12072 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Notices 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

Office of Innovation and Improvement; 

Overview Information: Investing in 

Innovation Fund; Notice Inviting 

Applications for New Awards for Fiscal 

Year (FY) 2010 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

(CFDA) Numbers: 

84.396A (Scale-up grants), 84.396B 

(Validation grants), and 84.396C 

(Development grants). 

Dates: 

Applications Available: March 12, 2010. 

Deadline for Notice of Intent to Apply: 

April 1, 2010. 

Deadline for Transmittal of 

Applications: May 11, 2010. 

Dates of Pre-Application Workshops: 

March 19, 2010, in Baltimore, 

Maryland; March 24, 2010, in Denver, 

Colorado; and March 30, 2010, in 

Atlanta, Georgia. 

Deadline for Intergovernmental Review: 

July 12, 2010. 

Full Text of Announcement 

I. Funding Opportunity Description 

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) local 

educational agencies (LEAs), and (2) 

nonprofit organizations in partnership 

with (a) one or more LEAs or (b) a 

consortium of schools. The purpose of 

this program is to provide competitive 

grants to applicants with a record of 

improving student achievement and 

attainment in order to expand the 

implementation of, and investment in, 

innovative practices that are 

demonstrated to have an impact on 

improving student achievement or 

student growth (as defined in this 

notice), closing achievement gaps, 

decreasing dropout rates, increasing 

high school graduation rates, or 

increasing college enrollment and 

completion rates. 

These grants will (1) allow eligible 

entities to expand and develop 

innovative practices that can serve as 

models of best practices, (2) allow 

eligible entities to work in partnership 

with the private sector and the 

philanthropic community, and (3) 

support eligible entities in identifying 

and documenting best practices that can 

be shared and taken to scale based on 

demonstrated success. 

Under this program, the Department 

is awarding three types of grants: ‘‘Scaleup’’ grants, ‘‘Validation’’ grants, and 

‘‘Development’’ grants. Applicants must 

specify which type of grant they are 

seeking at the time of application. 

Among the three grant types, there are 

differences in terms of the evidence that 

an applicant is required to submit in 

support of its proposed project; the 

expectations for ‘‘scaling up’’ successful 

projects during or after the grant period, 

either directly or through partners; and 

the funding that a successful applicant 

is eligible to receive. The following is an 

overview of the three types of grants: 

(1) Scale-up grants 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, increasing high school graduation 

rates, or increasing college enrollment 

and completion rates, and that the effect 

of implementing the proposed practice, 

strategy, or program will be substantial 

and important. An applicant for a Scaleup grant may also demonstrate success 

through an intermediate variable 

strongly correlated with these outcomes, 

such as teacher or principal 

effectiveness. 

An applicant for a Scale-up grant 

must estimate the number of students to 

be reached by the proposed project and 

provide evidence of its capacity to reach 

the proposed number of students during 

the course of the grant. In addition, an 

applicant for a Scale-up grant must 

provide evidence of its capacity (e.g., in 

terms of qualified personnel, financial 

resources, or management capacity) to 

scale up to a State, regional, or national 

level, working directly or through 

partners either during or following the 

grant period. We recognize that LEAs 

are not typically responsible for taking 

to scale their practices, strategies, or 

programs in other LEAs and States. 

However, all applicants, including 

LEAs, can and should partner with 

others (e.g., State educational agencies) 

to disseminate and take to scale their 

effective practices, strategies, and 

programs. 

Peer reviewers will review all eligible 

Scale-up grant applications. However, if 

an application does not meet the 

definition of strong evidence in this 

notice, the Department will not consider 

the application for funding. 

Successful applicants for Scale-up 

grants will receive more funding than 

successful applicants for Validation or 

Development grants. 

(2) Validation grants 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, increasing high school graduation 

rates, or increasing college enrollment 

and completion rates and that, with 

further study, the effect of implementing 

the proposed practice, strategy, or 

program may prove to be substantial 

and important. Thus, applications for 

Validation grants do not need to have 

the same level of research evidence to 

support the proposed project as is 

required for Scale-up grants. An 

applicant may also demonstrate success 

through an intermediate variable 

strongly correlated with these outcomes, 

such as teacher or principal 

effectiveness. 

An applicant for a Validation grant 

must estimate the number of students to 

be reached by the proposed project and 

provide evidence of its capacity to reach 

the proposed number of students during 

the course of the grant. In addition, an 

applicant for a Validation grant must 

provide evidence of its capacity (e.g., in 

terms of qualified personnel, financial 

resources, or management capacity) to 

scale up to a State or regional level, 

working directly or through partners 

either during or following the grant 

period. As noted earlier, we recognize 

that LEAs are not typically responsible 

for taking to scale their practices, 

strategies, or programs in other LEAs 

and States. However, all applicants, 

including LEAs, can and should partner 

with others to disseminate and take to 

scale their effective practices, strategies, 

and programs. 

Peer reviewers will review all eligible 

Validation grant applications. However, 

if an application does not meet the 

definition of moderate evidence in this 

notice, the Department will not consider 

the application for funding. 

Successful applicants for Validation 

grants will receive more funding than 

successful applicants for Development 

grants. 

(3) Development grants provide 

funding to support high-potential and 

relatively untested practices, strategies, 

or programs whose efficacy should be 

systematically studied. An applicant 

must 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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Notices 12073 

1Consistent with the Race to the Top Fund, the 

Department interprets the core academic subject of 

‘‘science’’ under section 9101(11) to include STEM 

education (science, technology, engineering, and 

mathematics) which encompasses a wide range of 

disciplines, including science. 

2Under the final requirements for the School 

Improvement Grants program, ‘‘persistently lowestachieving schools’’ means, as determined by the 

State, (a)(1) any Title I school in improvement, 

corrective action, or restructuring that (i) is among 

the lowest-achieving five percent of Title I schools 

in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring 

or the lowest-achieving five Title I schools in 

improvement, corrective action, or restructuring in 

the State, whichever number of schools is greater; 

or (ii) is a high school that has had a graduation 

rate as defined in 34 CFR 200.19(b) that is less than 

60 percent over a number of years; and (2) any 

secondary school that is eligible for, but does not 

receive, Title I funds that (i) is among the lowestContinued 

hypotheses, including related research 

or theories in education and other 

sectors. Thus, applications for 

Development grants do not need to 

provide the same level of evidence to 

support the proposed project as is 

required for Validation or Scale-up 

grants. 

An applicant for a Development grant 

must estimate the number of students to 

be served by the project, and provide 

evidence of the applicant’s 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, or management capacity) to 

further develop and bring the project to 

a larger scale directly or through 

partners either during or following the 

grant period. As noted earlier, we 

recognize that LEAs are not typically 

responsible for taking to scale their 

practices, strategies, or programs. Again, 

however, all applicants can and should 

partner with others to disseminate and 

take to scale their effective practices, 

strategies, and programs. 

Peer reviewers will review all eligible 

Development grant applications. 

However, if an application is not 

supported by a reasonable hypothesis 

for the proposed project, the Department 

will not consider the application for 

funding. 

Priorities: These priorities are from 

the notice of final priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria (NFP) for this program, 

published elsewhere in this issue of the 

Federal Register. This notice contains 

four absolute priorities and four 

competitive preference priorities that 

are explained in the following 

paragraphs. 

Absolute Priorities: For FY 2010 and 

any subsequent year in which we make 

awards from the list of unfunded 

applicants from this competition, these 

priorities are absolute priorities. Under 

34 CFR 75.105(c)(3) we consider only 

applications that address one of these 

priorities. 

Applicants for all types of grants must 

choose one of the four absolute 

priorities and address that priority in its 

application. Applicants will address the 

selected absolute priority in the project 

narrative by addressing the Selection 

Criteria. 

These priorities are: 

Absolute Priority 1—Innovations That 

Support Effective Teachers and 

Principals 

Under this priority, the Department 

provides funding to support practices, 

strategies, or programs that are designed 

to increase the number or percentages of 

teachers or principals who are highly 

effective teachers or principals or 

reduce the number or percentages of 

teachers or principals who are 

ineffective, especially for teachers of 

high-need students, by identifying, 

recruiting, developing, placing, 

rewarding, and retaining highly 

effective teachers or principals (or 

removing ineffective teachers or 

principals). In such initiatives, teacher 

or principal effectiveness should be 

determined through an evaluation 

system that is rigorous, transparent, and 

fair; performance should be 

differentiated using multiple rating 

categories of effectiveness; multiple 

measures of 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 and principal 

involvement. 

Absolute Priority 2—Innovations That 

Improve the Use of Data 

Under this priority, the Department 

provides funding to support strategies, 

practices, or programs that are designed 

to (a) 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 

decision-making and improve student 

achievement, student growth, or 

teacher, principal, school, or LEA 

performance and productivity; or (b) 

enable data aggregation, analysis, and 

research. Where LEAs and schools are 

required to do so under the Elementary 

and Secondary Education Act of 1965, 

as amended (ESEA), these data must be 

disaggregated using the student 

subgroups 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 

limited English proficiency, students 

with disabilities, and student gender). 

Absolute Priority 3—Innovations That 

Complement the Implementation of 

High Standards and High-Quality 

Assessments 

Under this priority, the Department 

provides funding for practices, 

strategies, or programs that are designed 

to support States’ efforts to transition to 

standards and assessments that measure 

students’ progress toward college- and 

career-readiness, including curricular 

and instructional practices, strategies, or 

programs in core academic subjects (as 

defined in section 9101(11) of the ESEA) 

that are aligned with high academic 

content and achievement standards and 

with high-quality assessments based on 

those standards.1 Proposed projects may 

include, but are not limited to, 

practices, strategies, or programs that 

are designed to: (a) Increase the success 

of under-represented student 

populations in academically rigorous 

courses and programs (such as 

Advanced Placement or International 

Baccalaureate courses; dual-enrollment 

programs; ‘‘early college high schools;’’ 

and science, technology, engineering, 

and mathematics courses, especially 

those that incorporate rigorous and 

relevant project-, inquiry-, or designbased contextual learning 

opportunities); (b) increase the 

development and use of formative 

assessments or interim assessments, or 

other performance-based tools and 

‘‘metrics’’ that are aligned with high 

student content and academic 

achievement standards; or (c) translate 

the standards and information from 

assessments into classroom practices 

that meet the needs of all students, 

including high-need students. 

Under this priority, an eligible 

applicant must propose a project that is 

based on standards that are at least as 

rigorous as its State’s standards. If the 

proposed project is based on standards 

other than those adopted by the eligible 

applicant’s State, the applicant must 

explain how the standards are aligned 

with and at least as rigorous as the 

eligible applicant’s State’s standards as 

well as how the standards differ. 

Absolute Priority 4—Innovations That 

Turn Around Persistently LowPerforming Schools 

Under this priority, the Department 

provides funding to support strategies, 

practices, or programs that are designed 

to turn around schools that are in any 

of the following categories: (a) 

Persistently lowest-achieving schools 

(as defined in the final requirements for 

the School Improvement Grants 

program) 2; (b) Title I schools that are in 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES2
12074 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Notices 

achieving five percent of secondary schools or the 

lowest-achieving five secondary schools in the State 

that are eligible for, but do not receive, Title I funds, 

whichever number of schools is greater; or (ii) is a 

high school that has had a graduation rate as 

defined in 34 CFR 200.19(b) that is less than 60 

percent over a number of years. See http:// 

www2.ed.gov/programs/sif/faq.html. 

corrective action or restructuring under 

section 1116 of the ESEA; or (c) 

secondary schools (both middle and 

high schools) eligible for but not 

receiving Title I funds that, if receiving 

Title I funds, would be in corrective 

action or restructuring under section 

1116 of the ESEA. These schools are 

referred to as Investing in Innovation 

Fund Absolute Priority 4 schools. 

Proposed projects must include 

strategies, practices, or programs that 

are designed to turn around Investing in 

Innovation Fund Absolute Priority 4 

schools through either whole-school 

reform or targeted approaches to reform. 

Applicants addressing this priority must 

focus on either: 

(a) Whole-school reform, including, 

but not limited to, comprehensive 

interventions to assist, augment, or 

replace Investing in Innovation Fund 

Absolute Priority 4 schools, including 

the school turnaround, restart, closure, 

and transformation models of 

intervention supported under the 

Department’s School Improvement 

Grants program (see Final Requirements 

for School Improvement Grants as 

Amended in January 2010 (January 28, 

2010) at http://www2.ed.gov/programs/ 

sif/faq.html); or 

(b) Targeted approaches to reform, 

including, but not limited to: (1) 

Providing more time for students to 

learn core academic content by 

expanding or augmenting the school 

day, school week, or school year, or by 

increasing instructional time for core 

academic subjects (as defined in section 

9101(11) of the ESEA); (2) integrating 

‘‘student supports’’ into the school 

model to address non-academic barriers 

to student achievement; or (3) creating 

multiple pathways for students to earn 

regular high school diplomas (e.g., by 

operating schools that serve the needs of 

over-aged, under-credited, or other 

students with an exceptional need for 

support and flexibility pertaining to 

when they attend school; awarding 

credit based on demonstrated evidence 

of student competency; and offering 

dual-enrollment options). 

Competitive Preference Priorities: For 

FY 2010 and any subsequent year in 

which we make awards from the list of 

unfunded applicants from this 

competition, these priorities are 

competitive preference priorities. 

Applicants for all types of grants may 

choose to address one or more of the 

four competitive preference priorities. 

Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i) we will 

award points as ’’all or nothing’’ (i.e., 

one point or zero points) to competitive 

preference priorities 5, 6, and 7 and up 

to two points to competitive preference 

priority 8, depending on how well the 

application addresses the priority. 

These priorities are: 

Competitive Preference Priority 5— 

Innovations for Improving Early 

Learning Outcomes (Zero or One Point) 

We give competitive preference to 

applications for projects that would 

implement innovative practices, 

strategies, or programs that are designed 

to improve educational outcomes for 

high-need students who are young 

children (birth through 3rd grade) by 

enhancing the quality of early learning 

programs. To meet this priority, 

applications must focus on (a) 

improving young children’s school 

readiness (including social, emotional, 

and cognitive readiness) so that children 

are prepared for success in core 

academic subjects (as defined in section 

9101(11) of the ESEA); (b) improving 

developmental milestones and 

standards and aligning them with 

appropriate outcome measures; and (c) 

improving alignment, collaboration, and 

transitions between early learning 

programs that serve children from birth 

to age three, in preschools, and in 

kindergarten through third grade. 

Competitive Preference Priority 6— 

Innovations That Support College 

Access and Success (Zero or One Point) 

We give competitive preference to 

applications for projects that would 

implement innovative practices, 

strategies, or programs that are designed 

to enable kindergarten through grade 12 

(K–12) students, particularly high 

school students, to successfully prepare 

for, enter, and graduate from a two- or 

four-year college. To meet this priority, 

applications must include practices, 

strategies, or programs for K–12 

students that (a) address students’ 

preparedness and expectations related 

to college; (b) help students understand 

issues of college affordability and the 

financial aid and college application 

processes; and (c) provide support to 

students from peers and knowledgeable 

adults. 

Competitive Preference Priority 7— 

Innovations To Address the Unique 

Learning Needs of Students With 

Disabilities and Limited English 

Proficient Students (Zero or One Point) 

We give competitive preference to 

applications for projects that would 

implement innovative practices, 

strategies, or programs that are designed 

to address the unique learning needs of 

students with disabilities, including 

those who are assessed based on 

alternate academic achievement 

standards, or the linguistic and 

academic needs of limited English 

proficient students. To meet this 

priority, applications must provide for 

the implementation of particular 

practices, strategies, or programs that 

are designed to improve academic 

outcomes, close achievement gaps, and 

increase college- and career-readiness, 

including increasing high school 

graduation rates (as defined in this 

notice), for students with disabilities or 

limited English proficient students. 

Competitive Preference Priority 8— 

Innovations That Serve Schools in Rural 

LEAs (Up to Two Points) 

We give competitive preference to 

applications for projects that would 

implement innovative practices, 

strategies, or programs that are designed 

to focus on the unique challenges of 

high-need students in schools within a 

rural LEA (as defined in this notice) and 

address the particular challenges faced 

by students in these schools. To meet 

this priority, applications must include 

practices, strategies, or programs that 

are designed to improve student 

achievement or student growth, close 

achievement gaps, decrease dropout 

rates, increase high school graduation 

rates, or improve teacher and principal 

effectiveness in one or more rural LEAs. 

Definitions: 

The Secretary establishes the 

following definitions for the Investing in 

Innovation Fund. We may apply these 

definitions in any year in which this 

program is in effect. 

Definitions Related to Evidence 

Strong evidence means evidence from 

previous studies whose designs can 

support causal conclusions (i.e., studies 

with high internal validity), and studies 

that in total include enough of the range 

of participants and settings to support 

scaling up to the State, regional, or 

national level (i.e., studies with high 

external validity). The following are 

examples of strong evidence: (1) More 

than one well-designed and wellimplemented (as defined in this notice) 

experimental study (as defined in this 

notice) or well-designed and wellimplemented (as defined in this notice) 

quasi-experimental study (as defined in 

this notice) that supports the 

effectiveness of the practice, strategy, or 

program; or (2) one large, well-designed 

and well-implemented (as defined in 

this notice) randomized controlled, 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Notices 12075 

3A single subject or single case design is an 

adaptation of an interrupted time series design that 

relies on the comparison of treatment effects on a 

single subject or group of single subjects. There is 

little confidence that findings based on this design 

would be the same for other members of the 

population. In some single subject designs, 

treatment reversal or multiple baseline designs are 

used to increase internal validity. In a treatment 

reversal design, after a pretreatment or baseline 

outcome measurement is compared with a post 

treatment measure, the treatment would then be 

stopped for a period of time, a second baseline 

measure of the outcome would be taken, followed 

by a second application of the treatment or a 

different treatment. A multiple baseline design 

addresses concerns about the effects of normal 

development, timing of the treatment, and amount 

of the treatment with treatment-reversal designs by 

using a varying time schedule for introduction of 

the treatment and/or treatments of different lengths 

or intensity. 

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 well-designed and wellimplemented (as defined in this notice) 

experimental or quasi-experimental 

study (as defined in this notice) 

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 well-implemented (as 

defined in this notice) experimental or 

quasi-experimental study (as defined in 

this notice) that does not demonstrate 

equivalence between the intervention 

and comparison groups at program entry 

but that has no other major flaws related 

to internal validity; or (3) correlational 

research with strong statistical controls 

for selection bias and for discerning the 

influence of internal factors. 

Well-designed and well-implemented 

means, with respect to an experimental 

or quasi-experimental study (as defined 

in this notice), that the study meets the 

What Works Clearinghouse evidence 

standards, with or without reservations 

(see http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/ 

references/idocviewer/ 

doc.aspx?docid=19&tocid=1 and in 

particular the description of ‘‘Reasons 

for Not Meeting Standards’’ at http:// 

ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/references/ 

idocviewer/ 

Doc.aspx?docId=19&tocId=4#reasons). 

Experimental study means a study 

that employs random assignment of, for 

example, students, teachers, classrooms, 

schools, or districts to participate in a 

project being evaluated (treatment 

group) or not to participate in the 

project (control group). The effect of the 

project is the average difference in 

outcomes between the treatment and 

control groups. 

Quasi-experimental study means an 

evaluation design that attempts to 

approximate an experimental design 

and can support causal conclusions (i.e., 

minimizes threats to internal validity, 

such as selection bias, or allows them to 

be modeled). Well-designed quasiexperimental 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 quasiexperimental study that attempts to 

approximate an experimental study. 

More specifically, it is a design in which 

project participants are matched with 

non-participants based on key 

characteristics that are thought to be 

related to the outcome. These 

characteristics include, but are not 

limited to: (1) Prior test scores and other 

measures of academic achievement 

(preferably, the same measures that the 

study will use to evaluate outcomes for 

the two groups); (2) demographic 

characteristics, such as age, disability, 

gender, English proficiency, ethnicity, 

poverty level, parents’ educational 

attainment, and single- or two-parent 

family background; (3) the time period 

in which the two groups are studied 

(e.g., the two groups are children 

entering kindergarten in the same year 

as opposed to sequential years); and (4) 

methods used to collect outcome data 

(e.g., the same test of reading skills 

administered in the same way to both 

groups). 

Interrupted time series design 3 means 

a type of quasi-experimental study in 

which the outcome of interest is 

measured multiple times before and 

after the treatment for program 

participants only. If the program had an 

impact, the outcomes after treatment 

will have a different slope or level from 

those before treatment. That is, the 

series should show an ‘‘interruption’’ of 

the prior situation at the time when the 

program was implemented. Adding a 

comparison group time series, such as 

schools not participating in the program 

or schools participating in the program 

in a different geographic area, 

substantially increases the reliability of 

the findings. 

Regression discontinuity design study 

means, in part, a quasi-experimental 

study design that closely approximates 

an experimental study. In a regression 

discontinuity design, participants are 

assigned to a treatment or comparison 

group based on a numerical rating or 

score of a variable unrelated to the 

treatment such as the rating of an 

application for funding. Another 

example would be assignment of 

eligible students, teachers, classrooms, 

or schools above a certain score (‘‘cut 

score’’) to the treatment group and 

assignment of those below the score to 

the comparison group. 

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. 

Other Definitions 

Applicant means the entity that 

applies for a grant under this program 

on behalf of an eligible applicant (i.e., 

an LEA or a partnership in accordance 

with section 14007(a)(1)(B) of the 

ARRA). 

Official partner means any of the 

entities required to be part of a 

partnership under section 14007(a)(1)(B) 

of the ARRA. 

Other partner means any entity, other 

than the applicant and any official 

partner, that may be involved in a 

proposed project. 

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 

assessment questions, tools, and 

processes that are embedded in 

instruction and are used by teachers and 

students to provide timely feedback for 

purposes of adjusting instruction to 

improve learning. 

Interim assessment means an 

assessment that is given at regular and 

specified intervals throughout the 

school year, is designed to evaluate 

students’ knowledge and skills relative 

to a specific set of academic standards, 

and produces results that can be 

aggregated (e.g., by course, grade level, 

school, or LEA) in order to inform 

teachers and administrators at the 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES2
12076 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Notices 

student, classroom, school, and LEA 

levels. 

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 

(i.e., economically disadvantaged 

students, students from major racial and 

ethnic groups, migrant students, 

students with disabilities, students with 

limited English proficiency, and 

students of each gender), 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 

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. 

High-need student means a student at 

risk of educational failure, or otherwise 

in need of special assistance and 

support, such as students who are living 

in poverty, who attend high-minority 

schools, who are far below grade level, 

who are over-age and under-credited, 

who have left school before receiving a 

regular high school diploma, who are at 

risk of not graduating with a regular 

high school diploma on time, who are 

homeless, who are in foster care, who 

have been incarcerated, who have 

disabilities, or who are limited English 

proficient. 

National level, as used in reference to 

a Scale-up grant, describes a project that 

is able to be effective in a wide variety 

of communities and student populations 

around the country, including rural and 

urban areas, as well as with the different 

groups of students described in section 

1111(b)(3)(C)(xiii) of the ESEA (i.e., 

economically disadvantaged students, 

students from major racial and ethnic 

groups, migrant students, students with 

disabilities, students with limited 

English proficiency, and students of 

each gender). 

Regional level, as used in reference to 

a Scale-up or Validation grant, describes 

a project that is able to serve a variety 

of communities and student populations 

within a State or multiple States, 

including rural and urban areas, as well 

as with the different groups of students 

described in section 1111(b)(3)(C)(xiii) 

of the ESEA (i.e., economically 

disadvantaged students, students from 

major racial and ethnic groups, migrant 

students, students with disabilities, 

students with limited English 

proficiency, and students of each 

gender). To be considered a regionallevel project, a project must serve 

students in more than one LEA. The 

exception to this requirement would be 

a project implemented in a State in 

which the State educational agency is 

the sole educational agency for all 

schools and thus may be considered an 

LEA under section 9101(26) of the 

ESEA. Such a State would meet the 

definition of regional for the purposes of 

this notice. 

Rural LEA means an 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 following 

Department Web sites. For the SRSA: 

http://www.ed.gov/programs/reapsrsa/ 

eligible09/index.html. For the RLIS: 

http://www.ed.gov/programs/reaprlisp/ 

eligibility.html. 

Student achievement means— 

(a) For tested grades and subjects: (1) 

A student’s score on the State’s 

assessments under section 1111(b)(3) of 

the ESEA; and, as appropriate, (2) other 

measures of student learning, such as 

those described in paragraph (b) of this 

definition, provided they are rigorous 

and comparable across classrooms; and 

(b) For non-tested grades and subjects: 

alternative measures of student learning 

and performance such as student scores 

on pre-tests and end-of-course tests; 

student performance on English 

language proficiency assessments; and 

other measures of student achievement 

that are rigorous and comparable across 

classrooms. 

Student growth means the change in 

student achievement data for an 

individual student between two or more 

points in time. Growth may be 

measured by a variety of approaches, 

but any approach used must be 

statistically rigorous and based on 

student achievement data, and may also 

include other measures of student 

learning in order to increase the 

construct validity and generalizability of 

the information. 

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. 

Regular high school diploma means, 

consistent with 34 CFR 200.19(b)(1)(iv), 

the standard high school diploma that is 

awarded to students in the State and 

that is fully aligned with the State’s 

academic content standards or a higher 

diploma and does not include a General 

Education Development (GED) 

credential, certificate of attendance, or 

any alternative award. 

Program Authority: Section 14007 of 

title XIV of the ARRA, Pub. L. 111–5 as 

amended by section 307 of division D of 

Pub. L. 111–117 (H.R. 3288), the 

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010. 

Applicable Regulations: (a) The 

Education Department General 

Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) in 

34 CFR parts 74, 75, 77, 79, 80, 81, 82, 

84, 85, 86, 97, 98, and 99. 

(b) The notice of final priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria (NFP) for this program, 

published elsewhere in this issue of the 

Federal Register. 

Note: The regulations in 34 CFR part 79 

apply to all applicants except federally 

recognized Indian tribes. 

Note: The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 

apply to institutions of higher education 

only. 

II. Award Information 

Types of Award: Cooperative 

agreements (for Scale-up grants) and 

discretionary grants (for Validation 

grants and Development grants). 

Estimated Available Funds: 

$643,500,000. 

Contingent upon the availability of 

funds and the quality of applications, 

we may make additional awards in FY 

2011 from the list of unfunded 

applicants from this competition. 

Estimated Range of Awards: 

Scale-up grants: Up to $50,000,000. 

Validation grants: Up to $30,000,000. 

Development grants: Up to 

$5,000,000. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Notices 12077 

Estimated Average Size of Awards: 

Scale-up grants: $40,000,000. 

Validation grants: $17,500,000. 

Development grants: $3,000,000. 

Estimated Number of Awards: 

Scale-up grants: Up to 5 awards. 

Validation grants: Up to 100 awards. 

Development grants: Up to 100 

awards. 

Note: The Department is not bound by any 

estimates in this notice. 

Project Period: 36–60 months. 

III. Eligibility Information and Program 

Requirements 

The Secretary establishes 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 High-Need 

Students: All eligible applicants must 

implement practices, strategies, or 

programs for high-need 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. An 

eligible applicant that is a partnership 

applying under section 14007(a)(1)(B) of 

the ARRA must designate one of its 

official partners (as defined in this 

notice) to serve as the applicant in 

accordance with the Department’s 

regulations governing group 

applications in 34 CFR 75.127 through 

75.129. 

• Eligibility Requirements: To be 

eligible for an award, an eligible 

applicant must—except as specifically 

set forth in the Note About Eligibility for 

an Eligible Applicant That Includes a 

Nonprofit Organization that follows: 

(1)(A) Have significantly closed the 

achievement gaps between groups of 

students described in section 1111(b)(2) 

of the ESEA (economically 

disadvantaged students, students from 

major racial and ethnic groups, students 

with limited English proficiency, 

students with disabilities); or 

(B) Have demonstrated success in 

significantly increasing student 

academic achievement for all groups of 

students described in that section; 

(2) Have made significant 

improvements in other areas, such as 

graduation rates or increased 

recruitment and placement of highquality teachers and principals, as 

demonstrated with meaningful data; 

(3) Demonstrate that it has established 

one or more partnerships with the 

private sector, which may include 

philanthropic organizations, and that 

the private sector will provide matching 

funds in order to help bring results to 

scale; and 

(4) In the case of an eligible applicant 

that includes a nonprofit organization, 

provide in the application the names of 

the LEAs with which the nonprofit 

organization will partner, or the names 

of the schools in the consortium with 

which it will partner. If an eligible 

applicant that includes a nonprofit 

organization intends to partner with 

additional LEAs or schools that are not 

named in the application, it must 

describe in the application the 

demographic and other characteristics 

of these LEAs and schools and the 

process it will use to select them as 

either official or other partners. An 

applicant must identify its specific 

partners before a grant award will be 

made. 

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 (as 

amended) specifies that an eligible applicant 

that includes a nonprofit organization is 

considered to have met the requirements in 

paragraphs (1) and (2) of the eligibility 

requirements for this program if the nonprofit 

organization has a record of significantly 

improving student achievement, attainment, 

or retention. For an eligible applicant that 

includes a nonprofit organization, the 

nonprofit organization must demonstrate that 

it has a record of significantly improving 

student achievement, attainment, or retention 

through its record of work with an LEA or 

schools. Therefore, an eligible applicant that 

includes a nonprofit organization does not 

necessarily need to include as a partner for 

its Investing in Innovation Fund grant an 

LEA or a consortium of schools that meets 

the requirements in paragraphs (1) and (2). 

In addition, the authorizing statute (as 

amended) specifies that an eligible 

applicant that includes a nonprofit 

organization is considered to have met 

the requirements of paragraph (3) of the 

eligibility requirements for this program 

if the eligible applicant demonstrates 

that it will meet the requirement 

relating to private-sector matching. 

• Evidence Standards: To be eligible 

for an award, an application for a Scaleup grant must be supported by strong 

evidence (as defined in this notice), an 

application for a Validation grant must 

be supported by moderate evidence (as 

defined in this notice), and an 

application for a Development grant 

must be supported by a reasonable 

hypothesis. 

• Funding Categories: An applicant 

must state in its application whether it 

is applying for a Scale-up, Validation, or 

Development grant. An applicant may 

not submit an application for the same 

proposed project under more than one 

type of grant. An applicant will be 

considered for an award only for the 

type of grant for which it applies. 

• Cost Sharing or Matching: To be 

eligible for an award, an eligible 

applicant must demonstrate that it has 

established one or more partnerships 

with an entity or organization in the 

private sector, which may include 

philanthropic organizations, and that 

the entity or organization in the private 

sector will provide matching funds in 

order to help bring project results to 

scale. An eligible applicant must obtain 

matching funds or in-kind donations 

equal to at least 20 percent of its grant 

award. Selected eligible applicants must 

submit evidence of the full 20 percent 

private-sector matching funds following 

the peer review of applications. An 

award will not be made unless the 

applicant provides adequate evidence 

that the full 20 percent private-sector 

match has been committed or the 

Secretary approves the eligible 

applicant’s request to reduce the 

matching-level requirement. 

The Secretary may consider 

decreasing the 20 percent matching 

requirement in the most exceptional 

circumstances, on a case-by-case basis. 

An eligible applicant that anticipates 

being unable to meet the 20 percent 

matching requirement must include in 

the application a request to the 

Secretary to reduce the matching-level 

requirement, along with a statement of 

the basis for the request. 

• Subgrants: In the case of an eligible 

applicant that is a partnership between 

a nonprofit organization and (1) one or 

more LEAs or (2) a consortium of 

schools, the partner serving as the 

applicant may make subgrants to one or 

more official partners (as defined in this 

notice). 

• Limits on Grant Awards: No grantee 

may receive more than two grant awards 

under this program. In addition, no 

grantee may receive more than $55 

million in grant awards under this 

program in a single year’s competition. 

• Evaluation: A grantee must comply 

with the requirements of any evaluation 

of the program conducted by the 

Department. In addition, the grantee is 

required to conduct an independent 

evaluation (as defined in this notice) of 

its project and must agree, along with its 

independent evaluator, to cooperate 

with any technical assistance provided 

by the Department or its contractor. The 

purpose of this technical assistance will 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES2
12078 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Notices 

be to ensure that the evaluations are of 

the highest quality and to encourage 

commonality in evaluation approaches 

across funded projects where such 

commonality is feasible and useful. 

Finally, the grantee must make broadly 

available through formal (e.g., peerreviewed journals) or informal (e.g., 

newsletters) mechanisms, and in print 

or electronically, the results of any 

evaluations it conducts of its funded 

activities. For Scale-up and Validation 

grants, the grantee must also ensure the 

data from their evaluations are made 

available to third-party researchers 

consistent with applicable privacy 

requirements. 

• Participation in ‘‘Communities of 

Practice’’: Grantees are 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. 

IV. Application and Submission 

Information 

1. Submission of Proprietary 

Information: 

Given the types of projects that may 

be proposed in applications for the 

Investing in Innovation Fund, some 

applications may include proprietary 

information as it relates to confidential 

commercial information. Confidential 

commercial information is defined as 

information the disclosure of which 

could reasonably be expected to cause 

substantial competitive harm. Upon 

submission, applicants should identify 

any information contained in their 

application that they consider to be 

confidential commercial information. 

Doing so will assist the Department in 

making any future determination 

regarding public release of the 

application. Applicants are encouraged 

to identify only the specific information 

that the applicant considers to be 

proprietary and list the page numbers 

on which this information can be found 

in the appropriate Appendix section of 

their application. In addition to 

identifying the page number on which 

that information can be found, eligible 

applicants will assist the Department in 

making determinations on public 

release of the application by being as 

specific as possible in identifying the 

information they consider proprietary. 

Please note that, in many instances, 

identification of entire pages of 

documentation would not be 

appropriate. 

2. Address to Request Application 

Package: 

ED Pubs, U.S. Department of 

Education, P.O. Box 22207, Alexandria, 

VA 22304. Telephone, toll free: 1–877– 

433–7827. FAX: (703) 605–6794. If you 

use a telecommunications device for the 

deaf (TDD), call, toll free: 1–877–576– 

7734. 

You can contact ED Pubs at its Web 

site, also: http://www.EDPubs.ed.gov or 

at its e-mail address: 

edpubs@inet.ed.gov. 

If you request an application package 

from ED Pubs, be sure to identify this 

program or competition as follows: 

CFDA numbers 84.396A, 84.396B, or 

84.396C. 

Also, you can download the 

application package at the i3 Web site: 

http://www2.ed.gov/programs/ 

innovation/index.html. 

Individuals with disabilities can 

obtain a copy of the application package 

in an accessible format (e.g., braille, 

large print, audiotape, or computer 

diskette) by calling the program contact 

number or by writing to the e-mail 

address listed under Accessible Format 

in section VIII of this notice. 

3. Content and Form of Application 

Submission: Requirements concerning 

the content of an application, together 

with the forms you must submit, are in 

the application package for this 

competition. 

Notice of Intent to Apply: April 1, 

2010. 

We will be able to develop a more 

efficient process for reviewing grant 

applications if we understand the 

number of applicants that intend to 

apply for funding under this 

competition. Therefore, the Secretary 

strongly encourages each potential 

applicant to notify us of the applicant’s 

intent to submit an application for 

funding by sending a short e-mail 

message. This short e-mail should 

provide (1) the applicant organization’s 

name and address, (2) the type of grant 

for which the applicant intends to 

apply, (3) the one absolute priority the 

applicant intends to address, and (4) all 

competitive preference priorities the 

applicant intends to address. The 

Secretary requests that this e-mail be 

sent to i3intent@ed.gov with ‘‘Intent to 

Apply’’ in the e-mail subject line. 

Applicants that do not provide this email notification may still apply for 

funding. 

Page Limit: The application narrative 

(Part III of the application) is where you, 

the applicant, address the selection 

criteria that reviewers use to evaluate 

your application. Applicants are 

strongly encouraged to limit the 

application narrative (Part III) to not 

more than the following page limits: 

Scale-up grants—50 pages, Validation 

grants—35 pages, and Development 

grants—25 pages. Applicants are also 

strongly encouraged not to include 

lengthy appendices that contain 

information that could not be included 

in the narrative. Applications should 

use the following standards: 

• A ‘‘page’’ is 8.5′′ x 11′′, on one side 

only, with 1′′ margins at the top, bottom, 

and both sides. 

• Double space (no more than three 

lines per vertical inch) all text in the 

application narrative, including titles, 

headings, footnotes, quotations, 

references, and captions, as well as all 

text in charts, tables, figures, and 

graphs. 

• Use a font that is either 12 point or 

larger or no smaller than 10 pitch 

(characters per inch). 

• Use one of the following fonts: 

Times New Roman, Courier, Courier 

New, or Arial. An application submitted 

in any other font (including Times 

Roman or Arial Narrow) will not be 

accepted. 

The suggested page limit does not 

apply to Part I, the cover sheet; Part II, 

the budget section, including the 

narrative budget justification; Part IV, 

the assurances and certifications; or the 

one-page abstract, the resumes, the 

bibliography, or the letters of support. 

However, the suggested page limit does 

apply to all of the application narrative 

section [Part III]. 

4. Submission Dates and Times: 

Applications Available: March 12, 

2010. 

Deadline for Notice of Intent to 

Apply: April 1, 2010. 

Deadline for Transmittal of 

Applications: May 11, 2010. 

Dates of Pre-Application Workshops: 

March 19, 2010, in Baltimore, Maryland; 

March 24, 2010, in Denver, Colorado; 

and March 30, 2010, in Atlanta, Georgia. 

These pre-application workshops are 

designed to provide technical assistance 

to interested applicants for all three 

types of grants. Detailed information 

regarding the pre-application workshop 

locations and times, along with the online registration form, can be found on 

the Investing in Innovation Fund 

website at http://www2.ed.gov/ 

programs/innovation/index.html. 

Applications for grants under this 

competition must be submitted 

electronically using the Electronic Grant 

Application System (e-Application) 

accessible through the Department’s eGrants site. For information (including 

dates and times) about how to submit 

your application electronically, or in 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Notices 12079 

paper format by mail or hand delivery 

if you qualify for an exception to the 

electronic submission requirement, 

please refer to section IV.7. Other 

Submission Requirements of this notice. 

We do not consider an application 

that does not comply with the deadline 

requirements. 

Individuals with disabilities who 

need an accommodation or auxiliary aid 

in connection with the application 

process should call the program contact 

number or write to the e-mail address 

listed under For Further Information 

Contact in section VII of this notice. If 

the Department provides an 

accommodation or auxiliary aid to an 

individual with a disability in 

connection with the application 

process, the individual’s application 

remains subject to all other 

requirements and limitations in this 

notice. 

Deadline for Intergovernmental 

Review: July 12, 2010. 

5. Intergovernmental Review: This 

competition is subject to Executive 

Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 

CFR part 79. Information about 

Intergovernmental Review of Federal 

Programs under Executive Order 12372 

is in the application package for this 

competition. 

6. Funding Restrictions: We reference 

regulations outlining funding 

restrictions in the Applicable 

Regulations section of this notice. 

7. Other Submission Requirements: 

Applications for grants under this 

program competition must be submitted 

electronically unless you qualify for an 

exception to this requirement in 

accordance with the instructions in this 

section. 

a. Electronic Submission of 

Applications. 

Applications for grants under the 

Investing in Innovation Fund—CFDA 

Numbers 84.396A, 84.396B, and 

84.396C must be submitted 

electronically using e-Application, 

accessible through the Department’s eGrants Web site at: 

http://e-grants.ed.gov. 

We will reject your application if you 

submit it in paper format unless, as 

described elsewhere in this section, you 

qualify for one of the exceptions to the 

electronic submission requirement and 

submit, no later than two weeks before 

the application deadline date, a written 

statement to the Department that you 

qualify for one of these exceptions. 

Further information regarding 

calculation of the date that is two weeks 

before the application deadline date is 

provided later in this section under 

Exception to Electronic Submission 

Requirement. 

While completing your electronic 

application, you will be entering data 

online that will be saved into a 

database. You may not e-mail an 

electronic copy of a grant application to 

us. 

Please note the following: 

• You must complete the electronic 

submission of your grant application by 

4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the 

application deadline date. 

E-Application will not accept an 

application for this competition after 

4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the 

application deadline date. Therefore, we 

strongly recommend that you do not 

wait until the application deadline date 

to begin the application process. 

• The hours of operation of the eGrants Web site are 6 a.m. Monday until 

7 p.m. Wednesday; and 6 a.m. Thursday 

until 8 p.m. Sunday, Washington, DC 

time. Please note that, because of 

maintenance, the system is unavailable 

between 8 p.m. on Sundays and 6 a.m. 

on Mondays, and between 7 p.m. on 

Wednesdays and 6 a.m. on Thursdays, 

Washington, DC time. Any 

modifications to these hours are posted 

on the e-Grants Web site. 

• You will not receive additional 

point value because you submit your 

application in electronic format, nor 

will we penalize you if you qualify for 

an exception to the electronic 

submission requirement, as described 

elsewhere in this section, and submit 

your application in paper format. 

• You must submit all documents 

electronically, including all information 

you typically provide on the following 

forms: The Application for Federal 

Assistance (SF 424), the Department of 

Education Supplemental Information for 

SF 424, Budget Information—NonConstruction Programs (ED 524), and all 

necessary assurances and certifications. 

You must attach any narrative sections 

of your application as files in a .DOC 

(document), .RTF (rich text), or .PDF 

(Portable Document) format. If you 

upload a file type other than the three 

file types specified in this paragraph or 

submit a password protected file, we 

will not review that material. 

• Your electronic application must 

comply with any page limit 

requirements described in this notice. 

• Prior to submitting your electronic 

application, you may wish to print a 

copy of it for your records. 

• After you electronically submit 

your application, you will receive an 

automatic acknowledgment that will 

include a PR/Award number (an 

identifying number unique to your 

application). 

• Within three working days after 

submitting your electronic application, 

fax a signed copy of the SF 424 to the 

Application Control Center after 

following these steps: 

(1) Print SF 424 from e-Application. 

(2) The applicant’s Authorizing 

Representative must sign this form. 

(3) Place the PR/Award number in the 

upper right hand corner of the hardcopy signature page of the SF 424. 

(4) Fax the signed SF 424 to the 

Application Control Center at (202) 

245–6272. 

• We may request that you provide us 

original signatures on other forms at a 

later date. 

Application Deadline Date Extension 

in Case of e-Application Unavailability: 

If you are prevented from electronically 

submitting your application on the 

application deadline date because eApplication is unavailable, we will 

grant you an extension of one business 

day to enable you to transmit your 

application electronically, by mail, or by 

hand delivery. We will grant this 

extension if— 

(1) You are a registered user of eApplication and you have initiated an 

electronic application for this 

competition; and 

(2)(a) E-Application is unavailable for 

60 minutes or more between the hours 

of 8:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m., Washington, 

DC time, on the application deadline 

date; or 

(b) E-Application is unavailable for 

any period of time between 3:30 p.m. 

and 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC, time, on 

the application deadline date. 

We must acknowledge and confirm 

these periods of unavailability before 

granting you an extension. To request 

this extension or to confirm our 

acknowledgment of any system 

unavailability, you may contact either 

(1) the program contact number or write 

to the e-mail address listed elsewhere in 

this notice under For Further 

Information Contact (see VII. Agency 

Contact) or (2) the e-Grants help desk at 

1–888–336–8930. If e-Application is 

unavailable due to technical problems 

with the system and, therefore, the 

application deadline is extended, an 

e-mail will be sent to all registered users 

who have initiated an e-Application. 

Extensions referred to in this section 

apply only to the unavailability of eApplication. 

Exception to Electronic Submission 

Requirement: You qualify for an 

exception to the electronic submission 

requirement, and may submit your 

application in paper format, if you are 

unable to submit an application through 

e-Application because— 

• You do not have access to the 

Internet; or 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES2
12080 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Notices 

4For additional information on the evidence for 

Scale-up grants, see Table 1 later in this section. 

• You do not have the capacity to 

upload large documents to eApplication; and 

• No later than two weeks before the 

application deadline date (14 calendar 

days or, if the fourteenth calendar day 

before the application deadline date 

falls on a Federal holiday, the next 

business day following the Federal 

holiday), you mail or fax a written 

statement to the Department, explaining 

which of the two grounds for an 

exception prevents you from using the 

Internet to submit your application. If 

you mail your written statement to the 

Department, it must be postmarked no 

later than two weeks before the 

application deadline date. If you fax 

your written statement to the 

Department, we must receive the faxed 

statement no later than two weeks 

before the application deadline date. 

Address and mail or fax your 

statement to: Thelma Leenhouts, U.S. 

Department of Education, 400 Maryland 

Avenue, SW., Room 4W302, 

Washington, DC 20202–5900. FAX: 

(202) 401–4123. 

Your paper application must be 

submitted in accordance with the mail 

or hand delivery instructions described 

in this notice. 

b. Submission of Paper Applications 

by Mail. 

If you qualify for an exception to the 

electronic submission requirement, you 

may mail (through the U.S. Postal 

Service or a commercial carrier) your 

application to the Department. You 

must mail the original and two copies 

of your application, on or before the 

application deadline date, to the 

Department at the following address: 

U.S. Department of Education, 

Application Control Center, Attention: 

(CFDA Numbers 84.396A, 84.396B, or 

84.396C), LBJ Basement Level 1, 400 

Maryland Avenue, SW., Washington, 

DC 20202–4260. 

You must show proof of mailing 

consisting of one of the following: 

(1) A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service 

postmark. 

(2) A legible mail receipt with the 

date of mailing stamped by the U.S. 

Postal Service. 

(3) A dated shipping label, invoice, or 

receipt from a commercial carrier. 

(4) Any other proof of mailing 

acceptable to the Secretary of the U.S. 

Department of Education. 

If you mail your application through 

the U.S. Postal Service, we do not 

accept either of the following as proof 

of mailing: 

(1) A private metered postmark. 

(2) A mail receipt that is not dated by 

the U.S. Postal Service. 

If your application is postmarked after 

the application deadline date, we will 

not consider your application. 

Note: The U.S. Postal Service does not 

uniformly provide a dated postmark. Before 

relying on this method, you should check 

with your local post office. 

c. Submission of Paper Applications 

by Hand Delivery. 

If you qualify for an exception to the 

electronic submission requirement, you 

(or a courier service) may deliver your 

paper application to the Department by 

hand. You must deliver the original and 

two copies of your application, by hand, 

on or before the application deadline 

date, to the Department at the following 

address: U.S. Department of Education, 

Application Control Center, Attention: 

(CFDA Numbers 84.396A, 84.396B, or 

84.396C), 550 12th Street, SW., Room 

7041, Potomac Center Plaza, 

Washington, DC 20202–4260. 

The Application Control Center 

accepts hand deliveries daily between 8 

a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC 

time, except Saturdays, Sundays, and 

Federal holidays. 

Note for Mail or Hand Delivery of Paper 

Applications: If you mail or hand deliver 

your application to the Department— 

(1) You must indicate on the envelope 

and—if not provided by the Department—in 

Item 11 of the SF 424 the CFDA number, 

including suffix letter, if any, of the 

competition under which you are submitting 

your application; and 

(2) The Application Control Center will 

mail to you a notification of receipt of your 

grant application. If you do not receive this 

grant notification within 15 business days 

from the application deadline date, you 

should call the U.S. Department of Education 

Application Control Center at (202) 245– 

6288. 

V. Application Review Information 

1. Selection Criteria: The selection 

criteria for this competition are from the 

notice of final priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria, for 

this program, published elsewhere in 

this issue of the Federal Register. We 

may apply these selection criteria in any 

year in which this program is in effect. 

The peer review process is explained in 

detail in the Review and Selection 

Process section of this notice. 

The selection criteria are as follows. 

The points assigned to each criterion are 

indicated in parentheses next to the 

criterion. For each type of grant, 

applicants may earn up to a total of 100 

points. 

1. Scale-up Grants. 

A. Need for the Project and Quality of 

the Project Design (up to 15 points). 

The Secretary considers the need for 

the project and quality of the design of 

the proposed project. 

In determining the need for the 

project and quality of the design of the 

proposed project, the Secretary 

considers the following factors: 

(1) The extent to which the proposed 

project represents an exceptional 

approach to the priorities the eligible 

applicant is seeking to meet (i.e., 

addresses a largely unmet need, 

particularly for high-need students, and 

is a practice, strategy, or program that 

has not already been widely adopted). 

(2) The extent to which the proposed 

project has a clear set of goals and an 

explicit strategy, with actions that are 

(a) aligned with the priorities the 

eligible applicant is seeking to meet, 

and (b) expected to result in achieving 

the goals, objectives, and outcomes of 

the proposed project. 

B. Strength of Research, Significance 

of Effect, and Magnitude of Effect (up to 

20 points). 

The Secretary considers the strength 

of the existing research evidence,4

including the internal validity (strength 

of causal conclusions) and external 

validity (generalizability) of the effects 

reported in prior research, on whether 

the proposed project will improve 

student achievement or student growth, 

close achievement gaps, decrease 

dropout rates, increase high school 

graduation rates, or increase college 

enrollment and completion rates. 

Eligible applicants may also 

demonstrate success through an 

intermediate variable that is strongly 

correlated with improving these 

outcomes, such as teacher or principal 

effectiveness. 

In determining the strength of the 

existing research evidence, the Secretary 

considers the following factors: 

(1) The extent to which the eligible 

applicant demonstrates that there is 

strong evidence (as defined in this 

notice) that its implementation of the 

proposed practice, strategy, or program 

will have a statistically significant, 

substantial, and important effect on 

improving student achievement or 

student growth, closing achievement 

gaps, decreasing dropout rates, 

increasing high school graduation rates, 

or increasing college enrollment and 

completion rates. 

(2) The importance and magnitude of 

the effect expected to be obtained by the 

proposed project, including the extent 

to which the project will substantially 

and measurably improve student 

achievement or student growth, close 

achievement gaps, decrease dropout 

rates, increase high school graduation 

rates, or increase college enrollment and 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Notices 12081 

completion rates. The evidence in 

support of the importance and 

magnitude of the effect would be the 

research-based evidence provided by 

the eligible applicant to support the 

proposed project. 

C. Experience of the Eligible 

Applicant (up to 15 points). 

The Secretary considers the 

experience of the eligible applicant in 

implementing the proposed project. 

In determining the experience of the 

eligible applicant, the Secretary 

considers the following factors: 

(1) The past performance of the 

eligible applicant in implementing 

large, complex, and rapidly growing 

projects. 

(2) The extent to which an eligible 

applicant provides information and data 

demonstrating that— 

(a) In the case of an eligible applicant 

that is an LEA, the LEA has— 

(i) Significantly closed the 

achievement gaps between groups of 

students described in section 1111(b)(2) 

of the ESEA, or significantly increased 

student achievement for all groups of 

students described in such section; and 

(ii) Made significant improvements in 

other areas, such as graduation rates or 

increased recruitment and placement of 

high-quality teachers and principals, as 

demonstrated with meaningful data; or 

(b) In the case of an eligible applicant 

that includes a nonprofit organization, 

the nonprofit organization has 

significantly improved student 

achievement, attainment, or retention 

through its record of work with an LEA 

or schools. 

D. Quality of the Project Evaluation 

(up to 15 points). 

The Secretary considers the quality of 

the evaluation to be conducted of the 

proposed project. 

In determining the quality of the 

evaluation, the Secretary considers the 

following factors: 

(1) The extent to which the methods 

of evaluation will include a welldesigned experimental study or, if a 

well-designed experimental study of the 

project is not possible, the extent to 

which the methods of evaluation will 

include a well-designed quasiexperimental study. 

(2) The extent to which, for either an 

experimental study or a quasiexperimental study, the study will be 

conducted of the practice, strategy, or 

program as implemented at scale. 

(3) The extent to which the methods 

of evaluation will provide high-quality 

implementation data and performance 

feedback, and permit periodic 

assessment of progress toward achieving 

intended outcomes. 

(4) The extent to which the evaluation 

will provide sufficient information 

about the key elements and approach of 

the project so as to facilitate replication 

or testing in other settings. 

(5) The extent to which the proposed 

project plan includes sufficient 

resources to carry out the project 

evaluation effectively. 

(6) The extent to which the proposed 

evaluation is rigorous, independent, and 

neither the program developer nor the 

project implementer will evaluate the 

impact of the project. 

Note: We encourage eligible applicants to 

review the following technical assistance 

resources on evaluation: (1) What Works 

Clearinghouse Procedures and Standards 

Handbook: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/

references/idocviewer/

doc.aspx?docid=19&tocid=1; and (2) IES/ 

NCEE Technical Methods papers: http:// 

ies.ed.gov/ncee/tech_methods/. 

E. Strategy and Capacity to Bring to 

Scale (up to 15 points). 

The Secretary considers the quality of 

the eligible applicant’s strategy and 

capacity to bring the proposed project to 

scale on a national, regional, or State 

level. 

In determining the quality of the 

strategy and capacity to bring the 

proposed project to scale, the Secretary 

considers: 

(1) The number of students proposed 

to be reached by the proposed project 

and the capacity of the eligible 

applicant and any other partners to 

reach the proposed number of students 

during the course of the grant period. 

(2) The eligible applicant’s capacity 

(e.g., in terms of qualified personnel, 

financial resources, or management 

capacity) to bring the proposed project 

to scale on a national, regional, or State 

level working directly, or through 

partners, either during or following the 

end of the grant period. 

(3) 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 and 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. 

(4) The eligible applicant’s estimate of 

the cost of the proposed project, which 

includes the start-up and operating costs 

per student per year (including indirect 

costs) for reaching the total number of 

students proposed to be served by the 

project. The eligible applicant must 

include an estimate of the costs for the 

eligible applicant or others (including 

other partners) to reach 100,000, 

500,000, and 1,000,000 students. 

(5) The mechanisms the eligible 

applicant will use to broadly 

disseminate information on its project 

so as to support replication. 

F. Sustainability (up to 10 points). 

The Secretary considers the adequacy 

of resources to continue the proposed 

project after the grant period ends. 

In determining the adequacy of 

resources for the proposed project, the 

Secretary considers the following 

factors: 

(1) The extent to which the eligible 

applicant demonstrates that it has the 

resources to operate the project beyond 

the length of the Scale-up grant, 

including a multi-year financial and 

operating model and accompanying 

plan; the demonstrated commitment of 

any other partners; and evidence of 

broad support from stakeholders (e.g., 

State educational agencies, teachers’ 

unions) critical to the project’s longterm success. 

(2) The potential and planning for the 

incorporation of project purposes, 

activities, or benefits into the ongoing 

work of the eligible applicant and any 

other partners at the end of the Scaleup grant. 

G. Quality of the Management Plan 

and Personnel (up to 10 points). 

The Secretary considers the quality of 

the management plan and personnel for 

the proposed project. 

In determining the quality of the 

management plan and personnel for the 

proposed project, the Secretary 

considers: 

(1) The adequacy of the management 

plan to achieve the objectives of the 

proposed project on time and within 

budget, including clearly defined 

responsibilities, timelines, and 

milestones for accomplishing project 

tasks, as well as tasks related to the 

sustainability and scalability of the 

proposed project. 

(2) The qualifications, including 

relevant training and experience, of the 

project director and key project 

personnel, especially in managing large, 

complex, and rapidly growing projects. 

(3) 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 quasi-experimental 

studies of educational initiatives. 

2. Validation Grants. 

A. Need for the Project and Quality of 

the Project Design (up to 20 points). 

The Secretary considers the need for 

the project and quality of the design of 

the proposed project. 

In determining the need for the 

project and quality of the design of the 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES2
12082 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Notices 

5For additional information on the evidence for 

Validation grants, see Table 1 later in this section. 

proposed project, the Secretary 

considers the following factors: 

(1) The extent to which the proposed 

project represents an exceptional 

approach to the priorities the eligible 

applicant is seeking to meet (i.e., 

addresses a largely unmet need, 

particularly for high-need students, and 

is a practice, strategy, or program that 

has not already been widely adopted). 

(2) The extent to which the proposed 

project has a clear set of goals and an 

explicit strategy, with actions that are 

(a) aligned with the priorities the 

eligible applicant is seeking to meet, 

and (b) expected to result in achieving 

the goals, objectives, and outcomes of 

the proposed project. 

(3) The extent to which the proposed 

project is consistent with the research 

evidence supporting the proposed 

project, taking into consideration any 

differences in context. 

B. Strength of Research, Significance 

of Effect, and Magnitude of Effect (up to 

15 points). 

The Secretary considers the strength 

of the existing research evidence, 

including the internal validity (strength 

of causal conclusions) and external 

validity (generalizability) of the effects 

reported in prior research, on whether 

the proposed project will improve 

student achievement or student growth, 

close achievement gaps, decrease 

dropout rates, increase high school 

graduation rates, or increase college 

enrollment and completion rates. 

Eligible applicants may also 

demonstrate success through an 

intermediate variable that is strongly 

correlated with improving these 

outcomes, such as teacher or principal 

effectiveness. 

In determining the strength of the 

existing research evidence,5 the 

Secretary considers the following 

factors: 

(1) The extent to which the eligible 

applicant demonstrates that there is 

moderate evidence (as defined in this 

notice) that the proposed practice, 

strategy, or program will have a 

statistically significant, substantial, and 

important effect on improving student 

achievement or student growth, closing 

achievement gaps, decreasing dropout 

rates, increasing high school graduation 

rates, or increasing college enrollment 

and completion rates. 

(2) The importance and magnitude of 

the effect expected to be obtained by the 

proposed project, including the 

likelihood that the project will 

substantially and measurably improve 

student achievement or student growth, 

close achievement gaps, decrease 

dropout rates, increase high school 

graduation rates, or increase college 

enrollment and completion rates. The 

evidence in support of the importance 

and magnitude of the effect would be 

the research-based evidence provided 

by the eligible applicant to support the 

proposed project. 

C. Experience of the Eligible 

Applicant (up to 20 points). 

The Secretary considers the 

experience of the eligible applicant in 

implementing the proposed project. 

In determining the experience of the 

eligible applicant, the Secretary 

considers the following factors: 

(1) The past performance of the 

eligible applicant in implementing 

complex projects. 

(2) The extent to which an eligible 

applicant provides information and data 

demonstrating that— 

(a) In the case of an eligible applicant 

that is an LEA, the LEA has— 

(i) Significantly closed the 

achievement gaps between groups of 

students described in section 1111(b)(2) 

of the ESEA, or significantly increased 

student achievement for all groups of 

students described in such section; and 

(ii) Made significant improvements in 

other areas, such as graduation rates or 

increased recruitment and placement of 

high-quality teachers and principals, as 

demonstrated with meaningful data; or 

(b) In the case of an eligible applicant 

that includes a nonprofit organization, 

the nonprofit organization has 

significantly improved student 

achievement, attainment, or retention 

through its record of work with an LEA 

or schools. 

D. Quality of the Project Evaluation 

(up to 15 points). 

The Secretary considers the quality of 

the evaluation to be conducted of the 

proposed project. 

In determining the quality of the 

evaluation, the Secretary considers the 

following factors: 

(1) The extent to which the methods 

of evaluation will include a welldesigned experimental study or welldesigned quasi-experimental study. 

(2) The extent to which the methods 

of evaluation will provide high-quality 

implementation data and performance 

feedback, and permit periodic 

assessment of progress toward achieving 

intended outcomes. 

(3) The extent to which the evaluation 

will provide sufficient information 

about the key elements and approach of 

the project so as to facilitate replication 

or testing in other settings. 

(4) The extent to which the proposed 

project plan includes sufficient 

resources to carry out the project 

evaluation effectively. 

(5) The extent to which the proposed 

evaluation is rigorous, independent, and 

neither the program developer nor the 

project implementer will evaluate the 

impact of the project. 

Note: We encourage eligible applicants to 

review the following technical assistance 

resources on evaluation: (1) What Works 

Clearinghouse Procedures and Standards 

Handbook: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/ 

references/idocviewer/ 

doc.aspx?docid=19&tocid=1; and (2) IES/ 

NCES Technical Methods papers: http:// 

ies.ed.gov/ncee/tech_methods/. 

E. Strategy and Capacity to Bring to 

Scale (up to 10 points). 

The Secretary considers the quality of 

the eligible applicant’s strategy and 

capacity to bring the proposed project to 

scale on a State or regional level. 

In determining the quality of the 

strategy and capacity to bring the 

proposed project to scale, the Secretary 

considers: 

(1) The number of students proposed 

to be reached by the proposed project 

and the capacity of the eligible 

applicant and any other partners to 

reach the proposed number of students 

during the course of the grant period. 

(2) The eligible applicant’s capacity 

(e.g., in terms of qualified personnel, 

financial resources, or management 

capacity) to bring the proposed project 

to scale on a State or regional level (as 

appropriate, based on the results of the 

proposed project) working directly, or 

through other partners, either during or 

following the end of the grant period. 

(3) 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 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. 

(4) The eligible applicant’s estimate of 

the cost of the proposed project, which 

includes the start-up and operating costs 

per student per year (including indirect 

costs) for reaching the total number of 

students proposed to be served by the 

project. The eligible applicant must 

include an estimate of the costs for the 

eligible applicant or others (including 

other partners) to reach 100,000, 

250,000, and 500,000 students. 

(5) The mechanisms the eligible 

applicant will use to broadly 

disseminate information on its project to 

support further development, 

expansion, or replication. 

F. Sustainability (up to 10 points). 

The Secretary considers the adequacy 

of resources to continue to develop the 

proposed project. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Notices 12083 

6For additional information on the evidence for 

Development grants, see Table 1 later in this 

section. 

In determining the adequacy of 

resources for the proposed project, the 

Secretary considers the following 

factors: 

(1) The extent to which the eligible 

applicant demonstrates that it has the 

resources, as well as the support of 

stakeholders (e.g., State educational 

agencies, teachers’ unions), to operate 

the project beyond the length of the 

Validation grant. 

(2) The potential and planning for the 

incorporation of project purposes, 

activities, or benefits into the ongoing 

work of the eligible applicant and any 

other partners at the end of the 

Validation grant. 

G. Quality of the Management Plan 

and Personnel (up to 10 points). 

The Secretary considers the quality of 

the management plan and personnel for 

the proposed project. 

In determining the quality of the 

management plan and personnel for the 

proposed project, the Secretary 

considers: 

(1) The adequacy of the management 

plan to achieve the objectives of the 

proposed project on time and within 

budget, including clearly defined 

responsibilities, timelines, and 

milestones for accomplishing project 

tasks, as well as tasks related to the 

sustainability and scalability of the 

proposed project. 

(2) The qualifications, including 

relevant training and experience, of the 

project director and key project 

personnel, especially in managing 

complex projects. 

(3) The qualifications, including 

relevant expertise and experience, of the 

project director and key personnel of the 

independent evaluator, especially in 

designing and conducting experimental 

and quasi-experimental studies of 

educational initiatives. 

3. Development Grants. 

A. Need for the Project and Quality of 

the Project Design (up to 25 points). 

The Secretary considers the need for 

the project and quality of the design of 

the proposed project. 

In determining the need for the 

project and quality of the design of the 

proposed project, the Secretary 

considers the following factors: 

(1) The extent to which the proposed 

project represents an exceptional 

approach to the priorities the eligible 

applicant is seeking to meet (i.e., 

addresses a largely unmet need, 

particularly for high-need students, and 

is a practice, strategy, or program that 

has not already been widely adopted). 

(2) The extent to which the proposed 

project has a clear set of goals and an 

explicit strategy, with the goals, 

objectives, and outcomes to be achieved 

by the proposed project clearly specified 

and measurable and linked to the 

priorities the eligible applicant is 

seeking to meet. 

B. Strength of Research, Significance 

of Effect, and Magnitude of Effect (up to 

10 points). 

The Secretary considers the strength 

of the existing research evidence,6

including reported practice, theoretical 

considerations, and the significance and 

magnitude of any effects reported in 

prior research, on whether the proposed 

project will improve student 

achievement or student growth, close 

achievement gaps, decrease dropout 

rates, increase high school graduation 

rates, or increase college enrollment and 

completion rates. Eligible applicants 

may also demonstrate success through 

an intermediate variable that is strongly 

correlated with improving these 

outcomes, such as teacher or principal 

effectiveness. 

In determining the strength of the 

existing research evidence, the Secretary 

considers the following factors: 

(1) The extent to which the eligible 

applicant demonstrates that there are 

research-based findings or reasonable 

hypotheses that support the proposed 

project, including related research in 

education and other sectors. 

(2) The extent to which the proposed 

project has been attempted previously, 

albeit on a limited scale or in a limited 

setting, with promising results that 

suggest that more formal and systematic 

study is warranted. 

(3) The extent to which the eligible 

applicant demonstrates that, if funded, 

the proposed project likely will have a 

positive impact, as measured by the 

importance or magnitude of the effect, 

on improving student achievement or 

student growth, closing achievement 

gaps, decreasing dropout rates, 

increasing high school graduation rates, 

or increasing college enrollment and 

completion rates. 

C. Experience of the Eligible 

Applicant (up to 25 points). 

The Secretary considers the 

experience of the eligible applicant in 

implementing the proposed project or a 

similar project. 

In determining the experience of the 

eligible applicant, the Secretary 

considers the following factors: 

(1) The past performance of the 

eligible applicant in implementing 

projects of the size and scope proposed 

by the eligible applicant. 

(2) The extent to which an eligible 

applicant provides information and data 

demonstrating that— 

(a) In the case of an eligible applicant 

that is an LEA, the LEA has— 

(i) Significantly closed the 

achievement gaps between groups of 

students described in section 1111(b)(2) 

of the ESEA, or significantly increased 

student achievement for all groups of 

students described in such section; and 

(ii) Made significant improvements in 

other areas, such as graduation rates or 

increased recruitment and placement of 

high-quality teachers and principals, as 

demonstrated with meaningful data; or 

(b) In the case of an eligible applicant 

that includes a nonprofit organization, 

the nonprofit organization has 

significantly improved student 

achievement, attainment, or retention 

through its record of work with an LEA 

or schools. 

D. Quality of the Project Evaluation 

(up to 15 points). 

The Secretary considers the quality of 

the evaluation to be conducted of the 

proposed project. 

In determining the quality of the 

evaluation, the Secretary considers the 

following factors. 

(1) The extent to which the methods 

of evaluation are appropriate to the size 

and scope of the proposed project. 

(2) The extent to which the methods 

of evaluation will provide high-quality 

implementation data and performance 

feedback, and permit periodic 

assessment of progress toward achieving 

intended outcomes. 

(3) The extent to which the evaluation 

will provide sufficient information 

about the key elements and approach of 

the project to facilitate further 

development, replication, or testing in 

other settings. 

(4) The extent to which the proposed 

project plan includes sufficient 

resources to carry out the project 

evaluation effectively. 

Note: We encourage eligible applicants to 

review the following technical assistance 

resources on evaluation: (1) What Works 

Clearinghouse Procedures and Standards 

Handbook: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/ 

references/idocviewer/ 

doc.aspx?docid=19&tocid=1; and (2) IES/ 

NCEE Technical Methods papers: http:// 

ies.ed.gov/ncee/tech_methods/. 

E. Strategy and Capacity to Further 

Develop and Bring to Scale (up to 5 

points). 

The Secretary considers the quality of 

the eligible applicant’s strategy and 

capacity to further develop and bring to 

scale the proposed project. 

In determining the quality of the 

strategy and capacity to further develop 

and bring to scale the proposed project, 

the Secretary considers: 

(1) The number of students proposed 

to be reached by the proposed project 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES2
12084 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Notices 

and the capacity of the eligible 

applicant and any other partners to 

reach the proposed number of students 

during the course of the grant period. 

(2) The eligible applicant’s capacity 

(e.g., in terms of qualified personnel, 

financial resources, or management 

capacity) to further develop and bring to 

scale the proposed practice, strategy, or 

program, or to work with others 

(including other partners) to ensure that 

the proposed practice, strategy, or 

program can be further developed and 

brought to scale, based on the findings 

of the proposed project. 

(3) 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 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. 

(4) The eligible applicant’s estimate of 

the cost of the proposed project, which 

includes the start-up and operating costs 

per student per year (including indirect 

costs) for reaching the total number of 

students proposed to be served by the 

project. The eligible applicant must 

include an estimate of the costs for the 

eligible applicant or others (including 

other partners) to reach 100,000, 

250,000, and 500,000 students. 

(5) The mechanisms the eligible 

applicant will use to broadly 

disseminate information on its project 

so as to support further development or 

replication. 

F. Sustainability (up to 10 points). 

The Secretary considers the adequacy 

of resources to continue to develop or 

expand the proposed practice, strategy, 

or program after the grant period ends. 

In determining the adequacy of 

resources for the proposed project, the 

Secretary considers the following 

factors: 

(1) The extent to which the eligible 

applicant demonstrates that it has the 

resources, as well as the support from 

stakeholders (e.g., State educational 

agencies, teachers’ unions) to operate 

the project beyond the length of the 

Development grant. 

(2) The potential and planning for the 

incorporation of project purposes, 

activities, or benefits into the ongoing 

work of the eligible applicant and any 

other partners at the end of the 

Development grant. 

G. Quality of the Management Plan 

and Personnel (up to 10 points). 

The Secretary considers the quality of 

the management plan and personnel for 

the proposed project. 

In determining the quality of the 

management plan and personnel for the 

proposed project, the Secretary 

considers: 

(1) The adequacy of the management 

plan to achieve the objectives of the 

proposed project on time and within 

budget, including clearly defined 

responsibilities, timelines, and 

milestones for accomplishing project 

tasks. 

(2) The qualifications, including 

relevant training and experience, of the 

project director and key project 

personnel, especially in managing 

projects of the size and scope of the 

proposed project. 

TABLE 1—DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE THREE TYPES OF INVESTING IN INNOVATION FUND GRANTS IN TERMS OF THE

EVIDENCE REQUIRED TO SUPPORT THE PROPOSED PRACTICE, STRATEGY, OR PROGRAM

Scale-up grants Validation grants Development grants 

Strength of Research ..................... Strong evidence ............................ Moderate evidence ....................... Reasonable hypotheses. 

Internal Validity (Strength of Causal Conclusions) and External Validity (Generalizability).High internal validity and high external validity.(1) High internal validity and moderate external validity; or (2) 

moderate internal validity and 

high external validity.

Theory and reported practice suggest the potential for efficacy 

for at least some participants 

and settings. 

Prior Research Studies Supporting 

Effectiveness or Efficacy of the 

Proposed Practice, Strategy, or 

Program.

(1) More than one well-designed 

and well-implemented experimental study or well-designed 

and well-implemented quasi-experimental study; or (2) one 

large, well-designed and wellimplemented randomized controlled, multisite trial.

(1) At least one well-designed and 

well-implemented experimental 

or quasi-experimental study, 

with small sample sizes or other 

conditions of implementation or 

analysis that limit generalizability; (2) at least one well-designed and well-implemented 

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.

(1) 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; and (2) 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. 

Practice, Strategy, or Program in 

Prior Research.

The same as that proposed for 

support under the Scale-up 

grant.

The same as, or very similar to, 

that proposed for support under 

the Validation grant.

The same as, or similar to, that 

proposed for support under the 

Development grant. 

Participants and Settings in Prior 

Research.

Participants and settings included 

the kinds of participants and 

settings proposed to receive the 

treatment under the Scale-up 

grant.

Participants or settings may have 

been more limited than those 

proposed to receive the treatment under the Validation grant.

Participants or settings may have 

been more limited than those 

proposed to receive the treatment under the Development 

grant. 

Significance of Effect ..................... Effect in prior research was statistically significant, and would be 

likely to be statistically significant in a sample of the size 

proposed for the Scale-up grant.

Effect in prior research would be 

likely to be statistically significant in a sample of the size 

proposed for the Validation 

grant.

Practice, strategy, or program 

warrants further study to investigate efficacy. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Notices 12085 

TABLE 1—DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE THREE TYPES OF INVESTING IN INNOVATION FUND GRANTS IN TERMS OF THE

EVIDENCE REQUIRED TO SUPPORT THE PROPOSED PRACTICE, STRATEGY, OR PROGRAM—Continued 

Scale-up grants Validation grants Development grants 

Magnitude of Effect ........................ Based on prior research, substantial and important for the target 

population for the Scale-up 

project.

Based on prior research, substantial and important, with the potential of the same for the target population for the Validation 

project.

Based on prior implementation, 

promising for the target population for the Development 

project. 

2. Review and Selection Process: The 

Department will screen applications 

submitted in accordance with the 

requirements in this notice, and will 

determine which applications are 

eligible to be read based on whether 

they have met eligibility and other 

statutory requirements. 

For all three grant reviews, the 

Department will use independent 

reviewers from various backgrounds and 

professions including: Prekindergarten–12 teachers and 

principals, college and university 

educators, researchers and evaluators, 

social entrepreneurs, strategy 

consultants, grant makers and managers, 

and others with education expertise. 

The Department will thoroughly screen 

all reviewers for conflicts of interest to 

ensure a fair and competitive review 

process. 

Reviewers will read, prepare a written 

evaluation, and score the applications 

assigned to their panel, using the 

selection criteria provided in this 

notice. 

To be eligible for an award, an 

application for a Scale-up grant must be 

supported by strong evidence (as 

defined in this notice) and an 

application for a Validation grant must 

be supported by moderate evidence (as 

defined in this notice). For Scale-up and 

Validation grant applications, peer 

reviewers will review and score all 

eligible applications. If eligible 

applicants have chosen to address the 

competitive preference priorities and 

receive points for the competitive 

preference priorities, those points will 

be added to the eligible applicant’s 

score. The Department may ask Scale-up 

grant finalists to send a team to the 

Department’s headquarters in 

Washington, DC to present their 

proposed project to a panel of reviewers. 

The panel will take this opportunity to 

gain a more comprehensive 

understanding of the applicant’s 

proposed project. At the conclusion of 

the presentation process, reviewers will 

complete their scoring of the 

applications based on the selection 

criteria. 

To be eligible for an award, an 

application for a Development grant 

must be supported by a reasonable 

hypothesis. For Development grant 

applications, the Department intends to 

conduct a two-tier review process to 

review and score all eligible 

applications. Reviewers will review and 

score all eligible Development 

applications on the following five 

criteria: A. Need for the Project and 

Quality of the Project Design; C. 

Experience of the Eligible Applicant; E. 

Strategy and Capacity to Further 

Develop and Bring to Scale; F. 

Sustainability; and G. Quality of the 

Management Plan and Personnel. If 

eligible applicants have chosen to 

address the competitive preference 

priorities, reviewers will review and 

score those competitive preference 

priorities. If points are awarded, those 

points will be added to the eligible 

applicant’s score. Eligible applications 

that score highly on these five criteria 

will then have the remaining two 

criteria reviewed and scored by a 

different panel of reviewers. The 

remaining criteria are as follows: B. 

Strength of Research, Significance, of 

Effect, and Magnitude of Effect and D. 

Quality of the Project Evaluation. 

For all three types of applications, the 

Secretary prepares a rank order of 

applications based solely on the 

evaluation of their quality according to 

the selection criteria. In accordance 

with 34 CFR 75.217(c)(3), the Secretary 

will make final awards after considering 

the rank ordering and other information 

including an applicant’s performance 

and use of funds and compliance 

history under a previous award under 

any Department program. In making 

awards under any future competitions, 

the Secretary will consider an 

applicant’s past performance, including 

the quality of the evaluation produced 

by the applicant under a previous 

Investing in Innovation grant. 

VI. Award Administration Information 

1. Award Notices: If your application 

is successful, we notify your U.S. 

Representative and U.S. Senators and 

send you a Grant Award Notification 

(GAN). We may notify you informally, 

also. 

If your application is not evaluated or 

not selected for funding, we notify you. 

2. Administrative and National Policy 

Requirements: We identify 

administrative and national policy 

requirements in the application package 

and reference these and other 

requirements in the Applicable 

Regulations section of this notice. 

We reference the regulations outlining 

the terms and conditions of an award in 

the Applicable Regulations section of 

this notice and include these and other 

specific conditions in the GAN. The 

GAN also incorporates your approved 

application as part of your binding 

commitments under the grant. 

3. Reporting: At the end of your 

project period, each grantee must 

submit a final performance report, 

including financial information, as 

directed by the Secretary. If you receive 

a multi-year award, you must submit an 

annual performance report that provides 

the most current performance and 

financial expenditure information as 

directed by the Secretary under 34 CFR 

75.720(a) and (b). The Secretary may 

also require more frequent performance 

reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For 

specific requirements on reporting, 

please go to http://www.ed.gov/fund/ 

grant/apply/appforms/appforms.html. 

In addition to these reporting 

requirements, each grantee that receives 

Investing in Innovation funds must also 

meet the reporting requirements that 

apply to all ARRA-funded programs. 

Specifically, each grantee must submit 

reports, within 10 days after the end of 

each calendar quarter, that contain the 

information required under section 

1512(c) of the ARRA in accordance with 

any guidance issued by the Office of 

Management and Budget or the 

Department (ARRA division A, section 

1512(c)). 

In addition, for each year of the 

program, each grantee must submit a 

report to the Secretary, at such time and 

in such manner as the Secretary may 

require, that describes— 

1. The uses of funds within the 

defined area of the proposed project; 

2. How the applicant distributed the 

funds it received; 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES2
12086 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Notices 

3. The number of jobs estimated to be 

saved or created with the funds; and 

4. The project’s progress in reducing 

inequities in the distribution of highly 

qualified teachers, implementing a 

longitudinal data system, and 

developing and implementing valid and 

reliable assessments for English 

language learners and students with 

disabilities. 

4. Performance Measures: The overall 

purpose of the Investing in Innovation 

program is to expand the 

implementation of, and investment in, 

innovative practices that are 

demonstrated to have an impact on 

improving student achievement or 

student growth for high-need students. 

We have established several 

performance measures for each of the 

three types of the Investing in 

Innovation grants. 

Scale-Up Grants 

Short-term performance measures: (1) 

The percentage of grantees that reach 

their annual target number of students 

as specified in the application; (2) the 

percentage of programs, practices, or 

strategies supported by a Scale-up grant 

with ongoing well-designed and 

independent evaluations that will 

provide evidence of their effectiveness 

at improving student outcomes at scale; 

(3) the percentage of programs, 

practices, or strategies supported by a 

Scale-up grant with ongoing evaluations 

that are providing high-quality 

implementation data and performance 

feedback that allow for periodic 

assessment of progress toward achieving 

intended outcomes; and (4) the cost per 

student actually served by the grant. 

Long-term performance measures: (1) 

The percentage of grantees that reach 

the targeted number of students 

specified in the application; (2) the 

percentage of programs, practices, or 

strategies supported by a Scale-up grant 

that implement a completed welldesigned, well-implemented and 

independent evaluation that provides 

evidence of their effectiveness at 

improving student outcomes at scale; (3) 

the percentage of programs, practices, or 

strategies supported by a Scale-up grant 

with a completed well-designed, wellimplemented and independent 

evaluation that provides information 

about the key elements and the 

approach of the project so as to facilitate 

replication or testing in other settings; 

and (4) the cost per student for 

programs, practices or strategies that 

were proven to be effective at improving 

educational outcomes for students. 

Validation Grants 

Short-term performance measures: (1) 

The percentage of grantees that reach 

their annual target number of students 

as specified in the application; (2) the 

percentage of programs, practices, or 

strategies supported by a Validation 

grant with ongoing well-designed and 

independent evaluations that will 

provide evidence of their effectiveness 

at improving student outcomes; (3) the 

percentage of programs, practices, or 

strategies supported by a Validation 

grant with ongoing evaluations that are 

providing high-quality implementation 

data and performance feedback that 

allow for periodic assessment of 

progress toward achieving intended 

outcomes; and (4) the cost per student 

actually served by the grant. 

Long-term performance measures: (1) 

The percentage of grantees that reach 

the targeted number of students 

specified in the application; (2) the 

percentage of programs, practices, or 

strategies supported by a Validation 

grant that implement a completed welldesigned, well-implemented and 

independent evaluation that provides 

evidence of their effectiveness at 

improving student outcomes; (3) the 

percentage of programs, practices, or 

strategies supported by a Validation 

grant with a completed well-designed, 

well-implemented and independent 

evaluation that provides information 

about the key elements and the 

approach of the project so as to facilitate 

replication or testing in other settings; 

and (4) the cost per student for 

programs, practices, or strategies that 

were proven to be effective at improving 

educational outcomes for students. 

Development Grants 

Short-term performance measures: (1) 

The percentage of grantees whose 

projects are being implemented with 

fidelity to the approved design; (2) the 

percentage of programs, practices, or 

strategies supported by a Development 

grant with ongoing evaluations that 

provide evidence of their promise for 

improving student outcomes; (3) the 

percentage of programs, practices, or 

strategies supported by a Development 

grant with ongoing evaluations that are 

providing high-quality implementation 

data and performance feedback that 

allow for periodic assessment of 

progress toward achieving intended 

outcomes; and (4) the cost per student 

actually served by the grant. 

Long-term performance measures: (1) 

The percentage of programs, practices, 

or strategies supported by a 

Development grant with a completed 

evaluation that provides evidence of 

their promise for improving student 

outcomes; (2) the percentage of 

programs, practices, or strategies 

supported by a Development grant with 

a completed evaluation that provides 

information about the key elements and 

approach of the project so as to facilitate 

further development, replication, or 

testing in other settings; and (3) the cost 

per student for programs, practices, or 

strategies that were proven promising at 

improving educational outcomes for 

students. 

VII. Agency Contact 

For Further Information Contact: 

Margo Anderson, U.S. Department of 

Education, Office of Innovation and 

Improvement, 400 Maryland Avenue, 

SW., Room 4W302, Washington, DC 

20202–5900, Telephone: (202) 453–7122 

or by e-mail: i3@ed.gov. 

If you use a TDD, call the Federal 

Relay Service, toll free, at 1–800–877– 

8339. 

VIII. Other Information 

Accessible Format: Individuals with 

disabilities can obtain this document 

and a copy of the application package in 

an accessible format (e.g., Braille, large 

print, audiotape, or computer diskette) 

on request to the program contact 

number or e-mail address listed under 

For Further Information Contact in 

section VII of this notice 

Electronic Access to This Document: 

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) on the Internet at the 

following site: http://www.ed.gov/news/ 

fedregister. To use PDF you must have 

Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is 

available free at this site. 

Note: 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 on GPO 

Access at: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/

nara/index.html. 

Dated: March 4, 2010. 

James H. Shelton III, 

Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and 

Improvement. 

[FR Doc. 2010–5139 Filed 3–8–10; 11:15 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES2