52214 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 195 / Friday, October 9, 2009 / Notices 

ACTION: Notice of meeting. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with Section 

10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory 

Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–463), 

announcement is made of the following 

committee meeting: 

Name of Committee: Board on Coastal 

Engineering Research. 

Date of Meeting: November 12–13, 

2009. 

Place: Rooms 3M60 and 3M70, GAO 

Building, Headquarters, U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers, 441 G Street NW., 

Washington, DC 20314. 

Time: 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. (November 12, 

2009). 

8 a.m. to 12 p.m. (November 13, 

2009). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Inquiries and notice of intent to attend 

the meeting may be addressed to COL 

Gary E. Johnston, Executive Secretary, 

Engineer Research and Development 

Center, Waterways Experiment Station, 

3909 Halls Ferry Road, Vicksburg, MS 

39180–6199. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

The Board provides broad policy 

guidance and review of plans and fund 

requirements for the conduct of research 

and development of research projects in 

consonance with the needs of the 

coastal engineering field and the 

objectives of the Chief of Engineers. 

Proposed Agenda: This meeting is 

devoted to an Executive Session of the 

Board to review in detail actions 

underway on three Board initiatives or 

concerns, which include: (1) To review 

the Data Collection and Dissemination 

Framework being developed jointly 

with the National Ocean Service; (2) to 

review the proposed PgMP for the 

Sustainable Approach for Coastal and 

Estuarine Systems (SUSTAIN); and (3) 

to review the interim Report on National 

Shoreline Management Study and the 

plans for completing the study. 

The meeting is open to the public, but 

since the meeting will be held in a 

government facility and seating capacity 

of the meeting room is limited, advance 

notice of intent to attend is required. A 

list of attendees will be provided to 

security. 

Gary E. Johnston, 

Colonel, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 

Executive Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E9–24437 Filed 10–8–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3720–58–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Department of the Army 

Board of Visitors, United States 

Military Academy (USMA) 

AGENCY: Department of the Army, DoD. 

ACTION: Meeting notice. 

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act of 

1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), 

the Government in the Sunshine Act of 

1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 

41 CFR 102–3.150, the Department of 

Defense announces that the following 

Federal advisory committee meeting 

will take place: 

Name of Committee: United States 

Military Academy Board of Visitors. 

Date: Friday, October 23, 2009. 

Time: 9 a.m.–11:30 a.m. Members of 

the public wishing to attend the meeting 

will need to show photo identification 

in order to gain access to the meeting 

location. All participants are subject to 

security screening. 

Location: Superintendent’s 

Conference Room, Taylor Hall, West 

Point, NY. 

Purpose of the Meeting: This is the 

2009 Annual Meeting of the USMA 

Board of Visitors (BoV). Members of the 

Board will be provided updates on 

Academy issues. 

Agenda: The Academy leadership 

will provide the Board updates on the 

following: Middle States Accreditation, 

USMA Mission and Vision, Academic 

Instruction, Physical Instruction, A76 

Commercial Activity Study, Base 

Realignment and Closure (BRAC), 

Residential Communities Initiative 

(RCI), FY 09 Budget Year End Closeout, 

Admissions-Diversity, Honor 

Committee, and Annual Report. The 

Board will discuss proposed meeting 

dates for the 2010 Organizational 

meeting. 

Public’s Accessibility to the Meeting: 

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b and 41 CFR 

102–3.140 through 102–3.165 and the 

availability of space, this meeting is 

open to the public. Seating is on a firstcome basis. 

Committee’s Designated Federal 

Officer or Point of Contact: Ms. Joy A. 

Pasquazi, (845) 938–5078, 

Joy.Pasquazi@us.army.mil. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Joy A. Pasquazi, (845) 938–5078, (Fax: 

845–938–3214) or via e-mail: 

Joy.Pasquazi@us.army.mil. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Any 

member of the public is permitted to file 

a written statement with the USMA 

Board of Visitors. Written statements 

should be sent to the Designated Federal 

Officer (DFO) at: United States Military 

Academy, Office of the Secretary of the 

General Staff (MASG), 646 Swift Road, 

West Point, NY 10996–1905 or faxed to 

the Designated Federal Officer (DFO) at 

(845) 938–3214. Written statements 

must be received no later than five 

working days prior to the next meeting 

in order to provide time for member 

consideration. By rule, no member of 

the public attending open meetings will 

be allowed to present questions from the 

floor or speak to any issue under 

consideration by the Board. 

Brenda S. Bowen, 

Army Federal Register Liaison Officer. 

[FR Doc. E9–24440 Filed 10–8–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3710–08–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

[Docket ID ED–2009–OII–0012] 

RIN 1855–AA06 

Investing in Innovation 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

(CFDA) Numbers: 84.396A, 84.396B 

and 84.396C. 

AGENCY: Office of Innovation and 

Improvement, Department of Education. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria. 

SUMMARY: The Secretary of Education 

(Secretary) proposes priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria under the Investing in 

Innovation Fund. The Secretary may use 

these priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria for 

competitions of the Investing in 

Innovation Fund for fiscal year (FY) 

2010 and later years. We intend for the 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria to support the efforts 

of local educational agencies (LEAs) and 

nonprofit organizations (as defined in 

this notice) that have strong track 

records of improving student 

achievement (as defined in this notice) 

to expand their work; identify, 

document, and share best practices; and 

take successful practices ‘‘to scale.’’ 

DATES: We must receive your comments 

on or before November 9, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments 

through the Federal eRulemaking Portal 

or via postal mail, commercial delivery, 

or hand delivery. We will not accept 

comments by fax or by e-mail. Please 

submit your comments only one time in 

order to ensure that we do not receive 

duplicate copies. In addition, please 

include the Docket ID and the term 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 195 / Friday, October 9, 2009 / Notices 52215 

‘‘Investing in Innovation’’ at the top of 

your comments. 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov to submit 

your comments electronically. 

Information on using Regulations.gov, 

including instructions for accessing 

agency documents, submitting 

comments, and viewing the docket, is 

available on the site under ‘‘How To Use 

This Site.’’ A direct link to the docket 

page is also available at http:// 

www.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2009/ 

10/10062009a.html. 

• Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery, 

or Hand Delivery. If you mail or deliver 

your comments about these proposed 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria, address them to Office 

of Innovation and Improvement 

(Attention: Investing in Innovation 

Comments), U.S. Department of 

Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., 

room 4W321, Washington, DC 20202. 

• Privacy Note: The Department’s 

policy for comments received from 

members of the public (including those 

comments submitted by mail, 

commercial delivery, or hand delivery) 

is to make these submissions available 

for public viewing in their entirety on 

the Federal eRulemaking Portal at 

http://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, 

commenters should be careful to 

include in their comments only 

information that they wish to make 

publicly available on the Internet. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mia 

Howerton. Telephone: (202) 205–0417; 

or Erin McHugh. Telephone: (202) 401– 

1304. Or by e-mail: i3@ed.gov. Note that 

we will not accept comments by e-mail. 

If you use a telecommunications 

device for the deaf (TDD), call the 

Federal Relay Service, toll free, at 1– 

800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Invitation To Comment: We invite 

you to submit comments regarding this 

notice. To ensure that your comments 

have maximum effect in developing the 

notice of final priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria, we 

urge you to identify clearly the specific 

proposed priority, requirement, 

definition, or selection criterion your 

comment addresses. 

We invite you to assist us in 

complying with the specific 

requirements of Executive Order 12866 

and its overall requirement of reducing 

regulatory burden that might result from 

the proposed priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria. Please 

let us know of any further ways we 

could reduce potential costs or increase 

potential benefits while preserving the 

effective and efficient administration of 

the program. 

During and after the comment period, 

you may inspect all public comments 

about this notice by accessing 

Regulations.gov. You may also inspect 

the comments in person, in room 

4W335, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC, between the hours of 

8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Washington, 

DC time, Monday through Friday of 

each week except Federal holidays. 

Assistance to Individuals With 

Disabilities in Reviewing the 

Rulemaking Record: On request we will 

provide an appropriate accommodation 

or auxiliary aid to an individual with a 

disability who needs assistance to 

review the comments or other 

documents in the public rulemaking 

record for this notice. If you want to 

schedule an appointment for this type of 

accommodation or auxiliary aid, please 

contact the person listed under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

Purpose of Program: The Investing in 

Innovation Fund, established under 

section 14007 of the American Recovery 

and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), 

provides funding to support (1) LEAs, 

and (2) nonprofit organizations in 

partnership with (a) one or more LEAs 

or (b) a consortium of schools (as 

defined in this notice). The purpose of 

the program is to provide competitive 

grants to applicants with a record of 

improving student achievement, in 

order to expand the implementation of, 

and investment in, innovative practices 

that are demonstrated to have an impact 

on improving student achievement or 

student growth (as defined in this 

notice) for high-need students (as 

defined in this notice), as well as to 

promote school readiness, close 

achievement gaps, decrease dropout 

rates, increase high school graduation 

rates, and improve teacher and school 

leader effectiveness. 

These grants will (1) allow eligible 

entities to expand and develop their 

work so that their work can serve as 

models of best practices, (2) allow 

eligible entities to work in partnership 

with the private sector and the 

philanthropic community, and (3) 

identify and document best practices 

that can be shared and taken to scale 

based on demonstrated success. 

Program Authority: American 

Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, 

Division A, Section 14007, Public Law 

No. 111–5. 

Background 

The Statutory Context 

On February 17, 2009, President 

Obama signed into law the ARRA (Pub. 

L. 111–5), historic legislation designed 

to stimulate the economy, support job 

creation, and invest in critical sectors, 

including education. The ARRA lays the 

foundation for education reform by 

supporting investments in innovative 

strategies that are most likely to lead to 

improved results for students, long-term 

gains in school and LEA capacity for 

success, and increased productivity and 

effectiveness. 

The ARRA provides $98.2 billion to 

the Department for direct expenditures 

on education. Within this amount, $650 

million was authorized and 

appropriated for the Investing in 

Innovation Fund (referred to as the 

‘‘Innovation Fund’’ in the ARRA), for a 

competitive grant program to enable 

LEAs and nonprofit organizations with 

a record of improving kindergartenthrough-grade-12 (K–12) student 

achievement to: expand their work; 

identify, document, and share best 

practices; and take successful practices 

to scale. 

Education Reform Areas 

One of the overall goals of the ARRA 

is to improve student achievement 

through school improvement and 

reform. Within the context of the ARRA, 

the Investing in Innovation Fund 

focuses on four key assurances, or 

education reform areas, that will help 

achieve this goal: (1) Improvements in 

teacher effectiveness and ensuring that 

all schools have effective teachers, (2) 

gathering information to improve 

student learning, teacher performance, 

and college and career readiness 

through enhanced data systems, (3) 

progress toward college- and careerready standards and rigorous 

assessments, and (4) improving 

achievement in low-performing schools 

through intensive support and effective 

interventions. 

Overview of the Investing in Innovation 

Fund 

The Department intends to use the 

Investing in Innovation Fund to support 

the overarching ARRA goal of 

improving student achievement by 

aligning four of the priorities proposed 

in this notice directly with the four 

ARRA reform areas. In this notice we 

propose four additional priorities that 

are aligned with other Department 

reform goals in the areas of early 

learning, college access, students with 

disabilities and limited English 

proficient students, and rural LEAs. 

Finally, we propose to require that all 

funded projects provide educational or 

other services to support high-need 

students. 

In this notice, the Department 

proposes to award three types of grants 

within the Investing in Innovation 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

52216 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 195 / Friday, October 9, 2009 / Notices 

Fund: ‘‘Scale-up’’ grants, ‘‘Validation’’ 

grants, and ‘‘Development’’ grants. We 

have defined each of these types of 

grants in the section that follows. 

Projects funded under each of the 

three types of grants would provide 

services to high-need students and 

would focus on priorities directly tied to 

the reform areas of the ARRA; 

applicants could also choose to meet the 

additional priority areas. Among the 

three grant types, there would be 

differences in terms of the evidence that 

an applicant would be required to 

submit in support of its proposed 

project; the expectations for scaling up 

successful projects during or after the 

grant period, either directly or through 

partners; and the funding that a 

successful applicant would receive. 

The intent of these requirements is to 

ensure that program funds are used to 

expand and take to scale the most 

promising practices, strategies, and 

programs. We are proposing definitions 

and criteria that would be used to 

evaluate the available evidence 

supporting a proposed project, in terms 

of the strength of the research, the 

significance of the effect, and the 

magnitude of the effect for each type of 

grant. As such, we are particularly 

interested in receiving comments on 

these proposed definitions and selection 

criteria, and whether, in evaluating the 

magnitude of the effect, we should 

specify a minimum effect size and, if so, 

what that effect size should be. We also 

are interested in your comments on how 

to ensure that projects that are 

innovative and comprehensive in scope 

or that may show a cumulative effect 

over time are properly considered, given 

the proposed definitions and selection 

criteria. We are cognizant of the need to 

balance our interest in innovation with 

the importance of research-based 

evidence, and welcome comments on 

how best to achieve the proper balance. 

We also are interested in receiving 

comments on the criteria we are 

proposing to evaluate the costeffectiveness of a proposed practice, 

strategy, or program. We believe that an 

important aspect of evaluating 

applications under the Investing in 

Innovation Fund is assessing the extent 

to which a proposal is feasible and can 

be brought to scale in a cost-effective 

manner. So that we can judge the costeffectiveness of a proposed project, we 

propose that applicants provide 

estimated start-up and operating costs 

per student (including indirect costs) for 

reaching the total number of students 

proposed to be served by the project, as 

well as for the applicant or others to 

reach 100,000, 250,000, and 500,000 

students for Development grants and 

Validation grants; and to reach 100,000, 

500,000, and 1,000,000 students for 

Scale-up grants. We are interested in 

your comments on whether there are 

other methods of determining costeffectiveness that would be more 

informative or less burdensome. 

Following is an overview of the three 

types of grants we are proposing to 

award: 

1. Scale-up grants would provide 

funding to scale up practices, strategies, 

or programs for which there is strong 

evidence (as defined in this notice) that 

the proposed practice, strategy, or 

program will have a statistically 

significant effect on improving student 

achievement or student growth, closing 

achievement gaps, decreasing dropout 

rates, or increasing high school 

graduation rates, and that the effect of 

implementing the proposed practice, 

strategy, or program will be substantial 

and important. We also propose that an 

applicant for a Scale-up grant could 

demonstrate success through an 

intermediate variable directly correlated 

with these outcomes, such as teacher or 

school leader effectiveness or 

improvements in school climate. 

We further propose that an applicant 

for a Scale-up grant estimate the number 

of students to be reached by the 

proposed project and provide evidence 

of its capacity to reach the proposed 

number of students during the course of 

the grant. In addition, we propose that 

an applicant for a Scale-up grant 

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

terms of qualified personnel, financial 

resources, management capacity) to 

scale up to a State, regional, or national 

level (as defined in this notice), working 

directly or through partners either 

during or following the end of the grant 

period. We recognize that LEAs are not 

typically responsible for taking to scale 

their practices, strategies, or programs to 

other LEAs and States. Applicants can 

and should partner with others (e.g., 

service centers, State educational 

agencies, institutions of higher 

education) to disseminate and take to 

scale their effective practices, strategies, 

and programs. 

Successful applicants for Scale-up 

grants would receive larger levels of 

funding than successful applicants for 

Validation or Development grants. 

2. Validation grants would provide 

funding to support practices, strategies, 

or programs that show promise, but for 

which there is currently only moderate 

evidence (as defined in this notice) that 

the proposed practice, strategy, or 

program will have a statistically 

significant effect on improving student 

achievement or student growth, closing 

achievement gaps, decreasing dropout 

rates, or increasing high school 

graduation rates, and that with further 

study, the effect of implementing the 

proposed practice, strategy, or program 

may prove to be substantial and 

important. Thus, proposals for 

Validation grants would not need to 

have the same level of research evidence 

to support the proposed project that 

would be required for Scale-up grants. 

We also propose that applicants could 

demonstrate success through an 

intermediate variable directly correlated 

with these outcomes, such as teacher or 

school leader effectiveness or 

improvements in school climate. 

An applicant for a Validation grant 

would have to estimate the number of 

students to be reached by the proposed 

project and provide evidence of its 

capacity to reach the proposed number 

of students during the course of the 

grant. In addition, we propose that an 

applicant for a Validation grant provide 

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

qualified personnel, financial resources, 

management capacity) to scale up to a 

State or regional level, working directly 

or through partners either during or 

following the end of the grant period. As 

noted earlier, we recognize that LEAs 

are not typically responsible for taking 

to scale their practices, strategies, or 

programs to other LEAs and States. 

Applicants can and should partner with 

others to disseminate and take to scale 

their effective practices, strategies, and 

programs. 

Successful applicants for Validation 

grants would receive more funding than 

successful applicants for Development 

grants. 

3. Development grants would provide 

funding to support new, high-potential, 

and relatively untested practices, 

strategies, or programs whose efficacy 

should be systematically studied. An 

applicant would have to provide 

evidence that the proposed practice, 

strategy, or program, or one similar to it, 

has been attempted previously, albeit on 

a limited scale or in a limited setting, 

and yielded promising results that 

suggest that more formal and systematic 

study is warranted. An applicant must 

provide a rationale for the proposed 

practice, strategy, or program that is 

based on research findings or reasonable 

hypotheses, including related research 

or theories in education and other 

sectors. Thus, proposals for 

Development grants would not need to 

provide the same level of evidence to 

support the proposed project that would 

be required for Validation or Scale-up 

grants. 

We also propose that an applicant for 

a Validation grant estimate the number 

of students to be served by the project, 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 195 / Friday, October 9, 2009 / Notices 52217 

1See, e.g., Kane, Thomas J., Jonah E. Rockoff, and 

Douglas O. Staiger (2006), ‘‘What Does Certification 

Tell Us About Teacher Effectiveness? Evidence 

from New York City,’’ NBER Working Paper No. 

12155; Rivkin, Steven G., Eric A. Hanushek, and 

John F. Kain (2005), ‘‘Teachers, Schools, and 

Academic Achievement,’’ Econometrica, 73(2), 

417–458; Rockoff, Jonah. E. (2004), ‘‘The Impact of 

Individual Teachers on Students’ Achievement: 

Evidence from Panel Data,’’ American Economic 

Review 94(2), 247–52; Aaronson, Daniel, Lisa 

Barrow, and William Sander (2003), ‘‘Teacher and 

Student Achievement in the Chicago Public High 

Schools,’’ Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago Working 

Paper 2002–28. 2Rivkin, Hanushek, and Kain (2005); Kane, 

Rockoff, and Staiger (2006). 3Leithwood, Kenneth, Karen Seashore Louis, 

Stephen Anderson, and Kyla Sahlstrom (2004), 

‘‘How Leadership Influences Student Learning,’’ 

Wallace Foundation Learning from Leadership 

Project. 

and provide evidence of its ability to 

implement and appropriately evaluate 

the proposed project and, if positive 

results are obtained, its capacity (e.g., in 

terms of qualified personnel, financial 

resources, management capacity) to 

further develop and bring the project to 

a larger scale directly or through 

partners either during or following the 

end of the grant period. As noted earlier, 

we recognize that LEAs are not typically 

responsible for taking to scale their 

practices, strategies, or programs. 

Applicants can and should partner with 

others to disseminate and take to scale 

their effective practices, strategies, and 

programs. 

To summarize, in terms of the 

evidence required to support the 

proposed practice, strategy, or program, 

the major differences between Scale-up, 

Validation, and Development grants are 

(see Table 1): (1) The strength of the 

research; (2) the significance of the 

effect; and (3) the magnitude of the 

effect. 

TABLE 1—DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE THREE TYPES OF INVESTING IN INNOVATION 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. 

Significance of Effect ..................... Statistically significant ................... Statistically significant ................... Warrants further study. 

Magnitude of Effect ........................ Substantial and important ............. Potential to be substantial and important.Promising. 

In addition, the three types of grants 

differ in terms of the expectations to 

scale up successful projects during or 

following the end of the grant period, 

either directly or through partners, and 

the level of funding that would be 

available. (See Table 2). 

It is our intent to make one or more 

awards for each type of grant (Scale-up, 

Validation, Development), assuming 

that we receive applications for each 

type of grant that are of sufficient 

quality. We will announce specific 

funding ranges for each type of grant in 

the notice inviting applications for this 

program. 

TABLE 2—DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE THREE TYPES OF INVESTING IN INNOVATION GRANTS IN TERMS OF EXPECTATIONS

TO SCALE UP AND THE FUNDING TO BE PROVIDED

Scale-up grants Validation grants Development grants 

Scale up ...................................... National, Regional, or State ....... Regional or State ....................... Further develop and scale. 

Funding to be provided ............... Highest ....................................... Moderate .................................... Modest. 

Proposed Priorities 

Types of Priorities 

The Secretary proposes eight 

priorities for the Investing in Innovation 

Fund. Proposed Priorities 1, 2, 3, and 4 

are proposed as absolute priorities and 

are aligned with the four reform areas 

under the ARRA; all applicants must 

apply under one of these four priorities. 

Proposed Priorities 5, 6, 7, and 8 are 

proposed as competitive preference 

priorities and are aligned with other key 

education reform goals of the 

Department. We may apply one or more 

of the competitive preference priorities 

to one or more of the three types of 

grants (Scale-up, Validation, 

Development grants). 

We may choose, in the notice of final 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria, to change the 

designation of any of these priorities to 

absolute, competitive preference, or 

invitational priorities, or to include the 

substance of these priorities in the 

selection criteria. 

Under an absolute priority, as 

specified by 34 CFR 75.105(c)(3), we 

would consider only applications that 

meet the priority. Under a competitive 

preference priority, we would give 

competitive preference to an application 

by (1) awarding additional points, 

depending on the extent to which the 

application meets the priority (34 CFR 

75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) selecting an 

application that meets the priority over 

an application of comparable merit that 

does not meet the priority (34 CFR 

75.105(c)(2)(ii)). With an invitational 

priority, we would signal our interest in 

receiving applications that meet the 

priority; however, consistent with 34 

CFR 75.105(c)(1), we would not give an 

application that meets an invitational 

priority preference over other 

applications. 

Proposed Absolute Priorities 

Proposed Absolute Priority 1— 

Innovations That Support Effective 

Teachers and School Leaders 

Background. Research indicates that 

teacher quality is a critical contributor 

to student learning.1 Yet we know that 

there is dramatic variation in teacher 

effectiveness across schools and LEAs, 

as well as inequity in the distribution of 

effective teachers between high- and 

low-poverty schools. We also know that 

it is difficult to predict teacher 

effectiveness based on the qualifications 

that teachers bring to the job.2

Furthermore, studies show that school 

leadership is a major contributing factor 

to what students learn at school and that 

strong teachers are more likely to teach 

in schools with strong principals.3

Absolute priority 1 is intended to 

support projects that promote practices, 

strategies, or programs to increase the 

number and percentage of effective 

teachers and school leaders, or help 

reduce the inequities in the distribution 

of effective teachers and school leaders. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

52218 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 195 / Friday, October 9, 2009 / Notices 

4See, e.g., The Data Quality Campaign at 

http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/using-datasystems/roadmap-for-states. 

It is also designed to encourage the use 

of teacher and school leader evaluation 

systems that are tied to student growth. 

Statement of the Proposed Absolute 

Priority. Under proposed absolute 

priority 1, the Department would 

provide funding to support practices, 

strategies, or programs that increase the 

number or percentages of highly 

effective teachers and school leaders or 

reduce the number or percentages of 

ineffective teachers and school leaders, 

especially for high-need students, by 

identifying, recruiting, developing, 

placing, rewarding, and retaining highly 

effective teachers and school leaders (or 

removing ineffective teachers and 

school leaders). In such initiatives, 

teacher or school leader effectiveness 

should be determined by an evaluation 

system that is rigorous, transparent, and 

fair; performance should be 

differentiated using multiple rating 

categories of effectiveness; multiple 

measures of teachers’ effectiveness 

should be taken into account, with data 

on student growth as a significant factor; 

and the measures should be designed 

and developed with teacher 

involvement. 

Proposed Absolute Priority 2— 

Innovations That Improve the Use of 

Data 

Background. Section 14005(d)(3) of 

the ARRA requires States receiving State 

Fiscal Stabilization funds to establish a 

longitudinal data system that includes 

the elements described in section 

6401(e)(2) of the America COMPETES 

Act (20 U.S.C. 9871). Providing student 

achievement or student growth data to 

teachers and principals, including 

estimates of individual teacher impact 

on student achievement or student 

growth, is key to driving education 

reform in general and improvements in 

the classroom, in particular.4 This 

priority is designed to increase the 

availability and use of practices, 

strategies, and programs that provide 

teachers, principals, administrators, 

families, and other stakeholders with 

the data they need to inform and 

improve school and classroom 

instructional practices, decisionmaking, and overall effectiveness. 

Statement of the Proposed Absolute 

Priority. Under proposed absolute 

priority 2, the Department would 

provide funding to support strategies, 

practices, or programs that encourage 

and facilitate the evaluation, analysis, 

and use of student achievement or 

student growth data by educators, 

families, and other stakeholders in order 

to inform decision-making; improve 

student achievement or student growth, 

and teacher, school leader, school, or 

LEA performance and productivity; or 

enable data aggregation, analysis, and 

research. Where applicable, these data 

would be disaggregated using the 

student subgroups described in section 

1111(b)(3)(C)(xiii) of the Elementary and 

Secondary Education Act of 1965, as 

amended (ESEA) (economically 

disadvantaged students, students from 

major racial and ethnic groups, migrant 

students, students with limited English 

proficiency, students with disabilities, 

student gender). 

Proposed Absolute Priority 3— 

Innovations That Complement the 

Implementation of High Standards and 

High-Quality Assessments 

Background. A third key ARRA 

reform area is improving State academic 

content standards and student academic 

achievement standards so that they 

build toward college and career 

readiness, and implementing highquality assessments aligned with those 

standards. In order to make the 

transition to such standards and 

assessments, States will need support 

in: Developing, acquiring, 

disseminating, and implementing highquality curricular instructional 

materials and assessments; developing 

or acquiring and delivering high-quality 

professional development to support the 

transition to new standards, 

assessments, and instructional 

materials; and engaging in other 

strategies that align the standards and 

information from assessments with 

classroom practices that meet the needs 

of all students, including high-need 

students. 

Statement of the Proposed Absolute 

Priority. Under proposed absolute 

priority 3, the Department would 

provide funding for practices, strategies, 

or programs that support States’ efforts 

to transition to college- and careerreadiness standards and assessments, 

including curricular and instructional 

practices, strategies, or programs in core 

academic subjects that are aligned with 

high academic content and achievement 

standards and with high-quality 

assessments based on those standards. 

Proposals may include practices, 

strategies, or programs that: (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 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. 

Proposed Absolute Priority 4— 

Innovations That Turn Around 

Persistently Low-Performing Schools 

Background. Although there are noted 

examples of successful school reform 

efforts, persistently low-performing 

schools (as defined in this notice) 

continue to plague this country’s system 

of public education and fail to 

adequately educate our Nation’s youth 

to succeed in a global economy. It is 

imperative that we as a Nation serve our 

most educationally needy schools in 

order to ensure that all students are 

prepared for the challenges of the global 

economy. 

Statement of the Proposed Absolute 

Priority. Under proposed absolute 

priority 4, the Department would 

provide funding to support strategies, 

practices, or programs that turn around 

persistently low-performing schools 

through either whole-school reform or 

targeted approaches to reform. 

Applicants addressing this priority must 

focus on either: 

(a) Whole-school reform, such as 

comprehensive interventions to assist, 

augment, or replace persistently lowperforming schools; or 

(b) Targeted approaches to reform, 

including, but not limited to: (1) 

Providing more time for students to 

learn core academic content by 

expanding the school day, school week, 

or the school year, or by increasing 

instructional time for core academic 

subjects during the day and in the 

summer; (2) integrating student 

supports to address non-academic 

barriers to student achievement; or (3) 

creating multiple pathways for students 

to earn regular high school diplomas 

(e.g., transfer schools, awarding credit 

based on demonstrated evidence of 

student competency, offering dualenrollment options). 

Proposed Competitive Preference 

Priorities 

As stated previously, we are 

proposing four competitive preference 

priorities that we may choose to apply 

to one or more of the three types of 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 195 / Friday, October 9, 2009 / Notices 52219 

5National Research Council. 1998. Preventing 

Reading Difficulties in Young Children. 

6Schweinhart, L.J. (2002, June). How the 

HighScope Perry Preschool Study Grew: A 

Researcher’s Tale. Phi Delta Kappa Center for 

Evaluation, Development, and Research. (No. 32). 

7Status of Education in Rural America. (2007). 

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for 

Educational Statistics. 

8We note that at the time of publication of this 

notice, the pending House and Senate 

appropriations bills would, if enacted, make 

Continued 

grants (Scale-up, Validation, and 

Development grants). 

Proposed Competitive Preference 

Priority 5—Innovations for Improving 

Early Learning Outcomes 

Background. Research demonstrates 

the importance of efforts to build early 

language and literacy skills, as well as 

skills with numbers and spatial 

thinking, as a means of eliminating the 

differences in student achievement or 

student growth that develop between 

children from low-income families and 

children from middle-income families 

during their school years.5 Investing in 

early learning programs to prevent the 

development of these gaps in skills can 

reduce the need for more costly and 

difficult interventions, including 

referrals to special education, later on in 

a child’s life.6 In addition, research 

indicates that investments in young 

children can yield dramatic economic 

benefits over the course of those 

children’s lives in the form of reduced 

incidence of crime and increased 

employment. This proposed competitive 

preference priority aligns with the 

Department’s efforts to increase the 

quality of existing early learning 

programs and expand access to highquality early learning programs, 

particularly for children from lowincome families. 

Statement of Proposed Competitive 

Preference Priority 5. We propose to 

give competitive preference to proposals 

that include practices, strategies, or 

programs to improve educational 

outcomes for high-need students who 

are young children (birth through 3rd 

grade) by enhancing the quality of early 

learning programs. Proposals must focus 

on (a) improving young children’s 

school readiness (including social, 

emotional, and cognitive) so that 

children are prepared for success in core 

academic subjects; (b) improving and 

aligning developmental milestones and 

standards with appropriate outcome 

measures; and (c) improving alignment, 

collaboration, and transitions between 

early learning programs that serve 

children from birth to age three, in 

preschools, and in kindergarten through 

third grade. 

Proposed Competitive Preference 

Priority 6—Innovations That Support 

College Access and Success 

Background. One way to help meet 

the President’s goal of restoring the 

United States to first in the world in the 

percentage of citizens holding college 

degrees is to increase the number of 

high school students with access to 

college who are prepared to succeed in 

an institution of higher education. 

Proposed competitive preference 

priority 6 would fund practices, 

strategies, and programs that prepare K– 

12 students for success in college. 

Statement of Proposed Competitive 

Preference Priority 6. We propose to 

give competitive preference to proposals 

for practices, strategies, or programs that 

enable K–12 students, particularly high 

school students, to successfully prepare 

for, enter, and graduate from a two- or 

four-year college. Proposals must 

include practices, strategies, or 

programs for K–12 students that address 

students’ preparedness and expectations 

related to college; help students 

understand issues of college 

affordability and the financial aid and 

college application processes; and 

provide support to students from peers 

and knowledgeable adults. 

Proposed Competitive Preference 

Priority 7—Innovations To Address the 

Unique Learning Needs of Students 

With Disabilities and Limited English 

Proficient Students 

Background. One of the primary goals 

of the ESEA, as well as the Individuals 

with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 

is to improve the quality of education 

for all students, including students with 

disabilities and students who are 

limited English proficient. In particular, 

the ESEA requires each State and LEA 

to work toward narrowing achievement 

gaps and demonstrate high levels of 

progress for these two groups of 

students. However, as evidenced by 

results on State assessments under 

section 1111(b)(3) of the ESEA, schools 

often lack appropriate and effective 

strategies to enable a greater share of 

students with disabilities and limited 

English proficient students to meet high 

standards. 

Statement of Proposed Competitive 

Preference Priority 7. We propose to 

give competitive preference to proposals 

that include innovative strategies, 

practices, or programs to address the 

unique learning needs of students with 

disabilities, or the linguistic and 

academic needs of limited English 

proficient students. Proposals must 

focus on particular practices, strategies, 

or programs that are designed to 

improve academic outcomes and 

increase graduation rates for students 

with disabilities or limited English 

proficient students. 

Proposed Competitive Preference 

Priority 8—Innovations That Serve 

Schools in Rural LEAs 

Background. Solutions to educational 

challenges in rural areas frequently 

differ from what works in urban and 

suburban communities.7 This proposed 

competitive preference priority 

recognizes the need to bring education 

innovation and reform to all regions of 

the country, including rural LEAs. 

Statement of Proposed Competitive 

Preference Priority 8. We propose to 

give competitive preference to proposals 

that 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. Proposals 

must include practices, strategies, or 

programs that improve student 

achievement or student growth, close 

achievement gaps, decrease dropout 

rates, increase high school graduation 

rates, or improve teacher and school 

leader effectiveness in one or more rural 

LEAs. 

Proposed Requirements 

Background 

The Investing in Innovation Fund 

would provide support to LEAs, and 

nonprofit organizations that partner 

with one or more LEAs or a consortium 

of schools that apply and successfully 

compete for a Scale-up, Validation, or 

Development grant. What follows are 

the statutory and proposed eligibility 

requirements for LEAs and nonprofit 

organizations. 

Proposed Requirements 

The Secretary proposes the following 

requirements for the Investing in 

Innovation Fund. We may apply these 

requirements in any year in which this 

program is in effect. 

Providing Innovations that Improve 

Achievement for High-Need Students: 

All 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. 

Eligibility requirements: 8 To be 

eligible for an award, an eligible 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

52220 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 195 / Friday, October 9, 2009 / Notices 

technical changes to provisions of the authorizing 

legislation for this program. (See http://

thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/?&dbname=

cp111&sid=cp111LTV8y&refer=&r_n=hr220.111&

item=&sel=TOC_1120308&; and http://

thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/?&dbname

=cp111&sid=cp111M6VRe&refer=&r_n=sr066.111&

item=&sel=TOC_904504&). These changes would 

modify the eligibility requirements currently set 

forth in section 14007(b)(2) and (c) by: (1) Making 

minor alterations to the sections concerning the 

basis for awards and the special eligibility rule, and 

(2) removing the reference to State measurable 

annual achievement objectives. In addition to these 

minor changes to the eligibility requirements, 

enactment of the proposed legislation would 

authorize eligible entities that include a partnership 

with a nonprofit organization, to make subgrants 

within the partnership. 

9 In this notice, we use many of the same 

definitions that were in the Race to the Top notice 

of proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, 

and selection criteria (see http://www.ed.gov/ 

legislation/FedRegister/proprule/2009-3/ 

072909d.html). The comment period for the Race to 

the Top program is now closed, and we are 

considering the comments on the definitions, as 

well as other sections of that notice. In the final 

notice for the Investing in Innovation Fund, we will 

align our definitions, as appropriate, with those 

included in the final notice for the Race to the Top 

program. 

applicant must meet several statutory 

requirements and one additional 

requirement. The requirements in 

paragraphs (1), (2), (3), and (4) that 

follow are statutory; we are including 

them here for clarity. We are requesting 

comment on the proposed requirement 

in paragraph (5). 

To be eligible for an award, an 

applicant must: 

(1) Have significantly closed the 

achievement gaps between groups of 

students described in section 1111(b)(2) 

of the ESEA (economically 

disadvantaged students, students from 

major racial and ethnic groups, students 

with limited English proficiency, 

students with disabilities); 

(2) Have exceeded the State’s annual 

measurable objectives consistent with 

section 1111(b)(2) of the ESEA for two 

or more consecutive years or have 

demonstrated success in significantly 

increasing student achievement for all 

groups of students described in that 

section through another measure, such 

as measures described in section 

1111(c)(2) of the ESEA (i.e., the National 

Assessment of Educational Progress); 

(3) Have made significant 

improvements in other areas, such as 

graduation rates or increased 

recruitment and placement of highquality teachers and school leaders, as 

demonstrated with other meaningful 

data; 

(4) Demonstrate that they have 

established partnerships with the 

private sector, which may include 

philanthropic organizations, and that 

the private sector will provide matching 

funds in order to help bring results to 

scale; and 

(5) In the case of a nonprofit 

organization, provide in its application 

the names of the LEAs with which it 

will partner, or the names of the schools 

in the consortium with which it will 

partner. If a nonprofit organization 

applicant intends to partner with 

additional LEAs or schools that are not 

named in its application, it must 

describe in its application the 

demographics and other characteristics 

of these LEAs and schools and the 

process it will use to select them as 

partners. An applicant must identify its 

specific partners before a grant award 

will be made. 

Note about LEA Eligibility: To be eligible 

for an award, an LEA applicant must be 

located within one of the 50 States, the 

District of Columbia, or the Commonwealth 

of Puerto Rico. 

Note about Eligibility for an Entity that 

Includes a Nonprofit Organization: To be 

eligible for an award, the statute requires that 

an application submitted by a nonprofit 

organization, in partnership with one or more 

LEAs or a consortium of schools, be 

considered to have met the eligibility 

requirements in paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) 

described earlier in this notice, if the 

nonprofit organization has a record of 

meeting those requirements. We are 

proposing that a nonprofit organization 

applicant be considered to have met these 

eligibility requirements through its record of 

work with an LEA. Therefore, an applicant 

that is a nonprofit organization would not 

necessarily need to select as a partner for its 

Investing in Innovation Fund grant an LEA 

or a consortium of schools that meets the 

eligibility requirements in paragraphs (1), (2), 

and (3) described earlier. Rather, the 

nonprofit organization would have to 

demonstrate that it has a record of meeting 

those requirements through the assistance it 

has provided to one or more LEAs in the 

past. 

Funding Categories: An applicant 

must state in its application whether it 

is applying for a 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 applicant must 

demonstrate that it has established one 

or more partnerships with an entity or 

organization in the private sector, which 

may include philanthropic 

organizations, and that the entity or 

organization in the private sector will 

provide matching funds in order to help 

bring project results to scale. An 

applicant must obtain matching funds 

or in-kind donations equal to at least 20 

percent of its grant award. The Secretary 

may consider decreasing the 20 percent 

matching requirement in the most 

exceptional circumstances, on a case-bycase basis. An applicant that anticipates 

being unable to meet the 20 percent 

matching requirement must include in 

its application a request to the Secretary 

to reduce the matching level 

requirement, along with a statement of 

the basis for the request. 

Evaluation: An applicant receiving 

funds under this program must comply 

with the requirements of any evaluation 

of the program conducted by the 

Department. In addition, an applicant is 

required to conduct an independent 

evaluation (as defined in this notice) of 

its proposed project and must agree, 

along with its independent evaluator, to 

cooperate with any technical assistance 

provided by the Department or its 

contractor. The purpose of this technical 

assistance would be to ensure that the 

evaluations are of the highest quality 

and to encourage commonality in 

evaluation approaches across funded 

projects where it is feasible and useful 

to do so. Finally, an applicant receiving 

funds under this program must make 

broadly available through formal (e.g., 

peer-reviewed journals) or informal 

(e.g., newsletters) mechanisms, and in 

print or electronically, the results of any 

evaluations it conducts of its funded 

activities 

Participation in ‘‘Communities of 

Practice’’: Grantees will be required to 

participate in, organize, or facilitate, as 

appropriate, communities of practice for 

the Investing in Innovation Fund. A 

community of practice is a group of 

grantees that agrees to interact regularly 

to solve a persistent problem or improve 

practice in an area that is important to 

them. Establishment of communities of 

practice under the Investing in 

Innovation Fund will enable grantees to 

meet, discuss, and collaborate with each 

other regarding grantee projects. 

Proposed Definitions 

Background 

Several important terms associated 

with the Investing in Innovation Fund 

are not defined in the ARRA. 

Proposed Definitions 

The Secretary proposes the following 

definitions for the Investing in 

Innovation Fund.9 We may apply one or 

more of these definitions in any year in 

which this program is in effect. 

1. Definitions Related to Evidence 

Strong evidence means evidence from 

previous studies whose designs can 

support causal conclusions (i.e., studies 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 195 / Friday, October 9, 2009 / Notices 52221 

with high internal validity), and studies 

that in total include enough of the range 

of participants and settings to support 

scaling up to the State, regional, or 

national level (i.e., studies with high 

external validity). The following are 

examples of strong evidence: (1) More 

than one well-designed and wellimplemented experimental study (as 

defined in this notice) or well-designed 

and well-implemented quasiexperimental study (as defined in this 

notice) that supports the effectiveness of 

the practice, strategy, or program; or (2) 

one large, well-designed and wellimplemented randomized controlled, 

multisite trial that supports the 

effectiveness of the practice, strategy, or 

program. 

Moderate evidence means evidence 

from previous studies whose designs 

can support causal conclusions (i.e., 

studies with high internal validity) but 

have limited generalizability (i.e., 

moderate external validity), or studies 

with high external validity but moderate 

internal validity. The following would 

constitute moderate evidence: (1) At 

least one well-designed and wellimplemented experimental or quasiexperimental study supporting the 

effectiveness of the practice strategy, or 

program, with small sample sizes or 

other conditions of implementation or 

analysis that limit generalizability; (2) at 

least one well-designed and wellimplemented experimental or quasiexperimental study that does not 

demonstrate equivalence between the 

intervention and comparison groups at 

program entry but that has no other 

major flaws related to internal validity; 

or (3) correlational research with strong 

statistical controls for selection bias and 

for discerning the influence of internal 

factors. 

Experimental study means a study 

that employs random assignment of 

students, teachers, classrooms, or 

schools to participate in a project being 

evaluated (treatment group) or not to 

participate in the project (control 

group). The effect of the project is the 

difference in outcomes between the 

treatment and control groups. 

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 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 

nonequivalent control group time series, 

such as schools not participating in the 

program or schools participating in the 

program in a different geographic area, 

increases the reliability of the findings. 

Regression discontinuity design study 

means, in part, a quasi-experimental 

study design that closely approximates 

an experimental study. In a regression 

discontinuity design, participants are 

assigned to a treatment or control group 

based on a numerical rating or score of 

a variable unrelated to the treatment 

such as the rating of an application for 

funding. Another example would be 

assignment of eligible students, 

teachers, classrooms, or schools above a 

certain score (‘‘cut score’’) to the 

treatment group and assignment of those 

below the score to the control group. 

Independent evaluation means that 

the evaluation is designed and carried 

out independent of, but in coordination 

with, any employees of the entities who 

develop a practice, strategy, or program 

and are implementing it. This 

independence helps ensure the 

objectivity of an evaluation and 

prevents even the appearance of a 

conflict of interest. 

2. Other Definitions 

Consortium of schools means two or 

more public elementary or secondary 

schools acting collaboratively for the 

purpose of applying for and 

implementing an Investing in 

Innovation Fund grant jointly with an 

eligible nonprofit organization. 

Nonprofit organization means an 

entity that meets the definition of 

‘‘nonprofit’’ under 34 CFR 77.1(c), or an 

institution of higher education as 

defined by section 101(a) of the Higher 

Education Act of 1965, as amended. 

Formative assessment means an 

assessment that is embedded in 

instruction and is used by teachers to 

provide timely feedback on student 

understanding and to adjust ongoing 

teaching and learning effectively. 

Interim assessment means an 

assessment given at regular and 

specified intervals throughout the 

school year, and is designed to evaluate 

students’ knowledge and skills relative 

to a specific set of academic standards, 

the results of which can be aggregated 

(e.g., by course, grade level, school, or 

LEA) in order to inform teachers and 

administrators at the student, classroom, 

school, and LEA levels. 

Highly effective school leader means a 

principal or other school leader whose 

students, overall and for each subgroup 

as described in section 

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

economically disadvantaged students, 

students from major racial and ethnic 

groups, migrant students, students with 

disabilities, students with limited 

English proficiency, student gender), 

demonstrate high rates (e.g., more than 

one grade level in an academic year) of 

student growth. Applicants may 

supplement this definition as they see 

fit so long as school leader effectiveness 

is judged, in significant measure, by 

student growth. 

Highly effective teacher means a 

teacher whose students achieve high 

rates (e.g., more than one grade level in 

an academic year) of student growth. 

Applicants may supplement this 

definition as they see fit so long as 

teacher effectiveness is judged, in 

significant measure, by student growth. 

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 are far below grade 

level, who are over-age and undercredited, who have left school before 

receiving a regular high school diploma, 

who are at risk of not graduating with 

a regular high school diploma on time, 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

52222 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 195 / Friday, October 9, 2009 / Notices 

who are homeless, who are in foster 

care, who have been incarcerated, who 

have disabilities, or who are limited 

English proficient. 

Persistently low-performing schools 

means Title I schools in corrective 

action or restructuring in the State and 

the secondary schools (both middle and 

high schools) in the State that are 

equally as low-achieving as these Title 

I schools and are eligible for, but do not 

receive, Title I funds. 

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 different 

groups of students described in section 

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

economically disadvantaged students, 

students from major racial and ethnic 

groups, migrant students, students with 

disabilities, students with limited 

English proficiency, student gender). 

Regional level, as used in reference to 

a 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 different groups of students 

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

of the ESEA (i.e., economically 

disadvantaged students, students from 

major racial and ethnic groups, migrant 

students, students with disabilities, 

students with limited English 

proficiency, student gender). 

Rural LEA means an LEA that is 

eligible under the Small Rural School 

Achievement (SRSA) program or the 

Rural and Low-Income School (RLIS) 

program authorized under Title VI, Part 

B of the ESEA. Applicants may 

determine whether a particular LEA is 

eligible for these programs by referring 

to information on the following 

Department Web sites. For the SRSA: 

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

eligible08/index.html. For the RLIS: 

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

eligibility.html. 

Student achievement means, at a 

minimum— 

(a) For tested grades and subjects: A 

student’s score on the State’s 

assessments under section 1111(b)(3) of 

the ESEA and may also include other 

measures of learning, as appropriate, 

such as those described in paragraph (b) 

of this definition. 

(b) For non-tested grades and subjects: 

An alternative academic measure of 

student learning and performance (e.g., 

performance on interim assessments or 

on other classroom-based assessments; 

rates at which students are on track to 

graduate from high school; percentage of 

students enrolled and achieving at 

successful levels in Advanced 

Placement, pre-Advanced Placement, 

International Baccalaureate, or dualenrollment courses). 

Student growth means the change in 

student achievement data for an 

individual student between two or more 

points in time. Growth may be 

measured by a variety of approaches, 

but any approach used must be 

statistically rigorous and based on 

student achievement data, and may also 

include other measures of student 

learning in order to increase the 

construct validity and generalizability of 

the information. 

Proposed Selection Criteria 

Background 

The proposed selection criteria are 

intended to ensure that applicants— 

regardless of grant type—can 

demonstrate that they have the 

experience and capacity to expand or 

develop practices, strategies, or 

programs that will have a positive 

impact on improving student 

achievement or student growth, closing 

achievement gaps, decreasing dropout 

rates, or increasing high school 

graduation rates. 

Proposed Selection Criteria 

The Secretary proposes the following 

selection criteria for evaluating an 

application under the Investing in 

Innovation Fund. We may apply one or 

more of these criteria in any year in 

which this program is in effect. In the 

notice inviting applications or the 

application package, or both, we will 

announce the maximum possible points 

assigned to each criterion. 

1. Scale-Up Grants 

A. Need for the Project and Quality of 

the Project Design 

(1) The Secretary considers the need 

for the project and quality of the design 

of the proposed project. 

(2) In determining the need for the 

project and quality of the design of the 

proposed project, the Secretary 

considers the following factors: 

(a) The extent to which the proposed 

project represents an exceptional 

approach to the priorities the applicant 

is seeking to meet (i.e., addresses a 

largely unmet need, particularly for 

high-need students, and is a practice, 

strategy, or program that has not already 

been widely adopted). 

(b) The extent to which the proposed 

project has a clear set of goals and an 

explicit strategy (i.e., logic model), with 

actions that are (i) aligned with the 

priorities the applicant is seeking to 

meet, and (ii) expected to result in 

achieving the goals, objectives, and 

outcomes of the proposed project. 

B. Strength of Research, Significance of 

Effect, and Magnitude of Effect 

(1) The Secretary considers the 

strength of the existing research 

evidence and the significance of effect 

in support of the proposed project, as 

well as the magnitude of the effect on 

improving student achievement or 

student growth, closing achievement 

gaps, decreasing dropout rates, or 

increasing high school graduation rates. 

Applicants may also demonstrate 

success through an intermediate 

variable that is directly correlated with 

improving these outcomes, such as 

teacher or school leader effectiveness, or 

improvements in school climate. 

(2) In determining the strength of the 

existing research evidence and the 

significance of effect to support the 

proposed project, as well as the 

magnitude of the effect, the Secretary 

considers the following factors: 

(a) The extent to which the applicant 

demonstrates that there is strong 

evidence that the proposed practice, 

strategy, or program will have a 

statistically significant effect on 

improving student achievement or 

student growth, closing achievement 

gaps, decreasing dropout rates, or 

increasing high school graduation rates, 

and that the effect will be substantial 

and important. 

(b) The importance and magnitude of 

the effect expected to be obtained by the 

proposed project, including the extent 

to which the project will substantially 

and measurably improve student 

achievement or student growth, close 

achievement gaps, decrease dropout 

rates, or increase high school graduation 

rates. The evidence in support of the 

importance and magnitude of the effect 

would be the research-based evidence 

provided by the applicant to support the 

proposed project. 

C. Experience of the Applicant 

(1) The Secretary considers the 

experience of the applicant in 

implementing the proposed project. 

(2) In determining the experience of 

the applicant, the Secretary considers 

the following factors: 

(a) The past performance of the 

applicant in implementing large, 

complex, and rapidly growing projects. 

(b) The extent to which an applicant 

provides information and data 

demonstrating that it has (or has 

supported an LEA in taking actions that 

have)— 

(i) Significantly closed the 

achievement gaps between groups of 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 195 / Friday, October 9, 2009 / Notices 52223 

students described in section 1111(b)(2) 

of the ESEA; 

(ii) Exceeded the State’s annual 

measurable objectives consistent with 

section 1111(b)(2) of the ESEA for two 

or more consecutive years or 

demonstrated success in significantly 

increasing student achievement for all 

groups of students described in that 

section through another measure, such 

as measures described in section 

1111(c)(2) of the ESEA (i.e., the National 

Assessment of Educational Progress); 

and 

(iii) Made significant improvements 

in other areas, such as graduation rates 

or increased recruitment and placement 

of high-quality teachers and school 

leaders, as demonstrated with other 

meaningful data. 

D. Quality of the Project Evaluation 

1. The Secretary considers the quality 

of the evaluation to be conducted of the 

proposed project. 

2. In determining the quality of the 

evaluation, the Secretary considers the 

following factors: 

(a) The extent to which the methods 

of evaluation will include an 

experimental study or, if a welldesigned experimental study of the 

project cannot be conducted, the extent 

to which the methods of evaluation will 

include a well-designed quasiexperimental study. 

(b) The extent to which, for either an 

experimental study or quasiexperimental study, the study will be 

conducted of the practice, strategy, or 

program as implemented at scale. 

(c) The extent to which the methods 

of evaluation will provide high-quality 

implementation data and performance 

feedback, and permit periodic 

assessment of progress toward achieving 

intended outcomes. 

(d) The extent to which the evaluation 

will provide sufficient information 

about the key elements and approach of 

the project to facilitate replication or 

testing in other settings. 

(e) The extent to which the proposed 

project plan includes sufficient 

resources to effectively carry out the 

project evaluation. 

(f) The extent to which the proposed 

evaluation is rigorous, independent, and 

neither the program developer nor the 

project implementer is evaluating the 

impact of the project. 

Note: We encourage applicants to review 

the following technical assistance resources 

on evaluation: (1) What Works Clearinghouse 

Procedures and Standards Handbook: http:// 

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

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

NCEE Technical Methods papers: http:// 

ies.ed.gov/ncee/tech_methods/. 

E. Strategy and Capacity To Scale 

1. The Secretary considers the quality 

of the applicant’s strategy and capacity 

to bring the proposed project to scale on 

a national, regional, or State level. 

2. In determining the quality of the 

strategy and capacity to scale, the 

Secretary considers: 

(a) The number of students to be 

reached by the proposed project and the 

applicant’s capacity to reach the 

proposed number of students during the 

course of the grant period. 

(b) The applicant’s capacity (e.g., in 

terms of qualified personnel, financial 

resources, management capacity) to 

bring the project to scale on a national, 

regional, or State level working directly, 

or through partners, either during or 

following the end of the grant period. 

(c) The feasibility of the proposed 

project to be replicated successfully, if 

positive results are obtained, in a variety 

of settings and with a variety of student 

populations. Evidence of this ability 

includes the proposed project’s 

demonstrated success in multiple 

settings with different types of students, 

the availability of resources and 

expertise required for implementing the 

project with fidelity, and the proposed 

project’s evidence of relative ease of use 

or user satisfaction. 

(d) The applicant’s estimate of the 

cost of the proposed project, which 

includes start-up and operating costs 

per student (including indirect costs) for 

reaching the total number of students 

proposed to be served by the project, as 

well as for the applicant or others to 

reach 100,000, 500,000, and 1,000,000 

students. 

(e) The mechanisms the applicant will 

use to broadly disseminate information 

on its project to support replication. 

F. Sustainability 

1. The Secretary considers the 

adequacy of resources to continue the 

proposed project after the grant period 

ends. 

2. In determining the adequacy of 

resources for the proposed project, the 

Secretary considers the following 

factors: 

(a) The extent to which the applicant 

demonstrates that it has the resources to 

operate the project beyond the length of 

the Scale-up grant, including a multiyear financial and operating model and 

accompanying plan; the demonstrated 

commitment of current and future 

partners; and evidence of broad support 

from stakeholders (e.g., State 

educational agencies, teachers’ unions) 

critical to the project’s long-term 

success. 

(b) The potential and planning for the 

incorporation of project purposes, 

activities, or benefits into the ongoing 

work of the LEA, schools, or nonprofit 

organization at the end of the Scale-up 

grant. 

G. Quality of the Management Plan and 

Personnel 

1. The Secretary considers the quality 

of the management plan and personnel 

for the proposed project. 

2. In determining the quality of the 

management plan and personnel for the 

proposed project, the Secretary 

considers: 

(a) The adequacy of the management 

plan to achieve the objectives of the 

proposed project on time and within 

budget, including clearly defined 

responsibilities, timelines, and 

milestones for accomplishing project 

tasks, as well as plans for sustainability 

and scalability of the proposed project. 

(b) The qualifications, including 

relevant training and experience, of the 

project director and key project 

personnel, especially in managing large, 

complex, and rapidly growing projects. 

(c) The qualifications, including 

relevant expertise and experience, of the 

project director and key personnel of the 

independent evaluator, especially in 

designing and conducting large-scale 

experimental and quasi-experimental 

studies of educational initiatives. 

2. Validation Grants 

A. Need for the Project and Quality of 

the Project Design 

(1) The Secretary considers the need 

for the project and quality of the design 

of the proposed project. 

(2) In determining the need for the 

project and quality of the design of the 

proposed project, the Secretary 

considers the following factors: 

(a) The extent to which the proposed 

project represents an exceptional 

approach to the priorities the applicant 

is seeking to meet (i.e., addresses a 

largely unmet need, particularly for 

high-need students, and is a practice, 

strategy, or program that has not already 

been widely adopted). 

(b) The extent to which the proposed 

project has a clear set of goals and an 

explicit strategy (i.e., logic model), with 

actions that are (1) aligned with the 

priorities the applicant is seeking to 

meet, and (2) expected to result in 

achieving the goals, objectives, and 

outcomes of the proposed project. 

B. Strength of Research, Significance of 

Effect, and Magnitude of Effect 

(1) The Secretary considers the 

strength of the existing research 

evidence and the significance of effect 

in support of the proposed project, as 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

52224 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 195 / Friday, October 9, 2009 / Notices 

well as the magnitude of the effect on 

improving student achievement, closing 

achievement gaps, decreasing dropout 

rates, or increasing high school 

graduation rates. Applicants may also 

demonstrate success through an 

intermediate variable that is directly 

correlated with these outcomes, such as 

teacher or school leader effectiveness, or 

improvements in school climate. 

(2) In determining the strength of the 

existing research evidence and the 

significance of the effect to support the 

proposed project, as well as the 

magnitude of the effect the Secretary 

considers the following factors: 

(a) The extent to which the applicant 

demonstrates that there is moderate 

evidence that the proposed practice, 

strategy, or program will have a 

statistically significant effect on 

improving student achievement or 

student growth, closing achievement 

gaps, decreasing dropout rates, or 

increasing high school graduation rates 

and that with further study, the effect 

may prove to be substantial and 

important. 

(b) 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, or increase high school 

graduation rates. The evidence in 

support of the importance and 

magnitude of the effect would be the 

research-based evidence provided by 

the applicant to support the proposed 

project. 

C. Experience of the Applicant 

(1) The Secretary considers the 

experience of the applicant in 

implementing the proposed project. 

(2) In determining the experience of 

the applicant, the Secretary considers 

the following factors: 

(a) The past performance of the 

applicant in implementing complex 

projects. 

(b) The extent to which an applicant 

provides information and data 

demonstrating that it has (or supported 

an LEA in taking actions that have)— 

(i) Significantly closed the 

achievement gaps between groups of 

students described in section 1111(b)(2) 

of the ESEA; 

(ii) Exceeded the State’s annual 

measurable objectives consistent with 

section 1111(b)(2) of the ESEA for two 

or more consecutive years or 

demonstrated success in significantly 

increasing student achievement for all 

groups of students described in that 

section through another measure, such 

as measures described in section 

1111(c)(2) of the ESEA (i.e., the National 

Assessment of Educational Progress); 

and 

(iii) Made significant improvements 

in other areas, such as graduation rates 

or increased recruitment and placement 

of high-quality teachers and school 

leaders, as demonstrated with other 

meaningful data. 

D. Quality of the Project Evaluation 

1. The Secretary considers the quality 

of the evaluation to be conducted of the 

proposed project. 

2. In determining the quality of the 

evaluation, the Secretary considers the 

following factors: 

(a) The extent to which the methods 

of evaluation will include a welldesigned experimental or well-designed 

quasi-experimental study. 

(b) 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. 

(c) The extent to which the evaluation 

will provide sufficient information 

about the key elements and approach of 

the project to facilitate replication or 

testing in other settings. 

(d) The extent to which the proposed 

project plan includes sufficient 

resources to effectively carry out the 

project evaluation. 

(e) The extent to which the proposed 

evaluation is rigorous, independent, and 

neither the program developer nor the 

project implementer is evaluating the 

impact of the project. 

Note: We encourage applicants to review 

the following technical assistance resources 

on evaluation: (1) What Works Clearinghouse 

Procedures and Standards Handbook: http:// 

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

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

NCES Technical Methods papers: http:// 

ies.ed.gov/ncee/tech_methods/. 

E. Strategy and Capacity To Scale 

1. The Secretary considers the quality 

of the applicant’s strategy and capacity 

to bring the proposed project to scale on 

a State or regional level. 

2. In determining the quality of the 

strategy and capacity to scale, the 

Secretary considers: 

(a) The number of students proposed 

to be reached by the proposed project 

and the applicant’s capacity to reach the 

proposed number of students during the 

course of the grant period. 

(b) The applicants capacity (e.g., in 

terms of qualified personnel, financial 

resources, management capacity) to 

bring the project to scale on a State or 

regional level (as appropriate, based on 

the findings of the proposed project) 

working directly, or through partners, 

either during or following the end of the 

grant period. 

(c) The feasibility of the proposed 

project to be replicated successfully, if 

positive results are obtained, in a variety 

of settings and with a variety of student 

populations. Evidence of this ability 

includes the availability of resources 

and expertise required for implementing 

the project with fidelity, and the 

proposed project’s evidence of relative 

ease of use or user satisfaction. 

(d) The applicant’s estimate of the 

cost of the proposed project, which 

includes start-up and operating costs 

per student (including indirect costs) for 

reaching the total number of students 

proposed to be served by the project, as 

well as for the applicant or others to 

reach 100,000, 250,000, and 500,000 

students. 

(e) The mechanisms the applicant will 

use to broadly disseminate information 

on its project to support further 

development, expansion, or replication. 

F. Sustainability 

1. The Secretary considers the 

adequacy of resources to continue to 

develop the proposed project. 

2. In determining the adequacy of 

resources for the proposed project, the 

Secretary considers the following 

factors: 

(a) The extent to which the applicant 

demonstrates that it has the resources, 

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. 

(b) The potential and planning for the 

incorporation of project purposes, 

activities, or benefits into the ongoing 

work of the LEA, schools, or nonprofit 

organization at the end of the Validation 

grant. 

G. Quality of the Management Plan and 

Personnel 

1. The Secretary considers the quality 

of the management plan and personnel 

for the proposed project. 

2. In determining the quality of the 

management plan and personnel for the 

proposed project, the Secretary 

considers: 

(a) The adequacy of the management 

plan to achieve the objectives of the 

proposed project on time and within 

budget, including clearly defined 

responsibilities, timelines, and 

milestones for accomplishing project 

tasks, as well as plans for sustainability 

and scalability of the proposed project. 

(b) The qualifications, including 

relevant training and experience, of the 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 195 / Friday, October 9, 2009 / Notices 52225 

project director and key project 

personnel, especially in managing 

complex projects. 

(c) The qualifications, including 

relevant expertise and experience, of the 

project director and key personnel of the 

independent evaluator, especially in 

designing and conducting experimental 

and quasi-experimental studies of 

educational initiatives. 

3. Development Grants 

We anticipate using a two-tier process 

to review the applications for 

Development grants. This two-tier 

review would include a pre-application 

process to select applicants that would 

be invited to submit a full application. 

We anticipate that the pre-application 

process will require an applicant to 

submit a short summary of its proposed 

project and that we will use some or all 

of the selection criteria that follow to 

rate the proposed projects, but with a 

particular focus on the need for the 

project and quality of the project design 

and the strength of research, 

significance of effect, and magnitude of 

effect in support of the proposed 

project. Applicants that are rated highly 

in the pre-application phase would be 

invited to submit a full application, 

from which the awards for Development 

grants would be made. 

A. Need for the Project and Quality of 

the Project Design 

(1) The Secretary considers the need 

for the project and quality of the design 

of the proposed project. 

(2) In determining the need for the 

project and quality of the design of the 

proposed project, the Secretary 

considers the following factors: 

(a) The extent to which the proposed 

project represents an exceptional 

approach to the priorities the applicant 

is seeking to meet (i.e., addresses a 

largely unmet need, particularly for 

high-need students, and is a practice 

that has not already been widely 

adopted). 

(b) The extent to which the proposed 

project has a clear set of goals and an 

explicit strategy (i.e., logic model), with 

the goals, objectives, and outcomes to be 

achieved by the proposed project clearly 

specified and measurable and linked to 

the priorities the applicant is seeking to 

meet. 

B. Strength of Research, Significance of 

Effect, and Magnitude of Effect 

(1) The Secretary considers the 

strength of the existing research 

evidence to support the proposed 

project and the significance of effect in 

support of the proposed project, as well 

as the magnitude of the effect on 

improving student achievement or 

student growth, closing achievement 

gaps, decreasing dropout rates, or 

increasing high school graduation rates. 

Applicants may also demonstrate 

success through an intermediate 

variable that is directly correlated with 

improving these outcomes, such as 

teacher or school leader effectiveness, or 

improvements in school climate. 

(2) In determining the strength of the 

existing research evidence, the 

significance of effect to support the 

proposed project, and the magnitude of 

effect, the Secretary considers the 

following factors: 

(a) The extent to which the applicant 

demonstrates that there are researchbased findings or reasonable hypotheses 

that support the proposed project, 

including related research in education 

and other sectors. 

(b) 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. 

(c) The extent to which the 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, or 

increasing high school graduation rates. 

C. Experience of the Applicant 

(1) The Secretary considers the 

experience of the applicant in 

implementing the proposed project or a 

similar project. 

(2) In determining the experience of 

the applicant, the Secretary considers 

the following factors: 

(a) The past performance of the 

applicant in implementing projects of 

the size and scope proposed by the 

applicant. 

(b) The extent to which an applicant 

provides information and data 

demonstrating that it has (or supported 

an LEA in taking actions that)— 

(i) Significantly closed the 

achievement gaps between groups of 

students described in section 1111(b)(2) 

of the ESEA; 

(ii) Exceeded the State’s annual 

measurable objectives consistent with 

section 1111(b)(2) of the ESEA for two 

or more consecutive years or has 

demonstrated success in significantly 

increasing student achievement for all 

groups of students described in that 

section through another measure, such 

as measures described in section 

1111(c)(2) of the ESEA (i.e., the National 

Assessment of Educational Progress); 

and 

(iii) Made significant improvements 

in other areas, such as graduation rates 

or increased recruitment and placement 

of high-quality teachers and school 

leaders, as demonstrated with other 

meaningful data. 

D. Quality of the Project Evaluation 

1. The Secretary considers the quality 

of the evaluation to be conducted of the 

proposed project. 

2. In determining the quality of the 

evaluation, the Secretary considers the 

following factors. 

(a) The extent to which the methods 

of evaluation are appropriate to the size 

and scope of the proposed project. 

(b) 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. 

(c) 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. 

(d) The extent to which the proposed 

project plan includes sufficient 

resources to effectively carry out the 

project evaluation. 

Note: We encourage applicants to review 

the following technical assistance resources 

on evaluation: (1) What Works Clearinghouse 

Procedures and Standards Handbook: http:// 

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

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

NCEE Technical Methods papers: http:// 

ies.ed.gov/ncee/tech_methods/. 

E. Strategy and Capacity to Further 

Develop and Scale 

1. The Secretary considers the quality 

of the applicant’s strategy and capacity 

to further develop and scale the 

proposed project. 

2. In determining the quality of the 

strategy and capacity to further develop 

and scale the proposed project, the 

Secretary considers: 

(a) The number of students proposed 

to be reached by the proposed project 

and the applicant’s capacity to reach the 

proposed number of students during the 

course of the grant period. 

(b) The applicant’s capacity (e.g., in 

terms of qualified personnel, financial 

resources, management capacity) to 

further develop and scale the proposed 

practice, strategy, or program, or to work 

with others to ensure that the proposed 

practice, strategy, or program can be 

further developed and scaled, based on 

the findings of the proposed project. 

(c) The feasibility of the proposed 

project to be replicated successfully, if 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

52226 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 195 / Friday, October 9, 2009 / Notices 

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. 

(d) The applicant’s estimate of the 

cost of the proposed project, which 

includes the start-up and operating costs 

per student (including indirect costs) for 

reaching the total number of students 

proposed to be served by the project as 

well as for the applicant or others to 

reach 100,000, 250,000, and 500,000 

students. 

(e) The mechanisms the applicant will 

use to broadly disseminate information 

on its project to support further 

development or replication. 

F. Sustainability 

1. The Secretary considers the 

adequacy of resources to continue to 

develop or expand the proposed 

practice, strategy, or program after the 

grant period ends. 

2. In determining the adequacy of 

resources for the proposed project, the 

Secretary considers the following 

factors: 

(a) The extent to which the applicant 

demonstrates that it has the resources, 

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. 

(b) The potential and planning for the 

incorporation of project purposes, 

activities, or benefits into the ongoing 

work of the LEA, schools, or nonprofit 

organization at the end of the 

Development grant. 

G. Quality of the Management Plan and 

Personnel 

1. The Secretary considers the quality 

of the management plan and personnel 

for the proposed project. 

2. In determining the quality of the 

management plan and personnel for the 

proposed project, the Secretary 

considers: 

(a) The adequacy of the management 

plan to achieve the objectives of the 

proposed project on time and within 

budget, including clearly defined 

responsibilities, timelines, and 

milestones for accomplishing project 

tasks. 

(b) 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. 

Final Priorities, Requirements, 

Definitions, and Selection Criteria: We 

will announce the final priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria in a notice in the Federal 

Register. We will determine the final 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria after considering 

responses to this notice and other 

information available to the Department. 

This notice does not preclude us from 

proposing additional priorities, 

requirements, definitions, or selection 

criteria, subject to meeting applicable 

rulemaking requirements. 

Note: This notice does not solicit 

applications. In any year in which we choose 

to use these priorities, requirements, and 

selection criteria, we invite applications 

through a notice in the Federal Register. 

Executive Order 12866: Under 

Executive Order 12866, the Secretary 

must determine whether this regulatory 

action is ‘‘significant’’ and, therefore, 

subject to the requirements of the 

Executive Order and subject to review 

by OMB. Section 3(f) of Executive Order 

12866 defines a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ as an action likely to result in 

a rule that may (1) have an annual effect 

on the economy of $100 million or 

more, or adversely affect a sector of the 

economy, productivity, competition, 

jobs, the environment, public health or 

safety, or State, local, or tribal 

governments, or communities in a 

material way (also referred to as an 

‘‘economically significant’’ rule); 

(2) create serious inconsistency or 

otherwise interfere with an action taken 

or planned by another agency; (3) 

materially alter the budgetary impacts of 

entitlement grants, user fees, or loan 

programs or the rights and obligations of 

recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel 

legal or policy issues arising out of legal 

mandates, the President’s priorities, or 

the principles set forth in the Executive 

order. Pursuant to the Executive order, 

it has been determined that this 

regulatory action will have an annual 

effect on the economy of more than 

$100 million because the amount of 

government transfers provided through 

the Investing in Innovation Fund will 

exceed that amount. Therefore, this 

action is ‘‘economically significant’’ and 

subject to OMB review under section 

3(f)(1) of the Executive order. 

The potential costs associated with 

this proposed regulatory action are 

those resulting from statutory 

requirements and those we have 

determined as necessary for 

administering this program effectively 

and efficiently. 

In assessing the potential costs and 

benefits—both quantitative and 

qualitative—of this proposed regulatory 

action, we have determined that the 

benefits of the proposed priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria justify the costs. 

We have determined, also, that this 

proposed regulatory action does not 

unduly interfere with State, local, and 

tribal governments in the exercise of 

their governmental functions. 

Need for Federal Regulatory Action 

These proposed priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria are needed to implement the 

Investing in Innovation Fund. The 

Secretary does not believe that the 

statute, by itself, provides a sufficient 

level of detail to ensure that the program 

achieves the greatest national impact in 

promoting educational innovation. The 

authorizing language is very brief and 

provides only broad parameters 

governing the program. The proposals 

discussed in this notice would provide 

greater clarity on the types of activities 

the Department seeks to fund, and 

permit the Department to use selection 

criteria that are closely aligned with the 

Secretary’s priorities. 

In the absence of specific selection 

criteria for the Investing in Innovation 

Fund, the Department would use the 

general selection criteria in 34 CFR 

75.210 of the Education Department 

General Administrative Regulations in 

selecting grant recipients. The Secretary 

does not believe the use of those general 

criteria would be appropriate for the 

Investing in Innovation Fund grant 

competition, because they do not focus 

on the educational reform and 

innovation activities most likely to raise 

student achievement and eliminate 

persistent disparities in achievement 

across different populations of students. 

Regulatory Alternatives Considered 

The Department considered a variety 

of possible priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria before 

deciding to propose those included in 

this notice. The proposed priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria are those that the Secretary 

believes best capture the purposes of the 

program while clarifying what the 

Secretary expects the program to 

accomplish and ensuring that program 

activities are aligned with Departmental 

priorities. The proposals would also 

provide eligible applicants with 

flexibility in selecting activities to apply 

to carry out under the program. The 

Secretary believes that the proposals, 

thus, appropriately balance a limited 

degree of specificity with broad 

flexibility in implementation. We seek 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 195 / Friday, October 9, 2009 / Notices 52227 

public comment on whether we have 

achieved the optimal balance. 

Summary of Costs and Benefits 

The Secretary believes that the 

proposed priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria would 

not impose significant costs on eligible 

LEAs, nonprofit organizations, or other 

entities that would receive assistance 

through the Investing in Innovation 

Fund. The Secretary also believes that 

the benefits of implementing the 

proposals contained in this notice 

outweigh any associated costs. 

The Secretary believes that the 

proposed priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria would 

result in selection of high-quality 

applications to implement activities that 

are most likely to have a significant 

national impact on educational reform 

and improvement. Through the 

proposals discussed in this notice, the 

Secretary seeks to provide clarity as to 

the scope of activities he expects to 

support with program funds and the 

expected burden of work involved in 

preparing an application and 

implementing a project under the 

program. The pool of possible 

applicants is very large; during school 

year 2007–08, 9,729 LEAs across the 

country (about 65 percent of all LEAs) 

made adequate yearly progress. 

Although not every one of those LEAs 

would necessarily meet all the 

eligibility requirements, the number of 

LEAs that would meet them is likely to 

be in the thousands. Potential 

applicants, both LEAs and nonprofit 

organizations, would need to consider 

carefully the effort that will be required 

to prepare a strong application, their 

capacity to implement a project 

successfully, and their chances of 

submitting a successful application. 

The Secretary believes that the costs 

imposed on applicants by the proposed 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria would be limited to 

paperwork burden related to preparing 

an application and that the benefits of 

implementing these proposals would 

outweigh any costs incurred by 

applicants. The costs of carrying out 

activities would be paid for with 

program funds and with matching funds 

provided by private-sector partners. 

Thus, the costs of implementation 

would not be a burden for any eligible 

applicants, including small entities. 

However, under the proposed selection 

criteria the Secretary would assess the 

extent to which an applicant would be 

able to sustain a project once Federal 

funding through the Investing in 

Innovation Fund is no longer available. 

Thus, eligible applicants should 

propose activities that they will be able 

to sustain without funding from the 

program and, thus, in essence, should 

include in their project plan the specific 

steps they will take for sustained 

implementation of the proposed project. 

The proposed priorities would 

provide flexibility on the topics and 

types of grant activities applicants could 

propose. The proposal for the three 

types of grants—Scale-up, Validation, 

and Development grants—would allow 

potential applicants to determine which 

type of grant they are best suited to 

apply for, based on their own priorities, 

resources, and capacity to implement 

grant activities. 

Accounting Statement 

As required by OMB Circular A–4 

(available at http:// 

www.Whitehouse.gov/omb/Circulars/ 

a004/a-4.pdf), in the following table, we 

have prepared an accounting statement 

showing the classification of the 

expenditures associated with the 

provisions of this proposed regulatory 

action. This table provides our best 

estimate of the Federal payments to be 

made to LEAs and nonprofit 

organizations under this program as a 

result of this proposed regulatory action. 

Expenditures are classified as transfers 

to those entities. 

TABLE—ACCOUNTING STATEMENT

CLASSIFICATION OF ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES

Category Transfers 

(in millions) 

Annual Monetized 

Transfers.

$643.5 

From Whom to Whom Federal Government 

to LEAs, nonprofits. 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

The requirements and selection 

criteria proposed in this notice will 

require the collection of information 

that is subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) under 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3501–3520). It is our plan to 

offer a comment period for the 

information collection at the time of the 

notice of final priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria. At 

that time, the Department will submit 

the information collection to OMB for 

its review and provide the specific 

burden hours associated with each of 

the requirements and selection criteria 

for comment. However, because it is 

likely that the information collection 

will be reviewed under emergency OMB 

processing, the Department encourages 

the public to comment on the estimates 

we are providing for the burden hours 

associated with the requirements and 

selection criteria proposed in this 

notice. 

Estimates for Scale-up Grants: We 

estimate 100 applicants for Scale-up 

grants, and that each applicant would 

spend approximately 120 hours of staff 

time to address the application 

requirements and criteria, prepare the 

application, and obtain necessary 

clearances. The total number of hours 

for all Scale-up applicants is an 

estimated 12,000 hours (100 applicants 

times 120 hours equals 12,000 hours). 

Estimates for Validation Grants: We 

estimate 500 applicants for Validation 

grants, and that each applicant would 

spend approximately 120 hours of staff 

time to address the application 

requirements and criteria, prepare the 

application, and obtain necessary 

clearances. The total number of hours 

for all Validation applicants is an 

estimated 60,000 hours (500 applicants 

times 120 hours equals 60,000 hours). 

Estimates for Development Grants: 

We estimate 2000 pre-applications and 

100 full applications for Development 

grants. We estimate that pre-applicants 

will spend approximately 60 hours of 

staff time to address the pre-application 

requirements and criteria, prepare the 

pre-application, and obtain all necessary 

clearances for the pre-application. We 

estimate that full applicants will spend 

approximately 60 hours of staff time to 

address the full application 

requirements and criteria, prepare the 

full application, and obtain all 

necessary clearances for the full 

application. The total number of hours 

for all Development pre-applicants and 

full applicants is an estimated 126,000 

hours ((2000 pre-applicants times 60 

hours equals 120,000 hours) plus (100 

full applicants times 60 hours equals 

6,000 hours)). 

Total Estimates: Across the three 

grant types, we estimate the average 

total cost per hour of the LEA and 

nonprofit organization staff who carry 

out this work to be $25.00 an hour. The 

total estimated cost for all applicants 

would be $4,950,000 ($25.00 times 

198,000 (12,000 + 60,000 + 126,000) 

hours equals $4,950,000). 

Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification 

The Secretary certifies that this 

proposed regulatory action will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The small entities that this proposed 

regulatory action will affect are small 

LEAs or nonprofit organizations 

applying for and receiving funds under 

this program. The Secretary believes 

that the costs imposed on applicants by 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

52228 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 195 / Friday, October 9, 2009 / Notices 

1The amount requested for the loan guarantee is 

not being disclosed at this time because it is 

business sensitive. Moreover, should DOE approve 

a loan guarantee, the amount may differ from the 

original request. 

the proposed priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria would 

be limited to paperwork burden related 

to preparing an application and that the 

benefits of implementing these 

proposals would outweigh any costs 

incurred by applicants. 

Participation in this program is 

voluntary. For this reason, the proposed 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria would impose no 

burden on small entities in general. 

Eligible applicants would determine 

whether to apply for funds, and have 

the opportunity to weigh the 

requirements for preparing applications, 

and any associated costs, against the 

likelihood of receiving funding and the 

requirements for implementing projects 

under the program. Eligible applicants 

most likely would apply only if they 

determine that the likely benefits exceed 

the costs of preparing an application. 

The likely benefits include the potential 

receipt of a grant as well as other 

benefits that may accrue to an entity 

through its development of an 

application, such as the use of that 

application to spur educational reforms 

and improvements without additional 

Federal funding. 

The U.S. Small Business 

Administration Size Standards defines 

as ‘‘small entities’’ for-profit or 

nonprofit institutions with total annual 

revenue below $7,000,000 or, if they are 

institutions controlled by small 

governmental jurisdictions (that are 

comprised of cities, counties, towns, 

townships, villages, school districts, or 

special districts), with a population of 

less than 50,000. The Urban Institute’s 

National Center for Charitable Statistics 

reported that of 203,635 nonprofit 

organizations that had an educational 

mission and reported revenue to the IRS 

by July 2009, 200,342 (or about 98 

percent) had revenues of less than $5 

million. In addition, there are 12,484 

LEAs in the country that meet the 

definition of small entity. However, the 

Secretary believes that only a small 

number of these entities would be 

interested in applying for funds under 

this program, thus reducing the 

likelihood that the proposals contained 

in this notice would have a significant 

economic impact on small entities. 

In addition, the Secretary believes 

that the proposed priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria discussed in this notice do not 

impose any additional burden on small 

entities applying for a grant than they 

would face in the absence of the 

proposed action. That is, the length of 

the applications those entities would 

submit in the absence of the regulatory 

action and the time needed to prepare 

an application would likely be the same. 

Further, the proposed action may help 

small entities determine whether they 

have the interest, need, or capacity to 

implement activities under the program 

and, thus, prevent small entities that do 

not have such an interest, need, and 

capacity from absorbing the burden of 

applying. 

This proposed regulatory action 

would not have a significant economic 

impact on small entities once they 

receive a grant because they would be 

able to meet the costs of compliance 

using the funds provided under this 

program and with any matching funds 

provided by private-sector partners. 

The Secretary invites comments from 

small nonprofit organizations and small 

LEAs as to whether they believe this 

proposed regulatory action would have 

a significant economic impact on them 

and, if so, requests evidence to support 

that belief. 

Intergovernmental Review: This 

program is subject to Executive Order 

12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR 

part 79. One of the objectives of the 

Executive order is to foster an 

intergovernmental partnership and a 

strengthened federalism. The Executive 

order relies on processes developed by 

State and local governments for 

coordination and review of proposed 

Federal financial assistance. 

This document provides early 

notification of our specific plans and 

actions for this program. 

Accessible Format: Individuals with 

disabilities can obtain this document in 

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

print, audiotape, or computer diskette) 

on request to the program contact 

person listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. 

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. If you have questions about 

using PDF, call the U.S. Government 

Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 

1–888–293–6498; or in the Washington, 

DC, area at (202) 512–1530. 

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: October 6, 2009. 

Arne Duncan, 

Secretary of Education. 

[FR Doc. E9–24387 Filed 10–8–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Notice of Intent To Prepare an 

Environmental Impact Statement for a 

Proposed Federal Loan Guarantee To 

Support Construction and Start-up of 

the Taylorville Energy Center in 

Taylorville, IL 

AGENCY: Department of Energy, Loan 

Guarantee Program. 

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an 

environmental impact statement and 

conduct a public scoping meeting. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE) announces its intent to 

prepare an environmental impact 

statement (EIS) pursuant to the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as 

amended (NEPA), the Council on 

Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA 

regulations, and the DOE NEPA 

implementing procedures to assess the 

potential environmental impacts for its 

proposed action of issuing a Federal 

loan guarantee to Christian County 

Generation, L.L.C. (CCG) (DOE/EIS– 

0430). CCG submitted an application to 

DOE under the Federal loan guarantee 

program pursuant to the Energy Policy 

Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005) to support 

construction and start-up of the 

Taylorville Energy Center in Taylorville, 

Illinois (‘‘the Facility’’).1

CCG is a limited liability company 

that is currently owned by Tenaska 

Taylorville, LLC, an affiliate of Tenaska, 

Inc., an Omaha, Nebraska-based power 

development company, and by MDL 

Holding Company, L.L.C. of Louisville, 

Kentucky. CCG proposes to develop the 

Facility on an 886-acre parcel of land. 

As proposed, the approximately 730 

megawatt (gross) electric generation 

Facility would utilize integrated 

gasification combined-cycle technology 

to produce electricity from Illinois 

bituminous coal. Synthesis gas 

processing would also allow the 

separation and capture of carbon 

dioxide (CO2) and the manufacture of 

pipeline-quality Substitute Natural Gas 

(‘‘SNG’’ or ‘‘methane’’). SNG would be 

used in a power block with two 

combustion turbines and one steam 

turbine. The Facility would be designed 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES