Applications for New Awards; Investing in Innovation Fund, Validation Grants, 25990-26004 [2013-10466]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 86 (Friday, May 3, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25990-26004]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-10466]


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

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION


Applications for New Awards; Investing in Innovation Fund, 
Validation Grants

AGENCY: Office of Innovation and Improvement, Department of Education

ACTION: Notice.

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

    Overview Information:
    Investing in Innovation Fund, Validation grants; Notice inviting 
applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2013.
    Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 84.411B 
(Validation grants).
    DATES:
    Applications Available: May 6, 2013.
    Deadline for Notice of Intent to Apply: May 23, 2013.
    Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: July 2, 2013.
    Deadline for Intergovernmental Review: September 3, 2013.

Full Text of Announcement

I. Funding Opportunity Description

    Purpose of Program: The Investing in Innovation Fund (i3), 
established under section 14007 of the American Recovery and 
Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), provides funding to support (1) local 
educational agencies (LEAs), and (2) nonprofit organizations in 
partnership with (a) one or more LEAs or (b) a consortium of schools. 
The 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

[[Page 25991]]

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 notice) 
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.
    This notice invites applications for Validation grants only. The 
notice inviting applications for Scale-up grants is published elsewhere 
in this issue of the Federal Register. The notice inviting applications 
for Development grants was published in the Federal Register on March 
27, 2013 (78 FR 18710) and available at www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-03-27/pdf/2013-07003.pdf.
    Validation grants provide funding to support expansion of projects 
supported by moderate evidence of effectiveness (as defined in this 
notice) to the national or regional level (as defined in this notice). 
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 
proposes 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.
    We remind LEAs of the continuing applicability of the provisions of 
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) for students who 
may be served under i3 grants. Any grants in which LEAs participate 
must be consistent with the rights, protections, and processes 
established under IDEA for students who are receiving special education 
and related services or are in the process of being evaluated to 
determine their eligibility for such services.
    As described later in this notice, in connection with making 
competitive grant awards, an applicant is required, as a condition of 
receiving assistance under this program, to make civil rights 
assurances, including an assurance that its program or activity will 
comply with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the 
Department's section 504 implementing regulations, which prohibit 
discrimination on the basis of disability. Regardless of whether a 
student with disabilities is specifically targeted as a ``high-need 
student'' (as defined in this notice) in a particular grant 
application, recipients are required to comply with all legal 
nondiscrimination requirements, including, but not limited to the 
obligation to ensure that students with disabilities are not denied 
access to the benefits of the recipient's program because of their 
disability. The Department also enforces Title II of the Americans with 
Disabilities Act (ADA), as well as the regulations implementing Title 
II of the ADA, which prohibit discrimination on the basis of disability 
by public entities.
    Furthermore, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits 
discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin. On 
December 2, 2011, the Departments of Education and Justice jointly 
issued guidance that explains how educational institutions can promote 
student diversity or avoid racial isolation within the framework of 
Title VI (e.g., through consideration of the racial demographics of 
neighborhoods when drawing assignment zones for schools or through 
targeted recruiting efforts). 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.
    Background: The FY 2013 i3 Validation competition incorporates 
lessons learned from prior i3 competitions. As such, it includes 
several changes from prior i3 competitions that prospective applicants 
should note. These changes reflect the recently revised i3 program 
design, as described in the notice of final priorities, requirements, 
definitions, and selection criteria for this program (2013 i3 NFP), 
published in the Federal Register on March 27, 2013 (78 FR 18682) and 
available at www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-03-27/pdf/2013-07016.pdf.
    In the 2013 i3 NFP, the Department redesigned key aspects of the i3 
program to improve the FY 2013 and future i3 competitions by 
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.
    One example of the various changes we established in the 2013 i3 
NFP pertains to the breadth and specificity of the potential priorities 
for a given i3 competition. Specifically, the 2013 i3 NFP includes 11 
priorities, representing a range of education topics that the Secretary 
may select from when establishing the priorities for an i3 competition 
for a given year. Although the Department has used broad priorities in 
the past, the 2013 i3 NFP includes subparts under each priority that 
target specific needs. These subparts facilitate the i3 program's goal 
of building a portfolio of solutions and corresponding evidence 
regarding different approaches to addressing critical challenges in 
public education. When selecting the priorities for a given 
competition, the Department considers several factors, including the 
Department's policy priorities, the need for new solutions in a 
particular priority area, other available funding for a particular 
priority area, and the results and lessons learned from prior i3 
competitions. The Department also considered the existing evidence of 
effectiveness when selecting the subparts for this year's Validation 
competition.
    We include five absolute priorities in the FY 2013 Validation 
competition. Under each, we identify subparts from

[[Page 25992]]

which applicants must select in order to meet the absolute priority.
    First, we include an absolute priority on improving the 
effectiveness of teachers or principals because such improvements are 
integral to the Department's mission. Research indicates that teachers 
and principals are the most critical in-school factors in improving 
student achievement.\1\ This priority, therefore, encourages applicants 
to focus on improving the effectiveness of teachers or principals, and 
encourages applicants to identify effective methods for supporting, 
evaluating, or retaining effective teachers or principals, particularly 
at schools that serve high-need students. Specifically, we include a 
subpart under this priority for projects that develop and implement 
models of induction and support for improving the knowledge and skills 
of novice teachers or novice principals. Currently, the Department 
funds several i3 projects that focus on teacher recruitment or content-
specific professional development for teachers, but few of these 
projects focus on supporting current teachers in their early years of 
teaching. Given that many of the Nation's teachers are first- or 
second-year teachers, and given the rates at which novice teachers 
leave the profession, we are interested in adding projects that focus 
on novice teachers to the i3 portfolio. Similarly, few of the current 
i3 projects focus on novice principals; as such, we include this 
subpart to encourage applicants to propose projects that will improve 
the ability of novice principals to improve their schools' 
instructional programs and operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Wright, S.P., Horn, S.P., Sanders, W.L. (1997). Teacher and 
classroom context effects on student achievement: Implications for 
teacher evaluation. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education 
11:57-67; Rivkin, S.G., Hanushek, E.A., Kain, J.F. (2005). Teachers, 
schools, and academic achievement. Economerica, 73(2):417-458.
     Leithwood, K., Louis, K.S., Anderson, S., and Wahlstrom, K. 
(2004). Review of research: How leadership influences student 
learning. University of Minnesota, Center for Applied Research and 
Educational Improvement. Available at www.cehd.umn.edu/carei/Leadership/ReviewofResearch.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We also include a subpart that encourages applicants to implement 
projects that extend highly effective teachers' reach to allow 
effective teachers to serve more students. Given how important it is 
for students, particularly high-need students on which the i3 program 
focuses, to access highly effective teachers, applicants are encouraged 
to propose innovative ways to expand the reach of highly effective 
teachers, without necessarily increasing the workload of such teachers. 
Applicants might consider, for example, using technology-enabled 
learning opportunities to facilitate student access to highly effective 
teachers in subject areas that a school may not offer, or offering 
highly effective teachers relief from some of their administrative 
responsibilities in order to allow them to teach additional students. 
This subpart provides the opportunity for applicants to change the 
operating conditions within schools and districts in ways that 
professionalize teaching and improve outcomes for high-need students. 
It also supports increased efficiencies at the school and district 
levels.
    Second, we include an absolute priority on science, technology, 
engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education. Ensuring that all 
students can access coursework and excel in STEM fields is essential to 
our Nation's economy and future prosperity. An increasing number of 
careers require an understanding of STEM concepts and the application 
of STEM skills and techniques; therefore, this priority addresses this 
growing need. The President's Council of Advisors on Science and 
Technology (PCAST) \2\ has produced reports on K-12 and undergraduate 
STEM education that provide recommendations on increasing achievement 
and postsecondary enrollment in STEM fields. The recommendations 
include cultivating and recruiting STEM teachers, creating STEM-related 
experiences to inspire and engage students, and encouraging 
partnerships among stakeholders in order to diversify pathways to STEM 
careers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ostp/pcast/docsreports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under this priority, the Department seeks to fund projects that 
would address these recommendations by including subparts focusing on 
recruiting individuals with content expertise in STEM into teaching 
roles in public schools and on increasing the high-quality preparation 
or professional development for teachers or educators in STEM subjects.
    Third, we include an absolute priority focused on improving 
academic outcomes for English learners (ELs). School districts across 
the country are experiencing increases in the enrollment of students 
who cannot speak, read, or write English well enough to participate 
meaningfully in educational programs and who therefore need specialized 
support services. Too often, these students' needs are not met, thereby 
inhibiting them from achieving the academic outcomes of which they are 
capable. To address this concern, we include a subpart that focuses on 
projects that would develop, implement, and evaluate new instructional 
approaches and tools to increase the number of ELs successfully 
completing courses in core academic areas.
    Fourth, we include an absolute priority that focuses on the 
effective use of technology. Technology can improve student academic 
outcomes, often rapidly and in unprecedented ways. While there have 
been significant advances in the use of technology in numerous fields, 
the core operations of most schools and LEAs remain untouched. The 
Department's National Education Technology Plan 2010 \3\ highlighted 
the potential of ``connected teaching'' that makes it possible to, for 
example, use online tools to provide customized instruction for 
different learners, such as integrated assessments and continuous 
feedback, or to produce high-quality learning resources that can reach 
learners wherever and whenever needed. To support efforts to enhance 
technology-based student learning, we include three subparts under this 
priority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Found at www.ed.gov/technology/netp-2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The first subpart, which is consistent with the Department's focus 
on helping schools and LEAs personalize learning for their students, 
focuses on projects that provide students and teachers with equitable 
``anytime, anywhere'' access to learning materials and experiences to 
which they otherwise may not have access. There are currently no other 
Department-funded projects that focus explicitly on this area.
    The second subpart, which is consistent with the Department's 
efforts to enhance schools' use of technology to increase student 
achievement, supports projects that develop new methods and resources 
for professional development to improve teachers' abilities to use 
technology.
    The third subpart focuses on integrating technology with rigorous 
college- and career-ready standards to increase student achievement and 
teacher efficacy. Across all three subparts, we are particularly 
interested in supporting projects that use technology to meet students' 
diverse learning needs.
    Finally, we include an absolute priority that focuses on serving 
rural communities. Prior i3 competitions, as well as other Department 
programs, have demonstrated that rural areas confront a plethora of 
challenges as they work to provide students with a high-quality 
education. In this year's competition, applicants applying under

[[Page 25993]]

this priority must address one of the other four absolute priorities 
for the FY 2013 i3 Validation competition, as described above, while 
serving students enrolled in rural LEAs.
    We also include three competitive preference priorities in the FY 
2013 Validation competition. The Department encourages applicants to 
design projects that address these competitive preference priorities in 
their applications if they seek additional points.
    First, we include a competitive preference priority focusing on 
improving cost-effectiveness and productivity. Improvements in 
operational, organizational, and instructional processes and structures 
will enable organizations to achieve the best possible results in the 
most efficient manner. The Department continues to emphasize the 
importance of cost-effectiveness and productivity. The priority 
strengthens that focus by requiring sufficient detail about how the 
applicant aims to modify its processes and structures to improve 
productivity and how the applicant will evaluate whether the proposed 
project is cost-effective when implemented. Further, applicants 
addressing this priority must provide a detailed budget, an examination 
of different types of costs, and a plan to monitor and evaluate cost 
savings, all of which are essential to any reasoned attempt at 
improving productivity.
    Second, we include a competitive preference priority for projects 
that enable the broad adoption of effective practices. A primary goal 
of the i3 program is to identify and support the expansion of effective 
practices. This competitive preference priority rewards applicants that 
will implement systematic methods for doing so. While Validation 
grantees must codify the core elements of its i3-supported practices, 
we are interested in projects that have a particular focus in this 
area. In addition, the education field needs access to strong, reliable 
data to make informed decisions about effective practices that could 
replace less effective practices. This competitive preference priority 
supports strategies that identify key elements of effective practices 
and that capture lessons learned about the implementation of the 
practices. In addition, an applicant addressing this priority must 
commit to implementing the practice in other settings and locations in 
order to ensure that the practice can be successfully replicated.
    Third, in order to expand the reach of the i3 program and encourage 
entities that have not applied previously for an i3 grant, the 
Department includes a competitive preference priority for novice i3 
applicants. A novice i3 applicant is an applicant that has never 
received a grant under the i3 program. An applicant must identify 
whether it is a novice applicant when completing the applicant 
information sheet. Instructions on how to complete the applicant 
information sheet are included in the application package.
    Finally, we include one invitational priority in the FY 2013 
Validation competition. Too many children, particularly those from low-
income families, lack access to high-quality early education and may 
enter school less prepared than their peers for school success. High-
quality early learning programs can improve children's vocabulary, 
improve their social and emotional development so they arrive in school 
ready to learn, and help them stay on track and engaged in early 
elementary grades. To support the Department's early learning efforts, 
we include an invitational priority for projects that, in addition to 
addressing one of i3's absolute priorities, include high-quality early 
learning components to help ensure that children, especially those from 
low-income families, enter kindergarten prepared for success.
    In addition to the changes to the priorities, the 2013 i3 NFP also 
modifies aspects of the i3 program's requirements, definitions, and 
selection criteria. In general, these changes improve clarity and 
strengthen the requirements and design aspects of the i3 program. Most 
notably, we have clarified 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 have revised the evidence 
standards and definitions so that applicants can better understand what 
is required to meet each level of evidence.
    For the FY 2013 Validation competition, applicants must be able to 
show moderate evidence of effectiveness (as defined in this notice) for 
the proposed process, product, strategy, or practice included in their 
applications. Applicants should review the requirements section of this 
notice for instructions on how to demonstrate moderate evidence of 
effectiveness and for information on the other eligibility and program 
requirements.
    The i3 program includes a statutory requirement for a private-
sector match for all i3 grantees. Based on feedback from previous i3 
applicants, we are modifying the process for applicants to secure and 
demonstrate evidence of, the required private-sector match for the FY 
2013 i3 competition. While an applicant must secure 10 percent of its 
Federal grant award to be eligible for an i3 Validation grant, the 
timeframe in which an applicant must secure and submit evidence of the 
required private-sector matching funds is expanded. In the past, the 
highest-rated applicants only had approximately 30 days to secure 100 
percent of their required private-sector matches, which proved 
difficult for both applicants and potential private-sector funders. 
While all of the past highest-rated i3 applicants successfully secured 
their matches and became i3 grantees, the Department is eager to 
improve the matching process to facilitate deeper public-private 
partnerships. Therefore, for the FY 2013 i3 competition, each highest-
rated applicant as identified by the Department following peer review 
of the applications, must submit evidence of 50 percent of the required 
private-sector match prior to the awarding of an i3 grant. An applicant 
must provide evidence of the remaining 50 percent of the required 
private-sector match no later than six months after the project start 
date (i.e., for the FY 2013 competition, six months after January 1, 
2014, or by July 1, 2014). The grant will be terminated if the grantee 
does not secure its private-sector match by the established deadline. 
By decreasing the amount of the required match that must be secured 
before the i3 award can be made, the burden for both applicants and 
private-sector funders will be reduced, which in turn will foster 
improved collaboration.
    This notice also includes selection criteria for applications for 
the FY 2013 Validation competition that are designed to ensure that 
applications selected for funding have the best 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 projects. Applicants should review the 
selection criteria and submission instructions carefully to ensure 
their applications address this year's criteria.
    An entity that submits an application for a Validation grant must 
include the following information in its application: an estimate of 
the number of students to be served by the project; evidence of the 
applicant's ability to implement and appropriately evaluate the 
proposed project; and information about its capacity (i.e., qualified 
personnel, financial resources, and management capacity) to further 
develop and bring the project to a State or regional level, working 
directly or through partners,

[[Page 25994]]

either during or following the grant period, if positive results are 
obtained.
    We recognize that LEAs are not typically responsible for taking 
their practices, strategies, or programs to scale; however, all 
applicants can and should partner with others to disseminate and take 
their effective practices, strategies, and programs to scale.
    The Department will screen applications that are submitted for 
Validation grants in accordance with the requirements in this notice 
and determine which applications meet the eligibility and other 
requirements in the 2013 i3 NFP. Peer reviewers will review all 
applications for Validation grants that are submitted by the 
established deadline.
    Applicants should note, however, that we may screen for eligibility 
at multiple points during the competition process, including before and 
after peer review; applicants that are determined to be ineligible will 
not receive a grant award regardless of peer reviewer scores or 
comments. If we determine that a proposed project in a Validation grant 
application is not supported by moderate evidence of effectiveness, or 
that the applicant does not demonstrate the required prior record of 
improvement, or does not meet any other requirement established in the 
2013 i3 NFP, the application will not be considered for funding.
    Priorities: This competition includes five absolute priorities and 
three competitive preference priorities, from the 2013 i3 NFP. The 
competition also includes one invitational priority.
    Absolute Priorities: For FY 2013 and any subsequent year in which 
we make awards from the list of unfunded applicants from this 
competition, these priorities are absolute priorities. Under 34 CFR 
75.105(c)(3) we consider only applications that meet one of these 
priorities.
    Under the Validation grant competition, each of the five absolute 
priorities constitutes its own funding category. The Secretary intends 
to award grants under each absolute priority for which applications of 
sufficient quality are submitted.
    An applicant for a Validation grant must choose one of the five 
absolute priorities. Applications will be peer reviewed and scored; 
scores will be rank ordered by absolute priority, so an applicant must 
clearly identify the specific absolute priority that the proposed 
project addresses. Applicants that choose to submit an application 
under the absolute priority for Serving Rural Communities must identify 
an additional absolute priority. The peer-reviewed scores for 
applications submitted under the Serving Rural Communities priority 
will be ranked with other applications under the Serving Rural 
Communities priority and not included in the ranking for the additional 
priority that the applicant identifies. This design helps to ensure 
that applicants under the Serving Rural Communities priority receive an 
``apples to apples'' comparison with other rural applicants.
    These priorities are:
    Absolute Priority 1--Improving the Effectiveness of Teachers or 
Principals.
    Projects addressing one of the following priority areas:
    (a) 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.
    (b) 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.
    Absolute Priority 2--Improving Science, Technology, Engineering, 
and Mathematics (STEM) Education.
    Projects addressing one of the following priority areas:
    (a) Developing and implementing new methods and resources for 
recruiting individuals with content expertise in STEM subject areas 
into teaching.
    (b) 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.
    Absolute Priority 3--Improving Academic Outcomes for English 
Learners (ELs).
    Projects addressing the following priority area:
    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.
    Absolute Priority 4--Effective Use of Technology.
    Projects addressing one of the following priority areas:
    (a) 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.
    (b) 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 notice) and to close achievement gaps.
    (c) Integrating technology with the implementation of rigorous 
college- and career-ready standards to increase student achievement (as 
defined in this notice), student engagement, and teacher efficacy, such 
as by providing embedded, real-time assessment and feedback to students 
and teachers.
    Absolute Priority 5--Serving Rural Communities.
    Under this priority, we provide funding to projects addressing one 
of the absolute priorities established for the 2013 Validation i3 
competition and under which the majority of students to be served are 
enrolled in rural local educational agencies (as defined in this 
notice).
    Competitive Preference Priorities: For FY 2013 and any subsequent 
year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applicants from 
this competition, these priorities are competitive preference 
priorities. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i) we award an additional point 
to applications that meet competitive preference priority one, an 
additional two points to applications that meet competitive preference 
priority two, and an additional point to applications that meet 
competitive preference priority three.
    Applicants may address more than one of the competitive preference 
priorities. An applicant must identify in the project narrative section 
of its application the priority or priorities it wishes the Department 
to consider for purposes of earning competitive preference priority 
points.

    Note:  The Department will not review or award points under any 
competitive preference priority that fails to clearly identify the 
competitive preference priority or priorities the applicant wishes 
the Department to consider for purposes of earning competitive 
preference priority points.

    These priorities are:

[[Page 25995]]

    Competitive Preference Priority 1--Improving Cost-Effectiveness and 
Productivity (zero or 1 points).
    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 Competitive Preference Priority 1:
    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.
    Competitive Preference Priority 2--Enabling Broad Adoption of 
Effective Practices (zero or 2 points).
    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.
    Competitive Preference Priority 3--Supporting Novice i3 Applicants 
(zero or 1 point).
    Eligible applicants that have never directly received a grant under 
this program.
    Invitational Priority: For FY 2013 and any subsequent year in which 
we make awards from the list of unfunded applicants from this 
competition, this priority is an invitational priority. Under 34 CFR 
75.105(c)(1) we do not give an application that meets this invitational 
priority a competitive or absolute preference over other applications.
    This priority is:
    Invitational Priority--Supporting High-Quality Early Learning.
    The Secretary encourages applicants to propose projects that 
incorporate high-quality early learning components that are aligned 
with the early learning, elementary and secondary education systems in 
participating schools and help ensure that all children, especially 
those from low-income families, enter kindergarten and ready to 
succeed.
    Definitions:
    These definitions are from the 2013 i3 NFP. We may apply these 
definitions in any year in which this program is in effect.

    Note: This notice invites applications for Validation grants. 
The following definitions apply to the three types of grants under 
the i3 program (i.e., Development, Validation, and Scale-up). 
Therefore, some of the definitions included in this section, 
primarily those related to demonstrations of evidence, may be more 
applicable to applications for Development and Scale-up grants.

    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 notice) 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 notice) that meets 
the What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards with reservations; \4\ 
or
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See What Works Clearinghouse Procedures and Standards 
Handbook (Version 2.1, September 2011), which is available at: 
https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/DocumentSum.aspx?sid=19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (3) Randomized controlled trial (as defined in this notice) that 
meets the What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards with or without 
reservations; \5\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See What Works Clearinghouse Procedures and Standards 
Handbook (Version 2.1, September 2011), which is available at: 
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 notice), 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

[[Page 25996]]

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; \6\ 
found a statistically significant favorable impact on a relevant 
outcome (as defined in this notice) (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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See What Works Clearinghouse Procedures and Standards 
Handbook (Version 2.1, September 2011), which is available at: 
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,\7\ found 
a statistically significant favorable impact on a relevant outcome (as 
defined in this notice) (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 notice) and a multi-site sample (as defined in this 
notice) (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 is available at: 
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 
``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 \8\ 
(they cannot meet What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards without 
reservations).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See What Works Clearinghouse Procedures and Standards 
Handbook (Version 2.1, September 2011), which is available at: 
https://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.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See What Works Clearinghouse Procedures and Standards 
Handbook (Version 2.1, September 2011), which is available at: 
https://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

[[Page 25997]]

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; \10\ 
found a statistically significant favorable impact on a relevant 
outcome (as defined in this notice) (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 notice) and a multi-site sample (as 
defined in this notice). (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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See What Works Clearinghouse Procedures and Standards 
Handbook (Version 2.1, September 2011), which is available at: 
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; \11\ found a statistically significant favorable impact 
on a relevant outcome (as defined in this notice) (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 notice) and a 
multi-site sample (as defined in this notice).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See What Works Clearinghouse Procedures and Standards 
Handbook (Version 2.1, September 2011), which is available at: 
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 
notice).
    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 notice) 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.

    Program Authority:  American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 
2009, Division A, Section 14007, Pub. L. 111-5.

    Applicable Regulations: (a) The Education Department General 
Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) in 34 CFR parts 74, 75, 77, 79, 80, 
81, 82, 84, 86, 97, 98, and 99. (b) The Education Department suspension 
and debarment regulations in 2 CFR part 3485. (c) The notice of final 
priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria for this 
program, published in the Federal Register on March 27, 2013 (78 FR 
18682).

    Note:  The regulations in 34 CFR part 79 apply to all applicants 
except federally recognized Indian tribes.


    Note:  The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 apply to institutions 
of higher education only.

II. Award Information

    Type of Award: Cooperative agreements or discretionary grant 
awards.
    Estimated Available Funds: $134,500,000.
    These estimated available funds are the total available for all 
three types of grants under the i3 program (i.e., Development, 
Validation, and Scale-up).
    Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of the 
applications received, we may make additional awards in FY 2014 or 
later years from the list of unfunded applicants from this competition.
    Estimated Range of Awards:
    Scale-up grants: Up to $20,000,000.
    Validation grants: Up to $12,000,000.
    Development grants: Up to $3,000,000.
    Estimated Average Size of Awards:
    Scale-up grants: $19,000,000.
    Validation grants: $11,500,000.
    Development grants: $3,000,000.
    Estimated Number of Awards:
    Scale-up grants: 0-2 awards.
    Validation grants: 4-8 awards.
    Development grants: 10-20 awards.

    Note:  The Department is not bound by any estimates in this 
notice.

    Project Period: 36-60 months.

III. Eligibility Information

    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 notice) or student growth (as defined 
in this notice), close achievement gaps, decrease dropout rates, 
increase high school graduation rates (as defined in this notice), or 
increase college enrollment and completion rates for high-need students 
(as defined in this notice).
    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--

[[Page 25998]]

    (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 notice) or increased 
recruitment and placement of high-quality teachers or 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:  An entity submitting an application should provide, in 
Appendix C, under ``Other Attachments Form,'' of its application, 
information addressing the eligibility requirements described in 
this section. An applicant must provide, in its application, 
sufficient supporting data or other information to allow the 
Department to determine whether the applicant has met the 
eligibility requirements. If the Department determines that an 
applicant has provided insufficient information in its application, 
the applicant will not have an opportunity to provide additional 
information.


    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 
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 notice.

    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 notice if the 
eligible applicant demonstrates that it will meet the requirement for 
private-sector matching.
    4. Cost Sharing or Matching: 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 at least 10 percent of its Federal grant award. The highest-
rated eligible applicants must submit evidence of 50 percent of the 
required private-sector matching funds following the peer review of 
applications. A Federal i3 award will not be made unless the applicant 
provides adequate evidence that the 50 percent of the required private-
sector match has been committed or the Secretary approves the eligible 
applicant's request to reduce the matching-level requirement. An 
applicant must provide evidence of the remaining 50 percent of required 
private-sector match six months after the project start date.
    The Secretary may consider decreasing the matching requirement on a 
case-by-case basis, and only in the most exceptional circumstances. An 
eligible applicant that anticipates being unable to meet the full 
amount of the private-sector matching requirement must include in its 
application a request that the Secretary reduce the matching-level 
requirement, along with a statement of the basis for the request.

    Note:  An applicant that does not provide a request for a 
reduction of the matching-level requirement in its application may 
not submit that request at a later time.

    5. Other: The Secretary establishes the following requirements for 
the i3 program. These requirements are from the 2013 i3 NFP. We may 
apply these requirements in any year in which this program is in 
effect.
     Evidence Standards: To be eligible for an award, an 
application for a Validation grant must be supported by moderate 
evidence of effectiveness (as defined in this notice). (2013 i3 NFP)

    Note: An applicant should identify up to two study citations to 
be reviewed against WWC Evidence Standards for the purposes of 
meeting the i3 evidence standard requirement. An applicant should 
clearly identify these citations in Appendix D, under the ``Other 
Attachments Form,'' of its application. The Department will not 
review a study citation that an applicant fails to clearly identify 
for review.

    An applicant must either ensure that all evidence is available to 
the Department from publicly available sources and provide links or 
other guidance indicating where it is available; or, in the 
application, include copies of evidence in Appendix D. If the 
Department determines that an applicant has provided insufficient 
information, the applicant will not have an opportunity to provide 
additional information at a later time.
     Funding Categories: An applicant will be considered for an 
award only for the type of i3 grant (i.e., Development, Validation, and 
Scale-up grants) for which it applies. An applicant may not submit an 
application for the same proposed project under more than one type of 
grant. (2013 i3 NFP)
     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. (2013 i3 NFP)
     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. (2013 i3 NFP)
     Evaluation: The grantee must conduct an independent 
evaluation (as defined in this notice) of its project. This evaluation 
must estimate the impact of the i3-supported practice (as

[[Page 25999]]

implemented at the proposed level of scale) on a relevant outcome (as 
defined in this notice). 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.
    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. 
(2013 i3 NFP)
     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. (2013 i3 NFP)
     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. (2013 i3 NFP)

IV. Application and Submission Information

    1. Address to Request Application Package: You can obtain an 
application package via the Internet or from the Education Publications 
Center (ED Pubs). To obtain a copy via the Internet, use the following 
address: https://www2.ed.gov/programs/innovation/. To obtain a 
copy from ED Pubs, write, fax, or call the following: ED Pubs, U.S. 
Department of Education, P.O. Box 22207, Alexandria, VA 22304. 
Telephone, toll free: 1-877-433-7827. FAX: (703) 605-6794.
    If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text 
telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-
877-576-7734.
    You can contact ED Pubs at its Web site, also: www.EDPubs.gov or at 
its email address: edpubs@inet.ed.gov.
    If you request an application from ED Pubs, be sure to identify 
this program or competition as follows: CFDA number 84.411B.
    2. a. Content and Form of Application Submission: Requirements 
concerning the content of an application, together with the forms you 
must submit, are in the application package for this competition.
    Deadline for Notice of Intent to Submit Application: May 23, 2013.
    We will be able to develop a more efficient process for reviewing 
grant applications if we know the approximate number of applicants that 
intend to apply for funding under this competition. Therefore, the 
Secretary strongly encourages each potential applicant to notify us of 
the applicant's intent to submit an application by completing a web-
based form. When completing this form, applicants will provide (1) the 
applicant organization's name and address and (2) the one absolute 
priority the applicant intends to address. Applicants may access this 
form online at https://go.usa.gov/TrVG. Applicants that do not complete 
this form may still submit an application.
    Page Limit: The application narrative (Part III of the application) 
is where you, the applicant, address the selection criteria that 
reviewers use to evaluate your application. Applicants should limit the 
application narrative [Part III] for a Validation application to no 
more than 35 pages. Applicants are also strongly encouraged not to 
include lengthy appendices that contain information that could not be 
included in the narrative. Applicants should use the following 
standards:
     A ``page'' is 8.5'' x 11'', on one side only, with 1'' 
margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.
     Double space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) 
all text in the application narrative, including titles, headings, 
footnotes, quotations, references, and captions.
     Use a font that is either 12 point or larger or no smaller 
than 10 pitch (characters per inch).
     Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, 
Courier New, or Arial.
    The page limit for the application does not apply to Part I, the 
cover sheet; Part II, the budget section, including the narrative 
budget justification; Part IV, the assurances and certifications; or 
the one-page abstract, the resumes, the bibliography, or the letters of 
support of the application. However, the page limit does apply to all 
of the application narrative section [Part III] of the application.
    b. Submission of Proprietary Information:
    Given the types of projects that may be proposed in applications 
for the i3 program, some applications may include proprietary 
information as it relates to confidential commercial information. 
Confidential commercial information is defined as information the 
disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to cause substantial 
competitive harm. Upon submission, applicants should identify any 
information contained in their application that they consider to be 
confidential commercial information. Consistent with the process 
followed in the prior i3 competitions, we plan on posting the project 
narrative section of funded i3 applications on the Department's Web 
site. Identifying proprietary information in the submitted application 
will help facilitate this public disclosure process. Applicants are 
encouraged to identify only the specific information that the applicant 
considers to be proprietary and list the page numbers on which this 
information can be found in the appropriate Appendix section, under 
``Other Attachments Form,'' of their applications. In addition to 
identifying the page number on which that information can be found, 
eligible applicants will assist the Department in making determinations 
on public release of the application by being as specific as possible 
in identifying the information they consider proprietary. Please note 
that, in many instances, identification of entire pages of 
documentation would not be appropriate.
    3. Submission Dates and Times:
    Deadline for Notice of Intent to Submit Application: May 23, 2013.
    Informational Meetings: The i3 program intends to hold meetings 
designed to provide technical assistance to interested applicants for 
all three types of grants. Detailed information regarding these 
meetings will be provided on the i3 Web site at www2.ed.gov/programs/innovation/.
    Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: July 2, 2013.
    Applications for grants under this competition must be submitted 
electronically using the Grants.gov

[[Page 26000]]

Apply site (Grants.gov). For information (including dates and times) 
about how to submit your application electronically, or in paper format 
by mail or hand delivery if you qualify for an exception to the 
electronic submission requirement, please refer to section IV. 7. Other 
Submission Requirements of this notice.
    We do not consider an application that does not comply with the 
deadline requirements.
    Individuals with disabilities who need an accommodation or 
auxiliary aid in connection with the application process should contact 
the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT in section VII 
of this notice. If the Department provides an accommodation or 
auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability in connection with the 
application process, the individual's application remains subject to 
all other requirements and limitations in this notice.
    Deadline for Intergovernmental Review of Applications: September 3, 
2013.
    4. Intergovernmental Review: This competition is subject to 
Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. 
Information about Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs under 
Executive Order 12372 is in the application package for this 
competition.
    5. Funding Restrictions: We reference regulations outlining funding 
restrictions in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice.
    6. Data Universal Numbering System Number, Taxpayer Identification 
Number, Central Contractor Registry, and System for Award Management: 
To do business with the Department of Education, you must--
    a. Have a Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number and a 
Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN);
    b. Register both your DUNS number and TIN with the Central 
Contractor Registry (CCR)--and, after July 24, 2012, with the System 
for Award Management (SAM),the Government's primary registrant 
database;
    c. Provide your DUNS number and TIN on your application; and
    d. Maintain an active CCR or SAM registration with current 
information while your application is under review by the Department 
and, if you are awarded a grant, during the project period.
    You can obtain a DUNS number from Dun and Bradstreet. A DUNS number 
can be created within one business day.
    If you are a corporate entity, agency, institution, or 
organization, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service. 
If you are an individual, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal 
Revenue Service or the Social Security Administration. If you need a 
new TIN, please allow 2-5 weeks for your TIN to become active. If you 
need a new TIN, please allow 2-5 weeks for your TIN to become active.
    The CCR or SAM registration process may take five or more business 
days to complete. If you are currently registered with the CCR, you may 
not need to make any changes. However, please make certain that the TIN 
associated with your DUNS number is correct. Also note that you will 
need to update your registration annually. This may take three or more 
business days to complete. Information about SAM is available at 
SAM.gov.
    In addition, if you are submitting your application via Grants.gov, 
you must (1) be designated by your organization as an Authorized 
Organization Representative (AOR); and (2) register yourself with 
Grants.gov as an AOR. Details on these steps are outlined at the 
following Grants.gov Web page: www.grants.gov/applicants/get_registered.jsp.
    7. Other Submission Requirements:
    Applications for grants under the i3 program must be submitted 
electronically unless you qualify for an exception to this requirement 
in accordance with the instructions in this section.
    a. Electronic Submission of Applications.
    Applications for Validation grants under the i3 program, CFDA 
number 84.411B, must be submitted electronically using the 
Governmentwide Grants.gov Apply site at www.Grants.gov. Through this 
site, you will be able to download a copy of the application package, 
complete it offline, and then upload and submit your application. You 
may not email an electronic copy of a grant application to us.
    We will reject your application if you submit it in paper format 
unless, as described elsewhere in this section, you qualify for one of 
the exceptions to the electronic submission requirement and submit, no 
later than two weeks before the application deadline date, a written 
statement to the Department that you qualify for one of these 
exceptions. Further information regarding calculation of the date that 
is two weeks before the application deadline date is provided later in 
this section under Exception to Electronic Submission Requirement.
    You may access the electronic grant application for the i3 program 
at www.Grants.gov. You must search for the downloadable application 
package for this competition by the CFDA number. Do not include the 
CFDA number's alpha suffix in your search (e.g., search for 84.411, not 
84.411B).
    Please note the following:
     When you enter the Grants.gov site, you will find 
information about submitting an application electronically through the 
site, as well as the hours of operation.
     Applications received by Grants.gov are date and time 
stamped. Your application must be fully uploaded and submitted and must 
be date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system no later than 4:30:00 
p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. Except as 
otherwise noted in this section, we will not accept your application if 
it is received--that is, date and time stamped by the Grants.gov 
system--after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application 
deadline date. We do not consider an application that does not comply 
with the deadline requirements. When we retrieve your application from 
Grants.gov, we will notify you if we are rejecting your application 
because it was date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system after 
4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date.
     The amount of time it can take to upload an application 
will vary depending on a variety of factors, including the size of the 
application and the speed of your Internet connection. Therefore, we 
strongly recommend that you do not wait until the application deadline 
date to begin the submission process through Grants.gov.
     You should review and follow the Education Submission 
Procedures for submitting an application through Grants.gov that are 
included in the application package for this competition to ensure that 
you submit your application in a timely manner to the Grants.gov 
system. You can also find the Education Submission Procedures 
pertaining to Grants.gov under News and Events on the Department's G5 
system home page at www.G5.gov.
     You will not receive additional point value because you 
submit your application in electronic format, nor will we penalize you 
if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission 
requirement, as described elsewhere in this section, and submit your 
application in paper format.
     You must submit all documents electronically, including 
all information you typically provide on the following forms: The 
Application for Federal Assistance (SF 424), the Department of 
Education Supplemental Information for SF 424, Budget Information--Non-

[[Page 26001]]

Construction Programs (ED 524), and all necessary assurances and 
certifications.
     You must upload any narrative sections and all other 
attachments to your application as files in a PDF (Portable Document) 
read-only, non-modifiable format. Do not upload an interactive or 
fillable PDF file. If you upload a file type other than a read-only, 
non-modifiable PDF or submit a password-protected file, we will not 
review that material.
     Your electronic application must comply with any page-
limit requirements described in this notice.
     After you electronically submit your application, you will 
receive from Grants.gov an automatic notification of receipt that 
contains a Grants.gov tracking number. (This notification indicates 
receipt by Grants.gov only, not receipt by the Department.) The 
Department then will retrieve your application from Grants.gov and send 
a second notification to you by email. This second notification 
indicates that the Department has received your application and has 
assigned your application a PR/Award number (an ED-specified 
identifying number unique to your application).
     We may request that you provide us original signatures on 
forms at a later date.
    Application Deadline Date Extension in Case of Technical Issues 
with the Grants.gov System: If you are experiencing problems submitting 
your application through Grants.gov, please contact the Grants.gov 
Support Desk, toll free, at 1-800-518-4726. You must obtain a 
Grants.gov Support Desk Case Number and must keep a record of it.
    If you are prevented from electronically submitting your 
application on the application deadline date because of technical 
problems with the Grants.gov system, we will grant you an extension 
until 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, the following business day to 
enable you to transmit your application electronically or by hand 
delivery. You also may mail your application by following the mailing 
instructions described elsewhere in this notice.
    If you submit an application after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC 
time, on the application deadline date, please contact the person 
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT in section VII of this 
notice and provide an explanation of the technical problem you 
experienced with Grants.gov, along with the Grants.gov Support Desk 
Case Number. We will accept your application if we can confirm that a 
technical problem occurred with the Grants.gov system and that problem 
affected your ability to submit your application by 4:30:00 p.m., 
Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. The Department 
will contact you after a determination is made on whether your 
application will be accepted.

    Note:  The extensions to which we refer in this section apply 
only to the unavailability of, or technical problems with, the 
Grants.gov system. We will not grant you an extension if you failed 
to fully register to submit your application to Grants.gov before 
the application deadline date and time or if the technical problem 
you experienced is unrelated to the Grants.gov system.

    Exception to Electronic Submission Requirement: You qualify for an 
exception to the electronic submission requirement, and may submit your 
application in paper format, if you are unable to submit an application 
through the Grants.gov system because--
     You do not have access to the Internet; or
     You do not have the capacity to upload large documents to 
the Grants.gov system; and
     No later than two weeks before the application deadline 
date (14 calendar days or, if the fourteenth calendar day before the 
application deadline date falls on a Federal holiday, the next business 
day following the Federal holiday), you mail or fax a written statement 
to the Department, explaining which of the two grounds for an exception 
prevent you from using the Internet to submit your application.
    If you mail your written statement to the Department, it must be 
postmarked no later than two weeks before the application deadline 
date. If you fax your written statement to the Department, we must 
receive the faxed statement no later than two weeks before the 
application deadline date.
    Address and mail or fax your statement to: Carol Lyons, U.S. 
Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 4W203, 
Washington, DC 20202-5930. FAX: (202) 205-5631.
    Your paper application must be submitted in accordance with the 
mail or hand delivery instructions described in this notice.
    b. Submission of Paper Applications by Mail.
    If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission 
requirement, you may mail (through the U.S. Postal Service or a 
commercial carrier) your application to the Department. You must mail 
the original and two copies of your application, on or before the 
application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: 
U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: 
(CFDA Number 84.411B), LBJ Basement Level 1, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., 
Washington, DC 20202-4260.
    You must show proof of mailing consisting of one of the following:
    (1) A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark.
    (2) A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the 
U.S. Postal Service.
    (3) A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial 
carrier.
    (4) Any other proof of mailing acceptable to the Secretary of the 
U.S. Department of Education.
    If you mail your application through the U.S. Postal Service, we do 
not accept either of the following as proof of mailing:
    (1) A private metered postmark.
    (2) A mail receipt that is not dated by the U.S. Postal Service.
    If your application is postmarked after the application deadline 
date, we will not consider your application.

    Note:  The U.S. Postal Service does not uniformly provide a 
dated postmark. Before relying on this method, you should check with 
your local post office.

    c. Submission of Paper Applications by Hand Delivery.
    If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission 
requirement, you (or a courier service) may deliver your paper 
application to the Department by hand. You must deliver the original 
and two copies of your application by hand, on or before the 
application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: 
U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: 
(84.411B), 550 12th Street SW., Room 7041, Potomac Center Plaza, 
Washington, DC 20202-4260.
    The Application Control Center accepts hand deliveries daily 
between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, except 
Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays.

    Note for Mail or Hand Delivery of Paper Applications:  If you 
mail or hand deliver your application to the Department--
    (1) You must indicate on the envelope and--if not provided by 
the Department--in Item 11 of the SF 424 the CFDA number, including 
suffix letter, if any, of the competition under which you are 
submitting your application; and
    (2) The Application Control Center will mail to you a 
notification of receipt of your grant application. If you do not 
receive this notification within 15 business days from the 
application deadline date, you should call the U.S. Department of 
Education Application Control Center at (202) 245-6288.


[[Page 26002]]



V. Application Review Information

    1. Selection Criteria: The selection criteria for the Validation 
competition are from the 2013 i3 NFP and are as follows:
    The points assigned to each criterion are indicated in the 
parenthesis next to the criterion. An applicant may earn up to a total 
of 100 points based on the selection criteria for the application.

    Note:  In responding to the selection criteria, applicants 
should keep in mind that peer reviewers may consider only the 
information provided in the written application when scoring and 
commenting on the application. Therefore, applicants should 
structure their applications with the goal of helping peer reviewers 
understand:
     What the applicant is proposing to do, including the 
absolute priority (or, if the applicant has selected the absolute 
priority for Serving Rural Communities, the absolute priorities) 
under which the applicant intends the application to be reviewed;
     How the proposed project will reach a scale that the 
applicant was previously unable to reach, including further testing 
in order to overcome barriers to expansion;
     What the outcomes of the project will be if it is 
successful, including how those outcomes will be evaluated; and
     What procedures are in place for ensuring feedback and 
continuous improvement in the operation of the proposed project.

    Selection Criteria for the Validation Grant Application:
    A. Significance (up to 20 points).
    In determining the significance of the project, the Secretary 
considers the following factors:
    (1) 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.
    (2) The feasibility of national expansion if favorable outcomes are 
achieved.

    Note:  In responding to this criterion, the Secretary encourages 
applicants to explain how the proposed project will address unmet 
demands and enable the applicant to reach the proposed level of 
scale. Applicants are also encouraged to explain how the applicant 
will ensure future scaling given positive results.

    B. Quality of the Project Design (up to 20 points).
    In determining the quality of the proposed project design, the 
Secretary considers 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 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.
    (3) 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.

    Note:  In responding to this criterion, the Secretary encourages 
applicants to address the unmet needs within the context of the 
absolute priority. Additionally, the Secretary encourages applicants 
to identify barriers to scaling and how the proposed project will 
address and overcome these barriers.

    C. Quality of the Management Plan (up to 20 points).
    In determining the quality of the management plan and personnel for 
the proposed project, the Secretary considers 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 or regional (as defined in this notice) during 
the project period.

    Note:  In responding to this criterion, the Secretary encourages 
applicants to address how the project team will evaluate the success 
or challenges of the project and use that feedback to make 
improvements to the project. Applicants are also encouraged to 
explain how they will achieve expanding the project to the national 
or regional level by the end of the grant.

    D. Personnel (up to 10 points).
    In determining the quality and personnel for the proposed project, 
the Secretary considers the following factor:
    (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.

    Note:  In responding to this criterion, the Secretary encourages 
applicants to address the staffing plan and key personnel positions 
for the project, especially for the first year. Applicants are also 
encouraged to address how the team's prior experiences have prepared 
them for implementing the proposed project successfully.

    E. Quality of Project Evaluation (up to 30 points).
    In determining the quality of the project evaluation to be 
conducted, the Secretary considers 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.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See What Works Clearinghouse Procedures and Standards 
Handbook (Version 2.1, September 2011), which is available at: 
https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/DocumentSum.aspx?sid=19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (3) 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.
    (4) 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.
    (5) The extent to which the evaluation plan clearly articulates the 
key components and outcomes of the project, as well as a measureable 
threshold for acceptable implementation.

    Note:  In responding to this criterion, the Secretary encourages 
applicants to describe the key evaluation questions and address how 
the proposed evaluation methodologies will allow the project to 
answer those questions. These methods for evaluation should include 
whether the evaluation would meet What Works Clearinghouse Evidence 
Standards. Further, the Secretary encourages applicants to identify 
how the project will be evaluated at the proposed scale, including a 
description of the proposed sample size and project impacts as well 
as the key components of the proposed project for implementation.

    We encourage eligible applicants to review the following technical 
assistance resources on evaluation:
    (1) What Works Clearinghouse Procedures and Standards Handbook: 
https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/references/

[[Page 26003]]

idocviewer/doc.aspx?docid=19&tocid=1; and
    (2) IES/NCEE Technical Methods papers: https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/tech_methods/.
    2. Review and Selection Process: As described earlier in this 
notice, before making awards, we will screen applications submitted in 
accordance with the requirements in this notice to determine whether 
applications have met eligibility and other requirements. This 
screening process may occur at various stages of the process; 
applicants that are determined ineligible will not receive a grant, 
regardless of peer reviewer scores or comments.
    We will use independent peer reviewers with varied backgrounds and 
professions, including pre-kindergarten-12 teachers and principals, 
college and university educators, researchers and evaluators, social 
entrepreneurs, strategy consultants, grant makers and managers, and 
others with education expertise for the peer review process. All 
reviewers will be thoroughly screened for conflicts of interest to 
ensure a fair and competitive review process.
    Peer reviewers will read, prepare a written evaluation, and score 
the assigned applications, using the selection criteria provided in 
this notice. For Validation grant applications, the Department intends 
to conduct a single tier review. If an eligible applicant has chosen to 
address either of the first two competitive preference priorities 
(Improving Cost-Effectiveness and Productivity or Enabling Broad 
Adoption of Effective Practices) in order to earn competitive 
preference priority points, reviewers will review and score those 
competitive preference priorities. If competitive preference priority 
points are awarded, those points will be included in the eligible 
applicant's overall score. If an eligible applicant has chosen to 
address the last competitive preference priority (Supporting Novice i3 
Applicants) to earn competitive preference priority points, the 
Department will review its list of previous i3 grantees in scoring this 
competitive preference priority.
    We remind potential applicants that in reviewing applications in 
any discretionary grant competition, the Secretary may consider, under 
34 CFR 75.217(d)(3), the past performance of the applicant in carrying 
out a previous award, such as the applicant's use of funds, achievement 
of project objectives, and compliance with grant conditions. The 
Secretary may also consider whether the applicant failed to submit a 
timely performance report or submitted a report of unacceptable 
quality.
    Finally, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary also 
requires various assurances including those applicable to Federal civil 
rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities 
receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department of Education 
(34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
    3. Special Conditions: Under 34 CFR 74.14 and 80.12, the Secretary 
may impose special conditions on a grant if the applicant or grantee is 
not financially stable; has a history of unsatisfactory performance; 
has a financial or other management system that does not meet the 
standards in 34 CFR parts 74 or 80, as applicable; has not fulfilled 
the conditions of a prior grant; or is otherwise not responsible.

VI. Award Administration Information

    1. Award Notices: If your application is successful, we notify your 
U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators and send you a Grant Award 
Notification (GAN); or we may send you an email containing a link to 
access an electronic version of your GAN. We may notify you informally, 
also.
    If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, 
we notify you.
    2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements: We identify 
administrative and national policy requirements in the application 
package and reference these and other requirements in the Applicable 
Regulations section of this notice.
    We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of 
an award in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice and 
include these and other specific conditions in the GAN. The GAN also 
incorporates your approved application as part of your binding 
commitments under the grant.
    3. Reporting: (a) If you apply for a grant under this competition, 
you must ensure that you have in place the necessary processes and 
systems to comply with the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 170 
should you receive funding under the competition. This does not apply 
if you have an exception under 2 CFR 170.110(b).
    (b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final 
performance report, including financial information, as directed by the 
Secretary. If you receive a multi-year award, you must submit an annual 
performance report that provides the most current performance and 
financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 
CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance 
reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, 
please go to www.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/appforms/appforms.html.
    4. Performance Measures: The overall purpose of the i3 program is 
to expand the implementation of, and investment in, innovative 
practices that are demonstrated to have an impact on improving student 
achievement or student growth for high-need students. We have 
established several performance measures for the i3 Validation grants.
    Short-term performance measures: (1) The percentage of grantees 
that reach their annual target number of students as specified in the 
application; (2) the percentage of programs, practices, or strategies 
supported by a Validation grant with ongoing well-designed and 
independent evaluations that will provide evidence of their 
effectiveness at improving student outcomes; (3) the percentage of 
programs, practices, or strategies supported by a Validation grant with 
ongoing evaluations that are providing high-quality implementation data 
and performance feedback that allow for periodic assessment of progress 
toward achieving intended outcomes; and (4) the cost per student 
actually served by the grant.
    Long-term performance measures: (1) The percentage of grantees that 
reach the targeted number of students specified in the application; (2) 
the percentage of programs, practices, or strategies supported by a 
Validation grant that implement a completed well-designed, well-
implemented and independent evaluation that provides evidence of their 
effectiveness at improving student outcomes; (3) the percentage of 
programs, practices, or strategies supported by a Validation grant with 
a completed well-designed, well-implemented and independent evaluation 
that provides information about the key elements and the approach of 
the project so as to facilitate replication or testing in other 
settings; and (4) the cost per student for programs, practices, or 
strategies that were proven to be effective at improving educational 
outcomes for students.
    5. Continuation Awards: In making a continuation award, the 
Secretary may consider, under 34 CFR 75.253, the extent to which a 
grantee has made ``substantial progress toward meeting the objectives 
in its approved application.'' This consideration includes the review 
of a grantee's progress in meeting the targets and projected outcomes 
in its approved application, and whether the grantee has expended funds 
in a manner that is

[[Page 26004]]

consistent with its approved application and budget. In making a 
continuation grant, the Secretary also considers whether the grantee is 
operating in compliance with the assurances in its approved 
application, including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws 
that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving 
Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 
106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).

VII. Agency Contact

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carol Lyons, U.S. Department of 
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 4W203, Washington, DC 20202-
5930. Telephone: (202) 453-7122. FAX: (202) 205-5631 or by email: 
i3@ed.gov.
    If you use a TDD or a TTY, call the FRS, toll free, at 1-800-877-
8339.

VIII. Other Information

    Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this 
document and a copy of the application package in an accessible format 
(e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) on request to 
the program contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT 
in section VII of this notice.
    Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this 
document is the document published in the Federal Register. Free 
Internet access to the official edition of the Federal Register and the 
Code of Federal Regulations is available 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: April 30, 2013.
James H. Shelton, III,
Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and Improvement.
[FR Doc. 2013-10466 Filed 5-2-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P