[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 59 (Tuesday, March 27, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18216-18229]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-7362]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Applications for New Awards; Investing in Innovation Fund, Scale-
Up Grants
AGENCY: Office of Innovation and Improvement, Department of Education.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Overview Information
Investing in Innovation Fund, Scale-up Grants, Notice inviting
applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2012.
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 84.411A
(Scale-up grants).
DATES:
Applications Available: March 29, 2012.
Deadline for Notice of Intent to Apply: April 16, 2012.
Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: May 29, 2012.
Deadline for Intergovernmental Review: July 25, 2012.
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 purpose of this program is to provide competitive grants to
applicants with a record of improving student achievement and
attainment in order to expand the implementation of, and investment in,
innovative practices that are demonstrated to have an impact on
improving student achievement or student growth (as defined in this
notice), closing achievement gaps, decreasing dropout rates, increasing
high school graduation rates, or increasing college enrollment and
completion rates.
These grants will (1) allow eligible entities to expand and develop
innovative practices that can serve as models of best practices, (2)
support partnerships between eligible entities and the private sector
and philanthropic community, and (3) support eligible entities in
identifying and documenting best practices that can be shared and taken
to scale based on demonstrated success.
Under this program, the Department awards three types of grants:
``Scale-up'' grants, ``Validation'' grants, and ``Development'' grants.
The three grant types differ in the evidence that an applicant is
required to submit in support of its proposed project; the expectations
for ``scaling up'' successful projects during or after the grant
period, either directly or through partners; and the funding that a
successful applicant is eligible to receive. This notice invites
applications for Scale-up grants. The notice inviting applications for
Validation 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 February 24, 2012 (77 FR 11087)
and is available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-02-24/pdf/2012-4357.pdf.
Scale-up grants provide funding to ``scale up'' practices,
strategies, or programs for which there is strong evidence (as defined
in this notice) that
[[Page 18217]]
the proposed practice, strategy, or program will have a statistically
significant effect on improving student achievement or student growth,
closing achievement gaps, decreasing dropout rates, increasing high
school graduation rates, or increasing college enrollment and
completion rates, and that the effect of implementing the proposed
practice, strategy, or program will be substantial and important. An
applicant for a Scale-up grant may also demonstrate success through an
intermediate variable strongly correlated with these outcomes, such as
teacher or principal effectiveness.
An applicant for a Scale-up grant must estimate the number of
students to be reached by the proposed project and provide evidence of
its capacity to reach the proposed number of students during the course
of the grant. In addition, an applicant for a Scale-up grant must
provide evidence of its capacity (e.g., qualified personnel, financial
resources, management capacity) to scale up to a State, regional, or
national level, working directly or through partners either during or
following the grant period. We recognize that LEAs are not typically
responsible for taking to scale their practices, strategies, or
programs in other LEAs and States. However, all applicants, including
LEAs, can and should partner with others (e.g., State educational
agencies) to disseminate and take to scale their effective practice,
strategy, or program.
The Department will screen applications that are submitted for
Scale-up grants in accordance with the requirements in this notice, and
determine which applications have met the eligibility and other
requirements in this notice. Peer reviewers will review all Scale-up
grant applications that are submitted by the established deadline.
However, if the Department determines that an application for a Scale-
up grant does not meet the definition of strong evidence in this
notice, or any other eligibility requirement, the Department will not
consider the application for funding.
The 2012 i3 Scale-up and Validation competitions again include an
absolute priority focused on innovations that complement the
implementation of high standards and high-quality assessments. There
has been much recent discussion about whether high standards, on their
own, are likely to improve student achievement. As reports such as the
2012 Brown Center Report on American Education \1\ point out, the
implementation of such standards is crucial to any impact that they may
have. This points to the urgent need for practices, strategies, or
programs (referred to elsewhere simply as ``practices'') that will help
teachers, principals, and others apply new standards and use new
assessments in ways that improve student achievement. This need is
particularly time-sensitive, as much of the implementation of these
standards and assessments will occur in the next several years. As
such, practices that demonstrate effectiveness and meet the rigorous
evidence requirements of Scale-up and Validation grants are of
particular interest to the Department.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ http://www.brookings.edu/reports/2012/0216_brown_education_loveless.aspx
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scale-up and Validation grants require ambitious targets for the
expansion of effective practices (called ``scaling up'' in the i3
competition). The Department believes that scaling up effective
practices will improve student outcomes, as more effective practices
replace less effective solutions to the same problems. In both the
Scale-up and Validation grant competitions, the Department is
particularly interested in projects that have a well-articulated plan
for scaling up and a well-defined set of challenges or barriers that
the Scale-up or Validation funding will enable the applicant to
overcome. Using i3 funding to address known barriers to scaling up
allows i3's limited funding to increase the likelihood that the work of
successful projects endures and expands after Federal funding expires.
Finally, rigorous evaluation is an essential component of all i3
grants--particularly for Scale-up and Validation projects. The
Department is especially interested in evaluations that go beyond
addressing whether a practice is effective to identifying and
formalizing the key features of a model and the factors that contribute
to the model's success. In particular, the Department is interested in
better understanding for whom and in what contexts particular practices
are effective. The Department believes that generating this information
is an important way to increase the use of effective practices in
settings across the country. As indicated by the inclusion of cost-
effectiveness as a selection criterion, the Department also encourages
evaluations that produce reliable estimates of the cost-effectiveness
of grantees' practices.
We also 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. Programs proposed in
applications in which LEAs participate must be consistent with the
rights, protections, and processes of IDEA for students who are
receiving special education and related services or are being evaluated
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
students with disabilities are specifically targeted as ``high-need''
students under a particular application for a grant program, recipients
are required to comply with the nondiscrimination requirements of these
laws. Among other things, the nondiscrimination requirements of these
laws include an obligation that recipients ensure that students with
disabilities are not discriminated against because benefits provided to
all students under the recipient's program are inaccessible to students
because of their disability. The Department also enforces Title II of
the Americans with Disabilities Act and Title II implementing
regulations, which prohibit discrimination on the basis of disability
by public entities, with respect to certain public educational
entities.
Changes for the FY 2012 i3 Scale-Up Competition
The absolute priority focused on teacher and principal
effectiveness (Absolute Priority 1) now uses the language from the
Improving the Effectiveness and Distribution of Effective Teachers or
Principals priority established in the May 12, 2011, Federal Register
notice of final supplemental priorities and definitions for
discretionary grant programs. The language in this supplemental
priority offers greater flexibility for projects to improve teacher and
principal effectiveness through targeted strategies that address
components of the teacher and principal pipeline, rather than its
entirety, as required by the Innovations that Support Effective
Teachers and Principals priority in the notice of final priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria for this program,
published in the Federal Register on March 12, 2010 (75 FR 12004-
12071)(2010 i3 NFP).
Priorities: This competition includes five absolute priorities and
five competitive preference priorities. These
[[Page 18218]]
priorities are from the 2010 i3 NFP \2\ and from the notice of final
supplemental priorities and definitions for discretionary grant
programs, published in the Federal Register on December 15, 2010 (75 FR
78486-78511), and corrected on May 12, 2011 (76 FR 27637) (Supplemental
Priorities).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The 2011 notice of final i3 revisions, which was published
in the Federal Register on June 3, 2011 (76 FR 32073), provides the
Secretary with the flexibility to choose one or more of the
priorities established in the 2010 i3 NFP for use in any i3
competition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Absolute Priorities: For FY 2012 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 this competition for Scale-up grants, each of the
five absolute priorities constitutes its own funding category.
An applicant for a Scale-up grant must choose one of the five
absolute priorities contained in this notice and address that priority
in its application. An applicant must provide information on how its
proposed project addresses the selection criteria in the project
narrative section of its application.
These priorities are:
Absolute Priority 1--Improving the Effectiveness and Distribution of
Effective Teachers or Principals
Projects that are designed to address one or more of the following
priority areas:
(a) Increasing the number or percentage of teachers or principals
who are effective or reducing the number or percentage of teachers or
principals who are ineffective, particularly in high-poverty schools
(as defined in this notice) including through such activities as
improving the preparation, recruitment, development, and evaluation of
teachers and principals; implementing performance-based certification
and retention systems; and reforming compensation and advancement
systems.
(b) Increasing the retention, particularly in high-poverty schools
(as defined in this notice), and equitable distribution of teachers or
principals who are effective.
For the purposes of this priority, teacher and principal
effectiveness should be measured using:
(1) Teacher or principal evaluation data, in States or local
educational agencies that have in place a high-quality teacher or
principal evaluation system that takes into account student growth (as
defined in the footnote to this priority) in significant part and uses
multiple measures, that, in the case of teachers, may include
observations for determining teacher effectiveness (such as systems
that meet the criteria for evaluation systems under the Race to the Top
program as described in criterion (D)(2)(ii) of the Race to the Top
notice inviting applications (74 FR 59803)); or
(2) Data that include, in significant part, student achievement or
student growth (as defined in the footnote to this priority) data and
may include multiple measures in States or local educational agencies
that do not have the teacher or principal evaluation systems described
in paragraph (1). (Supplemental Priorities) \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ For purposes of this priority, the Supplemental Priorities
define ``student achievement'' and ``student growth'' as follows:
``Student achievement'' means--(a) For tested grades and
subjects: (1) A student's score on the State's assessments under the
ESEA; and, as appropriate, (2) other measures of student learning,
such as those described in paragraph (b) of this definition,
provided they are rigorous and comparable across schools.
(b) For non-tested grades and subjects: alternative measures of
student learning and performance, such as student scores on pre-
tests and end-of-course tests; student performance on English
language proficiency assessments; and other measures of student
achievement that are rigorous and comparable across schools.
``Student growth'' means the change in student achievement (as
defined in this notice) for an individual student between two or
more points in time. A State may also include other measures that
are rigorous and comparable across classrooms.
Note that the definitions in this footnote apply only to
Absolute Priority 1 and, with respect to the term ``student
achievement,'' to Competitive Preference Priority 10. Elsewhere in
this notice the use of these terms refers to the i3 definitions
established in the 2010 i3 NFP that are provided in the Definitions
section of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Absolute Priority 2--Promoting Science, Technology, Engineering, and
Mathematics (STEM) Education
Under this priority, the Department provides funding to support
projects that are designed to address one or more of the following
areas:
(a) Providing students with increased access to rigorous and
engaging coursework in STEM.
(b) Increasing the number and proportion of students prepared for
postsecondary or graduate study and careers in STEM.
(c) Increasing the opportunities for high-quality preparation of,
or professional development for, teachers or other educators of STEM
subjects.
(d) Increasing the number of individuals from groups traditionally
underrepresented in STEM, including minorities, individuals with
disabilities, and women, who are provided with access to rigorous and
engaging coursework in STEM or who are prepared for postsecondary or
graduate study and careers in STEM.
(e) Increasing the number of individuals from groups traditionally
underrepresented in STEM, including minorities, individuals with
disabilities, and women, who are teachers or educators of STEM subjects
and have increased opportunities for high-quality preparation or
professional development. (Supplemental Priorities)
Absolute Priority 3--Innovations That Complement the Implementation of
High Standards and High-Quality Assessments
Under this priority, the Department provides funding for practices,
strategies, or programs that are designed to support States' efforts to
transition to standards and assessments that measure students' progress
toward college- and career-readiness, including curricular and
instructional practices, strategies, or programs in core academic
subjects (as defined in section 9101(11) of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA)) that are aligned
with high academic content and achievement standards and with high-
quality assessments based on those standards.\4\ Proposed projects may
include, but are not limited to, practices, strategies, or programs
that are designed to: (a) Increase the success of under-represented
student populations in academically rigorous courses and programs (such
as Advanced Placement or International Baccalaureate courses; dual-
enrollment programs; ``early college high schools''; and science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics courses, especially those that
incorporate rigorous and relevant project-, inquiry-, or design-based
contextual learning opportunities); (b) increase the development and
use of formative assessments or interim assessments, or other
performance-based tools and ``metrics'' that are aligned with high
student content and academic achievement standards; or (c) translate
the standards and information from assessments into classroom practices
that meet the needs of all students, including high-need students.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Consistent with the Race to the Top Fund, the Department
interprets the core academic subject of ``science'' under section
9101(11) of the ESEA to include STEM education (science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics), which encompasses a wide range of
disciplines, including computer science.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under this priority, an eligible applicant must propose a project
that is based on standards that are at least as rigorous as its State's
standards. If the
[[Page 18219]]
proposed project is based on standards other than those adopted by the
eligible applicant's State, the applicant must explain how the
standards are aligned with and at least as rigorous as the eligible
applicant's State's standards as well as how the standards differ.
(2010 i3 NFP)
Absolute Priority 4--Innovations That Turn Around Persistently Low-
Performing Schools
Under this priority, the Department provides funding to support
strategies, practices, or programs that are designed to turn around
schools that are in any of the following categories: (a) Persistently
lowest-achieving schools (as defined in the final requirements for the
School Improvement Grants program); \5\ (b) Title I schools that are in
corrective action or restructuring under section 1116 of the ESEA; or
(c) secondary schools (both middle and high schools) eligible for but
not receiving Title I funds that, if receiving Title I funds, would be
in corrective action or restructuring under section 1116 of the ESEA.
These schools \6\ are referred to as Investing in Innovation Fund
Absolute Priority 4 schools.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Under the final requirements for the School Improvement
Grants program, ``persistently lowest-achieving schools'' means, as
determined by the State, (a) any Title I school in improvement,
corrective action, or restructuring that (i) is among the lowest-
achieving five percent of Title I schools in improvement, corrective
action, or restructuring or the lowest-achieving five Title I
schools in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring in the
State, whichever number of schools is greater; or (ii) is a high
school that has had a graduation rate as defined in 34 CFR 200.19(b)
that is less than 60 percent over a number of years; and (b) any
secondary school that is eligible for, but does not receive, Title I
funds that (i) is among the lowest-achieving five percent of
secondary schools or the lowest-achieving five secondary schools in
the State that are eligible for, but do not receive, Title I funds,
whichever number of schools is greater; or (ii) is a high school
that has had a graduation rate as defined in 34 CFR 200.19(b) that
is less than 60 percent over a number of years. See http://www2.ed.gov/programs/sif/faq.html.
\6\ In this context, ``these schools'' refers to the schools
described in (a) through (c) in this paragraph.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed projects must include strategies, practices, or programs
that are designed to turn around Investing in Innovation Fund Absolute
Priority 4 schools through either whole-school reform or targeted
approaches to reform. Applicants addressing this priority must focus on
either:
(a) Whole-school reform, including, but not limited to,
comprehensive interventions to assist, augment, or replace Investing in
Innovation Fund Absolute Priority 4 schools, including the school
turnaround, restart, closure, and transformation models of intervention
supported under the Department's School Improvement Grants program (see
Final Requirements for School Improvement Grants as Amended in January
2010 (January 28, 2010) at http://www2.ed.gov/programs/sif/faq.html);
or
(b) Targeted approaches to reform, including, but not limited to:
(1) Providing more time for students to learn core academic content by
expanding or augmenting the school day, school week, or school year, or
by increasing instructional time for core academic subjects (as defined
in section 9101(11) of the ESEA); (2) integrating ``student supports''
into the school model to address non-academic barriers to student
achievement; or (3) creating multiple pathways for students to earn
regular high school diplomas (e.g., by operating schools that serve the
needs of over-aged, under-credited, or other students with an
exceptional need for support and flexibility pertaining to when they
attend school; awarding credit based on demonstrated evidence of
student competency; and offering dual-enrollment options). (2010 i3
NFP)
Absolute Priority 5--Improving Achievement and High School Graduation
Rates (Rural Local Educational Agencies)
Under this priority, the Department provides funding to support
projects that are designed to address accelerating learning and helping
to improve high school graduation rates (as defined in this notice) and
college enrollment rates for students in rural local educational
agencies (as defined in this notice). (Supplemental Priorities)
Note: Absolute Priority 5 aims to support projects that address
the unique challenges of serving high-need students in rural LEAs
(as defined in this notice). Based on the overall i3 program
requirement, set out in section III.1 of this notice, and as with
all i3 projects, applicants choosing to address this priority must
specify how they will serve high-need students. In addition,
applicants that choose to respond to Absolute Priority 5 may want to
consider identifying all rural LEAs where the project will be
implemented, or explain how the applicant will choose the rural LEAs
where the project will be implemented. Applicants should identify
these rural LEAs on the i3 Applicant Information Sheet and provide
information on the applicant's experience and skills, or the
experience and skills of their partners, in serving high-need
students in rural LEAs in responding to Selection Criterion C.
Quality of the Management Plan and Personnel. Competitive Preference
Priorities: For FY 2012 and any subsequent year in which we make
awards from the list of unfunded applicants from this competition,
these priorities are competitive preference priorities.
Applicants may address more than one of the competitive preference
priorities; however, the Department will review and award points only
for a maximum of two of the competitive preference priorities.
Therefore, 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 (1) 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, or (2) identifies more than
two competitive preference priorities the applicant wishes the
Department to consider for purposes of earning competitive
preference priority points.
These priorities are:
Competitive Preference Priority 6--Innovations for Improving Early
Learning Outcomes (Zero or One Point)
We give competitive preference to applications for projects that
would implement innovative practices, strategies, or programs that are
designed to improve educational outcomes for high-need students who are
young children (birth through 3rd grade) by enhancing the quality of
early learning programs. To meet this priority, applications must focus
on (a) improving young children's school readiness (including social,
emotional, and cognitive readiness) so that children are prepared for
success in core academic subjects (as defined in section 9101(11) of
the ESEA); (b) improving developmental milestones and standards and
aligning them with appropriate outcome measures; and (c) improving
alignment, collaboration, and transitions between early learning
programs that serve children from birth to age three, in preschools,
and in kindergarten through third grade. (2010 i3 NFP)
Competitive Preference Priority 7--Innovations That Support College
Access and Success (Zero or One Point)
We give competitive preference to applications for projects that
would implement innovative practices, strategies, or programs that are
designed to enable kindergarten through grade 12 (K-12) students,
particularly high school students, to successfully prepare for, enter,
and graduate from a two- or four-year college. To meet this priority,
applications must include practices, strategies, or programs for K-12
[[Page 18220]]
students that (a) address students' preparedness and expectations
related to college; (b) help students understand issues of college
affordability and the financial aid and college application processes;
and (c) provide support to students from peers and knowledgeable
adults. (2010 i3 NFP)
Competitive Preference Priority 8--Innovations To Address the Unique
Learning Needs of Students With Disabilities and Limited English
Proficient Students (Zero or One Point)
We give competitive preference to applications for projects that
would implement innovative practices, strategies, or programs that are
designed to address the unique learning needs of students with
disabilities, including those who are assessed based on alternate
academic achievement standards, or the linguistic and academic needs of
limited English proficient students. To meet this priority,
applications must provide for the implementation of particular
practices, strategies, or programs that are designed to improve
academic outcomes, close achievement gaps, and increase college- and
career-readiness, including increasing high school graduation rates (as
defined in this notice), for students with disabilities or limited
English proficient students. (2010 i3 NFP)
Competitive Preference Priority 9--Improving Productivity (Zero or One
Point)
We give competitive preference to applications for projects that
are designed to significantly increase efficiency in the use of time,
staff, money, or other resources while improving student learning or
other educational outcomes (i.e., outcome per unit of resource). Such
projects may include innovative and sustainable uses of technology,
modification of school schedules and teacher compensation systems, use
of open educational resources (as defined in this notice), or other
strategies. (Supplemental Priorities)
Competitive Preference Priority 10--Technology (Zero or One Point)
We give competitive preference to applications for projects that
are designed to improve student achievement \7\ or teacher
effectiveness through the use of high-quality digital tools or
materials, which may include preparing teachers to use the technology
to improve instruction, as well as developing, implementing, or
evaluating digital tools or materials. (Supplemental Priorities)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ For purposes of this priority, the Supplemental Priorities
define student achievement as follows:
``Student achievement'' means--
(a) For tested grades and subjects: (1) A student's score on
the State's assessments under section 1111(b)(3) of the ESEA; and,
as appropriate, (2) other measures of student learning, such as
those described in paragraph (b) of this definition, provided they
are rigorous and comparable across schools; and
(b) For non-tested grades and subjects: alternative measures of
student learning and performance such as student scores on pre-tests
and end-of-course tests; student performance on English language
proficiency assessments; and other measures of student achievement
that are rigorous and comparable across schools.
Note that this definition for student achievement applies only
to Absolute Priority 1 and Competitive Preference Priority 10.
Elsewhere in this notice the use of this term refers to the i3
definition established in the 2010 i3 NFP that is provided in the
Definitions section of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Definitions
These definitions are from the 2010 i3 NFP and the Supplemental
Priorities. We may apply these definitions in any year in which this
program is in effect.
Note: This notice invites applications for Scale-up grants. The
following definitions apply to the three types of grants under the
i3 program (Scale-up, Validation, or Development). Therefore, some
definitions included in this section--primarily those related to the
demonstration of evidence--may be more applicable to applications
for Validation grants.
Definitions Related to Evidence From the 2010 i3 NFP
Carefully matched comparison group design means a type of quasi-
experimental study that attempts to approximate an experimental study.
More specifically, it is a design in which project participants are
matched with non-participants based on key characteristics that are
thought to be related to the outcome. These characteristics include,
but are not limited to: (1) Prior test scores and other measures of
academic achievement (preferably, the same measures that the study will
use to evaluate outcomes for the two groups); (2) demographic
characteristics, such as age, disability, gender, English proficiency,
ethnicity, poverty level, parents' educational attainment, and single-
or two-parent family background; (3) the time period in which the two
groups are studied (e.g., the two groups are children entering
kindergarten in the same year as opposed to sequential years); and (4)
methods used to collect outcome data (e.g., the same test of reading
skills administered in the same way to both groups).
Experimental study means a study that employs random assignment of,
for example, students, teachers, classrooms, schools, or districts to
participate in a project being evaluated (treatment group) or not to
participate in the project (control group). The effect of the project
is the average difference in outcomes between the treatment and control
groups.
Independent evaluation means that the evaluation is designed and
carried out independent of, but in coordination with, any employees of
the entities who develop a practice, strategy, or program and are
implementing it. This independence helps ensure the objectivity of an
evaluation and prevents even the appearance of a conflict of interest.
Interrupted time series design \8\ means a type of quasi-
experimental study in which the outcome of interest is measured
multiple times before and after the treatment for program participants
only. If the program had an impact, the outcomes after treatment will
have a different slope or level from those before treatment. That is,
the series should show an ``interruption'' of the prior situation at
the time when the program was implemented. Adding a comparison group
time series, such as schools not participating in the program or
schools participating in the program in a different geographic area,
substantially increases the reliability of the findings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ A single subject or single case design is an adaptation of
an interrupted time series design that relies on the comparison of
treatment effects on a single subject or group of single subjects.
There is little confidence that findings based on this design would
be the same for other members of the population. In some single
subject designs, treatment reversal or multiple baseline designs are
used to increase internal validity. In a treatment reversal design,
after a pretreatment or baseline outcome measurement is compared
with a post treatment measure, the treatment would then be stopped
for a period of time, a second baseline measure of the outcome would
be taken, followed by a second application of the treatment or a
different treatment. A multiple baseline design addresses concerns
about the effects of normal development, timing of the treatment,
and amount of the treatment with treatment-reversal designs by using
a varying time schedule for introduction of the treatment and/or
treatments of different lengths or intensity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moderate evidence means evidence from previous studies whose
designs can support causal conclusions (i.e., studies with high
internal validity) but have limited generalizability (i.e., moderate
external validity), or studies with high external validity but moderate
internal validity. The following would constitute moderate evidence:
(1) At least one well-designed and well-implemented (as defined in this
notice) experimental or quasi-experimental study (as defined in this
notice) supporting the effectiveness of the
[[Page 18221]]
practice, strategy, or program, with small sample sizes or other
conditions of implementation or analysis that limit generalizability;
(2) at least one well-designed and well-implemented (as defined in this
notice) experimental or quasi-experimental study (as defined in this
notice) that does not demonstrate equivalence between the intervention
and comparison groups at program entry but that has no other major
flaws related to internal validity; or (3) correlational research with
strong statistical controls for selection bias and for discerning the
influence of internal factors.
Quasi-experimental study means an evaluation design that attempts
to approximate an experimental design and can support causal
conclusions (i.e., minimizes threats to internal validity, such as
selection bias, or allows them to be modeled). Well-designed quasi-
experimental studies include carefully matched comparison group designs
(as defined in this notice), interrupted time series designs (as
defined in this notice), or regression discontinuity designs (as
defined in this notice).
Regression discontinuity design study means, in part, a quasi-
experimental study design that closely approximates an experimental
study. In a regression discontinuity design, participants are assigned
to a treatment or comparison group based on a numerical rating or score
of a variable unrelated to the treatment such as the rating of an
application for funding. Another example would be assignment of
eligible students, teachers, classrooms, or schools above a certain
score (``cut score'') to the treatment group and assignment of those
below the score to the comparison group.
Strong evidence means evidence from previous studies whose designs
can support causal conclusions (i.e., studies with high internal
validity), and studies that in total include enough of the range of
participants and settings to support scaling up to the State, regional,
or national level (i.e., studies with high external validity). The
following are examples of strong evidence: (1) more than one well-
designed and well-implemented (as defined in this notice) experimental
study (as defined in this notice) or well-designed and well-implemented
(as defined in this notice) quasi-experimental study (as defined in
this notice) that supports the effectiveness of the practice, strategy,
or program; or (2) one large, well-designed and well-implemented (as
defined in this notice) randomized controlled, multisite trial that
supports the effectiveness of the practice, strategy, or program.
Well-designed and well-implemented means, with respect to an
experimental or quasi-experimental study (as defined in this notice),
that the study meets the What Works Clearinghouse evidence standards,
with or without reservations (see http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/references/idocviewer/doc.aspx?docid=19&tocid=1 and in particular the
description of ``Reasons for Not Meeting Standards'' at http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/references/idocviewer/Doc.docId=19&tocId=4#reasons
\9\).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ The information found at this link when the 2010 i3 NFP was
published can now be found at this link: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/reference_resources/wwc_procedures_v2_1_standards_handbook.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other Definitions From the 2010 i3 NFP
Applicant means the entity that applies for a grant under this
program on behalf of an eligible applicant (i.e., an LEA or a
partnership in accordance with section 14007(a)(1)(B) of the ARRA).
Consortium of schools means two or more public elementary or
secondary schools acting collaboratively for the purpose of applying
for and implementing an Investing in Innovation Fund grant jointly with
an eligible nonprofit organization.
Formative assessment means assessment questions, tools, and
processes that are embedded in instruction and are used by teachers and
students to provide timely feedback for purposes of adjusting
instruction to improve learning.
High-need student means a student at risk of educational failure,
or otherwise in need of special assistance and support, such as
students who are living in poverty, who attend high-minority schools,
who are far below grade level, who are over-age and under-credited, who
have left school before receiving a regular high school diploma, who
are at risk of not graduating with a regular high school diploma on
time, who are homeless, who are in foster care, who have been
incarcerated, who have disabilities, or who are limited English
proficient.
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.
Interim assessment means an assessment that is given at regular and
specified intervals throughout the school year, is designed to evaluate
students' knowledge and skills relative to a specific set of academic
standards, and produces results that can be aggregated (e.g., by
course, grade level, school, or LEA) in order to inform teachers and
administrators at the student, classroom, school, and LEA levels.
National level, as used in reference to a Scale-up grant, describes
a project that is able to be effective in a wide variety of communities
and student populations around the country, including rural and urban
areas, as well as with the different groups of students described in
section 1111(b)(3)(C)(xiii) of the ESEA (i.e., economically
disadvantaged students, students from major racial and ethnic groups,
migrant students, students with disabilities, students with limited
English proficiency, and students of each gender).
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.
Official partner means any of the entities required to be part of a
partnership under section 14007(a)(1)(B) of the ARRA.
Other partner means any entity, other than the applicant and any
official partner, that may be involved in a proposed project.
Regional level, as used in reference to a Scale-up or Validation
grant, describes a project that is able to serve a variety of
communities and student populations within a State or multiple States,
including rural and urban areas, as well as with the different groups
of students described in section 1111(b)(3)(C)(xiii) of the ESEA (i.e.,
economically disadvantaged students, students from major racial and
ethnic groups, migrant students, students with disabilities, students
with limited English proficiency, and students of each gender). To be
considered a regional-level project, a project must serve students in
more than one LEA. The exception to this requirement would be a project
implemented in a State in which the State educational agency is the
sole educational agency for all schools and thus may be considered an
LEA under section 9101(26) of the ESEA. Such a State would meet the
definition of regional for the purposes of this notice.
Regular high school diploma means, consistent with 34 CFR
200.19(b)(1)(iv), the standard high school diploma that is awarded to
students in the State and that is fully aligned with the State's
academic content standards or a higher diploma and does not include a
General
[[Page 18222]]
Education Development (GED) credential, certificate of attendance, or
any alternative award.
Student achievement means--
(a) For tested grades and subjects: (1) A student's score on the
State's assessments under section 1111(b)(3) of the ESEA; and, as
appropriate, (2) other measures of student learning, such as those
described in paragraph (b) of this definition, provided they are
rigorous and comparable across classrooms; and
(b) For non-tested grades and subjects: alternative measures of
student learning and performance such as student scores on pre-tests
and end-of-course tests; student performance on English language
proficiency assessments; and other measures of student achievement that
are rigorous and comparable across classrooms.
Student growth means the change in student achievement data for an
individual student between two or more points in time. Growth may be
measured by a variety of approaches, but any approach used must be
statistically rigorous and based on student achievement data, and may
also include other measures of student learning in order to increase
the construct validity and generalizability of the information.
Definitions From Supplemental Priorities
High-poverty school means a school in which at least 50 percent of
students are eligible for free or reduced-price lunches under the
Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act or in which at least 50
percent of students are from low-income families as determined using
one of the criteria specified under section 1113(a)(5) of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended. For middle
and high schools, eligibility may be calculated on the basis of
comparable data from feeder schools. Eligibility as a high-poverty
school under this definition is determined on the basis of the most
currently available data.
Open educational resources (OER) means teaching, learning, and
research resources that reside in the public domain or have been
released under an intellectual property license that permits their free
use or repurposing by others.
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 http://www2.ed.gov/nclb/freedom/local/reap.html.
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, 85, 86, 97, 98, and 99. (b) The notice of final priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria for this program,
published in the Federal Register on March 12, 2010 (75 FR 12004) (2010
i3 NFP). (c) The notice of final revisions to priorities, requirements,
and selection criteria for this program, published in the Federal
Register on June 3, 2011 (76 FR 32073) (2011 Notice of Final i3
Revisions). (d) The notice of final supplemental priorities and
definitions for Discretionary Grant Programs, published in the Federal
Register on December 15, 2010 (75 FR 78486)), and corrected on May 12,
2011 (76 FR 27637) (Supplemental Priorities).
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.
Estimated Available Funds: $140,452,000.
These estimated available funds are the total amount available for
all three types of grants under the i3 program (Scale-up, Validation,
and Development).
Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of the
applications received, we may make additional awards in FY 2013 or
later years from the list of unfunded applicants from this competition.
Estimated Range of Awards
Scale-up grants: Up to $25,000,000.
Validation grants: Up to $15,000,000.
Development grants: Up to $3,000,000.
Estimated Average Size of Awards
Scale-up grants: $24,000,000.
Validation grants: $14,500,000.
Development grants: $3,000,000.
Estimated Number of Awards
Scale-up grants: 0-2 awards.
Validation grants: 1-5 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. Providing Innovations that Improve Achievement for High-Need
Students: All eligible applicants must implement practices, strategies,
or programs for high-need students (as defined in this notice). (2010
i3 NFP)
2. Eligible Applicants: Entities eligible to apply for i3 grants
include: (a) An LEA or (b) a partnership between a nonprofit
organization and (1) one or more LEAs or (2) a consortium of schools.
An eligible applicant that is a partnership applying under section
14007(a)(1)(B) of the ARRA must designate one of its official partners
(as defined in this notice) to serve as the applicant in accordance
with the Department's regulations governing group applications in 34
CFR 75.127 through 75.129. (2010 i3 NFP)
3. 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--
(1)(A) Have significantly closed the achievement gaps between
groups of students described in section 1111(b)(2) of the ESEA
(economically disadvantaged students, students from major racial and
ethnic groups, students with limited English proficiency, students with
disabilities); or
(B) Have demonstrated success in significantly increasing student
academic achievement for all groups of students described in that
section;
(2) Have made significant improvements in other areas, such as
graduation rates or increased recruitment and placement of high-quality
teachers and principals, as demonstrated with meaningful data;
(3) Demonstrate that it has established one or more partnerships
with the private sector, which may include philanthropic organizations,
and that the private sector will provide matching funds in order to
help bring results to scale; and
(4) In the case of an eligible applicant that includes a nonprofit
organization, provide in the application the names of the LEAs with
which the nonprofit organization will partner, or the names of the
schools in the consortium with which it will partner. If an eligible
applicant that includes a nonprofit organization intends to partner
with additional LEAs or schools that are not named in the application,
it must describe in the application the demographic and other
characteristics
[[Page 18223]]
of these LEAs and schools and the process it will use to select them as
either official or other partners. An applicant must identify its
specific partners before a grant award will be made. (2010 i3 NFP)
Note: Applicants should provide information addressing these
eligibility requirements in Appendix C, under ``Other Attachments
Form,'' of their applications. An applicant must provide sufficient
supporting data or other information to allow the Department to
determine whether the applicant has met these 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. (2010 i3 NFP)
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 is
considered to have met the requirements in paragraphs (1) and (2) of
the eligibility requirements for this program if the nonprofit
organization has a record of significantly improving student
achievement, attainment, or retention. For an eligible applicant
that includes a nonprofit organization, the nonprofit organization
must demonstrate that it has a record of significantly improving
student achievement, attainment, or retention through its record of
work with an LEA or schools. Therefore, an eligible applicant that
includes a nonprofit organization does not necessarily need to
include as a partner for its Investing in Innovation Fund grant an
LEA or a consortium of schools that meets the requirements in
paragraphs (1) and (2).
In addition, the authorizing statute (as amended) specifies that an
eligible applicant that includes a nonprofit organization is considered
to have met the requirements of paragraph (3) of the eligibility
requirements in this notice if the eligible applicant demonstrates that
it will meet the requirement relating to private-sector matching. (2010
i3 NFP)
4. Cost Sharing or Matching: To be eligible for an award, an
eligible applicant must demonstrate that it has established one or more
partnerships with an entity or organization in the private sector,
which may include philanthropic organizations, and that the entity or
organization in the private sector will provide matching funds in order
to help bring project results to scale. An eligible applicant must
obtain matching funds or in-kind donations equal to at least 5 percent
of its grant award.\10\ Selected eligible applicants must submit
evidence of the full amount of private-sector matching funds following
the peer review of applications. An award will not be made unless the
applicant provides adequate evidence that the full amount of the
private-sector match has been committed or the Secretary approves the
eligible applicant's request to reduce the matching-level requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ The 2011 Notice of Final i3 Revisions modified the ``Cost
Sharing and Matching'' requirement established in the 2010 i3 NFP by
providing that the Secretary will specify the amount of required
private-sector matching funds or in-kind donations in the notice
inviting applications for the specific i3 competition. For this
competition, the Secretary establishes a matching requirement of at
least 5 percent of the grant award.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Secretary may consider decreasing the matching requirement in
the most exceptional circumstances, on a case-by-case basis. 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 to the Secretary to reduce the matching-level
requirement, along with a statement of the basis for the request. (2010
i3 NFP, as revised by the 2011 Notice of Final i3 Revisions)
5. Other: The Secretary establishes the following requirements for
the i3 program. These requirements are from the 2010 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 Scale-up grant must be supported by strong evidence
(as defined in this notice). (2010 i3 NFP)
Note: Applicants should provide information addressing the
required evidence standards in Appendix D, under ``Other Attachments
Form,'' of its application. 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 include copies of evidence in Appendix D of the
application. If the Department determines that an applicant has
provided insufficient information, the applicant will not have an
opportunity to provide additional information to support its
application.
Funding Categories: An applicant must state in its
application whether it is applying for a Scale-up, Validation, or
Development grant. An applicant may not submit an application for the
same proposed project under more than one type of grant. An applicant
will be considered for an award only for the type of grant for which it
applies. (2010 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
may make subgrants to one or more official partners (as defined in this
notice). (2010 i3 NFP)
Limits 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 more
than $55 million in new grant awards under the i3 program in a single
year. (2010 i3 NFP, as revised by the 2011 Notice of Final i3
Revisions)
Evaluation: A grantee must comply with the requirements of
any evaluation of the program conducted by the Department. In addition,
the grantee is required to conduct an independent evaluation (as
defined in this notice) of its project and must agree, along with its
independent evaluator, to cooperate with any technical assistance
provided by the Department or its contractor. The purpose of this
technical assistance will be to ensure that the evaluations are of the
highest quality and to encourage commonality in evaluation approaches
across funded projects where such commonality is feasible and useful.
Finally, the grantee must make broadly available through formal (e.g.,
peer-reviewed journals) or informal (e.g., newsletters) mechanisms, and
in print or electronically, the results of any evaluations it conducts
of its funded activities. For Scale-up and Validation grants, the
grantee must also ensure the data from their evaluations are made
available to third-party researchers consistent with applicable privacy
requirements. (2010 i3 NFP)
Participation in ``Communities of Practice'': Grantees are
required to 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. Establishment of communities of practice under the i3 program
will enable grantees to meet, discuss, and collaborate with each other
regarding grantee projects. (2010 i3 NFP)
IV. Application and Submission Information
1. Submission of Proprietary Information
Given the types of projects that may be proposed in applications
for the i3
[[Page 18224]]
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 two i3
competitions, we plan on posting the project narrative section of
funded Scale-up 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 Appendix I, 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.
2. 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: http://www2.ed.gov/programs/innovation/index.html. 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 1-800-877-8339.
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 84.411A.
Individuals with disabilities can obtain a copy of the application
package in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape,
or compact disc) by contacting the person or team listed under
Accessible Format in section VIII of this notice.
3. Content and Form of Application Submission
Requirements concerning the content of an application, together
with the forms you must submit, are in the application package for this
competition. Notice of Intent to Apply: April 16, 2012.
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 for funding by
completing a Web-based form. When completing this form, applicants will
provide (1) the applicant organization's name and address, (2) the type
of grant for which the applicant intends to apply, (3) the one absolute
priority the applicant intends to address, and (4) a maximum of two of
the competitive preference priorities the applicant wishes the
Department to consider for purposes of earning the competitive
preference priority points. Applicants may access this form online at
http://go.usa.gov/PVI. Applicants that do not complete this form may
still apply for funding.
Page Limit: The application narrative (Part III of the application)
is where you, the applicant, address the selection criteria that
reviewers use to evaluate your application. Applicants should limit the
application narrative [Part III] for a Scale-up application to no more
than 50 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, and references.
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 recommended page limit does not apply to Part I, the cover
sheet; Part II, the budget section, including the narrative budget
justification; Part IV, the assurances and certifications; or the one-
page abstract, the resumes, the bibliography, or the letters of
support. However, the recommended page limit does apply to all of the
application narrative section [Part III].
4. Submission Dates and Times
Applications Available: March 29, 2012.
Deadline for Notice of Intent to Apply: April 16, 2012.
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 http://www2.ed.gov/programs/innovation/index.html.
Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: May 29, 2012.
Applications for grants under this competition must be submitted
electronically using the Grants.gov 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. 8. 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: July 25, 2012.
5. Intergovernmental Review: This competition is subject to
Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79.
Information about Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs under
Executive Order 12372 is in the application package for this
competition.
6. Funding Restrictions: We reference regulations outlining funding
restrictions in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice.
7. Data Universal Numbering System Number, Taxpayer Identification
Number, and Central Contractor Registry: To do business with the
Department of Education, you must--
[[Page 18225]]
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), the Government's primary registrant
database;
c. Provide your DUNS number and TIN on your application; and
d. Maintain an active CCR 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.
The CCR 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 CCR registration on an annual basis. This may take
three or more business days to complete.
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.
8. Other Submission Requirements
Applications for grants under this competition must be submitted
electronically unless you qualify for an exception to this requirement
in accordance with the instructions in this section.
a. Electronic Submission of Applications
Applications for grants under the i3 program, CFDA number 84.411A
(Scale-up grants), 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 applications 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 (i.e., search for 84.411, not
84.411A).
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
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 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 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 http://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-
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 p.m., Washington, DC time, the following business day to
enable you to transmit
[[Page 18226]]
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 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 that problem affected your
ability to submit your application by 4:30 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 84.411A), LBJ Basement Level 1, 400 Maryland Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20202-4260.
You must show proof of mailing consisting of one of the following:
(1) A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark.
(2) A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the
U.S. Postal Service.
(3) A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial
carrier.
(4) Any other proof of mailing acceptable to the Secretary of the
U.S. Department of Education.
If you mail your application through the U.S. Postal Service, we do
not accept either of the following as proof of mailing:
(1) A private metered postmark.
(2) A mail receipt that is not dated by the U.S. Postal Service.
If your application is postmarked after the application deadline
date, we will not consider your application.
Note: The U.S. Postal Service does not uniformly provide a
dated postmark. Before relying on this method, you should check with
your local post office.
c. Submission of Paper Applications by Hand Delivery
If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission
requirement, you (or a courier service) may deliver your paper
application to the Department by hand. You must deliver the original
and two copies of your application by hand, on or before the
application deadline date, to the Department at the following address:
U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention:
(CFDA Number 84.411A), 550 12th Street SW., Room 7041, Potomac Center
Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-4260.
The Application Control Center accepts hand deliveries daily between 8
a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, except Saturdays, Sundays, and
Federal holidays.
Note for Mail or Hand Delivery of Paper Applications: If you
mail or hand deliver your application to the Department--
(1) You must indicate on the envelope and--if not provided by
the Department--in Item 11 of the SF 424 the CFDA number, including
suffix letter, if any, of the competition under which you are
submitting your application; and
(2) The Application Control Center will mail to you a
notification of receipt of your grant application. If you do not
receive this notification within 15 business days from the
application deadline date, you should call the U.S. Department of
Education Application Control Center at (202) 245-6288.
V. Application Review Information
1. Selection Criteria: The selection criteria for this competition
are from the 2010 i3 NFP and from 34 CFR 75.210.\11\ The points
assigned to each criterion are indicated in the parenthesis next to the
criterion. Applicants may earn up to a total of 100 points.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ The 2011 Notice of Final i3 Revisions establishes that the
Secretary may use one or more of the selection criteria established
in the 2010 i3 NFP, any of the selection criteria in 34 CFR 75.210,
criteria based on the statutory requirements for the i3 program in
accordance with 34 CFR 75.209, or any combination of these when
establishing selection criteria for each particular type of grant
(Scale-up, Validation, and Development) in an i3 competition.
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 draft their responses
with the goal of helping peer reviewers understand:
What the applicant is proposing to do, including the
single Absolute Priority under which the applicant intends the
application to be reviewed;
How the proposed project will improve upon existing
products, processes, or strategies for addressing similar needs;
What the outcomes of the project will be if it is
successful; and
What the proposed project will cost and why the
proposed project is an effective use of funds.
The selection criteria for the Scale-up grant competition are as
follows:
A. Quality of the Project Design (up to 30 Points)
The Secretary considers the quality of the project design of the
proposed project.
In determining the quality of the project design, the Secretary
considers the following factors:
(1) The extent to which the proposed project has a clear set of
goals and an explicit strategy, with actions that are
[[Page 18227]]
(a) aligned with the priorities the eligible applicant is seeking to
meet, and (b) expected to result in achieving the goals, objectives,
and outcomes of the proposed project. (2010 i3 NFP)
(2) The potential and planning for the incorporation of project
purposes, activities, or benefits into the ongoing work of the eligible
applicant and any other partners at the end of the Scale-up grant.
(2010 i3 NFP)
(3) The extent to which the costs are reasonable in relation to the
objectives, design, and potential significance of the proposed project.
(34 CFR 75.210)
(4) The eligible applicant's estimate of the cost of the proposed
project, which includes the start-up and operating costs per student
per year (including indirect costs) for reaching the total number of
students proposed to be served by the project. The eligible applicant
must include an estimate of the costs for the eligible applicant or
others (including other partners) to reach 100,000, 500,000, and
1,000,000 students. (2010 i3 NFP)
Note: The Secretary considers cost estimates both (a) to assess
the reasonableness of the costs relative to the objectives, design,
and potential significance for the total number of students to be
served by the proposed project, which is determined by the eligible
applicant, and (b) to understand the possible costs for the eligible
applicant or others (including other partners) to reach the scaling
targets of 100,000, 500,000, and 1,000,000 students for Scale-up
grants. An eligible applicant is free to propose the number of
students it will serve under its project, and is expected to reach
that number of students by the end of the grant period. The scaling
targets, in contrast, are theoretical and allow peer reviewers to
assess the cost-effectiveness generally of proposed projects,
particularly in cases where an initial investment may be required to
support projects that operate at reduced cost in the future, whether
implemented by the eligible applicant or any other entity. Grantees
are not required to reach these numbers during the grant period.
Note: In responding to this criterion, the Secretary encourages
the applicant to address what the applicant proposes to do for the
proposed project, how the applicant will do it, what the project
costs will be, why the project costs will be sufficient and
reasonable to achieve the goals, objectives, and outcomes of the
proposed project, and how the project costs would change if the
project were scaled to serve a larger number of students (i.e.,
which of the costs are fixed regardless of how many students are
served and which of the costs are variable and increase as more
students are served). Additionally, an applicant may wish to address
why the project costs are reasonable compared to what the project
will accomplish, particularly in comparison to similar projects or
alternative ways of achieving similar outcomes.
B. Significance (Up to 25 Points)
The Secretary considers the significance of the project.
In determining the significance of the project, the Secretary
considers the following factors:
(1) The extent to which the proposed project represents an
exceptional approach to the priority or priorities established for the
competition.
(2) The extent to which the services to be provided by the proposed
project reflect up-to-date knowledge from research and effective
practice. (34 CFR 75.210)
(3) The importance and magnitude of the effect expected to be
obtained by the proposed project, including the extent to which the
project will substantially and measurably improve student achievement
or student growth, close achievement gaps, decrease dropout rates,
increase high school graduation rates, or increase college enrollment
and completion rates. The evidence in support of the importance and
magnitude of the effect would be the research-based evidence provided
by the eligible applicant to support the proposed project. (2010 i3
NFP)
Note Linking Magnitude of Effect to Presented Evidence: The
Secretary notes that the research evidence provided by the eligible
applicant is relevant to addressing the third factor of Selection
Criterion B, which concerns the importance and/or magnitude of the
expected impact of the proposed project.
Note: In responding to this criterion, the Secretary encourages
the applicant to explain what is exceptional about how the proposed
project addresses the absolute priority under which the applicant is
submitting its i3 application. Also, the Secretary encourages the
applicant to explain how the proposed project reflects up-to-date
knowledge from research and effective practice. Additionally, the
Secretary encourages the applicant to quantify the potential impact
of the proposed project, if successful, and the extent to which the
project will measurably improve student achievement or student
growth, close achievement gaps, decrease dropout rates, increase
high school graduation rates, or increase college enrollment and
completion rates.
C. Quality of the Management Plan and Personnel (Up to 25 Points)
The Secretary considers the quality of the management plan and
personnel for the proposed project.
In determining the quality of the management plan and personnel for
the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(1) The adequacy of the management plan to achieve the objectives
of the proposed project on time and within budget, including clearly
defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing
project tasks, as well as tasks related to the sustainability and
scalability of the proposed project. (2010 i3 NFP)
(2) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience,
of the project director and key project personnel, especially in
managing large, complex, and rapidly growing projects. (2010 i3 NFP)
(3) The eligible applicant's capacity (e.g., in terms of qualified
personnel, financial resources, or management capacity) to bring the
proposed project to scale on a national, regional, or State level
working directly, or through partners, either during or following the
end of the grant period. (2010 i3 NFP)
Note: In responding to this criterion, the Secretary encourages
applicants to address how the team's prior experiences have prepared
them for implementing the proposed project successfully. In
addition, the Secretary encourages applicants to identify the
resources that will be required to bring the project to the
appropriate level of scale, and whether the applicants possess those
resources or how they will secure them.
D. Quality of Project Evaluation (Up to 20 Points)
The Secretary considers the quality of the project evaluation.
In determining the quality of the project evaluation to be
conducted, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(1) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will include a
well-designed experimental study or, if a well-designed experimental
study of the project is not possible, the extent to which the methods
of evaluation will include a well-designed quasi-experimental study.
(2010 i3 NFP)
(2) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will provide
high-quality implementation data and performance feedback, and permit
periodic assessment of progress toward achieving intended outcomes.
(2010 i3 NFP)
(3) The extent to which the evaluation will provide sufficient
information about the key elements and approach of the project so as to
facilitate replication or testing in other settings. (2010 i3 NFP)
(4) The extent to which the proposed project plan includes
sufficient resources to carry out the project evaluation effectively.
(2010 i3 NFP)
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
[[Page 18228]]
questions. This may include whether the evaluation would produce
information about the effectiveness of the proposed project with the
specific student populations being served with grant funds. Further,
the Secretary encourages applicants to identify what implementation
and performance data the evaluation will generate and how the
evaluation will provide data during the period to help indicate
whether the project is on track to meet its goals. Finally,
applicants should address whether the budget allocates sufficient
resources to support the planned evaluation.
Note: We encourage eligible applicants to review the following
technical assistance resources on evaluation: (1) What Works
Clearinghouse Procedures and Standards Handbook: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/references/idocviewer/doc.aspx?docid=19&tocid=1; and (2)
IES/NCEE Technical Methods papers: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/tech_methods/.
2. Review and Selection Process: The Department will screen
applications submitted in accordance with the requirements in this
notice, and will determine which applications have met eligibility and
other statutory requirements.
The Department will use independent peer reviewers with various
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. The Department will
thoroughly screen all reviewers for conflicts of interest to ensure a
fair and competitive review process.
Reviewers will read, prepare a written evaluation, and score the
applications assigned to their panel, using the selection criteria
provided in this notice. For Scale-up grant applications, the
Department intends to conduct a single tier review and peer reviewers
will review and score all eligible Scale-up applications using the
selection criteria provided in this notice. If eligible applicants have
chosen to address the competitive preference priorities (a maximum of
two) for purposes of earning competitive preference priority points,
reviewers will review and score those competitive preference
priorities. If competitive preference priority points are awarded,
those points will be added to the eligible applicant's score.
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.
In addition, 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). 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 Scale-up grants.
Short-term performance measures: (1) The percentage of grantees
that reach their annual target number of students as specified in the
application; (2) the percentage of programs, practices, or strategies
supported by a Scale-up grant with ongoing well-designed and
independent evaluations that will provide evidence of their
effectiveness at improving student outcomes at scale; (3) the
percentage of programs, practices, or strategies supported by a Scale-
up grant with ongoing evaluations that are providing high-quality
implementation data and performance feedback that allow for periodic
assessment of progress toward achieving intended outcomes; and (4) the
cost per student actually served by the grant.
Long-term performance measures: (1) The percentage of grantees that
reach the targeted number of students specified in the application; (2)
the percentage of programs, practices, or strategies supported by a
Scale-up grant that implement a completed well-designed, well-
implemented and independent evaluation that provides evidence of their
effectiveness at improving student outcomes at scale; (3) the
percentage of programs, practices, or strategies supported by a Scale-
up grant with a completed well-designed, 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
[[Page 18229]]
projected outcomes in its approved application, and whether the grantee
has expended funds in a manner that is 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. Fax: (202) 205-5631. Telephone: (202) 453-7122 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: March 21, 2012.
James H. Shelton, III,
Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and Improvement.
[FR Doc. 2012-7362 Filed 3-26-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P