features
of the project, as well as the intended
outcomes.
(9) The extent to which the evaluation
plan clearly articulates the key
components and outcomes of the
project, as well as a measurable
threshold for acceptable
implementation.
(10) The extent to which the
evaluation plan will provide sufficient
information on the project’s effect as
compared to alternative practices
addressing similar need.
(11) The extent to which the proposed
project plan includes sufficient
resources to carry out the project
evaluation effectively.
This document does not preclude us
from proposing additional priorities,
requirements, definitions, or selection
criteria, subject to meeting applicable
rulemaking requirements.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Note: This document does not solicit
applications. In any year in which we choose
to use one or more of these priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection
2011), which can currently be found at the
following link: https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/
DocumentSum.aspx?sid=19.
10 See What Works Clearinghouse Procedures and
Standards Handbook (Version 2.1, September 2011),
which can currently be found at the following link:
https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/
DocumentSum.aspx?sid=19.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:50 Mar 26, 2013
Jkt 229001
criteria], we invite applications through a
notice in the Federal Register.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
Regulatory Impact Analysis
Under Executive Order 12866, the
Secretary must determine whether this
regulatory action is ‘‘significant’’ and,
therefore, subject to the requirements of
the Executive order and subject to
review by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive
Order 12866 defines a ‘‘significant
regulatory action’’ as an action likely to
result in a rule that may—
(1) Have an annual effect on the
economy of $100 million or more, or
adversely affect a sector of the economy,
productivity, competition, jobs, the
environment, public health or safety, or
State, local or tribal governments or
communities in a material way (also
referred to as an ‘‘economically
significant’’ rule);
(2) Create serious inconsistency or
otherwise interfere with an action taken
or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary
impacts of entitlement grants, user fees,
or loan programs or the rights and
obligations of recipients thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues
arising out of legal mandates, the
President’s priorities, or the principles
stated in the Executive order.
This final regulatory action will have
an annual effect on the economy of
more than $100 million because
Department anticipates more than that
amount will be appropriated for i3 and
awarded as grants. Therefore, this final
action is ‘‘economically significant’’ and
subject to review by OMB under section
3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866.
Notwithstanding this determination, we
have assessed the potential costs and
benefits, both quantitative and
qualitative, of this final regulatory
action and have determined that the
benefits justify the costs.
We have also reviewed this final
regulatory action under Executive Order
13563, which supplements and
explicitly reaffirms the principles,
structures, and definitions governing
regulatory review established in
Executive Order 12866. To the extent
permitted by law, Executive Order
13563 requires that an agency—
(1) Propose or adopt regulations only
upon a reasoned determination that
their benefits justify their costs
(recognizing that some benefits and
costs are difficult to quantify);
(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the
least burden on society, consistent with
obtaining regulatory objectives and
taking into account—among other things
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
18707
and to the extent practicable—the costs
of cumulative regulations;
(3) In choosing among alternative
regulatory approaches, select those
approaches that maximize net benefits
(including potential economic,
environmental, public health and safety,
and other advantages; distributive
impacts; and equity);
(4) To the extent feasible, specify
performance objectives, rather than the
behavior or manner of compliance a
regulated entity must adopt; and
(5) Identify and assess available
alternatives to direct regulation,
including economic incentives—such as
user fees or marketable permits—to
encourage the desired behavior, or
provide information that enables the
public to make choices.
Executive Order 13563 also requires
an agency ‘‘to use the best available
techniques to quantify anticipated
present and future benefits and costs as
accurately as possible.’’ The Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs of
OMB has emphasized that these
techniques may include ‘‘identifying
changing future compliance costs that
might result from technological
innovation or anticipated behavioral
changes.’’
We are issuing these final priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection
criteria only on a reasoned
determination that their benefits justify
their costs. In choosing among
alternative regulatory approaches, we
selected those approaches that
maximize net benefits. Based on the
analysis that follows, the Department
believes that this regulatory action is
consistent with the principles in
Executive Order 13563.
We also have determined that this
final regulatory action does not unduly
interfere with State, local, and tribal
governments in the exercise of their
governmental functions.
In this regulatory impact analysis we
discuss the need for regulatory action,
the potential costs and benefits, net
budget impacts, assumptions,
limitations, and data sources, as well as
regulatory alternatives we considered.
Discussion of Costs and Benefits
The Secretary believes that these
priorities, requirements, definitions, and
selection criteria would not impose
significant costs on eligible LEAs,
nonprofit organizations, or other entities
that would receive assistance through
the i3 program. The Secretary also
believes that the benefits of
implementing the priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection
criteria contained in this document
outweigh any associated costs.
E:\FR\FM\27MRR2.SGM
27MRR2
18708
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 27, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
The Secretary expects that these
priorities, requirements, definitions, and
selection criteria will result in selection
of high-quality applications to
implement activities that are most likely
to have a significant national impact on
educational reform and improvement.
Additionally, the priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection
criteria in this document clarify the
scope of activities the Secretary expects
to support with program funds and the
expected burden of work involved in
preparing an application and
implementing a project under the
program. Potential applicants, both
LEAs and nonprofit organizations, need
to consider carefully the effort that will
be required to prepare a strong
application, their capacity to implement
a project successfully, and their chances
of submitting a successful application.
Program participation is voluntary.
The Secretary believes that the costs
imposed on applicants by these
priorities, requirements, definitions, and
selection criteria would be limited to
paperwork burden related to preparing
an application and that the benefits of
implementing them would outweigh
any costs incurred by applicants. The
costs of carrying out activities would be
paid for with program funds and with
matching funds provided by privatesector partners. Thus, the costs of
implementation would not be a burden
for any eligible applicants, including
small entities.
Regulatory Alternatives Considered
The Department considered using the
priorities, requirements, definitions, and
selection criteria established for and
used during prior i3 competitions
instead of establishing these final
priorities, requirements, definitions, and
selection criteria. However, although we
maintain the overall purpose and
structure of the i3 program, we
incorporate changes based on specific
lessons learned from the first three
competitions. For example, the original
i3 priorities were written broadly and
generated a wide range of projects in the
first three competitions. With this
regulatory action, we establish final
priorities that provide for a more
focused set of projects within areas of
acute need. Similarly, the final
requirement on cost-sharing and
marching provides more flexibility for
when and how selected eligible
applicants must submit evidence of the
private-sector matching funds. We also
use this regulatory action to provide
clarification on the expectations for the
three types of grants under the i3
program (i.e., Development, Validation,
and Scale-up) by making changes to the
descriptions of the types of grants and
the selection criteria.
The priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria in this
document reflect and promote the
purpose of the i3 program. They also
align the i3 program, where possible
and permissible, with other
Departmental priorities.
Accounting Statement
As required by OMB Circular A–4
(available at www.whitehouse.gov/sites/
default/files/omb/assets/omb/circulars/
a004/a-4.pdf), in the following table we
have prepared an accounting statement
showing the classification of the
expenditures associated with the
provisions of this regulatory action. This
table provides our best estimate of the
changes in annual monetized transfers
as a result of this regulatory action.
Expenditures are classified as transfers
from Federal Government to LEAs and
nonprofit organizations.
ACCOUNTING STATEMENT CLASSIFICATION OF ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES
Category
Transfers
Annualized Monetized Transfers ..............................................................
From Whom To Whom? ...........................................................................
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Waiver of Delayed Effective Date Under
Congressional Review Act
These priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria are a
major rule for purposes of the
Congressional Review Act (CRA) (5
U.S.C. 801, et seq.). Generally, under the
CRA, a major rule takes effect 60 days
after the date on which the rule is
published in the Federal Register.
Section 808(2) of the CRA, however,
provides that any rule which an agency
for good cause finds (and incorporates
the finding and a brief statement of
reasons therefore in the rule issued) that
notice and public procedure thereon are
impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary
to the public interest, shall take effect at
such time as the Federal agency
promulgating the rule determines.
These final priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria are
needed to implement the i3 program,
authorized under the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009,
Division A, Section 14007, Public Law
111–5. The Department must make grant
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:50 Mar 26, 2013
Jkt 229001
$140,011,000
from the Federal Government to LEAs and nonprofit organizations
awards under this authority by
December 31, 2013, or the funds will
lapse.
Even under an expedited timeline, it
is impracticable for the Department to
adhere to a 60-day delayed effective
date for this final regulatory action and
make awards to qualified applicants by
the December deadline. When the 60day delayed effective date is added to
the time the Department will need to
receive pre-applications (approximately
30 days), review the pre-applications
and invite full applications
(approximately 60 days), receive full
applications (approximately 45 days),
review applications (approximately 35
days), approve applications
(approximately 50 days), and, finally,
provide time for grantees to secure the
required private-sector matching funds
(approximately 30 days), the
Department will not be able to award
funds by December 31, 2013. The
Department has therefore determined
that, under section 808(2) of the CRA,
the 60-day delay in the effective date
generally required for congressional
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
review is impracticable, contrary to the
public interest, and waived for good
cause.
Intergovernmental Review: This
program is subject to Executive Order
12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR
part 79. One of the objectives of the
Executive order is to foster an
intergovernmental partnership and a
strengthened federalism. The Executive
order relies on processes developed by
State and local governments for
coordination and review of proposed
Federal financial assistance.
This document provides early
notification of our specific plans and
actions for this program.
Accessible Format: Individuals with
disabilities can obtain this document in
an accessible format (e.g., braille, large
print, audiotape, or compact disc) on
request to the program contact person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.
Electronic Access to This Document:
The official version of this document is
the document published in the Federal
Register. Free Internet access to the
E:\FR\FM\27MRR2.SGM
27MRR2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 27, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
official edition of the Federal Register
and the Code of Federal Regulations is
available via the Federal Digital System
at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:50 Mar 26, 2013
Jkt 229001
Format (PDF). To use PDF you must
have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is
available free at the site.
You may also access documents of the
Department published in the Federal
Register by using the article search
feature at: www.federalregister.gov.
Specifically, through the advanced
search feature at this site, you can limit
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
18709
your search to documents published by
the Department.
Dated: March 21, 2013.
James H. Shelton, III,
Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and
Improvement.
[FR Doc. 2013–07016 Filed 3–26–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000–01–P
E:\FR\FM\27MRR2.SGM
27MRR2
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 59 (Wednesday, March 27, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 18681-18709]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-07016]
[[Page 18681]]
Vol. 78
Wednesday,
No. 59
March 27, 2013
Part II
Department of Education
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
34 CFR Subtitle A
Final Priorities, Requirements, Definitions, and Selection Criteria--
Investing in Innovation Fund; Applications for New Awards; Investing in
Innovation Fund, Development Grants; Rule and Notice
Federal Register / Vol. 78 , No. 59 / Wednesday, March 27, 2013 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 18682]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Subtitle A
RIN 1855-AA09
[Docket No. ED-2012-OII-0027]
Final Priorities, Requirements, Definitions, and Selection
Criteria--Investing in Innovation Fund
AGENCY: Office of Innovation and Improvement, Department of Education.
ACTION: Final priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection
criteria.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[CFDA Numbers: 84.411A, 84.411B, and 84.411C]
SUMMARY: The Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and Improvement
announces priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria
under the Investing in Innovation Fund (i3). The Assistant Deputy
Secretary may use one or more of these priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria for competitions in fiscal year
(FY) 2013 and later years.
We clarify and redesign key aspects of the program by incorporating
lessons learned from past i3 competitions. Specifically, we intend to
improve the i3 program to better achieve its purposes and goal by
making changes that will result in accelerating the identification of
promising solutions to pressing challenges in K-12 public education,
supporting the evaluation of the efficacy of such solutions, and
developing new approaches to scaling effective practices to serve more
students.
DATES: These priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection
criteria are effective April 26, 2013.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carol Lyons, U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 4W203 LBJ, Washington, DC
20202. Telephone: (202) 453-7122 or by email: i3@ed.gov.
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text
telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-
800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary
Purpose of This Regulatory Action: The purpose of this action is to
establish priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria
that will enable effective grant making, resulting in the selection of
high-quality applicants who propose to implement activities that are
most likely to have a significant national impact on educational reform
and improvement. This document refines the selection criteria for the
i3 program to better articulate the expectations for the three types of
i3 grants, provides greater clarity regarding the program's evidence
standards, widens the range of these standards by broadening the types
of evidence that can be used to support Development grants, and
identifies a comprehensive set of priorities that the Secretary may
select from to use in an i3 grant competition for any given year.
Summary of the Major Provisions of This Regulatory Action: This
document establishes priorities, requirements, definitions, and
selection criteria that allow the Department to improve the design of
the i3 program to better achieve its purposes and goals.
This document includes 11 priorities that the Secretary may select
from when establishing priorities for each type of grant (i.e.,
Development, Validation, and Scale-up) in an i3 competition in a given
year. These priorities represent a range of education topics:
Improving the effectiveness of teachers or principals;
Improving low-performing schools;
Improving science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics (STEM) education;
Improving academic outcomes for students with
disabilities;
Improving academic outcomes for English learners (ELs);
Improving parent and family engagement;
Improving cost-effectiveness and productivity;
Effective use of technology;
Enabling broad adoption of effective practices; serving
rural communities; and
Supporting novice applicants.
Of these priorities, ten were proposed and one is added in response
to public comment. Specifically, in order to expand the reach of the i3
program and encourage entities that have not applied previously for an
i3 grant, we add a priority for ``novice i3 applicants,'' meaning
applicants that have never received an i3 grant.
The Secretary will consider several factors when selecting the
priorities to use in a given competition, including the Department's
policy priorities, the need for new solutions in a particular priority
area, the availability of other funding sources to support a particular
priority area, and the results and lessons learned from i3
competitions.
This document also clarifies and strengthens the requirements and
definitions for the i3 program. For example, the i3 program focuses on
K-12 public education. Therefore, we clarify that all i3 grantees must
implement practices that serve students who are in grades K-12 at some
point during the funding period. Further, we strengthen the project
evaluation requirement so that i3 grantees will conduct high-quality
evaluations that rigorously measure the effect of an i3-supported
practice, at the proposed level of scale, on a relevant outcome (as
defined in this document). We also revise the evidence standards and
definitions so that applicants can better understand what is required
to meet each level of evidence.
Finally, this document establishes new selection criteria designed
to ensure that applications selected for funding have the potential to
generate substantial improvements in student achievement and other key
outcomes and include well-articulated plans for the implementation and
evaluation of the proposed project. Specifically, we include selection
factors that consider a proposed project's significance, the quality of
the project design, the management plan, and the project evaluation, as
well as the qualifications of key personnel.
This document includes some revisions from the proposed priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria (NPP) (published in
the Federal Register on December 14, 2012 (77 FR 74407)). We discuss
changes from the NPP in greater detail in the Analysis of Comments and
Changes. We do not discuss minor technical or editorial changes.
Costs and Benefits: The Secretary believes that these priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria do not impose
significant costs on eligible local educational agencies (LEAs),
nonprofit organizations, or other entities that would receive
assistance through the i3 program.
The Secretary believes that the costs imposed on applicants by
these priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria are
limited to paperwork burden related to preparing an application and
that the benefits of implementing them outweigh any costs incurred by
applicants. The costs of carrying out activities would be paid for with
program funds and with matching funds provided by private-sector
partners. Thus, the costs of implementation would not be a burden for
any eligible applicants, including small entities. Please refer to the
Regulatory Impact Analysis section in this preamble for a more complete
discussion of the costs and benefits of this regulatory action.
This document provides an accounting statement that estimates that
approximately $140 million will
[[Page 18683]]
transfer from the Federal Government to LEAs and nonprofit
organizations under this program. Please refer to the accounting
statement in this preamble for a more detailed discussion.
Purpose of Program: The i3 program is designed to generate and
validate solutions to persistent educational challenges and to support
the expansion of effective solutions across the country to serve
substantially larger numbers of students. The central design element of
the i3 program is its multi-tier structure that links the amount of
funding that an applicant may receive to the quality of the evidence
supporting the efficacy of the proposed project. Applicants proposing
practices supported by limited evidence can receive relatively small
grants that support the development and initial evaluation of promising
practices and help to identify new solutions to pressing challenges;
applicants proposing practices supported by evidence from rigorous
evaluations, such as large randomized controlled trials, can receive
sizable grants to support expansion across the Nation. This structure
provides incentives for applicants to build evidence of effectiveness
of their proposed projects and to address the barriers to serving more
students across schools, districts, and States so that applicants can
compete for more sizeable grants.
As importantly, all i3 projects are required to generate additional
evidence of effectiveness. All i3 grantees must use part of their
budgets to conduct independent evaluations (as defined in this
document) of their projects. This ensures that projects funded under
the i3 program contribute significantly to improving the information
available to practitioners and policymakers about which practices work,
for which types of students, and in what contexts.
The Department awards three types of grants under this program:
``Development'' grants, ``Validation'' grants, and ``Scale-up'' grants.
These grants differ in terms of the level of prior evidence of
effectiveness required for consideration of funding, the level of scale
the funded project should reach, and consequently the amount of funding
available to support the project. We provide an overview to clarify the
expectations for each grant type:
1. Development grants provide funding to support the development or
testing of practices that are supported by evidence of promise (as
defined in this document) or strong theory (as defined in this
document) and whose efficacy should be systematically studied.
Development grants will support new or substantially more effective
practices for addressing widely shared challenges. Development projects
are novel and significant nationally, not projects that simply
implement existing practices in additional locations or support needs
that are primarily local in nature.
All Development grantees must evaluate the effectiveness of the
project at the level of scale proposed in the application.
2. Validation grants provide funding to support expansion of
projects supported by moderate evidence of effectiveness (as defined in
this document) to the national or regional level (as defined in this
document). Validation grants must further assess the effectiveness of
the i3-supported practice through a rigorous evaluation, with
particular focus on the populations for and the contexts in which the
practice is most effective. We expect and consider it appropriate that
each applicant will propose to use the Validation funding to build its
capacity to deliver the i3-supported practice, particularly early in
the funding period, to successfully reach the level of scale proposed
in its application. Additionally, we expect each applicant to address
any specific barriers to the growth or scaling of the organization or
practice (including barriers related to cost-effectiveness) in order to
deliver the i3-supported practice at the proposed level of scale and
provide strategies to address these barriers as part of its proposed
scaling plan.
All Validation grantees must evaluate the effectiveness of the
practice that the supported project implements and expands. We expect
that these evaluations will be conducted in a variety of contexts and
for a variety of students, will identify the core elements of the
practice, and will codify the practices to support adoption or
replication by the applicant and other entities.
3. Scale-up grants provide funding to support expansion of projects
supported by strong evidence of effectiveness (as defined in this
document) to the national level (as defined in this document). In
addition to improving outcomes for an increasing number of high-need
students, Scale-up grants will generate information about the students
and contexts for which a practice is most effective. We expect that
Scale-up grants will increase practitioners' and policymakers'
understanding of strategies that allow organizations or practices to
expand quickly and efficiently while maintaining their effectiveness.
Similar to Validation grants, all Scale-up grantees must evaluate
the effectiveness of the i3-supported practice that the project
implements and expands; this is particularly important in instances in
which the proposed project includes changing the i3-supported practice
in order to more efficiently reach the proposed level of scale (for
example, by developing technology-enabled training tools). The
evaluation of a Scale-up grant must identify the core elements of, and
codify, the i3-supported practice that the project implements to
support adoption or replication by other entities. We also expect that
evaluations of Scale-up grants will be conducted in a variety of
contexts and for a variety of students in order to determine the
context(s) and population(s) for which the i3-supported practice is
most effective.
Program Authority: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of
2009 (ARRA), Division A, Section 14007, Pub. L. 111-5.
We published a notice of proposed priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria for this program in the Federal
Register on December 14, 2012 (77 FR 74407). That notice contained
background information and our reasons for proposing the particular
priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria.
Public Comment: In response to our invitation in the proposed
priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria, 37
parties submitted comments.
We group major issues according to subject. Generally, we do not
address technical and other minor changes.
Analysis of Comments and Changes: An analysis of the comments and
of any changes in the priorities, requirements, definitions, and
selection criteria since publication of the proposed priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria follows.
Priorities
Priorities--General
Comment: Two commenters expressed support for the i3 program's
proposed approach of selecting from a variety of priorities, each
containing several possible project focus areas, rather than using
broad priorities as we have in the past. One commenter stated that the
approach was strategic and would allow the Department to consider the
sequencing of priority areas across years. One commenter stated that
the proposed approach would allow flexibility and creativity that would
facilitate wholesale transformation of the education field.
Two commenters disagreed with the proposed approach. One stated
that allowing the Department to select from a wide range of priorities
and focus
[[Page 18684]]
areas renders the priorities meaningless, and recommended that the
Department focus on a smaller range of priorities that are designed to
close achievement gaps in low-performing schools. Another commenter
expressed concern that the Department's proposed approach would narrow
the range of projects funded under the i3 program by limiting the focus
of the priorities to preconceived ideas of what works best in
education. The commenter suggested that focusing on areas of acute need
or encouraging applicants to address particular challenges would
disadvantage applicants proposing more comprehensive approaches.
Discussion: We appreciate the support from commenters regarding the
proposed structure of the priorities. The flexibility to select from a
variety of possible project focus areas (i.e., the subparts under each
priority) within a given priority will allow the Secretary to
prioritize areas based on the education environment in a given year.
This flexibility will ensure that the i3 program reflects priorities
that are important and relevant to the field on an ongoing basis.
We recognize that the priorities have several subparts; however the
priorities will not be rendered meaningless because the notice inviting
applications for each competition will provide a concise list of the
priorities that establish a coherent and manageable focus. Further, we
do not agree that this approach will narrow the range of projects
funded under the i3 program, nor will it disadvantage comprehensive
projects because the priorities--although specific about the need or
challenge a project must address--do not prescribe the intervention or
practice that an applicant could propose. Moreover, the i3 program may
include a broader priority if the particular issue warrants it.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter stated that achieving college, career, and
citizenship-ready skills should be the core focus of the i3 program.
The commenter explained that these skills are necessary for deeper
learning and lifelong success. The commenter suggested that requiring
all i3 projects to produce measures aligned with these outcomes would
benefit the i3 program because the Department could then make
comparisons across projects.
Discussion: We agree that it is essential for students to be
prepared to think critically, solve complex problems, and communicate
effectively. While these ``deeper learning'' skills are important for
long-term success, given the diversity of the projects under the i3
program, applicants have discretion in determining the specific
outcomes and measures that are relevant to their proposed projects.
Moreover, nothing in the authorizing statute or the priorities,
requirements, definitions, or selection criteria for this program
prohibits eligible applicants from using deeper learning outcomes to
evaluate their projects. In addition, subparts (d) and (e) of proposed
priority 8 (Effective Use of Technology) are explicitly focused on the
types of skills that are of interest to the commenter.
Further, ARRA established the i3 program to expand the
implementation of, and investment in, innovative practices that are
demonstrated to improve student achievement or student growth, close
achievement gaps, decrease dropout rates, or increase high school
graduation rates. Although we are not requiring all applicants to
respond to any one specific measure, all i3 grantees are required to
implement practices that are designed to improve one of these measures
for high-need students (as defined in this document). By providing
grantees the discretion to determine which measure is most appropriate
to their projects, we avoid compelling grantees to adopt measures that
do not fit their project and strike a reasonable balance between
providing an opportunity to compare similar projects without greatly
limiting the types of projects that we could fund.
Changes: None.
Comment: A few commenters recommended the Department add other
priorities, including priorities that focus on improving college
access, transitioning between secondary and postsecondary schooling,
promoting diversity, and implementing new models for teaching and
learning that are based on the science of learning and research on
youth development.
One commenter noted the absence of a priority focused on assessment
literacy and suggested that the Department either create an additional
priority focused on building educators' assessment literacy or include
references to assessment literacy in proposed priorities 1 (Improving
the Effectiveness of Teachers or Principals), 2 (Improving Low-
Performing Schools), 3 (Improving Science, Technology, Engineering, and
Mathematics (STEM) Education), and 5 (Improving Academic Outcomes for
English Learners (ELs)), as well as the definitions of ``highly
effective teacher'' and ``highly effective principal.'' The commenter
also discussed the Accessible Portable Item Profile (APIP) standards
and the importance of ensuring that the delivery of digital test
content is tailored to each student's specific accessibility needs so
that students can demonstrate what they know and can do. The commenter
suggested the Department consider whether the use of APIP should be a
separate priority or a requirement for any applicant addressing
proposed priorities 2 (Improving Low-Performing Schools), 4 (Improving
Academic Outcomes for Students with Disabilities), 5 (Improving
Academic Outcomes for English Learners (ELs)), 7 (Improving Cost
Effectiveness and Productivity), and 8 (Effective Use of Technology).
Discussion: Although we recognize the importance of the issues and
topics mentioned by the commenters, we decline to include additional
priorities or revise the proposed priorities in the ways suggested.
As noted in the NPP, in any i3 competition we may include
priorities from the notice of final supplemental priorities and
definitions for discretionary grant programs, published in the Federal
Register on December 15, 2010 (75 FR 78486), and corrected on May 12,
2011 (76 FR 27637) (Supplemental Priorities). Because the Supplemental
Priorities include priorities on increasing postsecondary success,
including the academic preparation for and persistence in postsecondary
education, and promoting diversity, we conclude that it is not
necessary for the Department to develop new priorities to address these
areas here. In addition, there is nothing in the priorities that would
preclude an eligible applicant from proposing projects that promote
school and classroom diversity, provided that the proposed project
otherwise meets the requirements in the relevant priority. Further,
because promoting diversity aligns with many of the other priorities we
establish, we do not think it is necessary to add a new priority to
address this topic.
We also do not consider it necessary to create a separate priority
that focuses on new models for teaching and learning because many of
the priorities in this document would allow applicants to propose new
models for teaching and learning while addressing a content-specific
challenge. For example, under priority 1 (Improving the Effectiveness
of Teachers or Principals), we include a subpart on developing new
models for teacher preparation. Similarly, under priority 9 (Effective
Use of Technology), we include a subpart on developing and implementing
technology-enabled strategies for teaching and learning concepts and
content that are difficult to teach using traditional approaches. We
[[Page 18685]]
think that the development and implementation of new models for
teaching and learning is most effective when the models address a
specific challenge.
With regard to the recommendation that we include assessment
literacy in several priority areas, although we agree that it is
important for teachers and principals to understand and use data and
assessment results to improve teaching, we do not think it is necessary
to prescribe assessment literacy as a requirement because nothing
prohibits applicants from addressing it under the priorities as
written. Similarly, with regard to the APIP standards, we agree that
assessments should be designed to be accessible to all students and
that the use of standards to ensure interoperability is critical to the
portability of assessments. While we expect any i3 grant that is
developing and implementing assessments to consider accessibility
standards, given the variety of projects that can be funded under the
i3 program, we do not think it is appropriate for the Department to
prescribe a specific set of standards.
Changes: None.
Comment: Four commenters suggested revisions to several of the
proposed priorities that would encourage the use of the principles of
universal design for learning (UDL). Specifically, these commenters
provided revised text incorporating UDL into subparts under proposed
priorities 1 (Improving the Effectiveness of Teachers or Principals), 2
(Improving Low-Performing Schools), 3 (Improving Science, Technology,
Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education), 4 (Improving Academic
Outcomes for Students with Disabilities), 5 (Improving Academic
Outcomes for English Learners (ELs)), 6 (Improving Parent and Family
Engagement), and 8 (Effective Use of Technology). One commenter
explained that these revisions would support the inclusion of students
with disabilities and their interests in general education and the i3
program.
Discussion: There is nothing in the priorities precluding an
eligible applicant from proposing projects that use principles of UDL
or that support greater inclusion of students with disabilities,
provided that the proposed project otherwise meets the requirements of
the relevant priority. Given the variety of projects that can be funded
under the i3 program and our intent to maximize the number of potential
applicants, we do not want to prescribe a specific principle of
learning.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended the Department revise priorities
1 (Improving the Effectiveness of Teachers or Principals), 3 (Improving
Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education), 5
(Improving Academic Outcomes for English Learners (ELs)), and 8
(Effective Use of Technology) to add specific references to the use of
high-quality, multiplatform digital content and services. The commenter
explained that digital tools make learning accessible to all students
and are essential to teacher preparation and development. Further, the
commenter stated that multiplatform digital content improves the
services provided to students with different learning needs.
Discussion: There is nothing in these priorities that would
preclude an eligible applicant from proposing projects that utilize
multiplatform digital content and services, provided that the proposed
project otherwise meets the requirements of the relevant priority.
Given the variety of projects that can be funded under the i3 program
and our intent to maximize the number of potential applicants, we do
not want to prescribe specific tools or approaches that must be used.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter supported the inclusion of subparts focused
on capacity building in proposed priority 2 (Improving Low-Performing
Schools) and recommended the Department include similar provisions
under proposed priorities 1 (Improving the Effectiveness of Teachers or
Principals), 3 (Improving Science, Technology, Engineering, and
Mathematics (STEM) Education), 4 (Improving Academic Outcomes for
Students with Disabilities), 5 (Improving Academic Outcomes for English
Learners (ELs)), and 6 (Improving Parent and Family Engagement). The
commenter stated that projects under these priorities would benefit
from a similar capacity building to support external relationships at
the partner, district, or State level.
Discussion: The i3 program supports the expansion and scaling of
effective programs by providing sufficient funding to build
organizational capacity and to overcome barriers to reaching additional
students. The different tiers of i3 grants provide a continuum for
funding effective programs that spans initial, localized development to
implementation on a national scale. The hope is that more effective
practices will replace less effective practices and lead to increases
in student achievement and improvements in other student outcomes.
Thus, a general expectation under the i3 program, particularly for the
Scale-up and Validation grants, is that applicants consider how to
build their capacity both internally and externally to scale their
projects to serve more students. For that reason, we do not think it is
necessary to include subparts in all of the priorities identified by
the commenter in order to encourage grantees to build external
relationships.
Additionally, one of the goals of the i3 program is to demonstrate
how to effectively build capacity amongst key entities in K-12 public
education (e.g., educators, schools, parents) in order to improve
student achievement for high-need students. However, the Department
believes that this is best accomplished without being overly
prescriptive about the role of outside entities.
We proposed two subparts under priority 2 (Improving Low-Performing
Schools) that are specific to capacity building and external partners
because initiatives to turn around low-performing schools often benefit
from the involvement of diverse stakeholders. To clarify that the
intent of these subparts is to improve school-, district-, and State-
level capacity to support school turnaround efforts, we are making
technical revisions to subparts (e) and (f) of the priority.
Changes: We have revised subpart (e) under priority 2 (Improving
Low-Performing Schools) to clarify that projects must support the
efforts of low-performing schools or districts in their turnaround
efforts by increasing access to, and use of, high-quality partners.
We also have revised subpart (f) under this priority to clarify
that projects must be designed to increase district- or State-level
capacity to turn around low-performing schools, which would encompass,
among other things, improvements to State and district support and
oversight of turnaround efforts.
Comment: One commenter questioned whether the Department has the
authority to include priorities or definitions that reference diverse
student populations, racial and ethnic groups, and gender. The
commenter further stated that it is generally illegal for government
programs to show favoritism or use classifications based on race,
ethnicity, or sex.
Discussion: We agree that priority 3 (Improving Science,
Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education), and the
requirement that all i3 grants implement projects that are designed to
improve student achievement for high-need students (as
[[Page 18686]]
defined in this document) support investments in and encourage
innovative strategies that are designed to increase access to rigorous
educational opportunities for high-need students or individuals
traditionally underrepresented in STEM fields. However, we do not agree
that this priority and requirement show any favoritism toward a
specific population group. Furthermore, recipients of any Department of
Education funding, including i3 funds, must comply with all of the
nondiscrimination requirements set forth in Title VI of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973,
Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, and the Age
Discrimination Act of 1975. On December 2, 2011, the Departments of
Education and Justice jointly issued guidance that explains how
educational institutions can use generalized race-based approaches
(i.e., approaches that employ racial criteria, such as the overall
racial composition of neighborhoods, but do not involve decision-making
on the basis of any individual student's race or treat individual
students differently because of their race) within the framework of
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The ``Guidance on the
Voluntary Use of Race to Achieve Diversity and Avoid Racial Isolation
in Elementary and Secondary Schools'' is available on the Department's
Web site at www.ed.gov/ocr/docs/guidance-ese-201111.pdf. For additional
information and assistance on civil rights laws that may impose
additional requirements on recipients and subrecipients of Federal
financial assistance, visit www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/leg/recovery/notices/civil-rights.html.
Changes: None.
Comment: In response to the Department's specific request for
comment, a few commenters supported the establishment of a priority for
applicants that have never received, or partnered with, an entity that
has received a grant under the i3 program. The commenters stated that
such a priority would increase the pool of innovative applicants.
However, one commenter expressed concern that such a priority would
discourage applicants from partnering with multiple entities. The
commenter also suggested that entities proposing to provide effective
services to students should be encouraged to continue to partner with
multiple entities regardless of whether they have been part of an i3
grant in the past.
Discussion: We recognize that the dual goals of supporting
practices that are both innovative and evidence-based have the
potential to limit the universe of applicants. In order to expand the
reach of the i3 program and encourage entities that have not applied
previously for an i3 grant, we will add a priority for ``novice i3
applicants,'' meaning applicants that have never received an i3 grant.
Although this priority will provide an incentive for new applicants, we
do not think it will discourage applicants with multiple partners from
applying for i3 grants, particularly given the high volume of
applications the i3 program, particularly the Development grant
competition, typically receives. However, because we do not want to
discourage applicants from seeking partnerships, we will focus the
priority only on entities that have never received an i3 grant
directly.
Changes: We have established a priority (Supporting Novice i3
Applicants) for an eligible applicant that has never directly received
a grant under this program. We may use this priority to establish a
separate competition for applicants that have never received an i3
grant or to select an application that meets this priority over an
application of comparable merit that does not meet this priority (see
34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(ii)).
Proposed Priority 1--Improving the Effectiveness of Teachers or
Principals
Comment: One commenter recommended including this priority because
it supports projects that will bring more highly effective teachers
into high-need schools.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's support for this
priority, and agree with the importance of ensuring that students have
access to highly effective teachers and principals. That is why this
priority focuses on all dimensions of the teacher and principal career
path and seeks to identify effective methods for recruiting, preparing,
supporting, evaluating, and retaining effective principals and
teachers, particularly at schools that serve high-need students.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter proposed specific revisions to several of
the subparts under this priority to focus more on school leadership,
including developing new or improved models for principal preparation,
such as leading instruction, aligning resources across classrooms,
managing talent, and increasing teacher retention. The commenter
proposed adding a new subpart to support projects that develop models
of teacher and principal certification and licensure. The commenter
also suggested that we revise subpart (c) to include models for the
induction and support of novice principals in addition to novice
teachers.
Discussion: We agree with the commenter about the importance of
strong school leadership. Therefore, we have revised the priority to
include a new subpart that specifically focuses on principal
preparation and to clarify that projects under subpart (c) may propose
models of induction and support that serve either teachers or
principals.
However, we decline to add a subpart regarding the development of
models for teacher and principal certification and licensures.
Certification and licensure are typically State-level functions, and it
is not clear that an applicant for an i3 program could or should
develop such models, particularly as eligible entities for i3 grants do
not include State agencies.
Changes: We have created a new subpart (c) that specifically
focuses on principal preparation and training. Additionally, we have
revised proposed subpart (c) to include models of induction and support
that serve principals and re-designated it as subpart (d). With the
addition of the new subpart, we re-designate proposed subparts (d)-(i)
so that they are now labeled (e)-(j), respectively.
Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department require that
projects focus on the recruitment of teachers to also address teacher
retention. The commenter stated that the greater challenge in high-
need, low-performing schools is teacher retention. Thus, according to
the commenter, in order for recruitment efforts to be cost-effective,
projects must also include components that provide ongoing investment
in newly recruited teachers to ensure that they remain in the
profession for a minimum of three to five years. The commenter also
suggested that this priority focus on programs that begin recruitment
and preparation for future teachers as early as middle and high school.
Discussion: We agree with the commenter that recruitment without
effective induction, support, or other retention strategies would have
a limited impact. However, we also recognize that the parties
responsible for recruitment tend to be different than those responsible
for retention. That is why we include different subparts under the
priority to focus on the different dimensions of a teacher's career
path. Although subpart (a) focuses on recruitment models and subpart
(d) (initially proposed as subpart (c)) addresses models of induction
and support to increase teacher retention, nothing in either
[[Page 18687]]
subpart prohibits an applicant from proposing to address both
recruitment and retention.
With regard to adding a subpart to this priority for projects that
begin teacher recruitment as early as middle or high school, it is not
clear that a project with this approach could be implemented and
evaluated in the maximum funding period for a grant. The Department's
current regulations authorize the Secretary to approve a project period
up to 60 months (see 34 CFR 75.250). As most teachers complete
postsecondary education, a project focusing on teacher recruitment with
middle school students would need a minimum of 120 months (assuming one
year of middle school, four years of high school, four years of
postsecondary education, and one year of work). Thus, the necessary
project period would be significantly longer than what the Department's
current regulations allow and we do not think it would be prudent to
add a subpart that would require a waiver of the regulations in order
to use it. In addition, we are not aware of research that indicates
that recruitment at such an early age is likely to be particularly
effective.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested revising subpart (b) of this
priority to specify that teacher training include practices addressing
family and community engagement.
Discussion: We agree with the commenter about the importance of
including parent and community engagement in teacher training programs.
However, we think that training is most effective when it is specific
to the needs of the students and the surrounding community. For that
reason, we already include teacher training related to parent and
family engagement at the school- or district-level instead of the pre-
service or preparation stage. Specifically, subpart (b) under priority
6 (Improving Parent and Family Engagement) would support projects
implementing initiatives that are designed to enhance skills and
competencies of school staff to build relationships and collaborate
with families.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested revising proposed subpart (f) to
specify that the supports must be evidence-based and address cognitive,
social, emotional, and behavioral barriers to student achievement. The
commenter also recommended adding a new subpart under this priority for
projects that develop high-quality pathways into schools. These would
include non-university-based programs that recruit, select, train, and
recommend teachers or principals to the State for certification and
licensure, and full-time residency programs that develop national
service members, community volunteers, and part-time educators to
become credentialed teachers.
Discussion: The i3 program already requires that all projects meet
certain evidence standards. Therefore, we do not think it is necessary
to specify in this priority that the projects must be evidence-based.
With regard to the second recommendation, as non-university-based
programs could address subpart (a) under this priority, we do not think
it is necessary to create a separate subpart that targets a specific
type of entity or program.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended that proposed subpart (g),
increasing the equitable distribution of effective teachers or
principals across schools, should also include efforts to increase the
actual number of effective teachers within a high-need district. The
commenter noted that, without an equal emphasis on increasing the
number of effective teachers, a project could meet this priority by
redistributing a relatively small number of highly effective teachers.
The commenter stated that professional learning communities and
induction programs for early career teachers should be supported in
order to increase the number of effective teachers within a high-need
district.
Discussion: We agree with the commenter that the initial wording
for proposed subpart (g) (now subpart (h)) could result in projects
that redistribute only a small number of highly effective teachers
without significantly increasing students' access to them. Therefore,
we have revised the subpart to focus on student access to effective
teachers or principals.
We also agree with the commenter about the importance of increasing
the total number of effective teachers in high-need districts. However,
as subparts (b), (c), and (g) (initially proposed as subpart (f)) would
support projects designed to increase the number of highly effective
teachers, we do not think it is necessary to include the specific
strategies recommended by the commenter in current subpart (h)
(initially proposed as subpart (g)).
Changes: We have revised current subpart (h) (initially proposed as
subpart (g)) under this priority to clarify that projects addressing
this subpart must increase the equitable access to effective teachers
or principals for low-income and high-need students, which may include
increasing the equitable distribution of effective teachers or
principals for low-income and high-need students across schools.
Comment: None.
Discussion: Under this priority, subpart (i) (initially proposed as
subpart (h)) addresses the development and implementation of models
that improve school conditions for teaching and learning. We intend for
this subpart to promote the development and implementation of projects
that allow highly effective teachers to serve more students. With this
change, we have removed the explicit reference to improving conditions
for teaching and learning because we consider it to be included in the
identified strategies. For example, a new staffing model that relieves
effective teachers of some of their administrative responsibilities in
order to enable them to teach online classes to students in another
school could extend the influence of highly effective teachers. We also
have revised this subpart to clarify that, in addressing this subpart,
projects could focus on developing and implementing strategies that
allow effective teachers either to serve more students or reduce the
burdens or challenges that impede them from doing so.
Changes: We have revised subpart (i) (initially proposed as subpart
(h)) to clarify the types of projects it is intended to address.
Specifically, this subpart will support projects that extend highly
effective teachers' reach to serve more students, including strategies
such as new course designs, staffing models, technology platforms, or
new opportunities for collaboration that allow highly effective
teachers to reach more students, or approaches or tools that reduce
administrative and other burdens while maintaining or improving teacher
effectiveness and efficiency.
Comment: One commenter stated that the demographic shift in the
Nation is increasing the number of multilingual and multicultural
classrooms and recommended that the Department address this shift by
incorporating language into this priority addressing preparing teachers
to work with diverse populations.
Discussion: We agree that it is important that teachers are
prepared to work with diverse student populations, particularly given
current demographic shifts. There is nothing that would preclude an
eligible applicant from proposing projects that improve the
effectiveness of teachers by increasing their ability to work with
diverse student populations. However, in order to ensure flexibility
for all potential applicants responding to this priority,
[[Page 18688]]
we decline to specify the types of student populations, which could
include diverse student populations, with whom teachers must be
prepared work.
Changes: None.
Comment: Two commenters proposed the addition of a new subpart for
projects that would improve the development of teachers and external
partners working to implement expanded learning opportunities in
schools. Another commenter expressed support for several of the
subparts but recommended the addition of a new subpart for projects
that develop models for labor-management partnerships designed to
improve teacher effectiveness by having expert teachers mentor and
evaluate their peers.
Discussion: The commenters' recommendations for new subparts are
already addressed by other priorities. For example, subpart (a) of
priority 2 (Improving Low-Performing Schools) supports projects that
expand learning opportunities for both teachers and students.
Similarly, applicants could propose projects that focus on labor-
management partnerships and peer evaluations under subpart (f)
(initially proposed as subpart (e)), provided the proposed projects
otherwise meet the requirements of the subpart. Thus, we do not think
it is necessary to add new subparts under priority 1 (Improving the
Effectiveness of Teachers or Principals).
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter expressed concern that this priority does
not encourage teachers to use practices that would drive the
development and implementation of new ``learning environments.'' The
commenter recommended the i3 program support projects that would equip
teachers with knowledge of the science of learning and youth
development and with the skills needed to analyze data and develop
assessments, to advance the use of expanded learning time, to
collaborate effectively, and to make better use of technology.
Discussion: We agree that it is important for teachers to have the
knowledge and skills suggested by the commenter. However, because these
topics are addressed in other priorities, we decline to add additional
subparts under this priority. For example, priority 2 (Improving Low-
Performing Schools) includes subparts that focus on extending and
enhancing learning time and priority 8 (Effective Use of Technology)
includes subparts that focus on developing methods and resources to
increase the use and integration of technology to improve teaching and
learning.
Changes: None.
Comment: None.
Discussion: As part of our internal discussion of the comments on
this priority, we noted that a number of the proposed subparts refer to
``developing'' models or methods. As all i3 grantees must implement the
practices they develop to serve students who are in grades K-12 at some
point during the funding period, we have revised these subparts to
clarify that the projects under these subparts must both develop and
implement the proposed models or methods.
Changes: We have revised subparts (a), (b), and (d) (initially
proposed as subpart (c)) from ``developing'' to ``developing and
implementing'' in order to clarify our intent that applications
addressing these subparts must implement the practices that they
develop during the project period.
Comment: None.
Discussion: As part of our internal discussion of the comments on
this priority, we noted that subpart (f) (initially proposed as subpart
(e)), included an inconsistency in the use of ``teachers or
principals.'' Specifically, the subpart focused on designing and
implementing ``teacher or principal evaluation systems,'' but also
referred to feedback that guides professional development for
``teachers and principals.'' To ensure that applicants understand that
they may focus on teachers or principals when submitting projects under
this subpart, we have revised it so that we consistently refer to
``teachers or principals.''
Changes: We have revised subpart (f) (initially proposed as subpart
(e)) from ``* * * guides professional development for teachers and
principals'' to ``* * * guides professional development for teachers or
principals'' in order to clarify our intent that applications
addressing this subpart may focus on either teacher or principal
evaluation systems.
Proposed Priority 2--Improving Low-Performing Schools
Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department revise this
proposed priority to include the use of arts education to academically
engage students as an example of strengthening the instructional
program in a whole-school model. The commenter also recommended adding
a subpart for projects proposing to develop arts education programs and
improve the skills of arts educators. Another commenter offered a
similar recommendation, suggesting the Department revise subparts (a)
and (d) of this priority to include a focus on student's health and
nutrition as a part of designing whole-school models.
Discussion: Subpart (a) provides examples of strategies that may be
used in whole school models. However, these strategies are broad,
concerning changes to a school's design, instructional program,
staffing, or culture. We do not think it is appropriate for the
Department to prescribe the specifics of how applicants must implement
these strategies (e.g., arts education), because we want to ensure
applicants have as much flexibility as possible to propose whole-school
models that best meet the needs of the students and schools they are
proposing to serve. As nothing in this priority prohibits an applicant
from proposing to use arts education to strengthen the instructional
program in a whole-school model, we do not believe an additional
subpart is necessary.
We agree with the commenter that a student's health and nutrition
affects the student's ability to learn. That is why proposed subpart
(a) references strategies that address non-academic factors that affect
student learning and proposed subpart (d) focuses on services and
strategies that address non-academic barriers to student learning.
Because health and nutrition services may be addressed under this
priority, we do not think it is necessary to create a separate subpart
that focuses only on health services. Moreover, as noted previously,
applicants should have the flexibility to identify the specific non-
academic barriers and strategies to address those barriers that are
relevant to their particular project.
However, we have revised subpart (d) to clarify that projects also
may focus on mitigating the effects of poverty, including health and
nutrition issues, on student engagement in learning. In addition,
because we think it is important that the social supports provided
under this priority relate to improved student outcomes, we have
revised subpart (d) to focus on the intended outcomes rather than the
specific type of strategies that an applicant must be use.
Changes: We have revised subpart (d) to focus on projects that are
designed to improve students' non-cognitive abilities and enhance
student engagement in learning, or that mitigate the effects of
poverty, including physical, mental, or emotional health issues, on
student engagement in learning.
Comment: One commenter discussed the distinction between whole-
school reform efforts and ``wraparound'' social supports that might
result in targeted
[[Page 18689]]
interventions that do not affect all students in a school. The
commenter encouraged the Department to look beyond whole-school efforts
because some interventions may not be as efficient or effective if
offered to an entire school population.
Discussion: We agree that whole-school reform models may not be the
most appropriate option for all schools. That is why under this
priority we include multiple subparts that address different types of
interventions for turning around low-performing schools. However, we
disagree with the commenter's conclusion that a whole-school reform
model requires that all students receive the same set of services or
interventions. For example, a whole school reform model could
strengthen a school's instructional program by providing personalized
learning experiences that address each student's unique needs. Under
this scenario, a whole school reform model would be used to provide
each student with a unique, as opposed to identical, set of services.
Additionally, we consider whole-school reform to be a powerful and
important approach that is effective, in certain contexts, in improving
student outcomes. Therefore, we believe it is important to include a
subpart in this priority that specifically addresses whole-school
reform models and have revised subpart (a) to clarify that the intent
is to support projects that lead to significant and sustained
improvement in individual student performance and overall school
performance and culture.
Although we agree that whole-school reform efforts are distinct
from targeted approaches to reforming low-performing schools, we also
believe that it is essential for applicants to ensure that their
proposed projects complement the broader turnaround efforts of the
school, LEA, or State. We have revised the requirements of this
priority to clarify this expectation.
Changes: We have revised subpart (a) to clarify that projects
addressing subpart (a) must implement processes that lead to
significant and substantial improvement in individual student
performance and overall school performance and culture. In addition, we
have provided examples of the types of strategies applicants may
incorporate into their proposed whole-school models. We also have
revised the requirements of priority 2 to include a condition that
projects complement broader reform efforts for turning around low-
performing schools.
Comment: Five commenters recommended the Department revise the
language in subpart (a) ``redesigning the school day, week, or year''
to ``extending or expanding the school day, week, or year'' in order to
clarify that before-, after-, and summer school programs would meet
this priority. Three of these commenters also suggested a similar
revision to subpart (e). One commenter noted that extending the school
year might reduce summer learning loss, and provide additional time for
high school students to focus more on work-based learning, service-
learning, or various other learning opportunities.
Discussion: Applicants may propose projects under subpart (a) that
redesign the school day by extending or expanding the school day, week,
or year, including before-, after-, and summer school programs,
provided their proposed projects meet the requirements of the priority.
We decline to change the language of subpart (a) as the commenter
suggested because we do not think adding time to the school day, week,
or year, unless done in conjunction with other strategies or reforms,
is sufficient to meet the requirements of this priority.
However, we recognize that extending learning time is one way that
schools can change their organizational design, and we have therefore
revised subpart (b) to include a greater focus on organizational
design. As proposed, subpart (b) focused on changing elements of a
school's organizational design to mitigate non-academic barriers to
learning through strategies such as differentiating staff roles,
changing student groups, or enhancing instructional time. Because
subpart (a) addresses particular approaches for school turnaround that
can be undertaken within a school's existing organization, we have
modified subpart (b) to include a greater focus on extending and
enhancing instructional time and the organizational implications
associated with improving instruction by extending learning time.
Changes: We have revised subpart (b) to support projects that would
change elements of the school's organizational design to improve
instruction by differentiating staff roles and extending and enhancing
instructional time.
Comment: One commenter suggested that, in addition to increasing
the rigor of instructional practices, subpart (a) should address
students' access to rigorous coursework at the secondary level. The
commenter also recommended that the Department create a new subpart
under this priority to support competency-based systems that measure
the effects of these practices on increasing graduation rates and
student learning.
Discussion: Nothing in this priority prohibits an applicant from
proposing to strengthen the instructional program in a whole-school
model by increasing students' access to rigorous coursework at the
secondary level or implementing a competency-based system. Because
these activities are permissible under subpart (a) and we want to
ensure applicants have as much flexibility as possible to propose
whole-school models that best meet the needs of the students and
schools they are proposing to serve, we do not think it is necessary to
revise subpart (a) or establish a separate subpart that addresses only
these approaches.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested adding personalized instruction
enabled by technology as an example of a reform strategy in subpart
(a). The commenter noted that using differentiated instructional
content allows for the effective and efficient use of data in
determining the needs of students struggling in low-performing schools.
Discussion: As noted in response to a prior comment on priority 2,
we do not think it is appropriate for the Department to prescribe how
applicants would strengthen the instructional programs because we think
it is important for applicants to have as much flexibility as possible
to propose whole-school models that best meet the needs of the students
and schools they are proposing to serve. To that end, we provide
applicants discretion in proposing how they would strengthen the
instructional program in a whole-school model; and nothing prohibits
applicants from using personalized instruction. For these reasons, we
decline to revise subpart (a). However, we have revised subpart (a)
under priority 8 (Effective Use of Technology) to clarify that to meet
subpart (a), projects must focus on personalized instruction. As the
subpart language maintains that the learning experiences must be
adaptive and self-improving, we do not think this change loses the
subpart's focus on learning experiences that improve or adapt based on
students' needs in real-time.
Changes: We have revised subpart (a) under priority 8 (Effective
Use of Technology) to clarify that the learning experiences must be
personalized to individual students' learning needs, as opposed to
simply providing adaptive learning experiences.
Comment: Three commenters suggested that the Department clarify
that the reference to external partners in subpart (e) includes
results-driven organizations, intermediaries,
[[Page 18690]]
professional providers, national service members, and community
volunteers.
Discussion: We think an applicant is best suited to select the
external providers or partners for its project. Because we do not want
to narrow the potential for external partnerships, we decline to list
the types of external partners with which an applicant may work.
To ensure projects under subpart (e) are designed to increase
schools' and districts' access to high-quality partners, we have
revised this subpart to focus on the intended outcomes for schools and
districts rather than on developing the capacity of external partners.
Changes: As noted in response to a prior comment on priority 2, we
have revised subpart (e) to clarify that projects addressing it must
support low-performing schools or districts in their turnaround efforts
by increasing access to and use of high-quality partners.
Comment: One commenter recommended this priority be revised to
support fundamental changes to schools' governance and management
structures that impede school innovations or educator and student
engagement.
Discussion: Subpart (f) under this priority supports projects that
are designed to increase capacity at the school, district, and State
levels to improve the support and oversight for turnaround efforts.
Thus, projects could include a focus on improving governance and
management structures that may impede a school's turnaround efforts. To
clarify that applicants may propose a variety of approaches under this
subpart (e.g., changing governance and management structures), we have
revised it to focus on the intended outcomes of increased capacity
(i.e., better support and oversight), thus encouraging applicants to
develop approaches that are appropriate to their specific contexts and
challenges.
Changes: As noted previously, we have revised subpart (f) to
clarify that projects must be designed to increase district- or State-
level capacity to turn around low-performing schools, including
improvements to State and district support and oversight of turnaround
efforts.
Comment: None.
Discussion: Although recent reports indicate that the Nation's
dropout rate is decreasing, the rate is still much higher than in other
developed countries. To address this, we have added a subpart that
specifically focuses on serving low-performing high schools and their
turnaround efforts. This subpart is written broadly to provide
applicants discretion in how best to serve these schools and may
include projects that focus on the use of early warning indicators to
identify students who are at risk of dropping out.
Changes: We have added subpart (g) to this priority for projects
that support the implementation of turnaround efforts in secondary
schools.
Proposed Priority 3--Improving Science, Technology, Engineering, and
Mathematics (STEM) Education
Comment: Two commenters expressed general support for this
priority. One commenter stated that K-12 education must continue to be
a priority in Federal programs and noted that the i3 program has the
potential to identify effective science instruction programs that could
make use of informal learning institutions, such as science centers and
museums. One commenter reflected on the need for high quality teachers
in STEM subject areas, and applauded the Department's recognition of
this need.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's support for this priority
and agree with the importance of ensuring students' access to high-
quality STEM education. That is why this priority focuses on students'
access to rigorous STEM coursework and learning, redesigning STEM
course content and instructional practices, and improving the STEM
teacher pipeline. With regard to the need for high quality teachers in
STEM subject areas, subpart (c) targets projects that propose to
develop new methods and resources for recruiting individuals with STEM
expertise into teaching.
Also, as noted previously, all i3 grantees must implement (as well
as develop) practices that serve K-12 students at some point during the
funding period. Thus, we have revised this subpart to clarify that the
projects must develop and implement methods and resources for
recruiting individuals with STEM expertise into teaching. Similarly, we
have revised subpart (g) to clarify that teachers or educators of STEM
subjects who participate in projects addressing subpart (g) must
receive, not just have increased opportunities for, high-quality
preparation and teacher development.
Changes: We have revised subpart (c) to focus on projects that
develop and implement new methods and resources for recruiting
individuals with STEM expertise into teaching. We also have revised
subpart (g) to clarify that projects addressing subpart (g) must
increase the number of individuals from groups traditionally
underrepresented in STEM, including minorities, individuals with
disabilities, and women, who are teachers or educators of STEM subjects
and receive high-quality preparation or professional development.
Comment: Three commenters recommended that the Department include
increased access to coursework in environmental literacy as a subpart
under this priority. The commenters stressed that environmental
literacy is critical to the Nation's economy and noted the correlation
between environmental education and student engagement and achievement
in STEM subjects.
Discussion: We recognize the importance of environmental education,
and it is part of STEM education. As subpart (a) focuses on providing
students with increased access to rigorous and engaging coursework in
STEM, which could include environmental education, and in order to
ensure applicants have flexibility in responding to this subpart, we do
not think it is appropriate to add a separate subpart that focuses only
on one STEM subject.
Changes: None.
Comment: Two commenters discussed concerns regarding student access
to STEM education. One commenter recommended that the Department
encourage the development and use of more online learning tools to
increase access to the most effective STEM courses, while the other
commenter suggested that the Department amend subparts (a), (b), and
(d) to require applicants to use high-quality multiplatform digital
content and services.
Discussion: Nothing in this priority or the authorizing statute
prohibits an applicant from proposing to use online learning or
multiplatform digital content to increase student access to STEM
content. Thus, applicants have the discretion to propose to use the
approaches specified by the commenter. We decline to make the proposed
revisions, however, because we do not want to prescribe the specific
tools or approaches an applicant must use to increase students' access
to STEM content.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended that, in addition to a focus on
expanding opportunities for high-quality out-of-school and extended-day
activities under subpart (e), the Department require STEM-related
community problem-solving and service learning. Additionally, the
commenter suggested the Department include a subpart for projects
designed to integrate STEM learning across other K-12 academic areas.
[[Page 18691]]
Discussion: Nothing in this priority or the authorizing statute
prohibits an applicant from proposing to use service learning in
responding to subpart (e), so long as the proposed project is designed
to provide students with opportunities for deliberate practice that
increases STEM learning, engagement, and expertise. We decline to make
the proposed, specific revisions because we do not want to narrow or
prescribe the types of out-of-school or extended-day activities that an
applicant may propose.
Similarly, we decline to add a subpart that would require
applicants to integrate STEM learning into other K-12 academic areas
because we do not want to prescribe how applicants would propose to
increase student access to rigorous or engaging coursework in STEM.
Further, nothing in the statute or priorities prohibits an applicant
from proposing a project that integrates STEM learning across other K-
12 academic areas. For example, under subparts (a) and (b) of this
priority as well as subpart (a) of priority 2 (Improving Low-Performing
Schools), an applicant could propose integrating STEM across other K-12
academic areas, provided the applicant meets the requirements of the
priority under which it is submitting its application.
Changes: None.
Comment: Two commenters recommended adding language to subpart (e)
that would increase opportunities for high-quality expanded learning
opportunities, including extending the day, week, or year, or before-,
after-, or summer school programs. The commenters stated that
implementing expanded learning opportunities will provide students with
a well-rounded education that focuses on multiple STEM subjects.
Discussion: We agree that expanding STEM learning opportunities may
include extending the school day, week, or year, or implementing
before-, after-, or summer school programs. Therefore, we have revised
the priority to include this as an example of an approach that may be
used to address subpart (e).
Changes: We have revised subpart (e) to clarify that expanding STEM
learning opportunities may include extending the day, week, or year, or
implementing before- or after-school or summer learning programs.
Proposed Priority 4--Improving Academic Outcomes for Students With
Disabilities
Comment: Four commenters proposed specific revisions to this
proposed priority to reinforce the importance of ensuring that students
with disabilities are provided with opportunities to participate and
progress in general education classrooms. Additionally, the commenters
suggested that subpart (d) include transition and postsecondary
programs, and they suggested including two new subparts addressing
post-school employment data collection and the implementation of
school-wide initiatives that benefit all students, such as UDL, multi-
tiered systems of supports, and positive behavior interventions and
supports.
Discussion: We agree with the commenters about the importance of
providing students with disabilities with opportunities to participate
in general education; and therefore have revised subpart (c)
accordingly. Specifically, we clarify that projects must be designed to
accelerate student achievement and the appropriate transition from
restrictive settings to more inclusive settings or general education
classes or programs, including strategies that improve student learning
and developmental outcomes (i.e., academic, social, emotional, or
behavioral). We also note that these projects may include appropriate
strategies to prevent unnecessary suspensions and expulsions from these
more inclusive settings, classes, or programs.
With regard to the commenters' recommendation to focus on
collecting data on postsecondary and post-school employment outcomes,
we agree that the data collection on, and understanding the indicators
that predict success of, students with disabilities in their transition
to postsecondary education is important. However, given that the i3
program focuses on K-12 education and that the Secretary may only award
grants with project periods up to 60 months (see 34 CFR 75.250), we do
not think it is reasonable to add a subpart that focuses only on post-
secondary school employment data. As such, we have revised subpart (d),
but we decline to propose a new subpart focused solely on employment
data.
With regard to the commenters' recommendation that we add a subpart
on school-wide initiatives that include multi-tiered systems of
support, we agree it is important that the various systems of support
for students with disabilities and their families are coordinated
across all service providers, including schools, health care providers
and social service agencies. That is why we included proposed subpart
(a). However, we recognize that as proposed, subpart (a) focused only
on technical assistance programs. Therefore, we have revised this
subpart to provide for a broader focus that may include school-wide
programs.
Changes: We have revised three subparts under this priority.
Subpart (a) has been revised to support projects that implement
coherent systems of support that appropriately coordinate and integrate
programs to address the needs of children and youth with disabilities
and improve the quality of for those children and their families.
Subpart (c) has been revised to support projects that design and
implement strategies that improve student achievement for students with
disabilities in inclusive settings, including accelerating student
development and the transition from restrictive settings to inclusive
settings, including general education classes or programs.
Subpart (d) has been revised to support projects that improve
secondary and postsecondary data collection and tracking of academic
and related outcomes for students with disabilities to understand their
transition into postsecondary education and the factors associated with
their success.
Comment: One commenter expressed support for this proposed priority
and encouraged the Department to fund projects that would produce
information about interventions that are successful in decreasing the
achievement gap between students with disabilities and students without
disabilities.
Discussion: All i3 grantees are required to participate in
communities of practice and to produce evaluations about the
implementation and efficacy of their projects. Therefore, we do not
think it is necessary to create a separate requirement under this
priority for projects to produce information about interventions that
are successful in decreasing the achievement gap between students with
disabilities and students without disabilities.
Changes: None.
Proposed Priority 5--Improving Academic Outcomes for English Learners
(ELs)
Comment: One commenter stated that teachers of English for Speakers
of Other Languages (ESOL) often do not have the necessary content
knowledge to be the primary educators for ELs. For this reason, the
commenter expressed concern that the proposed priority would not
produce significant change because it focuses too much on improving
ELs' vocabulary. According to the commenter, the priority would be
improved if it included systematic reforms that ensure students who are
ELs are not marginalized. The commenter recommended systemic
[[Page 18692]]
reforms that include, for example, specific supports and processes to
improve ELs' transition between K-12 grades and from K-12 to
postsecondary education.
Discussion: We recognize that systematic reforms are the most
comprehensive approach to addressing ELs' learning needs. However, we
also recognize that schools and LEAs may have different needs regarding
how to best improve academic outcomes for ELs. That is why under this
priority we include multiple subparts that address different types of
interventions, ranging from systematic reform to specific gaps or
challenges for addressing ELs' learning needs. For example, subpart (d)
allows for a systematic approach because it focuses on projects that
provide school-wide professional development for teachers,
administrators, and other personnel in schools with a significant
percentage of students who are ELs. Because a subpart under this
priority does allow for projects that focus on systematic reform to
improve student achievement for ELs and because we think it is
important to also include subparts that focus on specific gaps, we
conclude that is not appropriate for the Department to prescribe that
applicants must only address ELs' needs through systematic reform.
Additionally, because one of the primary goals of the i3 program is
to identify and document best practices, we think it is important to
maintain subparts under this priority that would support projects that
focus on specific challenges, needs, or gaps that affect all students,
including students who are ELs.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended that the priority include a
subpart to develop and strengthen teacher preparation programs that
provide substantial clinical experiences and develop curricula to
prepare teachers of ELs. Specifically, the commenter stated that the
way in which language is used for academic purposes within a given
domain and the differences of individual ELs are important; and, as a
result, more attention is needed to developing teachers who can meet
the widely differing needs of ELs when the teachers enter the
classroom.
Discussion: Although we agree that teachers entering the classroom
should be prepared to meet the needs of all of their students,
including ELs, we think the limited funds available for the i3 program
should be focused on improving the skills of current EL educators
rather than on improving teacher preparation programs' focus on ELs in
particular. Therefore, we decline to make the changes recommended by
this commenter.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter expressed support for this proposed
priority, particularly subparts (c) and (d); and recommended revising
subpart (d) to also focus on improving the capacity of schools and
districts to increase the number of teachers trained to work with
linguistically diverse students.
Discussion: We agree that it is important for schools and districts
to consider ways to increase the number of current teachers trained to
work with ELs. We believe that this is already reflected in the current
priorities. For example, nothing prohibits an applicant from focusing
on increasing the number of teachers trained to work with ELs under
subparts (a) and (b) of priority 1 (Improving the Effectiveness of
Teachers or Principals). Moreover, in order to avoid the
marginalization of ELs, this priority incorporates school-level
interventions that respond to student needs.
Changes: None.
Comment: In response to the Department's specific request for
comment, three commenters recommended the Department allow applicants
to propose projects that address instruction in English and a language
other than English to meet subpart (c). One commenter stated that using
a student's native language to learn a second language is consistent
with practices in many States and districts that employ dual-language
immersion and other bilingual methodologies. Thus, the commenter
suggested that limiting subpart (c) to projects addressing instruction
in English only may reduce the number of entities that could apply.
Similarly, another commenter stated that the Department's rules should
not limit school districts to a predetermined instructional methodology
because this could limit the potential for learning about effective
instructional strategies under the i3 program. One commenter urged the
Department to encourage applicants to consider all products and
processes available when addressing this proposed priority.
Discussion: The Department appreciates the commenters' responses to
this request for comment. We conclude that we will continue to use the
phrase, ``English or English and another language'' to ensure that we
do not inadvertently limit the potential applicants under subpart (c)
of this priority.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter expressed concern that the proposed priority
reinforces false stereotypes by referring to limitations or impediments
of ELs. To address this concern, the commenter provided revised text to
focus on the range of academic language that all students must master
to fully engage in their learning. The commenter also suggested
clarifying that applicants applying under subpart (e) must focus on all
students who enter school as ELs so that long-term outcomes of former
ELs are considered.
Discussion: We agree with the commenter and have revised subpart
(b) to clarify that projects funded under it need to provide sufficient
exposure to, engagement in, and acquisition of academic language and
literacy practices necessary for preparing ELs to be college and career
ready. We also have revised subpart (e) as the commenter suggested.
Changes: We have revised subpart (b) to clarify the skills a
project needs to address with regards to ELs' acquisition of academic
language and literacy practices. We also have revised subpart (e) to
clarify that teacher evaluation systems implemented under this priority
define and measure the effectiveness of teachers of students who at
some point have been identified as ELs (i.e., both current and former
ELs).
Proposed Priority 6--Improving Parent and Family Engagement
Comment: One commenter expressed support for the proposed priority,
and appreciated the focus on providing training to families to support
their children's academic success, as well as professional development
for administrators and teachers designed to improve relationships
between parents and school staff.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's support for this
priority. Subpart (a) addresses the need for building parents' and
families' awareness of their role in improving their children's
educational outcomes while subpart (b) focuses on projects designed to
build relationships between parents and school staff. Together these
subparts aim to increase family engagement to improve support for
student and school achievement. In order to further clarify that
improving students' academic outcomes is the ultimate goal of this
priority, we have included specific academic outcomes under subpart
(a).
Changes: We have revised subpart (a) to clarify that training for
parents and families must provide the skills and strategies that will
help parents and
[[Page 18693]]
families improve their children's academic outcomes, including
increased engagement and persistence in school.
Comment: Three commenters recommended that the Department include,
under subpart (a), training for parents and families of students with
disabilities on ways to participate and make progress in a grade-level
general education curriculum in the least restrictive environment.
Discussion: All i3 grantees must implement practices designed to
improve academic outcomes for high-need students (as defined in this
document). Therefore, projects addressing this priority must serve
high-need students, which may include students with disabilities.
Nothing in this priority precludes an applicant from proposing projects
that focus on parents and families of students with disabilities,
provided that the proposed project otherwise meets the requirements of
the priority and therefore we are not changing the subpart language as
requested.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested revising subpart (d) to specify
that the data and information collected on students' progress must
include targeted ``parent-level'' metrics, such as math and verbal
achievement, high school graduation rates, college enrollment rates,
and number of credits accumulated.
Discussion: Although we appreciate the commenter's recommendation
that the Department specify the data and information that projects
under subpart (d) would need to collect, we do not want to narrow the
projects that could be proposed or funded under this priority by
prescribing a required list of metrics. Moreover, nothing in the
statute or priorities would preclude an applicant from including
``parent-level'' metrics in addition to information about students'
progress and performance.
However, we share the commenter's underlying concern that data
about student performance should, among other things, be relevant and
useful to parents. Access to data does not ensure its relevance or
usefulness to parents. Thus, we have revised subpart (d) to clarify
that the projects must improve both parents' access to and use of data
about students' progress and performance, as opposed to only improving
parents' access to data.
Changes: We have revised subpart (d) to clarify that projects
addressing subpart (d) must develop tools or practices that provide
students and parents with improved, ongoing access to, and use of, data
and other information about students' progress and performance.
Comment: One commenter stated that the i3 program should make
explicit allowance for the training and professional development of
teachers, school leaders, and other school-based personnel regarding
acquisition and maintenance of the specific knowledge, skills, and
abilities required to effectively engage families and communities to
improve student outcomes. To that end, the commenter provided specific
revisions that require evidence-based initiatives and access to
meaningful data to track students' progress. Additionally, the
commenter proposed two new subparts under this priority: (1)
Purposefully connecting the school with the family and community
through a school-based facilitator, and (2) implementing initiatives
that develop family and community leadership to sustain school
improvements.
Discussion: We agree with the commenter about the importance of
enhancing teachers' abilities to effectively engage families to improve
student outcomes. That is why subpart (b) supports projects designed to
enhance the skills and competencies of school staff to build
relationships and collaborate with parents and families.
With regard to the commenter's proposal to require evidence-based
initiatives and access to meaningful data to track students' progress,
we note that this program requires projects to meet specific evidence
standards. Similarly, all i3 grantees are required to conduct
evaluations that estimate the impact of their projects on student
outcomes. Therefore, we do not think it is necessary to specify
evidence or data collection requirements under this priority.
We appreciate the commenter's recommendation that we add two new
subparts. However, as subpart (c) does not preclude projects that would
support connecting school-based facilitators with families and the
community, or projects that would develop and implement initiatives
that bolster family and community leadership for sustained school
improvement, we do not think it is appropriate to add new subparts that
could limit applicants' flexibility in designing their proposed
projects. Additionally, although we recognize the importance of
community engagement, we conclude that it is not necessary for the
Department to revise this priority to address it because the
Supplemental Priorities include a priority that does so and the i3
program could use that priority. See priority 5 of the Supplemental
Priorities, Improving School Engagement, School Environment, and School
Safety and Improving Family and Community Engagement.
Changes: None.
Comment: None.
Discussion: As part of our internal discussion of the comments
about this priority, we noted that proposed subpart (b) refers to
``school and other administrative staff.'' In order to ensure
applicants understand that we consider teachers to be school staff, we
have revised subpart (b) to explicitly list teachers in addition to
school and other administrative staff.
Changes: We have revised subpart (b) to clarify that, when
addressing this subpart, applicants must implement initiatives that are
designed to enhance the skills and competencies of teachers, and of
school and other administrative staff in building relationships and
collaborating with students' families, particularly those who have been
underengaged with the school(s) in the past, in order to support
student achievement and school improvement.
Proposed Priority 7--Improving Cost-Effectiveness and Productivity
Comment: One commenter expressed concern about the focus on cost-
effectiveness because it may emphasize budgetary issues over
educational ``ends.''
Discussion: We appreciate and recognize the commenter's concern;
however, it is essential for schools and LEAs to closely examine their
spending practices and reallocate resources to use them more
efficiently and cost-effectively. The i3 program's focus on cost-
effectiveness is consistent with the Department's broader initiative to
encourage and support schools, LEAs, and States to ``do more with
less'' through the adoption of promising practices and the responsible
use of resources. We do not intend for this focus to overshadow the
importance of the i3 program's requirement of implementing projects
designed to improve student achievement. Additionally, we establish
selection criteria that peer reviewers will use to consider the
likelihood that a proposed project will achieve what it is designed to
achieve and the extent to which a proposed project substantially
improves outcomes. By using such criteria to evaluate applications, the
Department encourages the adoption of cost-effective practices while
also providing peer reviewers a mechanism to consider the cost and
expected outcomes together.
Changes: None.
[[Page 18694]]
Comment: One commenter suggested revising this priority to specify
the ways in which projects are to improve cost-effectiveness, including
school-community partnerships.
Discussion: Under section 14007 of the ARRA, in order to be
eligible for i3 grants, applicants must demonstrate that they have
established partnerships with the private sector and that the private
sector will provide matching funds to help bring results to scale.
Moreover, we recognize that using external partnerships is one approach
to improving cost-effectiveness. However, because nothing in the ARRA
or this priority precludes an applicant from proposing projects that
improve cost-effectiveness through such partnerships, we do not think
it is appropriate to prescribe that applicants must use school-
community partnerships to meet this priority.
Changes: None.
Proposed Priority 8--Effective Use of Technology
Comment: One commenter expressed strong support for this proposed
priority, and recommended that applicants applying under any of the
other proposed priorities also identify how technology would be used to
advance the proposed projects. The commenter specifically cited
proposed priorities 1 (Improving the Effectiveness of Teachers or
Principals), 2 (Improving Low-Performing Schools), and 6 (Improving
Parent and Family Engagement) as priorities under which applicants
should be expected to address the use of technology in their
applications and receive preference for doing so.
Discussion: While we encourage applicants to propose projects that
use technology effectively, we do not think it is appropriate to
require all applicants to design their projects around the use of
technology. Nothing in any priority or the authorizing statute
prohibits an applicant from proposing to use technology in a proposed
project, provided that the use of technology is necessary for carrying
out the proposed project and that the project otherwise meets the
requirements of the priority.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter stated that the topics included in the
subparts under this priority have been addressed and improved over
time. The commenter further stated that adopting existing, effective
uses of technology, such as online or blended learning, must be
promoted.
Discussion: The i3 program aims to support expanding effective
practices to serve more students across schools, districts, and States
and to identify new solutions to pressing challenges. With that goal in
mind, we designed this priority to support projects that focus on
adopting or augmenting existing practices or developing new practices
that use technology effectively to improve student achievement.
Changes: None.
Comment: Two commenters recommended that the Department add a new
subpart under this priority for projects that integrate technology into
expanded learning opportunities.
Discussion: Nothing in the authorizing statute or this priority
precludes an applicant from proposing a project that integrates
technology into expanded learning opportunities, provided that the
project otherwise addresses the requirements of the priority. For
example, applicants have discretion to propose such projects under
subpart (e). We think that the applicants are best suited to determine
how to integrate the effective use of technology into their proposed
projects, and we do not think it is appropriate to create a subpart
that focuses only on integrating technology to expand learning
opportunities.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter agreed with the focus on using technology to
improve instruction and increase access to high-quality learning
opportunities. But the commenter also stated that the priority should
be strengthened by encouraging applicants to approach technology
acquisition and use in a manner that would provide teachers more time
for individualized instruction and for establishing student-centered
classrooms. The commenter also recommended that applicants addressing
this priority should be expected to provide implementation strategies
that would ensure that technology would be used to promote equity
rather than exacerbate existing student achievement gaps. The commenter
also stated that applicants should be required to ensure equitable
access to the necessary technology so that no students are excluded due
to a lack or shortage of the necessary technology.
Discussion: We agree with the commenter's recommendation that this
priority support projects designed to use technology to provide
students more time for individualized instruction. Therefore, we have
modified subpart (a) to clarify that the learning experiences must be
personalized and focus on students with a variety of learning needs.
We also agree that applicants proposing projects under this
priority should consider how the proposed implementation strategies
would ensure equitable access to the technology. Section 427 of the
General Education Provisions Act (GEPA) addresses equitable access by
requiring all applicants to provide a statement that identifies access
barriers to participation in their projects and identifies solutions to
overcome those barriers.
With regard to the commenter's concern about shortage of the
necessary technology, we use selection criteria to consider the extent
to which the applicant has planned for sufficient resources to carry
out the project. For example, the selection criterion on the quality of
the management plan includes a selection factor that considers the
extent to which the applicant demonstrates it will have the resources
to operate the project at the proposed level of scale during the grant
period. This selection factor provides peer reviewers with a mechanism
to consider whether an applicant has sufficient resources to carry out
the project, which may include whether the applicant's plan ensures
equitable access to the technology being implemented.
However an applicant chooses to ensure full and equitable access to
the technology being used in the proposed project, we do not want
projects funded under this priority to exacerbate inequities for
students. Thus, we have revised subpart (b) to clarify that projects
must provide students and teachers with equitable access to ``anytime,
anywhere'' learning materials and experiences. We have also revised
subpart (c) to include closing achievement gaps as a required outcome
for projects addressing the subpart. Both of these revisions mitigate
the risk that existing inequities or gaps would be compounded by
projects addressing this priority.
Changes: We have revised subpart (b) to require applicants to
propose projects that provide students and teachers with equitable
``anytime, anywhere'' access to learning materials and experiences. We
have revised subpart (c) to require that projects must, in addition to
improving student achievement (as defined in this document), also be
designed to close achievement gaps.
Comment: Three commenters stated that technology is critically
important to improving instruction for students with disabilities, and
recommended that the Department revise subparts (c) and (f) to require
that technology methods, resources, and integration be consistent with
principles of UDL.
Discussion: We recognize and agree that technology is an effective
tool for
[[Page 18695]]
improving instruction for students with disabilities. However, we do
not think it is appropriate to prescribe a single approach or principle
that all applicants must use when integrating technology into their
projects. Additionally, nothing in the statute or the priority
prohibits an applicant from using the approach or principle it
determines to be most suitable for its project.
In order to comply with the requirements of the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990 and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of
1973, as amended, any technology used by recipients must be accessible
to individuals with disabilities. For additional information about the
application of these laws to technology, please refer to www.ed.gov/ocr/letters/colleague-201105-ese.pdf and www.ed.gov/ocr/docs/dcl-ebook-faq-201105.pdf. Provided the requirements of the civil rights laws and
the priority are met, an applicant may propose a project under this
priority that uses technology methods, resources, and integration that
are consistent with the principles of UDL.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter urged the Department to include in the
priority other educators who may not be teachers of record, such as
media specialists or instructional aides, but who have instructional
responsibilities in projects that are designed to use technology to
improve instructional effectiveness.
Discussion: Nothing in the authorizing statute or this priority
prohibits eligible applicants from including staff who are not teachers
but have instructional responsibility in their projects. We decline to
specifically reference these educators in the priority to ensure
applicants have the maximum flexibility when developing their
proposals.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter described this priority as ``strongly
written and comprehensive.'' Although the commenter applauded the
Department's commitment to encouraging adaptive learning experience and
``anytime, anywhere'' access to academic content and learning, the
commenter suggested the Department clarify that technological tools are
understood to be used for both instructional and assessment purposes.
Discussion: The Department agrees that ``anytime, anywhere'' access
to academic content may include technological tools that are used for
purposes of instruction, assessment, or both. Because we do not want to
limit the types of content and learning that may be used in projects
under subpart (b), we have revised this subpart to focus on access to
learning materials and experiences instead of access to ``academic
content.''
Changes: We have revised subpart (b) to focus on learning materials
and experiences.
Comment: None.
Discussion: As part of our internal discussion of the comments
about this priority, we noted that proposed subpart (f) did not include
a reference to the intended outcomes for projects integrating
technology with the implementation of college- and career-ready
standards. In order for the use or integration of technology to be
effective, we believe it is important that projects addressing this
subpart focus on improving student and teacher outcomes. Thus, to
correct this oversight, we have revised subpart (f) to include these
outcomes, as we have done with other subparts, and to clarify that
embedded, real-time assessments and feedback for students and teachers
are examples of projects that could be proposed under this subpart.
Change: We have revised subpart (f) to clarify that projects
integrating technology with the implementation of rigorous college- and
career-ready standards must be designed to increase student achievement
(as defined in this document), student engagement, and teacher
efficacy, such as by providing embedded, real-time assessment and
feedback to students and teachers.
Comment: None.
Discussion: As part of our internal discussion of the comments on
this priority, we noted an oversight in how subpart (d) was phrased.
Specifically, the subpart only referred to the outcome that would need
to be achieved, but did not clarify that projects addressing it would
need to implement strategies to achieved the stated outcomes. As all i3
grantees must implement the practices that serve students who are in
grades K-12 at some point during the funding period, we have revised
this subpart to clarify that the projects addressing it must implement
strategies that improve student proficiencies.
Changes: We have revised subpart (d) in order to clarify our intent
that applications addressing this subpart must implement strategies
that improve student proficiencies in complex skills, such as critical
thinking and collaboration across academic disciplines.
Proposed Priority 9--Formalizing and Codifying Effective Practices
Comment: A few commenters suggested clarifying that, under this
proposed priority, an applicant must address the proposed practice's
effectiveness for all learners and identify the practice's critical
components for different teaching and learning environments as well as
for diverse learners.
Discussion: A primary goal of this priority is to enable broad
adoption of effective practices. We agree with the commenters that an
applicant addressing this priority needs to evaluate different forms of
a practice in order to determine whether the practice may be adapted
for diverse learners. However, we recognize that some practices may be
developed for, or targeted to, the needs of a specific student
population and, by its very nature, may not be relevant or effective
for students outside of that target group. For these reasons, we have
revised the priority to clarify that applicants must address whether
the proposed practice is effective for diverse learners; however, we
decline to revise subpart (c) to require that applicants develop
materials and tools on how to implement the practice effectively for
all learners.
Changes: To clarify the goal of this priority, we have changed its
title from ``Formalizing and Codifying Effective Practices'' to
``Enabling Broad Adoption of Effective Practices.'' Further, in
response to comments, we have revised subpart (b) to clarify that
applicants addressing this priority must identify the adaptability of
the practice's critical components to diverse learners as well as to
different teaching and learning environments.
Comment: One commenter expressed support for the Department's
placing a high priority on sharing and disseminating effective
practices under this proposed priority. However, the commenter
encouraged the Department to only use this priority for the Validation
and Scale-up competitions because projects under those categories are
based on moderate and strong evidence of effectiveness.
Discussion: By establishing this priority, the Department may use
it for any of the three types of grants under the i3 program (i.e.,
Development, Validation, and Scale-up). We agree with the commenter
that this priority is most appropriate for i3 Scale-up and Validation
grants because projects funded in those grant categories must be
supported, respectively, by strong and moderate evidence of
effectiveness. However, we decline to specify that the priority will be
used only for a subset of i3 competition because we do not want to
unnecessarily limit when this
[[Page 18696]]
priority can be used in future i3 competitions.
The Department will consider several factors, including the level
of evidence or research available, when determining which of the
priorities would be most appropriate for the different types of grants
offered in any given year under the i3 program.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter urged the Department to allow current i3
grantees to apply to extend their grants under this priority, which
would allow for additional years of implementation and data collection.
The commenter explained that such an approach would allow third-party
evaluators to collect the data necessary to demonstrate what
educational elements are required to fundamentally change a student's
academic trajectory. Without the option of extending current i3 grants,
the commenter stated a concern that the opportunity to learn from these
grants would be limited.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's concern. Although we
agree with the commenter about the importance of maximizing the
opportunity to learn from current i3 grantees, the Department's current
regulations authorize the Secretary to approve a project period up to
60 months (see 34 CFR 75.250). We decline, however, to make the
suggested change for two reasons. First, the Department has, under
limited circumstances, allowed for a waiver of the 60-month project
period. More importantly, the Department published a notice of proposed
rulemaking on December 14, 2012 that proposed amending this regulation
to address this specific situation. We have concluded that the proposed
revisions to EDGAR are the appropriate place to address this issue.
Changes: None.
Proposed Priority 10--Serving Rural Communities
Comment: One commenter expressed support for the proposed priority
because it is not limited to projects that improve high school
graduation rates and college enrollment rates and, therefore, offers a
broader focus than the previous rural priority used by the i3 program.
However, another commenter expressed concern that urban education is
not given a similar priority under the proposed priorities as rural
education, and suggested the Department utilize a separate slate for
rural applicants rather than establishing a separate rural priority.
Discussion: We aim to ensure that projects serving high-need
students in diverse contexts, including urban, suburban, and rural
communities, are eligible to compete for i3 funding. However, we
acknowledge that rural communities face unique challenges (e.g., e more
limited resources than urban and suburban communities to complete for
Federal funds). We also recognize that the solutions to educational
challenges may be different in rural areas than in urban and suburban
communities and that there is a need for solutions that are unique to
rural communities. For these reasons, we have established this priority
to provide a mechanism for the Department to consider rural projects
under a separate funding category, which is effectively the same as
considering them as part of a separate slate, while also providing
applicants proposing rural projects the ability to select among the
same absolute priorities as other applicants. This approach does not
advantage or disadvantage rural or non-rural applicants--it just
ensures that both sets of applicants are competing against other
applicants that face similar problems and challenges.
Changes: None.
Requirements
Comment: Several commenters proposed revisions to the types of
entities that could apply for and receive a grant under the i3 program.
Four commenters requested that the Department change the categories of
eligible applicants for i3 grants to include nonprofit organizations
applying on their own. The commenters stated that nonprofit
organizations should have the ability to develop and implement i3
grants alone, as opposed to being eligible only in partnership with
LEAs or schools. However, another commenter expressed concern that the
i3 program has become a revenue source for nonprofit organizations, and
recommended that the Department allow only LEAs to apply as the lead
applicant and fiscal agent for i3 grants.
Two commenters recommended the Department change the eligible
applicants for i3 grants to include (1) tribal educational agencies
(TEAs), (2) a nonprofit organization in partnership with one or more
TEAs, and (3) a nonprofit organization in partnership with one or more
Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) schools. These commenters also stated
that the Department should clarify that BIE schools meet the definition
of ``LEA'' under the i3 program.
Discussion: Section 14007(a)(1) of the ARRA specifies the types of
entities that are eligible to apply for funding under this program.
They are:
(a) An LEA
(b) A partnership between a nonprofit organization and--
(1) One or more LEAs; or
(2) A consortium of schools.
The Department has no authority to revise or expand these
statutorily prescribed eligibility requirements. However, we do want to
clarify that, as public schools, BIE schools are eligible to be part of
the consortium of schools in a partnership applying for an i3 grant. A
BIE school may also be eligible to apply as an LEA on its own, or in
partnership with a nonprofit organization as an LEA, because the
definition of ``local educational agency'' in section 9101(26) of the
ESEA includes a provision under which a BIE school may be considered an
LEA. If a BIE school is an LEA, the BIE school would be able to apply
as an eligible LEA on its own, or in partnership with a nonprofit
organization as an LEA, consistent with the requirements for eligible
applicants under section 14007(a)(1).
Changes: None.
Comment: Two commenters recommended the Department require any LEA
located on Indian lands to consult with the appropriate tribes and
provide them with adequate time to comment on the application prior to
its submission. The commenters explained that an LEA's engagement with
the tribe should include direct input regarding native student
education, ongoing consultation and partnership, and the sharing of
best practices. The commenters stated that any LEA that does not
participate in this consultation should be ineligible to receive an i3
grant.
Discussion: We agree that any LEA located on tribal lands, or
proposing to address native student education of a particular tribe or
tribes, should coordinate with the appropriate tribe(s) when developing
an application and implementing the project. Although under the i3
program such coordination is not required, we consider collaboration
and coordination among project partners to be important to the success
of any project. For that reason, we include a factor under the Quality
of the Management Plan selection criterion that considers the extent to
which the applicant demonstrates that it will have the resources to
operate the project at the proposed level of scale both during the
project period and beyond the length of the grant, including the
demonstrated commitment of any partners and evidence of broad support
from stakeholders critical to the
[[Page 18697]]
project's long-term success. Therefore, we do not feel it is necessary
to make consultation an eligibility requirement.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter criticized the requirement that nonprofit
organizations must identify partner districts or schools before an i3
grant is awarded because this undermines the development of effective
partnerships. The commenter stated that it is critically important for
nonprofit organizations proposing to conduct turnaround projects to
ensure that the participating superintendents and principals are
committed to the project, but the nonprofit organization is in a
stronger position to select partners after receiving a grant, not
before. The commenter proposed that the Department require applicants
who are nonprofit organizations to specify the types of districts or
schools that will participate in the project without identifying
specific partners.
Discussion: As noted previously, section 14007(a)(1) of the ARRA
specifies the entities eligible for funding under this program. Because
the ARRA specifies that a nonprofit organization is only eligible to
receive an i3 grant in partnership with one or more LEAs or a
consortium of schools, we cannot award a nonprofit organization an i3
grant without any identified LEAs or schools.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter requested that the Department clarify that
entities implementing programs that serve out-of-school youth, such as
students beyond the compulsory school age or students participating in
alternative education programs, are eligible to apply for i3 grants.
One commenter questioned the value of requiring that i3 projects to
serve K-12 students and expressed concern that this requirement may
result in applicants changing the focus on their planned interventions
to serve a population for whom the intervention is not designed. The
commenter further stated that this requirement conflicts with the
requirement that i3 projects be supported by evidence of effectiveness,
and distracts from the i3 program goal of learning what works in
education.
Discussion: This requirement clarifies that the i3 program focuses
on K-12 education. Although grantees are not prohibited from serving
out-of-school youth or students who are beyond compulsory school age,
all grantees must implement practices that serve students who are in
grades K-12 at some point during the funding period.
We do not agree with the comment that this requirement conflicts
with the required evidence standards or the program goal of learning
what works in education. This requirement aims to ensure that all i3
grants support students in grades K-12, but it does not require
applicants to propose projects that are not designed to serve students
in the target population. As long as K-12 students are served by the
grantee at some point during the funding period, it is within the
applicant's discretion to determine what intervention will best address
the competition's priority and meet the needs of the targeted student
population.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter expressed support for the Department's
proposal to strengthen the evidence standards required for eligibility;
and two other commenters expressed concern regarding the proposed
evidence standards themselves. One of these commenters questioned
whether tying the evidence definitions to the What Works Clearinghouse
(WWC) Evidence Standards was limiting because new innovations that show
promise would not be able to move beyond the Development grant level.
One commenter stated that the evidence definitions needed to be
weakened to be more practical.
Discussion: A unique design feature of the i3 program is how it
links funding to the quality and extent of existing evidence showing
the likelihood of a proposed practice improving student outcomes. We
recognize that the new definitions narrow the allowable evaluation
methodologies at the strong and moderate evidence of effectiveness
levels; but note that the new evidence standards also broaden the types
of evidence that can be used at the Development level. Considering the
level of public investment and the expectations that Scale-up and
Validation projects serve students at a national or regional level, we
believe it is reasonable to require such projects to have evidence of
their effectiveness that uses evaluation methodologies that are most
likely to support causal conclusions. Moreover, this evidence
requirement provides incentives for entities to conduct rigorous, high-
quality evaluations of existing widespread practices so that they can
move beyond the Development grant level.
Changes: None.
Comment: Two commenters stated that the requirement that an
eligible nonprofit organization must have a record of significantly
improving student achievement, attainment, or retention is limiting
because it seems to exclude nonprofit organizations that (1)
demonstrate success in designing and implementing programs similar to
those for which there is moderate evidence of success and (2) are
implementing programs that reflect programs supported by evidence of
promise or strong theory but for which no direct evaluation exists.
Both commenters suggested that the Department allow nonprofit
organizations to implement these programs.
Discussion: The comment references two different eligibility
requirements: (1) Eligible applicants must have a record of
significantly improving student achievement, attainment, or retention;
and (2) the requirement that i3 grants be supported by evidence--Scale-
up grants must be supported by strong evidence of effectiveness,
Validation grants must be supported by moderate evidence of
effectiveness, and Development grants must be supported by evidence of
promise or strong theory. While we recognize these requirements appear
similar, we think it is important to distinguish them in order to
address the comments fully.
First, the requirement for applicants to have a record of
significantly improving student achievement, attainment, or retention
is statutory, and the Department has no authority to revise or remove
it. Specifically, section 14007(b)(1) through (b)(3) and section
14007(c) of the ARRA require that, to be eligible for an i3 grant, an
applicant have a record of improving student achievement.
Second, while the requirement that applicants have a record of
significantly improving student achievement refers to the applicant's
past work with LEAs and schools, the evidence standards refer to
evidence that the proposed intervention is effective. That is, the
applicant must provide information on its history of working to improve
student outcomes, as well as the evidence of effectiveness of the
proposed intervention. We consider both of these requirements important
to the i3 program goal of identifying and supporting the replication of
best practices in education.
Finally, while we have provided specific definitions for each level
of evidence, we have not prescribed specific measures that must be used
to meet the statutory eligibility requirement. We consider the
applicant to be best suited to present information on how its past work
has significantly improved student achievement and to determine the
metrics it uses to measure those accomplishments. This approach
provides an applicant with the discretion to demonstrate its record of
improving student achievement but
[[Page 18698]]
maintains the program's structure of linking the amount of funding that
an applicant may receive to the quality of the evidence supporting the
efficacy of the proposed project. As noted earlier, this structure
provides incentives for applicants to build evidence of effectiveness
of their proposed projects.
Changes: None.
Comment: Two commenters proposed that the Department revise the
statutory eligibility requirement to require an eligible applicant to
have a record of significantly closing the achievement gaps between
groups of students described in section 1111(b)(2) of the ESEA and
students not in the subgroup (e.g., the gap between students with
disabilities and students without disabilities).
Discussion: As explained previously, we have no authority to revise
or expand the statutorily prescribed eligibility requirements; and,
therefore, we cannot require applicants to have a record of
significantly closing the achievement gaps between students in a
particular subgroup and students not in that particular subgroup.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter expressed support for the Department's
proposal to strengthen the evaluation requirement.
Discussion: We appreciate the support for requiring each i3 grantee
to conduct an evaluation that will produce an estimate of the impact of
the i3-supported practice (as implemented at the proposed level of
scale) on a relevant outcome (as defined in this document). This
requirement also aims to increase the evidence available on existing
practices.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter expressed concern about the amount and
timing of the matching requirement. The commenter stated that the
requirement for matching funds conflicts with the Department's interest
in identifying imaginative approaches to improving education.
Discussion: Section 14007(b)(3) of the ARRA specifically requires a
private-sector match for grants awarded under this program. We
understand the commenter's concern about the challenges of securing
significant private-sector investments. This concern, however, is
addressed by the flexibility provided in the ``Cost Sharing or
Matching'' requirement, which allows the Secretary to determine the
required amount of private-sector matching funds or in-kind
contributions that eligible applicants must obtain under an i3
competition in a given year.
Moreover, the requirement now provides additional flexibility for
the Secretary to announce in the notice inviting applications when and
how selected eligible applicants must submit evidence of the private-
sector matching funds. We expect the determination of the amount of the
private-sector match, as well as the determination of when and how
evidence of the private-sector match must be submitted, will be based
on an assessment of the capacity and resources available in that
particular year. In addition, an eligible applicant continues to have
the option, under this requirement, to request in its application that
the Secretary decrease the private-sector match amount that a
particular applicant must provide.
Changes: None.
Comment: Three commenters recommended that the i3 program require
that any learning materials, professional development, or tools created
with i3 funding be made publicly available as open educational
resources. The commenters specifically cited the Creative Commons
Attribution license as an exemplar because, according to the commenter,
it is both consistent with the Department of Labor's policy and
clarifies how all users can access and use resources developed with
Federal funds. One commenter stated that, although the Department's
current regulations reserve the right to make content available for
government purposes, a policy similar to the Creative Commons
Attribution license would provide a more immediate indication of the
return on investment in i3-funded projects.
Discussion: The Department's regulations on project materials and
copyrightable intellectual property produced with grant funds apply to
all grants awarded under this program. Specifically, under 34 CFR
75.621, grantees may copyright project materials produced with
Department grant funds. However, 34 CFR 74.36 and 80.34 state that the
Department retains a non-exclusive and irrevocable license to
reproduce, publish, or otherwise use project materials developed with
grant funds for government purposes. Together these regulations allow
i3 grantees to copyright innovative project materials, thereby
providing an incentive for the grantees to disseminate those materials
through the commercial marketplace, while also recognizing that any
such materials are the result of a public investment to promote
learning, and can, if necessary, be made available to the public by the
Department.
Further, one of the primary objectives of the i3 program is to
identify and document best practices that can be shared and replicated.
One way we do so is through the requirement that all i3 grantees
participate in communities of practice. In addition, we establish
priority 9 (Enabling Broad Adoption of Effective Practices) under which
an applicant must share knowledge about the practice broadly and
support the implementation of the practice in other settings and
locations. We believe that the approach set out in the Department's
current regulations properly balances the intellectual property
interests of grantees and the public's interest in ensuring that
copyrightable material produced with Department grant funds is widely
disseminated. For these reasons, we decline to make the suggested
change.
Changes: None.
Definitions
Comment: One commenter urged the Department to include definitions
for ``community engagement'' and ``family engagement,'' and proposed
definitions for the terms. The commenter's proposed definitions
describe qualities of effective engagement and include explicit
references to engagement being an ongoing or continuous process.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenter's recommendation. However,
we also recognize that the range of projects aimed at improving parent
and family engagement is vast, and that the meaning of ``parent and
family engagement'' is evolving. To ensure that we do not limit or
narrow the types of projects that could be submitted under this
program, we decline to provide a specific definition. Moreover, because
priority 6 (Improving Parent and Family Engagement) focuses on specific
gaps or needs related to parent and family engagement, it does not seem
necessary to further define these terms. Finally, because community
engagement is not part of the priorities under this program, we
conclude that it is not necessity to establish a definition.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter expressed concern that the current
definition of ``high-need student'' encompasses any student who
functions below grade-level. The commenter suggested the Department
revise this definition to mean students with traditional achievement
gaps, including low-income students, racial and ethnic minority
students, ELs, or students with disabilities.
Discussion: The definition of ``high-need student'' could include
students with traditional achievement gaps, including low-income
students, racial and ethnic minority students, ELs, or students with
disabilities. However, given the diversity of the projects that
[[Page 18699]]
could be funded under the i3 program, we think it is important that an
applicant have the discretion to determine which students are at risk
of educational failure, and to discuss how the proposed project will
meet the needs of those students.
Changes: None.
Comment: Three commenters recommended that the Department revise
the examples of supplemental measures provided in the definition of
``highly effective principal'' to include the percentage of students
with disabilities educated in general classrooms.
Discussion: The supplemental measures listed in the definition of
``highly effective principal'' are examples and not exhaustive.
Applicants have the discretion to consider other measures, including
the percentage of students with disabilities in general education
classrooms. Because of this, and because of the Department's interest
in maintaining consistency in the definition of ``highly effective
principal'' across various Department programs, we decline to revise
the definition to include additional examples of supplemental measures.
Changes: None.
Comment: A few commenters proposed revisions to the definition of
``highly effective teacher.'' One commenter stated that the proposed
definition narrowly conforms to the traditional role of a teacher
lecturing a classroom and must be broadened to include all educators.
As student learning occurs at individual rates, and because learning
can happen any time and in any place, the commenter suggested that a
teacher's effectiveness rating should be more flexible and allow for
differentiated timetables for content mastery, consistent with the
learning at any time, any place, and any pace. Another commenter stated
that the proposed definition fails to reflect the new world of teaching
because it does not recognize that multiple adults affect student
learning in schools using a differential staffing model.
One commenter recommended the definition be revised to clarify that
the measures of effectiveness for highly effective teachers be based on
standards for teaching that relate to student learning. The commenter
suggested that, in addition to student growth, standards created by the
National Board for Professional Teaching Standards or the Interstate
New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium should be included as
measures of teacher effectiveness.
Three commenters recommended that the Department revise the
definition of ``highly effective teacher'' to incorporate additional
supplemental measures that are specific to teachers of students with
disabilities, including knowledge and implementation of the principles
of UDL and assessments that measure effectiveness of addressing diverse
learners' needs.
Discussion: We recognize that the classroom teacher is not the only
individual to affect student achievement, and that learning may occur
outside of the traditional classroom. However, as the definition of
``highly effective teacher'' refers to ``student growth,'' we conclude
that the definition would not need to take into consideration
differentiated timetables for content mastery because the definition
for ``student growth'' does not prescribe the two or more points in
time that needs to be used to measure a change in student achievement.
Further, because multiple measures may be used to determine teacher
effectiveness, we do not agree it is necessary to prescribe that
applicants use a specific set of teaching standards.
The list of supplemental measures provided in the definition of
``highly effective teacher'' provides examples and is not exhaustive.
Applicants have the discretion to consider other measures, including
measures proposed by the commenters. Because the use of the proposed
supplemental measures is possible under the current definition and
because of the Department's interest in maintaining consistency in the
definition of ``highly effective teachers'' across Department programs,
we decline to revise the definition to include additional examples of
supplemental measures.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested that the Department broaden the
types of assessments used in the definition of ``student achievement.''
The commenter stated that assessments specified in the definition
should be as robust as the skills students are expected to demonstrate,
including assessments that measure a student's ability to: master core
content, think critically and solve complex problems, collaborate with
peers, be self-directed, and integrate feedback.
Three commenters recommended that the Department revise the
definitions of ``student achievement'' and ``student growth'' to
include measures that are evidence-based and comparable across student
groups.
Discussion: We agree that students need to be proficient in a
robust set of skills. That is why the definition of ``student
achievement'' includes, in addition to the assessments required under
section 1111(b)(3) of the ESEA, other measures of student learning.
Because other measures of student learning may be used under the
current definition, and because of the Department's interest in
maintaining consistency in the definitions of ``student achievement''
and ``student growth'' across Department programs, we decline to revise
the definition.
Changes: None.
Comment: None.
Discussion: As part of our internal review, we noted that we
inadvertently omitted the definition for ``nonprofit organization''
from the notice of proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and
selection. As we did not propose, or have any intention of making, a
change to this definition, we have added the definition that we have
used in prior i3 competitions.
Changes: We have defined ``nonprofit organization'' to mean 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.
Comment: None.
Discussion: We have revised the definitions of ``moderate evidence
of effectiveness'' and ``strong evidence of effectiveness'' by adding
the phrase ``and overriding'' to the second parenthetical in sections
(a) and (b) of both definitions. The purpose of our adding this phrase
is to clarify the meaning of the parenthetical, which was intended to
apply only to studies with unfavorable outcomes that were so
substantial as to call into question the potential effectiveness of the
intervention. The modification to the parenthetical makes clear the
narrow scope of the parenthetical.
Changes: We have revised the second parenthetical in sections (a)
and (b) of the definitions of ``moderate evidence of effectiveness''
and ``strong evidence of effectiveness'' to add the phrase ``and
overriding.'' The parenthetical now reads ``with no statistically
significant and overriding unfavorable impacts on that outcome for
relevant populations in the study or in other studies of the
intervention reviewed by and reported on by the What Works
Clearinghouse.''
Selection Criteria
The Department did not receive any comments on the proposed
selection criteria. Therefore, we make no changes to the selection
criteria.
FINAL PRIORITIES:
Priority 1--Improving the Effectiveness of Teachers or Principals.
[[Page 18700]]
Under this priority, we provide funding to projects that address
one or more of the following priority areas:
(a) Developing and implementing new methods and sources for
recruiting:
(1) Highly effective teachers (as defined in this document);
(2) Highly effective principals (as defined in this document); or
(3) Highly effective teachers and principals (as defined in this
document).
(b) Developing and implementing models for teacher preparation that
deepen pedagogical knowledge and skills which have been demonstrated to
improve student achievement (as defined in this document), such as
knowledge of instructional practices or knowledge and skills in
classroom management, or that deepen pedagogical content knowledge.
(c) Developing and implementing models for principal preparation
that deepen leadership skills which have been demonstrated to improve
student achievement (as defined in this document).
(d) Developing and implementing models of induction and support for
improving the knowledge and skills of novice teachers or novice
principals to accelerate student performance, including but not limited
to strategies designed to increase teacher retention or improve teacher
or principal effectiveness.
(e) Creating career pathways with differentiated opportunities and
roles for teachers or principals, which may include differentiated
compensation.
(f) Designing and implementing teacher or principal evaluation
systems that provide clear, timely, and useful feedback, including
feedback that identifies areas for improvement and that guides
professional development for teachers or principals.
(g) Developing supports for the ongoing development and performance
improvement of teachers, principals, or instructional leaders, such as
local and virtual communities, tools, training, and other mechanisms.
(h) Increasing the equitable access to effective teachers or
principals for low-income and high-need students (as defined in this
document), which may include increasing the equitable distribution of
effective teachers or principals for low-income and high-need students
across schools.
(i) Extending highly effective teachers' reach to serve more
students, including strategies such as new course designs, staffing
models, technology platforms, or new opportunities for collaboration
that allow highly effective teachers to reach more students, or
approaches or tools that reduce administrative and other burden while
maintaining or improving effectiveness.
(j) Projects addressing pressing needs related to improving teacher
or principal effectiveness.
Priority 2--Improving Low-Performing Schools.
Under this priority, we provide funding to projects that address
one or more of the following priority areas:
(a) Designing whole-school models and implementing processes that
lead to significant and sustained improvement in individual student
performance and overall school performance and culture. These models
may incorporate such strategies as providing strong school leadership;
strengthening the instructional program; embedding professional
development that provides teachers with frequent feedback to increase
the rigor and effectiveness of their instructional practice;
redesigning the school day, week, or year; using data to inform
instruction and improvement; establishing a school environment that
promotes a culture of high expectations; addressing non-academic
factors that affect student achievement; and providing ongoing
mechanisms for parent and family engagement.
(b) Changing elements of the school's organizational design to
improve instruction by differentiating staff roles and extending and
enhancing instructional time.
(c) Recruiting, developing, or retaining highly effective staff,
specifically teachers, principals, or instructional leaders, to work in
low-performing schools.
(d) Implementing programs, supports, or other strategies that
improve students' non-cognitive abilities (e.g., motivation,
persistence, or resilience) and enhance student engagement in learning
or mitigate the effects of poverty, including physical, mental, or
emotional health issues, on student engagement in learning.
(e) Supporting the turnaround efforts of low-performing schools or
districts by increasing access to, and use of, high-quality partners.
(f) Increasing district- or State-level capacity to turn around
low-performing schools, including improvements to State and district
support and oversight of turnaround efforts.
(g) Projects that support the implementation of turnaround efforts
in secondary schools.
(h) Projects addressing pressing needs related to improving low-
performing schools.
Other requirements related to Priority 2:
To meet this priority, a project must serve schools among (1) the
lowest-performing schools in the State on academic performance
measures; (2) schools in the State with the largest within-school
performance gaps between student subgroups described in section
1111(b)(2) of the ESEA; or (3) secondary schools in the State with the
lowest graduation rate over a number of years or the largest within-
school gaps in graduation rates between student subgroups described in
section 1111(b)(2) of the ESEA. Additionally, projects funded under
this priority must complement the broader turnaround efforts of the
school(s), LEA(s), or State(s) where the projects will be implemented.
Priority 3--Improving Science, Technology, Engineering, and
Mathematics (STEM) Education.
Under this priority, we provide funding to projects that address
one or more of the following priority areas:
(a) Providing students with increased access to rigorous and
engaging coursework in STEM.
(b) Redesigning STEM course content and instructional practices to
engage students and increase student achievement (as defined in this
document).
(c) Developing and implementing new methods and resources for
recruiting individuals with content expertise in STEM subject areas
into teaching.
(d) Increasing the high-quality preparation of, or professional
development for, teachers or other educators in STEM subjects, through
activities that include building content and pedagogical content
knowledge.
(e) Expanding high-quality out-of-school and extended-day
activities, including extending the day, week, or year, or before- or
after- school, or summer learning programs, that provide students with
opportunities for deliberate practice that increase STEM learning,
engagement, and expertise.
(f) Increasing the number of individuals from groups traditionally
underrepresented in STEM, including minorities, individuals with
disabilities, and women and girls, who access rigorous and engaging
coursework in STEM and are prepared for postsecondary study in STEM.
(g) Increasing the number of individuals from groups traditionally
underrepresented in STEM, including minorities, individuals with
disabilities, and women, who are teachers or educators of STEM subjects
and receive high-quality preparation or professional development.
(h) Projects addressing pressing needs for improving STEM
education.
[[Page 18701]]
Priority 4--Improving Academic Outcomes for Students with
Disabilities.
Under this priority, we provide funding to projects that address
one or more of the following priority areas:
(a) Implementing coherent systems of support that appropriately
coordinate and integrate programs to address the needs of children and
youth with disabilities and improve the quality of service for those
children and their families.
(b) Designing and implementing teacher evaluation systems that
define and measure effectiveness of special education teachers and
related service providers.
(c) Designing and implementing strategies that improve student
achievement (as defined in this document) for students with
disabilities in inclusive settings, including strategies that improve
learning and developmental outcomes (i.e., academic, social, emotional,
or behavioral) and the appropriate transition from restrictive settings
to inclusive settings or general education classes or programs, and
appropriate strategies to prevent unnecessary suspensions and
expulsions.
(d) Improving secondary and postsecondary data collection and
tracking of academic and related outcomes for students with
disabilities to understand their transition into postsecondary
education and the factors associated with their success.
(e) Projects addressing pressing needs related to improving
academic outcomes for students with disabilities.
Priority 5--Improving Academic Outcomes for English Learners (ELs).
Under this priority, we provide funding to projects that address
one or more of the following priority areas:
(a) Increasing the number and proportion of ELs successfully
completing courses in core academic subjects by developing,
implementing, and evaluating new instructional approaches and tools
that are sensitive to the language demands necessary to access
challenging content, including technology-based tools.
(b) Aligning and implementing the curriculum and instruction used
in grades 6-12 for language development and content courses to provide
sufficient exposure to, engagement in, and acquisition of academic
language and literacy practices necessary for preparing ELs to be
college- and career-ready.
(c) Preparing ELs to be on track to be college- and career-ready
when they graduate from high school by developing comprehensive,
developmentally appropriate, early learning programs (birth-grade 3)
that are aligned with the State's high-quality early learning
standards, designed to improve readiness for kindergarten, and support
development of literacy and academic skills in English or in English
and another language.
(d) Developing and implementing school-wide professional
development for teachers, administrators, and other personnel in
schools in which a significant percentage of students are ELs.
(e) Designing and implementing teacher evaluation systems that
define and measure the effectiveness of teachers of students who at
some point have been identified as ELs (i.e., both current and former
ELs).
(f) Projects addressing pressing needs related to improving
academic outcomes for ELs.
Priority 6--Improving Parent and Family Engagement.
Under this priority, we provide funding to projects that address
one or more of the following priority areas:
(a) Developing and implementing initiatives that train parents and
families in the skills and strategies that will support their students
in improving academic outcomes, including increased engagement and
persistence in school.
(b) Implementing initiatives that are designed to enhance the
skills and competencies of teachers, and of school and other
administrative staff, in building relationships and collaborating with
students' families, particularly those who have been underengaged with
the school(s) in the past, in order to support student achievement and
school improvement.
(c) Implementing initiatives that cultivate sustainable
partnerships and increase connections between parents and school staff
in order to support student achievement and school improvement.
(d) Developing tools or practices that provide students and parents
with improved, ongoing access to, and use of, data and other
information about students' progress and performance.
(e) Projects addressing pressing needs related to improving student
outcomes by improving parent and family engagement.
Priority 7--Improving Cost-Effectiveness and Productivity.
Under this priority, we provide funding to projects that address
one of the following areas:
(a) Substantially improving student outcomes without commensurately
increasing per-student costs.
(b) Maintaining student outcomes while substantially decreasing
per-student costs.
(c) Substantially improving student outcomes while substantially
decreasing per-student costs.
Other requirements related to Priority 7:
An application addressing this priority must provide--
(1) A clear and coherent budget that identifies expected student
outcomes before and after the practice, the cost per student for the
practice, and a clear calculation of the cost per student served;
(2) A compelling discussion of the expected cost-effectiveness of
the practice compared with alternative practices;
(3) A clear delineation of one-time costs versus ongoing costs and
a plan for sustaining the project, particularly ongoing costs, after
the expiration of i3 funding;
(4) Identification of specific activities designed to increase
substantially the cost-effectiveness of the practice, such as re-
designing costly components of the practice (while maintaining
efficacy) or testing multiple versions of the practice in order to
identify the most cost-effective approach; and
(5) A project evaluation that addresses the cost-effectiveness of
the proposed practice.
Priority 8--Effective Use of Technology.
Under this priority, we will provide funding to projects that use
technology to address one or more of the following priority areas:
(a) Providing access to learning experiences that are personalized,
adaptive, and self-improving in order to optimize the delivery of
instruction to learners with a variety of learning needs.
(b) Providing students and teachers with equitable ``anytime,
anywhere'' access to learning materials and experiences that they
otherwise would not have access to, such as rigorous coursework that is
not offered in a particular school, or effective professional
development activities or learning communities enabled by technology.
(c) Developing new methods and resources for teacher preparation or
professional development that increase teachers' abilities to utilize
technology to enhance their knowledge and skills to improve student
achievement (as defined in this document) and to close achievement
gaps.
(d) Implementing strategies that improve student proficiencies in
complex skills, such as critical thinking and collaboration across
academic disciplines.
[[Page 18702]]
(e) Developing and implementing technology-enabled strategies for
teaching and learning concepts and content (e.g., systems thinking)
that are difficult to teach using traditional approaches, such as
models and simulations, collaborative virtual environments, or
``serious games''.
(f) Integrating technology with the implementation of rigorous
college- and career-ready standards to increase student achievement (as
defined in this document), student engagement, and teacher efficacy,
such as by providing embedded, real-time assessment and feedback to
students and teachers.
(g) Projects that increase the use of technology for effective
teaching and learning.
Priority 9--Enabling Broad Adoption of Effective Practices.
Under this priority, we provide funding to projects that enable
broad adoption of effective practices. An application proposing to
address this priority must, as part of its application:
(a) Identify the practice or practices that the application
proposes to prepare for broad adoption, including formalizing the
practice (i.e., establish and define key elements of the practice),
codifying (i.e., develop a guide or tools to support the dissemination
of information on key elements of the practice), and explaining why
there is a need for formalization and codification.
(b) Evaluate different forms of the practice to identify the
critical components of the practice that are crucial to its success and
sustainability, including the adaptability of critical components to
different teaching and learning environments and to diverse learners.
(c) Provide a coherent and comprehensive plan for developing
materials, training, toolkits, or other supports that other entities
would need in order to implement the practice effectively and with
fidelity.
(d) Commit to assessing the replicability and adaptability of the
practice by supporting the implementation of the practice in a variety
of locations during the project period using the materials, training,
toolkits, or other supports that were developed for the i3-supported
practice.
Priority 10--Serving Rural Communities.
Under this priority, we provide funding to projects that address
one of the absolute priorities established for a particular i3
competition and under which the majority of students to be served are
enrolled in rural local educational agencies (as defined in this
document).
Priority 11--Supporting Novice i3 Applicants.
Eligible applicants that have never directly received a grant under
this program.
Types of Priorities:
When inviting applications for a competition using one or more
priorities, we designate the type of each priority as absolute,
competitive preference, or invitational through a notice in the Federal
Register. The effect of each type of priority follows:
Absolute priority: Under an absolute priority, we consider only
applications that meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(3)).
Competitive preference priority: Under a competitive preference
priority, we give competitive preference to an application by (1)
awarding additional points, depending on the extent to which the
application meets the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2)
selecting an application that meets the priority over an application of
comparable merit that does not meet the priority (34 CFR
75.105(c)(2)(ii)).
Invitational priority: Under an invitational priority, we are
particularly interested in applications that meet the priority.
However, we do not give an application that meets the priority a
preference over other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)).
Final Requirements:
1. Innovations that Improve Achievement for High-Need Students: All
grantees must implement practices that are designed to improve student
achievement (as defined in this document) or student growth (as defined
in this document), close achievement gaps, decrease dropout rates,
increase high school graduation rates (as defined in this document), or
increase college enrollment and completion rates for high-need students
(as defined in this document).
2. Innovations that Serve Kindergarten-through-Grade-12 (K-12)
Students: All grantees must implement practices that serve students who
are in grades K-12 at some point during the funding period. To meet
this requirement, projects that serve early learners (i.e., infants,
toddlers, or preschoolers) must provide services or supports that
extend into kindergarten or later years, and projects that serve
postsecondary students must provide services or supports during the
secondary grades or earlier.
3. Eligible Applicants: Entities eligible to apply for i3 grants
include either of the following:
(a) An LEA.
(b) A partnership between a nonprofit organization and--
(1) One or more LEAs; or
(2) A consortium of schools.
Statutory Eligibility Requirements: Except as specifically set
forth in the Note about Eligibility for an Eligible Applicant that
Includes a Nonprofit Organization that follows, to be eligible for an
award, an eligible applicant must--
(a)(1) Have significantly closed the achievement gaps between
groups of students described in section 1111(b)(2) of the ESEA
(economically disadvantaged students, students from major racial and
ethnic groups, students with limited English proficiency, students with
disabilities); or
(2) Have demonstrated success in significantly increasing student
academic achievement for all groups of students described in that
section;
(b) Have made significant improvements in other areas, such as high
school graduation rates (as defined in this document) or increased
recruitment and placement of high-quality teachers and principals, as
demonstrated with meaningful data;
(c) Demonstrate that it has established one or more partnerships
with the private sector, which may include philanthropic organizations,
and that organizations in the private sector will provide matching
funds in order to help bring results to scale; and
(d) 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.
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 specifies that an
eligible applicant that includes a nonprofit organization meets the
requirements in paragraphs (a) and (b) 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
[[Page 18703]]
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
i3 grant an LEA or a consortium of schools that meets the requirements
in paragraphs (a) and (b) of the eligibility requirements in this
document.
In addition, the authorizing statute specifies that an eligible
applicant that includes a nonprofit organization meets the requirements
of paragraph (c) of the eligibility requirements in this document if
the eligible applicant demonstrates that it will meet the requirement
for private-sector matching.
4. Cost-Sharing or Matching Funds: To be eligible for an award, an
applicant must demonstrate that one or more private sector
organizations, which may include philanthropic organizations, 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 an amount that the Secretary will specify in the notice
inviting applications for the specific i3 competition. The Secretary
will announce in the notice inviting applications when and how selected
eligible applicants must submit evidence of the private-sector matching
funds.
The Secretary may consider decreasing the matching requirement in
the most exceptional circumstances. The Secretary will provide
instructions for how to request a reduction of the matching requirement
in the notice inviting applications.
5. Evidence Standards: To be eligible for an award, an application
for a Development grant must be supported by one of the following:
(a) Evidence of promise (as defined in this document);
(b) Strong theory (as defined in this document); or
(c) Evidence of promise (as defined in this document) or strong
theory (as defined in this document).
The Secretary will announce in the notice inviting applications
which options will be used as the evidence standard for a Development
grant in a given competition. Note that under (c), applicants must
identify whether the application is supported by evidence of promise
(as defined in this document) or strong theory (as defined in this
document).
To be eligible for an award, an application for a Validation grant
must be supported by moderate evidence of effectiveness (as defined in
this document).
To be eligible for an award, an application for a Scale-up grant
must be supported by strong evidence of effectiveness (as defined in
this document).
6. Funding Categories: An applicant will be considered for an award
only for the type of i3 grant (i.e., Development, Validation, and
Scale-up) for which it applies. An applicant may not submit an
application for the same proposed project under more than one type of
grant.
7. Limit on Grant Awards: (a) No grantee may receive more than two
new grant awards of any type under the i3 program in a single year; (b)
In any two-year period, no grantee may receive more than one new Scale-
up or Validation grant; and (c) No grantee may receive in a single year
new i3 grant awards that total an amount greater than the sum of the
maximum amount of funds for a Scale-up grant and the maximum amount of
funds for a Development grant for that year. For example, in a year
when the maximum award value for a Scale-up grant is $25 million and
the maximum award value for a Development grant is $5 million, no
grantee may receive in a single year new grants totaling more than $30
million.
8. 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
and, if funded, as the grantee, may make subgrants to one or more
entities in the partnership.
9. Evaluation: The grantee must conduct an independent evaluation
(as defined in this document) of its project. This evaluation must
estimate the impact of the i3-supported practice (as implemented at the
proposed level of scale) on a relevant outcome (as defined in this
document). The grantee must make broadly available digitally and free
of charge, through formal (e.g., peer-reviewed journals) or informal
(e.g., newsletters) mechanisms, the results of any evaluations it
conducts of its funded activities. For Scale-up and Validation grants,
the grantee must also ensure that the data from its evaluation are made
available to third-party researchers consistent with applicable privacy
requirements.
In addition, the grantee and its independent evaluator must agree
to cooperate with any technical assistance provided by the Department
or its contractor and comply with the requirements of any evaluation of
the program conducted by the Department. This includes providing to the
Department, within 100 days of a grant award, an updated comprehensive
evaluation plan in a format and using such tools as the Department may
require. Grantees must update this evaluation plan at least annually to
reflect any changes to the evaluation. All of these updates must be
consistent with the scope and objectives of the approved application.
10. Communities of Practice: Grantees must participate in,
organize, or facilitate, as appropriate, communities of practice for
the i3 program. 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.
11. Management Plan: Within 100 days of a grant award, the grantee
must provide an updated comprehensive management plan for the approved
project in a format and using such tools as the Department may require.
This management plan must include detailed information about
implementation of the first year of the grant, including key
milestones, staffing details, and other information that the Department
may require. It must also include a complete list of performance
metrics, including baseline measures and annual targets. The grantee
must update this management plan at least annually to reflect
implementation of subsequent years of the project.
Final Definitions:
The Assistant Deputy Secretary establishes the following
definitions for this program. We may apply one or more of these
definitions in any year in which this program is in effect.
Consortium of schools means two or more public elementary or
secondary schools acting collaboratively for the purpose of applying
for and implementing an i3 grant jointly with an eligible nonprofit
organization.
Evidence of promise means there is empirical evidence to support
the theoretical linkage between at least one critical component and at
least one relevant outcome presented in the logic model (as defined in
this document) for the proposed process, product, strategy, or
practice. Specifically, evidence of promise means the following
conditions are met:
(a) There is at least one study that is either a--
(1) Correlational study with statistical controls for selection
bias;
(2) Quasi-experimental study (as defined in this document) that
meets the
[[Page 18704]]
What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards with reservations \1\; or
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See What Works Clearinghouse Procedures and Standards
Handbook (Version 2.1, September 2011), which can currently be found
at the following link: https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/DocumentSum.aspx?sid=19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(3) Randomized controlled trial (as defined in this document) that
meets the What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards with or without
reservations; \2\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See What Works Clearinghouse Procedures and Standards
Handbook (Version 2.1, September 2011), which can currently be found
at the following link: https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/DocumentSum.aspx?sid=19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) Such a study found a statistically significant or substantively
important (defined as a difference of 0.25 standard deviations or
larger), favorable association between at least one critical component
and one relevant outcome presented in the logic model for the proposed
process, product, strategy, or practice.
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 (as defined
in this document), who are far below grade level, who have left school
before receiving a regular high school diploma, who are at risk of not
graduating with a diploma on time, who are homeless, who are in foster
care, who have been incarcerated, who have disabilities, or who are
English learners.
High-minority school is defined by a school's LEA in a manner
consistent with the corresponding State's Teacher Equity Plan, as
required by section 1111(b)(8)(C) of the ESEA. The applicant must
provide, in its i3 application, the definition(s) used.
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.
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 (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 academic 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.
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 process, product, strategy, or practice and
are implementing it.
Innovation means a process, product, strategy, or practice that
improves (or is expected to improve) significantly upon the outcomes
reached with status quo options and that can ultimately reach
widespread effective usage.
Large sample means a sample of 350 or more students (or other
single analysis units) who were randomly assigned to a treatment or
control group, or 50 or more groups (such as classrooms or schools)
that contain 10 or more students (or other single analysis units) and
that were randomly assigned to a treatment or control group.
Logic model (also referred to as theory of action) means a well-
specified conceptual framework that identifies key components of the
proposed process, product, strategy, or practice (i.e., the active
``ingredients'' that are hypothesized to be critical to achieving the
relevant outcomes) and describes the relationships among the key
components and outcomes, theoretically and operationally.
Moderate evidence of effectiveness means one of the following
conditions is met:
(a) There is at least one study of the effectiveness of the
process, product, strategy, or practice being proposed that: meets the
What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards without reservations; \3\
found a statistically significant favorable impact on a relevant
outcome (as defined in this document) (with no statistically
significant and overriding unfavorable impacts on that outcome for
relevant populations in the study or in other studies of the
intervention reviewed by and reported on by the What Works
Clearinghouse); and includes a sample that overlaps with the
populations or settings proposed to receive the process, product,
strategy, or practice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See What Works Clearinghouse Procedures and Standards
Handbook (Version 2.1, September 2011), which can currently be found
at the following link: https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/DocumentSum.aspx?sid=19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) There is at least one study of the effectiveness of the
process, product, strategy, or practice being proposed that: meets the
What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards with reservations; \4\
found a statistically significant favorable impact on a relevant
outcome (as defined in this document) (with no statistically
significant and overriding unfavorable impacts on that outcome for
relevant populations in the study or in other studies of the
intervention reviewed by and reported on by the What Works
Clearinghouse); includes a sample that overlaps with the populations or
settings proposed to receive the process, product, strategy, or
practice; and includes a large sample (as defined in this document) and
a multi-site sample (as defined in this document). (Note: multiple
studies can cumulatively meet the large and multi-site sample
requirements as long as each study meets the other requirements in this
paragraph).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See What Works Clearinghouse Procedures and Standards
Handbook (Version 2.1, September 2011), which can currently be found
at the following link: https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/DocumentSum.aspx?sid=19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Multi-site sample means more than one site, where site can be
defined as an LEA, locality, or State.
National level describes the level of scope or effectiveness of a
process, product, strategy, or practice that is able to be effective in
a wide variety of communities, including rural and urban areas, as well
as with different groups (e.g., economically disadvantaged, racial and
ethnic groups, migrant populations, individuals with disabilities,
English learners, and individuals of each gender).
Nonprofit organization means an entity that meets the definition of
[[Page 18705]]
``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.
Quasi-experimental design study means a study using a design that
attempts to approximate an experimental design by identifying a
comparison group that is similar to the treatment group in important
respects. These studies, depending on design and implementation, can
meet What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards with reservations \5\
(they cannot meet What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards without
reservations).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See What Works Clearinghouse Procedures and Standards
Handbook (Version 2.1, September 2011), which can currently be found
at the following link: ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/DocumentSum.aspx?sid=19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Randomized controlled trial means a study that employs random
assignment of, for example, students, teachers, classrooms, schools, or
districts to receive the intervention being evaluated (the treatment
group) or not to receive the intervention (the control group). The
estimated effectiveness of the intervention is the difference between
the average outcome for the treatment group and for the control group.
These studies, depending on design and implementation, can meet What
Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards without reservations.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See What Works Clearinghouse Procedures and Standards
Handbook (Version 2.1, September 2011), which can currently be found
at the following link: ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/DocumentSum.aspx?sid=19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regional level describes the level of scope or effectiveness of a
process, product, strategy, or practice that is able to serve a variety
of communities within a State or multiple States, including rural and
urban areas, as well as with different groups (e.g., economically
disadvantaged, racial and ethnic groups, migrant populations,
individuals with disabilities, English learners, and individuals of
each gender). For an LEA-based project to be considered a regional-
level project, a process, product, strategy, or practice must serve
students in more than one LEA, unless the process, product, strategy,
or practice is implemented in a State in which the State educational
agency is the sole educational agency for all schools.
Relevant outcome means the student outcome or outcomes (or the
ultimate outcome if not related to students) that the proposed project
is designed to improve, consistent with the specific goals of the
project and the i3 program.
Rural local educational agency means a local educational agency
(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 Department's Web site at www2.ed.gov/nclb/freedom/local/reap.html.
Strong evidence of effectiveness means that one of the following
conditions is met:
(a) There is at least one study of the effectiveness of the
process, product, strategy, or practice being proposed that: meets the
What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards without reservations; \7\
found a statistically significant favorable impact on a relevant
outcome (as defined in this document) (with no statistically
significant and overriding unfavorable impacts on that outcome for
relevant populations in the study or in other studies of the
intervention reviewed by and reported on by the What Works
Clearinghouse); includes a sample that overlaps with the populations
and settings proposed to receive the process, product, strategy, or
practice; and includes a large sample (as defined in this document) and
a multi-site sample (as defined in this document). (Note: multiple
studies can cumulatively meet the large and multi-site sample
requirements as long as each study meets the other requirements in this
paragraph).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See What Works Clearinghouse Procedures and Standards
Handbook (Version 2.1, September 2011), which can currently be found
at the following link: https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/DocumentSum.aspx?sid=19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) There are at least two studies of the effectiveness of the
process, product, strategy, or practice being proposed, each of which:
meets the What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards with
reservations; \8\ found a statistically significant favorable impact on
a relevant outcome (as defined in this document) (with no statistically
significant and overriding unfavorable impacts on that outcome for
relevant populations in the studies or in other studies of the
intervention reviewed by and reported on by the What Works
Clearinghouse); includes a sample that overlaps with the populations
and settings proposed to receive the process, product, strategy, or
practice; and includes a large sample (as defined in this document) and
a multi-site sample (as defined in this document).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See What Works Clearinghouse Procedures and Standards
Handbook (Version 2.1, September 2011), which can currently be found
at the following link: https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/DocumentSum.aspx?sid=19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Strong theory means a rationale for the proposed process, product,
strategy, or practice that includes a logic model (as defined in this
document).
Student achievement means--
(a) For grades and subjects in which assessments are required under
ESEA section 1111(b)(3): (1) a student's score on such assessments and
may include (2) other measures of student learning, such as those
described in paragraph (b), provided they are rigorous and comparable
across schools within an LEA.
(b) For grades and subjects in which assessments are not required
under ESEA section 1111(b)(3): alternative measures of student learning
and performance such as student results on pre-tests, end-of-course
tests, and objective performance-based assessments; student learning
objectives; student performance on English language proficiency
assessments; and other measures of student achievement that are
rigorous and comparable across schools within an LEA.
Student growth means the change in student achievement (as defined
in this document) for an individual student between two or more points
in time. An applicant may also include other measures that are rigorous
and comparable across classrooms.
Final Selection Criteria:
The Secretary establishes the following selection criteria for
evaluating an application under this program. We may apply one or more
of these criteria in any year in which this program is in effect. We
propose that the Secretary may use:
One or more of the selection criteria established in the
notice of final priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection
criteria;
Any of the selection criteria in 34 CFR 75.210; criteria
based on the statutory requirements for the i3 program in accordance
with 34 CFR 75.209; or
Any combination of these when establishing selection
criteria for each particular type of grant (Development, Validation,
and Scale-up) in any i3 competition. We propose that the Secretary may
further define each criterion by selecting specific factors for it. The
Secretary may select these factors from any selection criterion in the
list above. In the notice inviting applications, the application
package, or both we will announce the specific selection criteria that
apply to a competition and the maximum possible points assigned to each
criterion.
(a) Significance.
In determining the significance of the proposed project, the
Secretary will
[[Page 18706]]
consider one or more of the following factors:
(1) The extent to which the proposed project addresses a national
need.
(2) The extent to which the proposed project addresses a challenge
for which there is a national need for solutions that are better than
the solutions currently available.
(3) The extent to which the proposed project would implement a
novel approach as compared with what has been previously attempted
nationally.
(4) The extent of the expected impact of the project on relevant
outcomes (as defined in this document), including the estimated impact
of the project on student outcomes (particularly those related to
student achievement (as defined in this document)) and the breadth of
the project's impact, compared with alternative practices or methods of
addressing similar needs.
(5) The extent to which the proposed project demonstrates that it
is likely to have a meaningful impact on relevant outcomes (as defined
in this document), particularly those related to student achievement
(as defined in this document), if it were implemented and evaluated in
a variety of settings.
(6) The extent to which the proposed project will substantially
improve on the outcomes achieved by other practices, such as through
better student outcomes, lower cost, or accelerated results.
(7) The importance and magnitude of the proposed project's expected
impact on a relevant outcome (as defined in this document),
particularly one related to student achievement (as defined in this
document).
(8) The likelihood that the project will have the estimated impact,
including the extent to which the applicant demonstrates that unmet
demand for the proposed project or the proposed services will enable
the applicant to reach the proposed level of scale.
(9) The feasibility of national expansion if favorable outcomes are
achieved.
(b) Quality of the Project Design.
In determining the quality of the project design, the Secretary
will consider one or more of the following factors:
(1) The extent to which the proposed project addresses the national
need and priorities the applicant is seeking to meet.
(2) The extent to which the proposed project addresses the absolute
priority the applicant is seeking to meet.
(3) The clarity and coherence of the project goals, including the
extent to which the proposed project articulates an explicit plan or
actions to achieve its goals (e.g., a fully developed logic model of
the proposed project).
(4) The extent to which the proposed project has a clear set of
goals and an explicit plan or actions to achieve the goals, including
identification of any elements of the project logic model that require
further testing or development.
(5) The extent to which the proposed project will produce a fully
codified practice, including a fully articulated logic model of the
project by the end of the project period.
(6) The clarity, completeness, and coherence of the project goals
and whether the application includes a description of project
activities that constitute a complete plan for achieving those goals,
including the identification of potential risks to project success and
strategies to mitigate those risks.
(7) The extent to which the applicant addresses potential risks to
project success and strategies to mitigate those risks.
(8) The extent to which the applicant will use grant funds to
address a particular barrier or barriers that prevented the applicant,
in the past, from reaching the level of scale proposed in the
application.
(9) The extent to which the project would build the capacity of the
applicant to scale up and sustain the project or would create an
organization capable of expanding if successful outcomes are achieved.
(10) The sufficiency of the resources to support effective project
implementation, including the project's plan for ensuring funding after
the period of the Federal grant.
(11) The sufficiency of the resources to support effective project
implementation.
(c) Quality of the Management Plan.
In determining the quality of the management plan, the Secretary
will consider one or more of the following factors:
(1) The extent to which the management plan articulates key
responsibilities and well-defined objectives, including the timelines
and milestones for completion of major project activities, the metrics
that will be used to assess progress on an ongoing basis, and annual
performance targets the applicant will use to monitor whether the
project is achieving its goals.
(2) The clarity and coherence of the applicant's multi-year
financial and operating model and accompanying plan to operate the
project at a national level (as defined in this document) during the
project period.
(3) The clarity and coherence of the applicant's multi-year
financial and operating model and accompanying plan to operate the
project at a national or regional level (as defined in this document)
during the project period.
(4) The extent to which the applicant demonstrates that it will
have the resources to operate the project at the proposed level of
scale during the project period and beyond the length of the grant,
including the demonstrated commitment of any partners and evidence of
broad support from stakeholders critical to the project's long-term
success (e.g., State educational agencies, teachers' unions).
(5) The extent of the demonstrated commitment of any key partners
or evidence of broad support from stakeholders whose participation is
critical to the project's long-term success.
(d) Personnel.
When evaluating the personnel of the proposed project, the
Secretary will consider one or more of the following factors:
(1) The adequacy of the project's staffing plan, particularly for
the first year of the project, including the identification of the
project director and, in the case of projects with unfilled key
personnel positions at the beginning of the project, that the staffing
plan identifies how critical work will proceed.
(2) The qualifications and experience of the project director and
other key project personnel and the extent to which they have the
expertise to accomplish the proposed tasks.
(3) The extent to which the project director has experience
managing large, complex, and rapidly growing projects.
(4) The extent to which the project director has experience
managing large, complex projects.
(5) The extent to which the project director has experience
managing projects of similar size and scope as the proposed project.
(e) Quality of the Project Evaluation.
In determining the quality of the project evaluation, the Secretary
will consider one or more of the following factors:
(1) The clarity and importance of the key questions to be addressed
by the project evaluation, and the appropriateness of the methods for
how each question will be addressed.
(2) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will, if well
implemented, produce evidence about the project's effectiveness that
would meet the What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards without
reservations.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See What Works Clearinghouse Procedures and Standards
Handbook. (Version 2.1, September 2011), which can currently be
found at the following link: https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/DocumentSum.aspx?sid=19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 18707]]
(3) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will, if well
implemented, produce evidence about the project's effectiveness that
would meet the What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards with or
without reservations.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See What Works Clearinghouse Procedures and Standards
Handbook (Version 2.1, September 2011), which can currently be found
at the following link: https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/DocumentSum.aspx?sid=19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(4) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will provide
valid and reliable performance data on relevant outcomes, particularly
student achievement outcomes.
(5) The extent to which the evaluation will study the project at
the proposed level of scale, including, where appropriate, generating
information about potential differential effectiveness of the project
in diverse settings and for diverse student population groups.
(6) The extent to which the evaluation will study the project at
the proposed level of scale, including in diverse settings.
(7) The extent to which the evaluation plan includes a clear and
credible analysis plan, including a proposed sample size and minimum
detectable effect size that aligns with the expected project impact,
and an analytic approach for addressing the research questions.
(8) The extent to which the evaluation plan includes a clear, well-
documented, and rigorous method for measuring implementation of the
critical features of the project, as well as the intended outcomes.
(9) The extent to which the evaluation plan clearly articulates the
key components and outcomes of the project, as well as a measurable
threshold for acceptable implementation.
(10) The extent to which the evaluation plan will provide
sufficient information on the project's effect as compared to
alternative practices addressing similar need.
(11) The extent to which the proposed project plan includes
sufficient resources to carry out the project evaluation effectively.
This document does not preclude us from proposing additional
priorities, requirements, definitions, or selection criteria, subject
to meeting applicable rulemaking requirements.
Note: This document does not solicit applications. In any year
in which we choose to use one or more of these priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria], we invite
applications through a notice in the Federal Register.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
Regulatory Impact Analysis
Under Executive Order 12866, the Secretary must determine whether
this regulatory action is ``significant'' and, therefore, subject to
the requirements of the Executive order and subject to review by the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive Order
12866 defines a ``significant regulatory action'' as an action likely
to result in a rule that may--
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more,
or adversely affect a sector of the economy, productivity, competition,
jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local or
tribal governments or communities in a material way (also referred to
as an ``economically significant'' rule);
(2) Create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles stated in the
Executive order.
This final regulatory action will have an annual effect on the
economy of more than $100 million because Department anticipates more
than that amount will be appropriated for i3 and awarded as grants.
Therefore, this final action is ``economically significant'' and
subject to review by OMB under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order
12866. Notwithstanding this determination, we have assessed the
potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and qualitative, of
this final regulatory action and have determined that the benefits
justify the costs.
We have also reviewed this final regulatory action under Executive
Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles,
structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in
Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order
13563 requires that an agency--
(1) Propose or adopt regulations only upon a reasoned determination
that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits
and costs are difficult to quantify);
(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society,
consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into
account--among other things and to the extent practicable--the costs of
cumulative regulations;
(3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select
those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential
economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other
advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);
(4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather
than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must
adopt; and
(5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct
regulation, including economic incentives--such as user fees or
marketable permits--to encourage the desired behavior, or provide
information that enables the public to make choices.
Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency ``to use the best
available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future
benefits and costs as accurately as possible.'' The Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these
techniques may include ``identifying changing future compliance costs
that might result from technological innovation or anticipated
behavioral changes.''
We are issuing these final priorities, requirements, definitions,
and selection criteria only on a reasoned determination that their
benefits justify their costs. In choosing among alternative regulatory
approaches, we selected those approaches that maximize net benefits.
Based on the analysis that follows, the Department believes that this
regulatory action is consistent with the principles in Executive Order
13563.
We also have determined that this final regulatory action does not
unduly interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the
exercise of their governmental functions.
In this regulatory impact analysis we discuss the need for
regulatory action, the potential costs and benefits, net budget
impacts, assumptions, limitations, and data sources, as well as
regulatory alternatives we considered.
Discussion of Costs and Benefits
The Secretary believes that these priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria would not impose significant costs
on eligible LEAs, nonprofit organizations, or other entities that would
receive assistance through the i3 program. The Secretary also believes
that the benefits of implementing the priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria contained in this document outweigh
any associated costs.
[[Page 18708]]
The Secretary expects that these priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria will result in selection of high-
quality applications to implement activities that are most likely to
have a significant national impact on educational reform and
improvement. Additionally, the priorities, requirements, definitions,
and selection criteria in this document clarify the scope of activities
the Secretary expects to support with program funds and the expected
burden of work involved in preparing an application and implementing a
project under the program. Potential applicants, both LEAs and
nonprofit organizations, need to consider carefully the effort that
will be required to prepare a strong application, their capacity to
implement a project successfully, and their chances of submitting a
successful application.
Program participation is voluntary. The Secretary believes that the
costs imposed on applicants by these priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria would be limited to paperwork
burden related to preparing an application and that the benefits of
implementing them would outweigh any costs incurred by applicants. The
costs of carrying out activities would be paid for with program funds
and with matching funds provided by private-sector partners. Thus, the
costs of implementation would not be a burden for any eligible
applicants, including small entities.
Regulatory Alternatives Considered
The Department considered using the priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria established for and used during
prior i3 competitions instead of establishing these final priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria. However, although we
maintain the overall purpose and structure of the i3 program, we
incorporate changes based on specific lessons learned from the first
three competitions. For example, the original i3 priorities were
written broadly and generated a wide range of projects in the first
three competitions. With this regulatory action, we establish final
priorities that provide for a more focused set of projects within areas
of acute need. Similarly, the final requirement on cost-sharing and
marching provides more flexibility for when and how selected eligible
applicants must submit evidence of the private-sector matching funds.
We also use this regulatory action to provide clarification on the
expectations for the three types of grants under the i3 program (i.e.,
Development, Validation, and Scale-up) by making changes to the
descriptions of the types of grants and the selection criteria.
The priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria
in this document reflect and promote the purpose of the i3 program.
They also align the i3 program, where possible and permissible, with
other Departmental priorities.
Accounting Statement
As required by OMB Circular A-4 (available at www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/circulars/a004/a-4.pdf), in the
following table we have prepared an accounting statement showing the
classification of the expenditures associated with the provisions of
this regulatory action. This table provides our best estimate of the
changes in annual monetized transfers as a result of this regulatory
action. Expenditures are classified as transfers from Federal
Government to LEAs and nonprofit organizations.
Accounting Statement Classification of Estimated Expenditures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Transfers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized Monetized Transfers......... $140,011,000
From Whom To Whom?..................... from the Federal Government to
LEAs and nonprofit
organizations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Waiver of Delayed Effective Date Under Congressional Review Act
These priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria
are a major rule for purposes of the Congressional Review Act (CRA) (5
U.S.C. 801, et seq.). Generally, under the CRA, a major rule takes
effect 60 days after the date on which the rule is published in the
Federal Register. Section 808(2) of the CRA, however, provides that any
rule which an agency for good cause finds (and incorporates the finding
and a brief statement of reasons therefore in the rule issued) that
notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or
contrary to the public interest, shall take effect at such time as the
Federal agency promulgating the rule determines.
These final priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection
criteria are needed to implement the i3 program, authorized under the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Division A, Section
14007, Public Law 111-5. The Department must make grant awards under
this authority by December 31, 2013, or the funds will lapse.
Even under an expedited timeline, it is impracticable for the
Department to adhere to a 60-day delayed effective date for this final
regulatory action and make awards to qualified applicants by the
December deadline. When the 60-day delayed effective date is added to
the time the Department will need to receive pre-applications
(approximately 30 days), review the pre-applications and invite full
applications (approximately 60 days), receive full applications
(approximately 45 days), review applications (approximately 35 days),
approve applications (approximately 50 days), and, finally, provide
time for grantees to secure the required private-sector matching funds
(approximately 30 days), the Department will not be able to award funds
by December 31, 2013. The Department has therefore determined that,
under section 808(2) of the CRA, the 60-day delay in the effective date
generally required for congressional review is impracticable, contrary
to the public interest, and waived for good cause.
Intergovernmental Review: This program is subject to Executive
Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of the
objectives of the Executive order is to foster an intergovernmental
partnership and a strengthened federalism. The Executive order relies
on processes developed by State and local governments for coordination
and review of proposed Federal financial assistance.
This document provides early notification of our specific plans and
actions for this program.
Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this
document in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print,
audiotape, or compact disc) on request to the program contact person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this
document is the document published in the Federal Register. Free
Internet access to the
[[Page 18709]]
official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal
Regulations is available via the Federal Digital System at:
www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site 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). To use PDF
you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the
site.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Federal Register by using the article search feature at:
www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search
feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published
by the Department.
Dated: March 21, 2013.
James H. Shelton, III,
Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and Improvement.
[FR Doc. 2013-07016 Filed 3-26-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P