[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 241 (Friday, December 14, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 74407-74421]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-30199]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Subtitle A
RIN 1855-AA09
[Docket No. ED 2012-OII-0027]
Proposed Priorities, Requirements, Definitions, and Selection
Criteria--Investing in Innovation Fund
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Numbers: 84.411A,
84.411B, and 84.411C
AGENCY: Office of Innovation and Improvement, Department of Education.
ACTION: Proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection
criteria.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and Improvement
proposes priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria
under the Investing in Innovation Fund (i3). The Assistant Deputy
Secretary may use these priorities, requirements, definitions, and
selection criteria for competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2013 and later
years.
The U.S. Department of Education (Department) has conducted three
competitions under the i3 program and awarded 92 i3 grants since the
program was established under the American Recovery and Reinvestment
Act of 2009 (ARRA). These proposed priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria maintain the overall purpose and
structure of the i3 program, which is discussed later in this document,
and incorporate changes based on specific lessons learned from the
first three competitions.
DATES: We must receive your comments on or before January 14, 2013.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal
or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. We will not
accept comments by fax or by email. To ensure that we do not receive
duplicate copies, please submit your comments only once. In addition,
please include the Docket ID at the top of your comments.
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to www.regulations.gov to
submit your comments electronically. Information on using
Regulations.gov, including instructions for accessing agency documents,
submitting comments, and viewing the docket, is available on the site
under ``How to Use This Site.''
Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery, or Hand Delivery: If you
mail or deliver your comments about these proposed regulations, address
them to Carol Lyons, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue
SW., room 4W203, LBJ, Washington, DC 20202-5930.
Privacy Note: The Department's policy is to make all comments
received from members of the public available for public viewing in
their entirety on the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
www.regulations.gov. Therefore, commenters should be careful to
include in their comments only information that they wish to make
publicly available.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carol Lyons. Telephone: (202) 453-
7122. Or by email: [email protected]. If you use a telecommunications device
for the deaf (TDD) or text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay
Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Invitation to Comment: We invite you to
submit comments regarding this notice. To ensure that your comments
have maximum effect in developing the notice of final priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria, we urge you to
identify clearly the specific proposed priority, requirement,
definition, or selection criterion that each comment addresses. We make
additional, specific requests for comment in the sections setting out
the proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection
criteria elsewhere in this notice.
We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific
requirements of Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 and their overall
requirement of reducing regulatory burden that might result from these
proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria.
Please let us know of any further ways we could reduce potential costs
or increase potential benefits while preserving the effective and
efficient administration of the program.
During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public
comments about this notice by accessing Regulations.gov. You may also
inspect the comments in person in room 4W335, LBJ, 400 Maryland Avenue
SW., Washington, DC, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.,
Washington, DC time, Monday through Friday of each week except Federal
holidays. Please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
Assistance to Individuals with Disabilities in Reviewing the
Rulemaking Record: On request we will provide an appropriate
accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability who
needs assistance to review the comments or other documents in the
public rulemaking record for this notice. If you want to schedule an
appointment for this type of accommodation or auxiliary aid, please
contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Purpose of Program: The i3 program addresses two related
challenges. First, there are too few practices in education supported
by rigorous evidence of effectiveness, despite national attention paid
to finding practices that are effective at improving education outcomes
in the decade since the establishment of the Department's Institute of
Education Sciences (IES). Second, there are limited incentives to
expand effective practices substantially and to use those practices to
serve more students across schools, districts, and States. Student
achievement suffers as a result.
The central innovation of the i3 program, and how it addresses
these two challenges, 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 small grants that
support the development and initial evaluation of promising practices
and help to identify new solutions to pressing challenges; applicants
proposing practices supported by evidence from rigorous evaluations,
such as large randomized controlled trials, can receive sizable grants
to support expansion across the Nation. This structure provides
incentives for applicants to build evidence of effectiveness of their
proposed projects and to address the barriers to serving more students
across schools, districts, and States so that applicants can compete
for more sizeable grants.
As importantly, all i3 projects are required to generate additional
evidence of effectiveness. All i3 grantees must use part of their
budgets to conduct independent evaluations (as defined in this 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 which contexts.
Program Authority: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of
2009 (ARRA), Division A, Section 14007, Pub. L. 111-5.
[[Page 74408]]
Background
The Statutory Context
The ARRA established the i3 program to provide competitive grants
to local educational agencies (LEAs) and nonprofit organizations with a
record of improving student achievement in order to expand the
implementation of, and investment in, innovative practices that are
demonstrated 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. The ARRA provided funding for the i3 program's first competition
carried out during FY 2010; the FY 2011 and FY 2012 competitions were
funded under the Department's annual appropriations. The
Administration's reauthorization proposal for the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq.)
(ESEA) would authorize the i3 program under that act.
Overview of the Investing in Innovation Fund (i3)
As the Department's primary evidence-based grantmaking program, the
i3 program is designed to generate and validate solutions to persistent
educational challenges and support the expansion of effective solutions
across the country to serve substantially larger numbers of students.
There are a number of features that make the i3 program different
from many other Federal grant programs in education.
First, the i3 program builds a portfolio of different practices in
critical priority areas. As the Proposed Priorities section of this
document makes clear, the i3 program supports projects in a broad range
of areas, from increasing teacher and principal effectiveness to
turning around low-performing schools. We anticipate that after a
number of i3 competitions, practices will emerge that can address
challenges in each of these areas that are effective in improving
student outcomes across the Nation.
Second, the i3 program links funding to the quality and extent of
existing evidence showing the likelihood of a proposed practice
improving student outcomes. Different tiers of grants, with increasing
funding available at each tier, are linked to different levels of
evidence.
Third, the i3 program supports the expansion (scaling) of effective
programs by providing sufficient funding to build organizational
capacity and to overcome barriers to reaching additional students. The
different tiers of i3 grants comprise a funding continuum for effective
programs that spans initial, localized development to implementation on
a national scale, in the hope that more effective practices will
displace less effective ones and lead to increases in student
achievement and improvements in other student outcomes.
Fourth, the i3 program both requires and provides funding for an
independent evaluation of each project to build understanding of ``what
works'' in critical priority areas. An independent evaluation addresses
issues such as for which populations or student subgroups particular
practices are most effective and whether practices maintain their
effectiveness as they expand to serve more students in more diverse
contexts. An independent evaluation also provides an opportunity for
grantees to generate the evidence needed to compete for funds at the
next level of i3 funding (e.g., from a Development grant to a
Validation grant; see description of the three types of grants that
follows) if their projects are successful.
As in prior i3 competitions, in FY 2013 we intend to award three
types of grants under this program: ``Development'' grants,
``Validation'' grants, and ``Scale-up'' grants. These grants differ in
terms of the level of prior evidence of effectiveness required for
consideration of funding, the level of scale the funded project should
reach, and consequently the amount of funding available to support the
project. We provide an overview to clarify the expectations for each
grant type:
1. Development grants provide funding to support the development or
testing of practices that are supported by evidence of promise (as
defined in this notice) or strong theory (as defined in this notice)
and whose efficacy should be systematically studied. We intend
Development grants to support new or substantially more effective
practices for addressing widely shared challenges. Development projects
should be 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. Development
grant evaluations should assess whether the i3-supported practice is
better than other approaches at increasing student achievement (as
defined in this notice) or student growth (as defined in this notice),
closing achievement gaps, decreasing dropout rates, increasing high
school graduation rates (as defined in this notice), or increasing
college enrollment and completion rates.
2. Validation grants provide funding to support expansion of
projects supported by moderate evidence of effectiveness (as defined in
this notice) to the national or regional level (as defined in this
notice). Validation projects must further assess the effectiveness of
the i3-supported practice through a rigorous evaluation, with
particular focus on the populations for and the contexts in which the
practice is most effective.
The outcomes of the first three i3 competitions have demonstrated
that Validation grantees vary widely in their organizational maturity
and capacity to expand significantly, far more than have Scale-up
grantees. Given this history, we expect and consider it appropriate
that each applicant would propose to use the Validation funding to
build its capacity to deliver the i3-supported practice, particularly
early in the funding period, to successfully reach the level of scale
proposed in its application. The applicant would need to address any
specific barriers to the growth or scaling of the organization or
practice (including barriers related to cost-effectiveness) in order to
deliver the i3-supported practice at the proposed level of scale and
provide strategies to address these barriers as part of its proposed
scaling plan.
All Validation grantees must evaluate the effectiveness of the
practice that the supported project implements and expands. We expect
that these evaluations will be conducted in a variety of contexts and
for a variety of students, will identify the core elements of the
practice, and will codify the practices to support adoption or
replication by the applicant and other entities.
3. Scale-up grants provide funding to support expansion of projects
supported by strong evidence of effectiveness (as defined in this
notice) to the national level (as defined in this notice). In addition
to improving outcomes for an increasing number of high-need students,
we expect that Scale-up projects will generate information about the
students and contexts for which a practice is most effective. We expect
that Scale-up projects will increase understanding of strategies that
allow organizations or practices to expand quickly and efficiently
while maintaining their effectiveness.
A Scale-up grant may support the expansion of practices that have
demonstrated through prior experience
[[Page 74409]]
and rigorous evaluation that they are effective at improving student
achievement. An entity applying for a Scale-up grant should use the
grant funding, at least in part, to address specific barriers to the
growth or scaling up of an organization or practice (including barriers
related to cost-effectiveness) in order to deliver the i3-supported
practice at the proposed level of scale so that the entity is well-
positioned to continue expansion following the expiration of Federal
funding.
Similar to Validation grants, all Scale-up grantees must evaluate
the effectiveness of the i3-supported practice that the project
implements and expands; this is particularly important in instances in
which the proposed project includes changing the i3-supported practice
in order to more efficiently reach the proposed level of scale (for
example, by developing technology-enabled training tools). We expect
that these evaluations would 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.
Regardless, the evaluation of a Scale-up grant must identify core
elements of and codify the i3-supported practice that the project
implements to support adoption or replication by other entities.
Proposed Priorities
This notice contains 10 proposed priorities. In addition, in any i3
competition we may include priorities from the notice of final
supplemental priorities and definitions for discretionary grant
programs, published in the Federal Register on December 15, 2010 (75 FR
78486), and corrected on May 12, 2011 (76 FR 27637) (Supplemental
Priorities). We are not proposing in this notice priorities in such
areas as early learning or standards and assessments, which are already
included in the Supplemental Priorities, because the language in the
Supplemental Priorities adequately addresses those areas for the
purposes of the i3 program.
Proposed Priorities
Background
The original set of four absolute priorities that the Department
used for the FY 2010 i3 competition focused on the four assurances (or
education reform areas) the Department used in implementing multiple
programs funded under ARRA. We continue to consider these reform areas
important and, thus, either include them in these proposed priorities
or may include them in future competitions through the Supplemental
Priorities.
The original i3 priorities were written broadly and generated a
wide range of projects in the first three competitions. Now we are
interested in supporting a more focused set of projects within areas of
acute need and in more directly addressing particular challenges. Thus,
we propose to modify our approach to the structure of the priorities so
that each priority area includes the particular needs that the
Secretary may address when establishing the priorities for a particular
i3 competition. Our intent is to establish the flexibility to select
from a variety of possible project focus areas within a given priority
rather than using broad priorities as we have in the past; however, we
expect to use only a subset of the priorities and the project focus
areas within them in any particular future notice inviting
applications. The Department will consider several factors when
selecting the priorities to use in a given year, including the
Administration's policy priorities, the need for new solutions in a
particular priority area, other available funding for a particular
priority area, and the results and lessons learned from prior i3
competitions. Further, the Department will consider the level of
evidence or research available across the different priorities when
determining which of the priorities would be most appropriate for the
different types of grants under the i3 program. In a given year, the
notice inviting applications will provide a concise list of the
priorities that will be used for that year's i3 competition.
We propose that the Secretary may use any of the priorities
established in the notice of final priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria when establishing the priorities
for each particular type of grant (Development, Validation, and Scale-
up) in an i3 competition in FY 2013 and in subsequent years.
Proposed Priority 1--Improving the Effectiveness of Teachers or
Principals
Background: Research indicates that teachers and principals are the
most critical in-school factors in improving student achievement.\1\
Proposed priority 1, therefore, focuses on improving the effectiveness
of teachers and principals. Specifically, the proposed priority focuses
on all dimensions of the teacher and principal career path and seeks to
identify effective methods for recruiting, preparing, supporting,
evaluating, and retaining effective principals and teachers,
particularly at schools that serve high-needs students.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Wright, S.P., Horn, S.P., Sanders, W.L. (1997). Teacher and
classroom context effects on student achievement: Implications for
teacher evaluation. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education
11:57-67; Rivkin, S.G., Hanushek, E.A., Kain, J.F. (2005). Teachers,
schools, and academic achievement. Economerica, 73(2):417-458.
Leithwood, K., Louis, K.S., Anderson, S., and Wahlstrom, K.
(2004). Review of research: How leadership influences student
learning. University of Minnesota, Center for Applied Research and
Educational Improvement. Found at www.cehd.umn.edu/carei/Leadership/ReviewofResearch.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed priority highlights the need for schools and districts
to consider how to recruit effective teachers and principals, create
distinct career pathways based on the strengths of its teachers and
principals and the needs of its schools, and develop evaluation systems
that provide information that can be used to provide timely and useful
feedback for teachers and principals. Schools and districts can use
these evaluation data to identify and provide necessary resources and
tailored professional development in order to support the teachers and
principals currently in the schools and to improve the processes for
recruiting new talent. Providing teachers with tailored development and
supports is important for improving teacher effectiveness and retaining
teachers to ensure all schools have highly effective teachers and
principals. Thus, the priority includes developing professional
development supports and tools for teachers, including creating and
implementing models that help teachers utilize time and resources more
efficiently while maintaining or improving outcomes.
Finally, to ensure that all schools, especially those serving high-
need students, benefit from projects funded under this priority, the
priority also supports efforts to equitably distribute effective
teachers and principals among schools.
Proposed Priority 1--Improving the Effectiveness of Teachers or
Principals
Under this proposed priority, we would provide funding to projects
that address one or more of the following priority areas:
(a) Developing new methods and sources for recruiting:
(1) Highly effective teachers (as defined in this notice);
(2) Highly effective principals (as defined in this notice); or
(3) Highly effective teachers and principals (as defined in this
notice).
(b) Developing models for teacher preparation that deepen
pedagogical knowledge and skills, such as
[[Page 74410]]
knowledge of instructional practices or knowledge and skills in
classroom management, or that deepen pedagogical content knowledge,
that have been demonstrated to improve student achievement.
(c) Developing models of induction and support for improving the
knowledge and skills of novice teachers to increase teacher retention,
improve teaching effectiveness, and accelerate student performance.
(d) Creating career pathways with differentiated opportunities and
roles for teachers or principals, which may include differentiated
compensation.
(e) Designing and implementing teacher or principal evaluation
systems that provide clear, timely, and useful feedback, including
feedback that identifies areas for improvement and that guides
professional development for teachers and principals.
(f) Developing supports for ongoing development and improvement of
teachers, principals, or instructional leaders, such as local and
virtual communities, tools, training, and other mechanisms.
(g) Increasing the equitable distribution of effective teachers or
principals across schools.
(h) Extending the reach of highly effective teachers to more
students such as through developing and implementing school models that
improve conditions for teaching and learning; or offering new
opportunities for teachers to collaborate to accelerate student
performance.
(i) Other projects addressing pressing needs related to improving
teacher or principal effectiveness.
Proposed Priority 2--Improving Low-Performing Schools
Background: Approximately 10 percent of all high schools produce
nearly half of the Nation's dropouts.\2\ Proposed priority 2 addresses
the pressing need to ensure all students receive a quality K-12
education by providing funding for activities that are designed to
accelerate the performance of severely low-performing schools and the
schools that feed students into them. Given the range of schools that
this proposed priority aims to address, we are designing this priority
to identify and support multiple approaches that can successfully turn
around low-performing schools and improve outcomes for students in
them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Balfanz, R., Bridgeland, J.M., Horning Fox, J., Moore, L.A.
(2010). Building a Grad nation: Progress and Challenge in Ending the
High School Dropout Epidemic 2010-2011 Annual Update. See
www.americaspromise.org/Our-Work/Grad-Nation/Building-a-Grad-Nation.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Providing a combination of reform strategies, including effective
teachers, strong school leadership, embedded professional development,
greater use of data to inform instruction, increased learning time, and
collaboration among teachers, can improve instruction and student
outcomes in low-performing schools. Additionally, whole-school and
``wraparound'' reform strategies also can be used to improve the school
environment and address other non-academic factors that affect student
achievement. Thus, this proposed priority supports projects that would
implement these strategies in low-performing schools.
Community engagement also is crucial to successfully turning around
low-performing schools, so the proposed priority provides for enhancing
the capacity of external partners to support these schools. Finally, to
support States and districts specifically in their ongoing school
reform efforts, the proposed priority supports projects designed to
expand State and district capacity to turn around low-performing
schools.
Proposed Priority 2--Improving Low-Performing Schools
Under this proposed priority, we would provide funding to projects
that address one or more of the following priority areas:
(a) Designing whole-school models that incorporate such strategies
as providing strong school leadership; strengthening the instructional
program; embedding professional development that provides teachers with
frequent feedback to increase the rigor and effectiveness of their
instructional practice; redesigning the school day, week, or year;
using data to inform instruction and improvement; establishing a school
environment that promotes a culture of high expectations and addresses
non-academic factors that affect student achievement; and providing
ongoing mechanisms for parent and family engagement.
(b) Changing selected elements of the school's organizational
design, such as by differentiating staff roles, changing student
groupings, or enhancing instructional time.
(c) Recruiting, developing, or retaining highly effective staff,
specifically teachers, principals, or instructional leaders, to work in
low-performing schools.
(d) Implementing ``wraparound'' and social supports for students
that address non-academic factors that impede student learning.
(e) Developing and enhancing the capacity of external partners to
support efforts to turn around low-performing schools or districts.
(f) Expanding district- or State-level capacity to turn around low-
performing schools by developing systems and processes to improve State
and district support and oversight.
(g) Other projects addressing pressing needs related to improving
low-performing schools.
Other Proposed Requirements Related to Proposed Priority 2
To meet this priority, a project must serve schools among (1) The
lowest-performing schools in the State on academic performance
measures; (2) schools in the State with the largest within-school
performance gaps between student subgroups described in section
1111(b)(2) of the ESEA; or (3) secondary schools in the State with the
lowest graduation rate over a number of years or the largest within-
school gaps in graduation rates between student subgroups described in
section 1111(b)(2) of the ESEA.
Proposed Priority 3--Improving Science, Technology, Engineering, and
Mathematics (STEM) Education
Background: Ensuring that all students can access and excel in STEM
fields is essential to our Nation's innovation economy and future
prosperity. An increasing number of careers require an understanding of
STEM concepts and the application of the skills and techniques of
science, technology, engineering and mathematics; this proposed
priority addresses this growing need.
The President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology
(PCAST) \3\ has produced reports on K-12 and undergraduate STEM
education that provided recommendations on increasing achievement and
postsecondary enrollment in STEM fields. The recommendations include
cultivating and recruiting STEM teachers, creating STEM-related
experiences to inspire and engage students, and encouraging
partnerships among stakeholders in order to diversify pathways to STEM
careers. Proposed priority 3 supports projects that would address these
recommendations by revising STEM courses, making STEM learning more
engaging to a wider range of students, increasing the number of
effective STEM teachers, and expanding STEM education and career
opportunities for groups traditionally
[[Page 74411]]
underrepresented in the STEM fields, including minorities, individuals
with disabilities, and women and girls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ostp/pcast/docsreports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Priority 3--Improving Science, Technology, Engineering, and
Mathematics (STEM) Education
Under this proposed priority, we would provide funding to projects
that address one or more of the following priority areas:
(a) Providing students with increased access to rigorous and
engaging coursework in STEM.
(b) Redesigning STEM course content and instructional practices to
engage students and increase student academic success.
(c) Developing new methods and resources for recruiting individuals
with content expertise in STEM subject areas into teaching.
(d) Increasing the opportunities for high-quality preparation of,
or professional development for, teachers or other educators in STEM
subjects, through activities that include building content and
pedagogical content knowledge.
(e) Expanding opportunities for high-quality out-of-school and
extended-day activities that provide students with opportunities for
deliberate practice that increase STEM learning, engagement, and
expertise.
(f) Increasing the number of individuals from groups traditionally
underrepresented in STEM, including minorities, individuals with
disabilities, and women and girls, who are provided with access to
rigorous and engaging coursework in STEM and are prepared for
postsecondary study in STEM.
(g) Increasing the number of individuals from groups traditionally
underrepresented in STEM, including minorities, individuals with
disabilities, and women, who are teachers or educators of STEM subjects
and have increased opportunities for high-quality preparation or
professional development.
(h) Other projects addressing pressing needs for improving STEM
education.
Proposed Priority 4--Improving Academic Outcomes for Students With
Disabilities
Background: One of the primary goals of the ESEA is to improve the
quality of education for all students, including students with
disabilities, and ensuring the provision of an appropriate education to
students with disabilities is the primary objective of the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act. Proposed priority 4 would support
activities focused on improving the instruction for and assessment of
students with disabilities from early learning through postsecondary
education. Thus, the proposed priority would support projects that
coordinate technical assistance across programs serving infants,
toddlers, or preschoolers with disabilities to ensure the operation of
coherent systems supporting these children and their families. And, at
the postsecondary level, the priority would support projects that
collect data on academic and other outcomes for students with
disabilities to better understand their transition into postsecondary
education and how their secondary school education prepares them for
higher education.
Consistent with our approach under proposed priority 1 and
recognizing the critical importance of evaluating teacher
effectiveness, this proposed priority also would support projects to
design and implement teacher evaluation systems that measure the
performance of special education teachers and related service
providers.
Finally, because we know that students with differing abilities can
learn and excel at high levels, provided they receive appropriate
academic and non-academic supports, this priority would support
projects designed to improve academic outcomes for students with
disabilities in inclusive settings.
Proposed Priority 4--Improving Academic Outcomes for Students With
Disabilities
Under this proposed priority, we would provide funding to projects
that address one or more of the following priority areas:
(a) Coordinating technical assistance across programs that address
the needs of infants, toddlers, or preschoolers with disabilities, in
order to ensure the operation of coherent systems of support for those
children and their families.
(b) Designing and implementing teacher evaluation systems that
define and measure effectiveness of special education teachers and
related service providers.
(c) Improving academic outcomes for students with disabilities in
inclusive settings.
(d) Improving postsecondary data collection and tracking of
academic and related outcomes for students with disabilities to
understand their transition into postsecondary education and how their
secondary school education prepared them for higher education.
(e) Other projects addressing pressing needs related to improving
academic outcomes for students with disabilities.
Proposed Priority 5--Improving Academic Outcomes for English Learners
(ELs)
Background: School districts across the country have experienced a
substantial increase in the enrollment of students who cannot speak,
read, or write English well enough to participate meaningfully in
educational programs without appropriate support services. Proposed
priority 5 would support activities that are designed to address the
language-related limitations that can impede student learning.
A student's ability to master core academic subjects depends on the
student's ability to understand academic language, including
discipline-specific vocabulary. Therefore, proposed priority 5 aims to
increase opportunities for ELs to develop their academic and literacy
skills and for ELs to build their skills in using and understanding
English language oral discourse, varying and complex text types, and
discipline-specific vocabulary that are typical of core academic
courses.
Consistent with our approach under Proposed Priorities 1 and 4 and
recognizing the critical importance of evaluating teacher
effectiveness, this proposed priority also would support projects to
design and implement teacher evaluation systems that measure the
performance of teachers of ELs.
The proposed priority also aims to improve the high school
graduation rates and college-readiness of ELs by supporting projects
that would align the curriculum used in the language development and
content courses in which they enroll with college- and career-ready
standards as well as projects that would provide robust and targeted
professional development to teachers, administrators, and other school
personnel serving EL students.
Proposed Priority 5--Improving Academic Outcomes for English Learners
(ELs)
Under this proposed priority, we would provide funding to projects
that address one or more of the following priority areas:
(a) Increasing the number and proportion of ELs successfully
completing courses in core academic subjects by developing,
implementing, and evaluating new instructional approaches and tools
that are sensitive to the language demands necessary to access
challenging content, including technology-based tools.
[[Page 74412]]
(b) Aligning and implementing the curriculum and instruction used
in grades 6-12 for language development and content courses to provide
the academic vocabuarly and discourse skills necessary for preparing
ELs to be college- and career-ready.
(c) Preparing young ELs to be on track to be college- and career-
ready when they graduate from high school by developing comprehensive,
developmentally appropriate, early learning programs (birth-grade 3)
that are aligned with the State's high-quality early learning
standards, designed to improve readiness for kindergarten, and support
development of literacy and academic skills in English or in English
and another language.
(d) Developing and implementing school-wide professional
development for teachers, administrators, and other personnel in
schools in which a significant percentage of students are ELs.
(e) Designing and implementing teacher evaluation systems that
define and measure effectiveness of teachers of ELs.
(f) Other projects addressing pressing needs related to improving
academic outcomes for ELs.
Proposed Priority 6--Improving Parent and Family Engagement
Background: Parents and families are instrumental in helping
children improve their academic performance. Proposed priority 6
addresses the need for building parents' and families' awareness of
their role in improving their children's educational outcomes and
enhancing their ability to support student learning and school
improvement through training. Additionally, the proposed priority
addresses the corresponding need to provide professional development to
school staff so that they have the skills needed to support and
cultivate environments that are welcoming to parents and families and
to build relationships that increase their capacity to support their
children's educational needs.
Finally, to ensure that parents and families have the information
they need to be full partners in their children's education, this
proposed priority would support the development of tools and
initiatives that provide them with ongoing access to data about their
children's progress and performance.
Proposed Priority 6--Improving Parent and Family Engagement
Under this proposed priority, we would provide funding to projects
that address one or more of the following priority areas:
(a) Developing and implementing initiatives that provide training
for parents and families to learn skills and strategies that will
support their students in improving academic outcomes.
(b) Implementing initiatives that are designed to enhance the
skills and competencies of school and other administrative staff in
building relationships and collaborating with families, particularly
those who have been underengaged with the school(s) in the past, in
order to support student achievement and school improvement.
(c) Implementing initiatives that cultivate sustainable
partnerships and increase connections between parents and school staff
in order to support student achievement and school improvement.
(d) Developing tools or practices that provide students and parents
with improved, ongoing access to data and other information about the
students' progress and performance.
(e) Other projects addressing pressing needs related to improving
student outcomes by improving parent and family engagement.
Proposed Priority 7--Improving Cost-Effectiveness and Productivity
Background: It is essential for schools and LEAs to closely examine
their spending practices and reallocate resources toward more efficient
and more cost-effective strategies. Accordingly, through proposed
priority 7, the Department continues to emphasize the importance of
cost-effectiveness and productivity. Improvements in operational,
organizational, and instruction processes and structures will allow
organizations to achieve the best possible results in the most
efficient manner.
With proposed priority 7, we continue and strengthen this focus by
including specific requirements that applicants must address. These
additional details clarify important elements to ensure that an
applicant's proposed plan to improve productivity would provide
sufficient detail about how the applicant aims to modify its processes
and structures and how the applicant would evaluate whether the
proposed project was cost-effective when implemented. A detailed
budget, an examination of different types of costs, and a plan to
monitor and evaluate the cost savings are essential to any reasoned
attempt at improving productivity.
Proposed Priority 7--Improving Cost-Effectiveness and Productivity
Under this proposed priority, we would provide funding to projects
that address one of the following areas:
(a) Substantially improving student outcomes without commensurately
increasing per-student costs.
(b) Maintaining student outcomes while substantially decreasing
per-student costs.
(c) Substantially improving student outcomes while substantially
decreasing per-student costs.
Other Proposed Requirements Related to Proposed Priority 7
An application proposing to address 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.
Proposed Priority 8--Effective Use of Technology
Background: Technology can improve student academic outcomes, often
rapidly and in unprecedented ways. While there have been significant
advances in the use of technology, the core operations of most schools
and LEAs remain untouched. The Department's National Education
Technology Plan 2010 \4\ highlighted the potential of ``connected
teaching'' to extend the reach of the most effective teachers by using
online tools, and it also highlighted the need for high-quality
learning resources that can reach learners wherever and whenever they
are needed. Thus, proposed priority 8 supports strategies that address
these needs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See www.ed.gov/edblogs/technology/netp-2010/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 74413]]
Technological solutions also can be used effectively to assess the
learning progress of individual students and to provide appropriate
feedback to students and teachers. Proposed priority 8 would therefore
support projects using instructional platforms that provide customized
instruction for different learners, including integrated assessments
and continuous feedback.
Proposed Priority 8--Effective Use of Technology
Under this proposed priority, we would provide funding to projects
that use technology to address one or more of the following priority
areas:
(a) Providing real-time access to learning experiences that are
adaptive and self-improving in order to optimize the delivery of
instruction to learners with a variety of learning needs.
(b) Providing students and teachers with ``anytime, anywhere''
access to academic content and learning experiences that they otherwise
would not have access to, such as rigorous coursework that is not
offered in a particular school, or effective professional development
activities or learning communities enabled by technology.
(c) Developing new methods and resources for teacher preparation or
professional development that increase a teacher's ability to utilize
technology in the classroom to improve student outcomes.
(d) Assessing student proficiencies in complex skills, such as
critical thinking and collaboration across academic disciplines.
(e) Developing and implementing technology-enabled strategies for
teaching and learning, such as models and simulations, collaborative
virtual environments, or ``serious games,'' especially for teaching
concepts and content (e.g., systems thinking) that are difficult to
teach using traditional approaches.
(f) Integrating technology with the implementation of rigorous
college- and career-ready standards.
(g) Other projects that increase the use of technology for
effective teaching and learning.
Proposed Priority 9--Formalizing and Codifying Effective Practices
Background: A primary goal of the i3 program is to identify and
support the expansion of effective practices. The education field's
knowledge management systems and dissemination of effective practices,
particularly in instances where an effective practice could displace a
less effective or ineffective practice, is underdeveloped. Proposed
priority 9 aims to address these challenges and improve student
outcomes by supporting strategies that identify key elements of
effective practices and capturing lessons learned about the
implementation of the practices. An applicant meeting this priority
must commit to sharing knowledge about the practice broadly and
supporting the implementation of the practice in other settings and
locations in order to assess whether the practice can be successfully
replicated.
Proposed Priority 9--Formalizing and Codifying Effective Practices
Under this proposed priority, we would provide funding to projects
that formalize and codify 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 formalize (i.e., establish and define key elements of the
practice) and codify (i.e., develop a guide or tools to support the
dissemination of information on key elements of the practice) and
explain 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.
(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.
Proposed Priority 10--Serving Rural Communities
Background: Educational challenges and the corresponding solutions
frequently are different in rural areas from those in urban or suburban
areas. Proposed priority 10 recognizes this and would support projects
that serve students from rural areas. In so doing, proposed priority 10
would help ensures that rural areas have access to and benefit from
innovative education reforms that specifically address their needs.
Proposed Priority 10--Serving Rural Communities
Under this proposed priority, we would provide funding to projects
that address one of the absolute priorities established for a
particular i3 competition and under which the majority of students to
be served are enrolled in rural local educational agencies (as defined
in this notice).
Specific Requests for Comment
In addition to our general interest in receiving comment on the
priorities proposed in this notice, we are particularly interested in
comments related to proposed priority 7, Improving Cost-Effectiveness
and Productivity, and proposed priority 5, Improving Academic Outcomes
for ELs. We seek comments on whether the language of proposed priority
7 should establish a specific numeric target or threshold of cost-
effectiveness or productivity improvement and, if we were to establish
such a target, suggestions for what that target or threshold should be
and how we should require that applicants or grantees measure progress
toward and attainment of it. With regards to (c) of proposed priority
5, we seek comments on whether the Department should allow applicants
to meet the priority by proposing processes, products, strategies, or
practices that address instruction in English or in English and a
language other than English.
We also recognize that the goals of supporting practices that are
both innovative and evidence-based has the potential to limit the
universe of applicants. Therefore, we are interested in receiving
comments on whether we should establish a priority for applicants that
have never received or partnered with an entity that has received a
grant under the i3 program.
Types of Priorities
When inviting applications for a competition using one or more
priorities, we designate the type of each priority as absolute,
competitive preference, or invitational through a notice in the Federal
Register. The effect of each type of priority follows:
Absolute priority: Under an absolute priority, we consider only
applications that meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(3)). In the i3
competition, each application must choose to address one of the
absolute priorities and projects are grouped by that absolute priority
for the purposes of peer review and funding determinations.
Competitive preference priority: Under a competitive preference
priority,
[[Page 74414]]
we give competitive preference to an application by (1) awarding
additional points, depending on the extent to which the application
meets the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) selecting an
application that meets the priority over an application of comparable
merit that does not meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(ii)).
Invitational priority: Under an invitational priority, we are
particularly interested in applications that meet the priority.
However, we do not give an application that meets the priority a
preference over other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)).
Proposed Requirements
Background
We propose to revise some of the nonstatutory i3 program
requirements that the Department has previously established based on
our experiences with the three i3 competitions the Department has held
to date. For example, many existing, widespread practices in the field
currently lack the evidence base to compete for Scale-up or Validation
grants because of limited prior investments in rigorous, high-quality
evaluations and limited internal capacity to conduct these evaluations.
One of the primary goals of the i3 program is to increase knowledge of
what works in education for i3 grantees and non-grantees alike. As
such, we propose to strengthen the project evaluation requirement so
that i3 grantees will produce high-quality evaluations that estimate
the impact of the i3-supported practice (as implemented at the proposed
level of scale) on a relevant outcome (as defined in this notice).
Evaluations might consider whether the i3-supported practice is
more effective than other approaches or its effect on improving student
achievement (as defined in this notice) or student growth (as defined
in this notice), closing achievement gaps, decreasing dropout rates,
increasing high school graduation rates (as defined in this notice), or
increasing college enrollment and completion rates.
Proposed Requirements
The Assistant Deputy Secretary proposes the following requirements
for this program. We may apply one or more of these requirements in any
year in which this program is in effect.
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 the LEAs with
which the nonprofit organization will partner, or the names of the
schools in the consortium with which it will partner. If an eligible
applicant that includes a nonprofit organization intends to partner
with additional LEAs or schools that are not named in the application,
it must describe in the application the demographic and other
characteristics of these LEAs and schools and the process it will use
to select them.
Note about LEA Eligibility: For purposes of this program, an
LEA is an LEA located within one of the 50 States, the District of
Columbia, or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
Note about Eligibility for an Eligible Applicant that Includes a
Nonprofit Organization: The authorizing statute specifies that an
eligible applicant that includes a nonprofit organization meets the
requirements in paragraphs (a) and (b) of the eligibility
requirements for this program if the nonprofit organization has a
record of significantly improving student achievement, attainment,
or retention. For an eligible applicant that includes a nonprofit
organization, the nonprofit organization must demonstrate that it
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 Funds: To be eligible for an award, an
applicant must demonstrate that one or more private sector
organizations, which may include philanthropic organizations, will
provide matching funds in order to help bring project results to scale.
An eligible applicant must obtain matching funds or in-kind donations
equal to an amount that the Secretary will specify in the notice
inviting applications for the specific i3 competition. The Secretary
will announce in the notice inviting applications when and how selected
eligible applicants must submit evidence of the private-sector matching
funds.
The Secretary may consider decreasing the matching requirement in
the most exceptional circumstances. The Secretary will provide
instructions for how to request a reduction of the matching requirement
in the notice inviting applications.
5. Evidence Standards: To be eligible for an award, an application
for a Development grant must be supported by one of the following:
[[Page 74415]]
(a) Evidence of promise (as defined in this notice);
(b) Strong theory (as defined in this notice); or
(c) Evidence of promise (as defined in this notice) or strong
theory (as defined in this notice).
The Secretary will announce in the notice inviting applications
which options will be used as the evidence standard for a Development
grant in a given competition. Note that under (c), applicants must
identify whether the application is supported by evidence of promise
(as defined in this notice) or strong theory (as defined in this
notice).
To be eligible for an award, an application for a Validation grant
must be supported by moderate evidence of effectiveness (as defined in
this notice);
To be eligible for an award, an application for a Scale-up grant
must be supported by strong evidence of effectiveness (as defined in
this notice).
6. Funding Categories: An applicant will be considered for an award
only for the type of i3 grant (Development, Validation, or Scale-up
grant) for which it applies. An applicant may not submit an application
for the same proposed project under more than one type of grant.
7. Limit on Grant Awards: (a) No grantee may receive more than two
new grant awards of any type under the i3 program in a single year; (b)
In any two-year period, no grantee may receive more than one new Scale-
up or Validation grant; and (c) No grantee may receive in a single year
new i3 grant awards that total an amount greater than the sum of the
maximum amount of funds for a Scale-up grant and the maximum amount of
funds for a Development grant for that year. For example, in a year
when the maximum award value for a Scale-up grant is $25 million and
the maximum award value for a Development grant is $5 million, no
grantee may receive in a single year new grants totaling more than $30
million.
8. Subgrants: In the case of an eligible applicant that is a
partnership between a nonprofit organization and (1) one or more LEAs
or (2) a consortium of schools, the partner serving as the applicant
and, if funded, as the grantee, may make subgrants to one or more
entities in the partnership.
9. Evaluation: The grantee must conduct an independent evaluation
(as defined in this notice) of its project. This evaluation must
estimate the impact of the i3-supported practice (as implemented at the
proposed level of scale) on a relevant outcome (as defined in this
notice). The grantee must make broadly available digitally and free of
charge, through formal (e.g., peer-reviewed journals) or informal
(e.g., newsletters) mechanisms, the results of any evaluations it
conducts of its funded activities. For Scale-up and Validation grants,
the grantee must also ensure that the data from its evaluation are made
available to third-party researchers consistent with applicable privacy
requirements.
In addition, the grantee and its independent evaluator must agree
to cooperate with any technical assistance provided by the Department
or its contractor and comply with the requirements of any evaluation of
the program conducted by the Department. This includes providing to the
Department, within 100 days of a grant award, an updated comprehensive
evaluation plan in a format and using such tools as the Department may
require. Grantees must update this evaluation plan at least annually to
reflect any changes to the evaluation. All these updates must be
consistent with the scope and objectives of the approved application.
10. Communities of Practice: Grantees must participate in,
organize, or facilitate, as appropriate, communities of practice for
the i3 program. A community of practice is a group of grantees that
agrees to interact regularly to solve a persistent problem or improve
practice in an area that is important to them.
11. Management Plan: Within 100 days of a grant award, the grantee
must provide an updated comprehensive management plan for the approved
project in a format and using such tools as the Department may require.
This management plan must include detailed information about
implementation of the first year of the grant, including key
milestones, staffing details, and other information that the Department
may require. It must also include a complete list of performance
metrics, including baseline measures and annual targets. The grantee
must update this management plan at least annually to reflect
implementation of subsequent years of the project.
Proposed Definitions
Background: To ensure that terms used in the i3 program have clear
and commonly understood meanings and are aligned with other Department
programs, we propose the following definitions. The majority of these
definitions are the same as, or substantially similar to, those we have
established and used in prior i3 competitions. However, we are
proposing some changes to those definitions related to evidence of
effectiveness. In that regard, we are particularly interested in
comments on the level of rigor required under the proposed definitions
for ``strong evidence of effectiveness,'' ``moderate evidence of
effectiveness,'' ``evidence of promise,'' and ``strong theory.'' We
have attempted to clarify the definitions so that applicants can better
understand what is required to meet each level of evidence. We have
also narrowed the allowable evaluation methodologies at the strong and
moderate evidence of effectiveness levels so that the allowable
evaluation methodologies are those that are most likely to support
causal conclusions. We welcome comments about whether the updated
definitions are too restrictive or not restrictive enough and whether
there are particular parts of the definitions that remain unclear or
undefined.
Proposed Definitions
The Assistant Deputy Secretary proposes the following definitions
for this program. We may apply one or more of these definitions in any
year in which this program is in effect.
Consortium of schools means two or more public elementary or
secondary schools acting collaboratively for the purpose of applying
for and implementing an i3 grant jointly with an eligible nonprofit
organization.
Evidence of promise means there is empirical evidence to support
the theoretical linkage between at least one critical component and at
least one relevant outcome presented in the logic model (as defined in
this notice) for the proposed process, product, strategy, or practice.
Specifically, evidence of promise means the following conditions are
met:
(a) There is at least one study that is either a--
(1) Correlational study with statistical controls for selection
bias;
(2) Quasi-experimental study (as defined in this notice) that meets
the What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards with reservations; \5\
or
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See What Works Clearinghouse Procedures and Standards
Handbook (Version 2.1, September 2011), which can currently be found
at the following link: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/DocumentSum.aspx?sid=19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(3) Randomized controlled trial (as defined in this notice) that
meets the What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards with or without
reservations; \6\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See What Works Clearinghouse Procedures and Standards
Handbook (Version 2.1, September 2011), which can currently be found
at the following link: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/DocumentSum.aspx?sid=19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) Such a study found a statistically significant or substantively
important
[[Page 74416]]
(defined as a difference of 0.25 standard deviations or larger),
favorable association between at least one critical component and one
relevant outcome presented in the logic model for the proposed process,
product, strategy, or practice.
High-need student means a student at risk of educational failure or
otherwise in need of special assistance and support, such as students
who are living in poverty, who attend high-minority schools (as defined
in this notice), who are far below grade level, who have left school
before receiving a regular high school diploma, who are at risk of not
graduating with a diploma on time, who are homeless, who are in foster
care, who have been incarcerated, who have disabilities, or who are
English learners.
High-minority school is defined by a school's LEA in a manner
consistent with the corresponding State's Teacher Equity Plan, as
required by section 1111(b)(8)(C) of the ESEA. The applicant must
provide, in its i3 application, the definition(s) used.
High school graduation rate means a four-year adjusted cohort
graduation rate consistent with 34 CFR 200.19(b)(1) and may also
include an extended-year adjusted cohort graduation rate consistent
with 34 CFR 200.19(b)(1)(v) if the State in which the proposed project
is implemented has been approved by the Secretary to use such a rate
under Title I of the ESEA.
Highly effective principal means a principal whose students,
overall and for each subgroup as described in section
1111(b)(3)(C)(xiii) of the ESEA (economically disadvantaged students,
students from major racial and ethnic groups, migrant students,
students with disabilities, students with limited English proficiency,
and students of each gender), achieve high rates (e.g., one and one-
half grade levels in an academic year) of student growth. Eligible
applicants may include multiple measures, provided that principal
effectiveness is evaluated, in significant part, based on student
growth. Supplemental measures may include, for example, high school
graduation rates; college enrollment rates; evidence of providing
supportive teaching and learning conditions, support for ensuring
effective instruction across subject areas for a well-rounded
education, strong instructional leadership, and positive family and
community engagement; or evidence of attracting, developing, and
retaining high numbers of effective teachers.
Highly effective teacher means a teacher whose students achieve
high rates (e.g., one and one-half grade levels in an academic year) of
student growth. Eligible applicants may include multiple measures,
provided that teacher effectiveness is evaluated, in significant part,
based on student academic growth. Supplemental measures may include,
for example, multiple observation-based assessments of teacher
performance or evidence of leadership roles (which may include
mentoring or leading professional learning communities) that increase
the effectiveness of other teachers in the school or LEA.
Independent evaluation means that the evaluation is designed and
carried out independent of, but in coordination with, any employees of
the entities who develop a process, product, strategy, or practice and
are implementing it.
Innovation means a process, product, strategy, or practice that
improves (or is expected to improve) significantly upon the outcomes
reached with status quo options and that can ultimately reach
widespread effective usage.
Large sample means a sample of 350 or more students (or other
single analysis units) who were randomly assigned to a treatment or
control group, or 50 or more groups (such as classrooms or schools)
that contain 10 or more students (or other single analysis units) and
that were randomly assigned to a treatment or control group.
Logic model (also referred to as theory of action) means a well-
specified conceptual framework that identifies key components of the
proposed process, product, strategy, or practice (i.e., the active
``ingredients'' that are hypothesized to be critical to achieving the
relevant outcomes) and describes the relationships among the key
components and outcomes, theoretically and operationally.
Moderate evidence of effectiveness means one of the following
conditions is met:
(a) There is at least one study of the effectiveness of the
process, product, strategy, or practice being proposed that meets the
What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards without reservations; \7\
found a statistically significant favorable impact on a relevant
outcome (as defined in this notice) (with no statistically significant
unfavorable impacts on that outcome for relevant populations in the
study or in other studies of the intervention reviewed by and reported
on by the What Works Clearinghouse); and includes a sample that
overlaps with the populations or settings proposed to receive the
process, product, strategy, or practice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See What Works Clearinghouse Procedures and Standards
Handbook (Version 2.1, September 2011), which can currently be found
at the following link: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/DocumentSum.aspx?sid=19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) There is at least one study of the effectiveness of the
process, product, strategy, or practice being proposed that meets the
What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards with reservations,\8\ found
a statistically significant favorable impact on a relevant outcome (as
defined in this notice) (with no statistically significant unfavorable
impacts on that outcome for relevant populations in the study or in
other studies of the intervention reviewed by and reported on by the
What Works Clearinghouse), includes a sample that overlaps with the
populations or settings proposed to receive the process, product,
strategy, or practice, and includes a large sample (as defined in this
notice) and a multi-site sample (as defined in this notice) (Note:
multiple studies can cumulatively meet the large and multi-site sample
requirements as long as each study meets the other requirements in this
paragraph).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See What Works Clearinghouse Procedures and Standards
Handbook (Version 2.1, September 2011), which can currently be found
at the following link: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/DocumentSum.aspx?sid=19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Multi-site sample means more than one site, where site can be
defined as an LEA, locality, or State.
National level describes the level of scope or effectiveness of a
process, product, strategy, or practice that is able to be effective in
a wide variety of communities, including rural and urban areas, as well
as with different groups (e.g., economically disadvantaged, racial and
ethnic groups, migrant populations, individuals with disabilities,
English learners, and individuals of each gender).
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 \9\
(they cannot meet What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards without
reservations).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See What Works Clearinghouse Procedures and Standards
Handbook (Version 2.1, September 2011), which can currently be found
at the following link: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/DocumentSum.aspx?sid=19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Randomized controlled trial means a study that employs random
assignment of, for example, students, teachers, classrooms, schools, or
districts to receive the intervention being evaluated (the treatment
group) or not to receive the intervention (the control group). The
[[Page 74417]]
estimated effectiveness of the intervention is the difference between
the average outcome for the treatment group and for the control group.
These studies, depending on design and implementation, can meet What
Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards without reservations.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See What Works Clearinghouse Procedures and Standards
Handbook (Version 2.1, September 2011), which can currently be found
at the following link: ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/DocumentSum.aspx?sid=19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regional level describes the level of scope or effectiveness of a
process, product, strategy, or practice that is able to serve a variety
of communities within a State or multiple States, including rural and
urban areas, as well as with different groups (e.g., economically
disadvantaged, racial and ethnic groups, migrant populations,
individuals with disabilities, English learners, and individuals of
each gender). For an LEA-based project to be considered a regional-
level project, a process, product, strategy, or practice must serve
students in more than one LEA, unless the process, product, strategy,
or practice is implemented in a State in which the State educational
agency is the sole educational agency for all schools.
Relevant outcome means the student outcome or outcomes (or the
ultimate outcome if not related to students) that the proposed project
is designed to improve, consistent with the specific goals of the
project and the i3 program.
Rural local educational agency means a local educational agency
(LEA) that is eligible under the Small Rural School Achievement (SRSA)
program or the Rural and Low-Income School (RLIS) program authorized
under Title VI, Part B of the ESEA. Eligible applicants may determine
whether a particular LEA is eligible for these programs by referring to
information on the Department's Web site at www2.ed.gov/nclb/freedom/local/reap.html.
Strong evidence of effectiveness means that one of the following
conditions is met:
(a) There is at least one study of the effectiveness of the
process, product, strategy, or practice being proposed that meets the
What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards without reservations; \11\
found a statistically significant favorable impact on a relevant
outcome (as defined in this notice) (with no statistically significant
unfavorable impacts on that outcome for relevant populations in the
study or in other studies of the intervention reviewed by and reported
on by the What Works Clearinghouse); includes a sample that overlaps
with the populations and settings proposed to receive the process,
product, strategy, or practice; and includes a large sample (as defined
in this notice) and a multi-site sample (as defined in this notice)
(Note: multiple studies can cumulatively meet the large and multi-site
sample requirements as long as each study meets the other requirements
in this paragraph).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See What Works Clearinghouse Procedures and Standards
Handbook (Version 2.1, September 2011), which can currently be found
at the following link: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/DocumentSum.aspx?sid=19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) There are at least two studies of the effectiveness of the
process, product, strategy, or practice being proposed, each of which
meets the What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards with
reservations,\12\ found a statistically significant favorable impact on
a relevant outcome (as defined in this notice) (with no statistically
significant unfavorable impacts on that outcome for relevant
populations in the studies or in other studies of the intervention
reviewed by and reported on by the What Works Clearinghouse), includes
a sample that overlaps with the populations and settings proposed to
receive the process, product, strategy, or practice, and includes a
large sample (as defined in this notice) and a multi-site sample (as
defined in this notice).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See What Works Clearinghouse Procedures and Standards
Handbook (Version 2.1, September 2011), which can currently be found
at the following link: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/DocumentSum.aspx?sid=19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Strong theory means a rationale for the proposed process, product,
strategy, or practice that includes a logic model (as defined in this
notice).
Student achievement means--
(a) For grades and subjects in which assessments are required under
ESEA section 1111(b)(3): (1) A student's score on such assessments and
may include (2) other measures of student learning, such as those
described in paragraph (b), provided they are rigorous and comparable
across schools within an LEA.
(b) For grades and subjects in which assessments are not required
under ESEA section 1111(b)(3): Alternative measures of student learning
and performance such as student results on pre-tests, end-of-course
tests, and objective performance-based assessments; student learning
objectives; student performance on English language proficiency
assessments; and other measures of student achievement that are
rigorous and comparable across schools within an LEA.
Student growth means the change in student achievement (as defined
in this notice) for an individual student between two or more points in
time. An applicant may also include other measures that are rigorous
and comparable across classrooms.
Proposed Selection Criteria
Background
The proposed selection criteria 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 project. Peer reviewers will use these
criteria to determine how well an applicant's proposed project aligns
with our expectations for the Development, Validation, or Scale-up
grant the applicant seeks. As such, although we are proposing these
criteria as a single list, the criteria selected and the number of
points that each may be worth would vary by the type of i3 grant
(Development, Validation, or Scale-up grant).
The proposed selection criteria are similar to those used in prior
i3 competitions; the revisions reflect our experiences with their use.
In particular, the selection criteria used in prior competitions did
not articulate as clearly as intended our expectations for scaling up
projects and what peer reviewers should assess to determine whether a
project could feasibly achieve its proposed scale. In the proposed
selection criteria, we include several factors that address whether
there is unmet demand for the services that a grantee would provide and
whether an applicant has identified and will address barriers that
prevent the applicant from reaching that scale at the time of its
application.
Proposed Selection Criteria
The Secretary proposes the following selection criteria for
evaluating an application under this program. We may apply one or more
of these criteria in any year in which this program is in effect. We
propose that the Secretary may use:
One or more of the selection criteria established in the
notice of final priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection
criteria;
Any of the selection criteria in 34 CFR 75.210; criteria
based on the statutory requirements for the i3 program in accordance
with 34 CFR 75.209; or
Any combination of these when establishing selection
criteria for each particular type of grant (Development,
[[Page 74418]]
Validation, and Scale-up) in any i3 competition. We propose that the
Secretary may further define each criterion by selecting specific
factors for it. The Secretary may select these factors from any
selection criterion in the list above. In the notice inviting
applications, the application package, or both we will announce the
specific selection criteria that apply to a competition and the maximum
possible points assigned to each criterion.
(a) Significance
In determining the significance of the proposed project, the
Secretary proposes to consider one or more of the following factors:
(1) The extent to which the proposed project addresses a national
need.
(2) The extent to which the proposed project addresses a challenge
for which there is a national need for solutions that are better than
the solutions currently available.
(3) The extent to which the proposed project would implement a
novel approach as compared with what has been previously attempted
nationally.
(4) The extent of the expected impact of the project on relevant
outcomes (as defined in this notice), including the estimated impact of
the project on student outcomes (particularly those related to student
achievement (as defined in this notice)) and the breadth of the
project's impact, compared with alternative practices or methods of
addressing similar needs.
(5) The extent to which the proposed project demonstrates that it
is likely to have a meaningful impact on relevant outcomes (as defined
in this notice), particularly those related to student achievement (as
defined in this notice), if it were implemented and evaluated in a
variety of settings.
(6) The extent to which the proposed project will substantially
improve on the outcomes achieved by other practices, such as through
better student outcomes, lower cost, or accelerated results.
(7) The importance and magnitude of the proposed project's expected
impact on a relevant outcome (as defined in this notice), particularly
one related to student achievement (as defined in this notice).
(8) The likelihood that the project will have the estimated impact,
including the extent to which the applicant demonstrates that unmet
demand for the proposed project or the proposed services will enable
the applicant to reach the proposed level of scale.
(9) The feasibility of national expansion if favorable outcomes are
achieved.
(b) Quality of the Project Design
In determining the quality of the project design, the Secretary
proposes to consider one or more of the following factors:
(1) The extent to which the proposed project addresses the national
need and priorities the applicant is seeking to meet.
(2) The extent to which the proposed project addresses the absolute
priority the applicant is seeking to meet.
(3) The clarity and coherence of the project goals, including the
extent to which the proposed project articulates an explicit plan or
actions to achieve its goals (e.g., a fully developed logic model of
the proposed project).
(4) The extent to which the proposed project has a clear set of
goals and an explicit plan or actions to achieve the goals, including
identification of any elements of the project logic model that require
further testing or development.
(5) The extent to which the proposed project will produce a fully
codified practice, including a fully articulated logic model of the
project by the end of the project period.
(6) The clarity, completeness, and coherence of the project goals
and whether the application includes a description of project
activities that constitute a complete plan for achieving those goals,
including the identification of potential risks to project success and
strategies to mitigate those risks.
(7) The extent to which the applicant addresses potential risks to
project success and strategies to mitigate those risks.
(8) The extent to which the applicant will use grant funds to
address a particular barrier or barriers that prevented the applicant,
in the past, from reaching the level of scale proposed in the
application.
(9) The extent to which the project would build the capacity of the
applicant to scale up and sustain the project or would create an
organization capable of expanding if successful outcomes are achieved.
(10) The sufficiency of the resources to support effective project
implementation, including the project's plan for ensuring funding after
the period of the Federal grant.
(11) The sufficiency of the resources to support effective project
implementation.
(c) Quality of the Management Plan
In determining the quality of the management plan, the Secretary
proposes to consider one or more of the following factors:
(1) The extent to which the management plan articulates key
responsibilities and well-defined objectives, including the timelines
and milestones for completion of major project activities, the metrics
that will be used to assess progress on an ongoing basis, and annual
performance targets the applicant will use to monitor whether the
project is achieving its goals.
(2) The clarity and coherence of the applicant's multi-year
financial and operating model and accompanying plan to operate the
project at a national level (as defined in this notice) during the
project period.
(3) The clarity and coherence of the applicant's multi-year
financial and operating model and accompanying plan to operate the
project at a national or regional level (as defined in this notice)
during the project period.
(4) The extent to which the applicant demonstrates that it will
have the resources to operate the project at the proposed level of
scale during the project period and beyond the length of the grant,
including the demonstrated commitment of any partners and evidence of
broad support from stakeholders critical to the project's long-term
success (e.g., State educational agencies, teachers' unions).
(5) The extent of the demonstrated commitment of any key partners
or evidence of broad support from stakeholders whose participation is
critical to the project's long-term success.
(d) Personnel
When evaluating the personnel of the proposed project, the
Secretary proposes to consider one or more of the following factors:
(1) The adequacy of the project's staffing plan, particularly for
the first year of the project, including the identification of the
project director and, in the case of projects with unfilled key
personnel positions at the beginning of the project, that the staffing
plan identifies how critical work will proceed.
(2) The qualifications and experience of the project director and
other key project personnel and the extent to which they have the
expertise to accomplish the proposed tasks.
(3) The extent to which the project director has experience
managing large, complex, and rapidly growing projects.
(4) The extent to which the project director has experience
managing large, complex projects.
(5) The extent to which the project director has experience
managing projects of similar size and scope as the proposed project.
[[Page 74419]]
(e) Quality of the Project Evaluation
In determining the quality of the project evaluation, the Secretary
proposes to consider one or more of the following factors:
(1) The clarity and importance of the key questions to be addressed
by the project evaluation, and the appropriateness of the methods for
how each question will be addressed.
(2) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will, if well
implemented, produce evidence about the project's effectiveness that
would meet the What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards without
reservations.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See What Works Clearinghouse Procedures and Standards
Handbook. (Version 2.1, September 2011), which can currently be
found at the following link: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/DocumentSum.aspx?sid=19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(3) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will, if well
implemented, produce evidence about the project's effectiveness that
would meet the What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards with or
without reservations.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See What Works Clearinghouse Procedures and Standards
Handbook (Version 2.1, September 2011), which can currently be found
at the following link: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/DocumentSum.aspx?sid=19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(4) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will provide
valid and reliable performance data on relevant outcomes, particularly
student achievement outcomes.
(5) The extent to which the evaluation will study the project at
the proposed level of scale, including, where appropriate, generating
information about potential differential effectiveness of the project
in diverse settings and for diverse student population groups.
(6) The extent to which the evaluation will study the project at
the proposed level of scale, including in diverse settings.
(7) The extent to which the evaluation plan includes a clear and
credible analysis plan, including a proposed sample size and minimum
detectable effect size that aligns with the expected project impact,
and an analytic approach for addressing the research questions.
(8) The extent to which the evaluation plan includes a clear, well-
documented, and rigorous method for measuring implementation of the
critical features of the project, as well as the intended outcomes.
(9) The extent to which the evaluation plan clearly articulates the
key components and outcomes of the project, as well as a measurable
threshold for acceptable implementation.
(10) The extent to which the evaluation plan will provide
sufficient information on the project's effect as compared to
alternative practices addressing similar need.
(11) The extent to which the proposed project plan includes
sufficient resources to carry out the project evaluation effectively.
Specific Requests for Comment
We are particularly interested in comments about whether there are
important aspects of identifying promising projects or assessing the
likelihood of project success that the proposed selection criteria and
factors do not address. In addition, we are interested in feedback
about whether there is ambiguity in the language of specific criteria
or factors that will make it difficult for applicants to respond to the
criteria and peer reviewers to evaluate the applications with respect
to the selection criteria.
Final Priorities, Requirements, Definitions, and Selection Criteria
We will announce the final priorities, requirements, definitions,
and selection criteria in a notice in the Federal Register. We will
determine the final priorities, requirements, definitions, and
selection criteria after considering responses to this notice and other
information available to the Department. This notice does not preclude
us from proposing additional priorities, requirements, definitions, or
selection criteria, subject to meeting applicable rulemaking
requirements.
Note: This notice does not solicit applications. In any year in
which we choose to use one or more of these priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria, we invite
applications through a notice in the Federal Register.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
Regulatory Impact Analysis
Under Executive Order 12866, the Secretary must determine whether a
regulatory action is ``significant'' and, therefore, subject to the
requirements of the Executive order and subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866
defines a ``significant regulatory action'' as an action likely to
result in a rule that may--
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more,
or adversely affect a sector of the economy, productivity, competition,
jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local or
Tribal governments or communities in a material way (also referred to
as an ``economically significant'' rule);
(2) Create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants,
user fees, or local programs or the rights and obligations of
recipients thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles stated in the
Executive order.
This proposed regulatory action would have an annual effect on the
economy of more than $100 million because Department anticipates more
than that amount will be appropriated for i3 and awarded as grants.
Therefore, this proposed action is ``economically significant'' and
subject to review by OMB under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order
12866. Notwithstanding this determination, we have assessed the
potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and qualitative, of
this proposed regulatory action and have determined that the benefits
would justify the costs.
The Department has also reviewed these proposed requirements under
Executive Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the
principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review
established in Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law,
Executive Order 13563 requires that an agency--
(1) Propose or adopt regulations only upon a reasoned determination
that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits
and costs are difficult to quantify);
(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society,
consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives, taking into account--
among other things, and to the extent practicable--the costs of
cumulative regulations;
(3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select
those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential
economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other
advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);
(4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather
than specifying the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity
must adopt; and
(5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct
regulation, including providing economic incentives--such as user fees
or marketable permits--to encourage the desired behavior, or provide
information that enables the public to make choices.
[[Page 74420]]
Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency ``to use the best
available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future
benefits and costs as accurately as possible.'' The Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these
techniques may include ``identifying changing future compliance costs
that might result from technological innovation or anticipated
behavioral changes.''
We are issuing these proposed priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria only on a reasoned determination
that their benefits justify their costs. In choosing among alternative
regulatory approaches, we selected those approaches that would maximize
net benefits. Based on the analysis that follows, the Department
believes these proposed regulations are consistent with the principles
in Executive Order 13563.
We have also determined that this regulatory action would not
unduly interfere with State, local, and Tribal governments in the
exercise of their governmental functions.
Discussion of Costs and Benefits
The Secretary believes that the proposed priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria would not impose significant costs
on eligible LEAs, nonprofit organizations, or other entities that would
receive assistance through the i3 program. The Secretary also believes
that the benefits of implementing the proposals contained in this
notice outweigh any associated costs.
The Secretary believes that the proposed priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria would result in selection of high-
quality applications to implement activities that are most likely to
have a significant national impact on educational reform and
improvement. The proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and
selection criteria in this notice clarify the scope of activities the
Secretary expects to support with program funds and the expected burden
of work involved in preparing an application and implementing a project
under the program. The pool of possible applicants is very large, and
there is great interest in the program. During the first 3 years of
implementation the Department received over 3,000 applications.
Potential applicants, both LEAs and nonprofit organizations, need to
consider carefully the effort that will be required to prepare a strong
application, their capacity to implement a project successfully, and
their chances of submitting a successful application.
Program participation is voluntary. The Secretary believes that the
costs imposed on applicants by the proposed priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria would be limited to paperwork
burden related to preparing an application and that the benefits of
implementing these proposals would outweigh any costs incurred by
applicants. The costs of carrying out activities would be paid for with
program funds and with matching funds provided by private-sector
partners. Thus, the costs of implementation would not be a burden for
any eligible applicants, including small entities. However, under the
proposed selection criteria the Secretary would assess the extent to
which an applicant would be able to sustain a project once Federal
funding through the i3 program is no longer available. Thus, eligible
applicants should propose activities that they will be able to sustain
without funding from the program and, thus, in essence, should include
in their project plans the specific steps they will take for sustained
implementation of the proposed project. The continued proposal for the
three types of grants under i3--Development, Validation, or Scale-up
grants--would allow potential applicants to determine which type of
grant they are best suited to apply for, based on their own priorities,
resources, and capacity to implement grant activities.
Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification
The Secretary certifies that this proposed regulatory action will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The small entities that this proposed regulatory action will
affect are small LEAs or nonprofit organizations applying for and
receiving funds under this program. The Secretary believes that the
costs imposed on applicants by the proposed priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria would be limited to paperwork
burden related to preparing an application and that the benefits of
implementing these proposals would outweigh any costs incurred by
applicants.
Participation in this program is voluntary. For this reason, the
proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria
would impose no burden on small entities in general. Eligible
applicants would determine whether to apply for funds, and have the
opportunity to weigh the requirements for preparing applications, and
any associated costs, against the likelihood of receiving funding and
the requirements for implementing projects under the program. Eligible
applicants most likely would apply only if they determine that the
likely benefits exceed the costs of preparing an application. The
likely benefits include the potential receipt of a grant as well as
other benefits that may accrue to an entity through its development of
an application, such as the use of that application to spur educational
reforms and improvements without additional Federal funding.
The U.S. Small Business Administration Size Standards defines as
``small entities'' for-profit or nonprofit institutions with total
annual revenue below $7,000,000 or, if they are institutions controlled
by small governmental jurisdictions (that are comprised of cities,
counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special
districts), with a population of less than 50,000. The Urban
Institute's National Center for Charitable Statistics reported that of
196,663 nonprofit organizations that had an educational mission and
reported revenue to the IRS by March of 2012, 168,784 (or about 86
percent) had revenues of less than $5 million. In addition, there are
approximately 16,000 LEAs in the country that meet the definition of
small entity. However, the Secretary believes that only a small number
of these entities would be interested in applying for funds under this
program, thus reducing the likelihood that the proposals contained in
this notice would have a significant economic impact on small entities.
As discussed earlier, the number of applications received during the
last 3 competitions from any type of applicant is approximately 3,000.
In addition, the Secretary believes that the proposed priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria discussed in this
notice do not impose any additional burden on small entities applying
for a grant than they would face in the absence of the proposed action.
That is, the length of the applications those entities would submit in
the absence of the regulatory action and the time needed to prepare an
application would likely be the same.
Further, the proposed action may help small entities determine
whether they have the interest, need, or capacity to implement
activities under the program and, thus, prevent small entities that do
not have such an interest, need, and capacity from absorbing the burden
of applying, or assist those entities in determining whether they
should seek a capable partner to pursue the application process.
This proposed regulatory action would not have a significant
economic impact on small entities once they
[[Page 74421]]
receive a grant because they would be able to meet the costs of
compliance using the funds provided under this program and with any
matching funds provided by private-sector partners.
The Secretary invites comments from small nonprofit organizations
and small LEAs as to whether they believe this proposed regulatory
action would have a significant economic impact on them and, if so,
requests evidence to support that belief.
Accounting Statement
As required by OMB Circular A-4 (available at www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/circulars/a004/a-4.pdf), in the
following table we have prepared an accounting statement showing the
classification of the expenditures associated with the provisions of
this regulatory action. This table provides our best estimate of the
changes in annual monetized transfers as a result of this regulatory
action. Expenditures are classified as transfers from the Federal
Government to LEAs and nonprofit organizations.
Accounting Statement Classification of Estimated Expenditures
[In millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Transfers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized Monetized Transfers............ $140.9 million.
From Whom To Whom? From the Federal Government
to LEAs and nonprofit
organizations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
The requirements and selection criteria proposed in this notice
will require the collection of information that is subject to review by
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The burden associated with the i3
program was approved by OMB under OMB Control Number 1855-0021, which
expires on October 31, 2013. These proposed priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria would allow the Department to
improve the design of the i3 program to better achieve its purposes and
goals. However, the revisions do not change the number of applications
an organization may submit or the burden that an applicant would
otherwise incur in the development and submission of a grant
application under the i3 program. Therefore, the Department expects
that this proposed regulatory action will not affect the total burden
of hours.
Intergovernmental Review: This program is subject to Executive
Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of the
objectives of the Executive order is to foster an intergovernmental
partnership and a strengthened federalism. The Executive order relies
on processes developed by State and local governments for coordination
and review of proposed Federal financial assistance.
This document provides early notification of our specific plans and
actions for this program.
Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this
document in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print,
audiotape, or compact disc) on request to the program contact person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this
document is the document published in the Federal Register. Free
Internet access to the official edition of the Federal Register and the
Code of Federal Regulations is available via the Federal Digital System
at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site you can view this document, as well
as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal
Register, in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF
you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the
site.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Federal Register by using the article search feature at:
www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced feature at
this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the
Department.
Dated: December 11, 2012.
James H. Shelton, III,
Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and Improvement.
[FR Doc. 2012-30199 Filed 12-13-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P