Federal Register: October 9, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 195)
DOCID: fr09oc09-57 FR Doc E9-24387
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Education Department
Docket ID: [Docket ID ED-2009-OII-0012]
RIN ID: RIN 1855-AA06
NOTICE: NOTICES
DOCID: fr09oc09-57
DOCUMENT ACTION: Notice of proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria.
SUBJECT CATEGORY:
Investing in Innovation
DATES: We must receive your comments on or before November 9, 2009.
DOCUMENT SUMMARY:
The Secretary of Education (Secretary) proposes priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria under the Investing in Innovation Fund. The Secretary may use these priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria for competitions of the Investing in Innovation Fund for fiscal year (FY) 2010 and later years. We intend for the priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria to support the efforts of local educational agencies (LEAs) and nonprofit organizations (as defined in this notice) that have strong track records of improving student achievement (as defined in this notice) to expand their work; identify, document, and share best practices; and take successful practices ``to scale.''
SUMMARY:
Investing in Innovation
DOCUMENT BODY 2:
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Numbers: 84.396A, 84.396B and 84.396C.
SUPPLEMENTAL 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 your comment addresses.
We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific requirements of Executive Order 12866 and its overall requirement of reducing regulatory burden that might result from the 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, 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.
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 Investing in Innovation Fund, established under section 14007 of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), provides funding to support (1) LEAs, and (2) nonprofit organizations in partnership with (a) one or more LEAs or (b) a consortium of schools (as defined in this notice). The purpose of the program is to provide competitive grants to applicants with a record of improving student achievement, in order to expand the implementation of, and investment in, innovative practices that are demonstrated to have an impact on improving student achievement or student growth (as defined in this notice) for highneed students (as defined in this notice), as well as to promote school readiness, close achievement gaps, decrease dropout rates, increase high school graduation rates, and improve teacher and school leader effectiveness.
These grants will (1) allow eligible entities to expand and develop their work so that their work can serve as models of best practices, (2) allow eligible entities to work in partnership with the private sector and the philanthropic community, and (3) identify and document best practices that can be shared and taken to scale based on demonstrated success.
Program Authority: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Division A, Section 14007, Public Law No. 1115.
Background
The Statutory Context
On February 17, 2009, President Obama signed into law the ARRA (Pub. L. 1115), historic legislation designed to stimulate the economy, support job creation, and invest in critical sectors, including education. The ARRA lays the foundation for education reform by supporting investments in innovative strategies that are most likely to lead to improved results for students, longterm gains in school and LEA capacity for success, and increased productivity and effectiveness.
The ARRA provides $98.2 billion to the Department for direct expenditures on education. Within this amount, $650 million was authorized and appropriated for the Investing in Innovation Fund (referred to as the ``Innovation Fund'' in the ARRA), for a competitive grant program to enable LEAs and nonprofit organizations with a record of improving kindergartenthroughgrade12 (K12) student achievement to: expand their work; identify, document, and share best practices; and take successful practices to scale.
Education Reform Areas
One of the overall goals of the ARRA is to improve student achievement through school improvement and reform. Within the context of the ARRA, the Investing in Innovation Fund focuses on four key assurances, or education reform areas, that will help achieve this goal: (1) Improvements in teacher effectiveness and ensuring that all schools have effective teachers, (2) gathering information to improve student learning, teacher performance, and college and career readiness through enhanced data systems, (3) progress toward college and career ready standards and rigorous assessments, and (4) improving achievement in lowperforming schools through intensive support and effective interventions.
Overview of the Investing in Innovation Fund
The Department intends to use the Investing in Innovation Fund to support the overarching ARRA goal of improving student achievement by aligning four of the priorities proposed in this notice directly with the four ARRA reform areas. In this notice we propose four additional priorities that are aligned with other Department reform goals in the areas of early learning, college access, students with disabilities and limited English proficient students, and rural LEAs. Finally, we propose to require that all funded projects provide educational or other services to support highneed students.
In this notice, the Department proposes to award three types of grants within the Investing in Innovation
[[Page 52216]]
Fund: ``Scaleup'' grants, ``Validation'' grants, and ``Development''
grants. We have defined each of these types of grants in the section that follows.
Projects funded under each of the three types of grants would provide services to highneed students and would focus on priorities directly tied to the reform areas of the ARRA; applicants could also choose to meet the additional priority areas. Among the three grant types, there would be differences in terms of the evidence that an applicant would be required to submit in support of its proposed project; the expectations for scaling up successful projects during or after the grant period, either directly or through partners; and the funding that a successful applicant would receive.
The intent of these requirements is to ensure that program funds are used to expand and take to scale the most promising practices, strategies, and programs. We are proposing definitions and criteria that would be used to evaluate the available evidence supporting a proposed project, in terms of the strength of the research, the significance of the effect, and the magnitude of the effect for each type of grant. As such, we are particularly interested in receiving comments on these proposed definitions and selection criteria, and whether, in evaluating the magnitude of the effect, we should specify a minimum effect size and, if so, what that effect size should be. We also are interested in your comments on how to ensure that projects that are innovative and comprehensive in scope or that may show a cumulative effect over time are properly considered, given the proposed definitions and selection criteria. We are cognizant of the need to balance our interest in innovation with the importance of research based evidence, and welcome comments on how best to achieve the proper balance.
We also are interested in receiving comments on the criteria we are proposing to evaluate the costeffectiveness of a proposed practice, strategy, or program. We believe that an important aspect of evaluating applications under the Investing in Innovation Fund is assessing the extent to which a proposal is feasible and can be brought to scale in a costeffective manner. So that we can judge the costeffectiveness of a proposed project, we propose that applicants provide estimated startup and operating costs per student (including indirect costs) for reaching the total number of students proposed to be served by the project, as well as for the applicant or others to reach 100,000, 250,000, and 500,000 students for Development grants and Validation grants; and to reach 100,000, 500,000, and 1,000,000 students for Scaleup grants. We are interested in your comments on whether there are other methods of determining costeffectiveness that would be more informative or less burdensome.
Following is an overview of the three types of grants we are proposing to award:
1. Scaleup grants would provide funding to scale up practices, strategies, or programs for which there is strong evidence (as defined in this notice) that the proposed practice, strategy, or program will have a statistically significant effect on improving student achievement or student growth, closing achievement gaps, decreasing dropout rates, or increasing high school graduation rates, and that the effect of implementing the proposed practice, strategy, or program will be substantial and important. We also propose that an applicant for a Scaleup grant could demonstrate success through an intermediate variable directly correlated with these outcomes, such as teacher or school leader effectiveness or improvements in school climate.
We further propose that an applicant for a Scaleup grant estimate the number of students to be reached by the proposed project and provide evidence of its capacity to reach the proposed number of students during the course of the grant. In addition, we propose that an applicant for a Scaleup grant provide evidence of its capacity (e.g., in terms of qualified personnel, financial resources, management capacity) to scale up to a State, regional, or national level (as defined in this notice), working directly or through partners either during or following the end of the grant period. We recognize that LEAs are not typically responsible for taking to scale their practices, strategies, or programs to other LEAs and States. Applicants can and should partner with others (e.g., service centers, State educational agencies, institutions of higher education) to disseminate and take to scale their effective practices, strategies, and programs.
Successful applicants for Scaleup grants would receive larger levels of funding than successful applicants for Validation or Development grants.
2. Validation grants would provide funding to support practices, strategies, or programs that show promise, but for which there is currently only moderate evidence (as defined in this notice) that the proposed practice, strategy, or program will have a statistically significant effect on improving student achievement or student growth, closing achievement gaps, decreasing dropout rates, or increasing high school graduation rates, and that with further study, the effect of implementing the proposed practice, strategy, or program may prove to be substantial and important. Thus, proposals for Validation grants would not need to have the same level of research evidence to support the proposed project that would be required for Scaleup grants. We also propose that applicants could demonstrate success through an intermediate variable directly correlated with these outcomes, such as teacher or school leader effectiveness or improvements in school climate.
An applicant for a Validation grant would have to estimate the number of students to be reached by the proposed project and provide evidence of its capacity to reach the proposed number of students during the course of the grant. In addition, we propose that an applicant for a Validation grant provide evidence of its capacity (e.g., in terms of qualified personnel, financial resources, management capacity) to scale up to a State or regional level, working directly or through partners either during or following the end of the grant period. As noted earlier, we recognize that LEAs are not typically responsible for taking to scale their practices, strategies, or programs to other LEAs and States. Applicants can and should partner with others to disseminate and take to scale their effective practices, strategies, and programs.
Successful applicants for Validation grants would receive more funding than successful applicants for Development grants.
3. Development grants would provide funding to support new, high potential, and relatively untested practices, strategies, or programs whose efficacy should be systematically studied. An applicant would have to provide evidence that the proposed practice, strategy, or program, or one similar to it, has been attempted previously, albeit on a limited scale or in a limited setting, and yielded promising results that suggest that more formal and systematic study is warranted. An applicant must provide a rationale for the proposed practice, strategy, or program that is based on research findings or reasonable hypotheses, including related research or theories in education and other sectors. Thus, proposals for Development grants would not need to provide the same level of evidence to support the proposed project that would be required for Validation or Scaleup grants.
We also propose that an applicant for a Validation grant estimate the number of students to be served by the project,
[[Page 52217]]
and provide evidence of its ability to implement and appropriately
evaluate the proposed project and, if positive results are obtained,
its capacity (e.g., in terms of qualified personnel, financial
resources, management capacity) to further develop and bring the
project to a larger scale directly or through partners either during or
following the end of the grant period. As noted earlier, we recognize
that LEAs are not typically responsible for taking to scale their
practices, strategies, or programs. Applicants can and should partner
with others to disseminate and take to scale their effective practices, strategies, and programs.
To summarize, in terms of the evidence required to support the
proposed practice, strategy, or program, the major differences between
Scaleup, Validation, and Development grants are (see Table 1): (1) The
strength of the research; (2) the significance of the effect; and (3) the magnitude of the effect.
Table 1Differences Between the Three Types of Investing in Innovation Grants in Terms of the Evidence Required
To Support the Proposed Practice, Strategy, or Program
Scaleup grants Validation grants Development grants
Strength of Research................. Strong evidence........ Moderate evidence...... Reasonable hypotheses.
Significance of Effect............... Statistically Statistically Warrants further study.
significant. significant.
Magnitude of Effect.................. Substantial and Potential to be Promising.
important. substantial and
important.
In addition, the three types of grants differ in terms of the expectations to scale up successful projects during or following the end of the grant period, either directly or through partners, and the level of funding that would be available. (See Table 2).
It is our intent to make one or more awards for each type of grant
(Scaleup, Validation, Development), assuming that we receive
applications for each type of grant that are of sufficient quality. We
will announce specific funding ranges for each type of grant in the notice inviting applications for this program.
Table 2Differences Between the Three Types of Investing in Innovation Grants in Terms of Expectations To Scale
up and the Funding To Be Provided
Scaleup grants Validation grants Development grants
Scale up............................. National, Regional, or Regional or State...... Further develop and
State. scale.
Funding to be provided............... Highest................ Moderate............... Modest. Proposed Priorities
Types of Priorities
The Secretary proposes eight priorities for the Investing in Innovation Fund. Proposed Priorities 1, 2, 3, and 4 are proposed as absolute priorities and are aligned with the four reform areas under the ARRA; all applicants must apply under one of these four priorities. Proposed Priorities 5, 6, 7, and 8 are proposed as competitive preference priorities and are aligned with other key education reform goals of the Department. We may apply one or more of the competitive preference priorities to one or more of the three types of grants (Scaleup, Validation, Development grants).
We may choose, in the notice of final priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria, to change the designation of any of these priorities to absolute, competitive preference, or invitational priorities, or to include the substance of these priorities in the selection criteria.
Under an absolute priority, as specified by 34 CFR 75.105(c)(3), we
would consider only applications that meet the priority. Under a
competitive preference priority, we would 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)). With an invitational priority, we
would signal our interest in receiving applications that meet the
priority; however, consistent with 34 CFR 75.105(c)(1), we would not
give an application that meets an invitational priority preference over other applications.
Proposed Absolute Priorities
Proposed Absolute Priority 1Innovations That Support Effective Teachers and School Leaders
Background. Research indicates that teacher quality is a critical
contributor to student learning.\1\ Yet we know that there is dramatic
variation in teacher effectiveness across schools and LEAs, as well as
inequity in the distribution of effective teachers between high and
lowpoverty schools. We also know that it is difficult to predict
teacher effectiveness based on the qualifications that teachers bring
to the job.\2\ Furthermore, studies show that school leadership is a
major contributing factor to what students learn at school and that
strong teachers are more likely to teach in schools with strong
principals.\3\ Absolute priority 1 is intended to support projects that
promote practices, strategies, or programs to increase the number and
percentage of effective teachers and school leaders, or help reduce the
inequities in the distribution of effective teachers and school leaders.
[[Page 52218]]
It is also designed to encourage the use of teacher and school leader evaluation systems that are tied to student growth.
\1\ See, e.g., Kane, Thomas J., Jonah E. Rockoff, and Douglas O.
Staiger (2006), ``What Does Certification Tell Us About Teacher
Effectiveness? Evidence from New York City,'' NBER Working Paper No.
12155; Rivkin, Steven G., Eric A. Hanushek, and John F. Kain (2005),
``Teachers, Schools, and Academic Achievement,'' Econometrica, 73(2), 417458; Rockoff, Jonah. E. (2004), ``The Impact of
Individual Teachers on Students' Achievement: Evidence from Panel
Data,'' American Economic Review 94(2), 24752; Aaronson, Daniel,
Lisa Barrow, and William Sander (2003), ``Teacher and Student
Achievement in the Chicago Public High Schools,'' Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago Working Paper 200228.
\2\ Rivkin, Hanushek, and Kain (2005); Kane, Rockoff, and Staiger (2006).
\3\ Leithwood, Kenneth, Karen Seashore Louis, Stephen Anderson,
and Kyla Sahlstrom (2004), ``How Leadership Influences Student
Learning,'' Wallace Foundation Learning from Leadership Project.
Statement of the Proposed Absolute Priority. Under proposed
absolute priority 1, the Department would provide funding to support
practices, strategies, or programs that increase the number or
percentages of highly effective teachers and school leaders or reduce
the number or percentages of ineffective teachers and school leaders,
especially for highneed students, by identifying, recruiting,
developing, placing, rewarding, and retaining highly effective teachers
and school leaders (or removing ineffective teachers and school
leaders). In such initiatives, teacher or school leader effectiveness
should be determined by an evaluation system that is rigorous,
transparent, and fair; performance should be differentiated using
multiple rating categories of effectiveness; multiple measures of
teachers' effectiveness should be taken into account, with data on
student growth as a significant factor; and the measures should be designed and developed with teacher involvement.
Proposed Absolute Priority 2Innovations That Improve the Use of Data
Background. Section 14005(d)(3) of the ARRA requires States
receiving State Fiscal Stabilization funds to establish a longitudinal
data system that includes the elements described in section 6401(e)(2)
of the America COMPETES Act (20 U.S.C. 9871). Providing student
achievement or student growth data to teachers and principals,
including estimates of individual teacher impact on student achievement
or student growth, is key to driving education reform in general and
improvements in the classroom, in particular.\4\ This priority is
designed to increase the availability and use of practices, strategies,
and programs that provide teachers, principals, administrators,
families, and other stakeholders with the data they need to inform and
improve school and classroom instructional practices, decisionmaking, and overall effectiveness.
\4\ See, e.g., The Data Quality Campaign at http://
www.dataqualitycampaign.org/usingdatasystems/roadmapforstates.
Statement of the Proposed Absolute Priority. Under proposed
absolute priority 2, the Department would provide funding to support
strategies, practices, or programs that encourage and facilitate the
evaluation, analysis, and use of student achievement or student growth
data by educators, families, and other stakeholders in order to inform
decisionmaking; improve student achievement or student growth, and
teacher, school leader, school, or LEA performance and productivity; or
enable data aggregation, analysis, and research. Where applicable,
these data would be disaggregated using the student subgroups described
in section 1111(b)(3)(C)(xiii) of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA) (economically disadvantaged
students, students from major racial and ethnic groups, migrant
students, students with limited English proficiency, students with disabilities, student gender).
Proposed Absolute Priority 3Innovations That Complement the
Implementation of High Standards and HighQuality Assessments
Background. A third key ARRA reform area is improving State academic content standards and student academic achievement standards so that they build toward college and career readiness, and implementing highquality assessments aligned with those standards. In order to make the transition to such standards and assessments, States will need support in: Developing, acquiring, disseminating, and implementing highquality curricular instructional materials and assessments; developing or acquiring and delivering highquality professional development to support the transition to new standards, assessments, and instructional materials; and engaging in other strategies that align the standards and information from assessments with classroom practices that meet the needs of all students, including highneed students.
Statement of the Proposed Absolute Priority. Under proposed absolute priority 3, the Department would provide funding for practices, strategies, or programs that support States' efforts to transition to college and careerreadiness standards and assessments, including curricular and instructional practices, strategies, or programs in core academic subjects that are aligned with high academic content and achievement standards and with highquality assessments based on those standards. Proposals may include practices, strategies, or programs that: (a) Increase the success of underrepresented student populations in academically rigorous courses and programs (such as Advanced Placement or International Baccalaureate courses; dual enrollment programs; early college high schools; and science, technology, engineering, and mathematics courses, especially those that incorporate rigorous and relevant project, inquiry, or designbased contextual learning opportunities); (b) increase the development and use of formative assessments or interim assessments, or other performancebased tools and metrics that are aligned with student content and academic achievement standards; or (c) translate the standards and information from assessments into classroom practices that meet the needs of all students, including highneed students. Proposed Absolute Priority 4Innovations That Turn Around Persistently LowPerforming Schools
Background. Although there are noted examples of successful school reform efforts, persistently lowperforming schools (as defined in this notice) continue to plague this country's system of public education and fail to adequately educate our Nation's youth to succeed in a global economy. It is imperative that we as a Nation serve our most educationally needy schools in order to ensure that all students are prepared for the challenges of the global economy.
Statement of the Proposed Absolute Priority. Under proposed
absolute priority 4, the Department would provide funding to support
strategies, practices, or programs that turn around persistently low
performing schools through either wholeschool reform or targeted
approaches to reform. Applicants addressing this priority must focus on either:
(a) Wholeschool reform, such as comprehensive interventions to
assist, augment, or replace persistently lowperforming schools; or
(b) Targeted approaches to reform, including, but not limited to:
(1) Providing more time for students to learn core academic content by
expanding the school day, school week, or the school year, or by
increasing instructional time for core academic subjects during the day
and in the summer; (2) integrating student supports to address non
academic barriers to student achievement; or (3) creating multiple
pathways for students to earn regular high school diplomas (e.g.,
transfer schools, awarding credit based on demonstrated evidence of student competency, offering dualenrollment options).
Proposed Competitive Preference Priorities
As stated previously, we are proposing four competitive preference
priorities that we may choose to apply to one or more of the three types of
[[Page 52219]]
grants (Scaleup, Validation, and Development grants).
Proposed Competitive Preference Priority 5Innovations for Improving Early Learning Outcomes
Background. Research demonstrates the importance of efforts to
build early language and literacy skills, as well as skills with
numbers and spatial thinking, as a means of eliminating the differences
in student achievement or student growth that develop between children
from lowincome families and children from middleincome families
during their school years.\5\ Investing in early learning programs to
prevent the development of these gaps in skills can reduce the need for
more costly and difficult interventions, including referrals to special
education, later on in a child's life.\6\ In addition, research
indicates that investments in young children can yield dramatic
economic benefits over the course of those children's lives in the form
of reduced incidence of crime and increased employment. This proposed
competitive preference priority aligns with the Department's efforts to
increase the quality of existing early learning programs and expand
access to highquality early learning programs, particularly for children from lowincome families.
\5\ National Research Council. 1998. Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children.
\6\ Schweinhart, L.J. (2002, June). How the HighScope Perry
Preschool Study Grew: A Researcher's Tale. Phi Delta Kappa Center for Evaluation, Development, and Research. (No. 32).
Statement of Proposed Competitive Preference Priority 5. We propose
to give competitive preference to proposals that include practices,
strategies, or programs to improve educational outcomes for highneed
students who are young children (birth through 3rd grade) by enhancing
the quality of early learning programs. Proposals must focus on (a)
improving young children's school readiness (including social,
emotional, and cognitive) so that children are prepared for success in
core academic subjects; (b) improving and aligning developmental
milestones and standards with appropriate outcome measures; and (c)
improving alignment, collaboration, and transitions between early
learning programs that serve children from birth to age three, in preschools, and in kindergarten through third grade.
Proposed Competitive Preference Priority 6Innovations That Support College Access and Success
Background. One way to help meet the President's goal of restoring the United States to first in the world in the percentage of citizens holding college degrees is to increase the number of high school students with access to college who are prepared to succeed in an institution of higher education. Proposed competitive preference priority 6 would fund practices, strategies, and programs that prepare K12 students for success in college.
Statement of Proposed Competitive Preference Priority 6. We propose
to give competitive preference to proposals for practices, strategies,
or programs that enable K12 students, particularly high school
students, to successfully prepare for, enter, and graduate from a two
or fouryear college. Proposals must include practices, strategies, or
programs for K12 students that address students' preparedness and
expectations related to college; help students understand issues of
college affordability and the financial aid and college application
processes; and provide support to students from peers and knowledgeable adults.
Proposed Competitive Preference Priority 7Innovations To Address the
Unique Learning Needs of Students With Disabilities and Limited English Proficient Students
Background. One of the primary goals of the ESEA, as well as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), is to improve the quality of education for all students, including students with disabilities and students who are limited English proficient. In particular, the ESEA requires each State and LEA to work toward narrowing achievement gaps and demonstrate high levels of progress for these two groups of students. However, as evidenced by results on State assessments under section 1111(b)(3) of the ESEA, schools often lack appropriate and effective strategies to enable a greater share of students with disabilities and limited English proficient students to meet high standards.
Statement of Proposed Competitive Preference Priority 7. We propose
to give competitive preference to proposals that include innovative
strategies, practices, or programs to address the unique learning needs
of students with disabilities, or the linguistic and academic needs of
limited English proficient students. Proposals must focus on particular
practices, strategies, or programs that are designed to improve
academic outcomes and increase graduation rates for students with disabilities or limited English proficient students.
Proposed Competitive Preference Priority 8Innovations That Serve Schools in Rural LEAs
Background. Solutions to educational challenges in rural areas
frequently differ from what works in urban and suburban communities.\7\
This proposed competitive preference priority recognizes the need to
bring education innovation and reform to all regions of the country, including rural LEAs.
\7\ Status of Education in Rural America. (2007). U.S.
Department of Education, National Center for Educational Statistics.
Statement of Proposed Competitive Preference Priority 8. We propose
to give competitive preference to proposals that focus on the unique
challenges of highneed students in schools within a rural LEA (as
defined in this notice) and address the particular challenges faced by
students in these schools. Proposals must include practices,
strategies, or programs that improve student achievement or student
growth, close achievement gaps, decrease dropout rates, increase high
school graduation rates, or improve teacher and school leader effectiveness in one or more rural LEAs.
Proposed Requirements
Background
The Investing in Innovation Fund would provide support to LEAs, and nonprofit organizations that partner with one or more LEAs or a consortium of schools that apply and successfully compete for a Scale up, Validation, or Development grant. What follows are the statutory and proposed eligibility requirements for LEAs and nonprofit organizations.
Proposed Requirements
The Secretary proposes the following requirements for the Investing in Innovation Fund. We may apply these requirements in any year in which this program is in effect.
Providing Innovations that Improve Achievement for HighNeed Students: All applicants must implement practices, strategies, or programs for highneed students (as defined in this notice).
Eligible applicants: Entities eligible to apply for Investing in Innovation Fund grants include: (a) an LEA or (b) a partnership between a nonprofit organization and (1) one or more LEAs or (2) a consortium of schools.
Eligibility requirements: \8\ To be eligible for an award, an eligible
[[Page 52220]]
applicant must meet several statutory requirements and one additional
requirement. The requirements in paragraphs (1), (2), (3), and (4) that
follow are statutory; we are including them here for clarity. We are
requesting comment on the proposed requirement in paragraph (5).
\8\ We note that at the time of publication of this notice, the
pending House and Senate appropriations bills would, if enacted,
make technical changes to provisions of the authorizing legislation
for this program. (See http://thomas.loc.gov/cgibin/cpquery/
?&dbname=cp111&sid=cp111LTV8y&refer=&r_n=hr220.111&item=&sel=TOC_
1120308&; and http://thomas.loc.gov/cgibin/cpquery/
?&dbname=cp111&sid=cp111M6VRe&refer=&r_n=sr066.111&item=&sel=TOC_
904504&). These changes would modify the eligibility requirements
currently set forth in section 14007(b)(2) and (c) by: (1) Making
minor alterations to the sections concerning the basis for awards
and the special eligibility rule, and (2) removing the reference to
State measurable annual achievement objectives. In addition to these
minor changes to the eligibility requirements, enactment of the
proposed legislation would authorize eligible entities that include
a partnership with a nonprofit organization, to make subgrants within the partnership.
To be eligible for an award, an applicant must:
(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);
(2) Have exceeded the State's annual measurable objectives
consistent with section 1111(b)(2) of the ESEA for two or more
consecutive years or have demonstrated success in significantly
increasing student achievement for all groups of students described in
that section through another measure, such as measures described in
section 1111(c)(2) of the ESEA (i.e., the National Assessment of Educational Progress);
(3) Have made significant improvements in other areas, such as
graduation rates or increased recruitment and placement of highquality
teachers and school leaders, as demonstrated with other meaningful data;
(4) Demonstrate that they have established partnerships with the
private sector, which may include philanthropic organizations, and that
the private sector will provide matching funds in order to help bring results to scale; and
(5) In the case of a nonprofit organization, provide in its
application the names of the LEAs with which it will partner, or the
names of the schools in the consortium with which it will partner. If a
nonprofit organization applicant intends to partner with additional
LEAs or schools that are not named in its application, it must describe
in its application the demographics and other characteristics of these
LEAs and schools and the process it will use to select them as
partners. An applicant must identify its specific partners before a grant award will be made.
Note about LEA Eligibility: To be eligible for an award, an LEA applicant must be located within one of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
Note about Eligibility for an Entity that Includes a Nonprofit Organization: To be eligible for an award, the statute requires that an application submitted by a nonprofit organization, in partnership with one or more LEAs or a consortium of schools, be considered to have met the eligibility requirements in paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) described earlier in this notice, if the nonprofit organization has a record of meeting those requirements. We are proposing that a nonprofit organization applicant be considered to have met these eligibility requirements through its record of work with an LEA. Therefore, an applicant that is a nonprofit organization would not necessarily need to select as a partner for its Investing in Innovation Fund grant an LEA or a consortium of schools that meets the eligibility requirements in paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) described earlier. Rather, the nonprofit organization would have to demonstrate that it has a record of meeting those requirements through the assistance it has provided to one or more LEAs in the past.
Funding Categories: An applicant must state in its application whether it is applying for a Scaleup, Validation, or Development grant. An applicant may not submit an application for the same proposed project under more than one type of grant. An applicant will be considered for an award only for the type of grant for which it applies.
Cost Sharing or Matching: To be eligible for an award, an applicant must demonstrate that it has established one or more partnerships with an entity or organization in the private sector, which may include philanthropic organizations, and that the entity or organization in the private sector will provide matching funds in order to help bring project results to scale. An applicant must obtain matching funds or inkind donations equal to at least 20 percent of its grant award. The Secretary may consider decreasing the 20 percent matching requirement in the most exceptional circumstances, on a casebycase basis. An applicant that anticipates being unable to meet the 20 percent matching requirement must include in its application a request to the Secretary to reduce the matching level requirement, along with a statement of the basis for the request.
Evaluation: An applicant receiving funds under this program must comply with the requirements of any evaluation of the program conducted by the Department. In addition, an applicant is required to conduct an independent evaluation (as defined in this notice) of its proposed project and must agree, along with its independent evaluator, to cooperate with any technical assistance provided by the Department or its contractor. The purpose of this technical assistance would be to ensure that the evaluations are of the highest quality and to encourage commonality in evaluation approaches across funded projects where it is feasible and useful to do so. Finally, an applicant receiving funds under this program must make broadly available through formal (e.g., peerreviewed journals) or informal (e.g., newsletters) mechanisms, and in print or electronically, the results of any evaluations it conducts of its funded activities
Participation in ``Communities of Practice'': Grantees will be required to participate in, organize, or facilitate, as appropriate, communities of practice for the Investing in Innovation Fund. A community of practice is a group of grantees that agrees to interact regularly to solve a persistent problem or improve practice in an area that is important to them. Establishment of communities of practice under the Investing in Innovation Fund will enable grantees to meet, discuss, and collaborate with each other regarding grantee projects. Proposed Definitions
Background
Several important terms associated with the Investing in Innovation Fund are not defined in the ARRA.
Proposed Definitions
The Secretary proposes the following definitions for the Investing
in Innovation Fund.\9\ We may apply one or more of these definitions in any year in which this program is in effect.
\9\ In this notice, we use many of the same definitions that
were in the Race to the Top notice of proposed priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria (see http://
www.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister/proprule/20093/072909d.html).
The comment period for the Race to the Top program is now closed,
and we are considering the comments on the definitions, as well as
other sections of that notice. In the final notice for the Investing
in Innovation Fund, we will align our definitions, as appropriate,
with those included in the final notice for the Race to the Top program.
1. Definitions Related to Evidence
Strong evidence means evidence from previous studies whose designs can support causal conclusions (i.e., studies
[[Page 52221]]
with high internal validity), and studies that in total include enough
of the range of participants and settings to support scaling up to the
State, regional, or national level (i.e., studies with high external
validity). The following are examples of strong evidence: (1) More than
one welldesigned and wellimplemented experimental study (as defined in this notice) or welldesigned and wellimplemented quasi
experimental study (as defined in this notice) that supports the
effectiveness of the practice, strategy, or program; or (2) one large,
welldesigned and wellimplemented randomized controlled, multisite
trial that supports the effectiveness of the practice, strategy, or program.
Moderate evidence means evidence from previous studies whose
designs can support causal conclusions (i.e., studies with high
internal validity) but have limited generalizability (i.e., moderate
external validity), or studies with high external validity but moderate
internal validity. The following would constitute moderate evidence:
(1) At least one welldesigned and wellimplemented experimental or
quasiexperimental study supporting the effectiveness of the practice
strategy, or program, with small sample sizes or other conditions of
implementation or analysis that limit generalizability; (2) at least one welldesigned and wellimplemented experimental or quasi
experimental study that does not demonstrate equivalence between the
intervention and comparison groups at program entry but that has no
other major flaws related to internal validity; or (3) correlational
research with strong statistical controls for selection bias and for discerning the influence of internal factors.
Experimental study means a study that employs random assignment of students, teachers, classrooms, or schools to participate in a project being evaluated (treatment group) or not to participate in the project (control group). The effect of the project is the difference in outcomes between the treatment and control groups.
Quasiexperimental study means an evaluation design that attempts to approximate an experimental design and can support causal conclusions (i.e., minimizes threats to internal validity, such as selection bias, or allows them to be modeled). Welldesigned quasi experimental studies include carefully matched comparison group designs (as defined in this notice), interrupted time series designs (as defined in this notice), or regression discontinuity designs (as defined in this notice).
Carefully matched comparison group design means a type of quasi experimental study that attempts to approximate an experimental study. More specifically, it is a design in which project participants are matched with nonparticipants based on key characteristics that are thought to be related to the outcome. These characteristics include, but are not limited to: (1) Prior test scores and other measures of academic achievement (preferably, the same measures that the study will use to evaluate outcomes for the two groups); (2) demographic characteristics, such as age, disability, gender, English proficiency, ethnicity, poverty level, parents' educational attainment, and single or twoparent family background; (3) the time period in which the two groups are studied (e.g., the two groups are children entering kindergarten in the same year as opposed to sequential years); and (4) methods used to collect outcome data (e.g., the same test of reading skills administered in the same way to both groups).
Interrupted time series design means a type of quasiexperimental study in which the outcome of interest is measured multiple times before and after the treatment for program participants only. If the program had an impact, the outcomes after treatment will have a different slope or level from those before treatment. That is, the series should show an ``interruption'' of the prior situation at the time when the program was implemented. Adding a nonequivalent control group time series, such as schools not participating in the program or schools participating in the program in a different geographic area, increases the reliability of the findings.
Regression discontinuity design study means, in part, a quasi experimental study design that closely approximates an experimental study. In a regression discontinuity design, participants are assigned to a treatment or control group based on a numerical rating or score of a variable unrelated to the treatment such as the rating of an application for funding. Another example would be assignment of eligible students, teachers, classrooms, or schools above a certain score (``cut score'') to the treatment group and assignment of those below the score to the control group.
Independent evaluation means that the evaluation is designed and carried out independent of, but in coordination with, any employees of the entities who develop a practice, strategy, or program and are implementing it. This independence helps ensure the objectivity of an evaluation and prevents even the appearance of a conflict of interest. 2. Other Definitions
Consortium of schools means two or more public elementary or secondary schools acting collaboratively for the purpose of applying for and implementing an Investing in Innovation Fund grant jointly with an eligible nonprofit organization.
Nonprofit organization means an entity that meets the definition of ``nonprofit'' under 34 CFR 77.1(c), or an institution of higher education as defined by section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended.
Formative assessment means an assessment that is embedded in instruction and is used by teachers to provide timely feedback on student understanding and to adjust ongoing teaching and learning effectively.
Interim assessment means an assessment given at regular and specified intervals throughout the school year, and is designed to evaluate students' knowledge and skills relative to a specific set of academic standards, the results of which can be aggregated (e.g., by course, grade level, school, or LEA) in order to inform teachers and administrators at the student, classroom, school, and LEA levels.
Highly effective school leader means a principal or other school leader whose students, overall and for each subgroup as described in section 1111(b)(3)(C)(xiii) of the ESEA (i.e., economically disadvantaged students, students from major racial and ethnic groups, migrant students, students with disabilities, students with limited English proficiency, student gender), demonstrate high rates (e.g., more than one grade level in an academic year) of student growth. Applicants may supplement this definition as they see fit so long as school leader effectiveness is judged, in significant measure, by student growth.
Highly effective teacher means a teacher whose students achieve high rates (e.g., more than one grade level in an academic year) of student growth. Applicants may supplement this definition as they see fit so long as teacher effectiveness is judged, in significant measure, by student growth.
Highneed 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 are far below grade level, who
are overage and undercredited, who have left school before receiving
a regular high school diploma, who are at risk of not graduating with a regular high school diploma on time,
[[Page 52222]]
who are homeless, who are in foster care, who have been incarcerated,
who have disabilities, or who are limited English proficient.
Persistently lowperforming schools means Title I schools in corrective action or restructuring in the State and the secondary schools (both middle and high schools) in the State that are equally as lowachieving as these Title I schools and are eligible for, but do not receive, Title I funds.
National level, as used in reference to a Scaleup grant, describes a project that is able to be effective in a wide variety of communities and student populations around the country, including rural and urban areas, as well as with different groups of students described in section 1111(b)(3)(C)(xiii) of the ESEA (i.e., economically disadvantaged students, students from major racial and ethnic groups, migrant students, students with disabilities, students with limited English proficiency, student gender).
Regional level, as used in reference to a Scaleup or Validation grant, describes a project that is able to serve a variety of communities and student populations within a State or multiple States, including rural and urban areas, as well as with different groups of students described in section 1111(b)(3)(C)(xiii) of the ESEA (i.e., economically disadvantaged students, students from major racial and ethnic groups, migrant students, students with disabilities, students with limited English proficiency, student gender).
Rural LEA means an LEA that is eligible under the Small Rural
School Achievement (SRSA) program or the Rural and LowIncome School
(RLIS) program authorized under Title VI, Part B of the ESEA.
Applicants may determine whether a particular LEA is eligible for these
programs by referring to information on the following Department Web
sites. For the SRSA: http://www.ed.gov/programs/reapsrsa/eligible08/
index.html. For the RLIS: http://www.ed.gov/programs/reaprlisp/ eligibility.html.
Student achievement means, at a minimum
(a) For tested grades and subjects: A student's score on the
State's assessments under section 1111(b)(3) of the ESEA and may also
include other measures of learning, as appropriate, such as those described in paragraph (b) of this definition.
(b) For nontested grades and subjects: An alternative academic
measure of student learning and performance (e.g., performance on
interim assessments or on other classroombased assessments; rates at
which students are on track to graduate from high school; percentage of
students enrolled and achieving at successful levels in Advanced
Placement, preAdvanced Placement, International Baccalaureate, or dualenrollment courses).
Student growth means the change in student achievement data for an individual student between two or more points in time. Growth may be measured by a variety of approaches, but any approach used must be statistically rigorous and based on student achievement data, and may also include other measures of student learning in order to increase the construct validity and generalizability of the information. Proposed Selection Criteria
Background
The proposed selection criteria are intended to ensure that applicantsregardless of grant typecan demonstrate that they have the experience and capacity to expand or develop practices, strategies, or programs that will have a positive impact on improving student achievement or student growth, closing achievement gaps, decreasing dropout rates, or increasing high school graduation rates.
Proposed Selection Criteria
The Secretary proposes the following selection criteria for
evaluating an application under the Investing in Innovation Fund. We
may apply one or more of these criteria in any year in which this
program is in effect. In the notice inviting applications or the
application package, or both, we will announce the maximum possible points assigned to each criterion.
1. ScaleUp Grants
A. Need for the Project and Quality of the Project Design
(1) The Secretary considers the need for the project and quality of the design of the proposed project.
(2) In determining the need for the project and quality of the
design of the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(a) The extent to which the proposed project represents an
exceptional approach to the priorities the applicant is seeking to meet
(i.e., addresses a largely unmet need, particularly for highneed
students, and is a practice, strategy, or program that has not already been widely adopted).
(b) The extent to which the proposed project has a clear set of
goals and an explicit strategy (i.e., logic model), with actions that
are (i) aligned with the priorities the applicant is seeking to meet,
and (ii) expected to result in achieving the goals, objectives, and outcomes of the proposed project.
B. Strength of Research, Significance of Effect, and Magnitude of Effect
(1) The Secretary considers the strength of the existing research
evidence and the significance of effect in support of the proposed
project, as well as the magnitude of the effect on improving student
achievement or student growth, closing achievement gaps, decreasing
dropout rates, or increasing high school graduation rates. Applicants
may also demonstrate success through an intermediate variable that is
directly correlated with improving these outcomes, such as teacher or
school leader effectiveness, or improvements in school climate.
(2) In determining the strength of the existing research evidence
and the significance of effect to support the proposed project, as well
as the magnitude of the effect, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(a) The extent to which the applicant demonstrates that there is
strong evidence that the proposed practice, strategy, or program will
have a statistically significant effect on improving student
achievement or student growth, closing achievement gaps, decreasing
dropout rates, or increasing high school graduation rates, and that the effect will be substantial and important.
(b) The importance and magnitude of the effect expected to be
obtained by the proposed project, including the extent to which the
project will substantially and measurably improve student achievement
or student growth, close achievement gaps, decrease dropout rates, or
increase high school graduation rates. The evidence in support of the
importance and magnitude of the effect would be the researchbased
evidence provided by the applicant to support the proposed project. C. Experience of the Applicant
(1) The Secretary considers the experience of the applicant in implementing the proposed project.
(2) In determining the experience of the applicant, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(a) The past performance of the applicant in implementing large, complex, and rapidly growing projects.
(b) The extent to which an applicant provides information and data
demonstrating that it has (or has supported an LEA in taking actions that have)
(i) Significantly closed the achievement gaps between groups of [[Page 52223]]
students described in section 1111(b)(2) of the ESEA;
(ii) Exceeded the State's annual measurable objectives consistent
with section 1111(b)(2) of the ESEA for two or more consecutive years
or demonstrated success in significantly increasing student achievement
for all groups of students described in that section through another
measure, such as measures described in section 1111(c)(2) of the ESEA
(i.e., the National Assessment of Educational Progress); and
(iii) Made significant improvements in other areas, such as
graduation rates or increased recruitment and placement of highquality
teachers and school leaders, as demonstrated with other meaningful data.
D. Quality of the Project Evaluation
1. The Secretary considers the quality of the evaluation to be conducted of the proposed project.
2. In determining the quality of the evaluation, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(a) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will include an
experimental study or, if a welldesigned experimental study of the
project cannot be conducted, the extent to which the methods of
evaluation will include a welldesigned quasiexperimental study.
(b) The extent to which, for either an experimental study or quasi
experimental study, the study will be conducted of the practice, strategy, or program as implemented at scale.
(c) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will provide
highquality implementation data and performance feedback, and permit
periodic assessment of progress toward achieving intended outcomes.
(d) The extent to which the evaluation will provide sufficient
information about the key elements and approach of the project to facilitate replication or testing in other settings.
(e) The extent to which the proposed project plan includes
sufficient resources to effectively carry out the project evaluation.
(f) The extent to which the proposed evaluation is rigorous,
independent, and neither the program developer nor the project implementer is evaluating the impact of the project.
Note: We encourage applicants to review the following technical assistance resources on evaluation: (1) What Works Clearinghouse Procedures and Standards Handbook: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/ references/idocviewer/doc.aspx?docid=19&tocid=1; and (2) IES/NCEE Technical Methods papers: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/tech_methods/. E. Strategy and Capacity To Scale
1. The Secretary considers the quality of the applicant's strategy and capacity to bring the proposed project to scale on a national, regional, or State level.
2. In determining the quality of the strategy and capacity to scale, the Secretary considers:
(a) The number of students to be reached by the proposed project
and the applicant's capacity to reach the proposed number of students during the course of the grant period.
(b) The applicant's capacity (e.g., in terms of qualified
personnel, financial resources, management capacity) to bring the
project to scale on a national, regional, or State level working
directly, or through partners, either during or following the end of the grant period.
(c) The feasibility of the proposed project to be replicated
successfully, if positive results are obtained, in a variety of
settings and with a variety of student populations. Evidence of this
ability includes the proposed project's demonstrated success in
multiple settings with different types of students, the availability of
resources and expertise required for implementing the project with
fidelity, and the proposed project's evidence of relative ease of use or user satisfaction.
(d) The applicant's estimate of the cost of the proposed project,
which includes startup and operating costs per student (including
indirect costs) for reaching the total number of students proposed to
be served by the project, as well as for the applicant or others to reach 100,000, 500,000, and 1,000,000 students.
(e) The mechanisms the applicant will use to broadly disseminate information on its project to support replication.
F. Sustainability
1. The Secretary considers the adequacy of resources to continue the proposed project after the grant period ends.
2. In determining the adequacy of resources for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(a) The extent to which the applicant demonstrates that it has the
resources to operate the project beyond the length of the Scaleup
grant, including a multiyear financial and operating model and
accompanying plan; the demonstrated commitment of current and future
partners; and evidence of broad support from stakeholders (e.g., State
educational agencies, teachers' unions) critical to the project's long term success.
(b) The potential and planning for the incorporation of project
purposes, activities, or benefits into the ongoing work of the LEA,
schools, or nonprofit organization at the end of the Scaleup grant. G. Quality of the Management Plan and Personnel
1. The Secretary considers the quality of the management plan and personnel for the proposed project.
2. In determining the quality of the management plan and personnel for the proposed project, the Secretary considers:
(a) The adequacy of the management plan to achieve the objectives
of the proposed project on time and within budget, including clearly
defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing
project tasks, as well as plans for sustainability and scalability of the proposed project.
(b) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience,
of the project director and key project personnel, especially in managing large, complex, and rapidly growing projects.
(c) The qualifications, including relevant expertise and
experience, of the project director and key personnel of the
independent evaluator, especially in designing and conducting large
scale experimental and quasiexperimental studies of educational initiatives.
2. Validation Grants
A. Need for the Project and Quality of the Project Design
(1) The Secretary considers the need for the project and quality of the design of the proposed project.
(2) In determining the need for the project and quality of the
design of the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(a) The extent to which the proposed project represents an
exceptional approach to the priorities the applicant is seeking to meet
(i.e., addresses a largely unmet need, particularl
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
Mia Howerton. Telephone: (202) 205- 0417; or Erin McHugh. Telephone: (202) 4011304. Or by email: i3@ed.gov. Note that we will not accept comments by email.
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal Relay Service, toll free, at 18008778339.