2015-13673.pdf

32229 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 108 / Friday, June 5, 2015 / Notices

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.

SUMMARY:

Overview Information:

Investing in Innovation Fund—Scale-up grants.

Notice inviting applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2015.

Catalog of Federal Domestic

Assistance (CFDA) Number: 84.411A (Scale-up grants).

DATES:

Applications Available: June 8, 2015.

Deadline for Notice of Intent to Apply:

June 25, 2015.

Deadline for Transmittal of

Applications: August 4, 2015.

Deadline for Intergovernmental

Review: October 5, 2015.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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.

This notice invites applications for Scale-up grants only. 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 March 30, 2015 (80 FR 16648) and is available at http:// www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-03-30/ pdf/2015-07213.pdf.

Scale-up grants provide funding to support expansion of projects supported by strong evidence of effectiveness (as defined in this notice) to the national level (as defined in this notice). In addition to improving outcomes for an increasing number of high-need students, Scale-up grants will generate information about the students and contexts for which a practice is most effective. We expect that Scale-up grants will increase practitioners’ and policymakers’ understanding of strategies that allow organizations or practices to expand quickly and efficiently while maintaining their effectiveness.

All Scale-up grantees must evaluate the effectiveness of the i3-supported practice that the project implements and expands. This is particularly important in instances in which the proposed project includes changing the i3-supported practice in order to more efficiently reach the proposed level of scale (for example, by developing technology-enabled training tools). The evaluation of a Scale-up grant must identify the core elements of, and codify, the i3-supported practice that the project implements in order to support adoption or replication by other entities. We also expect that evaluations of Scale-up grants will be conducted in a variety of contexts and for a variety of students in order to determine the context(s) and population(s) for which the i3-supported practice is most effective.

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.

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color and national origin. Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex. 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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:15 Jun 04, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\05JNN3.SGM 05JNN3as ab al ia us ka s on

D S

K 5V

P T

V N

1P R

O D w ith

N O

T

IC

E S http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-03-30/pdf/2015-07213.pdf http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-03-30/pdf/2015-07213.pdf http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-03-30/pdf/2015-07213.pdf http://www.ed.gov/ocr/docs/guidance-ese-201111.pdf http://www.ed.gov/ocr/docs/guidance-ese-201111.pdf

32230 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 108 / Friday, June 5, 2015 / Notices

1 Clark, M.A., Chiang, H.S., Silva, T., McConnell, S., Sonnenfeld, K., Erbe, A., & Puma, M. (2013). The effectiveness of secondary math teachers from Teach For America and the Teaching Fellows programs. (NCEE 2013–4015). Washington, DC:

National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

2 Branch, G.F., Hanushek, E.A., Rivkin, S.G.

(2013). School Leaders Matter. Education Next, Vol.

13, No. 1:62–69.

Allen, J., Pianta, R., Gregory, A., Mikami, A., & Lun, J. (2011). An interaction-based approach to enhancing secondary school instruction and student achievement. Science, 333, 1034–1037.

Clark, M.A., Chiang, H.S., Silva, T., McConnell, S., Sonnenfeld, K., Erbe, A., & Puma, M. (2013). The effectiveness of secondary math teachers from Teach For America and the Teaching Fellows programs (NCEE 2013–4015). Washington, DC:

National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

3 Loveless, Tom. How Well are American Students Learning? (March 2015). The 2015 Brown Center Report on American Education. Volume III, Number 4. Available at: http://www.brookings.edu/ ∼/media/Research/Files/Reports/2015/03/BCR/ 2015-Brown-Center-Report_FINAL.pdf?la=en.

4 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:

www.esa.doc.gov/sites/default/files/reports/ documents/stemfinaljuly14.pdf.

5 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.

6 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.

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) public education. The i3 program supports the evaluation of the efficacy of such solutions, and the development of new approaches to scaling effective practices to serve more students. Through five competitions, the i3 program has built a portfolio of grantees that are serving high-need students and building rigorous 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 projects funded through prior i3 competitions.

All i3 grantees are expected to improve academic outcomes for high-need students (as defined in this notice).

The FY 2015 Scale-up competition sets out five absolute priorities and allows an applicant to choose which absolute priority it will address; however, applicants applying under the Serving Rural Communities priority (Absolute Priority 5) must also address one of the other four absolute priorities, while serving students enrolled in rural LEAs (as defined in this notice). These absolute priorities, as described below, represent persistent challenges in public education for which there are solutions that are supported by rigorous and generalizable evidence. We also include three competitive preference priorities for i3 applicants, as described below.

First, we include an absolute priority for projects designed to improve the effectiveness of teachers or principals.

Effective teachers and principals are critical to improving student achievement. To address this priority, applicants may focus on any portion of the teacher or principal career path, including scaling effective methods for recruiting, preparing, supporting, evaluating, retaining or rewarding effective teachers or principals. We are particularly interested in efforts that provide differentiated leadership opportunities and roles for teachers or principals, given the increased demands on educators in the area of instructional leadership. We note that LEAs and nonprofits are implementing a wide range of approaches to supporting effective teachers and principals, and this competition seeks to scale the most effective approaches to reach more students and educators across a range of contexts. Recent research, for example, suggests that novice teachers trained through alternative routes can be recruited, and prepared to perform as effectively as, or in some cases more effectively than, traditional teacher certification programs.1 As researchers study various strategies for training and supporting novice teachers and principals, the Department seeks to encourage innovative models that can strengthen teaching and school leadership in a cost effective manner.2

Second, we include an absolute priority for projects designed to implement and support the transition to internationally benchmarked, college-and career-ready academic content standards. Many states have recently raised the expectations for what their students should be able to learn and do across the K–12 grade span, so that all students will be adequately prepared for the rigorous demands of college and career. As the 2015 Brown Center Report on American Education 3 points out, ongoing analysis of the effects of implementing high standards within and across States is crucial to ensuring their effectiveness in improving student achievement. Developing and implementing approaches that provide students and educators necessary information and support throughout this transition to higher standards is key to ensuring that this shift results in improvements in student learning and skills. Through this priority, we seek projects that leverage data from assessments that are aligned with internationally benchmarked, college-and career-ready standards to inform instruction and, ultimately, to support and improve student achievement.

Third, we include an absolute priority aimed at improving science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education. Ensuring that all students can access and excel in STEM fields is essential to meeting the needs of our Nation’s economy and encouraging our future prosperity.4 Careers in STEM fields are growing, as is the body of knowledge required to compete for and succeed in these specialized jobs.5 Recent Bureau of Labor Statistics data show that, between 2010 and 2020, employment in STEM occupations is expected to expand faster than employment in non-STEM occupations (by 17 versus 14 percent).6 Moreover, STEM-related skills, such as data analysis, and computational and technical literacy are relevant to a wide array of post-secondary educational and professional pursuits.

Fourth, we include an absolute priority focused on implementing comprehensive high school reform strategies in high schools that are eligible to operate Title I schoolwide programs under Section 1114 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA), or in schools that can demonstrate that not less than 40 percent of students are from low-income families. These strategies encompass a broad spectrum of interventions, including, but not limited to: Implementing a rigorous college- and career-ready curriculum that links student work and real-world experiences; providing accelerated learning opportunities that allow

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:15 Jun 04, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\05JNN3.SGM 05JNN3as ab al ia us ka s on

D S

K 5V

P T

V N

1P R

O D w ith

N O

T

IC

E S http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Research/Files/Reports/2015/03/BCR/2015-Brown-Center-Report_FINAL.pdf?la=en http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Research/Files/Reports/2015/03/BCR/2015-Brown-Center-Report_FINAL.pdf?la=en http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Research/Files/Reports/2015/03/BCR/2015-Brown-Center-Report_FINAL.pdf?la=en http://www.esa.doc.gov/sites/default/files/reports/documents/stemfinaljuly14.pdf http://www.esa.doc.gov/sites/default/files/reports/documents/stemfinaljuly14.pdf http://bls.gov/emp/ http://bls.gov/emp/

32231 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 108 / Friday, June 5, 2015 / Notices

7 Fryer, Roland G. (April 2014). Injecting Charter School Best Practices into Traditional Public Schools: Evidence from Field Experiments.

Available at: http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/fryer/ files/2014_injecting_charter_school_best_practices_ into_traditional_public_schools.pdf; Sinclair, M.F., Christenson, S.L., Lehr, C.A., & Anderson, A.R.

(2003). Facilitating student engagement: Lessons learned from Check & Connect longitudinal studies.

The California School Psychologist, 8(1), 29–42. IES Intervention Report Available at: http://ies.ed.gov/ ncee/wwc/interventionreport.aspx?sid=78; and Constantine, J.M., Seftor, N.S., Martin, E.S., Silva, T., & Myers, D. (2006). A study of the effect of the Talent Search program on secondary and postsecondary outcomes in Florida, Indiana, and Texas: Final report from phase II of the national evaluation. Report prepared by Mathematica Policy Research for the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies Service.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. IES Intervention Report Available at: http://ies.ed.gov/ ncee/wwc/interventionreport.aspx?sid=508.

8 Bloom, D., Gardenhire-Crooks, A., & Mandsager, C. (2009). Reengaging high school dropouts: Early results of the National Guard Youth ChalleNGe Program evaluation. New York, NY: MDRC; Cave, G., Bos, H., Doolittle, F., & Toussaint, C. (1993).

JOBSTART: Final report on a program for school dropouts. New York, NY: MDRC. IES Intervention Report Available at: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/ interventionreport.aspx?sid=248; and Larson, K.A., & Rumberger, R.W. (1995). ALAS: Achievement for Latinos through Academic Success. In H. Thornton (Ed.), Staying in school. A technical report of three dropout prevention projects for junior high school students with learning and emotional disabilities.

Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, Institute on Community Integration. IES Intervention Report Available at: http://ies.ed.gov/ ncee/wwc/interventionreport.aspx?sid=22.

students to earn credit toward a postsecondary degree, including dual enrollment programs and early-college high schools strategies; implementing early warning indicator systems to identify and target supports for struggling students; personalizing learning for students; and strengthening relationships with business and post-secondary partners to link student work to real-world expectations and experiences. There is also evidence demonstrating that comprehensive academic supports for high school students can improve student outcomes, increasing high school graduation and college preparation,7 including for high-need students.8

Finally, we include an absolute priority for serving rural communities.

Students living in rural communities face unique challenges, such as lack of access to specialized courses.

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

We also include three competitive preference priorities in the FY 2015 Scale-up competition. The Department encourages applicants to design projects that address these competitive preference priorities in their applications.

First, we include a competitive preference priority focused on improving cost-effectiveness and productivity. Improvements in operational, organizational, and instructional processes and structures will enable organizations to strengthen their results, and to do so in a more efficient manner. Applicants should provide detailed information about how they aim to modify their processes and structures to improve productivity and how they will evaluate whether the proposed projects are cost-effective when implemented. This may include assessing the cost of comparable or alternative approaches. In order to receive competitive preference points, applicants addressing this priority must provide a detailed budget, an examination of different types of costs, and a plan to monitor and evaluate cost savings, all of which are essential to improving productivity.

Second, we include a competitive preference priority for projects that enable the broad adoption of effective practices. This competitive preference priority rewards applicants that will implement systematic methods for identifying and supporting the expansion of these practices. While all Scale-up grantees must codify the core elements of their i3-supported practices, we are interested in projects that focus particularly on the documentation and replication of practices that have been demonstrated to be effective. In addition, practitioners and policymakers need access to strong, reliable data to make informed decisions about adopting effective practices, particularly to replace less effective alternatives. This competitive preference priority supports strategies that identify key elements of effective practices and that capture lessons learned about the implementation of these practices. In addition, an applicant addressing this priority must commit to implementing their approach in multiple settings and locations in order to ensure that the practice can be successfully replicated in different contexts.

Third, 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 Scale-up competition, as described above, while serving students enrolled in rural LEAs (as defined in this notice). Additionally, applicants must be able to show strong evidence of effectiveness (as defined in this notice) for the proposed process, product, strategy, or practice included in their applications. Applicants should carefully review all of the requirements in the Eligibility Information section of this notice for instructions on how to demonstrate strong evidence of effectiveness and for information on the other eligibility and program requirements.

The i3 program includes a statutory requirement for a private-sector match for all i3 grantees. For Scale-up grants, an applicant must obtain matching funds or in-kind donations from the private sector equal to at least 5 percent of its grant award. Each highest-rated application, 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 includes selection criteria for the FY 2015 Scale-up competition that are designed to ensure that applications selected for funding have the potential to generate substantial improvements in student achievement (and other key outcomes), and include well-articulated plans for the implementation and evaluation of the proposed projects. Applicants should review the selection criteria and submission instructions carefully to ensure their applications address this year’s criteria.

An entity that submits an application for a Scale-up grant must include the following information in its application:

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:15 Jun 04, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\05JNN3.SGM 05JNN3as ab al ia us ka s on

D S

K 5V

P T

V N

1P R

O D w ith

N O

T

IC

E S http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/fryer/files/2014_injecting_charter_school_best_practices_into_traditional_public_schools.pdf http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/fryer/files/2014_injecting_charter_school_best_practices_into_traditional_public_schools.pdf http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/fryer/files/2014_injecting_charter_school_best_practices_into_traditional_public_schools.pdf http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/interventionreport.aspx?sid=508 http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/interventionreport.aspx?sid=508 http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/interventionreport.aspx?sid=248 http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/interventionreport.aspx?sid=248 http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/interventionreport.aspx?sid=78 http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/interventionreport.aspx?sid=78 http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/interventionreport.aspx?sid=22 http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/interventionreport.aspx?sid=22

32232 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 108 / Friday, June 5, 2015 / Notices

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, and qualified personnel) to implement the project at a national level, working directly or through partners. We recognize that LEAs are not typically responsible for taking their practices, strategies, or programs to scale; however, all applicants can and should partner with others to disseminate their effective practices, strategies, and programs and take them to scale.

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

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

applicants that are determined to be ineligible will not receive a grant award regardless of peer reviewer scores or comments. If we determine that a Scale-up grant application is not supported by strong evidence of effectiveness, 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 three competitive preference priorities.

Absolute Priorities 1, 3, and 5 and the three competitive preference priorities 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 18682) (2013 i3 NFP). Absolute Priority 2 is from the Department’s notice of final supplemental priorities and definitions, published in the Federal Register on December 10, 2014 (79 FR 73425). Absolute Priority 4 is from the notice of final priority for this program, published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register (2015 i3

NFP).

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.

An applicant for a Scale-up grant must choose one of the five absolute priorities. Applications will be peer reviewed and scored; 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 that 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 Teachers and Principals.

Under this priority, we provide funding to projects addressing pressing needs related to improving teacher or principal effectiveness.

Absolute Priority 2—Implementing Internationally Benchmarked College-and Career-Ready Standards and Assessments.

Under this priority, we provide funding to projects that are designed to support the implementation of, and transition to, internationally benchmarked college- and career-ready standards and assessments, including developing and implementing strategies that use the standards and information from assessments to inform classroom practices that meet the needs of all students.

Absolute Priority 3—Improving Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education.

Under this priority, we provide funding to projects addressing pressing needs for improving STEM education.

Absolute Priority 4—Implementing Comprehensive High School Reform and Redesign.

Under this priority, we provide funding to support comprehensive high school reform and redesign strategies in high schools eligible to operate Title I school-wide programs under section 1114 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended, or in schools that can demonstrate that not less than 40 percent of students are from low-income families. These strategies must be designed to increase the number and percentage of students who graduate from high school college- and career-ready and enroll in college, other postsecondary education, or other career and technical education.

These strategies could include elements such as implementing a rigorous college- and career-ready curriculum; providing accelerated learning opportunities; supporting personalized learning; developing robust links between student work and real-world experiences to better prepare students for their future; improving the readiness of students for post-secondary education in STEM fields; or reducing the need for remediation, among others.

Absolute Priority 5—Serving Rural Communities.

Under this priority, we provide funding to projects that address one of the absolute priorities established for the 2015 Scale-up i3 competition and under which the majority of students to be served are enrolled in rural local educational agencies (as defined in this notice).

Competitive Preference Priorities: For FY 2015 and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applicants from this competition, these priorities are competitive preference priorities. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i) we award three additional points to applications that meet the first competitive preference priority, five additional points to applications that meet the second competitive preference priority, and five additional points to applications that meet the third competitive preference priority.

Applicants may address more than one of the competitive preference priorities. An applicant must identify in the project narrative section of its application the priority or priorities it wishes the Department to consider for purposes of earning competitive preference priority points.

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

These priorities are:

Competitive Preference Priority 1—

Improving Cost-Effectiveness and Productivity (zero or 3 points).

Under this priority, we provide funding to projects that address one of the following areas:

(a) Substantially improving student outcomes without commensurately increasing per-student costs.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:15 Jun 04, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\05JNN3.SGM 05JNN3as ab al ia us ka s on

D S

K 5V

P T

V N

1P R

O D w ith

N O

T

IC

E S

32233 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 108 / Friday, June 5, 2015 / Notices

(b) Maintaining student outcomes while substantially decreasing per-student costs.

(c) Substantially improving student outcomes while substantially decreasing per-student costs.

Other requirements related to Competitive Preference Priority 1:

An application addressing this priority must provide—

(1) A clear and coherent budget that identifies expected student outcomes before and after the practice, the cost per student for the practice, and a clear calculation of the cost per student served;

(2) A compelling discussion of the expected cost-effectiveness of the practice compared with alternative practices;

(3) A clear delineation of one-time costs versus ongoing costs and a plan for sustaining the project, particularly ongoing costs, after the expiration of i3 funding;

(4) Identification of specific activities designed to increase substantially the cost-effectiveness of the practice, such as re-designing costly components of the practice (while maintaining efficacy) or testing multiple versions of the practice in order to identify the most cost-effective approach; and

(5) A project evaluation that addresses the cost-effectiveness of the proposed practice.

Competitive Preference Priority 2— Enabling Broad Adoption of Effective Practices (zero or 5 points).

Under this priority, we provide funding to projects that enable broad adoption of effective practices. An application proposing to address this priority must, as part of its application:

(a) Identify the practice or practices that the application proposes to prepare for broad adoption, including formalizing the practice (i.e., establish and define key elements of the practice), codifying (i.e., develop a guide or tools to support the dissemination of information on key elements of the practice), and explaining why there is a need for formalization and codification.

(b) Evaluate different forms of the practice to identify the critical components of the practice that are crucial to its success and sustainability, including the adaptability of critical components to different teaching and learning environments and to diverse learners.

(c) Provide a coherent and comprehensive plan for developing materials, training, toolkits, or other supports that other entities would need in order to implement the practice effectively and with fidelity.

(d) Commit to assessing the replicability and adaptability of the practice by supporting the implementation of the practice in a variety of locations during the project period using the materials, training, toolkits, or other supports that were developed for the i3-supported practice.

Competitive Preference Priority 3— Supporting Novice i3 Applicants (zero or 5 points).

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

Definitions:

The definitions of ‘‘large sample,’’

‘‘logic model,’’ ‘‘multi-site sample,’’ ‘‘national level,’’ ‘‘quasi-experimental design study,’’ ‘‘randomized controlled trial,’’ ‘‘regional level,’’ ‘‘relevant outcome,’’ ‘‘strong evidence of effectiveness,’’ 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.

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

High-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.

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

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

Large sample means an analytic sample of 350 or more students (or other single analysis units), or 50 or more groups (such as classrooms or schools) that contain 10 or more students (or other single analysis units).

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.

Multi-site sample means more than one site, where site can be defined as an LEA, locality, or State.

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

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

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

These studies, depending on design and implementation, can meet What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards with reservations (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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:15 Jun 04, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\05JNN3.SGM 05JNN3as ab al ia us ka s on

D S

K 5V

P T

V N

1P R

O D w ith

N O

T

IC

32234 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 108 / Friday, June 5, 2015 / Notices

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 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 evidence of effectiveness means one of the following conditions is met:

(i) There is at least one study of the effectiveness of the process, product, strategy, or practice being proposed that meets the What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards without reservations, found a statistically significant favorable impact on a relevant outcome (with no statistically significant and overriding unfavorable impacts on that outcome for relevant populations in the study or in other studies of the intervention reviewed by and reported on by the What Works Clearinghouse), includes a sample that overlaps with the populations and settings proposed to receive the process, product, strategy, or practice, and includes a large sample and a multi-site sample. (Note: Multiple studies can cumulatively meet the large and multi-site sample requirements as long as each study meets the other requirements in this paragraph).

(ii) There are at least two studies of the effectiveness of the process, product, strategy, or practice being proposed, each of which: Meets the What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards with reservations, found a statistically significant favorable impact on a relevant outcome (with no statistically significant and overriding unfavorable impacts on that outcome for relevant populations in the studies or in other studies of the intervention reviewed by and reported on by the What Works Clearinghouse), includes a sample that overlaps with the populations and settings proposed to receive the process, product, strategy, or practice, and includes a large sample and a multi-site sample.

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) 2015 i3 NFP, published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register. (f) 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., $20,000,000 for Scale-up 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.

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).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:15 Jun 04, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\05JNN3.SGM 05JNN3as ab al ia us ka s on

D S

K 5V

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

32235 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 108 / Friday, June 5, 2015 / Notices

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…