2015-07213.pdf

16648 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 60 / Monday, March 30, 2015 / Notices surveys of students as well as teachers and other school staff, observations of classrooms, ratings of student behavior, and individual student testing.

EXEMPTIONS CLAIMED FOR THE SYSTEM:

None.

[FR Doc. 2015–07321 Filed 3–27–15; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

[Docket No.: ED–2015–ICCD–0036]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Study on Sustaining the Positive Effects of Preschool

AGENCY: Office of Planning Evaluation and Policy Development (OPEPD), Department of Education (ED).

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), ED is proposing new information collection.

DATES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before May 29, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Comments submitted in response to this notice should be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http:// www.regulations.gov by selecting Docket ID number ED–2015–ICCD–0036 or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. If the regulations.gov site is not available to the public for any reason, ED will temporarily accept comments at ICDocketMgr@ed.gov.

Please note that comments submitted by fax or email and those submitted after the comment period will not be accepted; ED will ONLY accept comments during the comment period in this mailbox when the regulations.gov site is not available. Written requests for information or comments submitted by postal mail or delivery should be addressed to the Director of the Information Collection Clearance Division, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., LBJ, Mailstop L–OM–2–2E319, Room 2E103, Washington, DC 20202.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Erica Lee, (202) 260–1463.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C.

3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public’s reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department’s information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner;

(3) is the estimate of burden accurate;

(4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.

Title of Collection: Study on Sustaining the Positive Effects of Preschool.

OMB Control Number: 1875–NEW.

Type of Review: A new information collection.

Respondents/Affected Public: State, Local and Tribal Governments.

Total Estimated Number of Annual

Responses: 28.

Total Estimated Number of Annual

Burden Hours: 28.

Abstract: Policy and Program Studies

Service, with OPEPD, contracted with the American Institutes for Research (AIR) to conduct five case studies of programs that are designed to sustain the positive effects of preschools. On-site case studies will include interviews with district officials, principals, Kindergarten teachers, preschool teachers, program funders, and program evaluators.

Dated: March 24, 2015.

Kate Mullan, Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Privacy, Information and Records Management Services, Office of Management.

[FR Doc. 2015–07103 Filed 3–27–15; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Applications for New Awards;

Investing in Innovation Fund— Development Grants

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

ACTION: Notice.

Overview Information

Investing in Innovation Fund— Development grants Notice inviting applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2015.

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 84.411P (Development grants Pre-Application) and 84.411C (Development grants Full Application).

Note: In order to receive an Investing in Innovation Fund (i3) Development grant, an entity must submit a pre-application. The pre-application is intended to reduce the burden of submitting a full application for an i3 Development grant. Pre-applications will be reviewed and scored by peer reviewers using the selection criteria designated in this notice. Entities that submit a highly rated pre-application will be invited to submit a full application for a Development grant;

however, any entity that successfully submits a pre-application may choose to submit a full application.

DATES: Pre-Applications Available:

April 1, 2015.

Deadline for Notice of Intent To Submit Pre-Application: April 20, 2015.

Deadline for Transmittal of Pre-applications: April 29, 2015.

Full Applications Available: If you are invited to submit a full application for a Development grant, we will transmit the full application package and instructions using the contact information you provide to us in your pre-application. Other pre-applicants who choose to submit a full application may access these items on the i3 Web site at www2.ed.gov/programs/ innovation/index.html.

Deadline for Transmittal of Full Applications: Entities that submit a highly rated pre-application, as scored by peer reviewers and as identified by the Department, will be invited to submit a full application for a Development grant. Other pre-applicants may choose to submit a full application. The Department will announce on its Web site the deadline date for transmission of full applications and will also communicate this deadline to applicants in the full application package and instructions.

Deadline for Intergovernmental Review: 60 calendar days after the deadline date for transmittal of full applications.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:57 Mar 27, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\30MRN1.SGM 30MRN1m st oc ks til l o n D

S K

4V P

T V

N 1P

R O

D w ith N

O T

IC

E

S http://www.regulations.gov http://www.regulations.gov mailto:ICDocketMgr@ed.gov http://www2.ed.gov/programs/innovation/index.html http://www2.ed.gov/programs/innovation/index.html

16649 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 60 / Monday, March 30, 2015 / Notices

Full Text of Announcement

I. Funding Opportunity Description Purpose of Program: The Investing in

Innovation Fund (i3), established under section 14007 of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), provides funding to support (1) local educational agencies (LEAs), and (2) nonprofit organizations in partnership with (a) one or more LEAs or (b) a consortium of schools. The i3 program is designed to generate and validate solutions to persistent educational challenges and to support the expansion of effective solutions to serve substantially larger numbers of students.

The central design element of the i3 program is its multi-tier structure that links the amount of funding that an applicant may receive to the quality of the evidence supporting the efficacy of the proposed project. Applicants proposing practices supported by limited evidence can receive relatively small grants that support the development and initial evaluation of promising practices and help to identify new solutions to pressing challenges;

applicants proposing practices supported by evidence from rigorous evaluations, such as large randomized controlled trials, can receive sizable grants to support expansion across the country. This structure provides incentives for applicants to build evidence of effectiveness of their proposed projects and to address the barriers to serving more students across schools, districts, and States.

As importantly, all i3 projects are required to generate additional evidence of effectiveness. All i3 grantees must use part of their budgets to conduct independent evaluations (as defined in this notice) of their projects. This ensures that projects funded under the i3 program contribute significantly to improving the information available to practitioners and policymakers about which practices work, for which types of students, and in what contexts.

The Department awards three types of grants under this program:

‘‘Development’’ grants, ‘‘Validation’’ grants, and ‘‘Scale-Up’’ grants. These grants differ in terms of the level of prior evidence of effectiveness required for consideration of funding, the level of scale the funded project should reach, and, consequently, the amount of funding available to support the project.

Development grants provide funding to support the development or testing of practices that are supported by evidence of promise (as defined in this notice) or a strong theory (as defined in this notice) and whose efficacy should be systematically studied. Development grants will support new or substantially more effective practices for addressing widely shared challenges. Development projects are novel and significant nationally, not projects that simply implement existing practices in additional locations or support needs that are primarily local in nature. All Development grantees must evaluate the effectiveness of the project at the level of scale proposed in the application.

This notice invites applications for Development grants only. The Department anticipates publishing notices inviting applications for the other types of i3 grants (Validation and Scale-Up grants) in the spring of 2015.

We remind LEAs of the continuing applicability of the provisions of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) for students who may be served under i3 grants. Any grants in which LEAs participate must be consistent with the rights, protections, and processes established under IDEA for students who are receiving special education and related services or are in the process of being evaluated to determine their eligibility for such services.

As described later in this notice, in connection with making competitive grant awards, an applicant is required, as a condition of receiving assistance under this program, to make civil rights assurances, including an assurance that its program or activity will comply with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended and the Department’s section 504 implementing regulations, which prohibit discrimination on the basis of disability. Regardless of whether a student with disabilities is specifically targeted as a ‘‘high-need student’’ (as defined in this notice) in a particular grant application, recipients are required to comply with all legal nondiscrimination requirements, including, but not limited to the obligation to ensure that students with disabilities are not denied access to the benefits of the recipient’s program because of their disability. The Department also enforces Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), as well as the regulations implementing Title II of the ADA, which prohibit discrimination on the basis of disability by public entities.

Furthermore, Title VI and Title IX of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin, and sex, respectively. On December 2, 2011, the Departments of Education and Justice jointly issued guidance that explains how educational institutions can promote student diversity or avoid racial isolation within the framework of

Title VI (e.g., through consideration of the racial demographics of neighborhoods when drawing assignment zones for schools or through targeted recruiting efforts). The ‘‘Guidance on the Voluntary Use of Race to Achieve Diversity and Avoid Racial Isolation in Elementary and Secondary Schools’’ is available on the Department’s Web site at www.ed.gov/ ocr/docs/guidance-ese-201111.pdf.

Background: Through its competitions, the i3 program strives to improve the academic achievement of high-need students by accelerating the identification of promising solutions to pressing challenges in kindergarten through grade 12 (K–12) education, supporting the evaluation of the efficacy of such solutions, and developing new approaches to scaling effective practices to serve more students. The i3 program aims to build a portfolio of solutions and corresponding evidence regarding different approaches to addressing critical challenges in education. When selecting the priorities for a given competition, the Department considers several factors, including the Department’s policy priorities, the need for new solutions in a particular priority area, the extent of the existing evidence in the field supporting effective practices in a particular priority area, whether other available funding exists for a particular priority area, and the results and lessons learned from funded projects from prior i3 competitions. We note that in previous i3 Development competitions, the Department has included explicit priority areas for supporting students with disabilities and English learners. Most of the projects in i3’s current portfolio are supporting these students in some way.

Our approach for the FY 2015 competition, as further described below, is to focus on projects that are designed to test new or otherwise promising approaches that may impact a broad spectrum of students, including students with disabilities and English learners. Although the FY 2015 i3 Development competition does not include specific priorities for supporting English learners or students with disabilities, we require applicants to serve high-need student populations, and we encourage them to consider ways in which their proposed projects could serve students with disabilities or English learners.

We include five absolute priorities in the FY 2015 Development competition.

We include absolute priorities that are intended to represent persistent challenges in education, new areas of policy focus in which research is scarce, and areas we would like to strengthen

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:57 Mar 27, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\30MRN1.SGM 30MRN1m st oc ks til l o n D

S K

4V P

T V

N 1P

R O

D w ith N

O T

IC

E

S http://www.ed.gov/ocr/docs/guidance-ese-201111.pdf http://www.ed.gov/ocr/docs/guidance-ese-201111.pdf

16650 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 60 / Monday, March 30, 2015 / Notices

1 Langdon, D.; McKittrick, G.; Beede, D.; Khan, B.;

and Doms, M., Office of the Chief Economist, U.S.

Department of Commerce. STEM: Good Jobs Now and for the Future (July 2011). Available at:

http://www.esa.doc.gov/sites/default/files/ stemfinalyjuly14_1.pdf.

2 Chairman’s Staff of the Joint Economic Committee. Calculations using data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Employment Projections: 2010–

20. Table 1.7 Occupational Employment and Job Openings Data, Projected 2010–20, and Worker Characteristics, 2010. February 2012. Available at:

http://bls.gov/emp/. For the purposes of this calculation, STEM occupations are defined as in the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Economics and Statistics Administration report, STEM: Good Jobs Now and for the Future. ESA Issue Brief #03–11.

July 2011.

3 The University of Chicago Consortium of Chicago School Research (June 2012). Teaching Adolescents to Become Learners: The Role of Noncognitive Factors in Shaping School Performance. Available at: https:// ccsr.uchicago.edu/sites/default/files/publications/ Noncognitive%20Report.pdf.

4 Walton, GM; Cohen, GL. (2011) A Brief Social- Belonging Intervention Improves Academic and Health Outcomes of Minority Students. Science, 331 (6023): 1447–1451. and Cohen, G.L., Garcia, J., Purdie-Vaugns, V., Apfel, N., & Brzustoski, P.

(2009). Recursive processes in self-affirmation:

Intervening to close the minority achievement gap.

Science, 324, 400–403.

the current portfolio of i3 grantee projects. Applicants applying under the Serving Rural Communities priority (Absolute Priority 5) must also address one of the other four absolute priorities established for the FY 2015 i3 Development competition, as described below, while serving students enrolled in rural LEAs (as defined in this notice).

We also include one competitive preference priority for novice i3 applicants.

First, we include an absolute priority that asks applicants to increase the number and percentage of highly effective principals. School leaders play an essential role in shaping school cultures, aligning parents and educators around shared goals, and, ultimately, influencing student achievement. Yet preparation programs and support for school leaders are often lacking.

Preparation programs, for example, sometimes lack rigorous screening and selection entry requirements, offer courses that are not aligned with standards of practice, and provide insufficient clinical experiences for candidates. Furthermore, current principals indicate that they are not reliably provided the necessary support and development opportunities that enable them to shape a strong professional community and collective responsibility for student learning. We encourage applicants addressing this priority to consider strategies that improve hiring, support, and retention efforts for principals with the ultimate outcome of improving outcomes for high-need students (as defined in this notice). We think these areas are important to explore further, as the research base on effective practices for training, supporting, and retaining strong leaders is limited.

Second, we include an absolute priority on improving science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education.

Research shows that ensuring that all students can access and excel in STEM fields is essential to our Nation’s economy and future prosperity.1 Careers in STEM fields are growing, as are the skills required to compete for and succeed in these specialized jobs.2 In addition, STEM literacy is beneficial even for those who are not directly involved in STEM professions. For this priority, we seek projects that reach students beyond the boundaries of the traditional school day (e.g., during out-of-school time or extended-day programs) and provide meaningful, real-world STEM learning experiences that will inspire students’ interest in STEM and give them the tools they need to meet the demands of dynamic labor markets.

Third, we include an absolute priority that supports the use of technology in the classroom to support student learning and inform teacher professional development. In this priority, we seek projects that use technological tools that enable the development, visualization, and rapid analysis of data to inform instructional practices and improve learning outcomes. Incorporating real-time data into instructional practice provides students with the individualized support they need to be successful and can also be leveraged to provide educators with targeted support that helps them meet students’ needs.

We seek projects that will examine the effectiveness of various approaches to providing student and teacher support and build the research base.

Fourth, we include an absolute priority on influencing the development of non-cognitive factors. Non-cognitive factors may encompass many skills and behaviors, including but not limited to academic behaviors, academic mindset, perseverance, self-regulation, social and emotional skills, and approaches toward learning strategies. A promising body of research suggests that non-cognitive factors play an important role in students’ academic, career, and life outcomes.3 Notably, some initial interventions focused on enhancing these skills and behaviors are seemingly scalable and lower-cost as compared to more conventional education interventions—and have a disproportionately positive impact on students most in need.4 As interest in this area grows, we think it is important to identify solutions and build evidence to determine effective ways to help students develop such skills and behaviors (e.g., interventions that directly target students, support changes in educators’ instructional practices, or redesign learning environments), as well as how to measure such skills and behaviors in valid and reliable ways, and to demonstrate how improvement in such skills and behaviors affects overall student outcomes.

Fifth, we include an absolute priority that focuses on serving rural communities. Students living in rural communities face unique challenges.

Applicants applying under this priority must also address one of the other four absolute priorities established for the FY 2015 i3 Development competition, as described above, while serving students enrolled in rural LEAs (as defined in this notice).

Finally, in order to expand the reach of the i3 program and encourage entities that have not previously received an i3 grant to apply, the Department includes a competitive preference priority for novice i3 applicants. A novice i3 applicant is an applicant that has never received a grant under the i3 program.

An applicant must identify whether it is a novice applicant when completing the applicant information sheet.

Instructions on how to complete the applicant information sheet are included in the application package.

In summary, applications must address one of the first four absolute priorities for this competition and propose projects designed to implement practices that serve students who are in grades K–12 at some point during the funding period. If an applicant chooses to also address the absolute priority regarding students in rural LEAs, that applicant must also address one of the other four absolute priorities established for the FY 2015 i3 Development competition, as described above, while serving students enrolled in rural LEAs (as defined in this notice). Applicants must be able to demonstrate that the proposed process, product, strategy, or practice included in their applications is supported by either evidence of promise (as defined in this notice) or a strong theory (as defined in this notice).

Applicants should carefully review all of the requirements in the Eligibility Information section of this notice for instructions on how to demonstrate the proposed project is supported by evidence of promise (as defined in this notice) or a strong theory (as defined in

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:57 Mar 27, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\30MRN1.SGM 30MRN1m st oc ks til l o n D

S K

4V P

T V

N 1P

R O

D w ith N

O T

IC

E

S https://ccsr.uchicago.edu/sites/default/files/publications/Noncognitive%20Report.pdf https://ccsr.uchicago.edu/sites/default/files/publications/Noncognitive%20Report.pdf https://ccsr.uchicago.edu/sites/default/files/publications/Noncognitive%20Report.pdf http://www.esa.doc.gov/sites/default/files/stemfinalyjuly14_1.pdf http://www.esa.doc.gov/sites/default/files/stemfinalyjuly14_1.pdf http://bls.gov/emp/

16651 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 60 / Monday, March 30, 2015 / Notices this notice) and for information on the other eligibility and program requirements.

The i3 program includes a statutory requirement for a private-sector match for all i3 grantees. For Development grants, an applicant must obtain matching funds or in-kind donations from the private sector equal to at least 15 percent of its grant award. Each highest-rated applicant, as identified by the Department following peer review of the applications, must submit evidence of at least 50 percent of the required private-sector match prior to the awarding of an i3 grant. An applicant must provide evidence of the remaining 50 percent of the required private-sector match no later than three months after the project start date (i.e., for the FY 2015 competition, three months after January 1, 2016, or by April 1, 2016).

The grant will be terminated if the grantee does not secure its private-sector match by the established deadline.

This notice also includes selection criteria for the FY 2015 Development competition that are designed to ensure that applications selected for funding have the best potential to generate substantial improvements in student achievement (and other key outcomes), and include well-articulated plans for the implementation and evaluation of the proposed projects. Applicants should review the selection criteria and submission instructions carefully to ensure their applications address this year’s criteria.

An entity that submits a full application for a Development grant must include the following information in its application: An estimate of the number of students to be served by the project; evidence of the applicant’s ability to implement and appropriately evaluate the proposed project; and information about its capacity (e.g., management capacity, financial resources, qualified personnel) to implement the project at the proposed level of scale. We recognize that LEAs are not typically responsible for taking their processes, products, strategies, or practices to scale; however, all applicants can and should develop plans to potentially take them to scale, as well as partner with others to disseminate their effective processes, products, strategies, and practices.

The Department will screen applications that are submitted for Development grants in accordance with the requirements in this notice and determine which applications meet eligibility and other requirements. Peer reviewers will review all applications for Development grants that are submitted by the established deadline.

Applicants should note, however, that we may screen for eligibility at multiple points during the competition process, including before and after peer review;

and applicants that are determined to be ineligible will not receive a grant award regardless of peer reviewer scores or comments. If we determine that a Development grant application is not supported by evidence of promise (as defined in this notice) or a strong theory (as defined in this notice), or that the applicant does not demonstrate the required prior record of improvement, or does not meet any other i3 requirement, the application will not be considered for funding.

Priorities: This competition includes five absolute priorities and one competitive preference priority.

Absolute Priorities 2 and 5 and the Competitive Preference Priority are from the notice of final priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria for this program, published in the Federal Register on March 27, 2013 (78 FR 18681) (the ‘‘2013 i3 NFP’’).

Absolute Priorities 1, 3, and 4 are from the Department’s notice of final supplemental priorities and definitions (Supplemental Priorities), published in the Federal Register on December 10, 2014 (79 FR 73425).

Absolute Priorities: For FY 2015 and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applicants from this competition, these priorities are absolute priorities. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(3) we consider only applications that meet one of these priorities.

Under the Development grant competition, each of the five absolute priorities constitutes its own funding category. The Secretary intends to award grants under each absolute priority for which applications of sufficient quality are submitted.

An applicant for a Development grant must choose one of the five absolute priorities to address in its pre-application, and full application, if the applicant is invited to, or chooses to, submit a full application. Both pre-applications and full applications will be peer reviewed and scored; and because scores will be rank ordered by absolute priority, it is essential that an applicant clearly identify the specific absolute priority that the proposed project addresses. It is also important to note that applicants who choose to submit an application under the absolute priority for Serving Rural Communities must identify an additional absolute priority. Regardless, the peer-reviewed scores for applications submitted under the Serving Rural Communities priority will be ranked with other applications under its priority, and not included in the ranking for the additional priority that the applicant identified. This design helps us ensure that applicants under the Serving Rural Communities priority receive an ‘‘apples to apples’’ comparison with other rural applicants.

These priorities are:

Absolute Priority 1— Improving the Effectiveness of Principals

Under this priority, we provide funding to projects that are designed to increase the number and percentage of highly effective principals by implementing practices or strategies that support districts in hiring, evaluating, supporting, and retaining effective principals.

For the purposes of this priority, principal effectiveness must be measured using a high-quality principal evaluation and support system (as defined in this notice).

Absolute Priority 2—Improving Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education

Under this priority, we provide funding to projects that address the following priority area:

Expanding high-quality out-of-school and extended-day activities, including extending the day, week, or year, or before- or after- school, or summer learning programs, that provide students with opportunities for deliberate practice that increase STEM learning, engagement, and expertise.

Absolute Priority 3— Leveraging Technology To Support Instructional Practice and Professional Development

Under this priority, we provide funding to projects that are designed to leverage technology through using data platforms that enable the development, visualization, and rapid analysis of data to inform and improve learning outcomes, while also protecting privacy in accordance with applicable laws.

Absolute Priority 4—Influencing the Development of Non-Cognitive Factors

Under this priority, we provide funding to projects that are designed to improve students’ mastery of non-cognitive skills and behaviors (such as academic behaviors, academic mindset, perseverance, self-regulation, social and emotional skills, and approaches toward learning strategies) and enhance student motivation and engagement in learning.

Absolute Priority 5—Serving Rural Communities

Under this priority, we provide funding to projects that address one of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:57 Mar 27, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\30MRN1.SGM 30MRN1m st oc ks til l o n D

S K

4V P

T V

N 1P

R O

D w ith N

O T

IC

E

S

16652 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 60 / Monday, March 30, 2015 / Notices the absolute priorities established for the 2015 Development i3 competition and under which the majority of students to be served are enrolled in rural local educational agencies (as defined in this notice).

Competitive Preference Priority: For FY 2015 and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applicants from this competition, this priority is a competitive preference priority. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i) we award an additional three points to an application that meets the competitive preference priority.

The priority is:

Competitive Preference Priority— Supporting Novice i3 Applicants (Zero or 3 Points)

Eligible applicants that have never directly received a grant under this program.

Definitions

The definition for ‘‘high-quality principal evaluation and support system’’ is from the Supplemental Priorities. The definitions of ‘‘evidence of promise,’’ ‘‘logic model,’’ ‘‘national level,’’ ‘‘quasi-experimental design study,’’ ‘‘randomized controlled trial,’’ ‘‘regional level,’’ ‘‘relevant outcome,’’ ‘‘strong theory’’ and ‘‘What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards’’ are from 34 CFR 77.1. All other definitions are from the 2013 i3 NFP. We may apply these definitions in any year in which this program is in effect.

Consortium of schools means two or more public elementary or secondary schools acting collaboratively for the purpose of applying for and implementing an i3 grant jointly with an eligible nonprofit organization.

Evidence of promise means there is empirical evidence to support the theoretical linkage(s) between at least one critical component and at least one relevant outcome presented in the logic model for the proposed process, product, strategy, or practice.

Specifically, evidence of promise means the conditions in both paragraphs (i) and (ii) of this definition are met:

(i) There is at least one study that is a—

(A) Correlational study with statistical controls for selection bias;

(B) Quasi-experimental design study that meets the What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards with reservations; or

(C) Randomized controlled trial that meets the What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards with or without reservations.

(ii) The study referenced in paragraph

(i) of this definition found a statistically significant or substantively important (defined as a difference of 0.25 standard deviations or larger) favorable association between at least one critical component and one relevant outcome presented in the logic model for the proposed process, product, strategy, or practice.

High-minority school is defined by a school’s LEA in a manner consistent with the corresponding State’s Teacher Equity Plan, as required by section 1111(b)(8)(C) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA). The applicant must provide, in its i3 application, the definition(s) used.

High-need student means a student at risk of educational failure or otherwise in need of special assistance and support, such as students who are living in poverty, who attend high-minority schools (as defined in this notice), who are far below grade level, who have left school before receiving a regular high school diploma, who are at risk of not graduating with a diploma on time, who are homeless, who are in foster care, who have been incarcerated, who have disabilities, or who are English learners.

High 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.

High-quality principal evaluation and support system means a system that provides for continuous improvement of instruction; differentiates performance using at least three performance levels;

uses multiple valid measures to determine performance levels, including data on Student Growth as a significant factor and other measures of professional practice; evaluates principals on a regular basis; provides clear and timely feedback that identifies needs and guides professional development; is developed with teacher and principal involvement; and is used to inform personnel decisions.

Independent evaluation means that the evaluation is designed and carried out independent of, but in coordination with, any employees of the entities who develop a process, product, strategy, or practice and are implementing it.

Innovation means a process, product, strategy, or practice that improves (or is expected to improve) significantly upon the outcomes reached with status quo options and that can ultimately reach widespread effective usage.

Logic model (also referred to as theory of action) means a well-specified conceptual framework that identifies key components of the proposed process, product, strategy, or practice (i.e., the active ‘‘ingredients’’ that are hypothesized to be critical to achieving the relevant outcomes) and describes the relationships among the key components and outcomes, theoretically and operationally.

National level describes the level of scope or effectiveness of a process, product, strategy, or practice that is able to be effective in a wide variety of communities, including rural and urban areas, as well as with different groups (e.g., economically disadvantaged, racial and ethnic groups, migrant populations, individuals with disabilities, English learners, and individuals of each gender).

Nonprofit organization means an entity that meets the definition of ‘‘nonprofit’’ under 34 CFR 77.1(c), or an institution of higher education as defined by section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended.

Quasi-experimental design study means a study using a design that attempts to approximate an experimental design by identifying a comparison group that is similar to the treatment group in important respects.

These studies, depending on design and implementation, can meet What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards with reservations (but not What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards without reservations).

Randomized controlled trial means a study that employs random assignment of, for example, students, teachers, classrooms, schools, or districts to receive the intervention being evaluated (the treatment group) or not to receive the intervention (the control group). The estimated effectiveness of the intervention is the difference between the average outcomes for the treatment group and for the control group. These studies, depending on design and implementation, can meet What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards without reservations.

Regional level describes the level of scope or effectiveness of a process, product, strategy, or practice that is able to serve a variety of communities within a State or multiple States, including rural and urban areas, as well as with different groups (e.g., economically disadvantaged, racial and ethnic groups, migrant populations, individuals with disabilities, English learners, and individuals of each gender). For an LEA-based project to be considered a

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:57 Mar 27, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\30MRN1.SGM 30MRN1m st oc ks til l o n D

S K

4V P

T V

N 1P

R O

D w ith N

O T

IC

16653 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 60 / Monday, March 30, 2015 / Notices regional-level project, a process, product, strategy, or practice must serve students in more than one LEA, unless the process, product, strategy, or practice is implemented in a State in which the State educational agency is the sole educational agency for all schools.

Relevant outcome means the student outcome(s) (or the ultimate outcome if not related to students) the proposed process, product, strategy or practice is designed to improve; consistent with the specific goals of a program.

Rural local educational agency means a local educational agency (LEA) that is eligible under the Small Rural School Achievement (SRSA) program or the Rural and Low-Income School (RLIS) program authorized under Title VI, Part B of the ESEA. Eligible applicants may determine whether a particular LEA is eligible for these programs by referring to information on the Department’s Web site at www2.ed.gov/nclb/freedom/local/ reap.html.

Strong theory means a rationale for the proposed process, product, strategy, or practice that includes a logic model (as defined in this notice).

Student achievement means—

(a) For grades and subjects in which assessments are required under ESEA section 1111(b)(3): (1) A student’s score on such assessments and may include

(2) other measures of student learning, such as those described in paragraph (b), provided they are rigorous and comparable across schools within an

LEA.

(b) For grades and subjects in which assessments are not required under ESEA section 1111(b)(3): Alternative measures of student learning and performance such as student results on pre-tests, end-of-course tests, and objective performance-based assessments; student learning objectives; student performance on English language proficiency assessments; and other measures of student achievement that are rigorous and comparable across schools within an LEA.

Student growth means the change in student achievement (as defined in this notice) for an individual student between two or more points in time. An applicant may also include other measures that are rigorous and comparable across classrooms.

What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards means the standards set forth in the What Works Clearinghouse Procedures and Standards Handbook (Version 3.0, March 2014), which can be found at the following link: http:// ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/ DocumentSum.aspx?sid=19.

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

Applicable Regulations: (a) EDGAR in 34 CFR parts 75, 77, 79, 81, 82, 84, 86, 97, 98, and 99. (b) The Office of Management and Budget Guidelines to Agencies on Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement) in 2 CFR part 180, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department in 2 CFR part 3485. (c) The Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards in 2 CFR part 200, as adopted and amended in 2 CFR part 3474. (d) 2013 i3 NFP (78 FR 18681). (e) The Supplemental Priorities (79 FR 73425).

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

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

II. Award Information Type of Award: Cooperative agreements or discretionary grants.

Estimated Available Funds:

$112,400,000.

These estimated available funds are the total available for all three types of grants under the i3 program (Development, Validation, and Scale-up grants). Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of applications, we may make additional awards in FY 2016 or later years from the list of unfunded applicants from this competition.

Estimated Range of Awards Development grants: Up to

$3,000,000.

Validation grants: Up to $12,000,000.

Scale-up grants: Up to $20,000,000.

Note: The upper limit of the range of awards (e.g., $3,000,000 for development grants) is referred to as the ‘‘maximum amount of awards’’ in section 5 of this notice.

Estimated Average Size of Awards Development grants: $3,000,000.

Validation grants: $11,500,000.

Scale-up grants: $19,000,000.

Estimated Number of Awards Development grants: 9–11 awards.

Validation grants: 2–4 awards.

Scale-up grants: 0–1 awards.

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

Project Period: 36–60 months.

III. Eligibility Information

1. Innovations that Improve

Achievement for High-Need Students:

All grantees must implement practices that are designed to improve student achievement (as defined in this notice) or student growth (as defined in this notice), close achievement gaps, decrease dropout rates, increase high school graduation rates (as defined in this notice), or increase college enrollment and completion rates for high-need students (as defined in this notice).

2. Innovations that Serve Kindergarten-through-Grade-12 (K–12) Students: All grantees must implement practices that serve students who are in grades K–12 at some point during the funding period. To meet this requirement, projects that serve early learners (i.e., infants, toddlers, or preschoolers) must provide services or supports that extend into kindergarten or later years, and projects that serve postsecondary students must provide services or supports during the secondary grades or earlier.

3. Eligible Applicants: Entities eligible to apply for i3 grants include either of the following:

(a) An LEA.

(b) A partnership between a nonprofit organization and—

(1) One or more LEAs; or

(2) A consortium of schools.

Statutory Eligibility Requirements:

Except as specifically set forth in the Note about Eligibility for an Eligible Applicant that Includes a Nonprofit Organization that follows, to be eligible for an award, an eligible applicant must—

(a)(1) Have significantly closed the achievement gaps between groups of students described in section 1111(b)(2) of the ESEA (economically disadvantaged students, students from major racial and ethnic groups, students with limited English proficiency, students with disabilities); or

(2) Have demonstrated success in significantly increasing student academic achievement for all groups of students described in that section;

(b) Have made significant improvements in other areas, such as high school graduation rates (as defined in this notice) or increased recruitment and placement of high-quality teachers and principals, as demonstrated with meaningful data;

(c) Demonstrate that it has established one or more partnerships with the private sector, which may include philanthropic organizations, and that organizations in the private sector will provide matching funds in order to help bring results to scale; and

(d) In the case of an eligible applicant that includes a nonprofit organization, provide in the application the names of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:57 Mar 27, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\30MRN1.SGM 30MRN1m st oc ks til l o n D

S K

4V P

T V

N 1P

R O

D w ith N

O T

IC

E

S http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/DocumentSum.aspx?sid=19 http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/DocumentSum.aspx?sid=19 http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/DocumentSum.aspx?sid=19 http://www2.ed.gov/nclb/freedom/local/reap.html http://www2.ed.gov/nclb/freedom/local/reap.html

16654 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 60 / Monday, March 30, 2015 / Notices the LEAs with which the nonprofit organization will partner, or the names of the schools in the consortium with which it will partner. If an eligible applicant that includes a nonprofit organization intends to partner with additional LEAs or schools that are not named in the application, it must describe in the application the demographic and other characteristics of these LEAs and schools and the process it will use to select them.

Note: An entity submitting an application should provide, in Appendix C, under ‘‘Other Attachments Form,’’ of its application, information addressing the eligibility requirements described in this section. An applicant must provide, in its application, sufficient supporting data or other information to allow the Department to determine whether the applicant has met the eligibility requirements. Note that in order to address the statutory eligibility requirement above, applicants must provide data that demonstrate a change. In other words, applicants must provide data for at least two points in time when addressing this requirement in Appendix C of their applications. If the Department determines that an applicant has provided insufficient information in its application, the applicant will not have an opportunity to provide additional information.

Note about LEA Eligibility: For purposes of this program, an LEA is an LEA located within one of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.

Note about Eligibility for an Eligible Applicant that Includes a Nonprofit Organization: The authorizing statute specifies that an eligible applicant that includes a nonprofit organization meets the requirements in paragraphs (a) and (b) of the eligibility requirements for this program if the nonprofit organization has a record of significantly improving student achievement, attainment, or retention. For an eligible applicant that includes a nonprofit organization, the nonprofit organization must demonstrate that it has a record of significantly improving student achievement, attainment, or retention through its record of work with an LEA or schools. Therefore, an eligible applicant that includes a nonprofit organization does not necessarily need to include as a partner for its i3 grant an LEA or a consortium of schools that meets the requirements in paragraphs (a) and (b) of the eligibility requirements in this notice.

In addition, the authorizing statute specifies that an eligible applicant that includes a nonprofit organization meets the requirements of paragraph (c) of the eligibility requirements in this notice if the eligible applicant demonstrates that it will meet the requirement for private-sector matching.

4. Cost Sharing or Matching: To be eligible for an award, an applicant must demonstrate that one or more private-sector organizations, which may include philanthropic organizations, will provide matching funds in order to help bring project results to scale. An eligible Development applicant must obtain matching funds, or in-kind donations, equal to at least 15 percent of its Federal grant award. The highest-rated eligible applicants must submit evidence of 50 percent of the required private-sector matching funds following the peer review of applications. A Federal i3 award will not be made unless the applicant provides adequate evidence that the 50 percent of the required private-sector match has been committed or the Secretary approves the eligible applicant’s request to reduce the matching-level requirement. An applicant must provide evidence of the remaining 50 percent of required private-sector match three months after the project start date.

The Secretary may consider decreasing the matching requirement on a case-by-case basis, and only in the most exceptional circumstances. An eligible applicant that anticipates being unable to meet the full amount of the private-sector matching requirement must include in its application a request that the Secretary reduce the matching-level requirement, along with a statement of the basis for the request.

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

5. Other: The Secretary establishes the following requirements for the i3 program. These requirements are from the 2013 i3 NFP. We may apply these requirements in any year in which this program is in effect.

• Evidence Standards: To be eligible for an award, an…