Friday, 

March 12, 2010 

Part II 

Department of 

Education 

34 CFR Part Chapter II 

Investing in Innovation Fund; Final Rule 

and Notice 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
12004 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

34 CFR Chapter II 

[Docket ID ED–2009–OII–0012] 

RIN 1855–AA06 

Investing in Innovation Fund 

AGENCY: Office of Innovation and 

Improvement, Department of Education. 

ACTION: Final priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria. 

SUMMARY: The Secretary of Education 

(Secretary) establishes priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria under the Investing in 

Innovation Fund. The Secretary may use 

these priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria in any 

year in which this program is in effect. 

DATES: These priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria are 

effective May 11, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Telephone: (202) 453–7122; or by email: i3@ed.gov; or by mail: (Attention: 

Margo Anderson, Investing in 

Innovation), U.S. Department of 

Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., 

room 4W302, Washington, DC 20202. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Purpose of Program: The Investing in 

Innovation Fund, established under 

section 14007 of the American Recovery 

and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), 

provides funding to support (1) local 

educational agencies (LEAs), and (2) 

nonprofit organizations in partnership 

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

consortium of schools. The purpose of 

this program is to provide competitive 

grants to applicants with a record of 

improving student achievement and 

attainment in order to expand the 

implementation of, and investment in, 

innovative practices that are 

demonstrated to have an impact on 

improving student achievement or 

student growth (as defined in this 

notice), closing achievement gaps, 

decreasing dropout rates, increasing 

high school graduation rates, or 

increasing college enrollment and 

completion rates. 

These grants will (1) allow eligible 

entities to expand and develop 

innovative practices that can serve as 

models of best practices, (2) allow 

eligible entities to work in partnership 

with the private sector and the 

philanthropic community, and (3) 

support eligible entities in identifying 

and documenting best practices that can 

be shared and taken to scale based on 

demonstrated success. 

Background: One of the overall goals 

of the ARRA is to improve student 

achievement and attainment through 

school improvement and reform. Within 

the context of the ARRA, the Investing 

in Innovation Fund focuses on four 

education reform areas that will help 

achieve this goal: (1) Improving teacher 

and principal effectiveness and ensuring 

that all schools have effective teachers 

and principals, (2) gathering 

information to improve student 

learning, teacher performance, and 

college and career readiness through 

enhanced data systems, (3) 

implementing college-and career-ready 

standards and rigorous assessments 

aligned with those standards, and (4) 

improving achievement in lowperforming schools through intensive 

support and effective interventions. The 

Department is using the Investing in 

Innovation Fund to support the 

overarching ARRA goal of improving 

student achievement and attainment by 

establishing four absolute priorities that 

are directly aligned with the four 

education reform areas under the ARRA. 

We are also establishing in this notice 

four competitive preference priorities 

that are aligned with Department reform 

goals in the following areas: (1) Early 

learning, (2) college access and success, 

(3) serving students with disabilities 

and limited English proficient students, 

and (4) serving students in rural LEAs. 

Finally, we are requiring that all 

projects funded under this program be 

designed to serve high-need students (as 

defined in this notice). 

Under this program, the Department 

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

‘‘Development’’ grants. Among the three 

grant types, there are differences in 

terms of the evidence that an applicant 

is required to submit in support of its 

proposed project; the expectations for 

‘‘scaling up’’ successful projects during 

or after the grant period, either directly 

or through partners; and the funding 

that a successful applicant is eligible to 

receive. The following is an overview of 

the three types of grants: 

(1) Scale-up grants provide funding to 

‘‘scale up’’ practices, strategies, or 

programs for which there is strong 

evidence (as defined in this notice) that 

the proposed practice, strategy, or 

program will have a statistically 

significant effect on improving student 

achievement or student growth, closing 

achievement gaps, decreasing dropout 

rates, increasing high school graduation 

rates, or increasing college enrollment 

and completion rates, and that the effect 

of implementing the proposed practice, 

strategy, or program will be substantial 

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

through an intermediate variable 

strongly correlated with these outcomes, 

such as teacher or principal 

effectiveness. 

An applicant for a Scale-up grant 

must estimate the number of students to 

be reached by the proposed project and 

provide evidence of its capacity to reach 

the proposed number of students during 

the course of the grant. In addition, an 

applicant for a Scale-up grant must 

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

terms of qualified personnel, financial 

resources, or management capacity) to 

scale up to a State, regional, or national 

level, working directly or through 

partners either during or following the 

grant period. We recognize that LEAs 

are not typically responsible for taking 

to scale their practices, strategies, or 

programs in other LEAs and States. 

However, all applicants, including 

LEAs, can and should partner with 

others (e.g., State educational agencies) 

to disseminate and take to scale their 

effective practices, strategies, and 

programs. 

Peer reviewers will review all eligible 

Scale-up grant applications. However, if 

an application does not meet the 

definition of strong evidence in this 

notice, the Department will not consider 

the application for funding. 

Successful applicants for Scale-up 

grants will receive more funding than 

successful applicants for Validation or 

Development grants. 

(2) Validation grants provide funding 

to support practices, strategies, or 

programs that show promise, but for 

which there is currently only moderate 

evidence (as defined in this notice) that 

the proposed practice, strategy, or 

program will have a statistically 

significant effect on improving student 

achievement or student growth, closing 

achievement gaps, decreasing dropout 

rates, increasing high school graduation 

rates, or increasing college enrollment 

and completion rates and that, with 

further study, the effect of implementing 

the proposed practice, strategy, or 

program may prove to be substantial 

and important. Thus, applications for 

Validation grants do not need to have 

the same level of research evidence to 

support the proposed project as is 

required for Scale-up grants. An 

applicant may also demonstrate success 

through an intermediate variable 

strongly correlated with these outcomes, 

such as teacher or principal 

effectiveness. 

An applicant for a Validation grant 

must estimate the number of students to 

be reached by the proposed project and 

provide evidence of its capacity to reach 

the proposed number of students during 

the course of the grant. In addition, an 

applicant for a Validation grant must 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 12005 

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

terms of qualified personnel, financial 

resources, or management capacity) to 

scale up to a State or regional level, 

working directly or through partners 

either during or following the grant 

period. As noted earlier, we recognize 

that LEAs are not typically responsible 

for taking to scale their practices, 

strategies, or programs in other LEAs 

and States. However, all applicants, 

including LEAs, can and should partner 

with others to disseminate and take to 

scale their effective practices, strategies, 

and programs. 

Peer reviewers will review all eligible 

Validation grant applications. However, 

if an application does not meet the 

definition of moderate evidence in this 

notice, the Department will not consider 

the application for funding. 

Successful applicants for Validation 

grants will receive more funding than 

successful applicants for Development 

grants. 

(3) Development grants provide 

funding to support high-potential and 

relatively untested practices, strategies, 

or programs whose efficacy should be 

systematically studied. An applicant 

must provide evidence that the 

proposed practice, strategy, or program, 

or one similar to it, has been attempted 

previously, albeit on a limited scale or 

in a limited setting, and yielded 

promising results that suggest that more 

formal and systematic study is 

warranted. An applicant must provide a 

rationale for the proposed practice, 

strategy, or program that is based on 

research findings or reasonable 

hypotheses, including related research 

or theories in education and other 

sectors. Thus, applications for 

Development grants do not need to 

provide the same level of evidence to 

support the proposed project as is 

required for Validation or Scale-up 

grants. 

An applicant for a Development grant 

must estimate the number of students to 

be served by the project, and provide 

evidence of the applicant’s ability to 

implement and appropriately evaluate 

the proposed project and, if positive 

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

terms of qualified personnel, financial 

resources, or management capacity) to 

further develop and bring the project to 

a larger scale directly or through 

partners either during or following the 

grant period. As noted earlier, we 

recognize that LEAs are not typically 

responsible for taking to scale their 

practices, strategies, or programs. Again, 

however, all applicants can and should 

partner with others to disseminate and 

take to scale their effective practices, 

strategies, and programs. 

Peer reviewers will review all eligible 

Development grant applications. 

However, if an application is not 

supported by a reasonable hypothesis 

for the proposed project, the Department 

will not consider the application for 

funding. 

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 FUND GRANTS IN TERMS OF THE

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

Scale-up grants Validation grants Development grants 

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

Internal Validity (Strength of Causal 

Conclusions) and External Validity (Generalizability).

High internal validity and high external validity.(1) High internal validity and moderate external validity; or (2) 

moderate internal validity and 

high external validity.

Theory and reported practice suggest the potential for efficacy 

for at least some participants 

and settings. 

Prior Research Studies Supporting 

Effectiveness or Efficacy of the 

Proposed Practice, Strategy, or 

Program.

(1) More than one well-designed 

and well-implemented experimental study or well-designed 

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

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

(1) At least one well-designed 

and well-implemented experimental or quasi-experimental 

study, with small sample sizes 

or other conditions of implementation or analysis that limit 

generalizability; (2) at least one 

well-designed and well-implemented experimental or 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.

(1) Evidence that the proposed 

practice, strategy, or program, 

or one similar to it, has been 

attempted previously, albeit on 

a limited scale or in a limited 

setting, and yielded promising 

results that suggest that more 

formal and systematic study is 

warranted; and (2) a rationale 

for the proposed practice, strategy, or program that is based 

on research findings or reasonable hypotheses, including related research or theories in 

education and other sectors. 

Practice, Strategy, or Program in 

Prior Research.

The same as that proposed for 

support under the Scale-up 

grant.

The same as, or very similar to, 

that proposed for support under 

the Validation grant.

The same as, or similar to, that 

proposed for support under the 

Development grant. 

Participants and Settings in Prior 

Research.

Participants and settings included 

the kinds of participants and 

settings proposed to receive 

the treatment under the Scaleup grant.

Participants or settings may have 

been more limited than those 

proposed to receive the treatment under the Validation grant.

Participants or settings may have 

been more limited than those 

proposed to receive the treatment under the Development 

grant. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
12006 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

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

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

Scale-up grants Validation grants Development grants 

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

be likely to be statistically significant in a sample of the size 

proposed for the Scale-up grant.

Effect in prior research would be 

likely to be statistically significant in a sample of the size 

proposed for the Validation 

grant.

Practice, strategy, or program 

warrants further study to investigate efficacy. 

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

population for the Scale-up 

project.

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

project.

Based on prior implementation, 

promising for the target population for the Development 

project. 

In addition, the three types of grants 

differ in terms of the expectations to 

scale up successful projects during or 

following the grant period, either 

directly or through partners, and the 

level of funding that would be available. 

(See Table 2.) 

TABLE 2—DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE THREE TYPES OF INVESTING IN INNOVATION FUND 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. 

Major Changes in the Final Priorities, 

Requirements, Definitions, and 

Selection Criteria 

The Department published a notice of 

proposed priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria (NPP) 

for this program in the Federal Register 

on October 9, 2009 (74 FR 52214– 

52228). We received comments on the 

NPP from 346 commenters, including 

from LEAs, nonprofit organizations, 

professional associations, parents, and 

private citizens. We used these 

comments to revise, improve, and 

clarify the priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria. In 

addition to minor technical and 

editorial changes, there are several 

substantive differences between the 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria proposed in the NPP 

and the final priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria that 

we establish in this notice. Those 

substantive changes are summarized in 

this section and discussed in greater 

detail in the Analysis of Comments and 

Changes that follows. We do not discuss 

minor technical or editorial changes, 

nor do we address comments that 

suggested changes that we are not 

authorized to make under the law. 

Priorities 

We are making the following changes 

to the priorities for this program: 

• We are revising Absolute Priority 

1—Innovations that Support Effective 

Teachers and School Leaders by 

substituting the term ‘‘principal’’ for the 

term ‘‘school leader’’ and clarifying that, 

to meet this priority, projects must 

increase the number or percentages of 

highly effective teachers or principals or 

reduce the number or percentages of 

ineffective teachers or principals; 

projects need not serve both teachers 

and principals to meet the priority. We 

are also revising the discussion of the 

teacher and principal evaluation 

systems that should be used in projects 

under this priority by stating that the 

measures used to determine 

effectiveness should be designed with 

teacher and principal involvement. 

• We are revising Absolute Priority 

3—Innovations that Complement the 

Implementation of High Standards and 

High-Quality Assessments to clarify that 

an eligible applicant must propose a 

project that is based on standards that 

are at least as rigorous as its State’s 

standards. Further, we are revising the 

priority to clarify that if the proposed 

project is based on standards other than 

those adopted by the eligible applicant’s 

State, the applicant must explain how 

the standards are aligned with and at 

least as rigorous as the eligible 

applicant’s State’s standards as well as 

how the standards differ. 

• We are revising Absolute Priority 

4—Innovations That Turn Around 

Persistently Low-Performing Schools to 

specify the schools for which reform 

projects may be implemented under this 

priority; as noted later in this section, 

we are removing the definition of 

persistently low-performing schools. In 

addition, we are revising the priority to 

include in paragraph (a) additional 

examples of the comprehensive 

intervention approaches to wholeschool reform and to clarify in 

paragraph (b)(3) the examples for 

creating multiple pathways for students 

to earn regular high school diplomas. 

• We are revising Competitive 

Preference Priority 7—Innovations to 

Address the Unique Learning Needs of 

Students with Disabilities and Limited 

English Proficient Students by 

specifying that, to meet this priority, 

projects must focus on particular 

practices, strategies, or programs that 

are designed to improve academic 

outcomes, close achievement gaps, and 

increase college- and career-readiness, 

including increasing high school 

graduation rates (as defined in this 

notice), for these students. 

Requirements 

We are making the following changes 

to the requirements for this program: 

• We are making clarifying changes to 

the requirements in order to better 

differentiate between eligible applicants 

(i.e., LEAs, under section 14007(a)(1)(A) 

of the ARRA; and partnerships between 

nonprofit organizations and (1) one or 

more LEAs or (2) a consortium of 

schools, under section 14007(a)(1)(B) of 

the ARRA) and the applicant (i.e., the 

single entity that applies to the 

Department on behalf of the eligible 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 12007 

applicant, which could be itself or a 

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

• As discussed in the NPP, proposed 

paragraphs (1) through (4) of the 

eligibility requirements of this program 

repeated requirements prescribed by 

section 14007 of the ARRA. Section 307 

of Division D of the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2010 (P.L. 111– 

117), which was signed into law on 

December 16, 2009, makes several 

amendments to these statutory 

requirements, which we are 

incorporating in the final eligibility 

requirements. The major substantive 

changes include the following: 

• Consistent with the amendments to 

section 14007(b) of the ARRA, we are 

revising proposed paragraph (1) of the 

eligibility requirements to require that, 

to be eligible for an award under this 

program, an eligible applicant must (A) 

have significantly closed the 

achievement gaps between groups of 

students described in section 1111(b)(2) 

of the Elementary and Secondary 

Education Act of 1965, as amended 

(ESEA), or (B) have demonstrated 

success in significantly increasing 

student academic achievement for all 

groups of students described in such 

section. We are also eliminating 

proposed paragraph (2) of the eligibility 

requirements, which would have 

required that an eligible applicant 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). 

• Consistent with the amendments to 

section 14007(c) of the ARRA, we are 

revising the Note about Eligibility for an 

Eligible Applicant that Includes a 

Nonprofit Organization to specify that 

an eligible applicant that includes a 

nonprofit organization is considered to 

have met paragraph (1) and paragraph 

(2) (proposed paragraph (3)) of the 

eligibility requirements for this program 

if the nonprofit organization has a 

record of significantly improving 

student achievement, attainment, or 

retention. In addition, we are revising 

the Note to specify that an eligible 

applicant that includes a nonprofit 

organization is considered to have met 

paragraph (3) (proposed paragraph (4)) 

of the eligibility requirements if it 

demonstrates that it will meet the 

requirement relating to private-sector 

matching. 

• We are establishing a requirement 

that, to be eligible for an award, an 

application for a Scale-up grant must be 

supported by strong evidence (as 

defined in this notice), an application 

for a Validation grant must be supported 

by moderate evidence (as defined in this 

notice), and an application for a 

Development grant must be supported 

by a reasonable hypothesis. 

• We are revising the Cost Sharing or 

Matching requirement with respect to 

the timing of submission of evidence of 

the private-sector match. Selected 

eligible applicants are now required to 

submit evidence of the full 20 percent 

private-sector matching funds to 

support the proposed project following 

the peer review of applications. An 

award will not be made unless the 

eligible applicant provides adequate 

evidence that the full 20 percent 

private-sector match has been 

committed or the Secretary approves the 

eligible applicant’s request to reduce the 

matching-level requirement. 

• Section 307 of Division D of the 

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010, 

amended the ARRA with respect to a 

grantee’s ability to make subgrants 

under this program. Under new section 

14007(d) of the ARRA, in the case of an 

eligible entity that is a partnership 

between a nonprofit organization and 

(1) one or more LEAs or (2) a 

consortium of schools, the partner 

serving as the fiscal agent (i.e., the 

applicant applying on behalf of the 

eligible applicant) may make subgrants 

to one or more of the other entities in 

the partnership (referred to in this 

notice as official partners). We are 

revising the requirements for this 

program to reflect this statutory change. 

• We are establishing limits on grant 

awards. No grantee may receive more 

than two grant awards under this 

program. In addition, no grantee may 

receive more than $55 million in grant 

awards under this program in a single 

year’s competition. 

• We are revising the Evaluation 

requirement to establish that, in 

addition to making the results of any 

evaluation broadly available, Scale-up 

and Validation grantees must also 

ensure the data from their evaluations 

are made available to third-party 

researchers consistent with applicable 

privacy requirements. 

Definitions 

We are making the following changes 

to the definitions for this program. In 

addition to providing further clarity on 

the meaning of terms, these changes are 

intended to ensure consistency in the 

use and definition of terms in this 

program and other programs supported 

with ARRA funds where appropriate. 

• We are removing the term 

persistently low-performing schools. 

• We are replacing the term highly 

effective school leader with highly 

effective principal and revising the 

definition of this term. 

• We are revising the definitions of 

the following terms: Formative 

assessment, highly effective teacher, 

high-need student, regional level, and 

student achievement. 

• We are adding definitions of the 

following terms: Applicant, official 

partner, other partner, high school 

graduation rate, regular high school 

diploma, and well-designed and wellimplemented (with respect to an 

experimental or quasi-experimental 

study). 

Selection Criteria 

We are making the following changes 

to the selection criteria for this program: 

• Consistent with the Eligible 

Applicants requirement and the 

definitions of applicant, official partner, 

and other partner, we are revising the 

selection criteria for this program, 

where appropriate, to clarify the entities 

for which the criteria apply. 

• We no longer intend to use a twotier process to review applications for 

Development grants. Thus, we are 

removing, from the selection criteria for 

Development grants the discussion of a 

two-tier application process (including 

pre-applications) for those grants. 

• We are revising Selection Criterion 

A (Need for the Project and Quality of 

the Project Design) for Validation grants 

to include, among the factors for which 

the Secretary will consider the quality 

of the proposed project design, the 

extent to which the proposed project is 

consistent with the research evidence 

supporting the proposed project, taking 

into consideration any differences in 

context. 

• We are revising Selection Criterion 

B (Strength of Research, Significance of 

Effect, and Magnitude of Effect) for all 

three types of grants to include college 

enrollment and completion rates among 

the student achievement and attainment 

outcomes for which the Secretary will 

consider the effect of a proposed project. 

In addition, we are revising the criterion 

for Scale-up and Validation grants to 

clarify that the strength of the existing 

research evidence includes the internal 

validity (strength of causal conclusions) 

and external validity (generalizability) 

of the effects reported in prior research. 

We are also revising the criterion for 

Development grants to clarify that the 

strength of the existing research 

evidence includes reported practice, 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
12008 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

theoretical considerations, and the 

significance and magnitude of any 

effects reported in prior research. 

• We are revising Selection Criterion 

C (Experience of the Eligible Applicant) 

for all three types of grants to reflect the 

amendments to the authorizing statute 

discussed earlier in this notice. Under 

Selection Criterion C (2) (proposed 

Selection Criterion C (2)(b)), the 

Secretary now considers, in the case of 

an eligible applicant that is an LEA, the 

extent to which the eligible applicant 

provides information and data 

demonstrating that it has (A) 

significantly closed the achievement 

gaps between groups of students 

described in section 1111(b)(2) of the 

ESEA or significantly increased student 

achievement for all groups of students 

described in such section; and (B) made 

significant improvements in other areas, 

such as graduation rates or increased 

recruitment and placement of highquality teachers and principals, as 

demonstrated with meaningful data. In 

the case of an eligible applicant that 

includes a nonprofit organization, the 

Secretary now considers the extent to 

which the eligible applicant provides 

information and data demonstrating that 

the nonprofit organization has 

significantly improved student 

achievement, attainment, or retention 

through its record of work with an LEA 

or schools. These changes are consistent 

with the changes to the eligibility 

requirements for this program discussed 

earlier in this notice. 

Analysis of Comments and Changes 

An analysis of the comments received 

on, and any changes to, the priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria since publication of the NPP for 

this program follows. 

Note about general comments: We received 

many comments expressing general support 

or making general recommendations for this 

program. In most cases, these comments were 

effectively duplicated by other comments 

expressing support or making specific 

recommendations for the program’s proposed 

priorities, requirements, definitions, or 

approval criteria, which we discuss in the 

sections that follow. We accordingly do not 

discuss those general comments here. In 

other cases, we interpreted a general 

comment as applying specifically to the 

priorities, requirements, definitions, or 

selection criteria and address the comment. 

Note about comments on program issues 

not covered in NPP: We received a number 

of comments relating to program issues that 

may have been discussed in communications 

from the Department but were not proposed 

for public comment in the NPP for this 

program. These issues include: Specific 

funding ranges or award amounts for the 

grant categories, the number of grant awards, 

uses of funds, length of grant periods, and 

technical assistance for applicants. We do not 

address comments on these issues here. We 

note, however, that information on these 

issues will be made available through other 

Department documents including the notice 

inviting applications for this program. 

Types of Grants 

Comment: A number of commenters 

expressed support for this program’s 

three-tiered grant structure. Several 

commenters supported the Department’s 

attempt to balance the need to cultivate 

new programs with support for existing 

programs proven to be effective. 

However, a number of commenters 

recommended revising the grant 

categories or structure of the program. 

Many commenters recommended that 

the Department structure the program to 

include only two types of grants—Scaleup grants and Development grants—and 

to eliminate Validation grants. 

Similarly, one commenter 

recommended that the Validation and 

Scale-up grants be merged into a single 

category so that reviewers could 

consider the size of the target 

population, the complexity of the 

project, and other factors without 

restrictions on scaling targets. A number 

of other commenters recommended that 

the Department change the structure of 

this program to focus on funding a large 

number of small projects rather than 

larger projects that would be supported 

under the Scale-up grant category. 

Discussion: The Department believes 

that the structure of this program and 

the use of three categories of grants 

present an appropriate balance between 

support for the development of 

promising yet relatively untested ideas 

and the growth and scaling of practices 

that have made demonstrable 

improvements in student achievement 

and attainment outcomes. In addition, 

we believe that the scaling targets 

provided for the three grant types are 

needed by applicants in developing 

their proposed projects. Consequently, 

we do not believe changes such as those 

recommended by the commenters are 

warranted. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter asked how 

the scale of implementation (State, 

regional, or national) differs between 

Validation and Development grants. 

Discussion: Validation grants will be 

implemented on a broader scale than 

Development grants because of both the 

corresponding level of evidence and the 

funding provided for the practice, 

strategy, or program. The level of 

implementation for Validation grants is 

State or regional, but the level of 

implementation for Development grants 

would typically not extend to a 

statewide level. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter requested 

that the Department remove the term 

‘‘new’’ from the description of the 

Development grants, noting that 

practices that are promising and 

untested (consistent with this category 

of grant) may not necessarily be new. 

Discussion: We agree with the 

commenter that the practices proposed 

in projects for a Development grant need 

not necessarily be new. We are 

removing the term ‘‘new’’ from the 

description of the Development grants. 

Changes: We are removing the term 

‘‘new’’ from the description of the 

Development grants. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that the Department 

allow, under the Development grant 

category, funding for small-scale 

projects that focus on the needs of 

relatively small populations of highneed students. 

Discussion: An applicant would not 

be prohibited from proposing under the 

Development grant category a project 

that focuses on small populations of 

high-need students, provided that the 

project addresses one of the absolute 

priorities of the program. 

Changes: None. 

Priorities 

Priorities—General 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that the Department draw explicit 

connections between the final priorities 

in the Investing in Innovation Fund and 

the final priorities in the Race to the 

Top Fund program so that projects can 

be successfully scaled at the State level. 

Another commenter recommended 

adding a competitive preference priority 

for projects that are aligned with 

activities supported by other programs 

administered by the Department (e.g., 

School Improvement Grants, Education 

Technology Grants, Teacher Quality 

Enhancement Grants) or by other 

Federal agencies (e.g., Community 

Development Block Grants). 

Discussion: The absolute priorities 

under the Investing in Innovation Fund 

are aligned with the four education 

reform areas under the ARRA and 

complement the absolute priority of the 

Race to the Top Fund program, which 

requires States to submit applications 

that comprehensively address these 

same four reform areas. As noted 

elsewhere in this notice, we are revising 

the priorities, requirements, definitions, 

and selection criteria for this program, 

as appropriate, to ensure consistency 

between this program and other 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 12009 

programs supported with ARRA funds, 

including the Race to the Top Fund 

program. 

We encourage eligible applicants to 

align and coordinate activities under 

this program with activities supported 

with other ARRA funding, as well as 

activities funded through other 

Department and Federal programs. 

Because this program is designed to 

align with the ARRA’s four education 

reform areas and complement activities 

in other programs supported with ARRA 

funds, we do not believe it is necessary 

to add a competitive preference priority 

for eligible applicants that align and 

coordinate activities and funding from 

multiple sources. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: A number of commenters 

expressed support for the four absolute 

priorities as reflecting key areas where 

reform is needed in education. One 

commenter, however, expressed 

concern that requiring applicants to 

submit an application under one 

absolute priority contributes to a ‘‘silo 

effect’’ whereby individual projects are 

narrowly focused and implemented in 

isolation or in a manner that is 

disconnected from other key reform 

areas. 

A few commenters requested 

clarification as to whether applicants 

could or should address more than one 

absolute priority. Some commenters 

recommended adding an absolute 

priority for projects that are based on 

comprehensive and multi-dimensional 

reform strategies that cut across the 

education reform areas. Other 

commenters recommended adding a 

competitive preference priority for 

projects that address more than one 

absolute priority or that address one 

absolute priority and demonstrate 

capacity and expertise in other absolute 

priority areas. Commenters also 

recommended that the Department 

require applicants to describe their work 

in each of the education reform areas, or 

how their proposed project would 

contribute to improvements across the 

spectrum of education reform. Some of 

these commenters asserted that lasting 

reform requires action in multiple or all 

of the ARRA reform areas. 

Discussion: An applicant must 

identify one absolute priority under 

which it is submitting its application. 

Given the diversity of applications that 

we are likely to receive, we are requiring 

eligible applicants to write to one 

absolute priority to ensure that we can 

assess the quality of the applications 

within a given reform area. Although it 

must identify the absolute priority 

under which it is submitting its 

application, an eligible applicant is not 

prohibited from submitting an 

application that addresses multiple 

absolute priorities if that is necessary to 

describing the effort for which the 

applicant is seeking funds. However, 

such applications will not receive 

additional ‘‘credit’’ for doing so. All 

points will be assigned based on how 

well the eligible applicant addresses the 

selection criteria. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: A number of commenters 

recommended that the Department add 

a competitive preference priority for 

applications that serve high-need 

students. Several of these commenters 

stated that including a priority for 

projects that focus on high-need 

students would promote innovation and 

direct attention toward meeting the 

needs of these typically underserved 

students. Two of these commenters also 

recommended including a competitive 

preference priority for innovative 

programs in literacy instruction for 

students in secondary schools. Several 

commenters recommended adding a 

competitive preference priority for 

projects that propose to serve 

disconnected youth, particularly youth 

in secondary schools and youth who 

have dropped out of school. Other 

commenters recommended focusing on 

projects that propose to create or 

improve pathways to postsecondary 

education for high-need and 

disconnected students. One commenter 

suggested focusing priorities on projects 

that serve economically disadvantaged 

students, Native American students, and 

students from diverse ethnic and racial 

backgrounds. 

Discussion: Under the requirements 

for this program, all projects funded 

under this program must focus on highneed students (as defined in this notice). 

It would, therefore, serve no purpose 

also to award competitive preference 

points for projects that propose to serve 

high-need students. We note that we 

define high-need student as a student at 

risk of educational failure or otherwise 

in need of special assistance and 

support. While we provide examples of 

students at risk of educational failure or 

otherwise in need of special assistance 

and support in the definition of highneed student, those examples are not 

intended to be an exhaustive or 

exclusive list. An eligible applicant has 

flexibility in determining the types of 

students that meet the definition. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that the Department 

clarify whether an applicant may 

propose to serve only certain student 

subgroups or students only in specific 

settings. The commenter requested that 

the Department clarify the relationship 

between the competitive preference 

priorities, which target specific groups 

of students (e.g., students with 

disabilities and limited English 

proficient students), and the absolute 

priorities, which do not appear to be so 

targeted. Another commenter suggested 

clarifying whether applications targeting 

multiple student subgroups would 

receive competitive preference points. 

Discussion: An eligible applicant may 

propose a project that targets or serves 

only certain student subgroups or only 

students served in particular settings, 

provided that the project serves highneed students consistent with the 

definition of high-need student. 

However, an eligible applicant would 

not receive competitive preference 

points under this program simply for 

proposing a project to serve multiple 

student subgroups. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: We received numerous 

comments recommending that we add 

absolute priorities to address a wide 

array of other issues and concerns. 

Many commenters recommended that 

absolute priorities be added to focus on 

particular subject areas. For example, 

commenters suggested adding a priority 

for projects that improve vocabulary and 

increase the use of vocabulary 

assessments. One commenter 

recommended adding a priority for 

innovations in science education. 

Another commenter recommended 

adding a priority for eligible applicants 

that propose innovative ways to instruct 

students in the subjects of science, 

technology, engineering and 

mathematics (STEM). A number of other 

commenters suggested adding a priority 

for projects that propose to improve, 

reform, or increase access to art and 

music education. A few commenters 

recommended adding a priority for 

innovations in career and technical 

education and focusing on careerreadiness outcomes, such as technical 

skill attainment and performance on 

work-readiness assessments. 

A few commenters recommended 

adding an absolute priority for 

innovations that offer customized 

educational experiences for students 

based on individual learning needs and 

preferences. Two of these commenters 

asserted that such innovations provide a 

more flexible, student-centered 

approach to education and produce 

schools that are ‘‘student-based.’’ 

Several commenters suggested adding 

an absolute priority for projects that 

propose to increase high school 

graduation rates, such as dropout 

recovery programs. Other commenters 

recommended adding an absolute 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
12010 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

priority for projects that focus on college 

readiness and transition to college. One 

commenter recommended that the 

absolute priorities explicitly reference 

middle schools because, according to 

the commenter, middle schools provide 

the foundation for high school 

graduation and college- and careerreadiness. 

In addition to recommendations to 

add absolute priorities, we received a 

number of comments recommending 

that we re-designate competitive 

preference priorities as absolute 

priorities. For example, a few 

commenters recommended changing the 

competitive preference priority on 

serving schools in rural LEAs to an 

absolute priority. Likewise, one 

commenter recommended that the 

competitive preference priority on 

supporting college access and success 

be changed to an absolute priority and 

several commenters recommended that 

the competitive preference priority on 

improving early learning outcomes be 

changed to an absolute priority. 

Discussion: While we recognize the 

importance of the issues and topics 

mentioned by the commenters, we 

decline to include additional absolute 

priorities for this program. As stated 

elsewhere in this notice, the Department 

is using the Investing in Innovation 

Fund to support the overarching ARRA 

goal of improving student achievement 

and attainment by establishing four 

absolute priorities that are directly 

aligned with the four education reform 

areas under the ARRA. We believe that 

adding other absolute priorities would 

detract from this goal. 

We note, in addition, that all 

applications for Investing in Innovation 

Fund grants will be assessed in part on 

the extent to which the proposed 

projects will have an impact on student 

achievement and attainment outcomes 

including the following: improving 

student achievement or growth, closing 

achievement gaps, decreasing dropout 

rates, increasing high school graduation 

rates, and increasing college enrollment 

and completion rates (see Selection 

Criterion B (Strength of Research, 

Significance of Effect, and Magnitude of 

Effect) for each type of grant). 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended eliminating all the 

competitive preference priorities stating 

that they complicate the application 

process and constrain innovation. 

Discussion: The Department routinely 

utilizes competitive preference 

priorities in grant competitions without 

any undue difficulty for either the 

agency or applicants. As noted 

elsewhere in this notice, we are 

including competitive preference 

priorities that are aligned with the 

Department’s reform goals. We believe 

that these competitive preference 

priorities complement, rather than 

detract from, the four ARRA reform 

areas. Furthermore, we do not believe 

that including competitive preference 

priorities constrains innovation. We 

have written the competitive preference 

priorities around broad general topics, 

within which eligible applicants are free 

to propose a range of innovative 

projects. We note that eligible 

applicants are not required to address 

the competitive preference priorities. 

For these reasons, we have concluded 

that no changes to the competitive 

preference priorities should be made in 

response to this comment. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that the Department 

change the absolute priorities to 

competitive preference priorities 

because, according to the commenter, 

the competitive preference priorities 

deserve equal status with the absolute 

priorities. One commenter 

recommended combining some of the 

absolute priorities with the competitive 

preference priorities. 

Discussion: Changing the absolute 

priorities to competitive preference 

priorities or combining absolute 

priorities with competitive priorities 

would, in effect, diminish the focus of 

this program on the four ARRA 

education reform areas because it would 

allow projects that do not address any 

of the four reform areas to be funded. 

Therefore, we decline to make the 

changes recommended by commenters. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that the Department 

permit applicants to address more than 

one competitive preference priority. 

Several commenters recommended that 

the Department clarify whether 

applications receive additional points 

for addressing more than one 

competitive preference priority. 

Discussion: The notice inviting 

applications for this program (NIA), 

published elsewhere in this issue of the 

Federal Register, states that competitive 

preference points will be awarded on an 

‘‘all or nothing’’ basis (i.e., one point or 

zero points) for Competitive Preference 

Priorities 5, 6, and 7, depending on how 

well an application addresses the 

priority. For Competitive Preference 

Priority 8, we will award up to two 

points, depending on how well an 

application addresses this priority. 

Applications may address more than 

one competitive preference priority; 

however, the Department will not award 

additional points simply for addressing 

more than one competitive preference 

priority. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: A number of commenters 

recommended that the Department add 

a competitive preference priority for 

applicants that partner with specific 

entities. For example, some commenters 

recommended adding a competitive 

preference priority for applicants that 

partner with nonprofit organizations in 

order to help ensure that projects are 

innovative and can be scaled up 

successfully. One commenter stated that 

competitive preference points should be 

awarded to LEA applicants who propose 

projects that involve collaboration with 

other LEAs and charter schools. Another 

commenter recommended adding a 

competitive preference priority for 

applicants that partner with a State 

educational agency to ensure that 

funded activities can be implemented 

statewide. One commenter suggested 

that applicants who partner with 

institutions of higher education should 

be given competitive preference points 

in light of the focus of the ARRA on 

improving college- and career-readiness. 

One commenter recommended adding a 

competitive preference priority for 

applicants that partner with a 

community-based organization in order 

to be consistent with the Department’s 

general support for community-oriented 

schools and partnerships between 

communities and schools. A few 

commenters recommended adding a 

competitive preference priority for 

applicants that propose innovative 

partnerships to support program 

effectiveness and sustainability 

including interdisciplinary 

partnerships. 

Discussion: We believe that eligible 

applicants should form partnerships 

with those entities that they believe will 

yield the best possible application and 

produce the best possible results. We do 

not believe it would be appropriate for 

the Department to judge who the best 

partners would be for a particular 

project and therefore decline to add a 

competitive preference priority for 

eligible applicants that partner with a 

specific entity. 

We note that there appears to be some 

confusion about the roles and 

responsibilities of ‘‘eligible applicants,’’ 

‘‘applicants,’’ ‘‘fiscal agents,’’ and 

‘‘partners’’ under this program. 

Therefore, and as discussed in greater 

detail in the Requirements section of 

this preamble, we are adding definitions 

for the terms applicant, official partner, 

and other partner and using these terms, 

as appropriate, throughout this notice. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 12011 

Changes: As discussed elsewhere in 

this notice, we are adding definitions for 

the terms applicant, official partner, and 

other partner. We use these terms, as 

appropriate, throughout this notice. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended adding a competitive 

preference priority for eligible 

applicants that include charter schools 

in their proposed projects. 

Discussion: As discussed elsewhere in 

this notice, depending on its legal status 

under State law, a charter school may be 

eligible to apply under this program in 

the following ways: As an LEA on its 

own if it is considered an LEA under 

State law; As a nonprofit organization, 

in a partnership with one or more LEAs 

or a consortium of schools (provided the 

charter school meets the definition of 

nonprofit organization under this 

program); or in a partnership with a 

nonprofit organization as an LEA or as 

part of a consortium of schools. Adding 

a competitive preference priority for 

charter schools would provide an unfair 

advantage to eligible applicants that 

include these schools. Therefore, we 

decline to make the change 

recommended by the commenter. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended adding a competitive 

preference priority for eligible 

applicants that propose projects that 

encourage and support effective teacher 

professional development and 

collaboration. Another commenter 

recommended adding a competitive 

preference priority for projects that 

propose innovative approaches to 

attracting and developing school 

leaders. 

Discussion: Absolute Priority 1 

focuses on projects that increase the 

number or percentages of highly 

effective teachers or principals (or 

reduce the number or percentages of 

ineffective teachers or principals) by 

identifying, recruiting, developing, 

placing, rewarding, and retaining highly 

effective teachers or principals (or 

removing ineffective teachers or 

principals). It is unnecessary to include 

both an absolute priority and a 

competitive preference priority focused 

on improving teacher or principal 

effectiveness. Therefore, we decline to 

follow the commenters’ 

recommendations. 

As explained in our responses to 

comments regarding Absolute Priority 1, 

we are changing the term, ‘‘school 

leader’’ to ‘‘principal’’ in order to clarify 

our intent to focus this priority on 

increasing the number and percentages 

of highly effective principals. 

Changes: We are changing the term 

‘‘school leader’’ to ‘‘principal’’ in the 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria for this program and 

using the latter term in our response to 

comments. However, we are retaining 

references to ‘‘school leader’’ that 

commenters made in their statements. 

Comment: A number of commenters 

recommended that the Department add 

a priority for projects that focus on 

improving outcomes related to school 

support services, school climate, school 

diversity, school safety, or parent or 

community involvement. Some 

commenters recommended adding a 

competitive preference priority for 

eligible applicants that propose 

initiatives to promote caring and 

culturally-responsive teachers as well as 

classrooms and schools that support 

positive social climates. One commenter 

recommended adding a competitive 

preference priority for projects that 

propose innovative approaches to 

reducing the use of alcohol, tobacco, 

and other addictive drugs. Another 

commenter recommended adding a 

competitive preference priority for 

projects proposing innovative 

approaches to reducing the incidence of 

crime, violence, and ‘‘uncivil behavior’’ 

(including bullying) in schools. One 

commenter recommended that the 

Department modify the proposed 

priorities to address student 

engagement, character education, and 

life skills; the commenter asserted that 

the proposed priorities ignore factors 

not directly associated with instruction 

that impact a student’s ability to achieve 

academically. 

Some commenters recommended 

adding a priority for innovations that 

improve the social and other 

nonacademic supports that schools 

provide to students and families, such 

as assistance with child care, housing, 

transportation, and making collegerelated decisions. A number of 

commenters recommended adding a 

new priority or revising the proposed 

priorities to support innovative 

approaches to increase parental 

involvement. One commenter 

recommended focusing specifically on 

parent and community involvement in 

education in rural LEAs because, 

according to the commenter, rural LEAs 

face barriers such as limited 

transportation options, limited 

extracurricular programming, and 

limited community-based educational 

resources in promoting parent and 

community involvement in education. 

One commenter recommended adding 

an absolute priority that would require 

all projects to promote diverse student 

populations in schools with respect to 

demographic factors such as race, 

ethnicity, and parent socioeconomic 

status and educational attainment. A 

few commenters recommended adding 

an absolute priority for innovative 

reforms to reduce racial and economic 

segregation and isolation and to assess 

the potential effects of a proposed 

project on the racial and economic 

segregation and isolation of students. 

One commenter suggested that the 

Department emphasize increasing the 

economic and racial diversity of 

institutions of higher education. 

A number of commenters 

recommended that the Department add 

an absolute or competitive preference 

priority for innovative projects that 

engage communities in education 

reform, including increasing the 

representation of community 

stakeholders in reform-oriented policyand decision-making. 

Discussion: While we recognize the 

importance of the issues and topics 

mentioned by the commenters, we 

decline to include additional priorities 

or revise the proposed priorities for this 

program as the commenters recommend. 

As stated elsewhere in this notice, the 

Department is using the Investing in 

Innovation Fund to support the 

overarching ARRA goal of improving 

student achievement and attainment. 

All applications for Investing in 

Innovation Fund grants will be assessed 

in part on the extent to which the 

proposed projects will have an impact 

on student achievement and attainment 

outcomes including the following: 

Improving student achievement or 

growth, closing achievement gaps, 

decreasing dropout rates, increasing 

high school graduation rates, and 

increasing college enrollment and 

completion rates. However, in providing 

evidence of the effects of their proposed 

projects, eligible applicants may also 

utilize intermediate variables that are 

strongly correlated with improving 

those outcomes (see Selection Criteria). 

These intermediate variables may 

include variables on the issues and 

topics mentioned by the commenters. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: A few commenters 

recommended that the Department 

include a competitive preference 

priority related to data collection and 

evaluation of project outcomes. One 

commenter recommended adding a 

competitive preference priority for 

eligible applicants that use systems for 

collecting project data that produce 

high-quality, reliable, and comparable 

data in order to ensure that funded 

projects can be properly evaluated. 

Another commenter recommended 

requiring systems for collecting project 

data to be created or utilized to support 

the innovation pursued under the 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
12012 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

priority. One commenter recommended 

adding a competitive preference priority 

for consortia applicants that 

demonstrate the capacity to collect and 

analyze consortium-level project data 

(as opposed to State-level data). Another 

commenter recommended that the 

Department add a competitive 

preference priority for applicants that 

propose innovative designs for 

evaluating project implementation and 

for disseminating project results and 

best practices. 

Discussion: Under the requirements 

for this program, any eligible applicant 

receiving funds must conduct an 

independent evaluation of its proposed 

project and comply with the 

requirements of any evaluation of the 

program conducted by the Department 

(see Evaluation requirement). Further, 

all applications will be judged in part 

on the quality of the eligible applicant’s 

plan to evaluate its proposed project 

(see Selection Criterion D (Quality of the 

Project Evaluation)). Therefore, it is 

unnecessary to include a competitive 

preference priority focused on data 

collection and project evaluation as 

suggested by the commenters. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that the Department add 

a competitive preference priority for an 

applicant that provides confirmation in 

its application that it has secured 

matching funds from the private sector 

or philanthropic community. 

Discussion: To be eligible for an 

award under this program, an eligible 

applicant must demonstrate that it has 

established one or more partnerships 

with an entity or organization in the 

private sector, which may include 

philanthropic organizations, and that 

the entity or organization in the private 

sector will provide matching funds in 

order to help bring project results to 

scale. Further, the Cost Sharing or 

Matching requirement for this program 

specifies that an eligible applicant must 

obtain matching funds or in-kind 

donations from the private sector equal 

to at least 20 percent of its grant award. 

Because these requirements apply to all 

applicants, it would serve no purpose to 

give competitive preference to eligible 

applicants that confirm receipt of 

matching funds in their applications. 

Therefore, we decline to make the 

change requested by the commenter. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: A few commenters 

recommended that the Department add 

a competitive preference priority for 

eligible applicants that propose projects 

that are based on well-conducted 

experimental studies or that have 

demonstrated records of success in 

implementing or scaling up researchbased projects. Another commenter 

recommended that the Department 

investigate whether society believes it is 

morally imperative that educational 

practices be based on rigorous research. 

Discussion: All applications will be 

judged in part on the strength of the 

research in support of the proposed 

project and on the experience of the 

applicant (see Selection Criterion B 

(Strength of Research, Significance of 

Effect, and Magnitude of Effect) and 

Selection Criterion C (Experience of the 

Eligible Applicant)). Therefore, we do 

not believe it is necessary to add the 

competitive preference priority 

recommended by the commenter. 

With regard to the recommendation 

that the Department investigate whether 

society believes it is morally imperative 

that educational practices be based on 

rigorous research, this is not the 

purpose of the Investing in Innovation 

Fund. Therefore, we decline to follow 

the commenter’s recommendation. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that the Department add 

a competitive preference priority for 

projects that would be implemented 

throughout a city or urban area. 

Discussion: We decline to add the 

competitive preference priority 

suggested by the commenter because all 

applications will be evaluated in part 

based on the eligible applicant’s strategy 

and capacity to bring the proposed 

project to scale (see Selection Criterion 

E (Strategy and Capacity To Bring to 

Scale) (in the case of Scale-up and 

Validation grants); Strategy and 

Capacity to Further Develop and Bring 

to Scale (in the case of Development 

grants)). As noted elsewhere in this 

notice, the extent to which an eligible 

applicant will bring its proposed project 

to scale will vary with the type of grant 

for which the eligible applicant applies 

(i.e., Development, Validation, or Scaleup grant). 

Changes: None. 

Comment: We received the following 

other recommendations for additional 

competitive priorities. A few 

commenters recommended that the 

Department add a competitive 

preference priority for projects that are 

designed to reduce resource inequities 

between LEAs. Other commenters 

recommended adding a competitive 

preference priority for technology-based 

projects or projects that increase the 

integration of technology into the 

classroom. Another commenter 

recommended that the Department add 

a competitive preference priority for 

projects that focus on performancebased systems that use competencybased instruction. 

One commenter recommended adding 

a competitive preference priority for 

projects that propose to utilize effective 

education models from other countries 

including countries that excel on 

international assessments of educational 

achievement, such as the Program for 

International Student Assessment 

(PISA). Another commenter 

recommended revising the proposed 

priorities to emphasize the creation of 

‘‘vertically integrated systemic 

innovation zones.’’ One commenter 

recommended that the Department add 

an invitational priority for innovations 

in the development, use, and 

dissemination of open educational 

resources; the commenter asserted that 

using these resources is a cost-effective 

and sustainable strategy to scale up 

successful innovations. 

Discussion: Similar to the approach 

we have taken with the absolute 

priorities, we decline to add more 

competitive preference priorities in 

order to maintain focus on the other 

major priorities of the Department that 

are reflected in the competitive 

preference priorities. Accordingly, we 

decline to include additional absolute or 

competitive preference priorities or an 

invitational priority, as recommended 

by the commenters. 

Changes: None. 

Absolute Priority 1—Innovations That 

Support Effective Teachers and 

Principals (Proposed Absolute Priority 

1—Innovations That Support Effective 

Teachers and School Leaders) 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that the Department 

revise this absolute priority to include 

support for related services 

professionals, including school 

psychologists, school social workers, 

counselors, and speech-language 

pathologists, in order to reflect the 

contributions of these professionals to 

student learning. 

Discussion: We decline to expand 

Absolute Priority 1 in this manner. 

While we appreciate the important role 

that such professionals play in 

supporting student achievement and 

attainment, we believe that the focus of 

the priority should be on increasing the 

number and percentages of highly 

effective teachers and principals (and 

reducing the number and percentages of 

ineffective teachers and principals) as 

teachers and principals are the 

individuals directly responsible for 

academic instruction. To clarify our 

intent, we are changing the term ‘‘school 

leader’’ to ‘‘principal’’ in this priority 

and elsewhere in the priorities, 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 12013 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria for this program. 

We note that an applicant would not 

be prohibited from proposing under this 

priority an innovative strategy, practice, 

or program that includes support for 

related services professionals to the 

extent that this support is intended to 

increase the number or percentages of 

highly effective teachers and principals 

(or reduce the number or percentages of 

ineffective teachers and principals). 

Changes: As noted earlier, we are 

changing the term ‘‘school leader’’ to 

‘‘principal’’ in the final priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria for this program and using the 

latter term in our response to comments. 

However, we are retaining references to 

‘‘school leader’’ that commenters made 

in their statements. 

Comment: A number of commenters 

recommended that the Department 

clarify whether projects under this 

priority must increase the number of 

both highly effective teachers and 

highly effective school leaders. 

Discussion: It was not our intent to 

require projects under this priority to 

increase the number or percentages of 

highly effective teachers and highly 

effective principals (or reduce the 

number or percentages of ineffective 

teachers and ineffective principals). 

Therefore, we are changing the priority 

to make this clear. 

Changes: We are changing Absolute 

Priority 1 to clarify that, under this 

priority, the Department provides 

funding to support practices, strategies, 

or programs that increase the number or 

percentages of highly effective teachers 

or principals (or reduce the number or 

percentages of ineffective teachers or 

principals) by identifying, recruiting, 

developing, placing, rewarding, and 

retaining highly effective teachers or 

principals (or removing ineffective 

teachers or principals). 

Comment: A number of commenters 

expressed support for this absolute 

priority. One commenter, however, 

expressed concern that the priority does 

not address the need to ensure that lowincome and minority children are not 

taught at higher rates than other 

children by inexperienced, unqualified, 

or out-of-field teachers, as provided in 

the ARRA. Another commenter stated 

that the Department’s citations to 

research on teacher effectiveness ignore 

a body of research that shows that some 

teacher ‘‘inputs’’ (such as teacher 

qualifications) have an impact on 

student achievement. 

Discussion: Absolute Priority 1 

focuses on practices, strategies, or 

programs that increase the number or 

percentages of highly effective teachers 

or principals (or reduce the number or 

percentages of ineffective teachers or 

principals), especially for high-need 

students. We chose to focus this priority 

on teacher and principal effectiveness 

rather than on teacher qualifications. 

Historically, in assessing the quality of 

our nation’s teachers, the Department 

has focused, through ‘‘highly qualified 

teacher’’ measures, on teacher 

qualifications (e.g., years of experience, 

types and numbers of certifications) to 

the exclusion of other factors. By 

including considerations of teacher 

effectiveness in the ARRA assurance in 

this reform area, we believe the 

Congress has signaled that this focus is 

unnecessarily narrow and that other 

measures of teacher quality are 

needed—and, in particular, measures 

that are associated more closely with the 

outcomes of teaching and learning than 

with ‘‘inputs’’ such as qualifications. We 

intend to promote those measures with 

this priority and believe that focusing 

the priority on increasing the number or 

percentages of highly effective teachers 

or principals (or reducing the number or 

percentages of ineffective teachers or 

principals) is consistent with the ARRA 

in this regard. Furthermore, we believe 

that this focus will help ensure that 

there is an equitable distribution of 

highly effective teachers and principals 

across LEAs and schools. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that the Department 

revise the priority to state that teacher 

and school leader evaluation systems 

should be objective, transparent, and 

fair, rather than rigorous, transparent, 

and fair. 

Discussion: We believe that 

evaluation systems that are rigorous 

would necessarily be objective. Further, 

we believe that it is important that such 

systems be held to high standards of 

design, which is best captured by the 

term ‘‘rigorous.’’ In addition, we use 

‘‘rigorous, transparent, and fair’’ to 

ensure consistency in the use of terms 

across programs supported with ARRA 

funds. Therefore, we decline to make 

the change suggested by the commenter. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Several commenters 

recommended that the Department 

eliminate the requirement for teacher 

and school leader evaluation systems to 

include student growth as a significant 

factor. One of these commenters stated 

that there is nothing in the ARRA that 

refers to or encourages the use of 

student growth data in teacher and 

school leader evaluation systems. 

Several commenters also stated that 

there are limitations and methodological 

difficulties in accurately and fairly 

isolating individual teacher effects on 

student achievement. Another 

commenter stated that impacts on 

student performance or growth should 

be estimated only at the school level 

because schools are professional 

communities in which teachers and 

school leaders contribute collectively to 

student achievement. 

Discussion: Under this priority, we 

encourage projects that propose 

methods of determining teacher and 

principal effectiveness that use an 

evaluation system that is rigorous, 

transparent, and fair; that differentiate 

performance using multiple rating 

categories of effectiveness and multiple 

measures of effectiveness, with data on 

student growth as a significant factor; 

and that are designed and developed 

with teacher and principal involvement. 

Although there is nothing in the ARRA 

that refers to using student growth data 

in teacher and principal evaluation 

systems, we believe this priority is 

consistent with the ARRA assurance in 

this reform area. 

With regard to the commenters’ 

concerns about estimating individual 

teacher impact on student achievement, 

we recognize that the methods for 

providing these estimates may need 

further study or development. While 

this priority supports projects that 

determine teacher effectiveness using 

student growth as a significant factor, 

nothing in this priority requires that 

projects use estimates of individual 

teacher impact on student achievement 

to meet the priority or that impacts on 

student performance or growth be 

estimated only at the school level. We 

believe that such decisions are best left 

to applicants given the specific settings 

in which they plan to conduct their 

proposed projects. For these reasons, we 

have concluded that the changes 

suggested by the commenters should not 

be adopted. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: A number of commenters 

recommended that the teacher and 

school leader evaluation systems used 

by grantees under this priority 

incorporate multiple measures of 

effectiveness including measures related 

to the following: teacher practice; 

student outcomes such as results of 

written work, portfolios, and group and 

individual performances and 

presentations; other student factors such 

as engagement, socioeconomic status, 

and mobility; factors such as school 

safety, climate, and resources; and 

parent engagement in student learning. 

Some of these commenters stated that 

data on student growth should not be 

the sole criterion used to evaluate 

teacher and school leader performance. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
12014 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

Discussion: We did not intend for 

student growth to be the sole factor in 

determining teacher or principal 

effectiveness; rather, the intent was for 

student growth to be a significant, but 

not the only, factor. As reflected in the 

statement of the priority, an eligible 

applicant should use multiple measures 

in evaluating teacher and school leader 

performance, and may use measures 

such as those recommended by the 

commenters, provided that student 

growth data are used as a significant 

factor. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Two commenters agreed 

that the measures for determining 

effectiveness in teacher and school 

leader evaluation systems should be 

designed and developed with teacher 

involvement. One commenter, however, 

recommended revising the priority to 

require measures used in these systems 

to be designed and developed with the 

involvement of school leaders and 

unions, in addition to teachers. Several 

other commenters recommended that 

we revise the priority to require that 

parents and other members of the 

community be involved in the design 

and development of these measures. 

Discussion: We agree that teachers 

and principals should be involved in 

designing and developing measures of 

teacher and principal effectiveness and 

are revising the priority accordingly. 

With regard to the involvement of other 

stakeholders mentioned by the 

commenters, we believe that this is a 

decision that is best left to local 

officials. 

Changes: We are revising this priority 

to include a statement that, in addition 

to teachers, measures of effectiveness 

should be designed and developed with 

principal involvement. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended revising the priority to 

directly support projects that improve 

the systems used to evaluate the 

performance of teachers and school 

leaders. 

Discussion: The Department intends 

for Absolute Priority 1 to focus on 

innovative practices, strategies, or 

programs that increase the number or 

percentages of highly effective teachers 

or principals (or reduce the number or 

percentages of ineffective teachers or 

principals), especially for high-need 

students and that will have an impact 

on improving student achievement and 

attainment. While the priority addresses 

aspects of the teacher and principal 

evaluation systems that projects should 

use in furtherance of these goals, the 

Department does not intend for this 

priority to support the development or 

improvement of these systems exclusive 

of those goals. Therefore, we decline to 

change the priority in the manner 

suggested by the commenter. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that the Department 

eliminate, as a goal under this priority, 

reductions in the number and 

percentage of ineffective teachers and 

school leaders. The commenter stated 

that the only goal that is necessary 

under this priority is increasing the 

number and percentage of effective 

teachers and school leaders. 

Discussion: We believe that it is 

important to remove ineffective teachers 

from classrooms in addition to 

increasing the number of effective 

teachers in classrooms. We also have 

concluded that the same is true for 

principals. Therefore, we decline to 

make the change recommended by the 

commenter. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that the Department 

revise the priority to include support for 

innovations that improve conditions for 

teaching and learning, such as physical 

working conditions, administrative 

supports provided, and availability of 

resources, because these conditions 

influence a teacher’s ability to be 

effective. Two commenters suggested 

revising the priority to include support 

for programs that enable school leaders 

to provide more effective assistance to 

teachers by improving school 

organizational structures. 

Discussion: Nothing would preclude 

an applicant from proposing the 

initiatives mentioned by the 

commenters under this priority so long 

as the proposed project increases the 

number or percentages of highly 

effective teachers or principals (or 

reduces the number or percentages of 

ineffective teachers or principals), 

especially for high-need students, by 

identifying, recruiting, developing, 

placing, rewarding, and retaining highly 

effective teachers or principals (or 

removing ineffective teachers or 

principals). However, we do not believe 

it is necessary or advisable to change the 

priority to refer specifically to 

innovations that improve conditions for 

teaching and learning. We cannot 

include in the priority all the possible 

practices, strategies, or programs that 

could potentially support effective 

teachers and principals, nor do we want 

to restrict or constrain the innovative 

practices, strategies, and programs that 

this priority would support. Therefore, 

we decline to change the priority in the 

manner suggested by the commenters. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: We received a number of 

comments recommending that the 

Department revise this absolute priority 

to focus on improving the effectiveness 

of specific groups of teachers and school 

leaders in specific settings. One 

commenter recommended changing the 

priority to focus on improving the 

effectiveness of teachers who teach 

high-need students in low-performing 

schools. Another commenter 

recommended that the priority focus on 

improving the effectiveness of teachers 

in schools serving Native American 

students. One commenter stated that the 

priority should be revised to increase 

the ability of teachers to effectively 

teach students in racially and 

economically diverse schools. Several 

commenters recommended focusing the 

priority on projects that improve the 

effectiveness of teachers and leaders in 

early childhood and pre-kindergarten 

programs and one commenter 

recommended revising the priority to 

include programs that assist school 

leaders in integrating pre-kindergarten 

programs into their schools and LEAs. 

Discussion: Under the requirements 

for this program, projects must serve 

high-need students (as defined in this 

notice). Further, this priority supports 

projects that increase the number or 

percentages of highly effective teachers 

or principals (or reduce the number or 

percentages of ineffective teachers or 

principals), especially for teachers of 

high-need students. Provided that 

proposed projects serve high-need 

students, there is flexibility in 

determining the groups of teachers and 

principals to be served in projects under 

this priority. Accordingly, we do not 

believe it is necessary to change the 

priority to focus on specific groups of 

teachers and principals in specific 

settings. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: A few commenters stated 

that the Department should revise the 

priority to focus on instructional 

effectiveness rather than educator 

effectiveness and include alternative 

instructional programs such as online 

learning and personalized digital 

content. The commenters asserted that 

alternative instructional programs are 

needed to improve instruction in certain 

subjects, such as STEM subjects. 

Discussion: Teachers and principals 

play a critical role in improving student 

achievement and attainment outcomes. 

As stated in the NPP, research indicates 

that teacher quality is a critical 

contributor to student learning. Further, 

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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 12015 

schools with strong principals. In light 

of these findings, we do not believe that 

this absolute priority should be 

expanded to include a focus on 

improving instructional effectiveness 

exclusive of increasing the number or 

percentages of highly effective teachers 

or principals (or reducing the number or 

percentages of ineffective teachers or 

principals). Therefore, we decline to 

change the priority in the manner 

recommended by the commenters. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: We received a number of 

comments recommending that we revise 

this absolute priority to focus on teacher 

preparation and professional 

development programs. One commenter 

recommended that the Department 

revise the priority to include support for 

efforts by States to expand teacher 

preparation programs that produce 

effective teachers and to provide 

financial incentives such as loan 

forgiveness to recruit and retain 

effective teachers. Several commenters 

recommended that the priority support 

teacher residency programs, 

instructional coaching, and 

‘‘communities of practice’’ for planning 

and sharing resources, practices, and 

expertise with other educators. One 

commenter recommended including a 

focus on initiatives that support 

teachers’ efforts to help students make 

connections between academic work 

and college and career goals. Another 

commenter recommended supporting 

projects to train school leaders on 

evaluating teacher effectiveness. 

Discussion: The purpose of the 

Investing in Innovation Fund is not to 

support States to expand teacher 

preparation programs or to support 

specific types of teacher or principal 

training (e.g., teacher residency 

programs, instructional coaching). 

Rather, the purpose is to support 

projects at the local level that propose 

to expand the implementation of, and 

investment in, innovative practices, 

strategies, or programs that increase the 

number or percentages of highly 

effective teachers or principals (or 

reduce the number or percentages of 

ineffective teachers or principals) and 

that will have an impact on improving 

student achievement or student growth, 

closing achievement gaps, decreasing 

dropout rates, increasing high school 

graduation rates, or increasing college 

enrollment or completion rates for highneed students. We believe the absolute 

priority reflects this purpose and, 

therefore, decline to change the priority 

in the manner recommended by the 

commenters. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that the Department 

revise the priority to include support for 

research on teacher effectiveness and for 

disseminating the results of that 

research to LEAs and schools. 

Discussion: One of the purposes of the 

Investing in Innovation Fund is to 

identify and document best practices 

that can be shared and taken to scale 

based on demonstrated success. 

Research unrelated to this purpose 

would not be supported under this 

priority. 

We note that under this priority, 

projects that increase the number or 

percentages of highly effective teachers 

or principals (or reduce the number or 

percentages of ineffective teachers or 

principals) will be evaluated based on 

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, 

increasing high school graduation rates, 

or increasing college enrollment and 

completion rates (see Selection Criterion 

B). In addition, proposed Scale-up and 

Validation projects will be evaluated 

based on the quality of their evaluation 

plan and the extent to which methods 

of evaluation include a well-designed 

experimental or quasi-experimental 

study (see Selection Criterion D). With 

regard to the recommendation that the 

priority include support for 

disseminating the results of research 

findings, we note that eligible 

applicants must conduct an 

independent evaluation of their project 

and make broadly available the results 

of such evaluations (see Evaluation 

requirement). 

Changes: None. 

Highly Effective School Leader 

Comment: A few commenters 

recommended that the Department 

clarify the types of individuals who 

would be considered a school leader 

under the definition of the term highly 

effective school leader used in Absolute 

Priority 1. Four commenters 

recommended that the term ‘‘school 

leader’’ include parents and students in 

addition to principals. One commenter 

recommended that the term include 

professional staff, such as media and 

information specialists, instructional 

coaches, school counselors, school 

psychologists, school social workers, 

and others who may not be directly 

involved in classroom instruction but 

nonetheless are crucial to student 

academic success. 

Another commenter expressed 

concern that the terms highly effective 

school leader and highly effective 

teacher imply that the two categories are 

mutually exclusive. The commenter 

recommended revising the definitions to 

clarify that these two terms are not 

mutually exclusive. 

Discussion: As discussed earlier, the 

Department appreciates the important 

role that individuals other than 

principals play in providing leadership 

in our Nation’s schools. However, for 

purposes of this program, we intend to 

focus on the effectiveness of principals, 

in particular, because they have the 

ultimate responsibility for the academic 

achievement of the students in their 

schools. For this reason and to ensure 

consistency in the use of terms across 

programs supported with ARRA funds, 

we are changing the defined term highly 

effective school leader to highly effective 

principal and removing references to the 

term ‘‘school leader’’ from the definition. 

With this change, the terms highly 

effective principal and highly effective 

teacher are mutually exclusive and we 

intend them to be so. 

Changes: We are changing the defined 

term highly effective school leader to 

highly effective principal and removing 

the references to the term ‘‘school 

leader’’ from the definition of this term. 

Comment: We received a number of 

comments on the proposed definition of 

the term highly effective school leader 

with respect to the measures used to 

determine whether a school leader is 

effective. Several commenters expressed 

concern that the proposed definition of 

highly effective school leader requires 

that, to be considered highly effective, a 

school leader must demonstrate that his 

or her students have achieved high rates 

of student growth (e.g., more than one 

grade level in an academic year). Two 

commenters expressed concern that this 

proposed definition appears to be based 

solely on the ability to demonstrate high 

annual rates of student growth and is 

thus too narrow and restrictive to 

properly identify effective school 

leaders. These commenters 

recommended that student growth 

should not be the sole criterion for 

determining school leader effectiveness, 

and that the definition of highly 

effective school leader should factor in 

other aspects of the teaching and 

learning environment, including 

broader measures such as the use of 

instructional methodologies and 

adaptive technologies. 

One commenter expressed 

appreciation that the proposed 

definition permits the use of additional 

measures of school leader effectiveness, 

but was concerned that the definition 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
12016 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

fails to require the use of other measures 

of effectiveness not based on student 

assessments. This commenter asserted 

that there are limitations in measuring 

school leader effectiveness using current 

student assessment instruments and 

recommended that the Department 

revise the definition to include school 

leaders who have demonstrated superior 

ability to improve student learning 

(including but not limited to student 

growth based on assessment results) and 

who have excelled at all other essential 

aspects of their profession. Another 

commenter recommended that several 

additional measures be included in the 

definition of highly effective school 

leader, including measures related to 

leadership, vision, management, 

learners and learning, instruction, 

ethics, equity, and advocacy. Another 

commenter recommended changing the 

measures of effectiveness in the 

definition to include high rates of 

student growth, evidence of teacher 

improvement in knowledge and 

practice, and the use of researchsupported ongoing long-term 

professional development; the 

commenter argued that this change is 

needed to ensure that the definition 

does not benefit wealthier LEAs to the 

detriment of poorer LEAs, which often 

have more difficulty in showing student 

growth. 

Discussion: The Department believes 

that student growth must be a 

significant factor in identifying highly 

effective principals. (As noted in the 

previous discussion, the Department is 

changing the defined term highly 

effective school leader to highly effective 

principal.) We agree with the 

commenters that data on student growth 

should not be used as the sole means of 

identifying highly effective principals 

and that eligible applicants should 

supplement student growth data with 

other effectiveness measures. While we 

cannot include in the definition of 

highly effective principals all of the 

measures recommended by the 

commenters, we believe it is important 

to include several examples for 

illustrative purposes and are adding as 

examples the following measures: High 

school graduation rates and college 

enrollment rates, evidence of providing 

supportive teaching and learning 

conditions, support for ensuring 

effective instruction across subject areas 

for a well-rounded education, strong 

instructional leadership, and positive 

family and community engagement; or 

evidence of attracting, developing, and 

retaining high numbers of effective 

teachers. However, we do not believe it 

is necessary to require the use of 

supplemental measures in identifying 

highly effective principals in projects 

funded in this program. 

We note that the definition of highly 

effective principal in this program is 

similar to the definition of this term in 

the Department’s Race to the Top Fund 

program. However, because in this 

program the definition does not require 

the use of multiple measures to identify 

highly effective principals, the 

definitions are not identical. We believe 

that the difference between these 

definitions is warranted because the 

eligible applicants for these programs 

differ. Given the diverse pool of eligible 

applicants and the variety of projects 

that may be supported under this 

program, we believe that an eligible 

applicant should have the flexibility 

necessary to present a model for 

identifying highly effective principals 

that is appropriate for its proposed 

project and not be required to use 

multiple measures that may not be 

related to its project. Although eligible 

applicants may use multiple measures 

and we encourage them to do so if 

appropriate for their proposed projects, 

under this program an eligible applicant 

is only required to use student growth 

data. 

Changes: As noted in the previous 

discussion, we are changing the defined 

term highly effective school leader to 

highly effective principal. We are 

revising the definition to read as 

follows: Highly effective principal 

means a principal whose students, 

overall and for each subgroup as 

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

of the ESEA (i.e., economically 

disadvantaged students, students from 

major racial and ethnic groups, migrant 

students, students with disabilities, 

students with limited English 

proficiency, student gender), achieve 

high rates (e.g., one and one-half grade 

levels in an academic year) of student 

growth. Eligible applicants may include 

multiple measures, provided that 

principal effectiveness is evaluated, in 

significant part, by student growth. 

Supplemental measures may include, 

for example, high school graduation 

rates; college enrollment rates; evidence 

of providing supportive teaching and 

learning conditions, support for 

ensuring effective instruction across 

subject areas for a well-rounded 

education, strong instructional 

leadership, and positive family and 

community engagement; or evidence of 

attracting, developing, and retaining 

high numbers of effective teachers. 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

concern that the definition of highly 

effective school leader applies only to 

leaders of elementary schools and may 

be problematic for the secondary school 

level. One commenter recommended 

that the Department allow eligible 

applicants to use an increase in 

graduation rates as a measure of student 

growth for high schools in tandem with 

student growth on required State 

assessments. This commenter also 

recommended that the Department 

require eligible applicants to propose 

how they would measure student 

growth for untested grades and subjects, 

particularly in high schools. 

Discussion: As noted in the previous 

discussion, we are revising the 

definition of highly effective principal 

(proposed as highly effective school 

leader) to clarify that eligible applicants 

may include multiple measures, 

provided that principal effectiveness is 

evaluated, in significant part, by student 

growth. Specifically, we believe the 

addition of high school graduation rates 

and college enrollment rates as 

examples of supplemental measures 

makes clear that this definition covers 

principals in high schools. 

Regarding the recommendation that 

eligible applicants be required to 

propose how they would measure 

student growth for untested grades and 

subjects, we believe that eligible 

applicants should have the flexibility to 

determine the measure(s) of student 

achievement (on which determinations 

of student growth are based, consistent 

with the definition of student growth 

used in this program) that are most 

appropriate for their proposed projects. 

We do not believe it is necessary to 

require eligible applicants to propose 

the measures they would use for 

untested grades and subjects for review 

and approval by the Department. 

Changes: In the list of examples of 

supplemental measures for determining 

principal effectiveness that we are 

adding to the definition of highly 

effective principal, we are including 

high school graduation rates and college 

enrollment rates. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that the Department 

clarify whether, to meet the definition of 

highly effective school leader, each of 

the school leader’s students must 

individually demonstrate a high rate of 

student growth. 

Discussion: The definition of highly 

effective principal (proposed as highly 

effective school leader) requires that, to 

be considered highly effective, the 

principal’s students must demonstrate 

high rates of student growth overall and 

for each subgroup described in section 

1111(b)(3)(c)(xiii) of the ESEA. Thus, 

under this definition, effectiveness is 

determined (in significant part) using 

aggregate rates of student growth. There 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 12017 

is no requirement that each student in 

the principal’s school demonstrate a 

high rate of student growth 

individually. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that the Department 

change the definition of highly effective 

school leader so that a school leader is 

considered to be highly effective if his 

or her students achieve high rates of 

student growth overall and for one or 

more of the subgroups described in 

section 1111(b)(3)(C)(xiii) of the ESEA 

(i.e., economically disadvantaged 

students, students from major racial and 

ethnic groups, migrant students, 

students with disabilities, students with 

limited English proficiency, and student 

gender), rather than for each of these 

subgroups. The commenter argued that 

this change is needed to ensure that the 

definition does not favor principals in 

schools in wealthier LEAs to the 

detriment of those in poorer LEAs, 

which typically have higher 

concentrations of students in these 

subgroups and often have more 

difficulty in showing student growth. 

Discussion: We believe that in order 

for a principal to be considered highly 

effective, that principal’s students 

should achieve high rates of student 

growth for each student subgroup 

represented in the school. As this 

program is designed to support, in 

general, projects that improve student 

academic achievement and attainment 

and, under Absolute Priority 1 in 

particular, projects that increase the 

number or percentage of highly effective 

principals or reduce the number or 

percentage of ineffective principals, we 

believe that projects supported under 

this program will help address the issue 

raised by the commenter regarding 

student performance in poorer LEAs. 

Changes: None. 

Highly Effective Teacher 

Comment: Two commenters suggested 

that, in Absolute Priority 1, the 

Department change the defined term 

highly effective teacher to ‘‘highly 

qualified teacher.’’ 

Discussion: The term ‘‘highly 

qualified teacher’’ has a specific 

meaning under the ESEA and is focused 

primarily on the qualifications of 

teachers. In this program (as in other 

programs supported with ARRA funds), 

we intend to focus instead on outcomes 

of teaching and the impact of teachers 

on the academic achievement and 

growth of their students. The definition 

of highly effective teacher is consistent 

with that focus and, for that reason, we 

do not believe the change recommended 

by the commenter is warranted. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: We received a number of 

comments on the proposed definition of 

the term highly effective teacher with 

respect to the measures used to 

determine whether a teacher is highly 

effective. A number of commenters 

expressed concern about using student 

growth as the measure to determine 

whether a teacher is highly effective 

under this definition. Specifically, 

several commenters expressed concern 

about the definition’s reliance on 

student assessment results and 

recommended that growth in student 

achievement on assessments be only 

one factor in determining whether a 

teacher is highly effective. Other 

commenters recommended that the 

provision on students achieving high 

rates of growth be removed from the 

definition because it places too much 

emphasis on State assessments. These 

commenters recommended revising the 

definition to encourage or require 

eligible applicants to use multiple 

effectiveness measures. The measures 

mentioned by commenters include the 

following: Student-based measures such 

as local assessments, classroom 

assessments, portfolio assessments, 

progress monitoring, and nonacademic 

forms of evaluation (such as evaluations 

of student engagement); and teacherbased measures such as assessments of 

teacher subject knowledge and skills 

(including standards-based teacher 

evaluations), assessments of teaching 

practice and performance (including 

assessments of teacher planning and 

preparation), assessments of teacher 

reflectiveness, participation in learning 

communities, and training in helping 

students make connections between 

their performance in school and their 

goals for college and careers. 

Discussion: The Department believes 

that student growth must be a 

significant factor in identifying highly 

effective teachers. As noted in our 

discussion of commenters’ concerns that 

student growth data should not be used 

as the sole means to identify highly 

effective principals, we agree with the 

commenters that data on student growth 

should not be used as the sole means of 

identifying highly effective teachers and 

that eligible applicants should 

supplement student growth data with 

other effectiveness measures. While we 

cannot include in the definition of 

highly effective teacher all of the 

measures recommended by the 

commenters, we believe it is important 

to include several examples for 

illustrative purposes and are adding as 

examples the following measures: 

Multiple observation-based assessments 

of teacher performance or evidence of 

leadership roles (which may include 

mentoring or leading professional 

learning communities) that increase the 

effectiveness of other teachers in the 

school or LEA. However, we do not 

believe it is necessary to require the use 

of supplemental measures in identifying 

highly effective teachers in projects 

funded under this program. 

We note that the definition of highly 

effective teacher in this program is 

similar to the definition of this term in 

the Department’s Race to the Top Fund 

program. However, because in this 

program the definition does not require 

the use of multiple measures to identify 

highly effective teachers, the definitions 

are not identical. We believe that the 

difference between these definitions is 

warranted because the eligible 

applicants for these programs differ. 

Given the diverse pool of eligible 

applicants and the variety of projects 

that may be supported under this 

program, we believe that an eligible 

applicant should have the flexibility 

necessary to present a model for 

identifying highly effective teachers that 

is appropriate for its proposed project 

and not be required to use multiple 

measures that may not be related to its 

project. Although eligible applicants 

may use multiple measures and we 

encourage them to do so if appropriate 

for their proposed projects, under this 

program an eligible applicant is only 

required to use student growth data. 

Changes: We are revising the 

definition of highly effective teacher to 

read as follows: Highly effective teacher 

means a teacher whose students achieve 

high rates (e.g., one and one-half grade 

levels in an academic year) of student 

growth. Eligible applicants may include 

multiple measures, provided that 

teacher effectiveness is evaluated, in 

significant part, by student growth. 

Supplemental measures may include, 

for example, multiple observation-based 

assessments of teacher performance or 

evidence of leadership roles (which may 

include mentoring or leading 

professional learning communities) that 

increase the effectiveness of other 

teachers in the school or LEA. 

Comment: Two commenters 

expressed concern that the measures 

used to identify highly effective teachers 

may be problematic for teachers at the 

secondary school level. The commenters 

recommended that the Department 

require eligible applicants to propose 

how they would measure student 

growth for untested grades and subjects, 

particularly in high schools. 

Discussion: As noted in the previous 

discussion, we are revising the 

definition of highly effective teacher to 

clarify that eligible applicants may 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
12018 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

include multiple measures for 

determining teacher effectiveness, 

provided that teacher effectiveness is 

evaluated, in significant part, by student 

growth. Under this definition, an 

eligible applicant would be free to use 

supplemental measures that it 

determines to be appropriate for 

assessing effectiveness of teachers at the 

secondary school level. These 

supplemental measures may include 

measures such as high school 

graduation rates or college enrollment 

rates. 

As noted in our discussion of the 

commenter’s recommendation that the 

Department require eligible applicants 

to propose how they would measure 

student growth for untested grades and 

subjects with respect to the definition of 

highly effective principal, we believe 

that eligible applicants should have the 

flexibility to determine the measure(s) 

of student achievement (on which 

determinations of student growth are 

based, consistent with the definition of 

student growth used in this program) 

that are most appropriate for their 

proposed projects. We do not believe it 

is necessary to require eligible 

applicants to propose the measures they 

would use for untested grades and 

subjects for review and approval by the 

Department. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter asked the 

Department to clarify whether, to meet 

the definition of highly effective teacher, 

each of a teacher’s students must 

individually demonstrate a high rate of 

student growth. 

Discussion: To meet the definition of 

highly effective teacher, a teacher’s 

students must achieve a high rate of 

student growth in the aggregate; a 

teacher’s students need not achieve high 

rates of growth individually. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

concern that teachers of students with 

disabilities will face disproportionate 

difficulty in meeting the definition of 

highly effective teacher because 

students with disabilities are less likely 

to achieve high rates (e.g., more than 

one grade level in an academic year) of 

student growth. 

Discussion: We appreciate the 

commenter’s concern. We believe that 

evaluation systems should support the 

equitable evaluation of teachers who are 

providing instruction to students with 

disabilities in regular education settings 

consistent with the requirements of the 

Individuals with Disabilities Education 

Act (IDEA) to educate students with 

disabilities in the least restrictive 

environment. However, while the 

definition of highly effective teacher 

provides an example of a high rate of 

student growth (e.g., one and one-half 

grade levels in an academic year), the 

definition does not specify the rate of 

student growth that eligible applicants 

must use. Further, the definition does 

not require that the same rate of growth 

must be used for all types of teachers. 

Thus, an eligible applicant would not be 

prohibited from using a rate of student 

growth that differs from the example 

provided and may determine that 

different rates of student growth are 

appropriate for teachers of different 

types of students included in its 

proposed project. However, we urge 

eligible applicants to ensure that any 

rate used enables the eligible applicant 

to distinguish teachers who are highly 

effective from those who are not. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Three commenters sought 

clarification of the term ‘‘teacher’’ and 

requested that the Department add a 

definition of this term. In particular, two 

commenters sought clarification on 

whether ‘‘teacher’’ referred only to 

teachers in tested grades and subjects or 

to any teacher who meets the definition 

of ‘‘teacher’’ used in the State. 

Discussion: We do not believe that a 

definition of ‘‘teacher’’ is necessary 

under this program. In determining 

which teachers meet the definition of 

highly effective teacher an eligible 

applicant may consider any educational 

personnel that meet the definition of 

‘‘teacher’’ used in a State in which the 

project is being implemented, provided 

that data on student growth are 

available for those personnel. The term 

highly effective teacher is not restricted 

to teachers in the tested grades and 

subjects. 

Changes: None. 

Absolute Priority 2—Innovations That 

Improve the Use of Data 

Comment: Several commenters 

expressed support for this proposed 

absolute priority. One commenter 

expressed appreciation for the priority’s 

support for local use of data, as opposed 

to an exclusive focus on the 

development and use of data systems at 

the State level. One commenter, 

however, expressed concern that the 

priority did not reflect the ARRA 

assurance in this reform area. The 

commenter asserted that the ARRA 

assurance pertaining to data relates to 

the development and implementation of 

statewide longitudinal data systems and 

not the use of data to inform local 

decision making as described in the 

priority. 

Discussion: As noted earlier, we have 

designed the absolute priorities for this 

program to be consistent with the four 

education reform areas under the ARRA. 

Given that data from statewide 

longitudinal data systems could be used 

to inform decisions at the LEA and 

school levels, we believe that the 

proposed priority’s support for 

improvements in the local use of data is 

reasonable and consistent with the 

education reform area in the ARRA. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that the Department clarify whether the 

data to be used under this priority are 

data from a statewide longitudinal data 

system or data that is separately 

maintained at the local level. 

Discussion: We do not intend to limit 

the source of data only to a statewide 

longitudinal data system or to local data 

systems. An eligible applicant may 

propose projects under this priority that 

utilize data from either or both of these 

sources, or any other available data 

sources. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter objected to 

the Department’s inclusion, under this 

priority, of estimates of individual 

teacher impact on student achievement 

as an example of the kinds of data on 

student achievement or growth that can 

drive education reform. The commenter 

cited research pertaining to limitations 

and difficulties in producing teacher 

‘‘value-added’’ estimates. The 

commenter also asserted that estimates 

of individual teacher impact on student 

achievement are not sufficiently stable 

to determine teacher effectiveness and 

should not be used in decisions to 

recruit, retain or remove teachers. 

Discussion: We recognize that 

currently available data-driven methods 

of evaluating teacher or principal 

impact on student achievement and 

student growth data may need further 

study or development. However, 

student achievement or growth data is 

one of many measures that can drive 

education reform in general, and 

facilitate improvement in the classroom, 

in particular. For this reason, we believe 

that student data can drive instructional 

improvement decisions at both the 

individual teacher level and the district 

level. That is why we have included 

innovations under this priority that 

encourage projects that increase the 

availability of data for teachers, 

principals, families, and other 

stakeholders, and projects that develop 

strategies to use data effectively to 

improve school and classroom 

instructional practices. With respect to 

the commenter’s concern about student 

achievement data being an ‘‘unstable’’ 

measure to evaluating teacher and 

principal effectiveness, we note that as 

previously discussed under absolute 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 12019 

priority 1, we believe student 

achievement or growth data should be 

used as a significant factor, but need not 

serve as a single measure of 

effectiveness. Further, we believe this 

measure should be a component of 

teacher or principal evaluation systems 

that are rigorous, transparent, and fair; 

differentiate performance using multiple 

rating categories of effectiveness and 

multiple measures of effectiveness; and 

are designed and developed with 

teacher and principal involvement. For 

these reasons, we have concluded that 

the changes suggested by the 

commenters should not be adopted. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that the Department 

revise the priority to state that, where 

applicable, data should be disaggregated 

for Native American students. 

Discussion: The priority requires 

disaggregation of data, where 

applicable, to be consistent with section 

1111(b)(3)(C)(xiii) of the ESEA. Section 

1111(b)(3)(C)(xiii) requires the 

disaggregation of data by major racial 

and ethnic groups which may include, 

among others, American Indians, Alaska 

Natives, and Native Hawaiians. Under 

this priority, an eligible applicant 

proposing a project would be expected 

to disaggregate data for these groups of 

students, where applicable. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Several commenters 

expressed concern about protecting the 

privacy of students whose data are used 

under this priority. Two of these 

commenters noted that the requirements 

of the Family Educational Rights and 

Privacy Act (FERPA) are not discussed 

in the NPP and recommended that the 

Department provide guidance on how 

grant recipients can implement projects 

under this priority in a manner 

consistent with FERPA requirements. 

These commenters also expressed 

concerns about protecting the privacy of 

teachers and school leaders. 

Discussion: Eligible applicants must 

consider how to protect student privacy 

as data are shared. Educational agencies 

and institutions, including LEAs, 

schools, and IHEs, that receive awards 

under this program or any other 

Department of Education program, must 

comply with FERPA, 20 U.S.C. 1232g, 

and its implementing regulations in 34 

CFR Part 99, as well as any applicable 

State and local requirements. 34 CFR 

99.31 specifies the conditions under 

which an educational agency or 

institution may non-consensually 

disclose personally identifiable 

information from an education record of 

a student to a third party (i.e., a 

nonprofit organization in partnership 

with an educational institution). 

Consistent with 34 CFR 99.33, FERPA 

also applies to the non-consensual 

redisclosure of personally identifiable 

information from an education record 

by a third party. Because compliance 

with FERPA is a requirement that must 

be met by all educational agencies and 

institutions that are recipients of 

Department funds, we do not believe it 

is necessary to amend the priority as 

suggested by the commenter. In 

response to the commenter’s concern 

about ensuring teacher and school 

leader privacy, the Department agrees 

that teacher and principal privacy also 

must be protected. However, teacher 

and principal privacy is governed by 

State law. Eligible applicants that 

receive awards under this program must 

comply with any applicable State and 

local privacy requirements. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Several commenters 

recommended that the Department 

revise the priority to support projects 

pertaining to specific uses of data. For 

instance, some commenters suggested 

that we revise the priority to support 

projects that focus on professional 

development, training, or other 

technical and expert assistance for 

teachers and school leaders on the 

analysis and use of data, as well as on 

the communication of data to parents 

and the community. Another 

commenter recommended that we revise 

the priority to include a focus on 

projects that use real-time data and 

related rapid response supports for 

teachers (with respect to professional 

development) and for students (with 

respect to academic content). One 

commenter recommended that we revise 

the priority to include a focus on the 

development of data-driven 

instructional improvement systems. One 

commenter recommended that we revise 

the priority to include support for the 

collection of data in addition to the 

aggregation, analysis, and use of data. 

Two commenters recommended that we 

revise the priority to include support for 

projects that align local data systems 

with other data systems, including 

statewide longitudinal data systems, 

and ensure interoperability between 

these systems. Similarly, another 

commenter recommended that we revise 

the priority to include a focus on 

projects that link local data systems 

with data systems of other agencies and 

institutions such as workforce agencies 

and institutions of higher education. 

One commenter recommended that the 

Department revise the priority to 

include a focus on projects that 

disaggregate data through crossreferencing of multiple subgroups and 

demographic categories, rather than 

disaggregating the data only by the 

discrete subgroups listed in the priority. 

One commenter suggested that we 

revise the priority to include support for 

projects that use student achievement or 

student growth data to identify and 

support students who are ‘‘off track’’— 

presumably in reference to students that 

would qualify as ‘‘high need students’’ 

(as defined in this notice). Similarly, 

one commenter recommended that we 

revise the priority to include a focus on 

projects that use data specifically to 

inform student dropout prevention and 

recovery programs. One commenter 

recommended that we revise the 

priority to include a focus on projects 

that use student achievement or student 

growth data to improve the performance 

of persistently low-performing schools. 

One commenter recommended that the 

Department revise the priority to 

include a focus on projects that link the 

achievement or growth data for students 

of individual teachers to those teachers’ 

preparation programs so that the data 

can be used to improve those programs 

and ensure that they produce effective 

teachers. Two commenters suggested 

that we revise the priority to support 

projects that include plans for 

communicating the results of data 

analyses effectively in the community. 

Discussion: There is nothing in this 

priority that precludes an eligible 

applicant from proposing any of these 

projects under this priority, provided 

that the proposed project (1) encourages 

and facilitates the evaluation, analysis 

and use of student achievement or 

student growth data by educators, 

families or other stakeholders to inform 

decision-making, (2) improves student 

achievement or student growth, or 

teacher, principal, school, or LEA 

performance and productivity, or (3) 

enables data aggregation, analysis, and 

research, as specified in the priority. We 

made this priority broad to provide 

eligible applicants with flexibility to 

propose a variety of projects. We believe 

we have achieved this goal, as 

evidenced by the array of projects 

proposed by the commenters. For this 

reason, we conclude that it is not 

necessary to revise the priority to 

include an express focus on such 

activities. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that the Department 

revise the priority to support projects 

that use data to improve student 

attendance or behavior in addition to 

student achievement or growth. Another 

commenter recommended supporting 

projects that use data to improve school 

culture or climate. Another commenter 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
12020 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

recommended that the Department 

revise the priority to include support for 

projects that use data to improve 

families’ ability to support student 

achievement at home. 

Discussion: As noted elsewhere in 

this notice, the Department believes 

that, consistent with the ARRA, we 

must preserve improving student 

academic achievement and attainment 

as the primary goals of this program. 

Accordingly, we do not believe it is 

appropriate to revise this priority to 

include reference to improvements with 

respect to other outcome measures. We 

note, however, that in discussing the 

effects of a project proposed under this 

priority an eligible applicant may 

include discussion of the effects of the 

project on intermediate variables that 

are strongly correlated with improving 

student achievement and attainment 

outcomes. These intermediate variables 

could include variables related to the 

topics suggested by the commenters. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that the Department 

revise the priority to include 

community members among the list of 

stakeholders receiving and using 

student achievement and growth data. 

Discussion: We have intentionally not 

provided a definition of the term ‘‘other 

stakeholders’’ to provide eligible 

applicants with flexibility to determine 

which stakeholders should be targeted 

under this priority. Accordingly, it is at 

the eligible applicant’s discretion to 

determine what other stakeholders 

should have a role in their proposed 

projects. Further, we believe that 

community members are reasonably 

included amongst the other stakeholders 

to whom projects would provide data 

under this priority. Therefore, we 

decline to make the changes requested 

by the commenters. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that States be required to 

create an ‘‘Opportunity to Learn Index,’’ 

to track data about the quality of State 

and local education systems. 

Discussion: The commenter appears 

to misunderstand the purpose of the 

program, which is to expand the 

implementation of, and investment in, 

innovative practices that are 

demonstrated to have an impact on 

improving student achievement or 

student growth for high-need students. 

Because State educational agencies 

cannot apply for funding under this 

program, it would not be appropriate to 

establish such requirements for States. 

Changes: None. 

Absolute Priority 3—Innovations That 

Complement the Implementation of 

High Standards and High Quality 

Assessments 

Comment: Several commenters 

expressed support for focusing this 

priority on high standards. One of these 

commenters expressed support for 

implementing common high standards 

across LEAs and States. One commenter 

expressed support for the priority with 

respect to the promotion of contextual 

learning opportunities. One commenter 

recommended that we specify which 

entity should be responsible for 

implementing initiatives that are 

responsive to the priority, because, 

according to the commenter, the priority 

appears to refer to State activities rather 

than matters for eligible applicants. 

Similarly, two commenters implied that 

States are the only entities that could be 

assisted under this priority. One 

commenter requested that the 

Department clarify whether the priority 

requires an LEA to work with its State 

to improve the State’s systems of 

standards and assessments or develop 

and implement new systems. Another 

commenter requested that the 

Department clarify how the initiatives 

included under this priority will 

support States’ efforts to transition to 

college- and career-ready standards and 

assessments; the commenter asserted 

that the initiatives do not seem related 

to the adoption of college- and careerready standards and assessments. 

Discussion: We appreciate the 

commenters’ support for the proposed 

priority. This priority is designed to 

support local efforts that complement 

States’ development and 

implementation of college- and careerready standards and high-quality 

assessments aligned with those 

standards. This priority is not intended 

to support States’ efforts in this area 

directly or to require LEAs or other 

entities to provide direct assistance to 

States in the development and 

implementation of standards and 

assessments. Instead, this priority 

encourages projects at the LEA level that 

support and complement States’ 

transition to college and career ready 

standards and assessments, such as LEA 

activities of developing, acquiring, 

disseminating and implementing highquality curricular instructional 

materials and assessments, or delivering 

high-quality professional development 

pertaining to such standards or 

assessments. We believe this priority in 

the context of this program is 

sufficiently clear. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Another commenter 

requested that the Department clarify 

whether this priority requires LEAs to 

propose projects that are based on the 

college- and career-ready standards and 

assessments to which States are 

transitioning. The commenter also 

asserted that the priority appears to give 

an undue advantage to LEAs in States 

that have made more progress than 

other States in making this transition. 

Discussion: Under this priority, an 

eligible applicant must propose projects 

that support States’ efforts to transition 

to standards and assessments that 

measure students’ progress toward 

college- and career-readiness. We 

recognize that States’ progress in 

developing and transitioning to 

standards that measure college- and 

career-readiness varies. However, this 

variable will not impact the 

competitiveness of an eligible 

applicant’s proposed project. Under this 

priority, eligible applicants may propose 

projects that are based on standards 

other than those of their home State, so 

long as the standards they select are 

aligned with and at least as rigorous as 

their home State’s standards. For this 

reason, LEAs in States that have made 

less progress toward standards that 

measure college- and career-readiness 

are not disadvantaged by this priority. 

We note that eligible applicants who 

propose projects under this priority that 

are not based on the applicant’s State 

standards must explain how their 

proposed standards are aligned with, 

and are at least as rigorous as, their 

home State’s standards, as well as how 

these standards differ. 

Changes: We are revising the priority 

to clarify that an eligible applicant must 

propose a project that is based on 

standards that are at least as rigorous as 

its State’s standards. Further, we are 

revising the priority to clarify that if the 

proposed project is based on standards 

other than those adopted by the eligible 

applicant’s State, the applicant must 

explain how the standards are aligned 

with and at least as rigorous as the 

eligible applicant’s State’s standards as 

well as how the standards differ. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that the Department 

revise this priority to support initiatives 

that increase students’ college and 

career readiness. 

Discussion: We believe that the 

priority’s support for initiatives that 

complement States’ implementation of 

college- and career-ready standards and 

assessments aligned with those 

standards supports initiatives that 

increase students’ college- and careerreadiness. For this reason, we do not 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 12021 

believe revisions to this priority are 

necessary. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

support for the priority with respect to 

promoting the use of formative and 

interim assessments. Another 

commenter recommended that the 

Department restrict the assessments 

under this priority to formative 

assessments; the commenter asserted 

that interim assessments typically are 

repetitions of larger-scale summative 

assessments and do not provide useful 

diagnostic information to educators or 

students. 

Discussion: We made this priority 

broad to provide eligible applicants 

with flexibility to propose a variety of 

projects; we do not wish to constrain 

innovation by prohibiting specific 

activities under this priority such as 

utilizing interim assessments. We 

believe eligible applicants are in the 

best position to determine whether 

interim assessments are an appropriate 

tool under a proposed project. For this 

reason, we decline to amend the priority 

as suggested by the commenter. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Several commenters 

recommended that the Department 

revise the priority to support projects 

pertaining to specific standards- and 

assessments-based activities. For 

instance, some commenters suggested 

that we revise the priority to specify the 

types of activities that would translate 

standards and information from 

assessments into classroom practices. 

Another commenter recommended that 

we revise the priority to further 

emphasize initiatives that improve 

student engagement through real-world 

applications of learning to fully prepare 

students to compete and succeed in a 

global economy. One commenter 

suggested that we revise the priority to 

include initiatives that provide 

professional development to teachers 

regarding the use of results from 

formative assessments supported under 

the priority. Two other commenters 

recommended that we revise the 

priority to include initiatives that 

promote family understanding, and 

engagement in the implementation and 

monitoring, of education standards in 

order to ensure that such standards are 

of high quality. A few commenters 

recommended that the Department 

revise the priority to ensure that the 

initiatives pursued under this priority 

are consistent with the principles of 

universal design for learning (we 

presume this to be a reference to the 

principles of universal design for 

learning as that term is defined in 

section 103(24) of the Higher Education 

Act of 1965, as amended (HEA)). One 

commenter recommended that the 

Department revise the priority to 

encourage increased access to and use of 

open-content and web-based curricular 

materials. One commenter 

recommended that the Department 

include, among the curricular and 

instructional initiatives supported 

under this priority, initiatives regarding 

non-traditional instruction and 

relationship building in order to 

reengage disconnected students. 

Discussion: There is nothing in this 

priority that would preclude an eligible 

applicant from proposing any of the 

projects recommended by commenters, 

provided that the proposed project 

meets the requirements specified in the 

priority. We made this priority broad to 

provide eligible applicants with 

flexibility to propose a variety of 

projects. We believe we have achieved 

this goal, as evidenced by the array of 

projects proposed by the commenters. 

For this reason, we conclude that it is 

not necessary to revise the priority to 

include an express focus on such 

activities. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Two commenters 

recommended that we revise the 

priority to include support for early 

learning programs. 

Discussion: Although, to meet this 

priority, an eligible applicant must 

propose a project that is designed to 

benefit students in elementary and 

secondary schools (by implementing 

activities that support States’ efforts to 

transition to college- and career-ready 

standards and assessments), an eligible 

applicant would not be prohibited from 

proposing a project that additionally 

serves students in early learning 

programs. Indeed, this notice 

specifically contains competitive 

preference priority 5 pertaining to 

Innovations for Improving Early 

Learning Outcomes. For these reasons, 

we do not believe it is appropriate to 

revise the priority as the commenters 

suggest. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Two commenters 

expressed support for the priority’s 

focus on academically rigorous courses 

and programs; another commenter 

recommended that the Department 

maintain the list of academically 

rigorous courses and programs in the 

priority. Another commenter expressed 

support for including STEM courses in 

the priority. Two commenters, however, 

recommended that the Department 

provide an example, other than STEM 

subjects, of the core academic subjects 

for which curricular and instructional 

initiatives could be pursued under this 

priority. Another commenter 

recommended that we revise the 

priority to allow applicants to pursue 

activities in subjects that may not be 

included in common core standards 

initiatives, such as computer science; 

this commenter also recommended that 

the Department include references to 

computer science courses along with 

courses in STEM subjects. 

Discussion: We appreciate the 

commenters’ support, but do not believe 

it is necessary to include the 

commenters’ recommended revisions in 

the priority; however, we are revising 

the priority to provide further clarity 

pertaining to the definition of ‘‘core 

academic subjects.’’ This priority is 

designed to support initiatives in any or 

all core academic subjects, consistent 

with section 9101(11) of the ESEA, 

including English, reading or language 

arts, mathematics, science, foreign 

language, civics and government, 

economics, arts, history, and geography. 

Consistent with the Race to the Top 

Fund program, the Department 

interprets the core academic subject of 

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

include STEM education (science, 

technology, engineering and 

mathematics) which encompasses a 

wide-range of disciplines, including 

computer science. 

Changes: To clarify that ‘‘core 

academic subjects’’ refers to those under 

section 9101(11) of the ESEA, we are 

changing the priority to include the 

statutory reference. We are also 

including a footnote regarding the 

Department’s interpretation with respect 

to ‘‘science’’ under section 9101(11) of 

the ESEA. 

Comment: Several commenters 

suggested that we revise the priority to 

support specific curricular and 

instructional initiatives. For instance, 

one commenter recommended that we 

revise the priority to support initiatives 

only in literacy and problem solving 

skills, arguing that these two areas are 

key to improving student achievement. 

A few commenters recommended that 

we revise the priority to specifically 

support initiatives in career and 

technical education. Another 

commenter recommended that we revise 

the priority to include initiatives that 

provide experiences in diversity in the 

classroom and school that prepare 

students for racially and economically 

diverse college and work settings. Two 

commenters recommended that we 

revise the priority to include initiatives 

that support student achievement at 

home and in other learning settings in 

order to promote family and community 

engagement in education. One 

commenter recommended that the 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
12022 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

priority be revised to include initiatives 

that use technology in ways that 

encourage self-directed learning. 

Discussion: An eligible applicant 

would not be precluded from proposing 

under this priority a project that focuses 

on the subjects and areas recommended 

by the commenter so long as the project 

supports States’ efforts to transition to 

college- and career-ready standards and 

assessments, as specified in the priority. 

We do not believe it is appropriate or 

consistent with the purpose of this 

program to revise the priority to limit or 

narrow the priority to these specified 

initiatives. 

Changes: None. 

Absolute Priority 4—Innovations That 

Turn Around Persistently LowPerforming Schools 

Comment: A number of commenters 

expressed general support for this 

absolute priority. However, several 

commenters recommended that the 

Department clarify the initiatives the 

priority would support. One of these 

commenters requested clarification as to 

whether projects under this priority may 

serve certain groups of students within 

schools rather than engage in wholeschool reform. 

Discussion: The Department 

appreciates the commenters’ support for 

this proposed absolute priority. Under 

the priority, an eligible applicant may 

propose a project that serves only 

certain groups of students (provided 

those students meet the definition of 

high-need student used in this program) 

as a targeted approach to reform. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter requested 

that we define the term ‘‘comprehensive 

intervention’’ as used with respect to 

whole-school reform supported under 

this priority. 

Discussion: We agree with the 

commenter that further specificity 

regarding the comprehensive 

intervention approaches to wholeschool reform under this priority is 

warranted and are revising the priority 

to include additional examples of those 

approaches. In addition to providing 

further specificity, the revisions we are 

making are intended to ensure that 

projects supported under this priority 

can be consistent with efforts to reform 

low-performing schools under other 

programs supported with ARRA funds. 

As discussed later in this section, we 

are removing the definition of 

persistently low-performing schools and 

revising the priority to specify the 

schools for which the priority supports 

reform projects. Consistent with those 

changes, we refer to these schools as 

Investing in Innovation Fund Absolute 

Priority 4 Schools in the discussion of 

comments that follows. 

Changes: We are revising paragraph 

(a) of this priority as follows: (a) Wholeschool reform, including, but not 

limited to, comprehensive interventions 

to assist, augment, or replace Investing 

in Innovation Fund Absolute Priority 4 

schools, including the school 

turnaround, restart, closure, and 

transformation models of intervention 

supported under the Department’s 

School Improvement Grants program. 

Comment: Several commenters 

expressed support for the priority’s 

encouragement of expanded learning 

time as a targeted approach to reform 

(paragraph (b)(1) of the priority). 

However, a number of commenters 

recommended that the Department 

clarify whether out-of-school programs 

are included as targeted approaches 

under paragraph (b)(1). The commenters 

also recommended that out-of-school 

programs be required to include 

collaboration with community-based 

partners, institutions of higher 

education, and museums, and that these 

programs include project-based 

learning. 

Discussion: To the extent that an ‘‘outof-school’’ program includes programs to 

provide extended learning time either 

after school, over the weekend, or 

during the summer, these activities 

would be permissible under this priority 

as targeted approaches to reform, so 

long as the proposed project also meets 

the requirements specified in this 

priority. We made this priority broad to 

provide eligible applicants with 

flexibility to propose a variety of 

projects, and to collaborate with a wide 

range of entities that can support their 

specific projects, which could include 

those mentioned by the commenters. 

For these reasons, we conclude that it is 

not necessary to revise the priority to 

include an express focus on specific 

activities or entities. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter requested 

that the Department provide a definition 

of ‘‘core academic subjects’’ under this 

priority. 

Discussion: As noted previously, for 

purposes of this program, we are using 

the definition of ‘‘core academic subject’’ 

as set forth in section 9101(11) of the 

ESEA, and are including a reference to 

the statutory definition in paragraph (b) 

of the priority. 

Changes: We are revising the priority 

to reference section 9101(11) of the 

ESEA. 

Comment: Two commenters requested 

that the Department clarify the nonacademic barriers to student 

achievement that an applicant may 

propose to address under a targeted 

approach to reform under this priority. 

Discussion: Although we do not 

intend to unduly restrict the projects 

this priority would support by 

identifying specific barriers in the 

priority, we note that such barriers may 

relate to issues such as the following: 

truancy, unsafe school environment, 

poor school climate, lack of student 

engagement, and lack of parent and 

community involvement. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: A few commenters 

recommended that the Department 

clarify the term ‘‘transfer school’’ that is 

used in the priority as an example of a 

pathway for students to earn a regular 

high school diploma. 

Discussion: We agree with the 

commenters that the term ‘‘transfer 

schools’’ may not be commonly 

understood. Therefore, we are replacing 

the term ‘‘transfer schools’’ in the 

priority with ‘‘schools that serve the 

needs of over-aged, under-credited, or 

other students with an exceptional need 

for flexibility pertaining to when they 

attend school and what additional 

supports they require.’’ 

Changes: We are revising paragraph 

(b)(3) in this priority as follows: (3) 

Creating multiple pathways for students 

to earn regular high school diplomas 

(e.g., using schools that serve the needs 

of over-aged, under-credited, or other 

students with an exceptional need for 

flexibility pertaining to when they 

attend school and what additional 

supports they require; awarding credit 

based on demonstrated evidence of 

student competency; and offering dual 

enrollment options). 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that the Department 

revise the priority to ensure consistency 

with the priorities and requirements for 

turning around persistently lowperforming schools under the 

Department’s Race to the Top Fund and 

School Improvement Grants programs. 

Discussion: As discussed previously, 

we are revising the priority to include, 

as examples of whole-school reform, 

school turnaround, restart, closure, and 

transformation models of intervention 

supported under the Department’s 

School Improvement Grants program. 

We believe this will help ensure that 

projects supported under this priority 

are consistent with efforts to reform 

low-performing schools under other 

programs supported with ARRA funds. 

Changes: As discussed previously, we 

are revising paragraph (a) of this priority 

as follows: (a) Whole-school reform, 

including, but not limited to, 

comprehensive interventions to assist, 

augment, or replace Investing in 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 12023 

Innovation Fund Absolute Priority 4 

schools, including the school 

turnaround, restart, closure, and 

transformation models of intervention 

supported under the Department’s 

School Improvement Grants program. 

Comment: Many commenters 

recommended that the Department 

revise the priority to provide greater 

flexibility in the initiatives the priority 

would support. Several of these 

commenters cautioned, in particular, 

that the priority places an excessive 

focus on extended learning time and, 

without increased flexibility, may 

undercut the competency-based 

programs supported under the 

Department’s Race to the Top Fund 

program. Another commenter requested 

that the Department revise the priority 

to allow applicants to propose projects 

along a continuum of interventions 

ranging from targeted to comprehensive, 

rather than proposing projects using 

either whole-school or targeted 

approaches to reform. The commenter 

asserted that whole-school reform 

approaches typically involve multiple 

targeted interventions; thus, the 

commenter claimed, the distinction 

between these two approaches in the 

priority is artificial. 

Discussion: We believe that 

maintaining a distinction between 

whole-school and targeted approaches 

to reform is useful to eligible applicants 

for the purposes of preparing 

applications to turn around Investing in 

Innovation Fund Absolute Priority 4 

schools. We note that the priority 

provides a significant amount of 

flexibility and does not specify the types 

of activities that would fall under either 

reform approach. As such, we do not 

believe the priority undercuts priorities 

articulated in other Department 

programs. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Several commenters 

recommended that the Department 

revise the priority to support projects 

pertaining to specific activities. For 

instance, many commenters encouraged 

the Department to revise the priority to 

include the creation and replication of 

high quality new schools, including 

charter and magnet schools, as an 

acceptable approach to reform. Another 

commenter suggested that the 

Department revise the priority to 

support projects that increase school 

choice options for parents and students. 

One commenter recommended that the 

Department revise the priority to 

include the development of ‘‘community 

schools,’’ in reference to schools that 

implement comprehensive, integrated 

strategies for providing academic 

instruction, offer student services and 

supports, and engage families and the 

community in the education of their 

children. Two commenters suggested 

that the Department revise the priority 

to include, in addition to initiatives that 

would expand learning time as a 

targeted approach to reform, initiatives 

for restructuring the current school day 

to make better use of existing in-class 

time. 

One of these commenters suggested 

that the priority support restructuring 

the current school day with a greater use 

of technology and other means of 

differentiated instruction. Several 

commenters recommended revising the 

priority to include support for new or 

alternative instructional practices in 

persistently low-performing schools. 

Several commenters recommended that 

the Department revise the priority to 

include initiatives that incorporate datadriven instruction and supports. Two 

other commenters recommended that 

the Department revise the priority to 

include support for alternative 

curricular approaches and instructional 

tools (e.g., curricular approaches that 

are based in research in cognitive 

science and neuroscience, curricular 

approaches that integrate the use of 

technological tools) as acceptable reform 

approaches. Another commenter 

suggested that the Department revise the 

priority to include initiatives that 

incorporate instructional improvement 

systems as an acceptable reform 

approach; this commenter referred to 

the inclusion of these systems in the 

Department’s Race to the Top Fund 

program. One commenter recommended 

that the Department revise the priority 

to include individual and small group 

instruction as a targeted approach to 

reform. 

Several commenters recommended 

that the Department revise the priority 

to include afterschool programs that 

provide older students with academic 

supports as an example of a targeted 

reform approach and, more specifically, 

as a graduation pathway for students. 

Two commenters recommended that the 

Department revise the priority to 

include as acceptable reform approaches 

initiatives that reduce racial and 

economic isolation such as reduction of 

resource gaps between schools and 

opportunities for intra- or inter-LEA 

transfers for students and educators. 

Several commenters recommended 

that the Department revise the priority 

to support initiatives that include 

strategies for improving teacher 

professional development and other 

support such as high-quality jobembedded professional development, 

common planning time, additional 

compensation, and peer involvement in 

staffing selections and resource 

allocation. One commenter requested 

that the Department revise the priority 

to include instruction in subjects 

beyond the core academic subjects in 

extended learning time initiatives 

implemented as targeted reform 

approaches. Two commenters suggested 

that the Department revise the priority 

to include, as a targeted approach to 

reform, strategies for increasing student 

engagement in order to address truancy, 

discipline, and social acceptance issues. 

A number of commenters recommended 

that the Department revise the priority 

to include building community and 

family links and increasing community 

and family engagement as acceptable 

school reform strategies, including 

ongoing parental involvement, 

wraparound services, increased parentteacher interaction, and parent 

education programs regarding 

instructional programs and supports. 

Several commenters recommended that 

the Department revise the priority to 

include additional outcome measures, 

including measures regarding 

improvements in school climate, longterm student outcomes, and engagement 

in learning tied to real-world 

applications; and elimination of 

bullying and student harassment. 

Discussion: There is nothing in this 

priority that precludes any of the 

projects recommended by the 

commenters, provided that the proposed 

project addresses the whole-school or 

targeted approaches to reform, as 

specified in this priority. This priority is 

intentionally broad to provide eligible 

applicants with flexibility to propose a 

variety of projects that best reflect the 

variety of resources applicants bring to 

bear and the students they intend to 

serve. For this reason, we conclude that 

it is not necessary to revise the priority 

to include a specific list of permissible 

activities. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

concern about projects under this 

priority that would expand learning 

time by adding hours to the school day 

or extending the school year because 

these projects would be costly and 

constrained by teacher contracts; the 

commenter recommended that the 

Department focus on projects that 

would reform the existing school day 

using existing resources and that are not 

constrained by teacher contracts. 

Discussion: We agree that applicants 

should be mindful of cost and 

contractual obligations as they develop 

their proposed projects. However, 

organizations and LEAs operate in a 

range of environments and therefore are 

best positioned to determine which 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
12024 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

1Under the final requirements for the School 

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

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

corrective action, or restructuring that (i) is among 

the lowest-achieving five percent of Title I schools 

in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring 

or the lowest-achieving five Title I schools in 

improvement, corrective action, or restructuring in 

the State, whichever number of schools is greater; 

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

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

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

secondary school that is eligible for, but does not 

receive, Title I funds that (i) is among the lowestachieving five percent of secondary schools or the 

lowest-achieving five secondary schools in the State 

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

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

high school that has had a graduation rate as 

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

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

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

of this term is used also by the State Fiscal 

Stabilization Fund and Race to the Top Fund 

programs. 

approaches to extending learning time 

are most effective for their projects. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: A number of commenters 

recommended that the Department 

include early learning programs as an 

acceptable strategy for turning around 

low-performing schools under this 

priority in light of the impact of these 

programs on student achievement in 

later years. One of these commenters 

suggested that the priority include 

initiatives that integrate high quality 

pre-kindergarten programs with early 

language and literacy instruction in the 

elementary grades. 

Discussion: We believe that any 

approach to reform under this priority 

(whether whole-school or targeted) must 

be designed expressly for the purpose of 

turning around Investing in Innovation 

Fund Absolute Priority 4 schools, which 

may only be public elementary and 

secondary schools. Accordingly, an 

initiative focused solely on improving 

early learning programs would not, by 

itself, meet this absolute priority. 

However, nothing would prevent an 

eligible applicant from proposing a 

project that includes such an initiative 

alongside efforts to directly reform 

Investing in Innovation Fund Absolute 

Priority 4 schools in accordance with 

the requirements of this priority. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: A number of commenters 

expressed support for the provision in 

this priority that included multiple 

pathways for students to obtain a 

regular high school diploma as a 

targeted approach to reform. Several 

commenters recommended, however, 

that the Department revise the priority 

to also support programs that provide 

alternative diplomas as viable 

graduation pathways. One of these 

commenters recommended that the 

Department recognize, in particular, 

General Education Development (GED) 

programs that connect GED students to 

postsecondary education. 

Discussion: We appreciate the 

commenters’ support for the priority. 

However, we do not believe it is 

appropriate to include support for 

programs that provide alternative 

graduation credentials (such as GED 

programs) because such credentials, 

unlike regular high school diplomas, are 

not necessarily aligned with State 

academic content and achievement 

standards. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that the Department 

ensure that there is continued funding 

for schools that have successfully 

implemented reform approaches under 

this priority so that these schools do not 

hit a funding cliff that jeopardizes their 

performance gains. 

Discussion: We appreciate the 

commenter’s concern and believe that 

Selection Criterion F (Sustainability) 

will help ensure that projects that 

receive funding under this priority will 

not be subject to sudden losses of or 

decreases in funds at the end of the 

grant period. 

Changes: None. 

Persistently Low-Performing Schools 

Comment: One commenter noted 

differences between the proposed 

definition of persistently low-performing 

schools used in this priority and the 

definition of similar terms used in other 

programs supported with ARRA funds. 

The commenter recommended that the 

Department use consistent terminology 

and definitions of terms across 

programs. 

Discussion: We appreciate the 

commenter’s concern. As the 

commenter notes, other programs 

supported with ARRA funds (including 

the School Improvement Grants, State 

Fiscal Stabilization Fund, and Race to 

the Top Fund programs) use and define 

the term ‘‘persistently lowest-achieving 

schools’’.1 Under this priority, we intend 

to support reform projects for schools 

that include, but are not limited to, the 

schools that meet the definition of 

‘‘persistently lowest-achieving schools’’ 

used in those programs because we 

believe that focusing only on schools 

that meet the definition of ‘‘persistently 

lowest-achieving schools’’ would create 

a pool of schools for this priority that is 

overly narrow. However, we recognize 

that defining the term persistently lowperforming schools as including, but not 

limited to, the schools that meet the 

definition of the similar term 

‘‘persistently lowest-achieving schools’’ 

may be confusing to stakeholders 

(including prospective applicants for 

the different ARRA programs). 

Therefore, we are removing the 

definition of persistently low-performing 

schools and revising the priority to 

specify the schools for which the 

priority supports reform projects. To 

further prevent confusion with terms 

used in other programs supported with 

ARRA funds, we refer to these schools 

as Investing in Innovation Fund 

Absolute Priority 4 schools. 

Changes: We are removing the 

definition of persistently low-performing 

schools and are revising the priority to 

specify that Investing in Innovation 

Fund Absolute Priority 4 schools are 

schools in any of the following 

categories: (a) Persistently lowestachieving schools (as defined in the 

final requirements for the School 

Improvement Grants program); (b) Title 

I schools that are in corrective action or 

restructuring under section 1116 of the 

ESEA (a); or (c) secondary schools (both 

middle and high schools) eligible for but 

not receiving Title I funds that, if 

receiving Title I funds, would be in 

corrective action or restructuring under 

section 1116 of the ESEA. These schools 

are referred to as Investing in Innovation 

Fund Absolute Priority 4 schools. 

Comment: A number of commenters 

recommended that the Department 

revise the definition of persistently lowperforming schools used in this priority 

to include additional types of schools. 

Two commenters recommended that the 

Department expand the definition of 

persistently low-performing schools to 

include low-performing non-Title I 

elementary schools and schools that 

without support would be at risk of 

becoming low-performing because they 

serve high-poverty communities. One 

commenter recommended that the 

Department revise the definition to 

include high schools, regardless of their 

AYP status, that are eligible for Title I 

and are ‘‘drop-out factories’’ (where a 

typical freshman class shrinks by 40 

percent or more by the time the students 

reach their senior year) and middle 

schools, regardless of AYP status, that 

are feeder schools for these high 

schools. Two commenters 

recommended expanding the definition 

to include high schools with graduation 

rates below 60 percent. Another 

commenter recommended including 

schools in feeder patterns of high 

schools with low high school graduation 

rates compared to national or statewide 

averages, whether or not these schools 

are in improvement, corrective action, 

or restructuring. Another commenter 

recommended that the Department 

expand the definition to include 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 12025 

schools, regardless of their AYP status, 

that are eligible for Title I funds and 

where persistent low performance has 

led to a decline in enrollment of 30 

percent or greater over the last three 

years. One commenter recommended 

that the Department expand the 

definition of persistently low-performing 

schools used in this priority to include 

alternative schools and school programs 

serving incarcerated students and 

students held in juvenile detention 

facilities. Another commenter 

recommended including tribal and BIE 

schools in this definition. 

Discussion: In general, the schools 

cited by commenters may be Investing 

in Innovation Fund Absolute Priority 4 

schools if they are included in one of 

the three categories of schools listed in 

the priority. We do not believe it is 

appropriate to identify every type of 

school that may be included in these 

categories since there is variation in 

performance within common school 

types. For example, not all schools that 

serve incarcerated youth may 

necessarily be included in these 

categories. 

With respect to low-performing nonTitle I elementary schools, we do not 

believe it is necessary to revise the 

priority to include these schools 

because elementary schools are much 

more likely to receive Title I funds than 

secondary schools. If an elementary 

school is low-performing, it will thus in 

all likelihood be included in category (a) 

or (b) identified in the priority. 

With respect to schools that without 

support would be at risk of becoming 

low-performing because they serve highpoverty communities, we believe that 

this priority should be used to focus 

attention on improving schools that 

have a record of low performance and 

do not believe it is appropriate to revise 

the priority to include support for 

reform efforts for schools that may 

become but are not currently lowperforming. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that the Department 

require applicants to use data to assess 

the level of need in persistently lowperforming schools. The commenter 

recommended this option to avoid what 

the commenter referred to as the ‘‘one 

size fits all challenge’’ under the ESEA 

whereby, according to the commenter, 

some schools fail to meet AYP because 

they miss their targets in one student 

subgroup, whereas other schools 

perform poorly across all subgroups and 

fail to meet AYP. 

Discussion: An eligible applicant 

would not be prohibited from 

identifying, from among the Investing in 

Innovation Fund Absolute Priority 4 

schools, specific schools that the 

eligible applicant intends to serve based 

on level of need or other factors. We do 

not believe that it is necessary to require 

eligible applicants to consider such 

factors, and that the priority, as written, 

will focus resources on schools with 

critical needs. 

Changes: None. 

Competitive Preference Priority 5— 

Innovations for Improving Early 

Learning Outcomes 

Comment: A number of commenters 

expressed support for the inclusion of 

this proposed competitive preference 

priority and emphasized the importance 

of early learning for success later in life. 

Another commenter noted that this 

priority presents an opportunity to build 

on early learning’s research base. 

Several commenters recommended that 

the Department designate this priority 

as a fifth absolute priority in light of 

evidence that high-quality early learning 

programs can significantly close 

achievement gaps. 

Discussion: We appreciate the 

commenters’ support for this priority. 

However, as stated elsewhere, we 

believe it is important to limit the 

absolute priorities under this program to 

the four education reform areas of the 

ARRA. Therefore, we decline to add 

innovations for improving early learning 

outcomes as an absolute priority. 

Change: None. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that the Department 

revise the priority to allow applicants to 

serve children from birth through fifth 

grade, rather than through third grade, 

in order to maintain students’ initial 

academic gains. 

Discussion: We appreciate the 

commenter’s concern for sustaining 

early learning gains of students into 

later grades. While the Department is 

committed to ensuring that supports for 

all children are emphasized throughout 

our programs, we recognize that there 

are specific needs of early learners that 

can be addressed through targeted 

reforms. Further, inclusion of children 

birth to 3rd grade is a widely-accepted 

range amongst the education 

community. For these reasons, we 

decline to make the changes suggested 

by the commenter. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Two commenters asserted 

that pre-kindergarten or early childhood 

programs are often privately managed. 

These commenters suggested that the 

Department clarify whether projects 

under this priority can serve children 

enrolled in privately-managed 

programs. 

Discussion: The primary goal of 

programs supported with ARRA funds 

is to improve the academic achievement 

and attainment of students in public 

elementary and secondary schools. 

However, to the extent that private early 

learning programs support students’ 

future achievement and growth in 

elementary and secondary education, an 

eligible applicant would not be 

prohibited under this priority from 

serving children enrolled in private 

early learning programs, provided the 

applicant’s proposed project met all 

requirements of the priority. An early 

learning provider would be eligible to 

apply for funding under this program if 

it is (1) an LEA or (2) a nonprofit 

organization applying in partnership 

with one or more LEAs or a consortium 

of schools. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Several commenters 

recommended that the Department 

revise the priority to support projects 

pertaining to specific innovations for 

improved early learning outcomes. For 

instance, one commenter recommended 

that the Department revise the priority 

to include support for practices, 

strategies, or programs that improve, 

within an LEA’s geographic area, the 

collaboration among community-based 

early childhood providers and schools. 

Two commenters recommended that the 

Department revise the priority to 

include support for partnerships with 

community-based organizations and 

families in order to improve alignment 

between early learning programs and 

instruction in the early elementary 

grades. One commenter recommended 

that we revise the priority to include 

support for practices, strategies, or 

programs that serve children with 

disabilities in early learning 

environments. One commenter 

recommended that the Department 

revise the priority to emphasize the 

importance of socio-economically and 

racially diverse educational settings 

during students’ formative years 

because attitudes about race are still 

forming at this time. One commenter 

recommended that we revise the 

priority to support projects to improve 

and align early learning curricula with 

developmentally, culturally, and 

linguistically appropriate standards and 

assessments. A few commenters 

recommended that the Department 

revise the priority to support practices, 

strategies, or programs that emphasize 

teaching strategies that illustrate realworld applications of early learning 

subjects; we presume the commenter is 

referring to contextual learning 

opportunities. A few commenters 

recommended that we revise the 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
12026 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

priority to support practices, strategies, 

or programs that improve the skills of 

teachers in early learning programs. 

One commenter suggested that we 

revise the priority to include support for 

projects that provide safe and enriching 

early learning physical settings and 

linkages to related health and human 

services. Several commenters 

recommended that the Department 

revise the priority to include support for 

parent engagement or assistance in the 

early learning of children. Another 

commenter recommended that the 

Department revise the priority to 

include strategies for conducting local 

outreach about early learning 

opportunities that target parents of highneed students in non-academic settings. 

Discussion: There is nothing in this 

priority that precludes an eligible 

applicant from proposing any of the 

projects mentioned by the commenter, 

provided that the projects address 

paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of the priority 

and also meet the eligibility and other 

requirements specified in this notice. 

We made this priority broad to provide 

eligible applicants with flexibility to 

propose a variety of projects. For this 

reason, we conclude that it is not 

necessary to revise the priority to 

include an express focus on the 

activities identified by the commenters. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that the Department 

revise the priority to allow applicants to 

address only one, rather than all three 

of the areas of focus, in order to meet 

the competitive preference priority. 

Specifically, the commenter 

recommended that the areas of focus be 

separated by ‘‘or’’ rather than ‘‘and.’’ 

Discussion: We appreciate the 

commenter’s concern for applicant 

flexibility under this priority; however, 

we note that this is a competitive 

preference priority and applicants are 

under no obligation to address the 

priority in their applications. Moreover, 

we believe that, in order to 

meaningfully improve early learning 

outcomes for children, projects under 

this priority should address each of the 

focus areas and that these components 

are equally essential to early learning 

outcomes. For these reasons, we decline 

to make the changes recommended by 

the commenter. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that the Department ensure that the 

priority is aligned with the President’s 

Zero to Five Plan. 

Discussion: This priority is consistent 

with the President’s Zero to Five Plan. 

For example, the Zero to Five Plan 

supports strategies that, among others, 

align early learning and development 

standards that lead to school readiness 

and are integrated with program quality 

to guide curriculum and program 

development. The Zero to Five Plan also 

encourages the development of 

evidence-based quality rating systems 

structured with progressive levels of 

quality—which may be used across 

early learning settings and programs. 

Accordingly, we believe that this 

priority is consistent with the 

President’s Zero to Five Plan and 

supports early learning initiatives under 

that program. For more information 

about this plan (as well as the 

Department’s Early Learning Challenge 

Fund), please see http://www.ed.gov/ 

about/inits/ed/earlylearning/elcffactsheet.html. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: None. 

Discussion: This priority includes a 

reference to ‘‘core academic subjects.’’ 

Consistent with the revisions we are 

making to the other priorities that use 

this term, we are revising the priority to 

add a reference to section 9101(11) of 

the ESEA, which includes the definition 

of ‘‘core academic subjects’’. 

Changes: We are revising this priority 

to include the statutory reference to the 

definition of ‘‘core academic subjects’’ in 

section 9101(11) of the ESEA. 

Competitive Preference Priority 6— 

Innovations That Support College 

Access and Success 

Comment: Two commenters 

recommended that the Department 

revise the priority to include career and 

technical education systems that 

prepare students simultaneously for 

postsecondary education and careers. 

Similarly, two commenters 

recommended expanding the priority to 

include, in addition to programs that 

promote success in two- and four-year 

colleges, programs that promote success 

in career certificate programs and entry 

into the workforce. 

Discussion: This priority supports 

projects that enable students to 

successfully prepare for, enter, and 

graduate from a two- or four-year 

college. As noted in the NPP, this 

priority is designed to help meet the 

national goal of restoring the United 

States to first in the world in the 

percentage of citizens holding college 

degrees. We believe we must maintain 

this focus and, therefore, decline to 

expand this priority to include 

applications that focus on practices, 

strategies, and programs that do not lead 

to success in two- and four-year 

colleges. A project that focuses on a 

career certificate program or a careerreadiness program that is part of a career 

and technical education system would 

be eligible for competitive preference 

points under this priority only to the 

extent the project promotes success in 

two- and four-year colleges. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

the priority focuses too heavily on nonacademic issues such as helping 

students obtain financial aid and 

complete college applications. The 

commenter recommended that the 

Department revise the priority to 

support applications addressing both 

academic and non-academic issues 

associated with college access and 

success. 

Discussion: In order to meet this 

competitive preference priority, 

applications must include practices, 

strategies, or programs for K–12 

students that address students’ 

preparedness related to college, which 

may include ensuring that students are 

academically prepared for college. 

Therefore, it is unnecessary to revise the 

priority in the manner recommended by 

the commenter. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Two commenters 

recommended that the Department 

revise the priority to support 

approaches that focus on decreasing 

dropout rates or increasing high school 

graduation rates. 

Discussion: As stated elsewhere in 

this notice, the Department is using the 

Investing in Innovation Fund to support 

the overarching ARRA goal of 

improving student achievement and 

attainment. All applications for 

Investing in Innovation Fund grants will 

be assessed in part on the extent to 

which the proposed projects will have 

an impact on student achievement and 

attainment outcomes including the 

following: Improving student 

achievement or growth, closing 

achievement gaps, decreasing dropout 

rates, increasing high school graduation 

rates, or increasing college enrollment 

and completion rates. Accordingly, peer 

reviewers will consider the magnitude 

of the effect of proposed projects on 

attaining these student outcomes (see, in 

particular, Selection Criterion B 

(Strength of Research, Significance of 

Effect, and Magnitude of Effect)). 

Therefore, it is unnecessary to revise the 

priority in the manner suggested by the 

commenters. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: A few commenters 

recommended that the Department 

revise the priority to recognize GED 

programs as a viable graduation 

pathway for students and support 

projects that focus on the development 

of college-ready GED programs. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 12027 

Discussion: As noted elsewhere in 

this notice, we do not believe it is 

appropriate to support projects that 

provide alternative graduation 

credentials (such as GED programs) 

because such credentials, unlike regular 

high school diplomas, are not 

necessarily aligned with State academic 

content and achievement standards. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that the Department 

revise the priority to include programs 

that provide services to and monitoring 

of students after enrolling in college. 

Discussion: The Investing in 

Innovation Fund program does not 

provide funding for projects that are 

designed to serve students who are 

enrolled in college. Therefore, we 

decline to revise this priority in the 

manner suggested by the commenter. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Several commenters 

recommended that the Department 

revise the priority to include support for 

middle school students as well as high 

school students. Other commenters 

recommended that the priority be 

revised to include a focus on supporting 

students in the early high school grades, 

including strategies that aim to assess 

the college readiness of students and 

close skill gaps before students 

graduate. 

Discussion: This priority specifically 

states that competitive preference will 

be given to applications for practices, 

strategies, or programs that enable K–12 

students to successfully prepare for, 

enter, and graduate from a two- or fouryear college. Thus, this priority would 

include support for middle school 

students and students in the early high 

school grades. 

Changes: None. 

Competitive Preference Priority 7— 

Innovations To Address the Unique 

Learning Needs of Students With 

Disabilities and Limited English 

Proficient Students 

Comment: A number of commenters 

expressed support for this priority and 

the Department’s efforts to support 

programs focused on improving 

outcomes for students with disabilities 

and limited English proficient students. 

Several commenters recommended that 

the Department clarify whether 

applications must address the needs of 

both students with disabilities and 

limited English proficient students in 

order to meet this competitive priority. 

Two commenters recommended that the 

Department separate the priority into 

two competitive preference priorities 

given the different needs of these 

students. 

Discussion: We appreciate the 

commenters’ support for this priority 

and believe that the priority is clear that 

an applicant may propose a project 

under the priority that addresses the 

needs of either students with disabilities 

or limited English proficient students. 

Therefore, we do not believe it is 

necessary to provide separate 

competitive preference priorities for 

projects that propose to serve these 

student subgroups individually. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that the Department clarify whether 

projects under this priority may focus 

on improving academic outcomes or 

increasing high school graduation rates 

of the students served, rather than 

addressing both of these measures. 

Discussion: Our intent under this 

priority is to give a competitive 

preference to projects that propose 

practices, strategies, and programs for 

students with disabilities or limited 

English proficient students that both 

increase academic outcomes and 

increase college- and career-readiness 

(including increasing high school 

graduation rates) for these groups of 

students. However, in light of the 

achievement gaps for these students, we 

are revising the priority to state that, to 

meet the priority, projects must also be 

designed to close achievement gaps for 

these students. 

Changes: We are changing this 

competitive preference priority to state 

that, in order to meet the priority, 

applications must provide for the 

implementation of particular practices, 

strategies, or programs that are designed 

to improve academic outcomes, close 

achievement gaps, and increase collegeand career-readiness, including 

increasing high school graduation rates 

(as defined in this notice), for students 

with disabilities or limited English 

proficient students. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that, in this priority, the 

Department use ‘‘English language 

learners’’ in place of ‘‘students with 

limited English proficiency’’ because the 

former term helps educators focus on a 

student’s capacity as a learner. 

Discussion: The Department 

recognizes that stakeholders often use 

terms such as ‘‘English language 

learners’’ rather than ‘‘limited English 

proficient students’’ when referring to 

students who are acquiring basic 

English proficiency and developing 

academic English skills. However, 

because the ESEA defines the term 

‘‘limited English proficient,’’ and both 

the statute and the implementing 

regulations use this term, as well as the 

phrase ‘‘students with limited English 

proficiency,’’ we will continue to use the 

latter terms in this program. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: We received a number of 

recommendations to revise the priority 

to focus on specific groups of limited 

English proficient students including 

students from linguistically isolated 

homes and underrepresented limited 

English proficient subpopulations, and 

high-school students who are recent 

arrivals to the United States. Another 

commenter recommended that the 

Department revise the priority to 

include a focus on ‘‘standard English 

learners’’ (i.e., students who were born 

in the United States and whose native 

language is English but who speak a 

nonstandard English dialect). 

Discussion: Section 9101(25) of the 

ESEA specifies that a limited English 

proficient student is a student who (1) 

was not born in the United States or 

whose native language is a language 

other than English; (2) who is a Native 

American, Alaska Native, or resident of 

the outlying areas who comes from an 

environment where a language other 

than English has had a significant 

impact on the student’s level of English 

language proficiency; or (3) is migratory, 

whose native language is a language 

other than English, and who comes from 

an environment where a language other 

than English is dominant. Under this 

competitive preference priority, there is 

nothing that would prevent an eligible 

applicant from proposing an innovative 

practice, strategy, or program that 

addresses the needs of specific 

subpopulations of limited English 

proficient students or limited English 

proficient students from specific 

backgrounds, provided these students 

meet the requirements of the ESEA 

definition. We do not believe it is 

necessary to refer to specific groups of 

limited English proficient students in 

this priority. 

Regarding ‘‘standard English learners,’’ 

these students do not meet the ESEA 

definition referenced above because 

they speak English as their native 

language. Because we are maintaining 

the focus of this priority on students 

who meet the definition of limited 

English proficiency under the ESEA, 

projects that focus only on these 

students would not meet this priority. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Two commenters 

recommended including examples of 

the practices, strategies, and programs 

that would be supported under this 

priority. One of these commenters 

recommended providing examples of 

instructional models that have proven to 

be effective for limited English 

proficient students. The other 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
12028 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

commenter recommended revising the 

priority to include innovations 

referenced in the Individuals with 

Disabilities Education Act, as amended 

(IDEA), such as response-to-intervention 

models and the use of assistive 

technologies. 

Discussion: In order to meet this 

competitive preference priority, eligible 

applicants must propose innovative 

practices, strategies, or programs that 

address the unique learning needs of 

students with disabilities or limited 

English proficient students and that are 

designed to improve academic 

outcomes, close achievement gaps, and 

increase college- and career-readiness, 

including increasing graduation rates, 

for these students. It is up to eligible 

applicants to identify those practices, 

strategies, or programs that they believe, 

based on available evidence, should be 

included in their proposed projects. We 

do not want to restrict or constrain the 

projects that this priority would support 

by identifying specific initiatives in the 

priority statement. Therefore, we 

decline to make the changes 

recommended by the commenters. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Two commenters 

recommended that the Department 

revise the priority to ensure that projects 

funded under the priority are consistent 

with the principles of universal design 

for learning. 

Discussion: An applicant would not 

be precluded from proposing under this 

priority projects that are consistent with 

the principles of universal design for 

learning, as defined in the Higher 

Education Act of 1965, as amended 

(HEA), provided that the proposed 

project meets the requirements in the 

priority. We decline to include this level 

of specificity in this competitive 

preference priority, as we do not want 

to restrict or constrain the innovative 

practices, strategies, and programs that 

this priority would support. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Several commenters 

recommended that the Department 

include gifted and talented students 

among the students with unique 

learning needs to be served under this 

priority. A few of these commenters 

stated that the needs of gifted and 

talented students are typically 

underserved. Another commenter 

recommended including students with 

low literacy levels among the students 

with unique learning needs to be served 

under this priority. 

Discussion: We recognize that gifted 

and talented students have unique 

learning needs and may be underserved 

in some areas of the country. In 

addition, we recognize that students 

with low literacy levels who are not 

students with disabilities or limited 

English proficient students may also 

have unique learning needs. However, 

we believe that it is important to 

maintain this competitive preference for 

projects that serve students with 

disabilities and limited English 

proficient students in light of the 

achievement gaps between these 

students and their peers. Therefore, we 

are not changing the priority in the 

manner suggested by the commenter. 

Changes: None. 

Proposed Competitive Preference 

Priority 8—Innovations That Serve 

Schools in Rural LEAs 

Comment: Several commenters 

expressed support for this priority. 

However, other commenters 

recommended that the Department 

eliminate this competitive preference 

priority; these commenters asserted that 

the priority is unnecessary, and gives an 

unfair advantage to rural areas over 

urban LEAs that are equally in need of 

financial support. Other commenters 

stated that rural grant recipients may 

reach only small numbers of students 

and could not easily be brought to scale 

at the State or regional level. One 

commenter recommended that the 

Department revise the priority to 

support applications that include a 

focus on students in rural LEAs, rather 

than applications that serve students in 

rural LEAs exclusively. Another 

commenter recommended that the 

Department revise the priority to 

include projects that are proposed by 

non-rural LEAs that would serve or 

benefit students in rural LEAs. 

Discussion: This competitive 

preference priority acknowledges that 

solutions to educational challenges may 

be different in rural areas than in urban 

and suburban communities and that 

there is a need for solutions to unique 

rural challenges. To meet this priority, 

an eligible applicant need not be a rural 

LEA. Any eligible applicant may 

propose a project to serve students in 

rural LEAs under this priority. With 

regard to the concern that projects 

meeting this competitive preference 

priority will reach small numbers of 

students or could not easily be brought 

to scale at State or regional levels, we 

note that all applications for Investing 

in Innovation Fund grants will be 

assessed in part on the number of 

students to be reached by the proposed 

project and the eligible applicant’s 

capacity to reach the proposed number 

of students during the course of the 

grant period (see Selection Criteria E 

(Strategy and Capacity to Bring to Scale 

(in the case of Scale-up and Validation 

grants); Strategy and Capacity to Further 

Develop and Bring to Scale (in the case 

of Development grants)). For these 

reasons, we decline to remove this 

priority or to change this priority in the 

manner recommended by commenters. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: We received a number of 

comments recommending that we revise 

this competitive preference priority to 

focus on specific types of projects in 

rural areas such as projects that improve 

college- and career-readiness of students 

in rural LEAs, projects that serve 

students across county and State lines, 

early learning projects, projects that 

increase the use of educational 

technology in rural LEAs, and projects 

that promote innovative strategies for 

educator recruitment in rural LEAs. 

Discussion: An applicant would not 

be precluded from proposing under this 

priority any of the projects mentioned 

by the commenters provided that the 

proposed project meets the 

requirements in this priority (i.e., the 

proposed project focuses on the unique 

challenges of high-need students in 

schools within a rural LEA and 

addresses the particular challenges 

faced by students in these schools; and 

improves student achievement or 

student growth, closes achievement 

gaps, decreases dropout rates, increases 

high school graduation rates, or 

improves teacher and principal 

effectiveness in one or more rural 

LEAs). We cannot include in the 

priority all the possible programs that 

could address this competitive priority, 

nor do we want to restrict or constrain 

the innovative practices, strategies, and 

programs that this priority would 

support. Therefore, we decline to follow 

the commenters’ recommendations. 

Changes: None. 

Rural LEA 

Comment: Several commenters 

recommended that the Department 

expand the definition of rural LEA used 

in this priority. One commenter 

recommended expanding the definition 

beyond the Small Rural School 

Achievement and Rural Low-Income 

School programs under Title IV, Part B 

of the ESEA to include small and 

medium-sized, low-performing, highneed LEAs in rural areas. One 

commenter recommended revising the 

definition to include LEAs designated as 

rural by the Locale Code in the National 

Center for Education Statistics Common 

Core of Data. Another commenter 

recommended revising the definition to 

be more expansive and inclusive of 

rural LEAs that used to be urban LEAs. 

Finally, several commenters 

recommended that the Department 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 12029 

2A single LEA could submit a group application 

on behalf of itself and other eligible LEAs under 

section 14007(a)(1)(A) of the ARRA. In that case, 

each of the other eligible LEAs included in the 

group application must meet the eligibility 

requirements of this program. Because an LEA that 

submits an application on its own has flexibility to 

work with other LEAs as other partners (as defined 

in this notice), the Department sees no advantage 

to an LEA submitting a group application in this 

manner. For this reason, we do not address the 

applicability of requirements to group applications 

submitted by LEAs under section 14007(a)(1)(A) of 

the ARRA in this notice. 

revise the priority to include practices, 

strategies, or programs that would serve 

students in one or more rural schools 

(irrespective of the designation of the 

LEA of those schools) rather than only 

students in LEAs that meet the 

definition of rural LEA. 

Discussion: This competitive 

preference priority is intended to 

encourage applications that focus on the 

particular challenges faced by students 

in rural LEAs. In determining the 

definition of rural LEA for use in this 

program, we chose to use a definition 

that is used in many Department grant 

programs. In addition, we note that the 

definition of rural LEA for use in this 

program includes schools served by 

LEAs that are designated with a school 

locale code of 6, 7, or 8. Therefore, we 

do not believe the definition of rural 

LEA should be expanded in the ways 

suggested by commenters. 

With regard to the recommendation 

that we include support under this 

priority for practices, strategies, or 

programs that serve students in one or 

more rural schools (irrespective of the 

designation of the LEA of those 

schools), we believe that most LEAs that 

have schools in rural areas would 

qualify as a rural LEA under the 

definition of rural LEA, and that 

accordingly no change to the priority is 

necessary. 

Changes: None. 

Requirements 

Providing Innovations That Improve 

Achievement for High-Need Students 

Comment: A number of commenters 

expressed support for the Department’s 

requirement that applicants implement 

practices, strategies, or programs for 

high-need students. Two commenters, 

however, argued that eligible applicants 

should not be required to serve only 

high-need students. 

Discussion: In this program, we define 

high-need student as a student at risk of 

educational failure or otherwise in need 

of special assistance and support. While 

eligible applicants are required to 

implement practices, strategies, or 

programs for high-need students, 

eligible applicants have discretion in 

determining which types of students 

meet this definition. Moreover, nothing 

in the authorizing statute or the 

priorities, requirements, definitions, or 

selection criteria for this program 

prohibits eligible applicants from using 

program funds to help other students as 

well. Indeed, the Department expects 

that robust proposed projects would 

benefit all students, but with 

disproportionate benefit to high-need 

students. We believe that this program’s 

focus on funding projects that serve 

high-need students—students at risk of 

educational failure or otherwise in need 

of special assistance and support—is 

consistent with the goal of this program, 

which is to improve student academic 

achievement and attainment. 

Consistent with other clarifying 

changes we are making with respect to 

the use of the term ‘‘applicant’’ and 

‘‘eligible applicant’’ throughout this 

notice, we are making a minor technical 

change to the Providing Innovations that 

Improve Achievement for High-Need 

Students requirement. 

Changes: We are replacing the word 

‘‘applicant’’ in this requirement with the 

words ‘‘eligible applicant’’ to clarify that 

it is the eligible applicant (i.e., the LEA 

or the partnership) that must implement 

practices, strategies, or programs for 

high-need students (as defined in this 

notice). 

Eligible Applicants 

Comment: As discussed in more 

detail in the following paragraphs, a 

number of commenters asked about the 

roles and responsibilities of ‘‘eligible 

applicants,’’ ‘‘applicants,’’ ‘‘fiscal agents,’’ 

and ‘‘partners’’ under this program. 

Discussion: In analyzing this group of 

comments, the Department determined 

that there appears to be some confusion 

about how these important terms are 

used in the context of this program. For 

this reason, we are adding definitions 

for the terms applicant, official partner, 

and other partner. 

Section 14007(a)(1) of the ARRA 

describes the types of entities that are 

eligible to apply for funding under this 

program. These eligible entities, referred 

to in this notice as ‘‘eligible applicants,’’ 

must be either (a) an LEA, or (b) a 

partnership between a nonprofit 

organization and (1) one or more LEAs 

or (2) a consortium of schools. An 

‘‘eligible applicant,’’ therefore, is either 

an LEA or a partnership. 

For applications that are submitted on 

behalf of partnerships, consortia, or 

groups—as is necessarily the case under 

section 14007(a)(1)(B) of the ARRA, the 

Department makes an award to a single 

entity only. The entity designated by the 

partnership, consortia or group to apply 

on behalf of it to the Department in 

accordance with 34 CFR 75.127 to 

75.129 (the Department’s regulations 

governing group applications) is 

referred to as the applicant. If the group 

application is awarded a grant, the 

applicant then becomes the ‘‘grantee.’’ 

Under this program, an applicant (or 

grantee) may, therefore, be— 

(a) An LEA 2 under section 

14007(a)(1)(A) of the ARRA; or 

(b) A nonprofit organization, an LEA, 

or a school in a consortium of schools 

applying on behalf of a partnership 

provided that the partnership is 

between a nonprofit organization and 

(1) one or more LEAs or (2) a 

consortium of schools (pursuant to 

section 14007(a)(1)(B) of the ARRA). 

For applications submitted under 

section 14007(a)(1)(B) of the ARRA, a 

single applicant, which could be the 

nonprofit organization, an LEA, or a 

school in the consortium of schools that 

is part of the partnership, must submit 

a group application on behalf of the 

eligible applicant (i.e., the partnership). 

This partnership must include the 

partners referenced in section 

14007(a)(1)(B) of the ARRA. For the sake 

of clarity, we refer to each of the 

partners referenced in section 

14007(a)(1)(B) of the ARRA as an official 

partner (i.e., the nonprofit organization 

and, depending on the make-up of the 

partnership, each LEA or consortium of 

schools in the partnership). 

The Department anticipates that LEAs 

and section 14007(a)(1)(B) partnerships 

may wish to propose projects that 

involve working with additional entities 

as well. For purposes of this program, 

we define any of these other entities as 

an other partner. Therefore, an LEA 

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

the ARRA may apply with a proposed 

project that involves working with other 

partners. Likewise, an applicant 

applying on behalf of a partnership in 

accordance with section 14007(a)(1)(B) 

of the ARRA may propose a project that 

involves working with additional 

official partners, other partners, or both, 

provided that the partnership includes 

the minimally required official partners. 

We believe that the distinction 

between official partners and other 

partners is necessary, especially in light 

of the addition of the subgrant authority 

to section 14007 of the ARRA as a result 

of section 307 of Division D of the 

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 

(Pub. L. 111–117). New section 14007(d) 

of the ARRA provides that, in the case 

of an eligible applicant that is awarded 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
12030 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

3Because the Department makes a grant award to 

the grantee, we interpret the term ‘‘fiscal agent’’ as 

used in section 14007(d) of the ARRA as referring 

to the applicant receiving an award, namely the 

grantee. We recognize that the grantee may rely on 

another entity to manage its grant funds, and that 

the grantee or others may consider that entity as the 

fiscal agent of the grant. For the Department’s 

purposes, under this program, we do not consider 

such entities as fiscal agents; because the 

Department’s funding relationship is with the 

grantee, who is responsible for ensuring the grant 

is administered in accordance with program 

regulations. 

4Note that this requirement pertains to the 

entities that are eligible to apply for funding under 

this program. In order to receive funding, entities 

that meet the Eligible Applicants requirement must 

also meet the eligibility requirements discussed 

elsewhere in this notice. 

5For example, in a partnership between a 

nonprofit organization and one or more LEAs for 

which the nonprofit organization is the fiscal agent, 

the nonprofit organization may make subgrants only 

to the LEAs in the partnership. 

a grant and is in a partnership described 

in section 14007(a)(1)(B) of the ARRA, 

the partner serving as the fiscal agent 3

may make subgrants to one or more of 

the other entities in the partnership. We 

interpret this subgrant authority to 

permit the grantee to make subgrants to 

only those partners identified in the 

statute (i.e., official partners), but not to 

other entities that are proposed to be 

involved in a project (i.e., other 

partners). A grantee can make subgrants 

to any official partner, including those 

that are in addition to the minimally 

required official partners. 

Changes: In the Definitions section, 

we define the term applicant to mean 

the entity that applies for a grant under 

this program on behalf of an eligible 

applicant (i.e., an LEA or partnership in 

accordance with section 14007(a)(1)(B) 

of the ARRA). We also define the term 

official partner as any of the entities 

required to be part of a partnership 

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

ARRA. Finally, we define the term other 

partner to mean any entity, other than 

the applicant and any official partner 

that may be involved in a proposed 

project. We use these terms, as 

appropriate, throughout this notice. We 

also have revised other sections of the 

notice to use these terms, where 

appropriate. 

Comment: A number of commenters 

recommended that the Department 

broaden the Eligible Applicants 

requirement to include additional types 

of applicants. The entities suggested by 

the commenters to be made eligible 

include the following: State educational 

agencies, municipalities and other units 

of local government, and other public 

agencies and institutions; Native 

American Tribes and the Bureau of 

Indian Education; institutions of higher 

education, including community 

colleges and accredited four-year 

baccalaureate degree-granting 

institutions; local and regional early 

intervention and preschool programs 

under part B or C of the IDEA; private 

schools including religious schools; 

community-based organizations; youth 

councils; teacher unions in partnership 

with LEAs; workforce investment 

boards; for-profit charter management 

organizations; nonprofit organizations 

applying independently of an LEA or 

consortium partnership; and nonprofit 

organizations partnering with 

individual schools rather than with 

consortia of schools or LEAs. 

Discussion: Section 14007(a)(1) of the 

ARRA describes the types of entities 

that are eligible to apply for funding 

under this program. The Department has 

no authority to expand this statutorilyprescribed requirement.4

With respect to most of the entities 

mentioned by the commenters, the 

critical questions for determining 

whether the entity is an eligible 

applicant are (1) whether it includes an 

entity that qualifies as a nonprofit 

organization (as defined in this notice) 

and (2) whether the nonprofit 

organization has partnered with one or 

more LEAs or a consortium of schools. 

In this program, we define nonprofit 

organization as an entity that meets the 

definition of ‘‘nonprofit’’ under 34 CFR 

77.1(c) or is an institution of higher 

education under section 101(a) of the 

HEA. Section 77.1(c) defines the term 

‘‘nonprofit’’, as applied to an agency, 

organization, or institution, as meaning 

that it is owned and operated by one or 

more corporations or associations whose 

net earnings do not benefit, and cannot 

lawfully benefit, any private 

shareholder or entity. The definition of 

‘‘institution of higher education’’ in 

section 101(a) of the HEA includes both 

public and private two- and four-year 

institutions of higher education. 

Partnerships that include an entity that 

meets this definition of nonprofit 

organization and that partner with one 

or more LEAs or a consortium of schools 

are eligible to apply for funding under 

this program; those that do not include 

an entity that meets the definition or 

that do not partner with one or more 

LEAs or a consortium of schools are not 

eligible. 

However, nothing in the authorizing 

statute or the priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria for 

this program prevents an eligible 

nonprofit organization that partners 

with one or more LEAs or a consortium 

of schools in accordance with section 

14007(a)(1)(B) of the ARRA from 

applying with a proposed project that 

involves the eligible applicant working 

with other entities, including those 

mentioned by the commenters. These 

other entities would be considered other 

partners, as that term is defined in this 

notice. 

Further, as noted in the preceding 

discussion, the Congress amended the 

authorizing statute for this program with 

respect to a grantee’s ability to make 

subgrants. Under new section 14007(d) 

of the ARRA, in the case of an eligible 

entity that is a partnership under 

section 14007(a)(1)(B) of the ARRA, the 

partner serving as the fiscal agent may 

make subgrants to one or more of the 

other entities in the partnership. We are 

revising the requirements for this 

program to incorporate this statutory 

change. In doing so, we interpret the 

fiscal agent’s (i.e., the applicant’s) 

ability to make subgrants as extending 

only to the official partners.5 Thus, 

while an eligible applicant can include 

other partners in its section 

14007(a)(1)(B) partnerships, the 

applicant may not make subgrants to 

those other partners. 

Changes: As discussed elsewhere in 

this notice, we are revising the 

requirements for this program, 

consistent with the amendments to 

section 14007 of the ARRA, to specify 

that, in the case of an eligible applicant 

that is a partnership between a 

nonprofit organization and (1) one or 

more LEAs or (2) a consortium of 

schools, the partner serving as the 

applicant may make subgrants to one or 

more official partners. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that the Department 

clarify the circumstances under which 

an applicant may submit multiple 

applications for different projects. 

Discussion: Under this program, an 

eligible applicant may apply alone, if it 

is an LEA, or on behalf of a partnership 

pursuant to section 14007(a)(1)(B) of the 

ARRA. Applications submitted on 

behalf of partnerships, consortia, or 

groups are subject to the Department’s 

regulations in 34 CFR 75.127 and 

75.129. Any applicant, whether it is an 

LEA or the entity within the partnership 

designated as the applicant, may submit 

multiple applications for substantially 

different projects. 

However, to ensure that this program 

provides funding for the widest possible 

array of innovative projects, we are 

adding to the requirements for this 

program limits on the awards made to 

any individual grantee (see Limits on 

Grant Awards). Under this requirement, 

the Department will not award more 

than two grants to any grantee. 

Additionally, no grantee may receive 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 12031 

6Pursuant to the Department’s grants regulations, 

multiple eligible LEAs could also apply as a group. 

However there is no advantage for multiple LEAs 

to apply as a group. 

more than $55 million in grant awards 

under this program. Because we 

estimate that the maximum awards will 

be $50 million, $30 million, and $5 

million for Scale-up, Validation, and 

Development grants, respectively, this 

requirement effectively means that a 

grantee awarded a Scale-up grant may 

also receive a Development grant, but 

may not receive a Validation grant or a 

second Scale-up grant. 

We note, in addition, that the Funding 

Categories requirement for this program 

prohibits an applicant from submitting 

an application for the same proposed 

project under more than one type of 

grant. 

Changes: We are adding to the 

requirements limits on the awards made 

to an individual grantee under this 

program. Under this requirement, the 

Department will not award more than 

two grants to any grantee under this 

program. Additionally, no grantee may 

receive more than $55 million in grant 

awards under this program. 

Comment: Several commenters asked 

that the Department include definitions 

of the terms ‘‘LEA’’ and ‘‘educational 

service agency’’ from the ESEA in order 

to clarify that educational service 

agencies are eligible applicants under 

this program. 

Discussion: Consistent with section 

14013(6) of the ARRA, any term used in 

this program that is not defined in the 

ARRA but is defined in section 9101 of 

the ESEA shall have the meaning given 

the term in that section. The term ‘‘local 

educational agency’’ is defined in 

section 9101(26) of the ESEA. 

Accordingly, we are using the definition 

of ‘‘local educational agency’’ in section 

9101(26) of the ESEA for this program. 

This definition specifically includes 

educational service agencies (defined in 

section 9101(17) of the ESEA) and 

consortia of those agencies; thus, an 

educational service agency may be an 

eligible applicant under this program. 

We believe it is unnecessary to include 

these definitions in this notice as they 

are readily available to interested 

parties. 

While we do not include these 

definitions in this notice, we do include 

a note about eligibility for LEAs under 

this program. The note clarifies that, to 

be eligible for this program, an LEA 

(whether it is the applicant or an official 

partner) must be within one of the 50 

States, the District of Columbia, or the 

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. 

Changes: Consistent with other minor 

changes related to the use of the terms 

‘‘applicant’’ and ‘‘eligible applicant,’’ we 

are making a minor change to the Note 

about LEA Eligibility. 

Comment: Two commenters 

recommended that the Department 

clarify whether a partnership of 

multiple LEAs may apply for funding 

under this program (as opposed to a 

single LEA applying on its own). 

Discussion: The Department only 

makes grant awards to single entities; 

the single entity can apply on behalf of 

itself or on behalf of a group, 

consortium, or partnership in 

accordance with the Department’s group 

application regulations in 34 CFR 

75.127 through 75.129. 

Under this program, a single LEA may 

apply for a grant pursuant to section 

14007(a)(1)(A) of the ARRA. However, 

as a single applicant, it could propose 

a project that involves working with 

other partners (as that term is defined in 

this notice); these other partners could 

include other LEAs that do not meet the 

eligibility requirements for this 

program.6 Finally, a single LEA may 

serve as the applicant for a partnership 

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

the ARRA. This partnership must 

include the official partners, which 

could include one or more LEAs, and 

may also include other LEAs as other 

partners. 

Changes: We are adding language to 

the Eligible Applicants section of the 

requirements to clarify that an eligible 

applicant that is a partnership applying 

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

ARRA must designate one of its official 

partners (as defined in this notice) to 

serve as the applicant in accordance 

with the Department’s regulations 

governing group applications in 34 CFR 

75.127 through 75.129. 

Comment: Several commenters 

recommended that the Department 

clarify whether an eligible applicant 

that is a partnership may include 

multiple nonprofit organizations. 

Discussion: An eligible partnership 

must include at least one nonprofit 

organization as an official partner. An 

eligible partnership may include 

additional nonprofit organizations as 

additional official partners (as defined 

in this notice) or as other partners. If a 

nonprofit organization is an other 

partner (i.e., not an official partner), that 

nonprofit organization would not be 

eligible to receive a subgrant from the 

applicant. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: A few commenters 

recommended that the Department 

clarify whether charter schools are 

eligible applicants. Specifically, one 

commenter recommended clarifying 

whether charter schools that are not 

identified in State law as having LEA 

status, but are otherwise eligible 

applicants, may apply without the 

review or approval of an LEA. 

Discussion: As discussed earlier in 

this notice, depending on its legal status 

under State law, a charter school may be 

eligible to apply under this program in 

the following ways: As an LEA on its 

own (if it is considered an LEA under 

State law); as a nonprofit organization, 

in partnership with one or more LEAs 

or a consortium of schools (if it meets 

the definition of nonprofit organization 

under this program); or in partnership 

with a nonprofit organization as an LEA 

(if it is considered an LEA under State 

law) or as part of a consortium of 

schools (if it not considered an LEA 

under State law). Because charter school 

laws vary from State to State, we 

encourage any charter school interested 

in applying for funds under this 

program to verify its status and 

authority to receive funds before 

applying. 

A charter school that does not qualify 

as an LEA, a nonprofit organization, or 

a school in a consortium of schools may 

still be able to be involved with a 

project funded under this program. It 

could do so as an other partner (as 

defined in this notice) provided that the 

eligible applicant for the project met all 

of the eligibility requirements. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

concern that the legal framework of the 

commenter’s State would prevent 

entities from that State from being 

eligible to apply for funding under this 

program. 

Discussion: In general, the 

requirements for eligible applicants 

under this program do not relate to State 

statutes or regulations. Applicants are 

required to certify, as part of their 

application, that they have the legal 

authority to receive program funds. 

Changes: None. 

Nonprofit Organization 

Comment: Several commenters 

requested that the Department explicitly 

state in the notice that nonprofit 

organizations may be the fiscal agent in 

an application. Some of these 

commenters expressed concern that if 

only LEAs or consortia of schools can be 

the fiscal agent for a grant, this might 

lead them to minimize the roles and 

responsibilities of their nonprofit 

partners. 

Discussion: A nonprofit organization 

may serve as the fiscal agent (i.e., the 

applicant) applying on behalf of a 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
12032 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

7Note, however, that, under section 14011 of the 

ARRA, no recipient of ARRA funding, including a 

grantee under this program, may provide financial 

assistance to students to attend private elementary 

or secondary schools, unless funds are used to 

provide special education and related services to 

children with disabilities, as authorized by the 

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 

U.S.C. 1400 et seq.). 

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

of the ARRA. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: A few commenters 

recommended that the Department 

clarify whether nonprofit organizations 

that do not directly work in schools or 

with LEAs may still partner with LEAs 

or consortia of schools as eligible 

applicants. 

Discussion: There is no requirement 

that a nonprofit organization applying 

in partnership with one or more LEAs 

or a consortium of schools under section 

14007(a)(1)(B) of the ARRA have a 

history of working directly in schools or 

with LEAs. However, consistent with 

the amendments to the eligibility 

requirements for this program made by 

the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 

2010 (as discussed elsewhere in this 

notice), for partnerships that include a 

nonprofit organization and one or more 

LEAs or a consortium of schools, the 

nonprofit organization must have a 

record of significantly improving 

student achievement, attainment, or 

retention in order to be eligible for an 

award under this program. In 

accordance with the requirements 

established in this notice, an eligible 

applicant that includes a nonprofit 

organization must demonstrate that the 

nonprofit organization has such a record 

through its record of work with an LEA 

or schools in the past. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Two commenters 

recommended that the Department 

clarify whether nonprofit organizations 

may submit applications that include 

multi-city or multi-State partners (i.e., 

LEAs or schools in different cities or 

States). 

Discussion: Nothing in the 

authorizing statute or the priorities, 

requirements, definitions, or selection 

criteria for this program prohibits 

nonprofit organizations from partnering 

with LEAs or schools in different 

geographic locations. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

concern that the proposed definition of 

nonprofit organization includes 

institutions of higher education. The 

commenter asserted that the Congress 

did not intend to include these 

institutions as eligible nonprofit 

organizations in section 14007(a)(1)(B) 

partnerships. 

Discussion: Nothing in the 

authorizing statute for this program 

prohibits the inclusion of institutions of 

higher education in partnerships 

eligible to apply under section 

14007(a)(1)(B) of the ARRA. Further, we 

believe that institutions of higher 

education possess unique expertise— 

particularly regarding methods of 

evaluation—that will positively benefit 

the types of projects that the Department 

seeks to fund under this program. We 

have concluded, based on our review of 

sections 14007 and 14013 of the ARRA 

and section 101(a) of the HEA, that all 

entities that meet the definition of 

institution of higher education under 

section 101(a) of the HEA—whether 

they are public or private—may be 

considered nonprofit organizations for 

purposes of this program. 

Changes: None. 

Consortium of Schools 

Comment: Several commenters 

expressed concern that the definition of 

the term consortium of schools limits 

the schools that may be included in a 

consortium only to public schools. 

These commenters requested that the 

Department expand the definition of 

consortium of schools to include private 

schools, as well. 

Discussion: We believe that it is 

consistent with the goals of the ARRA, 

which include improving the academic 

achievement and attainment of students 

in public elementary and secondary 

schools, to define consortium of schools 

to include only public schools. 

However, as discussed earlier in this 

notice, a private school may be a partner 

within an eligible applicant if it 

qualifies as a nonprofit organization and 

if it partners with one or more LEAs or 

a consortium of public schools. In 

addition, we note that private schools 

may be included as other partners and 

students in those schools could be 

served by projects that receive funding 

under this program.7

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that the Department 

expand the definition of consortium of 

schools to include Bureau of Indian 

Education (BIE) schools. 

Discussion: The definition of 

consortium of schools includes BIE 

schools because BIE schools are public 

schools. We note also that a BIE school 

may be eligible to apply as an LEA on 

its own, or in partnership with a 

nonprofit organization, as an LEA, 

because the definition of local 

educational agency in section 9101(26) 

of the ESEA (which we are using in this 

program) includes a provision under 

which a BIE school may be considered 

an LEA. If a BIE school is considered an 

LEA, the BIE school would be able to 

apply as an eligible LEA on its own, or 

in partnership with a nonprofit 

organization, consistent with the 

requirements for eligible applicants 

under this program. In addition, a BIE 

school could also be involved with a 

project as an other partner. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that the Department broaden the 

definition of consortium of schools to 

include university schools of education. 

Discussion: The proposed definition 

of consortium of schools is limited to 

public elementary and secondary 

schools. As discussed earlier in this 

notice, we regard this definition as 

consistent with the authorizing statute’s 

goal of improving the academic 

achievement and attainment of students 

in public elementary and secondary 

schools. However, as discussed 

elsewhere in this notice, an institution 

of higher education (as defined in 

section 101(a) of the HEA) may apply 

for funding under this program as a 

nonprofit organization in partnership 

with one or more LEAs or a consortium 

of schools. In addition, an institution of 

higher education could also be involved 

with a project as an other partner. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that the Department 

expand the definition of consortium of 

schools to include public or private 

early learning providers. 

Discussion: In the NPP, we proposed 

to define consortium of schools as two 

or more public elementary or secondary 

schools. As discussed earlier in this 

notice, we determined that including 

only public elementary and secondary 

schools in this definition is consistent 

with the ARRA’s goal of improving the 

academic achievement and attainment 

of students in public elementary and 

secondary schools. Thus, we decline to 

include early learning providers in the 

definition of consortium of schools, 

unless they are considered to be part of 

a public elementary school under State 

law. However, any early learning 

provider (whether public or private) 

would be eligible to apply for funding 

under this program if it is (1) an LEA or 

(2) a nonprofit organization applying in 

partnership with one or more LEAs or 

a consortium of schools. In addition, an 

eligible applicant (whether an LEA or 

partnership applicant) would not be 

prohibited from including early learning 

providers as other partners to the 

proposed project provided that the 

eligible applicant otherwise met the 

eligibility requirements. We believe that 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 12033 

these provisions are sufficient to allow 

for the participation of early learning 

providers in projects under this 

program. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

concern that many public schools may 

be unaware that it is illegal for them 

under State law to accept Federal 

funding that is not distributed through 

their LEA. The commenter 

recommended including a note in the 

requirements providing that any 

applicant that applies on behalf of a 

partnership that includes a consortium 

of schools must include as part of the 

application a signed authorization from 

the legal authority for each of the 

schools in the consortium (generally the 

LEA). 

Discussion: Eligible applicants should 

act consistent with State law when 

applying for, receiving, or using funds 

under this program. Applicants are 

required to certify, as part of their 

application, that they have the legal 

authority to receive program funds. We 

do not believe it is necessary also to 

require that an applicant include as part 

of its application a signed authorization 

from the legal authority for each of the 

schools in the consortium. 

Changes: None. 

Eligibility Requirements 

Eligibility Requirements in General 

Note: As noted in the NPP, proposed 

paragraphs (1) through (4) of the eligibility 

requirements for this program repeated 

requirements prescribed by section 14007 of 

the ARRA. We included these requirements 

in the NPP for clarity. As we do not have 

authority to alter or eliminate statutorilyprescribed requirements, we do not discuss 

comments recommending changes to, or 

deletions of, these requirements. However, 

we also received a number of comments 

requesting further clarification of the 

proposed requirements or recommending 

inclusion of additional eligibility 

requirements. We discuss those comments in 

the paragraphs that follow. 

In addition, we note that, since 

publication of the NPP, the Congress 

amended the ARRA with respect to the 

eligibility requirements for this 

program. We are revising the eligibility 

requirements for this program to 

incorporate those statutory changes. We 

discuss these revisions in the 

immediately following paragraphs and 

elsewhere in this section, as 

appropriate. 

Comment: None. 

Discussion: As stated in the NPP, 

paragraphs (1) through (4) of the 

proposed eligibility requirements for 

this program repeated requirements 

prescribed by section 14007 of the 

ARRA. Section 307 of Division D of the 

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 

(Pub. L. 111–117), which was signed 

into law on December 16, 2009, made 

several amendments to these statutory 

requirements. The major substantive 

changes to section 14007 are discussed 

in the following paragraphs. 

Section 14007(b)(1) has been 

amended to require that, to be eligible 

for an award under this program, an 

eligible applicant must (A) have 

significantly closed the achievement 

gaps between groups of students 

described in section 1111(b)(2) of the 

ESEA, or (B) have demonstrated success 

in significantly increasing student 

academic achievement for all groups of 

students described in such section. In 

addition, section 14007(b)(2) of the 

ARRA has been eliminated; this section 

would have required that an eligible 

applicant 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). As 

a result of this amendment, to be 

eligible for an award, eligible applicants 

are no longer required to have exceeded 

the State’s annual measurable objectives 

consistent with section 1111(b)(2) of the 

ESEA for two or more consecutive years. 

In addition, the statutory changes make 

clear that eligible applicants do not have 

to show that they have both 

significantly closed achievement gaps 

and significantly increased student 

achievement for all groups described in 

section 1111(b)(2) of the ESEA. Rather, 

eligible applicants must show either (A) 

that they have significantly closed the 

achievement gaps between groups of 

students described in section 1111(b)(2) 

of the ESEA or (B) that they have 

demonstrated success in significantly 

increasing student academic 

achievement for all groups described in 

such section. 

Section 14007(c) of the ARRA has 

been amended to specify that an eligible 

applicant that includes a nonprofit 

organization is considered to have met 

the requirements of new paragraphs (1) 

and (2) of section 14007(b) if the 

nonprofit organization has a record of 

significantly improving student 

achievement, attainment, or retention. 

Under the amendments to section 

14007(c), an eligible applicant that 

includes a nonprofit organization is thus 

no longer required to demonstrate that 

the nonprofit organization has a record 

of each of the following: (1) Having 

significantly closed the achievement 

gaps between groups of students 

described in section 1111(b)(2) of the 

ESEA; (2) having exceeded the State’s 

annual measurable objectives consistent 

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

two or more consecutive years or having 

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 (3) having made significant 

improvement in other areas, such as 

graduation rates or increased 

recruitment and placement of highquality teachers and school leaders, as 

demonstrated with meaningful data. 

Instead, an eligible applicant is required 

to demonstrate that the nonprofit 

organization in the partnership has a 

record of significantly improving 

student achievement, attainment, or 

retention. 

In addition, section 14007(c) of the 

ARRA has been amended to specify that 

an eligible applicant that includes a 

nonprofit organization is considered to 

have met the requirements of new 

paragraph (3) of section 14007(b) if it 

demonstrates that it will meet the 

requirement relating to private-sector 

matching. This statutory change makes 

clear that the requirement in section 

14007(b)(3) of the ARRA relating to 

establishing partnerships with the 

private sector does not apply to such an 

eligible applicant, as the eligible 

applicant by its very nature consists of 

such a partnership, and thus does not 

require an eligible applicant that 

includes a nonprofit organization to 

establish additional partnerships with 

the private sector. 

Changes: We are making several 

changes to the eligibility requirements 

for this program to reflect these 

statutory changes. Consistent with the 

amendments to section 14007(b) of the 

ARRA, we are revising proposed 

paragraph (1) of the eligibility 

requirements to require that, to be 

eligible for an award under this 

program, an eligible applicant must— 

except as specifically set forth in the 

requirements: (A) Have significantly 

closed the achievement gaps between 

groups of students described in section 

1111(b)(2) of the ESEA, or (B) have 

demonstrated success in significantly 

increasing student academic 

achievement for all groups of students 

described in such section. We are also 

removing proposed paragraph (2) of the 

eligibility requirements, which would 

have required that an eligible applicant 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
12034 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

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). 

We are redesignating the subsequent 

paragraphs of the eligibility 

requirements accordingly. 

Consistent with the amendments to 

section 14007(c) of the ARRA, we are 

revising the Note about Eligibility for an 

Eligible Applicant that Includes a 

Nonprofit Organization to specify that 

an eligible applicant that includes a 

nonprofit organization is considered to 

have met paragraph (1) and paragraph 

(2) (proposed paragraph (3)) of the 

eligibility requirements for this program 

if the nonprofit organization has a 

record of significantly improving 

student achievement, attainment, or 

retention. In addition, we are revising 

the Note to specify that an eligible 

applicant that includes a nonprofit 

organization is considered to have met 

paragraph (3) (proposed paragraph (4)) 

of the eligibility requirements for this 

program if it demonstrates that it will 

meet the requirement relating to privatesector matching. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that the Department 

clarify whether low-performing LEAs 

may partner with high-performing LEAs 

that meet all the eligibility 

requirements. This commenter argued 

that this approach would allow lowperforming LEAs that do not meet the 

requirements to still benefit from funds 

under this program. The same 

commenter also suggested that if the 

lead LEA meets all the requirements, it 

should not have to select LEA partners 

that also meet those requirements. 

Discussion: High-performing LEAs are 

permitted to partner with lowperforming LEAs in projects under this 

program. 

While an LEA that applies for funds 

under section 14007(a)(1)(A) of the 

ARRA must meet the requirements in 

new section 14007(b)(1) through (3) of 

the ARRA (which are now reflected in 

paragraphs (1) through (3) of the 

eligibility requirements, as discussed 

elsewhere in this notice), nothing in the 

statute or the priorities, requirements, 

definitions, or selection criteria for this 

program prohibits such an eligible LEA 

from proposing a project that involves 

the LEA partnering with other partners, 

including other LEAs. 

In addition, a section 14007(a)(1)(B) 

partnership could include one or more 

LEAs, either as an official partner or as 

an other partner that does not meet the 

eligibility requirements. This is because 

the partnership is deemed to have met 

the eligibility requirements in new 

section 14007(b)(1) through (3) of the 

ARRA if the nonprofit organization in 

the partnership satisfies the 

requirements in new section 14007(c) of 

the ARRA. 

Changes: None. 

Proposed Paragraph (1) of Eligibility 

Requirements: Significantly Closed 

Achievement Gaps 

Comment: Several commenters 

recommended that the Department 

clarify what the phrase ‘‘significantly 

closed the achievement gaps’’ means in 

proposed paragraph (1) of the eligibility 

requirements. Many commenters were 

particularly interested in clarification of 

the term ‘‘significantly;’’ many asked for 

guidance as to how to measure whether 

an achievement gap was significantly 

closed. For example, one commenter 

requested that the Department provide 

the requisite time period that should be 

used to measure whether an 

achievement gap has been closed. 

Another commenter suggested having 

flexible indicators for judging whether 

or not eligible applicants have 

significantly closed the achievement 

gaps, such as increases in grade point 

average, gains in standardized test 

scores, as well as qualitative measures. 

One commenter argued that the 

Department should not interpret the 

phrase ‘‘significantly closed’’ to mean 

full achievement gap closure across all 

grade levels and subject areas, while 

another commenter argued that eligible 

applicants who can show success in 

raising achievement system-wide and 

moving all students toward proficiency 

should satisfy this requirement. One 

commenter recommended that the 

Department allow an eligible applicant 

to meet this eligibility requirement 

through an intermediate variable 

directly correlated with significantly 

closing the achievement gaps. The 

commenter expressed concern that 

without including such language, the 

program might exclude eligible 

applicants with innovative programs for 

which it has been difficult to directly 

measure progress in student 

achievement. 

Discussion: Proposed paragraph (1) of 

the eligibility requirements, which 

repeats the eligibility requirement in old 

section 14007(b)(1) of the ARRA (new 

section 14007(b)(1)(A) of the ARRA), 

states that to be eligible for an award, an 

eligible applicant must have 

significantly closed the achievement 

gaps between groups of students 

described in section 1111(b)(2) of the 

ESEA. The Department declines to 

define the term ‘‘significantly’’ for 

purposes of this eligibility requirement. 

Given the diversity of potential 

eligible applicants under this program, 

the Department wishes to encourage 

eligible applicants to present their 

arguments for how they have 

significantly closed the achievement 

gaps. Similarly, the Department 

understands that eligible applicants will 

bring to bear different areas of expertise 

and that they likely will focus on 

improving various aspects of student 

achievement. Eligible applicants are 

best suited to present information on 

how they have significantly closed those 

achievement gaps and to determine the 

metrics by which they measure those 

achievements. Because the Department 

is not identifying the specific measures 

or variables that an eligible applicant 

may use to meet this requirement, 

eligible applicants would not be 

prohibited from using an intermediate 

variable strongly correlated with 

significantly closing the achievement 

gaps. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: A number of commenters 

recommended that the Department 

clarify whether, to meet this eligibility 

requirement, an eligible applicant must 

have significantly closed achievement 

gaps between all groups described in 

section 1111(b)(2) of the ESEA, or 

whether eligible applicants that have 

significantly closed the achievement 

gaps between some groups, but not all, 

would be eligible for an award. One 

commenter pointed to success in 

narrowing the achievement gaps 

between African American and white 

students, but not across all groups. 

Discussion: The Department interprets 

the eligibility requirement reflected in 

old section 14007(b)(1) of the ARRA 

(new section 14007(b)(1)(A) of the 

ARRA) as concerning the achievement 

of students in the groups of students in 

section 1111(b)(2) of the ESEA (i.e., 

economically disadvantaged students, 

students from major racial and ethnic 

groups, students with limited English 

proficiency, students with disabilities) 

relative to the achievement of the ‘‘all 

students’’ category under section 

1111(b)(2)(C)(v)(I) of the ESEA. To meet 

this requirement, therefore, an eligible 

applicant must have significantly closed 

the gap in achievement between at least 

one of those groups and the ‘‘all 

students’’ category. An eligible applicant 

is not required to have significantly 

closed achievement gaps between all of 

those student groups and the ‘‘all 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 12035 

students’’ category, or to have 

significantly closed achievement gaps 

between each of the student groups 

themselves. 

Changes: None. 

Proposed Paragraph (2) of Eligibility 

Requirements: Exceeded the State’s 

Annual Measurable Objectives for Two 

Years in a Row, or Demonstrated 

Success in Significantly Increasing 

Student Achievement for All Groups of 

Students 

Comment: One commenter requested 

clarification as to how the Department 

interprets proposed paragraph (2) of the 

eligibility requirements. The commenter 

asked the Department to confirm that an 

eligible applicant would meet this 

requirement if it satisfied either the 

‘‘AMO’’ clause of this requirement (i.e., 

have exceeded the State’s annual 

measurable objectives consistent with 

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

or more consecutive years) or the 

‘‘another measure’’ clause (i.e., have 

demonstrated success in significantly 

increasing student achievement for all 

groups of students described in section 

1111(b)(2) of the ESEA through another 

measure, such as measures described in 

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

National Assessment of Educational 

Progress)). 

Discussion: Proposed paragraph (2) of 

the eligibility requirements, which 

repeated the eligibility requirement in 

old section 14007(b)(2) of the ARRA, 

stated that an eligible applicant must 

have exceeded the State’s annual 

measurable objectives consistent with 

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

or more consecutive years (the ‘‘AMO’’ 

clause) or have demonstrated success in 

significantly increasing student 

achievement for all groups of students 

described in such section through 

another measure, such as measures 

described in section 1111(c)(2) of the 

ESEA (i.e., the National Assessment of 

Educational Progress) (the ‘‘another 

measure’’ clause). As discussed earlier 

in this notice, section 307 of Division D 

of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 

2010 amended the ARRA by removing 

this requirement. As amended, the 

ARRA now requires that an eligible 

applicant either (A) have significantly 

closed the achievement gaps between 

groups of students described in section 

1111(b)(2) of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 

6311(b)(2)), or (B) have demonstrated 

success in significantly increasing 

student academic achievement for all 

groups of students described in such 

section. We are revising the eligibility 

requirements to incorporate these 

statutory changes. Therefore, an eligible 

applicant can meet this eligibility 

requirement by showing either (A) or (B) 

above; it is not required to show that it 

has done both. 

Changes: Consistent with the 

amendments to section 14007(b) of the 

ARRA, we are revising proposed 

paragraph (1) of the eligibility 

requirements to require that, to be 

eligible for an award under this 

program, an eligible applicant must— 

except as specifically set forth in the 

Note about Eligibility for an Eligible 

Applicant that Includes a Nonprofit 

Organization: (A) Have significantly 

closed the achievement gaps between 

groups of students described in section 

1111(b)(2) of ESEA, or (B) have 

demonstrated success in significantly 

increasing student academic 

achievement for all groups of students 

described in such section. We are also 

removing proposed paragraph (2) of the 

eligibility requirements, which would 

have required that an eligible applicant 

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). 

Comment: A number of commenters 

recommended that the Department 

clarify the meaning of the phrase 

‘‘success in significantly increasing 

student achievement’’ in the ‘‘another 

measure’’ clause of proposed paragraph 

(2) of the eligibility requirements. 

Commenters asked what standard the 

Department will use to determine 

whether eligible applicants have met 

this requirement. 

Discussion: As discussed earlier in 

this notice, the Department declines to 

define the term ‘‘significantly’’ as it is 

used in paragraph (1)(A) of the 

eligibility requirements. Similarly here, 

the Department declines to define the 

term ‘‘significantly’’ as it is used in the 

requirement mentioned by the 

commenters (which is now 

incorporated, consistent with the 

amendments to section 14007(b) of the 

ARRA, in paragraph (1)(B) of the 

eligibility requirements). Given the 

diversity of potential eligible applicants, 

the Department wishes to encourage 

eligible applicants to present their 

arguments for how they have 

significantly increased student 

academic achievement. The Department 

also understands that eligible applicants 

will bring to bear different areas of 

expertise and will focus on improving 

various aspects of student achievement. 

Eligible applicants are best suited to 

present information on how they have 

significantly increased student 

achievement and to determine the 

metrics by which they measure those 

achievements. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Several commenters argued 

that although the ‘‘another measure’’ 

clause of proposed paragraph (2) of the 

eligibility requirements mentions NAEP 

as an example of an appropriate 

alternative measure for demonstrating 

success in significantly increasing 

student achievement, NAEP does not 

provide information at the LEA level. 

These commenters requested that the 

Department provide other examples of 

acceptable achievement measures that 

eligible applicants can use under the 

‘‘another measure’’ clause to 

demonstrate success in significantly 

increasing student achievement, such as 

graduation rates, Advanced Placement 

and International Baccalaureate course 

completion, SAT or PSAT scores, and 

college enrollment rates. 

Two other commenters argued that 

although NAEP is referenced in section 

1111(c)(2) of the ESEA, that section 

refers to ‘‘Other Provisions to Support 

Teaching and Learning,’’ not student 

achievement, which is addressed in 

section 1111(b) of the ESEA. Those 

commenters argued that it is, therefore, 

not appropriate to cite section 1111(c)(2) 

of the ESEA (i.e., NAEP) as an 

appropriate measure of student 

achievement. 

Discussion: As discussed earlier in 

this notice, section 307 of Division D of 

the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 

2010, amended the ARRA by 

eliminating the requirement set forth in 

proposed paragraph (2) of the eligibility 

requirements. As amended, the ARRA 

now requires that an eligible entity 

either (A) have significantly closed the 

achievement gaps between groups of 

students described in section 1111(b)(2) 

of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(2)), or 

(B) have demonstrated success in 

significantly increasing student 

academic achievement for all groups of 

students described in such section. 

Under the amendments, the eligibility 

requirements thus no longer mention 

NAEP as an example of an appropriate 

alternative measure for demonstrating 

significant student achievement. We 

believe that these statutory changes 

respond to the commenters’ concerns 

regarding NAEP. 

With respect to the comments 

requesting other examples of acceptable 

achievement measures, we decline to 

incorporate these examples in the 

eligibility requirements. As discussed 

earlier in this notice, we believe that 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
12036 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

eligible applicants are best suited to 

identify and present information on 

how they have significantly increased 

student achievement and do not wish to 

limit the metrics by which they measure 

those achievements. 

Changes: Consistent with the 

amendments to section 14007(b) of the 

ARRA, we are revising proposed 

paragraph (1) of the eligibility 

requirements to require that, to be 

eligible for an award under this 

program, an eligible applicant must— 

except as specifically set forth in the 

Note about Eligibility for an Eligible 

Applicant that Includes a Nonprofit 

Organization: (A) have significantly 

closed the achievement gaps between 

groups of students described in section 

1111(b)(2) of the ESEA, or (B) have 

demonstrated success in significantly 

increasing student academic 

achievement for all groups of students 

described in such section. We are also 

removing proposed paragraph (2) of the 

eligibility requirements and 

renumbering the remaining 

requirements accordingly. 

Proposed Paragraph (3) (Newly 

Redesignated Paragraph (2)) of 

Eligibility Requirements: Made 

Significant Improvements in Other 

Areas 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that the Department 

clarify the term ‘‘significant 

improvement’’ in proposed paragraph 

(3) of the eligibility requirements. 

Discussion: Proposed paragraph (3) 

(newly redesignated paragraph (2)) of 

the eligibility requirements, which 

repeated the eligibility requirement in 

old section 14007(b)(3) of the ARRA 

(new section 14007(b)(2)), states that an 

eligible applicant must have made 

significant improvement in other areas, 

such as graduation rates or increased 

recruitment and placement of highquality teachers and school leaders, as 

demonstrated with meaningful data. 

The Department declines to provide a 

definition of the term ‘‘significant 

improvement’’ as that term is used in 

this requirement. The Department 

wishes to encourage a diverse set of 

eligible applicants, and believes that 

eligible applicants are best suited to 

provide arguments for whether or not 

their improvements are significant. 

Eligible applicants are encouraged to 

present their arguments for how they 

have made significant improvements in 

other areas and are not limited in the 

metrics by which they measure those 

improvements. 

Changes: None. 

Proposed Paragraph (4) (Newly 

Redesignated Paragraph (3)) of 

Eligibility Requirements: Established 

Private-sector Partnerships 

Comment: Several commenters 

suggested that the Department clarify 

proposed paragraph (4) of the eligibility 

requirements with respect to how many 

and what types of partnerships are 

permitted. Specifically, these 

commenters suggested that the 

Department clarify whether one or more 

private-sector partners could provide 

matching funds or in-kind donations. 

One commenter suggested that the 

Department also clarify whether eligible 

applicants may include private-sector 

partners that do not provide matching 

funds or in-kind donations. Another 

commenter suggested that the 

Department clarify whether privatesector partners may provide products or 

services that are used as core 

components in a project. 

Discussion: Proposed paragraph (4) of 

the eligibility requirements, which 

repeated the eligibility requirement in 

old section 14007(b)(4) of the ARRA, 

stated that eligible applicants must 

demonstrate they that 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. 

Section 307 of Division D of the 

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010, 

amended section 14007(b)(4) of the 

ARRA to clarify that, to be eligible for 

an award, an eligible applicant must 

demonstrate that it has established one 

or more partnerships with the private 

sector. We are revising proposed 

paragraph (4) (newly redesignated 

paragraph (3)) to incorporate this 

statutory change. Thus, the revised 

eligibility requirement makes clear that 

there are no limits on the number of 

private-sector partnerships that an 

eligible applicant may establish. 

The statutory requirement likewise 

does not set any limits on the types of 

private-sector partnerships that an 

eligible applicant may establish, except 

that they must be non-governmental and 

that, through one or more of these 

partnerships, the eligible applicant must 

obtain matching funds from the private 

sector in order to help bring results to 

scale. An eligible applicant would not 

be prohibited under this requirement 

from establishing partnerships with the 

private sector for additional purposes. 

Changes: Consistent with the 

amendments to section 14007(b) of the 

ARRA, we are revising proposed 

paragraph (4) (newly redesignated 

paragraph (3)) to clarify that, to be 

eligible for an award, an eligible 

applicant must demonstrate that it has 

established one or more partnerships 

with the private sector. 

Comment: Several commenters asked 

the Department to clarify the phrase 

‘‘established partnerships’’ in proposed 

paragraph (4) of the eligibility 

requirements with respect to whether 

partnerships with the private sector 

must have previously existed or be 

ongoing. 

Discussion: Proposed paragraph (4) 

(newly redesignated paragraph (3)) of 

the eligibility requirements does not 

require that an eligible applicant utilize 

preexisting or ongoing partnerships 

with the private sector. To meet this 

requirement, an eligible applicant may 

establish new partnerships or use 

existing ones. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that the Secretary 

establish authority to waive the 

requirement that eligible applicants 

have established partnerships with the 

private sector if it can be determined 

that the lack of such partnerships will 

not adversely affect the implementation 

of a project under this program. Other 

commenters recommended that the 

Secretary waive this requirement for 

eligible applicants from rural areas 

because it will be difficult for these 

eligible applicants to find private-sector 

partners to provide matching funds. 

Discussion: As noted earlier in this 

notice, proposed paragraph (4) (newly 

redesignated paragraph (3)) of the 

eligibility requirements repeats statutory 

requirements from the ARRA. The 

Secretary does not intend to waive these 

requirements and believes strongly that 

innovative projects to improve student 

achievement and attainment should 

include partnerships with the private 

sector. However, as discussed in the 

Cost Sharing or Matching requirement 

of this program, the Secretary may 

consider decreasing, in the most 

exceptional circumstances, on a case by 

case basis, the amount of matching 

funds that an eligible applicant must 

obtain from the private sector to less 

than the required amount (i.e., 20 

percent of its grant award). An eligible 

applicant that anticipates being unable 

to meet the 20 percent matching 

requirement may request that the 

Secretary reduce the matching level 

requirement. The request, along with a 

statement of the basis for the request, 

must be included in the application. 

Changes: None. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 12037 

Proposed Paragraph (5) (Newly 

Redesignated Paragraph (4)) of 

Eligibility Requirements: Providing LEA 

and School Names 

Comment: One commenter offered 

strong support for proposed paragraph 

(5) of the eligibility requirements 

regarding the LEA and school 

information that a nonprofit 

organization applicant must include in 

its application. The commenter asserted 

that providing nonprofit organizations 

the option to describe the demographics 

of the additional LEAs or schools with 

which they will partner will give 

eligible applicants that include 

nonprofit organizations useful flexibility 

before and after applying for funds 

under this program. Another commenter 

suggested that the Department allow an 

eligible applicant that includes a 

nonprofit organization not to name any 

LEA or school partners in its 

application, but rather only describe the 

demographics and other characteristics 

of the LEAs or schools with which the 

nonprofit organization intends to 

partner. The commenter argued that this 

will improve project outcomes by 

providing eligible applicants that 

include nonprofit organizations with 

greater flexibility in the timeline for 

forging partnerships. 

Discussion: Under section 

14007(a)(1)(B) of the ARRA, an eligible 

applicant must be a partnership of the 

nonprofit organization with (1) one or 

more LEAs or (2) a consortium of 

schools. To meet this requirement, an 

eligible applicant that includes a 

nonprofit organization must submit an 

application that identifies each of the 

official partners in the partnership (i.e., 

the nonprofit organization and at least 

one LEA or a consortium of schools). 

We will not consider an application 

submitted on behalf of an eligible 

applicant that includes a nonprofit 

organization that does not do so. If the 

eligible applicant intends to involve 

additional LEAs or schools as additional 

official partners at a later date or as 

other partners, it is not required to 

identify those LEAs or schools in the 

application. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that the Department 

clarify the point at which an eligible 

applicant that includes a nonprofit 

organization must name any additional 

LEAs or schools as partners that were 

not identified in its application. The 

commenter asked specifically whether 

or not additional LEAs or schools must 

be named before a grant award is made. 

Another commenter recommended that 

the Department not allow eligible 

applicants that include a nonprofit 

organization to identify additional LEAs 

or schools as partners after a grant has 

been awarded. The commenter argued 

that all partners in a grant should be 

involved from the outset of the grant, 

and that LEA eligible applicants are 

being held to a different standard than 

eligible applicants that include a 

nonprofit and are applying under 

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

because they are not afforded this same 

flexibility with respect to naming 

partners. 

Discussion: Under proposed 

paragraph (5) (newly designated 

paragraph (4)), we proposed to permit 

an eligible applicant that includes a 

nonprofit organization to describe the 

demographics and other characteristics 

of any additional LEAs or schools with 

which it intends to partner (apart from 

the official and other partners that it 

names in its application) and the 

process it will use to select them 

because we recognize that this type of 

eligible applicant may need additional 

time to make official arrangements with 

all of its partners beyond the date by 

which applications must be submitted 

under this program. However, as stated 

in the NPP, an eligible applicant that 

includes a nonprofit organization must 

identify all of its partners (including 

other partners) before a grant award is 

made; it may not identify additional 

partners after this date. We agree with 

the commenter that all partners in a 

grant should be involved from the outset 

of the grant. We do not believe that 

allowing nonprofit organization 

applicants to name additional partners 

prior to receiving a grant award holds 

LEA applicants to a more stringent 

standard than eligible applicants that 

include nonprofit organizations. As 

noted in the preceding discussion, an 

eligible applicant that includes a 

nonprofit organization must still 

demonstrate that it has met the 

requirements for eligible applicants 

under this program and this requires 

that the application identify at least one 

LEA or a consortium of schools as an 

official partner; we will not consider an 

application on behalf of an eligible 

applicant that includes a nonprofit 

organization that does not do so. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that the Department require eligible 

applicants that include a nonprofit 

organization to describe the 

demographics of all partner LEAs or 

schools in order to better determine and 

ensure equity among grant recipients in 

terms of students or populations served. 

Discussion: Although an eligible 

applicant that includes a nonprofit 

organization would not be prohibited 

from describing the demographics of the 

LEAs or schools with which it partners 

and names in its application, we do not 

believe it is necessary to require them to 

do so because we do not intend to use 

equity as a selection criterion in making 

grant awards under this program. We 

also note that if an eligible applicant 

that includes a nonprofit organization 

intends to partner with additional LEAs 

or schools that are not named in the 

application, it must describe in the 

application the demographics and other 

characteristics of these LEAs and 

schools and the process it will use to 

select them as either official or other 

partners. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that the Department 

require that eligible applicants that 

include a nonprofit organization specify 

the proposed conditions of the 

partnership agreement, including the 

roles and responsibilities that each 

partner will have, in the grant 

application. The commenter noted that 

the agreement should include 

conditions for autonomy for the 

nonprofit organization and specify the 

degree to which each partner will have 

control over the budget and program 

generally. 

Discussion: Consistent with the 

Department’s regulations governing 

group applications in 34 CFR 75.128, a 

partnership applicant under this 

program must enter into an agreement 

that details the activities that each 

member of the partnership plans to 

perform. We do not believe it is 

necessary, however, to require that these 

agreements be included as part of the 

applications. Further, we do not believe 

it is appropriate for the Department to 

specify the level of autonomy or control 

over projects under this program that 

partners may have; rather, we believe 

that eligible applicants should have the 

flexibility to determine the conditions of 

their partnerships on an individual 

basis provided that those conditions 

comply with these requirements. 

We do note, however, that under 

Selection Criterion G (Quality of the 

Management Plan and Personnel), the 

Secretary will consider the adequacy of 

the eligible applicant’s management 

plan, including clearly defined 

responsibilities, timelines and 

milestones for accomplishing project 

tasks. In responding to this selection 

criterion, the eligible applicant is 

encouraged to describe the roles and 

responsibilities of its partners so that 

the Secretary can appropriately evaluate 

the eligible applicant’s management 

plan. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
12038 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

Changes: None. 

Note About Eligibility for an Eligible 

Applicant That Includes a Nonprofit 

Organization 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that the Department 

clarify what is meant by the sentence in 

the Note about Eligibility for an Eligible 

Applicant that Includes a Nonprofit 

Organization stating that the eligible 

entity shall be considered to have met 

the requirements of proposed 

paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of the 

eligibility requirements if the nonprofit 

organization has a record of meeting 

those requirements. The commenter 

argued that this sentence might exempt 

certain eligible applicants from 

complying with some of the eligibility 

requirements. 

Discussion: As discussed earlier in 

this notice, the eligibility requirements 

that were reflected in proposed 

paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of the 

eligibility requirements tracked the 

statutory requirements from old section 

14007(b)(1) through (b)(3) of the ARRA. 

Those requirements have been amended 

and consolidated into section 

14007(b)(1) and (b)(2) of the ARRA. In 

addition, section 14007(c) of the ARRA 

has been amended to specify that an 

eligible entity that includes a nonprofit 

organization is considered to have met 

the requirements of sections 14007(b)(1) 

and (b)(2) of the ARRA (as amended) if 

the nonprofit organization has a record 

of significantly improving student 

achievement, attainment, or retention. 

Under the amendments to section 

14007(c) of the ARRA, an eligible entity 

that includes a nonprofit organization is 

thus no longer required to demonstrate 

that the nonprofit organization has a 

record of meeting proposed paragraphs 

(1), (2), and (3) of the eligibility 

requirements. Instead, the eligible 

applicant is required to demonstrate 

that the nonprofit organization has a 

record of significantly improving 

student achievement, attainment, or 

retention. We are revising the Note 

about Eligibility for an Eligible 

Applicant that Includes a Nonprofit 

Organization to incorporate these 

statutory changes regarding the 

eligibility of an eligible applicant that 

includes a nonprofit organization. 

Changes: As discussed earlier in this 

notice, consistent with the amendments 

to section 14007(c) of the ARRA, we are 

revising the Note about Eligibility for an 

Eligible Applicant that Includes a 

Nonprofit Organization to specify that 

an eligible applicant that includes a 

nonprofit organization is considered to 

have met paragraph (1) and paragraph 

(2) of the eligibility requirements for 

this program if the nonprofit 

organization has a record of 

significantly improving student 

achievement, attainment, or retention. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that the Department 

clarify whether a nonprofit organization 

that cannot meet the eligibility 

requirements discussed in the Note 

about Eligibility for an Eligible 

Applicant that Includes a Nonprofit 

Organization may partner with an LEA 

or a consortium of schools that meets 

those requirements. A number of 

commenters requested that, if a 

nonprofit organization may partner with 

a consortium of schools that meets these 

requirements, the Department clarify 

whether all schools in the consortium 

must meet the requirements. 

Discussion: As discussed earlier in 

this notice, section 14007(c) of the 

ARRA has been amended to specify that 

an eligible applicant that includes a 

nonprofit organization is considered to 

have met the requirements of 

paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 

14007(b) of the ARRA (as amended) if 

the nonprofit organization has a record 

of significantly improving student 

achievement, attainment, or retention. 

We are revising the Note about 

Eligibility for an Eligible Applicant that 

Includes a Nonprofit Organization to 

incorporate these statutory changes. 

Thus, any eligible applicant that 

includes a nonprofit organization must 

demonstrate that the nonprofit 

organization in the partnership has a 

record of significantly improving 

student achievement, attainment, or 

retention. Accordingly, an eligible 

applicant that includes a nonprofit 

organization that cannot demonstrate 

that the nonprofit organization in the 

partnership has a record of significantly 

improving student achievement, 

attainment, or retention is not eligible 

for an award under this program 

(regardless of whether the LEA(s) or 

schools with which the nonprofit 

organization partners meet the 

requirements of paragraph (1) and 

paragraph (2) (proposed paragraph (3)) 

of the eligibility requirements for this 

program). However, under this program, 

an LEA may apply on its own as an 

eligible applicant consistent with 

section 14007(a)(1)(A) of the ARRA, and 

may partner with other entities, 

including nonprofit organizations, as 

other partners. In that respect, an LEA 

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

the ARRA that meets the requirements 

of paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) 

(proposed paragraph (3)) of the 

eligibility requirements for this program 

may involve entities (including 

nonprofit organizations) that do not 

meet the applicable eligibility 

requirements for this program without 

limitation, except as otherwise 

proscribed by law. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that the Department 

consider an eligible applicant that 

includes a nonprofit organization to 

have met the requirements of proposed 

paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of the 

eligibility requirements based on the 

nonprofit organization’s record of work 

with one LEA, instead of more than one 

LEA. 

Discussion: We originally proposed in 

the Note about Eligibility for an Eligible 

Applicant that Includes a Nonprofit 

Organization that the eligible applicant 

must demonstrate that the nonprofit 

organization has a record of meeting the 

requirements of proposed paragraphs 

(1), (2), and (3) of the eligibility 

requirements through its work with an 

LEA. We are replacing this provision 

with a requirement that the nonprofit 

organization serving as an official 

partner have a record of significantly 

improving student achievement, 

attainment, or retention, consistent with 

the amendments to the authorizing 

statute for this program through its work 

with an LEA or schools. Thus, there is 

no requirement that an eligible 

applicant that includes a nonprofit 

organization demonstrate that the 

nonprofit organization serving as an 

official partner has a record of 

significantly improving student 

achievement, attainment, or retention 

through its work with more than one 

LEA. 

Changes: We are revising the Note to 

specify that, to meet this requirement, 

an eligible applicant that includes a 

nonprofit organization must 

demonstrate that it has a record of 

significantly improving student 

academic achievement, attainment, or 

retention through the assistance it has 

provided to an LEA or schools in the 

past; we are making conforming changes 

to Selection Criterion C (Experience of 

the Eligible Applicant) for all three 

types of grants. 

Comment: Two commenters requested 

that the Department amend the Note 

About Eligibility for an Eligible 

Applicant that Includes a Nonprofit 

Organization to provide that an eligible 

entity that includes a nonprofit 

organization may demonstrate that the 

nonprofit organization serving as an 

official partner has a record of meeting 

the requirements in proposed 

paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of the 

eligibility requirements through its 

record of work with an LEA or a 

consortium of schools—rather than only 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 12039 

through its record of work with an LEA. 

The commenters argued that this change 

would ensure that nonprofit 

organizations that have not worked with 

an entire LEA would be eligible if they 

can meet the requirements in proposed 

paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) based on 

their previous work with schools. 

Discussion: We agree with the 

commenters that, to meet the 

requirement that it have a record of 

significantly improving student 

achievement, attainment, or retention 

(which replaces, for eligible applicants 

that include a nonprofit organization, 

the requirements of proposed 

paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of the 

eligibility requirements), a nonprofit 

organization should not be limited only 

to its record of work with an LEA. We 

are revising the Note to specify that, to 

meet this requirement, an eligible 

applicant that includes a nonprofit 

organization must provide the nonprofit 

organization’s record of work with an 

LEA or schools; we are making 

conforming changes to Selection 

Criterion C (Experience of the 

Applicant) for all three types of grants. 

Thus, an eligible applicant that includes 

a nonprofit organization may provide 

the nonprofit organization’s record of 

work with schools. However, because 

we believe that the nature of this 

program and the scope of its goals 

require that nonprofit organizations 

serving as an official partner have broad 

experience, such a nonprofit 

organization may not provide its record 

of work with only a single school in 

order to meet this requirement. 

Changes: We are revising the Note to 

specify that, to meet this requirement, 

an eligible applicant that includes a 

nonprofit organization must 

demonstrate that it has a record of 

significantly improving student 

academic achievement, attainment, or 

retention through the assistance it has 

provided to an LEA or schools in the 

past; we are making conforming changes 

to Selection Criterion C (Experience of 

the Eligible Applicant) for all three 

types of grant. 

Additional Eligibility Requirements 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that the Department add 

an eligibility requirement that would 

require eligible applicants to have 

significantly closed achievement gaps 

between genders. 

Discussion: We decline to require 

eligible applicants to have significantly 

closed the achievement gap between 

genders in order to be eligible for 

funding under this program. While 

gender equity in education is a laudable 

goal that the Department supports, we 

do not believe it is necessary to add 

such a requirement because the 

authorizing statute requires eligible 

applicants only to have significantly 

closed achievement gaps specifically 

between the groups of students 

described in section 1111(b)(2) of the 

ESEA, which do not include student 

gender. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that the Department add an eligibility 

requirement that would require eligible 

applicants to have significantly closed 

graduation rate gaps between the 

designated groups of students described 

in section 1111(b)(2) of the ESEA. 

Discussion: The eligibility 

requirement reflected in old section 

14007(b)(3) of the ARRA (now section 

14007(b)(2) of the ARRA) requires 

eligible applicants to make significant 

improvements in other areas, and 

specifically mentions improving 

graduation rates as an area of 

improvement that would meet the 

requirement. We believe that this 

requirement, which is now reflected in 

paragraph (2) of the eligibility 

requirements, provides an appropriate 

amount of focus on the need to improve 

high school graduation rates. We, 

therefore, decline to make the change 

recommended by the commenter. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that the Department add an eligibility 

requirement that would require eligible 

applicants to provide documentation 

that relevant student achievement data 

will be readily available and accessible 

for progress monitoring purposes. 

Discussion: We do not believe it is 

appropriate to include the eligibility 

requirement suggested by the 

commenter because it could 

unnecessarily constrain the types of 

projects eligible applicants may submit 

for the different types of grants under 

this program. We note, however, that 

under Selection Criterion D (Quality of 

the Project Evaluation) for each type of 

grant, the Secretary will consider the 

extent to which the methods of project 

evaluation will provide high-quality 

implementation data and performance 

feedback, and permit periodic 

assessment of progress toward achieving 

intended outcomes. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that the Department add 

an eligibility requirement that would 

require eligible applicants to ensure that 

their project, by design or outcome, does 

not exacerbate the concentration of 

poverty or the racial or linguistic 

concentration of students. 

Discussion: As discussed earlier in 

this notice, the Department believes that 

the promotion of diverse student 

populations is a laudable goal. We do 

not, however, believe that an eligibility 

requirement of the type recommended 

by the commenter is appropriate for this 

program. Consistent with the ARRA, we 

seek to ensure that the primary focus of 

this program is improving student 

academic achievement and attainment. 

That said, in discussing the effects of its 

proposed project an eligible applicant 

may include discussion of the effects of 

the project on intermediate variables 

that are strongly correlated with 

improving student achievement and 

attainment outcomes. These 

intermediate variables may include 

variables on topics such as those the 

commenter mentions. 

We also note that the Department has 

for many years administered the Magnet 

Schools Assistance Program. This 

program provides grants to LEAs to fund 

magnet schools that—in addition to 

strengthening students’ academic 

knowledge and their attainment of 

tangible and marketable skills—will 

further the elimination, reduction or 

prevention of minority group isolation 

in elementary and secondary schools. 20 

U.S.C. 7231(b). 

Changes: None. 

Funding Categories 

Comment: Although one commenter 

supported the requirement that an 

applicant be considered for an award 

only for the type of grant for which it 

applies, a few commenters noted that an 

applicant may have difficulty 

determining the grant type under which 

its proposed project falls and 

recommended that the Department 

allow applicants to submit the same 

proposed project under more than one 

grant category. A few other commenters 

recommended that the Department 

allow reviewers to move an application 

between grant categories or allow an 

application that does not meet the level 

of evidence for one category of grant to 

be considered in another category. 

Discussion: We decline to accept the 

commenters’ recommendations because 

we do not believe it is appropriate for 

the Department or its reviewers to 

determine the grant category for a 

proposed project; rather, eligible 

applicants should bear the 

responsibility for determining which 

grant type most closely matches their 

capabilities and needs. Applicants may 

submit as many applications as they 

deem appropriate—bearing in mind that 

the grant categories are different and, 

therefore, a project proposed under one 

category would not meet the 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
12040 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

requirements of another category. This 

is the reason the Department does not 

believe it makes sense to permit 

applicants to submit the same project 

under multiple categories. 

Changes: None. 

Cost Sharing or Matching 

Comment: While several commenters 

supported the eligibility requirement 

that eligible applicants demonstrate that 

they have established one or more 

partnerships with an entity or 

organization in the private sector 

(proposed paragraph (4) of the eligibility 

requirements), many commenters 

disagreed with the proposed 

requirement that an eligible applicant 

obtain private-sector matching funds or 

in-kind donations equal to at least 20 

percent of its grant award. These 

commenters recommended that the 20 

percent private-sector matching funds 

requirement be eliminated or reduced. 

Commenters cited several reasons for 

eliminating or reducing the required 

match, including: The possible lack of 

available resources from the private 

sector, due to current economic 

conditions or other reasons; the 

possibility that the size of the match 

will discourage many small LEAs and 

nonprofit organizations from applying; 

and the possible unintended 

consequence of giving unfair advantage 

to entities that already have access to or 

relationships with private-sector 

organizations. Two commenters 

suggested that the Department use a 

sliding scale in which the amount of 

matching funds would be higher for the 

Development and Validation grant 

categories and lower for Scale-up grants. 

Several other commenters encouraged 

the Department to allow an eligible 

applicant’s current financial 

commitments, including existing 

philanthropic donations, to be 

reallocated and used to meet the Cost 

Sharing or Matching requirement and 

not require eligible applicants to raise 

new funds. A few commenters 

recommended that the Department 

allow private-sector funds that support 

the entirety of an eligible applicant’s 

organizational efforts, not solely or 

specifically the eligible applicant’s 

proposed project, to be counted toward 

the 20 percent private-sector match. 

Similarly, one commenter 

recommended giving a grantee 

flexibility to use matching funds for 

more general programmatic costs that 

are not necessarily tied to its project. 

Discussion: As discussed in the 

context of the eligibility requirements 

for this program, old section 14007(b)(4) 

of the ARRA (new section 14007(b)(3) of 

the ARRA) requires an eligible applicant 

to demonstrate that it has established 

one or more partnerships with the 

private sector and that the private sector 

will provide matching funds in order to 

help bring results to scale. The purpose 

of the Cost Sharing or Matching 

requirement is to help ensure that the 

results of the funded projects will be 

brought to scale and sustained. The 

Department’s decision that eligible 

applicants for all three grant types— 

Scale-up, Validation, and Development 

grants—demonstrate a private-sector 

match of at least 20 percent of the total 

amount of Federal funds requested for 

each proposed project is based on the 

belief that this amount of private 

support is a strong indicator of the 

potential for sustainability of the 

proposed project over time. However, 

the Department understands the 

concerns raised by these commenters 

and, in response, provides the following 

information and clarifications. 

First, in-kind contributions may be 

counted towards the 20 percent private 

sector matching requirement. 

Second, the Secretary will consider 

granting waivers of the matching 

requirement in the most exceptional 

circumstances. 

Third, the Department has reviewed 

data on private giving in K–12 

education over the past several years 

and has concluded that the private 

sector has the capacity and resources to 

fulfill this matching requirement. Data 

from the Foundation Center (2007, the 

most recent year for which data are 

available) indicate that asking the 

private sector to provide $130 million 

(i.e., 20 percent of the $650 million 

appropriated for this program in fiscal 

year 2009) over five years will amount 

to less than five percent of total K–12 

giving from the private sector over that 

period of time. We believe that this 

reasonably demonstrates availability of 

private sector resources to fulfill the 

matching requirement. 

Fourth, eligible applicants may count 

existing private sector support towards 

the required match so long as these 

funds are reallocated in support of the 

project for which the eligible applicant 

seeks funding and the eligible applicant 

can provide appropriate evidence of this 

commitment. 

And lastly, as discussed later in this 

notice, the Department is changing the 

time by which eligible applicants must 

demonstrate that they have fulfilled 

their matching requirement. 

Specifically, rather than secure this 

match at the time of application, an 

eligible applicant is not required to 

demonstrate that it has secured the 

match until so requested by the 

Department after its application has 

been reviewed and scored at the top of 

the rank-order list for the respective 

types of grants. This means that not all 

eligible applicants will be required to 

secure a match, and that those required 

to do so will not have to secure that 

match until after the peer review of 

applications. 

Based upon this information and 

considerations, we do not believe it is 

necessary to reduce, eliminate, or 

further modify the 20 percent matching 

requirement. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: A few commenters 

expressed concern about the time period 

in which eligible applicants would need 

to secure and provide evidence of the 

commitment of the 20 percent privatesector matching funds. Commenters 

noted the hesitancy of the private sector 

to commit matching funds for multiple 

applications before knowing how many 

applications will be funded. One 

commenter suggested allowing eligible 

applicants 150 days after being 

approved for funding to secure the 20 

percent private-sector match. Another 

commenter suggested allowing up to 10 

percent of the required match to be 

obtained within one year of the award. 

Another commenter suggested that the 

Department work with private 

foundations to include a tiered review 

process to minimize the number of 

requests private foundations may have 

to review before a Federal grant is 

awarded. 

Discussion: As noted earlier, the 

Department is committed to requiring 

eligible applicants to obtain a 20 percent 

private-sector match to be eligible to 

receive funds under this program but is 

making some modifications to this 

requirement that address the concerns 

raised by these commenters. We are 

revising the Cost Sharing or Matching 

requirement with respect to the timing 

of submission of the evidence of the 

private-sector match. Selected eligible 

applicants are now required to submit 

evidence of the full 20 percent privatesector matching funds following the 

peer review of applications—not at the 

time of application as was initially 

proposed by the Department. An award 

will not be made unless the applicant 

provides adequate evidence that the full 

20 percent private-sector match has 

been committed or the Secretary 

approves the eligible applicant’s request 

to reduce the matching-level 

requirement. 

Eligible applicants that score at the 

top of the rank-order list for the 

respective types of grant and thus are 

being most seriously considered for 

funding will be contacted and given a 

limited period of time, approximately 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 12041 

four to six weeks, to provide evidence 

of the private-sector match. Given that 

applications will be submitted in the 

spring, we expect that there will be 

adequate time between the completion 

of the peer review process and the final 

deadline for awarding funds under this 

program to allow for this additional step 

in the grant process. 

Changes: We are revising the Cost 

Sharing or Matching requirement with 

respect to the timing of submission of 

the evidence of the private-sector match. 

Selected eligible applicants are now 

required to submit evidence of the full 

20 percent private-sector matching 

funds following the peer review of 

applications. An award will not be 

made unless the applicant provides 

adequate evidence that the full 20 

percent private-sector match has been 

committed or the Secretary approves the 

eligible applicant’s request to reduce the 

matching-level requirement. 

Comment: Several commenters sought 

clarification of the types of funding 

sources that may be used to satisfy the 

Cost Sharing or Matching requirement, 

including clarification regarding in-kind 

donations. Some commenters suggested 

that the Department clarify whether inkind donations may include discounts 

off products and services that are 

components of the innovation to be 

scaled up and that are provided by 

private-sector partners. One commenter 

recommended that resources from 

Federal programs be counted as part of 

the match. One commenter 

recommended that LEAs be allowed to 

reallocate their own funds to meet the 

matching requirement. 

Discussion: Section 14007(b)(3) of the 

ARRA specifically requires a privatesector match for this program. Thus, an 

eligible applicant may not use funding 

from other Federal programs or other 

public sources (including the LEAs’ 

own funds) to satisfy the Cost Sharing 

or Matching requirement. 

Discounts off products and services 

that are components of the innovation to 

be scaled up could be considered inkind donations that count toward the 

Cost Sharing and Matching requirement. 

Eligible applicants should review the 

Department’s regulations on matching 

funds, including in-kind contributions, 

in 34 CFR 74.23 and 80.24 for further 

clarification on requirements pertaining 

to in-kind donations. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Several commenters sought 

clarification about the conditions that 

would constitute the ‘‘most exceptional 

circumstances’’ under which the 

Secretary might consider reducing the 

20 percent private-sector match under 

the Cost Sharing or Matching 

requirement. 

Discussion: The Department 

understands that there may be 

extenuating circumstances that will 

create challenges for some eligible 

applicants in securing a commitment 

from the private sector for the full 20 

percent private-sector match. For this 

reason, we included in the NPP and are 

retaining in this notice a provision in 

the Cost Sharing or Matching 

requirement that allows an eligible 

applicant that believes it will be unable 

to obtain the full 20 percent privatesector match to include in its 

application a request to the Secretary to 

decrease the private-sector match 

amount. The Secretary will grant 

waivers on a case-by-case basis. As the 

Secretary’s decision to decrease the 

private-sector match amount will 

depend on the individual facts 

presented in an eligible applicant’s 

request, we decline to describe what 

situations might or might not be 

considered ‘‘the most exceptional 

circumstances’’ warranting the grant of a 

waiver. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Three commenters 

recommended that the Department 

clarify whether the Cost Sharing or 

Matching requirement applies only to 

eligible applicants for Scale-up grants, 

and not to eligible applicants for 

Validation or Development grants. The 

commenters noted that the purpose of 

the Cost Sharing or Matching 

requirement, as stated in the NPP, is to 

help bring results to scale. 

Discussion: The Cost Sharing or 

Matching requirement applies to all 

eligible applicants under this program, 

not just to applicants for Scale-up 

grants. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

concern that the Cost Sharing or 

Matching requirement does not support 

the goal of sustainability because a 

matching requirement that lasts only as 

long as the life of the grant does not 

sustain meaningful reform. The 

commenter recommended that the 

Department require applicants to 

describe the administrative and other 

efforts and activities the eligible 

applicant will pursue in order to raise 

additional funds to sustain the project. 

Discussion: The Department believes 

that the requirement that matching 

funds be from the private sector 

increases the likelihood that projects 

will be able to be sustained beyond the 

grant period. Although the Department 

may not require eligible applicants to 

obtain matching funds from the private 

sector for activities after the grant 

period, peer reviewers will consider an 

eligible applicant’s plans to sustain its 

proposed project after the grant period, 

consistent with the selection criteria 

related to strategy and capacity to bring 

to scale and sustainability (Selection 

Criteria E (Strategy and Capacity to 

Bring to Scale (in the case of Scale-up 

and Validation grants); Strategy and 

Capacity to Further Develop and Bring 

to Scale (in the case of Development 

grants)) and F (Sustainability)). 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that the Department 

require eligible applicants to notify their 

State educational agency if they submit 

an application under this program. The 

commenter argued that this would 

provide the State educational agency 

with the ability to leverage these grants 

by scaling them up with State or local 

funds. 

Discussion: This program is subject to 

Executive Order 12372 and 34 CFR part 

79, which allows States that have 

chosen to participate in 

Intergovernmental Review the 

opportunity to review and comment on 

applications submitted to the 

Department for funding. We do not 

believe it is necessary to separately 

require an eligible applicant to notify its 

State educational agency that it has 

submitted an application for a grant 

under this program. 

However, eligible applicants should 

consider including State educational 

agencies as other partners and 

leveraging available State and local 

funds to increase the reach and 

sustainability of proposed projects. As 

noted in the preceding discussion, peer 

reviewers will consider, in general, the 

reach and sustainability of a proposed 

project under this program consistent 

with the selection criteria related to 

strategy and capacity to bring to scale 

and sustainability (Selection Criteria E 

(Strategy and Capacity to Bring to Scale 

(in the case of Scale-up and Validation 

grants); Strategy and Capacity to Further 

Develop and Bring to Scale (in the case 

of Development grants)) and F 

(Sustainability)). Applicants may not 

include State and local funds in their 

cost sharing and cost matching 

calculation. 

Changes: None. 

Evaluation 

Note: For an analysis of comments and 

changes relating to the proposed evaluation 

requirements, please see the Evidence and 

Evaluation section elsewhere in this notice. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
12042 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

Participation in Communities of 

Practice 

Comment: One commenter supported 

the requirement that all grantees 

participate in communities of practice. 

Another commenter recommended that 

the Department expand the requirement 

to include participation in knowledge 

and innovation networks established by 

the Department. Under the commenter’s 

expanded model, grantees would be 

required to participate not only in 

communities of practice but also in the 

development and implementation of 

new networking opportunities. Finally, 

two commenters suggested that the 

Department use intermediary 

organizations to organize and facilitate 

the communities of practice among 

grantees. 

Discussion: All grantees under this 

program are required to participate in 

communities of practice throughout the 

grant period. How those communities of 

practice will be organized, who will 

facilitate them, and the extent to which 

grantees will participate in networks 

such as those recommended by the 

commenter will be determined by the 

Department at a later date. The 

expectation is that grantees will have 

the opportunity to provide input on the 

structure and activities of the 

communities of practice and help shape 

them as a mechanism to serve grantees 

and inform the Department about what 

they have learned. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that the Department 

require grantees to make all outputs 

produced through grants under this 

program freely available in order to 

maximize the program’s reach. 

Discussion: At this time, the 

Department is only requiring grantees to 

make the results of their evaluations 

transparent to the public. We are not 

specifying how grantees must 

disseminate these results because we 

believe that grantees are best positioned 

to determine the methods of 

dissemination that are most appropriate 

for their organizations. 

It should be noted, however, that the 

Department has regulations related to 

products produced with grant funds. 

Specifically, under 34 CFR 75.621, 

grantees may copyright intellectual 

property produced with Department 

grant funds. However, under 34 CFR 

74.36 and 80.34, the Department retains 

a non-exclusive and irrevocable license 

to reproduce, publish, or otherwise use 

those project materials for government 

purposes. This gives the Department the 

authority needed to ensure that 

materials produced in these grants can 

be made available to the public. 

Changes: None. 

Definitions 

Definitions Related to Evidence 

Note: For an analysis of comments and 

changes regarding the proposed Definitions 

Related to Evidence, please see the Evidence 

and Evaluation section elsewhere in this 

notice. 

Other Definitions 

Note: We provide analyses of comments 

and changes regarding the proposed 

definitions of highly effective school leader, 

highly effective teacher, persistently lowperforming schools, and rural LEA in the 

PRIORITIES section earlier in this preamble. 

We discuss comments and changes regarding 

other definitions in the proposed Other 

Definitions in the paragraphs that follow. 

Formative Assessment 

Comment: None. 

Discussion: As we indicated in 

footnote 9 of the NPP, we use for this 

program many of the same terms that 

are used and defined in the Race to the 

Top Fund and other programs 

supported with ARRA funds. We further 

stated in the NPP that we would align 

the definitions for those terms, as 

appropriate, with those used in the Race 

to the Top Fund program. Accordingly, 

we are making minor changes to the 

definition of the term formative 

assessment for consistency with the 

definition of this term in the Race to the 

Top Fund program (see 74 FR 59804). 

Changes: We are revising the 

definition of formative assessment to 

mean assessment questions, tools, and 

processes that are embedded in 

instruction and are used by teachers and 

students to provide timely feedback for 

purposes of adjusting instruction to 

improve learning. 

Interim Assessment 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that the Department 

include, in the definition of interim 

assessment, student report card scores 

provided that the scores are assigned 

relative to specified standards. 

Discussion: We do not believe it is 

appropriate to include student report 

card scores in the definition of interim 

assessment because these scores are 

reporting tools, not assessments. 

Assessments that are used in producing 

such scores, however, may meet the 

definition of interim assessment to the 

extent they evaluate knowledge and 

skills relative to a specific set of 

academic standards. 

Changes: None. 

High-Need Student 

Comment: While a number of 

commenters supported the proposed 

definition of the term high-need 

student, several commenters 

recommended that the Department 

modify the definition to include the 

following types of students: Gifted and 

talented students, students who are 

pregnant or parenting, students who 

have been held in a juvenile detention 

facility; students meeting only 

minimum standards; students who are 

high-achieving but live in high-risk 

communities; American Indian, Alaska 

Native, and Native Hawaiian students; 

students whose parents have not 

graduated from college; students who 

are racially isolated; and students who 

demonstrate adverse patterns of 

behavior, attendance, discipline, or 

other non-academic outcomes that 

impede overall success. 

Discussion: The Department 

understands the interest of the 

commenters in expanding the definition 

of high-need student to include other 

categories of students at risk of 

educational failure or otherwise in need 

of special assistance and support. While 

the proposed definition provided 

examples of these types of students, 

those examples are not intended to be 

an exclusive list. Eligible applicants 

may include other types of students 

they consider to be high-need as 

students to be served by their proposed 

projects. 

As noted elsewhere in this notice, in 

cases where this program defines a term 

that is used and defined in other 

programs supported with ARRA funds, 

we intend to use the same definitions. 

For consistency with the definition of 

high-need student used in the Race to 

the Top Fund program, we are making 

a minor change in the definition of the 

term for this program by including 

students who attend high minority 

schools (as defined by the State in 

which the students attend school) as an 

additional example. 

Changes: We are revising the 

definition of the term high-need student 

by adding to the list of students who are 

at risk of educational failure students 

who attend high-minority schools (as 

defined by the student’s State). 

Regional Level 

Comment: Three commenters asked 

for greater clarity and specificity 

regarding the definition of the term 

regional level. Specifically, the 

commenters sought clarification on the 

following issues: What constitutes a 

regional level project; whether a 

regional level project must be 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 12043 

implemented in more than one LEA; 

and whether a project that serves 

multiple regions of a single, large, urban 

LEA would qualify as a regional level 

project. 

Discussion: The proposed definition 

of regional level, as used in connection 

with Scale-up and Validation grants, 

describes projects that are able to serve 

a variety of communities and student 

populations within a State or multiple 

States, including rural and urban areas. 

We are revising the definition of 

regional level to clarify that, to meet the 

definition, a project must serve students 

in more than one LEA, excluding a 

project implemented in a State in which 

the State educational agency is the sole 

educational agency for all schools and 

thus may be considered an LEA under 

section 9101(26) of the ESEA. Thus, a 

project that is implemented in a single 

LEA (if not the sole educational agency 

for all schools in a State) would not be 

considered a regional level project 

consistent with the definition of 

regional level used in this program. 

Changes: We are revising the 

definition of regional level to clarify 

that, to meet the definition, a project 

must serve students in more than one 

LEA, excluding a project implemented 

in a State in which the State educational 

agency is the sole educational agency 

for all schools and thus may be 

considered an LEA under section 

9101(26) of the ESEA. 

Student Achievement 

Comment: Several commenters 

recommended that the Department 

revise the definition of student 

achievement to clarify that student 

achievement can be determined using 

multiple measures. These commenters 

recommended that we revise the 

definition to include additional 

measures such as the following: Grades; 

end-of-course exams; rates at which 

students are on track to graduate from 

high school or meet learning objectives; 

Advanced Placement exams; college 

readiness measures or tests; career 

readiness measures such as technical 

skill attainment and work-place 

readiness assessments; formative 

assessments; interim assessments if 

aligned to end-of-course exams or LEA 

pacing guides; online reading 

comprehension measures; assessments 

of student writing, presentations, 

performances, projects, portfolios, and 

group work. 

Discussion: The Department agrees 

with the commenters about the need for 

multiple ways in which to measure 

student achievement. We did not intend 

for the proposed definition of student 

achievement to preclude the use of 

multiple measures including those 

recommended by the commenters 

provided that, for the tested grades and 

subjects, the measures include student 

performance on State assessments. That 

said, to ensure consistency in 

definitions of terms across programs 

supported with ARRA funds, we are 

revising the definition of student 

achievement used in this program. The 

revised definition retains the flexibility 

for eligible applicants to use multiple 

measures of student achievement but 

also requires that the measures used be 

rigorous and comparable across 

classrooms. 

Changes: We are revising the 

definition of student achievement to 

mean— 

(a) For tested grades and subjects: 

(1) A student’s score on the State’s 

assessments under section 1111(b)(3) of 

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

measures of student learning, such as 

those described in paragraph (b) of this 

definition, provided they are rigorous 

and comparable across classrooms; and 

(b) For non-tested grades and subjects: 

Alternative measures of student learning 

and performance such as student scores 

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

student performance on English 

language proficiency assessments; and 

other measures of student achievement 

that are rigorous and comparable across 

classrooms. 

Comment: Several commenters 

recommended that the Department 

revise the definition of student 

achievement to include data on student 

achievement in non-tested grades and 

subjects including the arts. 

Discussion: The definition of student 

achievement under this program would 

not preclude the use of data on student 

achievement in non-tested grades and 

subjects; in fact, paragraph (b) of the 

definition requires the use of such data. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: A few commenters 

recommended that the Department 

revise the definition of student 

achievement to include measures for 

early learning such as school readiness 

assessments. A few other commenters 

recommended that the Department 

include nonacademic measures such as 

measures of student attendance and 

engagement. 

Discussion: Within the definition of 

student achievement, we intend to 

include only measures relating directly 

to student academic performance in the 

elementary and secondary grades and 

subjects. We note, however, that, 

consistent with the selection criterion 

regarding Selection Criterion B 

(Strength of Research, Significance of 

Effect, and Magnitude of Effect), eligible 

applicants may also demonstrate the 

success of their proposed projects using 

intermediate variables that are strongly 

correlated with improving student 

achievement and attainment outcomes. 

These variables may include school 

readiness and nonacademic measures 

such as those recommended by the 

commenters. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Two commenters 

recommended that the Department 

expand the definition of student 

achievement to include measures 

regarding postsecondary education, 

namely, rates at which students enroll 

in an institution of higher education 

(including two- and four-year colleges 

and trade and vocational schools) and 

complete one year’s worth of college 

credit within two years. 

Discussion: As outlined in the 

preceding discussion, within the 

definition of student achievement, we 

intend to include only measures relating 

directly to student academic 

performance in the elementary and 

secondary grades and subjects. 

However, we agree with the commenters 

that it is important to recognize and 

support projects under this program that 

improve college enrollment and 

completion rates. We are revising 

Selection Criterion B (Strength of 

Research, Significance of Effect, and 

Magnitude of Effect) to include college 

enrollment and completion rates among 

the student achievement and attainment 

outcomes for which the Secretary will 

consider the effect of a proposed project. 

Changes: We are revising Selection 

Criterion B (Strength of Research, 

Significance of Effect, and Magnitude of 

Effect) to include college enrollment 

and completion rates among the student 

achievement and attainment outcomes 

for which the Secretary will consider 

the effect of a proposed project. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that the Department 

clarify that paragraph (b) of the 

definition of student achievement refers 

to STEM-related academic subjects, 

thereby eliminating any confusion over 

the provision’s application to all 

academic subjects. 

Discussion: The definition of student 

achievement does not limit the nontested subjects to STEM-related subjects 

and includes any non-tested academic 

subject. We note also that science is a 

tested subject—States are required to 

administer assessments in science under 

the ESEA. 

Changes: None. 

Student Growth 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that the Department revise the 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
12044 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

definition of student growth to specify 

that student growth data must be based 

on criterion-referenced growth measures 

rather than norm-referenced measures. 

Discussion: We do not believe it is 

appropriate to require that student 

growth data be based on a specific 

growth measure because to do so would 

effectively prevent eligible applicants in 

certain States from using data from the 

assessments their States administer 

pursuant to section 1111(b)(3) of the 

ESEA. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Several commenters 

recommended that the Department 

revise the definition of student growth 

so that the term would cover change in 

other areas, not only student 

achievement. Some of the other areas 

mentioned in the comments include: 

Student behavior, social and emotional 

skills, collaborative skills, ethical 

decision-making skills, problem solving 

skills, civic skills, physical skills, and 

technical skills. 

Discussion: Within the definition of 

student growth, we intend to include 

only measures of change in student 

achievement (as that term is defined in 

this program). We note, however, that, 

consistent with Selection Criterion B 

(Strength of Research, Significance of 

Effect, and Magnitude of Effect), eligible 

applicants may also demonstrate the 

success of their proposed projects using 

intermediate variables that are strongly 

correlated with improving student 

achievement and attainment outcomes. 

These variables may include measures 

on topics such as those discussed by the 

commenters. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Several commenters 

recommended that the Department 

revise the definition of student growth 

to include growth with respect to 

improved performance on student 

portfolios and other performance 

measures. 

Discussion: Under this program, an 

eligible applicant would be permitted to 

use student growth as measured by 

student portfolios and other 

performance measures to the extent 

these measures meet the requirements 

for measures of student achievement (in 

particular, the requirement that the 

measures are rigorous and comparable 

across classrooms) included in the 

definition of student achievement and 

to the extent that the approach used to 

determine growth on these measures is 

statistically rigorous. 

Changes: None. 

Additional Definitions 

Comment: A few commenters 

suggested that the Department provide a 

definition of the term ‘‘innovation’’ as it 

is used in this program. The 

commenters expressed concern that, 

without such a definition, the program 

would not sufficiently promote 

innovation in the projects that are 

supported. 

Discussion: Although we appreciate 

the commenters’ concerns, we do not 

believe that including a definition of 

‘‘innovation’’ is necessary. Rather, we 

believe that the innovativeness of 

proposed projects should be determined 

through the review of applications using 

the selection criteria for this program. 

We have designed the selection criteria 

for the respective types of grants 

particularly Selection Criterion A (Need 

for the Project and Quality of Project 

Design) and Selection Criterion B 

(Strength of Research, Significance of 

Effect, and Magnitude of Effect) in a way 

that identifies the aspects of a proposed 

project that would make it innovative. 

We believe these criteria are sufficient 

to ensure that only innovative projects 

receive funding under this program. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Two commenters 

recommended that the Department 

provide a definition of the term ‘‘high 

school graduation rate’’ for purposes of 

this program. The commenters 

recommended that the Department 

require eligible applicants to use a 

uniform graduation rate and suggested 

using either the Averaged Freshman 

Graduation Rate or standards that meet 

or exceed those set forth in the 

Department’s regulations. 

Discussion: We agree with the 

commenters that a definition of ‘‘high 

school graduation rate’’ is warranted for 

this program. Therefore, we are adding 

a definition of the term that is consistent 

with the Department’s regulations in 34 

CFR 200.19. To satisfy this definition of 

high school graduation rate, an eligible 

applicant must use a four-year adjusted 

cohort graduation rate consistent with 

34 CFR 200.19(b)(1) and may also use an 

extended-year adjusted cohort 

graduation rate consistent with 34 CFR 

200.19(b)(1)(v) if the State in which the 

proposed project is implemented has 

been approved by the Secretary to 

implement such a rate. 

Changes: We are adding a definition 

of high school graduation rate. As 

defined in this notice, the term means 

a four-year adjusted cohort graduation 

rate consistent with 34 CFR 200.19(b)(1) 

and may also include an extended-year 

adjusted cohort graduation rate 

consistent with 34 CFR 200.19(b)(1)(v) if 

the State in which the proposed project 

is implemented has been approved by 

the Secretary to implement such a rate. 

Comment: Two commenters 

recommended the Department provide a 

definition of the term ‘‘regular high 

school diploma’’ for purposes of this 

program. The commenters 

recommended that the definition 

include diplomas awarded by 

accredited institutions operating within 

a State that enable students to progress 

to postsecondary education, but that 

may not be entirely aligned with State 

academic content standards. 

Discussion: We agree with the 

commenters that a definition of ‘‘regular 

high school diploma’’ is warranted for 

this program. However, it is the intent 

of the Department to support projects 

under this program that enable students 

to obtain diplomas that are fully aligned 

with State academic content standards. 

We, therefore, are adding the definition 

of ‘‘regular high school diploma’’ 

established in the Department’s Title I 

regulations (at 34 CFR 200.19(b)(1)(iv)) 

to accomplish this. An alternative 

degree that is not fully aligned with the 

State’s academic content standards, 

such as a GED credential, is excluded 

under this definition. 

Changes: We are adding a definition 

of regular high school diploma. As 

defined in this notice, this term means, 

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

the standard high school diploma that is 

awarded to students in the State and 

that is fully aligned with the State’s 

academic content standards or a higher 

diploma and does not include a GED 

credential, certificate of attendance, or 

any alternative award. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that the Department 

provide a definition for the term 

‘‘dropout rate’’ for purposes of this 

program. In particular, the commenter 

requested that the Department clarify 

whether students who move from the 

area or transfer to another school, LEA, 

or State should be considered dropouts. 

Discussion: Unlike for high school 

graduation rates, there are no Federal 

requirements for determining dropout 

rates. We recognize that there are a 

variety of ways to calculate dropout 

rates, and do not wish to limit eligible 

applicants in how they calculate those 

rates. 

However, regarding whether students 

who move from the area or transfer to 

another school, LEA, or State should be 

considered dropouts, we note that the 

graduation rate that eligible applicants 

must use under this program (consistent 

with 34 CFR 200.19(b)(1)) is designed to 

adjust the cohort of students used in the 

rate for a given school to account for 

when a student transfers into that 

school or when a student transfers out 

of that school, emigrates to another 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 12045 

country, or dies during the year covered 

by the rate. Thus, students who transfer 

out of a given school are not considered 

dropouts (because they become part of 

the cohort of students for the school into 

which they transfer). In calculating a 

dropout rate, an eligible applicant 

should not include students who 

transfer out of a school. 

Changes: None. 

Selection Criteria 

Note: For an analysis of comments and 

changes on the proposed selection criteria as 

they relate to the evidence for and evaluation 

of a proposed project (Selection Criteria B 

and D), please see the Evidence and 

Evaluation section below. 

Selection Criteria in General 

Comment: None. 

Discussion: As discussed elsewhere in 

this notice, we are adding definitions of 

the terms applicant, official partner, and 

other partner in order to clarify the roles 

and responsibilities of entities included 

in applications and participating in 

projects under this program. Consistent 

with these definitions and the Eligible 

Applicants requirement, we are revising 

the selection criteria, where appropriate, 

to clarify the entities for which the 

criteria apply. We incorporate those 

changes in the responses to comments 

that follow. 

In addition, we are renumbering, for 

each selection criterion, the factors in 

the criterion in order to clarify how the 

factors will be used. 

Changes: Consistent with the Eligible 

Applicants requirement and the 

definitions of applicant, official partner, 

and other partner, we are revising the 

selection criteria for this program, 

where appropriate, to clarify the entities 

for which the criteria apply. In addition, 

we are renumbering, for each selection 

criterion, the factors in the criterion in 

order to clarify how the factors will be 

used. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that the Department 

broaden the selection criteria used to 

assess Development grant preapplications by including Selection 

Criterion C (Experience of the Eligible 

Applicant), Selection Criterion E 

(Strategy and Capacity to Further 

Develop and Bring to Scale), and 

Selection Criterion F (Sustainability). 

Discussion: As discussed elsewhere in 

this notice, we no longer intend to use 

a two-tier process to review applications 

for Development grants. Thus, we will 

no longer include a pre-application 

process for Development grants. 

Accordingly, we are removing, from the 

selection criteria for Development 

grants, the discussion of a two-tier 

application process (including preapplications) for those grants. 

Changes: We are removing, from the 

selection criteria for Development 

grants, the discussion of a two-tier 

application process (including preapplications) for those grants. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that the Department provide a chart to 

show more clearly the differences in the 

selection criteria for the three types of 

grants. 

Discussion: We agree with the 

commenter that a chart could help 

clarify the differences in selection 

criteria for the three types of grants. We 

will provide a chart of the selection 

criteria for each type of grant on the 

Department’s Web site for this program 

(see http://www.ed.gov/programs/ 

innovation/index.html). 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Two commenters suggested 

that the selection criteria emphasize the 

importance of the effects of proposed 

projects on education reform and the 

importance of applicants’ plans to scale 

up projects. The commenters suggested 

that these changes would communicate 

the importance of innovation, not as an 

end in itself, but as a means to effect 

significant education reform, raise 

student achievement, and close 

achievement gaps at State, regional, and 

national levels. 

Discussion: We agree with the 

commenters that innovation alone 

should not be the end result sought 

under this program. The purpose of the 

Investing in Innovation Fund is to 

support the implementation of and 

investment in innovative practices that 

are demonstrated to have an impact on 

improving student achievement or 

student growth, closing achievement 

gaps, decreasing dropout rates, 

increasing high school graduation rates, 

and increasing college enrollment and 

completion rates. We believe that the 

selection criteria—particularly Selection 

Criteria B and E—strongly emphasize 

the need for eligible applicants to 

provide evidence that their proposed 

projects will lead to these outcomes and 

can be successfully scaled. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that the multiple provisions of the many 

selection criteria may stifle creativity 

and lead applicants to focus on 

checking off criteria rather than 

developing an innovative project. 

Discussion: The selection criteria 

identify areas that the Department has 

determined are important for evaluating 

applications under this program. For 

Department discretionary grant 

programs, it is typical to have multiple 

selection criteria and factors that 

eligible applicants will address in their 

applications. In addition to helping 

ensure that only the strongest 

applications are selected for funding, 

the selection criteria provide eligible 

applicants flexibility and room for 

creativity, and we expect that each 

eligible applicant will address the 

various criteria in ways appropriate to 

the proposed project. 

Changes: None. 

Selection Criterion A—Need for the 

Project and Quality of the Project Design 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that the Department add a new factor to 

Selection Criterion A that focuses on the 

extent to which a proposed project 

includes and effectively leverages an 

established record of collaboration 

across multiple LEA partners. The 

commenter stated that this record of 

collaboration would enable the 

proposed project to address common 

needs and demonstrate outcomes at the 

regional or State level during the grant 

period, while providing a solid 

foundation to further scale the proposed 

project. The commenter suggested that 

the established record should be 

required to include evidence of shared 

plans, practices, research, and metrics to 

scale success beyond the students in a 

single LEA. 

Discussion: Selection Criterion A 

focuses on the need for the project and 

the quality of the project design. The 

issues identified by the commenter are 

addressed under Selection Criteria C 

and E. Under Selection Criterion C 

(Experience of the Eligible Applicant), 

the Secretary considers the past 

performance of the eligible applicant in 

implementing large, complex, and 

rapidly growing projects (in the case of 

Scale-up grants); in implementing 

complex projects (in the case of 

Validation grants); or in implementing 

projects of the size and scope proposed 

by the eligible applicant (in the case of 

Development grants). In responding to 

this criterion, an eligible applicant 

could provide information about past 

collaboration across multiple LEA 

partners. Under Selection Criterion E 

(Strategy and Capacity to Bring to Scale 

(in the case of Scale-up and Validation 

grants); Strategy and Capacity to Further 

Develop and Bring to Scale (in the case 

of Development grants)), the Secretary 

considers the eligible applicant’s 

capacity to bring the proposed project to 

scale (in the case of Scale-up and 

Validation grants) or to further develop 

and bring to scale the proposed project 

(in the case of Development grants). In 

light of these criteria, we do not believe 

that it is necessary to add the 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
12046 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

recommended factor to Selection 

Criterion A. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that the Department add 

a new factor to Selection Criterion A for 

the pre-application for Development 

grants that focuses on the extent to 

which an applicant involves other 

entities—including local school boards, 

LEA and school administrators, 

teachers, parents, community leaders, 

small businesses, faith-based 

organizations, and other non-profit 

organizations—in designing the 

proposed project. 

Discussion: As discussed elsewhere in 

this notice, we no longer intend to use 

a two-tier application process (including 

pre-applications) to review applications 

for Development grants and are 

removing, from the selection criteria for 

Development grants, the discussion of a 

two-tier application process for those 

grants. 

Under Selection Criterion A, the 

Secretary considers the extent to which 

the proposed project has a clear set of 

goals and represents an exceptional 

approach to the priorities the eligible 

applicant is seeking to meet. In 

addressing this criterion, eligible 

applicants may wish to seek input from 

and partner with local organizations to 

determine the need that the proposed 

project would meet and a process for 

collaborating to implement the project. 

An eligible applicant may describe this 

collaborative process in addressing 

Selection Criterion A without the 

addition of a new factor. Thus, we do 

not believe it is necessary to adopt the 

commenter’s suggestion to ensure that 

eligible applicants include this 

information where appropriate. 

Changes: As discussed elsewhere in 

this notice, we are removing, from the 

selection criteria for Development 

grants, the discussion of a two-tier 

application process (including preapplications) for those grants. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that the Department add 

a new factor to Selection Criterion A 

that focuses on the extent to which the 

applicant shows that its proposed 

project serves the needs of students, 

schools, and communities in rural areas 

or regions. 

Discussion: Under Selection Criterion 

A(1) (proposed Selection Criterion 

A(2)(a)), the Secretary considers the 

extent to which the proposed project 

represents an exceptional approach to 

the priorities the eligible applicant seeks 

to meet. We believe that this criterion 

provides sufficient opportunity for 

eligible applicants to address the needs 

of students and schools in rural LEAs. 

We note, in addition, that this 

program includes a competitive 

preference priority for projects that 

serve schools in rural areas (Competitive 

Preference Priority 8). Eligible 

applicants are eligible to receive 

additional points for addressing the 

competitive preference priorities. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: A few commenters 

recommended that the Department 

clarify Selection Criterion A(2)(a) 

regarding the extent to which a 

proposed project should represent an 

exceptional approach that has not 

already been widely adopted. 

Specifically, the commenters requested 

that the Department clarify whether 

‘‘widely adopted’’ refers to scale or 

scope. 

Discussion: In Selection Criterion A(1) 

(proposed Selection Criterion A(2)(a)), 

‘‘widely adopted’’ refers to scale. If an 

eligible applicant’s proposed project 

represents an approach that is already in 

common usage and has achieved scale, 

then the project would not meet the 

purposes of this program. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that, for Scale-up grants, 

Selection Criterion A give greater weight 

to projects that fulfill needs that have 

already been widely documented as 

critical or of national significance, such 

as improving student performance in 

math and science, improving student 

performance in multiple grades and in 

multiple subjects, or improving college 

readiness and success for all students. 

Discussion: We believe that Selection 

Criterion A for Scale-up grants provides 

adequate opportunity for eligible 

applicants to substantiate the critical 

need for the proposed project and to 

address issues of national significance. 

We do not want to limit the 

consideration of project need under this 

criterion only to critical or nationally 

significant issues because we believe 

Scale-up grants could support projects 

that do not necessarily rise to the level 

of critical or national significance. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that, for both Validation and 

Development grants, the Department 

award additional points under Selection 

Criterion A(2)(b) to an applicant that has 

a demonstrated record of implementing 

a system of continuous improvement, 

including the use of performance data to 

improve instructional practices. 

Discussion: We agree with the 

commenter that continuous 

improvement systems are important to 

the success of projects under this 

program. However, we believe that an 

eligible applicant would be able to 

address the issue raised by the 

commenter in response to Selection 

Criterion C (Experience of the Eligible 

Applicant) and that no additional points 

need to be added to Selection Criterion 

A. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: None. 

Discussion: The Department believes 

that the quality of the design of a 

proposed project for this program 

depends on the extent to which the 

proposed project is supported by 

existing research evidence. Because an 

eligible applicant for a Validation grant 

may use prior research on a strategy, 

practice, or program that is very similar 

to that of the proposed project in order 

to demonstrate that there is moderate 

evidence for the proposed project, we 

are revising Selection Criterion A, for 

Validation grants, to include 

consideration of whether the design of 

the proposed project is consistent with 

the existing research evidence, taking 

into consideration any differences in 

context. 

Changes: For Validation grants, we 

are revising Selection Criterion A to 

include, among the factors for which the 

Secretary will consider the quality of 

the proposed project design, the extent 

to which the proposed project is 

consistent with the research evidence 

supporting the proposed project, taking 

into consideration any differences in 

context. 

Selection Criterion C—Experience of the 

Eligible Applicant 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that the Department revise Selection 

Criterion C and Selection Criterion F 

(Sustainability) to include consideration 

of the extent to which an applicant has 

a record of support from mayors and 

other local government leaders. 

Discussion: We agree that a record of 

support from mayors and other local 

government leaders can be one 

meaningful way for an eligible applicant 

to demonstrate both the strength of its 

past experience and the potential for 

sustainability of its proposed project. 

We believe that Selection Criteria C and 

F adequately allow for eligible 

applicants to provide evidence of that 

support. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that, under this criterion, 

the Department give full weight to 

applications from applicants that are 

successful at increasing achievement for 

all groups of students described in 

section 1111(b)(2) of the ESEA at any 

scale, and not consider whether 

applicants have exceeded the State’s 

annual measurable objectives consistent 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 12047 

with section 1111(b)(2) for two or more 

consecutive years. 

Discussion: As discussed elsewhere in 

this notice, section 14007(b)(1) has been 

amended to require that, to be eligible 

for an award under this program, an 

eligible applicant must (A) have 

significantly closed the achievement 

gaps between groups of students 

described in section 1111(b)(2) of the 

ESEA, or (B) have demonstrated success 

in significantly increasing student 

academic achievement for all groups of 

students described in that section. In 

addition, section 14007(b)(2) has been 

eliminated; this section would have 

required that an eligible applicant 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). 

Thus, to be eligible for an award, 

eligible applicants are no longer 

required by the statute to have exceeded 

the State’s annual measurable objectives 

consistent with section 1111(b)(2) of the 

ESEA for two or more consecutive years. 

In addition, the statutory changes 

make clear that eligible applicants do 

not have to show that they have both 

significantly closed achievement gaps 

and significantly increased student 

achievement for all groups described in 

section 1111(b)(2) of the ESEA. Rather, 

eligible applicants must show either (A) 

that they have significantly closed the 

achievement gaps between groups of 

students described in section 1111(b)(2) 

of the ESEA or (B) that they have 

demonstrated success in significantly 

increasing student academic 

achievement for all groups described in 

that section. 

Further, section 14007(c) has been 

amended to specify that an eligible 

applicant that includes a nonprofit 

organization is considered to have met 

the requirements of new paragraphs (1) 

and (2) of section 14007(b) if the 

nonprofit organization has a record of 

significantly improving student 

achievement, attainment, or retention. 

Under the amendments to section 

14007(c), an eligible applicant that 

includes a nonprofit organization is thus 

no longer required to demonstrate that 

the nonprofit organization has a record 

of each of the following: (1) Having 

significantly closed the achievement 

gaps between groups of students 

described in section 1111(b)(2) of the 

ESEA; (2) having exceeded the State’s 

annual measurable objectives consistent 

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

two or more consecutive years or having 

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 (3) having made significant 

improvement in other areas, such as 

graduation rates or increased 

recruitment and placement of highquality teachers and school leaders, as 

demonstrated with meaningful data. 

We are revising Selection Criterion C 

to reflect these statutory changes. Under 

Selection Criterion C(2) (proposed 

Selection Criterion C(2)(b)), the 

Secretary now considers, in the case of 

an eligible applicant that is an LEA, the 

extent to which the eligible applicant 

provides information and data 

demonstrating that it has (A) 

significantly closed the achievement 

gaps between groups of students 

described in section 1111(b)(2) of the 

ESEA, or significantly increased student 

achievement for all groups of students 

described in such section; and (B) made 

significant improvements in other areas, 

such as graduation rates or increased 

recruitment and placement of highquality teachers and principals, as 

demonstrated with meaningful data. In 

the case of an eligible applicant that 

includes a nonprofit organization, the 

Secretary now considers the extent to 

which the eligible applicant provides 

information and data demonstrating that 

the nonprofit organization has 

significantly improved student 

achievement, attainment, or retention 

through its record of work with an LEA 

or schools. 

Changes: We are revising Selection 

Criterion C(2) (proposed Selection 

Criterion C(2)(b)) for all three types of 

grants to reflect the statutory changes. 

Under Selection Criterion C(2) 

(proposed Selection Criterion C(2)(b)), 

the Secretary now considers: 

(2) The extent to which an eligible 

applicant provides information and data 

demonstrating that— 

(a) In the case of an eligible applicant 

that is an LEA, the LEA has— 

(i) Significantly closed the 

achievement gaps between groups of 

students described in section 1111(b)(2) 

of the ESEA, or significantly increased 

student achievement for all groups of 

students described in such section; and 

(ii) Made significant improvements in 

other areas, such as graduation rates or 

increased recruitment and placement of 

high-quality teachers and principals, as 

demonstrated with meaningful data; or 

(b) In the case of an eligible applicant 

that includes a nonprofit organization, 

the nonprofit organization has 

significantly improved student 

achievement, attainment, or retention 

through its record of work with an LEA 

or schools. 

Comment: A few commenters 

recommended that the Department 

revise Selection Criterion C to consider 

evidence of applicants’ past successes. 

One commenter recommended that the 

Department consider the extent to 

which applicants have a record of 

handling operations and multi-year 

funding from private sources. Two other 

commenters recommended that the 

Department consider the extent to 

which applicants have had past success 

with scaling up projects. One 

commenter recommended that the 

Department consider applicants’ past 

success with implementing projects on 

a national level or in various geographic 

locations and academic environments. 

Discussion: Under Selection Criterion 

C(1) (proposed Selection Criterion 

C(2)(a)), the Secretary considers the past 

performance of the eligible applicant in 

implementing large, complex, and 

rapidly growing projects (in the case of 

Scale-up grants); in implementing 

complex projects (in the case of 

Validation grants); or in implementing 

projects of the size and scope proposed 

by the eligible applicant (in the case of 

Development grants). Although this 

criterion does not specifically reference 

the types of past successes mentioned 

by the commenters, an eligible applicant 

could provide information on such 

successes in response to the criterion, as 

appropriate for the type of grant for 

which the eligible applicant is applying. 

Accordingly, we believe that the 

criterion is sufficient to address the 

commenters’ recommendations. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that the Department 

modify this criterion to include 

consideration of the experience of key 

partners who plan to work with the 

applicant. 

Discussion: As noted in the preceding 

discussion, the Secretary considers 

under Selection Criterion C(1) 

(proposed Selection Criterion C(2)(a)) 

the past performance of the eligible 

applicant in implementing large, 

complex, and rapidly growing projects 

(in the case of Scale-up grants); in 

implementing complex projects (in the 

case of Validation grants); or in 

implementing projects of the size and 

scope proposed by the eligible applicant 

(in the case of Development grants). In 

response to Selection Criterion C(1) 

(proposed Selection Criterion C(2)(a)), 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
12048 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

an eligible applicant may discuss the 

experience of the applicant and official 

partners (as those terms are defined in 

this notice) in project implementation, 

as appropriate for the type of grant for 

which the applicant is applying. 

Because the purpose of this criterion is 

to assess the experience of the eligible 

applicant, we will not consider the 

experience of any other partners (as 

defined in this notice) that are proposed 

to be involved in a project. 

In addition, consistent with the 

changes to Selection Criterion 

C(2)(proposed Selection Criterion 

C(2)(b)) discussed earlier, the eligible 

applicant may provide data and 

information in response to C(2)(b) only 

for the eligible applicant itself (if the 

eligible applicant is an LEA) or for the 

nonprofit organization (if the eligible 

applicant includes a nonprofit 

organization). 

Changes: None. 

Selection Criterion E—Strategy and 

Capacity To Bring to Scale (in the Case 

of Scale-up and Validation Grants); 

Strategy and Capacity To Further 

Develop and Bring to Scale (in the Case 

of Development Grants) 

Comment: A number of commenters 

recommended that the Department 

remove the geographic limitation to 

scale a Validation grant to a State or 

regional level and instead allow scaling 

on a limited national level in 

noncontiguous areas. Another 

commenter recommended that the 

Department broaden the geographic 

areas for scaling under Validation grants 

to include two or more targeted urban 

locales in order to allow applicants the 

opportunity to reach several large cities 

and metropolitan areas. Another 

commenter sought clarification about 

whether scaling for Validation grants 

could occur within a single urban LEA 

or a large metropolitan area. 

Discussion: Under Selection Criterion 

E, the Secretary considers, for 

Validation grants, an eligible applicant’s 

capacity to bring its proposed project to 

scale on a State or regional level. 

Through this criterion, the Department 

does not limit the geographic reach of 

proposed projects for Validation grants. 

If eligible applicants wish to propose a 

project for a Validation grant the scale 

of which extends beyond a State or 

regional level, they may do so. 

As discussed earlier, we are revising 

the definition of regional level to clarify 

that, to meet this definition, a project 

must serve students in more than one 

LEA, excluding a project implemented 

in a State in which the State educational 

agency is the sole educational agency 

for all schools and thus may be 

considered an LEA under section 

9101(26) of the ESEA. Thus, a project 

that is implemented in a single LEA (if 

not the sole educational agency for all 

schools in a State) would not be 

considered a regional level project 

consistent with the definition of 

regional level used in this program. 

Further, a project that is implemented in 

a single area would be considered a 

regional level project only if the area 

includes more than one LEA. 

In addition, the definition of regional 

level does not require that regional level 

projects be implemented in contiguous 

areas. 

Changes: As discussed earlier, we are 

revising the definition of regional level 

to clarify that, to meet this definition, a 

project must serve students in more 

than one LEA, excluding a project 

implemented in a State in which the 

State educational agency is the sole 

educational agency for all schools and 

thus may be considered an LEA under 

section 9101(26) of the ESEA. 

Comment: A number of commenters 

noted that the process of scaling a 

project may be hampered by internal 

capacity issues and recommended that 

the Department revise Selection 

Criterion E to provide for consideration 

of the following issues: Stability of 

administrative leadership, teacher and 

staff capacity, consistency of LEA 

policy, external monitoring, data 

management, communications systems, 

and alignment of K–12 curricula. 

Discussion: Under Selection Criterion 

E(2) (proposed Selection Criterion 

E(2)(b)), the Secretary considers an 

eligible applicant’s capacity, in the case 

of Scale-up and Validation grants, to 

bring its proposed project to scale, and 

in the case of Development grants, to 

develop and further scale the proposed 

project. The criterion provides examples 

of the types of capacity an eligible 

applicant may address: Qualified 

personnel, financial resources, and 

management capacity. These examples 

are not intended to be an exhaustive or 

exclusive list. An eligible applicant may 

address other types of capacity not 

covered by the examples, including 

those mentioned by the commenters. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter asked the 

Department to clarify whether an 

applicant for a grant can meet Selection 

Criterion E if it has not identified in its 

application all of the partners with 

which it intends to work. 

Discussion: So long as the eligible 

applicant meets the eligibility 

requirements for this program (which 

include, for eligible applicants that 

include a nonprofit organization, that 

the eligible applicant describe the 

demographics and other characteristics 

of any LEAs or schools with which it 

intends to partner that are not named in 

its application), an eligible applicant 

will be considered for funding. It will be 

up to reviewers to determine whether an 

eligible applicant that has not identified 

all of its partners has provided sufficient 

documentation demonstrating the 

quality of the eligible applicant’s 

strategy and capacity to bring its 

proposed project to scale consistent 

with this criterion. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that the Department 

require an applicant to describe its 

methodology for scaling up its proposed 

project, including how the methodology 

will minimize risks and how the 

applicant will use benchmarks. 

Discussion: We believe that Selection 

Criterion E adequately addresses the 

commenter’s recommendation that an 

eligible applicant describe its scaling up 

methodology. We do not believe it is 

necessary therefore to include an 

additional requirement that eligible 

applicants provide the descriptions 

recommended by the commenter. In 

addition, we note that an eligible 

applicant could potentially discuss the 

specific methodological elements 

mentioned by the commenter in 

response to other selection criteria, 

including Selection Criteria F 

(Sustainability) and G (Quality of the 

Management Plan and Personnel). 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that the Department 

emphasize the creation of platforms 

(i.e., systemic frameworks) for 

innovation rather than emphasizing 

project replication, which suggests a 

one-size-fits-all approach. The 

commenter recommended that Selection 

Criterion E(2)(c), under which the 

Secretary considers the feasibility of the 

proposed project to be replicated 

successfully, should instead provide for 

consideration of innovative platforms or 

frameworks that can be readily adapted 

and tailored to individual school 

settings. 

Discussion: The Department 

recognizes that the ways in which 

organizations replicate and bring to 

scale their work may vary. We do not 

intend to suggest that a one-size-fits-all 

approach is preferred under this 

program. Selection Criterion E(3) 

(proposed Selection Criterion E(2)(c)) 

clearly states that the Secretary 

considers the feasibility of the proposed 

project to be replicated successfully in 

a variety of settings and with a variety 

of student populations. However, we 

believe that an eligible applicant is best 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 12049 

positioned to determine the scaling 

strategy that is most appropriate for its 

proposed project. We do not believe that 

it is necessary to establish parameters 

for these strategies and therefore decline 

to modify this criterion as the 

commenter recommends. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Two commenters 

recommended that the Department 

revise Selection Criterion E to include 

project outcomes, in addition to the 

geographic reach of projects and the 

number of students to be served, as 

indicators of applicants’ capacity to 

scale up projects effectively. One of 

these commenters suggested that the 

Department define the expected 

outcomes and determine the specific 

skills that projects should help students 

acquire. 

Discussion: The Department agrees 

that geographic reach and numbers of 

students to be served are not by 

themselves sufficient to determine 

whether the scaling up of an eligible 

applicant’s project will be effective with 

respect to outcomes. However, an 

eligible applicant may address project 

effectiveness in response to other 

selection criteria. Under Selection 

Criterion B (Strength of Research, 

Significance of Effect, and Magnitude of 

Effect), the Secretary considers the 

strength of the evidence for the potential 

effects of proposed projects on student 

achievement and attainment outcomes, 

including: improving student 

achievement or student growth, closing 

achievement gaps, decreasing dropout 

rates, increasing high school graduation 

rates, or increasing college enrollment 

and completion rates. In response to this 

criterion, eligible applicants may also 

address the effects of proposed projects 

on intermediate variables that are 

strongly correlated with improving 

these outcomes, such as (but not limited 

to) teacher or principal effectiveness. 

We believe that this criterion provides 

sufficient opportunity for eligible 

applicants to discuss the expected 

outcomes of proposed projects and for 

reviewers to assess an applicants’ 

capacity to scale up proposed projects 

in relation to those outcomes, and thus 

sufficiently addresses the 

recommendations of the commenters. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: A number of commenters 

requested that the Department clarify 

whether Selection Criterion E(2)(d) 

establishes specific numeric 

expectations for the scale of proposed 

projects. Some commenters 

recommended that the Department not 

require grantees to reach the numeric 

student targets proposed for each type of 

grant during the grant period. Many of 

these commenters were particularly 

concerned that applicants with limited 

resources or from rural areas would not 

be able to meet these scaling 

expectations; they requested that the 

requirements be reduced or that 

applicants have an opportunity to 

request a waiver from meeting Selection 

Criteria E(2)(d) and E(2)(b). Some 

commenters expressed concern that the 

numeric student targets were unrealistic 

and suggested that the Department 

allow alternatives for determining the 

size of the student targets (such as the 

size of the applying LEA) or allow other 

ways of demonstrating capacity to scale 

(such as evidence of collaborative 

partnerships). 

Discussion: Selection Criterion E(4) 

(proposed Selection Criterion E(2)(d)) 

does not establish requirements for 

scaling proposed projects to specific 

numbers of students. Rather, the intent 

of the criterion is to gather information 

that can help judge project costeffectiveness. Under Selection Criterion 

E(4) (proposed Selection Criterion 

E(2)(d)), the Secretary considers cost 

estimates both (a) for the total number 

of students to be served by the proposed 

project, which is determined by the 

eligible applicant, and (b) for the 

eligible applicant or others (including 

other partners) to reach the scaling 

targets for the respective grant types 

(i.e., 100,000, 250,000, and 500,000 

students for Development and 

Validation grants; and 100,000, 500,000, 

and 1,000,000 students for Scale-up 

grants). The total number of students 

that the eligible applicant proposes to 

serve is expected to be reached by the 

end of the grant period. The scaling 

targets, in contrast, are theoretical and 

allow peer reviewers to assess the costeffectiveness generally of proposed 

projects, whether implemented by the 

eligible applicant or any other entity; 

grantees are not required to reach these 

numbers during the grant period. 

An eligible applicant is free to 

propose how many students it will serve 

under its project, consistent with its 

project goals, capacity, and resources. 

Because there is no minimum threshold 

established for the number of students 

to be served, an eligible applicant would 

under no circumstance need a waiver of 

Selection Criterion E(4) (proposed 

Selection Criterion E(2)(d)) or Selection 

Criterion E(2) (proposed Selection 

Criterion E(2)(b)) (the latter of which 

considers an eligible applicant’s 

capacity, in the case of Scale-up and 

Validation grants, to bring its proposed 

project to scale, and in the case of 

Development grants, to develop and 

further scale the proposed project). 

Neither is it necessary for the 

Department to consider alternative 

means of determining numerical student 

targets or to consider alternative means 

of showing capacity to scale in lieu of 

meeting student targets. 

The Department recognizes, however, 

that the two types of estimates 

considered in Selection Criterion E(4) 

(proposed Selection Criterion E(2)(d)) 

could benefit from further distinction. 

Therefore, we are revising the criterion 

to explicitly distinguish between the 

eligible applicant’s estimate of the perstudent cost of the proposed project, 

which includes the start-up and 

operating costs per student per year 

(including indirect costs) for reaching 

the total number of students proposed to 

be served by the project, and the cost 

estimates for the eligible applicant or 

others (including other partners) to 

reach the scaling targets for the 

respective grant types (i.e., 100,000, 

250,000, and 500,000 students for 

Development and Validation grants; and 

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

students for Scale-up grants). 

We note, in addition, that this 

program establishes the expectation 

under Selection Criterion E that eligible 

applicants for Scale-up grants bring a 

project to scale on a national, regional, 

or State level and that eligible 

applicants for Validation Grants bring a 

project to scale on a State or regional 

level. Both regional level and national 

level are defined under this program. 

Neither of these definitions, however, 

references specific targets for the 

numbers of students to be served. 

Changes: We are revising Selection 

Criterion E(4) (proposed Selection 

Criterion E(2)(d)) for each type of grant 

to clarify that the Secretary will 

consider the following cost estimates: 

the eligible applicant’s estimate of the 

cost of the proposed project, which 

includes the start-up and operating costs 

per student per year (including indirect 

costs) for reaching the total number of 

students proposed to be served by the 

project; and an estimate of the costs for 

the eligible applicant or others 

(including other partners) to reach the 

scaling targets for the respective grant 

types (i.e., 100,000, 250,000, and 

500,000 students for Development and 

Validation grants; and 100,000, 500,000, 

and 1,000,000 students for Scale-up 

grants). 

Comment: Several commenters 

recommended that the Department 

revise Selection Criterion E(2)(d) 

regarding the manner in which project 

cost estimates are provided. A few 

commenters recommended that the 

Department consider total costs per 

student and total costs per student per 

year. One commenter recommended 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
12050 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

that the Department consider project 

costs along a timeline (i.e., at one year, 

five years, and ten years) and require 

grantees to evaluate project cost 

estimates in self-evaluations. Another 

commenter recommended that the 

Department consider costs per student 

per hour of programming to ensure a 

more accurate and fair measure of 

project cost. 

Discussion: We agree that clarifying 

Selection Criterion E(4) (proposed 

Selection Criterion E(2)(d)) regarding 

the manner in which eligible applicants 

should provide project cost estimates is 

warranted. We are therefore revising 

Selection Criterion E(4) (proposed 

Selection Criterion E(2)(d)) to specify 

that the Secretary will consider the 

eligible applicant’s estimate of the cost 

of the proposed project, which includes 

start-up and operating costs per student 

per year (including indirect costs) for 

reaching the total number of students 

proposed to be served by the project. 

Thus, the Secretary will consider 

estimates of total project cost per 

student per year. We believe that all 

eligible applicants will be able to 

provide these estimates and that this 

measure will enable useful analysis of 

project costs. We believe that this 

change sufficiently addresses the 

commenters’ recommendations that we 

consider costs over time. We decline to 

accept the commenter’s 

recommendation that we consider costs 

per student per hour of programming 

because we do not believe this measure 

will enable a similarly useful analysis of 

project costs. 

Consistent with the Evaluation 

requirement for this program, eligible 

applicants that receive funding must 

comply with the requirements of any 

program evaluation conducted by the 

Department, are required to conduct an 

independent evaluation of their 

proposed projects, and must agree to 

cooperate with technical assistance 

provided by the Department to ensure 

that these evaluations are of the highest 

quality. We believe that these provisions 

are adequate to address concerns 

regarding evaluation of cost estimates. 

Changes: As discussed earlier in this 

notice, we are revising Selection 

Criterion E(4) (proposed Selection 

Criterion E(2)(d)) for each type of grant 

to clarify that the Secretary will 

consider the eligible applicant’s 

estimate of the cost of the proposed 

project, which includes start-up and 

operating costs per student per year 

(including indirect costs) for reaching 

the total number of students proposed to 

be served by the project. 

Comment: Some commenters 

recommended that the Department 

clarify the specific types of costs that 

applicants should include when 

estimating costs in response to Selection 

Criterion E(2)(d). One commenter 

recommended that the Department 

require applicants to distinguish the 

costs associated with research and 

evaluation from the costs for project 

infrastructure, development, and 

operation. Two commenters 

recommended that the Department 

provide guidance on how applicants 

should calculate indirect start-up costs 

to ensure that only costs specific to the 

proposed project itself are included in 

cost estimates. Another commenter 

recommended that the Department 

consider estimated direct and indirect 

cost savings during the grant period. 

Discussion: Cost estimates should 

include all costs for implementing the 

project, including but not limited to 

start-up costs, operating costs, indirect 

costs, evaluation costs, materials, and 

personnel training. The cost estimates 

may only include costs for activities 

designed to serve students directly 

through the project. The eligible 

applicant should discuss how it arrived 

at its cost estimates and what specific 

items and activities were included in 

the calculations used to arrive at those 

estimates. These calculations should 

show fixed and variable costs, 

incremental costs, and savings over 

time. The eligible applicant should 

provide the calculations used to arrive 

at the estimates for the cost of the 

proposed project (in terms of the 

number of students to be served) as well 

as the costs for the eligible applicant or 

others (including other partners) to 

reach the scaling targets for the 

respective grant types (i.e., 100,000, 

250,000, and 500,000 students for 

Development and Validation grants; and 

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

students for Scale-up grants). We 

believe that this guidance provides 

sufficient clarification on the types of 

costs an eligible applicant should 

include and adequately addresses the 

commenters’ concerns. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: A few commenters 

recommended that the Department give 

greater consideration to the 

infrastructure costs associated with 

different types of projects. The 

commenters cautioned the Department 

not to rely heavily on estimates of costs 

for the initial stages of a proposed 

project, as these estimates may not 

accurately reflect infrastructure costs as 

projects are expanded to serve more 

students. Two commenters stated that 

applicants should describe the resources 

required to implement a project and 

indicate whether or not the project is a 

replication of existing activities. Two 

commenters noted that the Department 

should acknowledge that start-up and 

operating costs in sites that replicate a 

project may decrease significantly over 

time through economies of scale. 

Discussion: Although we agree with 

the commenters that infrastructure costs 

may inflate start-up costs, we believe 

that estimates of the start-up and 

operational costs per student per year 

(as under revised Selection Criterion 

E(4) (proposed Selection Criterion 

E(2)(d))) will provide reviewers a 

sufficiently informative measure of 

costs. To the extent that eligible 

applicants can provide context for their 

estimates of start-up and operating costs 

(including for variable costs relating to 

project infrastructure), the Department 

encourages eligible applicants to 

provide this information. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: A number of commenters 

recommended that the Department 

consider cost estimates, including 

estimates of cost savings over time, in 

relation to the impact of proposed 

projects on student outcomes. Some 

commenters expressed concern that 

estimates of costs per student are not, by 

themselves, an adequate measure of 

cost-effectiveness and suggested that the 

Department consider measures of the 

benefits of proposed projects as well. 

One commenter expressed concern that 

Selection Criterion E might place 

applicants that propose technologybased projects at a competitive 

disadvantage relative to other applicants 

because of the potential high costs of 

developing and implementing such 

projects; the commenter stated that cost 

estimates would not address the benefits 

of these projects and similarly 

recommended that the Department 

consider costs relative to outcome gains. 

Two commenters suggested that the 

Department compare cost-effectiveness 

across projects that address the same 

outcome. 

Discussion: The Department agrees 

that estimates of costs per student per 

year, which may include cost savings 

over time, are not, by themselves, an 

adequate measure of project costeffectiveness. However, as discussed 

earlier, an eligible applicant may 

address project effectiveness with 

respect to outcomes in response to other 

selection criteria. Under Selection 

Criterion B (Strength of Research, 

Significance of Effect, and Magnitude of 

Effect), the Secretary considers the 

evidence for the potential effects of 

proposed projects on outcomes 

including the following: Improving 

student achievement or student growth, 

closing achievement gaps, decreasing 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 12051 

dropout rates, increasing high school 

graduation rates, or increasing college 

enrollment and completion rates. In 

response to this criterion, eligible 

applicants may also address the effects 

of proposed projects on intermediate 

variables that are strongly correlated 

with improving these outcomes, such as 

(but not limited to) teacher or principal 

effectiveness. We believe that this 

criterion provides sufficient opportunity 

for eligible applicants to discuss the 

expected outcomes of proposed projects 

and for reviewers to assess project costs 

in relation to those outcomes. We note 

that peer reviewers evaluate 

applications against the selection 

criteria; reviewers do not evaluate 

applications by comparing them with 

each other. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: A few commenters 

expressed concern that providing the 

cost estimates in response to Selection 

Criterion E will be burdensome to 

applicants and that this burden may 

outweigh the value of the estimates. One 

of these commenters suggested that the 

Department instead consider other, less 

burdensome cost measures such as 

initial and targeted investments. One 

commenter recommended that the 

Department allow reviewers to assess 

cost through consideration of the budget 

for each year of a proposed project. 

Another commenter recommended that 

the Department rely on reviewers to 

make sensible judgments of project costeffectiveness and not require applicants 

to provide the estimates discussed in 

the criterion. 

Discussion: Under Selection Criterion 

E(4) (proposed Selection Criterion 

E(2)(d)), the Secretary considers an 

eligible applicant’s estimates both of the 

cost for reaching the total number of 

students to be served by the proposed 

project and for the eligible applicant or 

others (including other partners) to 

reach the scaling targets for the 

respective grant types (i.e., 100,000, 

250,000, and 500,000 students for 

Development and Validation grants; and 

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

students for Scale-up grants). We 

appreciate the commenters’ concerns 

that providing these estimates may be 

burdensome to eligible applicants. 

However, as discussed earlier, we 

believe that these estimates will provide 

reviewers a useful and informative 

measure of costs of the projects that may 

be proposed under this program; and as 

a result, we believe that the benefits of 

these estimates outweigh the burden on 

eligible applicants in providing them. In 

addition, it is not clear to us that the 

alternative measures recommended by 

the commenters would be less 

burdensome to eligible applicants or 

more useful to reviewers. Therefore, we 

decline to add to this criterion an 

alternative or additional cost measure. 

Changes: None. 

Selection Criterion F—Sustainability 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that the Department revise Selection 

Criterion F to consider the extent to 

which the proposed project can be 

integrated into the fabric of LEAs, 

schools, and nonprofit partners. The 

commenter suggested that a promise of 

money to operate the project beyond the 

length of the grant does not reflect the 

spirit of innovation. The commenter 

also suggested that the Department 

foster a ‘‘doing more with less’’ approach 

rather than an approach that would ‘‘add 

on’’ projects, which the commenter 

stated would not foster investments in 

true innovation. 

Discussion: We believe that the 

criterion sufficiently addresses the 

commenter’s concerns. Under Selection 

Criterion F(2) (proposed Selection 

Criterion F(2)(b)), the Secretary 

considers the potential and planning for 

the incorporation of project purposes, 

activities, or benefits into the ongoing 

work of the eligible applicant and any 

other partners at the end of the grant. 

Under Selection Criterion F, the 

Secretary will also consider the 

adequacy of resources to continue the 

proposed project after the grant period 

ends, which would include the 

expenses associated with the continued 

management of projects. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Several commenters 

recommended that the Department 

revise Selection Criterion F(2)(a) to 

include additional stakeholders such as 

parents, students, local government, 

community-based organizations, faithbased organizations, institutions of 

higher education, research institutes, 

and entities that may not typically be 

considered education stakeholders. The 

commenters stated that support from 

these stakeholders may help 

demonstrate the sustainability of the 

proposed project. 

Discussion: The list of potential 

stakeholders in Selection Criterion F(1) 

(proposed Selection Criterion F(2)(a)) is 

not intended to be exhaustive. We 

cannot include all potential 

stakeholders in the criterion and so 

decline to make the additions 

recommended. In addressing this 

criterion, eligible applicants may 

provide evidence of support from other 

stakeholders including those mentioned 

by the commenters. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

concern that it would be difficult for 

States and LEAs that currently have 

budget problems to sustain funded 

projects in the future. 

Discussion: We agree with the 

commenter that budget problems may 

create challenges for some States and 

LEAs to sustain projects. These 

budgetary concerns, however, 

emphasize the importance of LEAs and 

States learning from each other and 

sharing those practices that have 

improved project outcomes in a costeffective manner. This program aims 

both to promote this kind of sharing and 

to better leverage public and private 

sector investments in education. The 

Cost Sharing or Matching requirement is 

intended to help address the challenges 

faced by grantees and increase the 

sustainability of projects by securing 

matching funds from the private sector. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Two commenters 

recommended that the Department 

award additional points to applicants 

with previous experience in obtaining 

or leveraging funding from private 

sources. 

Discussion: Eligible applicants that 

have a record of securing funding from 

private sources or that have new 

funding already secured can 

demonstrate those qualities in response 

to this criterion and other selection 

criteria, including Selection Criterion C 

(Experience of the Eligible Applicant) 

and Selection Criterion E (Strategy and 

Capacity to Bring to Scale (in the case 

of Scale-up and Validation grants); 

Strategy and Capacity to Further 

Develop and Bring to Scale (in the case 

of Development grants)). As a result, we 

do not believe it is necessary to add a 

criterion (with additional points) to 

account for the consideration of this 

information. 

Changes: None. 

Selection Criterion G—Quality of the 

Management Plan and Personnel 

Comment: Several commenters 

recommended that the Department 

modify Selection Criterion G(2)(b)) to 

include consideration of the 

qualifications of key partner personnel 

in addition to the qualifications of the 

project directors and key project 

personnel. Another commenter 

recommended that the Department 

modify Selection Criterion G to include 

consideration of partnerships that are 

strategic for management and personnel 

purposes. 

Discussion: In response to Selection 

Criterion G, an eligible applicant may 

include personnel from those partners 

(official partners or other partners) who 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
12052 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

are important to achieving the proposed 

project’s objectives and may discuss the 

responsibilities of those personnel. 

Accordingly, we believe that the 

selection criterion addresses these 

commenters’ concerns. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that the Department revise Selection 

Criterion G to include consideration of 

whether the proposed project includes 

one or more key personnel who can 

demonstrate understanding of and 

experience with programs and practices 

in rural schools or LEAs. 

Discussion: The Department believes 

that the commenter’s concern is 

addressed in the general consideration 

of the qualifications of key personnel 

under Selection Criterion G. Because of 

the variety of applications that are likely 

to be submitted under this program, we 

do not believe it is appropriate to 

specifically consider whether eligible 

applicants include staff with experience 

working with specific types of schools 

or LEAs, such as rural schools or LEAs. 

Changes: None. 

Evidence and Evaluation 

Comment: The Department received a 

large number of comments on the 

standards of evidence for this program. 

Some commenters supported the 

Department’s emphasis on the proposed 

use and generation of evidence for the 

Development, Validation, and Scale-up 

grants. 

Discussion: We appreciate the 

commenters’ support. To ensure that 

applications for Scale-up grants are 

supported by strong evidence (as 

defined in this notice), that applications 

for Validation grants are supported by 

moderate evidence (as defined in this 

notice), and that applications for 

Development grants are supported by 

reasonable hypotheses, we are revising 

the requirements for this program to 

explicitly address these evidence 

standards. 

Changes: We are adding a 

requirement that to be eligible for an 

award, an application for a Scale-up 

grant must be supported by strong 

evidence (as defined in this notice), an 

application for a Validation grant must 

be supported by moderate evidence (as 

defined in this notice), and an 

application for a Development grant 

must be supported by a reasonable 

hypothesis. 

Comment: None. 

Discussion: To provide further clarity, 

we are adding a definition of the term 

well-implemented and well-designed, 

with respect to an experimental or 

quasi-experimental study. 

Changes: We are adding that, for this 

program, well-designed and wellimplemented means, with respect to an 

experimental or quasi-experimental 

study (as defined in this notice), that the 

study meets the What Works 

Clearinghouse evidence standards, with 

or without reservations (see http:// 

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

idocviewer/doc.aspx?docid=19&tocid=1 

and in particular the description of 

‘‘Reasons for Not Meeting Standards’’ at 

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

idocviewer/ 

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

Comment: None. 

Discussion: To provide further clarity 

on what we will consider under 

Selection Criterion B (Strength of 

Research, Significance of Effect, and 

Magnitude of Effect) with respect to the 

strength of the existing research, we are 

revising the criterion for all three types 

of grants. 

Changes: We are revising Selection 

Criterion B (Strength of Research, 

Significance of Effect, and Magnitude of 

Effect) for Scale-up and Validation 

grants to clarify that the strength of the 

existing research evidence includes the 

internal validity (strength of causal 

conclusions) and external validity 

(generalizability) of the effects reported 

in prior research. We are also revising 

the criterion for Development grants to 

clarify that the strength of the existing 

research evidence includes reported 

practice, theoretical considerations, and 

the significance and magnitude of any 

effects reported in prior research. 

Comment: Some commenters argued 

that well-conducted experimental 

studies—including delayed-treatment 

studies or studies that use lotteries to 

allocate slots for oversubscribed 

programs—provide definitive evidence 

of the effectiveness of innovations and 

should receive a competitive preference 

over quasi-experimental or nonexperimental studies. Other commenters 

recommended that evidence from one 

well-designed and well-implemented 

experimental study, when feasible, be a 

prerequisite for receiving a Scale-up 

grant. One commenter recommended 

that similar criteria be applied to 

applications for Validation grants. 

Discussion: This notice defines strong 

evidence in a way that gives more 

weight to a large, well-designed and 

well-implemented (as defined in this 

notice), multisite experimental study (as 

defined in this notice) than to a 

corresponding quasi-experimental study 

(as defined in this notice). This 

emphasis is justified, because a largescale experimental study is likely to 

yield evidence with greater confidence 

and a stronger claim to internal validity 

than a similarly sized quasi-experiment. 

Nonetheless, we do not favor giving a 

further preference to applicants relying 

on experimental evidence, for example 

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

experiment (where feasible) a 

prerequisite for receiving a Scale-Up 

grant. Such preferences would risk 

discounting valid evidence from quasiexperimental studies and could exclude 

from funding and further study 

promising innovations for which 

experimental evaluations are less 

feasible. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Many commenters argued 

that the proposed definitions of 

moderate evidence and strong evidence 

are too narrow and restrictive given the 

focus of the grants on supporting 

innovation. Commenters criticized what 

they perceived to be an unduly 

exclusive, inflexible, and expensive 

focus on experimental and quasiexperimental designs to the exclusion of 

other research designs, such as 

correlational and longitudinal outcomes 

analyses utilizing available public data. 

These commenters also expressed 

concern that many organizations with 

experience developing education 

interventions to help struggling students 

may be relatively small and may lack 

experience with the costly data 

infrastructure required for experimental 

or quasi-experimental studies. The 

commenters expressed concern that 

excluding such organizations from 

Scale-up and Validation grants would 

be counterproductive to the goals of the 

Investing in Innovation program. 

Discussion: The Department does not 

believe that the definitions of moderate 

evidence and strong evidence are too 

narrow and restrictive. A program’s 

evidence of effectiveness should be 

commensurate with the scale on which 

the program will be implemented: thus, 

we are requiring strong evidence for 

implementation at the State, regional, or 

national level (Scale-up grants), and 

moderate evidence for implementation 

at the State or regional level (Validation 

grants). Where strong or moderate 

evidence is lacking, study of a 

promising program through a 

Development grant may be appropriate. 

While strong evidence focuses on 

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

experimental and quasi-experimental 

studies, moderate evidence includes not 

only evidence from experimental and 

quasi-experimental studies, but also 

correlational research with strong 

statistical controls for selection bias and 

for discerning the influence of internal 

factors. Analysis of the outcomes over 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 12053 

time reported in public data can occur 

in the context of quasi-experimental 

studies, such as the interrupted time 

series studies described in this notice. 

For the purpose of submitting 

applications to the Department, eligible 

applicants who lack experience with the 

data collection required for 

experimental or quasi-experimental 

evaluations can form official or other 

partnerships with entities offering such 

experience. In many instances, much of 

the data required for the evaluation will 

already be collected by the agencies 

implementing the innovation, for 

example by districts as part of their 

school accountability and student 

progress monitoring systems. Because 

experimental studies require smaller 

sample sizes than do other studies to 

detect the same magnitude of effects, 

data collection costs for experiments 

may be less than data collection costs 

for quasi-experiments and correlational 

studies. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter proposed 

that ‘‘robust, quantifiable’’ findings be 

viewed as a source of strong evidence 

on the effectiveness of a defined 

practice, strategy, or program when 

competing explanations for changes in 

outcomes have been ruled out. The 

commenter also proposed that 

qualitative data on the relationship 

between a defined practice, strategy, or 

program, and proven and promising 

interventions, be viewed as a source of 

moderate evidence that the practice, 

strategy, or program is effective. 

Discussion: The Department believes 

that, regardless of whether prior 

research studies include a qualitative 

component, ruling out competing 

explanations for differences in outcomes 

is necessary for either strong or 

moderate evidence of effectiveness to be 

present. Accounting for any differences 

between program participants and nonparticipants can be accomplished by 

random assignment to treatment and 

control groups, or through a variety of 

quasi-experimental or statistical 

methods. Studies utilizing these designs 

and methods can provide strong or 

moderate evidence for the purposes of 

this program. The identification of any 

significant associations between 

qualitative measures of program 

implementation and outcomes can only 

provide moderate evidence of 

effectiveness if this research includes 

strong statistical controls for selection 

bias and for discerning the influence of 

internal factors that could be 

responsible for differences in outcomes. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Some commenters 

supported the use of quasi-experimental 

and mixed method evaluation strategies, 

stating that even well-implemented 

experimental designs can suffer 

weaknesses and limitations in their 

external validity. 

Discussion: We agree with the 

commenters that all evaluations can 

suffer weaknesses and limitations in 

their external validity, regardless of 

whether they are experimental or quasiexperimental in nature. A large, welldesigned, well-implemented, 

randomized, controlled, multisite trial is 

likely to have strong external validity as 

well as internal validity. Concerns about 

external validity also can be addressed 

with evidence from more than one welldesigned and well-implemented (as 

defined in this notice) experimental 

study (as defined in this notice) or 

quasi-experimental study (as defined in 

this notice) supporting the effectiveness 

of the practice, strategy, or program for 

different populations. The evaluation 

requirements in this notice allow for 

mixed method strategies, for example to 

provide implementation data, 

performance feedback, progress 

assessment, and information relevant for 

replication in other settings. A welldesigned evaluation of a Scale-up or 

Validation project would take into 

consideration both external validity and 

internal validity when specifying either 

an experimental or quasi-experimental 

design. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Several commenters 

expressed concern that experimental 

and quasi-experimental research designs 

may be inappropriate for evaluating 

complex innovations, including 

innovations with multiple components 

adapted to a local context. Many 

commenters expressed concern that the 

evidence definitions would favor, at 

most, small, narrowly targeted, shortterm interventions as opposed to bold, 

comprehensive, multiple-component, 

long-term school- or LEA-wide 

innovations. As examples of 

comprehensive innovations unsuited to 

analysis through random assignment, 

commenters pointed to turnaround 

programs implemented in particular 

schools, LEA-wide initiatives in 

curriculum and instruction, and family 

and neighborhood engagement 

strategies. 

Discussion: The Department 

appreciates the importance of the 

commenters’ concern, but disagrees that 

experimental and quasi-experimental 

methods are ill-suited to study complex 

innovations. Over the past thirty years, 

numerous multiple-component social 

programs, including those involving 

education reforms, have been evaluated 

rigorously using experimental and 

quasi-experimental methods, and some 

have been found to be effective. We 

believe that a range of experimental and 

quasi-experimental methods can be 

considered to identify potentially 

effective, comprehensive programs and 

to evaluate those programs when 

implemented on a larger scale, for 

example at a State or regional level. 

The evidence standards established in 

this notice permit the consideration of 

systemic LEA and whole-school 

initiatives, as well as interventions 

targeted for specific groups of children 

within schools. For example, schoolwide innovations can be studied 

through the random assignment of 

entire schools to implement specified 

practices or combinations of practices. 

Other LEA-wide or school-wide 

innovations can be studied through 

quasi-experimental methods, such as 

interrupted time series comparisons of 

outcomes before and after a program 

begins. Substantively significant 

findings can arise when even a small 

number of LEAs and schools are 

included in a study. However, studies 

involving larger numbers of LEAs and 

schools have stronger external validity 

and greater likelihood of detecting 

effects at a given level of statistical 

significance. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: A few commenters 

recommended that the Department fund 

the scaling up and validation of 

comprehensive strategies (or 

combinations of strategies) that are 

associated with ‘‘extraordinary’’ student 

learning gains and that the applicant 

plans to evaluate rigorously. One 

commenter suggested that the 

Department define an ‘‘escape clause’’ 

that would permit a Scale-up grant to be 

awarded to support an innovation that 

was exceptionally promising on 

theoretical grounds but that lacked 

support from a randomized study. 

Discussion: The Department believes 

that, given the magnitude of public 

investment being planned for Scale-up 

grants and the number of students who 

would be affected, we need to require 

strong empirical evidence of significant 

learning gains before awarding a Scaleup grant. Likewise, moderate empirical 

evidence of significant learning gains 

should be required before a Validation 

grant is awarded; this evidence could be 

experimental or quasi-experimental. 

Learning gains that appear 

extraordinary, but that lack strong or 

moderate evidence of being caused by 

the innovation in question, therefore, 

would not justify funding for State or 

regional implementation through a 

Scale-up or Validation grant, but could 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
12054 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

justify funding at the level of a 

Development grant. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Some commenters 

criticized the Department’s proposed 

definition of strong evidence because 

under the definition a single, welldesigned study could provide sufficient 

evidence when the same study would be 

insufficient for the Department’s What 

Works Clearinghouse. 

Discussion: For the purposes of this 

program, the Department considers a 

single, large, well-implemented, 

multisite, randomized, controlled trial 

with evidence of effectiveness as 

equivalent to two separate quasiexperimental studies or two smaller 

experimental studies. Scale-up funding 

will permit researchers to test whether 

an innovation that has already been 

validated with strong evidence of 

effectiveness for diverse populations 

maintains its effectiveness when 

implemented on a State, regional, or 

national scale. The evidence standards 

of the What Works Clearinghouse were 

not developed for the purpose of 

evaluating effectiveness under 

conditions of scale-up implementation, 

but rather for the purpose of 

synthesizing research evidence, often 

from multiple, small-scale efficacy 

studies, rather than large, multisite 

evaluations. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Some commenters 

recommended reducing the number of 

evidence levels, and the corresponding 

number of grant categories, from three to 

two. These commenters proposed 

combining the strong and moderate 

evidence criteria under Scale-up grants, 

and supporting a wider range of projects 

under Validation or Development 

grants. 

Discussion: The Department believes 

that the distinction between strong 

evidence of effectiveness and moderate 

evidence of effectiveness is a 

meaningful distinction with respect to 

both the funding of innovations and the 

purpose of the funding; namely, scaling 

up effective practices, strategies, and 

programs (Scale-up grants), as opposed 

to validating claims of effectiveness 

(Validation grants). The multiple tiers of 

evidence corresponding with the three 

categories of grants under this program 

will permit the Department to support a 

wide range of projects. Development 

grants will permit promising 

innovations to be tested, while the 

larger Validation and Scale-up grants 

will support the implementation and 

evaluation of innovations at levels 

commensurate with the corresponding 

evidence of effectiveness. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter proposed 

that the principles of scientific research 

in education identified by the National 

Research Council in 2002 be applied to 

all three types of grants. 

Discussion: Many eminent 

organizations have proposed definitions 

of scientific evidence in education. The 

six principles identified by the National 

Research Council in 2002 provide a 

general foundation and framework for 

understanding scientific research in 

education, but do not focus specifically 

on criteria for identifying effective 

education practices, strategies, and 

programs. The evidence criteria and the 

definitions for this program were 

developed to be reasonable and specific 

given the purposes of this grant program 

to support the development, validation, 

and scaling up of effective innovations. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: A few commenters asked 

the Department to clarify how the 

evidence of effectiveness will be defined 

and the quality of a research design 

determined. One commenter asked 

whether applicants will be required to 

meet the evidence criterion in the 

January 25, 2005, notice on 

‘‘Scientifically Based Evaluation 

Methods’’ (70 FR 3585). 

Discussion: Evidence of effectiveness 

will be assessed relative to the internal 

validity and external validity of such 

claims utilizing a peer review process 

that will include experts with strong 

backgrounds in research and evaluation. 

We are establishing the evidence 

standards and evaluation requirements 

for this program in this notice; the 2005 

notice regarding scientifically based 

evaluation methods is not being used for 

this program. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter asked the 

Department to provide descriptions of 

what constitutes high internal and 

external validity for Scale-up grants. 

The same commenter also requested an 

explanation of how the strong evidence 

required for Scale-up grants will be 

distinguished from the moderate 

evidence required for Validation grants 

and from the evidence required for 

Development grants. 

Discussion: The Department has 

revised 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’’) to provide more detailed 

summary information contrasting the 

evidence criteria for each type of grant. 

Internal validity refers to confidence 

regarding causal inferences and external 

validity refers to confidence regarding 

generalizability of findings. Scale-up 

grants will support practices, strategies, 

and programs for which there are few 

threats to either internal or external 

validity of claims of effectiveness. 

Validation grants will support practices, 

strategies, and programs with evidence 

of effectiveness, even if some threats to 

internal or external validity arise from 

the limitations of previous studies, such 

as small sample sizes or lack of baseline 

equivalence between treatment and 

comparison groups. Development grants 

will support further study of promising 

practices, strategies, and programs for 

which evidence of effectiveness is 

lacking. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Many commenters 

requested that the Department provide 

applicants with clear guidance on the 

evidence standards that will be used to 

evaluate applications, including (1) 

examples of case studies or actual 

research in the absolute priority areas 

that meet the moderate and strong 

evidence requirements and (2) 

specifications of desired outcome 

measures and appropriate program 

performance metrics, including how the 

program goals should vary by grade 

level across projects. 

Discussion: Because of the diversity of 

practices, strategies, and programs that 

may be supported through the different 

categories of grants, the Department 

does not wish to over-emphasize any 

particular area in the competition by 

citing to specific examples or case 

studies, or by defining specific outcome 

measures beyond those mentioned in 

this notice. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Some commenters asked 

the Department to clarify whether (1) 

evidence from an experimental or quasiexperimental study of a similar solution 

in a similar setting could be used as 

evidence to support a Scale-up grant 

application, (2) evidence from a large, 

multisite, experimental evaluation of a 

component of the program and peerreviewed publications on other 

components could be used as evidence 

to support a Validation grant 

application, and (3) a Scale-up grant 

applicant may have been, or should 

have been, a subject of the prior study. 

One commenter proposed that the 

Department permit a consortium of 

organizations to submit and receive 

credit for research evidence from 

individual organizations within the 

consortium. Another commenter 

requested guidance on whether adding 

a new dimension to an existing program 

would preclude the project from 

meeting the criteria for a Scale-up grant. 

In reference to Validation grants, several 

commenters urged the Department to 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 12055 

accept applications that adapt validated 

practices to new contexts. Other 

commenters asked whether 

modifications to well-tested models 

would receive points in both the 

Validation and the Scale-up grant 

categories. 

Discussion: Evidence of the 

effectiveness of a proposed practice, 

strategy, or program will be stronger in 

terms of internal validity if the prior 

research applies to the same innovation 

the eligible applicant is proposing, 

rather than to a similar innovation or to 

a component of the proposed strategy or 

program. Evidence of effectiveness will 

be stronger in terms of external validity 

if the previous studies included at least 

some schools associated with the 

eligible applicant, and if these schools 

were similar to the schools in which the 

proposed innovation would be 

implemented. Eligible applicants 

(including consortium partners) that 

were involved in the actual 

implementation of the previously 

studied innovation would have a more 

credible application to bring to scale 

that innovation, than would applicants 

replicating an innovation previously 

implemented by others. Modification 

and adaptation of existing, well-tested 

practices for new contexts may mean 

that strong evidence of effectiveness in 

the original context is only moderate 

evidence of effectiveness in the new 

context. Eligible applicants must 

determine whether the weight of 

evidence for the internal and external 

validity of claims of effectiveness is 

sufficient to apply for a Scale-up grant 

as opposed to a Validation grant. In 

general, innovations that are similar to, 

but not the same as, those that have 

been evaluated previously with strong 

evidence of effectiveness will not be 

eligible for a Scale-up grant, but may be 

eligible for a Validation grant. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter proposed 

that a third category, procedural 

validity, be used in addition to internal 

validity and external validity. The 

commenter proposed defining 

procedural validity as the extent to 

which the developer followed 

scientifically approved methodology in 

the development, piloting, and 

implementation of the innovation. 

Discussion: While we appreciate the 

commenter’s suggestion, the Department 

believes that applications for Scale-up 

and Validation grants should be based 

on how the innovations have been 

implemented in the past, rather than on 

how they could have been 

implemented. Issues of procedural 

validity in the implementation of 

similar practices, strategies, or programs 

could be considered as part of the 

justification for a Development project. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that program success be 

measured by statistically significant 

improvements in social and behavioral 

outcomes in addition to academic 

achievement. 

Discussion: Social and behavioral 

measures could be intermediate 

outcomes that contribute to student 

educational achievement and 

attainment and, thus, already are 

targeted under this program. 

Applications should include citations of 

relevant research that establishes a 

direct correlation between intermediate 

outcomes and the outcomes described 

in this notice. This research should 

include research designs or statistical 

controls for selection bias and for 

discerning the relationship between 

intermediate outcomes and the 

outcomes described in this notice. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter argued 

that a single, high-quality, quasiexperimental study should be sufficient 

to provide ‘‘strong evidence’’ of 

effectiveness, because any study of this 

quality is likely to be expensive and 

because requiring more than one study 

would rule out otherwise qualified 

applicants. Other commenters argued in 

favor of using multiple sites and 

multiple studies to generate evidence, 

and criticized the Department’s 

proposal to require only one acceptable 

experimental study. According to these 

commenters, the Department’s proposed 

approach would decrease the 

evidentiary standard for Scale-up grants. 

Discussion: In general, the 

Department supports the principle that 

strong evidence of effectiveness should 

be established through multiple studies 

in multiple sites. Scale-up 

implementation at the State, regional, or 

national level may be justified if an 

innovation has evidence of effectiveness 

in multiple settings and for different 

populations. The evidence standard for 

this grant program, summarized in 

Table 1, makes an exception in the case 

of a large, well-designed and wellimplemented (as defined in this notice) 

randomized controlled, trial in multiple 

sites. Threats to the internal validity of 

claims of effectiveness are greater for 

quasi-experimental evaluations than for 

experimental evaluations. In particular, 

compared with more straightforward 

findings from large-scale experiments, 

findings from large-scale quasiexperimental studies may be sensitive to 

decisions concerning analysis methods 

such as statistical matching and 

regression modeling, and therefore need 

to be confirmed through multiple 

studies. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Some commenters 

suggested that multiple method studies 

be defined and encouraged in the 

standards of evidence for Scale-up, 

Validation, and Development grants. 

Discussion: The Department agrees 

that multiple method studies can help 

researchers understand the context and 

implementation of a program. These 

studies may be especially useful for the 

evaluations of Scale-up, Validation, and 

Development projects. The Department 

does not believe it is necessary or 

efficient to incorporate a potentially 

costly multiple method requirement 

into the standards of evidence for Scaleup and Validation grants, because the 

qualitative data collection needs of an 

evaluation are likely to depend on the 

type of innovation being studied. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that, under the 

definitions, the discussion of 

‘‘randomized control trials’’ include an 

emphasis on minimizing overall and 

differential attrition, and that the 

discussion of matched comparison 

group designs include a discussion of 

establishing baseline equivalence. 

Discussion: Studies with high levels 

of overall or differential attrition, or 

without baseline equivalence between 

treatment and comparison groups, 

would not meet the standard of strong 

evidence, as defined in this notice. A 

well-designed and otherwise wellimplemented study with a flaw in one 

of these areas would likely be 

considered moderate evidence of 

effectiveness. The issues of differential 

attrition and baseline equivalence are 

discussed in the Department’s What 

Works Clearinghouse Procedures and 

Standards Handbook (see http:// 

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

idocviewer/ 

doc.aspx?docid=19&tocid=1, and also 

the IES/NCEE Technical Methods 

papers at http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/ 

tech_methods/). 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that the Department 

define ‘‘multisite’’ as including multiple 

schools, LEAs, or cities. 

Discussion: The definition of multisite 

depends on the level at which the 

innovative practice, strategy, or program 

will be implemented and on the units 

that will be assigned to the treatment. 

For example, in the case of a schoollevel intervention, multisite would 

include separate schools; in the case of 

an LEA-level intervention, multisite 

would include separate LEAs. For this 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
12056 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

reason, a definition of multisite that is 

limited to a specific level of 

implementation would be inaccurate. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter noted the 

difficulty of defining how projects can 

be ‘‘innovative and comprehensive in 

scope’’ and ‘‘show a cumulative effect 

over time’’ as specified in the NPP (74 

FR 52216). The commenter stated that 

larger grants should not invest in 

innovations that are ineffective or that 

cannot be evaluated within the grant 

period. The commenter recommended 

that the Department consult with 

stakeholders to define what cumulative 

effects would mean in each area of a 

student’s growth. Another commenter 

noted that while narrowly focused 

programs may result in short-term gains, 

the relative efficacy of larger, macrolevel efforts to engage stakeholders may 

require more time before the full impact 

is revealed. The commenter 

recommended that language be added to 

the notice to reflect this concern. 

Discussion: The Department is 

interested in supporting projects with 

great potential to make meaningful 

improvements in students’ lives on a 

long-term basis. For purposes of this 

grant program, however, project 

evaluations will only be able to detect 

impacts on outcomes measured during 

the grant period, and not on the longerterm outcomes on which programs may 

be focused. For this reason, eligible 

applicants for Scale-up and Validation 

grants will need to identify, in 

consultation with researchers and key 

stakeholders, intermediate outcomes 

directly correlated with the long-term 

outcomes of importance, on which their 

innovations are likely to have 

statistically significant effects before the 

grant period ends. Because of the variety 

of practices, strategies, and programs 

that we anticipate will be proposed by 

eligible applicants under the priorities 

identified by the Department, the 

definition of specific effects will need to 

be proposed separately by each eligible 

applicant, rather than specified in this 

notice. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Several commenters 

proposed broadening the range of 

outcomes measures for which evidence 

of effectiveness would be documented. 

Several commenters highlighted the 

importance of technological and other 

skills needed for college attainment and 

success in the 21st Century workplace, 

recommended that improved career 

readiness be added to the list of desired 

program outcomes in the selection 

criteria, and expressed concerns about 

limiting measures of performance to 

mathematics and to reading and 

language arts. One commenter 

recommended that student achievement 

in subjects such as science, civics, the 

arts, and the impact of school climate, 

school attendance, attendance rates, and 

student engagement on school 

achievement and graduation rates 

should also be measured. 

Discussion: By placing such 

importance on student achievement, 

student growth, closing achievement 

gaps, decreasing dropout rates, 

increasing high school graduation rates, 

and increasing college enrollment and 

completion rates, the Department is 

emphasizing the attainment of those 

skills and skill levels, and the 

conditions that contribute to attaining 

those skills, that are critical for student 

success in school and in careers. 

Eligible applicants can propose other 

outcomes if they contribute to the 

outcomes identified in this notice. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: A few commenters 

suggested that applicants adhering 

explicitly to research-based principles 

and findings should be considered for 

funding under this program. One 

commenter specifically suggested that 

applicants relying on the Department’s 

own research compendia (the What 

Works Clearinghouse, the Doing What 

Works Web site, and the Institute of 

Education Sciences reports) should be 

considered ‘‘pre-qualified’’ to meet the 

research evidence requirements in the 

notice. 

Discussion: Research studies or 

reports released by the Department can 

be included as evidence of effectiveness 

for the practices, strategies, or programs 

proposed for funding under this 

program. However, whether such 

studies constitute strong or moderate 

evidence of effectiveness depends not 

only on the internal and external 

validity of the studies, but also on the 

correspondence between the practices, 

strategies, or programs proposed by the 

eligible applicant and the practices, 

strategies, and programs included in the 

reports released by the Department. The 

evidence of effectiveness documented in 

reports released by the Department 

varies in strength. Measured according 

to the criteria summarized in Table 1, 

this evidence would not necessarily 

qualify as strong or even moderate 

evidence of effectiveness for those 

innovations that an applicant would 

propose to implement in particular 

settings. Therefore, it would not be 

appropriate to pre-qualify eligible 

applicants, as recommended by the 

commenter. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Several commenters 

expressed concern about the quality of 

child assessments that would be 

included in projects supported under 

this program. One commenter argued 

that the Department should support 

applicants that use multiple measures of 

developmental and academic outcomes 

for children. Other commenters 

criticized the emphasis the Department 

placed in the NPP on State-developed 

formative and interim assessments. 

These commenters argued instead for 

curriculum-embedded formative and 

summative assessments aligned with 

college-ready standards. Other 

commenters argued that reliance on the 

existing State and local formative and 

summative assessments would be more 

relevant to practice, less timeconsuming, less disruptive of student 

learning time, and less expensive than 

relying on formal, in-depth standardized 

assessments for research purposes. One 

commenter noted that, for projects 

previously implemented and evaluated 

in multiple States, it would be 

reasonable to expect a nationallynormed standardized assessment to be 

used instead of State tests. The 

commenter recommended that, in a 

‘‘large, well-designed and wellimplemented randomized controlled, 

multisite trial, that effectiveness of the 

practice, strategy, or program’’ include a 

‘‘randomized controlled, multi-state trial 

that uses a nationally-normed 

standardized assessment that is valid 

and reliable’’ for purposes of the Scaleup grants and the demonstration of 

improved student achievement. Another 

commenter questioned the validity of 

State achievement measures and 

recommended the priority consider 

assessments that are not tied to AYP 

determinations. 

Discussion: This notice requires using 

State assessments for those grades and 

subjects assessed under section 

1111(b)(3) of the ESEA to measure 

student achievement, and also permits 

alternative measures of student learning 

and performance to be used, especially 

for non-tested grades and subjects. 

Examples of these alternative measures 

include interim assessments or 

formative, classroom-based assessments. 

In projects spanning multiple States, 

commonality of measures of student 

learning and performance across all 

relevant grades and subjects is desirable, 

so a nationally-normed standardized 

assessment that is valid and reliable 

would be a reasonable measure of 

project performance. The Department’s 

intent is to contribute to improvements 

both in the reliability and validity of 

student assessments and in how these 

data are used to improve instruction for 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 12057 

each student, not to add to the burden 

of schools in assessing students. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter argued 

that the Department should require 

projects proposed for Scale-up and 

Validation grants to study, for at least 

one year in at least 10 schools, the 

effects of the proposed project on 

student outcomes using measures other 

than those inherent to the treatments. 

Discussion: The Department 

appreciates this suggestion to promote 

the external validity of findings from 

Scale-up and Validation projects. 

Because of the range of projects that 

could be supported by this program, the 

Department believes that decisions 

regarding the minimum sample size, the 

length of the study, or the choice of 

assessment measures should be made by 

the grantee according to the type of 

project being proposed. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

concern about how to define treatment 

conditions and to aggregate data across 

schools or over time when different 

schools implement different innovations 

that also change over time. The 

commenter recommended that 

researchers with expertise in small-scale 

statistics provide guidance to support 

claims of effectiveness. The commenter 

also recommended that the Department 

provide incentives for LEAs to release 

student performance data (with 

appropriate privacy protections) that 

could be utilized in quasi-experimental 

analyses that would compare school 

outcomes. 

Discussion: Elsewhere in this notice, 

we provide references to information 

and guidance that eligible applicants 

can use to support claims of 

effectiveness. An individual project’s 

evaluations should include the 

information needed to replicate or test 

the project in other settings. This 

information can include data on 

corresponding student outcomes, if 

appropriate privacy protections are in 

place. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Some commenters argued 

that a sufficiently large effect size 

should be required by the Department, 

especially for the Scale-up and 

Validation grants. A few commenters 

argued that the Department should 

specify a 0.20 minimum effect size as a 

threshold for identifying educationally 

significant effects on student 

achievement. Many other commenters 

argued against using a single minimum 

effect size, and recommended instead 

that the Department evaluate the effect 

size, as reported by applicants in the 

context of the type of intervention, 

target population, outcomes being 

measured, and the existing research on 

anticipated effects. Some commenters 

argued that the expected effect size 

should differ by grant year and should 

be valued according to its long-term 

benefit to students. 

Discussion: The Department 

appreciates the comments we received 

in response to our request for input on 

whether we should set a minimum 

effect size for this program. We are 

compelled by the arguments from 

commenters that a one-size-fits-all effect 

size would not be appropriate for this 

program given that the target effect size 

for a given practice, strategy, or program 

can vary because of factors such as the 

age and grade of the children receiving 

services, the nature of the outcome 

variable, and the cost of the innovation. 

Accordingly, eligible applicants should 

justify their claims regarding which 

magnitude of effect is reasonable and 

substantively important for their 

proposed project. Because the 

Department has decided to not specify 

a single effect size, eligible applicants 

are free to specify an anticipated effect 

size that differs by year for each year 

that would be included in the project 

evaluation. The specification of the 

anticipated effect sizes should be 

informed by the evidence of 

effectiveness for the innovation. Any 

differences from previously documented 

effect sizes should be discussed, 

particularly in the case of Scale-up 

grants for which evidence of 

effectiveness should be strong. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Several commenters stated 

that any effect size standards adopted by 

the Department should take into 

account both the program costs and the 

anticipated effect size per unit cost in 

order to promote cost-effective 

innovations. 

Discussion: Although cost is an 

important consideration when 

interpreting the importance of an effect 

size, the Department believes that the 

cost information will be more useful to 

reviewers of applications—and 

ultimately to researchers, practitioners, 

policymakers, and the public—if it is 

reported separately from the effect sizes, 

especially for innovations targeting 

multiple outcomes. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Several commenters 

disagreed on the usefulness of 

intermediate outcome variables such as 

school attendance, parental engagement, 

teacher satisfaction, or school climate. 

Some commenters expressed concern 

that focusing on intermediate variables 

would detract from student achievement 

or attainment. In contrast, other 

commenters argued that removing or 

‘‘downgrading’’ intermediate outcome 

would ignore research on the 

relationship between these outcomes 

and student achievement and 

attainment. 

Discussion: Because of the limited 

time period of the Department’s 

innovation grants, the Department 

believes that it may be necessary for 

eligible applicants to identify and target 

key intermediate outcomes in order to 

understand the impact of projects in the 

short term. The Department believes 

that eligible applicants should carefully 

select intermediate outcomes that have 

a strong theoretical basis and empirical 

evidence of their direct connection with 

long-term student outcomes. Eligible 

applicants should collect data on 

intermediate outcomes only when data 

collection on longer-term outcomes is 

not feasible. 

Changes: We are revising the selection 

criterion to clarify that an applicant 

choosing to demonstrate success 

through an intermediate variable must 

use an intermediate variable that is 

strongly correlated with the proposed 

project’s long-term student outcomes. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that Validation grants 

support proposed practices, strategies, 

or programs for which there is a 

statistically significant association 

between the innovation and an 

intermediate variable that is highly 

correlated with the outcomes of interest. 

Another commenter stated that 

intermediate outcomes were needed 

because of validity and reliability issues 

with assessing the learning of children 

between birth and the third grade. One 

commenter argued that gathering data 

on ‘‘secondary effects’’ is also useful in 

understanding a project’s impact. A few 

commenters emphasized the need for 

evidence that the intermediate variables 

targeted by projects truly impact, and 

are not merely correlated with, student 

outcomes of importance, and that such 

a causal connection should have both 

theoretical and empirical support. 

Another commenter argued that it was 

important that any intermediate 

measures be reliable predictors of 

student learning outcomes, and that the 

learning outcomes be aligned with State 

standards and the range of skills and 

engagement predictive of student 

success. The commenter expressed 

concern that the Department support 

projects that provide clear presentations 

of the context and populations for 

which the effectiveness of supported 

innovations is being measured. 

Discussion: The Department believes 

that defining intermediate outcome 

variables is necessary because of the 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
12058 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

limited duration of the grants provided 

under this program and because not all 

long-term outcomes targeted by projects 

will be measurable during the grant 

period. On the basis of the research 

evidence, eligible applicants should 

specify intermediate outcomes that are 

likely to be affected by the proposed 

practices, strategies, and programs, and 

that contribute to, or at least predict, 

improvements in the longer-term 

outcomes identified by the Department. 

‘‘Secondary effects’’ estimates should be 

held to the same standards of evidence 

as effectiveness on long-term outcomes. 

However, strong evidence of effects on 

secondary, intermediate outcomes does 

not, in itself, constitute evidence of 

effects on long-term outcomes with 

which the secondary outcomes are 

correlated. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Several commenters 

requested that the Department: (1) 

Provide clarification of the meaning of 

‘‘school climate’’ and its relationship to 

personal safety, gang presence, or drug 

presence; (2) list ‘‘family engagement’’ as 

an intermediate outcome alongside 

school climate; and (3) specify that the 

list of variables is not exhaustive. 

Discussion: By listing examples of 

intermediate outcomes directly 

correlated with longer-term student 

outcomes, the Department left open the 

possibility of eligible applicants 

proposing other intermediate outcomes, 

including family engagement. The types 

of intermediate outcomes proposed by 

an eligible applicant, and the specific 

measures used for a variable, would 

depend on the type of practice, strategy, 

or program being proposed, the longterm student outcomes being targeted, 

and the settings in which the innovation 

would be implemented. 

The Department does not wish to 

privilege some types of innovations over 

others by specifying a detailed list of 

intermediate outcome measures. 

Therefore, we are removing 

‘‘improvements in school climate’’ as an 

example of an intermediate variable 

because we find it is not necessary to 

the effective use of the selection 

criterion. 

Changes: We are removing 

‘‘improvements in school climate’’ as an 

example of an intermediate variable in 

the selection criterion. 

Comment: One commenter asked for 

clarification of the meaning of an effect 

that has a magnitude that is ‘‘substantial 

and important.’’ 

Discussion: The meaning of 

‘‘substantial and important’’ will vary 

depending on the context, such as the 

age and grade level of the students being 

served, and the cost of the innovation. 

Eligible applicants should describe why 

the expected effects are substantial and 

important for attaining the goals of this 

program. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that the reference to the 

‘‘significance’’ of an effect for 

Development grants be changed to read 

‘‘statistical significance.’’ Another 

commenter recommended changing 

‘‘statistically significant’’ to ‘‘significant’’ 

when discussing the strength of research 

evidence regarding innovation 

effectiveness. 

Discussion: Development grants may 

not always support innovations 

implemented on a scale that would 

produce statistically significant effects, 

so the omission of the adjective 

‘‘statistical’’ is intentional. The NPP and 

this notice refer to ‘‘statistically 

significant’’ with regard to the 

significance of the effect that a practice, 

strategy, or program is expected to have 

if supported through a Scale-up or 

Validation grant. The magnitude of 

effect reported in prior studies— 

whether statistically significant or not— 

should support an eligible applicant’s 

claim that the effect of the practice, 

strategy, or program is likely to be 

detected as statistically significant in 

the sample included in the proposed 

Scale-up or Validation project. Small 

sample sizes in prior studies make the 

detection of statistically significant 

effects less likely and also weaken the 

external validity of findings, reducing 

the likelihood of the findings qualifying 

as the strong evidence required for a 

Scale-up grant. (Applicants should refer 

to Table 1 and its detailed summary of 

evidence criteria for the three types of 

grants.) 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Some commenters asked 

that ‘‘promising results’’ be changed to 

‘‘positive results’’ in this final notice. 

Discussion: ‘‘Promising results’’ refers, 

in the context of Development grants, to 

outcomes from practices, strategies, or 

programs for which there is not yet even 

moderate evidence of effectiveness. 

‘‘Positive results’’ refers more generally 

to outcomes or goals consistent with the 

goal of the project, and encompasses 

both promising results suggesting that 

more formal and systematic study of 

efficacy may be warranted, and results 

qualifying as moderate or strong 

evidence of effectiveness. ‘‘Promising 

results’’ therefore is the more 

appropriate term for the Department to 

use in describing Development grants. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: A few commenters asked 

whether an applicant must name an 

independent evaluator in its 

application. Commenters asked whether 

it would be sufficient for an applicant 

to budget for an independent evaluator 

for only Scale-up and Validation grants. 

One commenter expressed concern that 

there is no capacity to have independent 

evaluators in place prior to a grant 

award. 

Discussion: The quality of the 

evaluation proposed for each project, 

including the methods of evaluation 

planned and the resources proposed for 

evaluation, will be considered by the 

Department when awarding grants 

under this program. Whether an 

independent evaluator has been selected 

at the time of application will not, in 

itself, disadvantage an applicant. 

Applications should include the name 

of qualified independent evaluators of 

projects, if these have already been 

selected, and should in all cases 

demonstrate the applicant’s 

commitment to ensure a high-quality 

and independent evaluation of the 

proposed project. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that the Department offer 

technical assistance to grantees and 

their evaluators to ensure that highquality independent evaluations are 

conducted of projects funded under all 

three types of grants. A few commenters 

asked the Department to explore how 

the required evaluations of funded 

projects can occur in an independent 

and statistically valid manner and the 

results collected, analyzed, and 

disseminated in a coordinated way that 

builds both stakeholder knowledge and 

the capacity of State and LEA 

evaluators. Several commenters 

emphasized the need for the Department 

to ensure rigorous, independent 

evaluations, scientific reporting, and the 

sharing of data on the effectiveness of 

grantee interventions. The commenters 

suggested that the Department require 

applications to include information 

about how project participants will 

support and cooperate with the 

independent evaluator, and use 

experimental or quasi-experimental 

methods where feasible. A few 

commenters expressed concern that the 

independent evaluation of a grantee’s 

project not be duplicative of the 

evaluation work submitted in the 

application. 

Discussion: The Department’s 

Institute of Education Sciences (IES) 

will be involved in evaluating the 

Investing in Innovation program, in 

providing technical assistance to 

evaluators of individual funded 

projects, and in synthesizing evidence 

from multiple supported projects. The 

IES role will be defined in a way that 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 12059 

will not duplicate the individual project 

evaluations under this program and that 

also encourages the independent 

evaluators to add to existing knowledge 

on the efficacy and effectiveness of the 

innovations being studied. Data will be 

collected and maintained by grantees. 

However, we agree with commenters 

that it is valuable to share the data from 

these evaluations. Thus, the data from 

the evaluations of Scale-up and 

Validation projects must be made 

available to third-party researchers. To 

support the sharing of data with third 

parties, the Department will work with 

grantees to set up procedures to make 

data available to other researchers while 

safeguarding privacy. 

Changes: We are revising the 

Evaluation requirement under this 

program to specify that, in addition to 

making the results of any evaluation 

broadly available, Scale-up and 

Validation grantees must also ensure 

that the data from their evaluations are 

made available to third-party 

researchers consistent with applicable 

privacy requirements. 

Comment: Commenters disagreed on 

the prioritization for experimental 

designs for the evaluations of grantee 

projects. One commenter argued that the 

evaluation requirements, not only for 

Scale-up grants, but also for Validation 

grants, should, wherever feasible, be 

experimental studies led by 

independent evaluators experienced 

with such studies. One commenter 

agreed with our proposal in the NPP 

specifying that Scale-up grants be 

evaluated by experimental or quasiexperimental means. Another 

commenter argued that evaluating 

Scale-up grants experimentally may not 

be feasible because of the lack of a 

control group and may not be necessary 

if the evidence for the innovation is 

sufficiently strong to scale it up. 

Discussion: The evaluation 

requirements for Scale-up and 

Validation grants specify the use of 

independent evaluators and welldesigned experimental or quasiexperimental studies. Because 

Validation grants would need to be 

supported by only moderate evidence, a 

large, well-implemented quasiexperimental evaluation may be 

sufficient to expand knowledge of the 

program’s effectiveness. Because Scaleup grants would already be supported 

by strong evidence, an experimental 

evaluation is preferable, when feasible, 

to assess how and under what 

conditions the program is effective 

when it is implemented in a fuller range 

of settings than prior to the awarding of 

the grant. Control or comparison groups 

can be identified for Scale-up projects 

from sites that have not yet 

implemented the innovation. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Some commenters 

expressed concerns that the costs of 

evaluation could leave too few funds 

available to support implementation of 

the innovation, not only in the case of 

Development grants, but also in the case 

of Validation and Scale-up grants. 

Discussion: Applicants should budget 

appropriate amounts for the evaluation 

of their project. The use of available 

data and measures that LEAs and 

schools already collect can help 

minimize new data collection costs and 

ensure that the innovations themselves 

are funded adequately. Evaluation 

dollars are well spent if they inform 

future decisions about whether to 

implement particular innovations more 

broadly. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: A few commenters 

emphasized the importance of 

measuring the extent and the quality of 

the implementation of grantee 

innovations, as well as on providing 

sufficient information to facilitate 

replication or testing of the innovation 

in other settings. 

Discussion: We appreciate the 

commenters’ emphasis on the 

importance of evaluating grantee 

innovations. The measurement of 

program implementation and provision 

of information to facilitate replication or 

testing in other settings are required 

under the evaluations that will be 

conducted of each project funded under 

this program. This information will be 

especially important for understanding 

whether and under what circumstances 

innovations are implemented with 

fidelity. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter argued 

that program developers and 

implementers should be involved in 

evaluating the project, but should not be 

the sole evaluators. Another commenter 

argued that neither developers nor 

implementers should evaluate the 

impact of the project. 

Discussion: The impact evaluation of 

Validation and Scale-up projects must 

be conducted by a qualified evaluator 

distinct from the program developer and 

project implementer. An autonomous 

research or evaluation office within a 

large organization could qualify as an 

independent evaluator if its reporting of 

findings and conclusions is not subject 

to approval by the office responsible for 

developing or implementing the 

program. In this way, impact 

evaluations of these projects would be 

independent, objective, and of greater 

use to all stakeholders. The Department 

encourages independent evaluators to 

consult with developers and 

implementers about knowledge that 

would inform evaluation design and 

reporting. For Development projects, 

developers and implementers can 

participate in the evaluation if they are 

qualified to do so because such 

participation may be necessary for the 

innovations to be implemented with 

fidelity as part of a small-scale study of 

efficacy. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that the Department pay 

LEAs for the cost of staff time that 

would be associated with the 

implementation of the evaluation. 

Discussion: The cost of LEA staff time 

associated with the implementation of 

project evaluations can be included in 

each applicant’s evaluation budget. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that the Department 

provide funding for robust research 

studies and for a clearinghouse to 

describe the funded innovations. 

Discussion: Under the requirements 

for this program, any eligible applicant 

receiving funds must conduct an 

independent evaluation of its proposed 

project and comply with the 

requirements of any evaluation of the 

program conducted by the Department 

(see Evaluation requirement). Therefore, 

the cost of the evaluation may be 

included in the applicant’s budget for 

its proposed project. The existing What 

Works Clearinghouse at IES is funded to 

review and synthesize evidence of 

effectiveness from education practices, 

strategies, or programs, including those 

that may be supported with Investing in 

Innovation grants. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that the Department treat 

data systems as measurement 

infrastructure for evaluating the 

effectiveness of other interventions, 

rather than as a separate intervention 

that is subject to the evidentiary 

standards for Scale-up grants. 

Discussion: While data systems can be 

part of the measurement infrastructure 

for other interventions, the Department 

does not want to preclude the 

possibility of an applicant proposing a 

data system as a separate intervention. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that Development grants 

only be funded if there is a clear theory 

of action and if the associated research 

literature suggests that the hypothesized 

action on the intended outcome is likely 

to occur. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
12060 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

8Consistent with the Race to the Top Fund, the 

Department interprets the core academic subject of 

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

education (science, technology, engineering, and 

mathematics) which encompasses a wide-range of 

disciplines, including science. 

Discussion: This notice already 

specifies that applicants for 

Development grants 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 or other sectors. Therefore, it 

is not necessary to add the requirement 

recommended by the commenter. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: A number of commenters 

expressed concerns about the 

application of evidence standards to 

small LEAs and rural LEAs. A few 

commenters expressed concern about 

the difficulty of small LEAs qualifying 

for Scale-up or Validation grants under 

the proposed priorities given the 

evidence requirements for applicants 

and the time that would be required to 

serve 100,000 or 250,000 students. One 

commenter recommended that the 

Department provide a competitive 

preference priority to applications 

where regional partnerships have been 

identified to scale up practices across 

schools and LEAs. Another commenter 

recommended that applicants be 

required to address ‘‘the limited human, 

fiscal, and technology capacity of rural 

LEAs and schools to collect data on the 

innovation and for independent 

evaluation.’’ 

Discussion: The Department 

recognizes the particular challenges 

faced by small LEAs and rural LEAs in 

implementing and evaluating 

innovations. According to the evidence 

criteria described in Table 1, it may be 

possible, under the category of 

Validation grant funding, for rural LEAs 

to apply for funding to implement 

innovations with evidence of 

effectiveness in non-rural settings, since 

this evidence could have high internal 

validity but only moderate external 

validity. Challenges faced by rural LEAs 

in the areas of data collection and 

evaluation may be addressed by 

applicants applying under Competitive 

Preference Priority 8. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended removing the reference to 

the What Works Clearinghouse 

procedures, standards, and technical 

methods papers because the commenter 

thought this reference was too limited. 

Discussion: Knowledge of the What 

Works Clearinghouse procedures, 

standards, and technical methods 

papers may be useful to applicants in 

developing their project evaluation 

plans, but these resources are meant to 

be informative, not prescriptive, of 

evaluation decisions. Accordingly, we 

decline to remove that reference. 

Changes: None. 

Final Priorities 

Types of Priorities 

When inviting applications for a 

competition using one or more 

priorities, we designate the type of each 

priority as absolute, competitive 

preference, or invitational. Under an 

absolute priority, as specified by 34 CFR 

75.105(c)(3), we consider only 

applications that meet the priority. 

Under a competitive preference priority, 

we give competitive preference to an 

application by (1) awarding additional 

points, depending on the extent to 

which the application meets the priority 

(34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) selecting 

an application that meets the priority 

over an application of comparable merit 

that does not meet the priority (34 CFR 

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

priority, we signal our interest in 

receiving applications that meet the 

priority; however, consistent with 34 

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

application that meets an invitational 

priority preference over other 

applications. 

Final Priorities 

The Secretary establishes the 

following priorities for the Investing in 

Innovation Fund. We may apply these 

priorities in any year in which this 

program is in effect. 

Absolute Priorities 

Absolute Priority 1—Innovations That 

Support Effective Teachers and 

Principals 

Under this priority, the Department 

provides funding to support practices, 

strategies, or programs that are designed 

to increase the number or percentages of 

teachers or principals who are highly 

effective teachers or principals or 

reduce the number or percentages of 

teachers or principals who are 

ineffective, especially for teachers of 

high-need students, by identifying, 

recruiting, developing, placing, 

rewarding, and retaining highly 

effective teachers or principals (or 

removing ineffective teachers or 

principals). In such initiatives, teacher 

or principal effectiveness should be 

determined through an evaluation 

system that is rigorous, transparent, and 

fair; performance should be 

differentiated using multiple rating 

categories of effectiveness; multiple 

measures of effectiveness should be 

taken into account, with data on student 

growth as a significant factor; and the 

measures should be designed and 

developed with teacher and principal 

involvement. 

Absolute Priority 2—Innovations That 

Improve the Use of Data 

Under this priority, the Department 

provides funding to support strategies, 

practices, or programs that are designed 

to (a) encourage and facilitate the 

evaluation, analysis, and use of student 

achievement or student growth data by 

educators, families, and other 

stakeholders in order to inform 

decision-making and improve student 

achievement, student growth, or 

teacher, principal, school, or LEA 

performance and productivity; or (b) 

enable data aggregation, analysis, and 

research. Where LEAs and schools are 

required to do so under the Elementary 

and Secondary Education Act of 1965, 

as amended (ESEA), these data must be 

disaggregated using the student 

subgroups described in section 

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

economically disadvantaged students, 

students from major racial and ethnic 

groups, migrant students, students with 

limited English proficiency, students 

with disabilities, and student gender). 

Absolute Priority 3—Innovations That 

Complement the Implementation of 

High Standards and High-Quality 

Assessments 

Under this priority, the Department 

provides funding for practices, 

strategies, or programs that are designed 

to support States’ efforts to transition to 

standards and assessments that measure 

students’ progress toward college- and 

career-readiness, including curricular 

and instructional practices, strategies, or 

programs in core academic subjects (as 

defined in section 9101(11) of the ESEA) 

that are aligned with high academic 

content and achievement standards and 

with high-quality assessments based on 

those standards.8 Proposed projects may 

include, but are not limited to, 

practices, strategies, or programs that 

are designed to: (a) Increase the success 

of under-represented student 

populations in academically rigorous 

courses and programs (such as 

Advanced Placement or International 

Baccalaureate courses; dual-enrollment 

programs; ‘‘early college high schools;’’ 

and science, technology, engineering, 

and mathematics courses, especially 

those that incorporate rigorous and 

relevant project-, inquiry-, or designbased contextual learning 

opportunities); (b) increase the 

development and use of formative 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 12061 

9Under the final requirements for the School 

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

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

corrective action, or restructuring that (i) is among 

the lowest-achieving five percent of Title I schools 

in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring 

or the lowest-achieving five Title I schools in 

improvement, corrective action, or restructuring in 

the State, whichever number of schools is greater; 

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

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

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

secondary school that is eligible for, but does not 

receive, Title I funds that (i) is among the lowestachieving five percent of secondary schools or the 

lowest-achieving five secondary schools in the State 

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

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

high school that has had a graduation rate as 

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

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

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

assessments or interim assessments, or 

other performance-based tools and 

‘‘metrics’’ that are aligned with high 

student content and academic 

achievement standards; or (c) translate 

the standards and information from 

assessments into classroom practices 

that meet the needs of all students, 

including high-need students. 

Under this priority, an eligible 

applicant must propose a project that is 

based on standards that are at least as 

rigorous as its State’s standards. If the 

proposed project is based on standards 

other than those adopted by the eligible 

applicant’s State, the applicant must 

explain how the standards are aligned 

with and at least as rigorous as the 

eligible applicant’s State’s standards as 

well as how the standards differ. 

Absolute Priority 4—Innovations That 

Turn Around Persistently LowPerforming Schools 

Under this priority, the Department 

provides funding to support strategies, 

practices, or programs that are designed 

to turn around schools that are in any 

of the following categories: (a) 

Persistently lowest-achieving schools 

(as defined in the final requirements for 

the School Improvement Grants 

program); 9 (b) Title I schools that are in 

corrective action or restructuring under 

section 1116 of the ESEA; or (c) 

secondary schools (both middle and 

high schools) eligible for but not 

receiving Title I funds that, if receiving 

Title I funds, would be in corrective 

action or restructuring under section 

1116 of the ESEA. These schools are 

referred to as Investing in Innovation 

Fund Absolute Priority 4 schools. 

Proposed projects must include 

strategies, practices, or programs that 

are designed to turn around Investing in 

Innovation Fund Absolute Priority 4 

schools through either whole-school 

reform or targeted approaches to reform. 

Applicants addressing this priority must 

focus on either: 

(a) Whole-school reform, including, 

but not limited to, comprehensive 

interventions to assist, augment, or 

replace Investing in Innovation Fund 

Absolute Priority 4 schools, including 

the school turnaround, restart, closure, 

and transformation models of 

intervention supported under the 

Department’s School Improvement 

Grants program (see Final Requirements 

for School Improvement Grants as 

Amended in January 2010 (January 28, 

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

sif/faq.html); or 

(b) Targeted approaches to reform, 

including, but not limited to: (1) 

Providing more time for students to 

learn core academic content by 

expanding or augmenting the school 

day, school week, or school year, or by 

increasing instructional time for core 

academic subjects (as defined in section 

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

‘‘student supports’’ into the school 

model to address non-academic barriers 

to student achievement; or (3) creating 

multiple pathways for students to earn 

regular high school diplomas (e.g., by 

operating schools that serve the needs of 

over-aged, under-credited, or other 

students with an exceptional need for 

support and flexibility pertaining to 

when they attend school; awarding 

credit based on demonstrated evidence 

of student competency; and offering 

dual-enrollment options). 

Competitive Preference Priorities 

Competitive Preference Priority 5— 

Innovations for Improving Early 

Learning Outcomes 

We give competitive preference to 

applications for projects that would 

implement innovative practices, 

strategies, or programs that are designed 

to improve educational outcomes for 

high-need students who are young 

children (birth through 3rd grade) by 

enhancing the quality of early learning 

programs. To meet this priority, 

applications must focus on (a) 

improving young children’s school 

readiness (including social, emotional, 

and cognitive readiness) so that children 

are prepared for success in core 

academic subjects (as defined in section 

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

developmental milestones and 

standards and aligning them with 

appropriate outcome measures; and (c) 

improving alignment, collaboration, and 

transitions between early learning 

programs that serve children from birth 

to age three, in preschools, and in 

kindergarten through third grade. 

Competitive Preference Priority 6— 

Innovations That Support College 

Access and Success 

We give competitive preference to 

applications for projects that would 

implement innovative practices, 

strategies, or programs that are designed 

to enable kindergarten through grade 12 

(K–12) students, particularly high 

school students, to successfully prepare 

for, enter, and graduate from a two- or 

four-year college. To meet this priority, 

applications must include practices, 

strategies, or programs for K–12 

students that (a) address students’ 

preparedness and expectations related 

to college; (b) help students understand 

issues of college affordability and the 

financial aid and college application 

processes; and (c) provide support to 

students from peers and knowledgeable 

adults. 

Competitive Preference Priority 7— 

Innovations To Address the Unique 

Learning Needs of Students With 

Disabilities and Limited English 

Proficient Students 

We give competitive preference to 

applications for projects that would 

implement innovative practices, 

strategies, or programs that are designed 

to address the unique learning needs of 

students with disabilities, including 

those who are assessed based on 

alternate academic achievement 

standards, or the linguistic and 

academic needs of limited English 

proficient students. To meet this 

priority, applications must provide for 

the implementation of particular 

practices, strategies, or programs that 

are designed to improve academic 

outcomes, close achievement gaps, and 

increase college- and career-readiness, 

including increasing high school 

graduation rates (as defined in this 

notice), for students with disabilities or 

limited English proficient students. 

Competitive Preference Priority 8— 

Innovations That Serve Schools in Rural 

LEAs 

We give competitive preference to 

applications for projects that would 

implement innovative practices, 

strategies, or programs that are designed 

to focus on the unique challenges of 

high-need students in schools within a 

rural LEA (as defined in this notice) and 

address the particular challenges faced 

by students in these schools. To meet 

this priority, applications must include 

practices, strategies, or programs that 

are designed to improve student 

achievement or student growth, close 

achievement gaps, decrease dropout 

rates, increase high school graduation 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
12062 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

rates, or improve teacher and principal 

effectiveness in one or more rural LEAs. 

Final Requirements 

The Secretary establishes the 

following requirements for the Investing 

in Innovation Fund. We may apply 

these requirements in any year in which 

this program is in effect. 

Providing Innovations that Improve 

Achievement for High-Need Students: 

All eligible applicants must implement 

practices, strategies, or programs for 

high-need students (as defined in this 

notice). 

Eligible Applicants: Entities eligible to 

apply for Investing in Innovation Fund 

grants include: (a) An LEA or (b) a 

partnership between a nonprofit 

organization and (1) one or more LEAs 

or (2) a consortium of schools. An 

eligible applicant that is a partnership 

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

the ARRA must designate one of its 

official partners (as defined in this 

notice) to serve as the applicant in 

accordance with the Department’s 

regulations governing group 

applications in 34 CFR 75.127 through 

75.129. 

Eligibility Requirements: To be 

eligible for an award, an eligible 

applicant must—except as specifically 

set forth in the Note about Eligibility for 

an Eligible Applicant that Includes a 

Nonprofit Organization that follows: 

(1)(A) Have significantly closed the 

achievement gaps between groups of 

students described in section 1111(b)(2) 

of the ESEA (economically 

disadvantaged students, students from 

major racial and ethnic groups, students 

with limited English proficiency, 

students with disabilities); or 

(B) Have demonstrated success in 

significantly increasing student 

academic achievement for all groups of 

students described in that section; 

(2) Have made significant 

improvements in other areas, such as 

graduation rates or increased 

recruitment and placement of highquality teachers and principals, as 

demonstrated with meaningful data; 

(3) Demonstrate that it has established 

one or more partnerships with the 

private sector, which may include 

philanthropic organizations, and that 

the private sector will provide matching 

funds in order to help bring results to 

scale; and 

(4) In the case of an eligible applicant 

that includes a nonprofit organization, 

provide in the application the names of 

the LEAs with which the nonprofit 

organization will partner, or the names 

of the schools in the consortium with 

which it will partner. If an eligible 

applicant that includes a nonprofit 

organization intends to partner with 

additional LEAs or schools that are not 

named in the application, it must 

describe in the application the 

demographic and other characteristics 

of these LEAs and schools and the 

process it will use to select them as 

either official or other partners. An 

applicant must identify its specific 

partners before a grant award will be 

made. 

Note about LEA Eligibility: For 

purposes of this program, an LEA is an 

LEA located within one of the 50 States, 

the District of Columbia, or the 

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. 

Note about Eligibility for an Eligible 

Applicant that Includes a Nonprofit 

Organization: The authorizing statute 

(as amended) specifies that an eligible 

applicant that includes a nonprofit 

organization is considered to have met 

the requirements in paragraphs (1) and 

(2) of the eligibility requirements for 

this program if the nonprofit 

organization has a record of 

significantly improving student 

achievement, attainment, or retention. 

For an eligible applicant that includes a 

nonprofit organization, the nonprofit 

organization must demonstrate that it 

has a record of significantly improving 

student achievement, attainment, or 

retention through its record of work 

with an LEA or schools. Therefore, an 

eligible applicant that includes a 

nonprofit organization does not 

necessarily need to include as a partner 

for its Investing in Innovation Fund 

grant an LEA or a consortium of schools 

that meets the requirements in 

paragraphs (1) and (2). 

In addition, the authorizing statute (as 

amended) specifies that an eligible 

applicant that includes a nonprofit 

organization is considered to have met 

the requirements of paragraph (3) of the 

eligibility requirements for this program 

if the eligible applicant demonstrates 

that it will meet the requirement 

relating to private-sector matching. 

Evidence Standards: To be eligible for 

an award, an application for a Scale-up 

grant must be supported by strong 

evidence (as defined in this notice), an 

application for a Validation grant must 

be supported by moderate evidence (as 

defined in this notice), and an 

application for a Development grant 

must be supported by a reasonable 

hypothesis. 

Funding Categories: An applicant 

must state in its application whether it 

is applying for a Scale-up, Validation, or 

Development grant. An applicant may 

not submit an application for the same 

proposed project under more than one 

type of grant. An applicant will be 

considered for an award only for the 

type of grant for which it applies. 

Cost Sharing or Matching: To be 

eligible for an award, an eligible 

applicant must demonstrate that it has 

established one or more partnerships 

with an entity or organization in the 

private sector, which may include 

philanthropic organizations, and that 

the entity or organization in the private 

sector will provide matching funds in 

order to help bring project results to 

scale. An eligible applicant must obtain 

matching funds or in-kind donations 

equal to at least 20 percent of its grant 

award. Selected eligible applicants must 

submit evidence of the full 20 percent 

private-sector matching funds following 

the peer review of applications. An 

award will not be made unless the 

applicant provides adequate evidence 

that the full 20 percent private-sector 

match has been committed or the 

Secretary approves the eligible 

applicant’s request to reduce the 

matching-level requirement. 

The Secretary may consider 

decreasing the 20 percent matching 

requirement in the most exceptional 

circumstances, on a case-by-case basis. 

An eligible applicant that anticipates 

being unable to meet the 20 percent 

matching requirement must include in 

the application a request to the 

Secretary to reduce the matching-level 

requirement, along with a statement of 

the basis for the request. 

Subgrants: In the case of an eligible 

applicant that is a partnership between 

a nonprofit organization and (1) one or 

more LEAs or (2) a consortium of 

schools, the partner serving as the 

applicant may make subgrants to one or 

more official partners (as defined in this 

notice). 

Limits on Grant Awards: No grantee 

may receive more than two grant awards 

under this program. In addition, no 

grantee may receive more than $55 

million in grant awards under this 

program in a single year’s competition. 

Evaluation: A grantee must comply 

with the requirements of any evaluation 

of the program conducted by the 

Department. In addition, the grantee is 

required to conduct an independent 

evaluation (as defined in this notice) of 

its project and must agree, along with its 

independent evaluator, to cooperate 

with any technical assistance provided 

by the Department or its contractor. The 

purpose of this technical assistance will 

be to ensure that the evaluations are of 

the highest quality and to encourage 

commonality in evaluation approaches 

across funded projects where such 

commonality is feasible and useful. 

Finally, the grantee must make broadly 

available through formal (e.g., peerVerDate Nov<24>2008 17:35 Mar 11, 2010 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12MRR2.SGM 12MRR2

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 12063 

10A single subject or single case design is an 

adaptation of an interrupted time series design that 

relies on the comparison of treatment effects on a 

single subject or group of single subjects. There is 

little confidence that findings based on this design 

would be the same for other members of the 

population. In some single subject designs, 

treatment reversal or multiple baseline designs are 

used to increase internal validity. In a treatment 

reversal design, after a pretreatment or baseline 

outcome measurement is compared with a posttreatment measure, the treatment would then be 

stopped for a period of time, a second baseline 

measure of the outcome would be taken, followed 

by a second application of the treatment or a 

different treatment. A multiple baseline design 

addresses concerns about the effects of normal 

development, timing of the treatment, and amount 

of the treatment with treatment-reversal designs by 

using a varying time schedule for introduction of 

the treatment and/or treatments of different lengths 

or intensity. 

reviewed journals) or informal (e.g., 

newsletters) mechanisms, and in print 

or electronically, the results of any 

evaluations it conducts of its funded 

activities. For Scale-up and Validation 

grants, the grantee must also ensure the 

data from their evaluations are made 

available to third-party researchers 

consistent with applicable privacy 

requirements. 

Participation in ‘‘Communities of 

Practice’’: Grantees are required to 

participate in, organize, or facilitate, as 

appropriate, communities of practice for 

the Investing in Innovation Fund. A 

community of practice is a group of 

grantees that agrees to interact regularly 

to solve a persistent problem or improve 

practice in an area that is important to 

them. Establishment of communities of 

practice under the Investing in 

Innovation Fund will enable grantees to 

meet, discuss, and collaborate with each 

other regarding grantee projects. 

Final Definitions 

The Secretary establishes the 

following definitions for the Investing in 

Innovation Fund. We may apply these 

definitions in any year in which this 

program is in effect. 

Definitions Related to Evidence 

Strong evidence means evidence from 

previous studies whose designs can 

support causal conclusions (i.e., studies 

with high internal validity), and studies 

that in total include enough of the range 

of participants and settings to support 

scaling up to the State, regional, or 

national level (i.e., studies with high 

external validity). The following are 

examples of strong evidence: (1) More 

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

experimental study (as defined in this 

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

quasi-experimental study (as defined in 

this notice) that supports the 

effectiveness of the practice, strategy, or 

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

and well-implemented (as defined in 

this notice) randomized controlled, 

multisite trial that supports the 

effectiveness of the practice, strategy, or 

program. 

Moderate evidence means evidence 

from previous studies whose designs 

can support causal conclusions (i.e., 

studies with high internal validity) but 

have limited generalizability (i.e., 

moderate external validity), or studies 

with high external validity but moderate 

internal validity. The following would 

constitute moderate evidence: (1) At 

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

experimental or quasi-experimental 

study (as defined in this notice) 

supporting the effectiveness of the 

practice, strategy, or program, with 

small sample sizes or other conditions 

of implementation or analysis that limit 

generalizability; (2) at least one welldesigned and well-implemented (as 

defined in this notice) experimental or 

quasi-experimental study (as defined in 

this notice) that does not demonstrate 

equivalence between the intervention 

and comparison groups at program entry 

but that has no other major flaws related 

to internal validity; or (3) correlational 

research with strong statistical controls 

for selection bias and for discerning the 

influence of internal factors. 

Well-designed and well-implemented 

means, with respect to an experimental 

or quasi-experimental study (as defined 

in this notice), that the study meets the 

What Works Clearinghouse evidence 

standards, with or without reservations 

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

references/idocviewer/ 

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

particular the description of ‘‘Reasons 

for Not Meeting Standards’’ at http:// 

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

idocviewer/ 

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

Experimental study means a study 

that employs random assignment of, for 

example, students, teachers, classrooms, 

schools, or districts to participate in a 

project being evaluated (treatment 

group) or not to participate in the 

project (control group). The effect of the 

project is the average difference in 

outcomes between the treatment and 

control groups. 

Quasi-experimental study means an 

evaluation design that attempts to 

approximate an experimental design 

and can support causal conclusions (i.e., 

minimizes threats to internal validity, 

such as selection bias, or allows them to 

be modeled). Well-designed quasiexperimental studies include carefully 

matched comparison group designs (as 

defined in this notice), interrupted time 

series designs (as defined in this notice), 

or regression discontinuity designs (as 

defined in this notice). 

Carefully matched comparison group 

design means a type of quasiexperimental study that attempts to 

approximate an experimental study. 

More specifically, it is a design in which 

project participants are matched with 

non-participants based on key 

characteristics that are thought to be 

related to the outcome. These 

characteristics include, but are not 

limited to: (1) Prior test scores and other 

measures of academic achievement 

(preferably, the same measures that the 

study will use to evaluate outcomes for 

the two groups); (2) demographic 

characteristics, such as age, disability, 

gender, English proficiency, ethnicity, 

poverty level, parents’ educational 

attainment, and single- or two-parent 

family background; (3) the time period 

in which the two groups are studied 

(e.g., the two groups are children 

entering kindergarten in the same year 

as opposed to sequential years); and (4) 

methods used to collect outcome data 

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

administered in the same way to both 

groups). 

Interrupted time series design 10

means a type of quasi-experimental 

study in which the outcome of interest 

is measured multiple times before and 

after the treatment for program 

participants only. If the program had an 

impact, the outcomes after treatment 

will have a different slope or level from 

those before treatment. That is, the 

series should show an ‘‘interruption’’ of 

the prior situation at the time when the 

program was implemented. Adding a 

comparison group time series, such as 

schools not participating in the program 

or schools participating in the program 

in a different geographic area, 

substantially increases the reliability of 

the findings. 

Regression discontinuity design study 

means, in part, a quasi-experimental 

study design that closely approximates 

an experimental study. In a regression 

discontinuity design, participants are 

assigned to a treatment or comparison 

group based on a numerical rating or 

score of a variable unrelated to the 

treatment such as the rating of an 

application for funding. Another 

example would be assignment of 

eligible students, teachers, classrooms, 

or schools above a certain score (‘‘cut 

score’’) to the treatment group and 

assignment of those below the score to 

the comparison group. 

Independent evaluation means that 

the evaluation is designed and carried 

out independent of, but in coordination 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
12064 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

with, any employees of the entities who 

develop a practice, strategy, or program 

and are implementing it. This 

independence helps ensure the 

objectivity of an evaluation and 

prevents even the appearance of a 

conflict of interest. 

Other Definitions 

Applicant means the entity that 

applies for a grant under this program 

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

an LEA or a partnership in accordance 

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

ARRA). 

Official partner means any of the 

entities required to be part of a 

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

of the ARRA. 

Other partner means any entity, other 

than the applicant and any official 

partner, that may be involved in a 

proposed project. 

Consortium of schools means two or 

more public elementary or secondary 

schools acting collaboratively for the 

purpose of applying for and 

implementing an Investing in 

Innovation Fund grant jointly with an 

eligible nonprofit organization. 

Nonprofit organization means an 

entity that meets the definition of 

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

institution of higher education as 

defined by section 101(a) of the Higher 

Education Act of 1965, as amended. 

Formative assessment means 

assessment questions, tools, and 

processes that are embedded in 

instruction and are used by teachers and 

students to provide timely feedback for 

purposes of adjusting instruction to 

improve learning. 

Interim assessment means an 

assessment that is given at regular and 

specified intervals throughout the 

school year, is designed to evaluate 

students’ knowledge and skills relative 

to a specific set of academic standards, 

and produces results that can be 

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

school, or LEA) in order to inform 

teachers and administrators at the 

student, classroom, school, and LEA 

levels. 

Highly effective principal means a 

principal whose students, overall and 

for each subgroup as described in 

section 1111(b)(3)(C)(xiii) of the ESEA 

(i.e., economically disadvantaged 

students, students from major racial and 

ethnic groups, migrant students, 

students with disabilities, students with 

limited English proficiency, and 

students of each gender), achieve high 

rates (e.g., one and one-half grade levels 

in an academic year) of student growth. 

Eligible applicants may include 

multiple measures, provided that 

principal effectiveness is evaluated, in 

significant part, based on student 

growth. Supplemental measures may 

include, for example, high school 

graduation rates; college enrollment 

rates; evidence of providing supportive 

teaching and learning conditions, 

support for ensuring effective 

instruction across subject areas for a 

well-rounded education, strong 

instructional leadership, and positive 

family and community engagement; or 

evidence of attracting, developing, and 

retaining high numbers of effective 

teachers. 

Highly effective teacher means a 

teacher whose students achieve high 

rates (e.g., one and one-half grade levels 

in an academic year) of student growth. 

Eligible applicants may include 

multiple measures, provided that 

teacher effectiveness is evaluated, in 

significant part, based on student 

growth. Supplemental measures may 

include, for example, multiple 

observation-based assessments of 

teacher performance or evidence of 

leadership roles (which may include 

mentoring or leading professional 

learning communities) that increase the 

effectiveness of other teachers in the 

school or LEA. 

High-need student means a student at 

risk of educational failure, or otherwise 

in need of special assistance and 

support, such as students who are living 

in poverty, who attend high-minority 

schools, who are far below grade level, 

who are over-age and under-credited, 

who have left school before receiving a 

regular high school diploma, who are at 

risk of not graduating with a regular 

high school diploma on time, who are 

homeless, who are in foster care, who 

have been incarcerated, who have 

disabilities, or who are limited English 

proficient. 

National level, as used in reference to 

a Scale-up grant, describes a project that 

is able to be effective in a wide variety 

of communities and student populations 

around the country, including rural and 

urban areas, as well as with the different 

groups of students described in section 

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

economically disadvantaged students, 

students from major racial and ethnic 

groups, migrant students, students with 

disabilities, students with limited 

English proficiency, and students of 

each gender). 

Regional level, as used in reference to 

a Scale-up or Validation grant, describes 

a project that is able to serve a variety 

of communities and student populations 

within a State or multiple States, 

including rural and urban areas, as well 

as the different groups of students 

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

of the ESEA (i.e., economically 

disadvantaged students, students from 

major racial and ethnic groups, migrant 

students, students with disabilities, 

students with limited English 

proficiency, and students of each 

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

students in more than one LEA. The 

exception to this requirement would be 

a project implemented in a State in 

which the State educational agency is 

the sole educational agency for all 

schools and thus may be considered an 

LEA under section 9101(26) of the 

ESEA. Such a State would meet the 

definition of regional for the purposes of 

this notice. 

Rural LEA means an LEA that is 

eligible under the Small Rural School 

Achievement (SRSA) program or the 

Rural and Low-Income School (RLIS) 

program authorized under Title VI, Part 

B of the ESEA. Eligible applicants may 

determine whether a particular LEA is 

eligible for these programs by referring 

to information on the following 

Department Web sites. For the SRSA: 

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

eligible09/index.html. For the RLIS: 

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

eligibility.html. 

Student achievement means— 

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

A student’s score on the State’s 

assessments under section 1111(b)(3) of 

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

measures of student learning, such as 

those described in paragraph (b) of this 

definition, provided they are rigorous 

and comparable across classrooms; and 

(b) For non-tested grades and subjects: 

Alternative measures of student learning 

and performance such as student scores 

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

student performance on English 

language proficiency assessments; and 

other measures of student achievement 

that are rigorous and comparable across 

classrooms. 

Student growth means the change in 

student achievement data for an 

individual student between two or more 

points in time. Growth may be 

measured by a variety of approaches, 

but any approach used must be 

statistically rigorous and based on 

student achievement data, and may also 

include other measures of student 

learning in order to increase the 

construct validity and generalizability of 

the information. 

High school graduation rate means a 

four-year adjusted cohort graduation 

rate consistent with 34 CFR 200.19(b)(1) 

and may also include an extended-year 

adjusted cohort graduation rate 

consistent with 34 CFR 200.19(b)(1)(v) if 

the State in which the proposed project 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 12065 

11For additional information on the evidence for 

Scale-up grants, see Table 3 later in this section. 

is implemented has been approved by 

the Secretary to use such a rate under 

Title I of the ESEA. 

Regular high school diploma means, 

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

the standard high school diploma that is 

awarded to students in the State and 

that is fully aligned with the State’s 

academic content standards or a higher 

diploma and does not include a General 

Education Development (GED) 

credential, certificate of attendance, or 

any alternative award. 

Selection Criteria 

The Secretary establishes the 

following selection criteria for 

evaluating an application under the 

Investing in Innovation Fund. We may 

apply these criteria in any year in which 

this program is in effect. In the notice 

inviting applications, 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. 

The Secretary considers the need for 

the project and quality of the design of 

the proposed project. 

In determining the need for the 

project and quality of the design of the 

proposed project, the Secretary 

considers the following factors: 

(1) The extent to which the proposed 

project represents an exceptional 

approach to the priorities the eligible 

applicant is seeking to meet (i.e., 

addresses a largely unmet need, 

particularly for high-need students, and 

is a practice, strategy, or program that 

has not already been widely adopted). 

(2) The extent to which the proposed 

project has a clear set of goals and an 

explicit strategy, with actions that are 

(a) aligned with the priorities the 

eligible applicant is seeking to meet, 

and (b) expected to result in achieving 

the goals, objectives, and outcomes of 

the proposed project. 

B. Strength of Research, Significance 

of Effect, and Magnitude of Effect. 

The Secretary considers the strength 

of the existing research evidence,11

including the internal validity (strength 

of causal conclusions) and external 

validity (generalizability) of the effects 

reported in prior research, on whether 

the proposed project will improve 

student achievement or student growth, 

close achievement gaps, decrease 

dropout rates, increase high school 

graduation rates, or increase college 

enrollment and completion rates. 

Eligible applicants may also 

demonstrate success through an 

intermediate variable that is strongly 

correlated with improving these 

outcomes, such as teacher or principal 

effectiveness. 

In determining the strength of the 

existing research evidence, the Secretary 

considers the following factors: 

(1) The extent to which the eligible 

applicant demonstrates that there is 

strong evidence (as defined in this 

notice) that its implementation of the 

proposed practice, strategy, or program 

will have a statistically significant, 

substantial, and important effect on 

improving student achievement or 

student growth, closing achievement 

gaps, decreasing dropout rates, 

increasing high school graduation rates, 

or increasing college enrollment and 

completion rates. 

(2) The importance and magnitude of 

the effect expected to be obtained by the 

proposed project, including the extent 

to which the project will substantially 

and measurably improve student 

achievement or student growth, close 

achievement gaps, decrease dropout 

rates, increase high school graduation 

rates, or increase college enrollment and 

completion rates. The evidence in 

support of the importance and 

magnitude of the effect would be the 

research-based evidence provided by 

the eligible applicant to support the 

proposed project. 

C. Experience of the Eligible 

Applicant. 

The Secretary considers the 

experience of the eligible applicant in 

implementing the proposed project. 

In determining the experience of the 

eligible applicant, the Secretary 

considers the following factors: 

(1) The past performance of the 

eligible applicant in implementing 

large, complex, and rapidly growing 

projects. 

(2) The extent to which an eligible 

applicant provides information and data 

demonstrating that— 

(a) In the case of an eligible applicant 

that is an LEA, the LEA has— 

(i) Significantly closed the 

achievement gaps between groups of 

students described in section 1111(b)(2) 

of the ESEA, or significantly increased 

student achievement for all groups of 

students described in such section; and 

(ii) Made significant improvements in 

other areas, such as graduation rates or 

increased recruitment and placement of 

high-quality teachers and principals, as 

demonstrated with meaningful data; or 

(b) In the case of an eligible applicant 

that includes a nonprofit organization, 

the nonprofit organization has 

significantly improved student 

achievement, attainment, or retention 

through its record of work with an LEA 

or schools. 

D. Quality of the Project Evaluation. 

The Secretary considers the quality of 

the evaluation to be conducted of the 

proposed project. 

In determining the quality of the 

evaluation, the Secretary considers the 

following factors: 

(1) The extent to which the methods 

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

well-designed experimental study of the 

project is not possible, the extent to 

which the methods of evaluation will 

include a well-designed quasiexperimental study. 

(2) The extent to which, for either an 

experimental study or a quasiexperimental study, the study will be 

conducted of the practice, strategy, or 

program as implemented at scale. 

(3) The extent to which the methods 

of evaluation will provide high-quality 

implementation data and performance 

feedback, and permit periodic 

assessment of progress toward achieving 

intended outcomes. 

(4) The extent to which the evaluation 

will provide sufficient information 

about the key elements and approach of 

the project so as to facilitate replication 

or testing in other settings. 

(5) The extent to which the proposed 

project plan includes sufficient 

resources to carry out the project 

evaluation effectively. 

(6) The extent to which the proposed 

evaluation is rigorous, independent, and 

neither the program developer nor the 

project implementer will evaluate the 

impact of the project. 

Note: We encourage eligible applicants to 

review the following technical assistance 

resources on evaluation: (1) What Works 

Clearinghouse Procedures and Standards 

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

references/idocviewer/doc.aspx?docid=19&

tocid=1; and (2) IES/NCEE Technical 

Methods papers: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/tech_

methods/. 

E. Strategy and Capacity to Bring to 

Scale. 

The Secretary considers the quality of 

the eligible applicant’s strategy and 

capacity to bring the proposed project to 

scale on a national, regional, or State 

level. 

In determining the quality of the 

strategy and capacity to bring the 

proposed project to scale, the Secretary 

considers: 

(1) The number of students proposed 

to be reached by the proposed project 

and the capacity of the eligible 

applicant and any other partners to 

reach the proposed number of students 

during the course of the grant period. 

(2) The eligible applicant’s capacity 

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


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
12066 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

12For additional information on the evidence for 

Validation grants, see Table 3 later in this section. 

financial resources, or management 

capacity) to bring the proposed project 

to scale on a national, regional, or State 

level working directly, or through 

partners, either during or following the 

end of the grant period. 

(3) The feasibility of the proposed 

project to be replicated successfully, if 

positive results are obtained, in a variety 

of settings and with a variety of student 

populations. Evidence of this ability 

includes the proposed project’s 

demonstrated success in multiple 

settings and with different types of 

students, the availability of resources 

and expertise required for implementing 

the project with fidelity, and the 

proposed project’s evidence of relative 

ease of use or user satisfaction. 

(4) The eligible applicant’s estimate of 

the cost of the proposed project, which 

includes the start-up and operating costs 

per student per year (including indirect 

costs) for reaching the total number of 

students proposed to be served by the 

project. The eligible applicant must 

include an estimate of the costs for the 

eligible applicant or others (including 

other partners) to reach 100,000, 

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

(5) The mechanisms the eligible 

applicant will use to broadly 

disseminate information on its project 

so as to support replication. 

F. Sustainability. 

The Secretary considers the adequacy 

of resources to continue the proposed 

project after the grant period ends. 

In determining the adequacy of 

resources for the proposed project, the 

Secretary considers the following 

factors: 

(1) The extent to which the eligible 

applicant demonstrates that it has the 

resources to operate the project beyond 

the length of the Scale-up grant, 

including a multi-year financial and 

operating model and accompanying 

plan; the demonstrated commitment of 

any other partners; and evidence of 

broad support from stakeholders (e.g., 

State educational agencies, teachers’ 

unions) critical to the project’s longterm success. 

(2) The potential and planning for the 

incorporation of project purposes, 

activities, or benefits into the ongoing 

work of the eligible applicant and any 

other partners at the end of the Scaleup grant. 

G. Quality of the Management Plan 

and Personnel. 

The Secretary considers the quality of 

the management plan and personnel for 

the proposed project. 

In determining the quality of the 

management plan and personnel for the 

proposed project, the Secretary 

considers: 

(1) The adequacy of the management 

plan to achieve the objectives of the 

proposed project on time and within 

budget, including clearly defined 

responsibilities, timelines, and 

milestones for accomplishing project 

tasks, as well as tasks related to the 

sustainability and scalability of the 

proposed project. 

(2) The qualifications, including 

relevant training and experience, of the 

project director and key project 

personnel, especially in managing large, 

complex, and rapidly growing projects. 

(3) The qualifications, including 

relevant expertise and experience, of the 

project director and key personnel of the 

independent evaluator, especially in 

designing and conducting large-scale 

experimental and quasi-experimental 

studies of educational initiatives. 

2. Validation Grants 

A. Need for the Project and Quality of 

the Project Design. 

The Secretary considers the need for 

the project and quality of the design of 

the proposed project. 

In determining the need for the 

project and quality of the design of the 

proposed project, the Secretary 

considers the following factors: 

(1) The extent to which the proposed 

project represents an exceptional 

approach to the priorities the eligible 

applicant is seeking to meet (i.e., 

addresses a largely unmet need, 

particularly for high-need students, and 

is a practice, strategy, or program that 

has not already been widely adopted). 

(2) The extent to which the proposed 

project has a clear set of goals and an 

explicit strategy, with actions that are 

(a) aligned with the priorities the 

eligible applicant is seeking to meet, 

and (b) expected to result in achieving 

the goals, objectives, and outcomes of 

the proposed project. 

(3) The extent to which the proposed 

project is consistent with the research 

evidence supporting the proposed 

project, taking into consideration any 

differences in context. 

B. Strength of Research, Significance 

of Effect, and Magnitude of Effect. 

The Secretary considers the strength 

of the existing research evidence, 

including the internal validity (strength 

of causal conclusions) and external 

validity (generalizability) of the effects 

reported in prior research, on whether 

the proposed project will improve 

student achievement or student growth, 

close achievement gaps, decrease 

dropout rates, increase high school 

graduation rates, or increase college 

enrollment and completion rates. 

Eligible applicants may also 

demonstrate success through an 

intermediate variable that is strongly 

correlated with improving these 

outcomes, such as teacher or principal 

effectiveness. 

In determining the strength of the 

existing research evidence,12 the 

Secretary considers the following 

factors: 

(1) The extent to which the eligible 

applicant demonstrates that there is 

moderate evidence (as defined in this 

notice) that the proposed practice, 

strategy, or program will have a 

statistically significant, substantial, and 

important effect on improving student 

achievement or student growth, closing 

achievement gaps, decreasing dropout 

rates, increasing high school graduation 

rates, or increasing college enrollment 

and completion rates. 

(2) The importance and magnitude of 

the effect expected to be obtained by the 

proposed project, including the 

likelihood that the project will 

substantially and measurably improve 

student achievement or student growth, 

close achievement gaps, decrease 

dropout rates, increase high school 

graduation rates, or increase college 

enrollment and completion rates. The 

evidence in support of the importance 

and magnitude of the effect would be 

the research-based evidence provided 

by the eligible applicant to support the 

proposed project. 

C. Experience of the Eligible 

Applicant. 

The Secretary considers the 

experience of the eligible applicant in 

implementing the proposed project. 

In determining the experience of the 

eligible applicant, the Secretary 

considers the following factors: 

(1) The past performance of the 

eligible applicant in implementing 

complex projects. 

(2) The extent to which an eligible 

applicant provides information and data 

demonstrating that— 

(a) In the case of an eligible applicant 

that is an LEA, the LEA has— 

(i) Significantly closed the 

achievement gaps between groups of 

students described in section 1111(b)(2) 

of the ESEA, or significantly increased 

student achievement for all groups of 

students described in such section; and 

(ii) Made significant improvements in 

other areas, such as graduation rates or 

increased recruitment and placement of 

high-quality teachers and principals, as 

demonstrated with meaningful data; or 

(b) In the case of an eligible applicant 

that includes a nonprofit organization, 

the nonprofit organization has 

significantly improved student 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 12067 

13For additional information on the evidence for 

Development grants, see Table 3 later in this 

section. 

achievement, attainment, or retention 

through its record of work with an LEA 

or schools. 

D. Quality of the Project Evaluation. 

The Secretary considers the quality of 

the evaluation to be conducted of the 

proposed project. 

In determining the quality of the 

evaluation, the Secretary considers the 

following factors: 

(1) The extent to which the methods 

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

(2) The extent to which the methods 

of evaluation will provide high-quality 

implementation data and performance 

feedback, and permit periodic 

assessment of progress toward achieving 

intended outcomes. 

(3) The extent to which the evaluation 

will provide sufficient information 

about the key elements and approach of 

the project so as to facilitate replication 

or testing in other settings. 

(4) The extent to which the proposed 

project plan includes sufficient 

resources to carry out the project 

evaluation effectively. 

(5) The extent to which the proposed 

evaluation is rigorous, independent, and 

neither the program developer nor the 

project implementer will evaluate the 

impact of the project. 

Note: We encourage eligible applicants to 

review the following technical assistance 

resources on evaluation: (1) What Works 

Clearinghouse Procedures and Standards 

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

references/idocviewer/doc.aspx?docid=19&

tocid=1; and (2) IES/NCES Technical 

Methods papers: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/tech_

methods/. 

E. Strategy and Capacity to Bring to 

Scale. 

The Secretary considers the quality of 

the eligible applicant’s strategy and 

capacity to bring the proposed project to 

scale on a State or regional level. 

In determining the quality of the 

strategy and capacity to bring the 

proposed project to scale, the Secretary 

considers: 

(1) The number of students proposed 

to be reached by the proposed project 

and the capacity of the eligible 

applicant and any other partners to 

reach the proposed number of students 

during the course of the grant period. 

(2) The eligible applicant’s capacity 

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

financial resources, or management 

capacity) to bring the proposed project 

to scale on a State or regional level (as 

appropriate, based on the results of the 

proposed project) working directly, or 

through other partners, either during or 

following the end of the grant period. 

(3) The feasibility of the proposed 

project to be replicated successfully, if 

positive results are obtained, in a variety 

of settings and with a variety of student 

populations. Evidence of this ability 

includes the availability of resources 

and expertise required for implementing 

the project with fidelity, and the 

proposed project’s evidence of relative 

ease of use or user satisfaction. 

(4) The eligible applicant’s estimate of 

the cost of the proposed project, which 

includes the start-up and operating costs 

per student per year (including indirect 

costs) for reaching the total number of 

students proposed to be served by the 

project. The eligible applicant must 

include an estimate of the costs for the 

eligible applicant or others (including 

other partners) to reach 100,000, 

250,000, and 500,000 students. 

(5) The mechanisms the eligible 

applicant will use to broadly 

disseminate information on its project to 

support further development, 

expansion, or replication. 

F. Sustainability. 

The Secretary considers the adequacy 

of resources to continue to develop the 

proposed project. 

In determining the adequacy of 

resources for the proposed project, the 

Secretary considers the following 

factors: 

(1) The extent to which the eligible 

applicant demonstrates that it has the 

resources, as well as the support of 

stakeholders (e.g., State educational 

agencies, teachers’ unions), to operate 

the project beyond the length of the 

Validation grant. 

(2) The potential and planning for the 

incorporation of project purposes, 

activities, or benefits into the ongoing 

work of the eligible applicant and any 

other partners at the end of the 

Validation grant. 

G. Quality of the Management Plan 

and Personnel. 

The Secretary considers the quality of 

the management plan and personnel for 

the proposed project. 

In determining the quality of the 

management plan and personnel for the 

proposed project, the Secretary 

considers: 

(1) The adequacy of the management 

plan to achieve the objectives of the 

proposed project on time and within 

budget, including clearly defined 

responsibilities, timelines, and 

milestones for accomplishing project 

tasks, as well as tasks related to the 

sustainability and scalability of the 

proposed project. 

(2) The qualifications, including 

relevant training and experience, of the 

project director and key project 

personnel, especially in managing 

complex projects. 

(3) The qualifications, including 

relevant expertise and experience, of the 

project director and key personnel of the 

independent evaluator, especially in 

designing and conducting experimental 

and quasi-experimental studies of 

educational initiatives. 

3. Development Grants 

A. Need for the Project and Quality of 

the Project Design. 

The Secretary considers the need for 

the project and quality of the design of 

the proposed project. 

In determining the need for the 

project and quality of the design of the 

proposed project, the Secretary 

considers the following factors: 

(1) The extent to which the proposed 

project represents an exceptional 

approach to the priorities the eligible 

applicant is seeking to meet (i.e., 

addresses a largely unmet need, 

particularly for high-need students, and 

is a practice, strategy, or program that 

has not already been widely adopted). 

(2) The extent to which the proposed 

project has a clear set of goals and an 

explicit strategy, with the goals, 

objectives, and outcomes to be achieved 

by the proposed project clearly specified 

and measurable and linked to the 

priorities the eligible applicant is 

seeking to meet. 

B. Strength of Research, Significance 

of Effect, and Magnitude of Effect. 

The Secretary considers the strength 

of the existing research evidence,13

including reported practice, theoretical 

considerations, and the significance and 

magnitude of any effects reported in 

prior research, on whether the proposed 

project will improve student 

achievement or student growth, close 

achievement gaps, decrease dropout 

rates, increase high school graduation 

rates, or increase college enrollment and 

completion rates. Eligible applicants 

may also demonstrate success through 

an intermediate variable that is strongly 

correlated with improving these 

outcomes, such as teacher or principal 

effectiveness. 

In determining the strength of the 

existing research evidence, the Secretary 

considers the following factors: 

(1) The extent to which the eligible 

applicant demonstrates that there are 

research-based findings or reasonable 

hypotheses that support the proposed 

project, including related research in 

education and other sectors. 

(2) The extent to which the proposed 

project has been attempted previously, 

albeit on a limited scale or in a limited 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
12068 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

setting, with promising results that 

suggest that more formal and systematic 

study is warranted. 

(3) The extent to which the eligible 

applicant demonstrates that, if funded, 

the proposed project likely will have a 

positive impact, as measured by the 

importance or magnitude of the effect, 

on improving student achievement or 

student growth, closing achievement 

gaps, decreasing dropout rates, 

increasing high school graduation rates, 

or increasing college enrollment and 

completion rates. 

C. Experience of the Eligible 

Applicant. 

The Secretary considers the 

experience of the eligible applicant in 

implementing the proposed project or a 

similar project. 

In determining the experience of the 

eligible applicant, the Secretary 

considers the following factors: 

(1) The past performance of the 

eligible applicant in implementing 

projects of the size and scope proposed 

by the eligible applicant. 

(2) The extent to which an eligible 

applicant provides information and data 

demonstrating that— 

(a) In the case of an eligible applicant 

that is an LEA, the LEA has— 

(i) Significantly closed the 

achievement gaps between groups of 

students described in section 1111(b)(2) 

of the ESEA, or significantly increased 

student achievement for all groups of 

students described in such section; and 

(ii) Made significant improvements in 

other areas, such as graduation rates or 

increased recruitment and placement of 

high-quality teachers and principals, as 

demonstrated with meaningful data; or 

(b) In the case of an eligible applicant 

that includes a nonprofit organization, 

the nonprofit organization has 

significantly improved student 

achievement, attainment, or retention 

through its record of work with an LEA 

or schools. 

D. Quality of the Project Evaluation. 

The Secretary considers the quality of 

the evaluation to be conducted of the 

proposed project. 

In determining the quality of the 

evaluation, the Secretary considers the 

following factors. 

(1) The extent to which the methods 

of evaluation are appropriate to the size 

and scope of the proposed project. 

(2) The extent to which the methods 

of evaluation will provide high-quality 

implementation data and performance 

feedback, and permit periodic 

assessment of progress toward achieving 

intended outcomes. 

(3) The extent to which the evaluation 

will provide sufficient information 

about the key elements and approach of 

the project to facilitate further 

development, replication, or testing in 

other settings. 

(4) The extent to which the proposed 

project plan includes sufficient 

resources to carry out the project 

evaluation effectively. 

Note: We encourage eligible applicants to 

review the following technical assistance 

resources on evaluation: (1) What Works 

Clearinghouse Procedures and Standards 

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

references/idocviewer/doc.aspx?docid=19&

tocid=1; and (2) IES/NCEE Technical 

Methods papers: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/tech_

methods/. 

E. Strategy and Capacity to Further 

Develop and Bring to Scale. 

The Secretary considers the quality of 

the eligible applicant’s strategy and 

capacity to further develop and bring to 

scale the proposed project. 

In determining the quality of the 

strategy and capacity to further develop 

and bring to scale the proposed project, 

the Secretary considers: 

(1) The number of students proposed 

to be reached by the proposed project 

and the capacity of the eligible 

applicant and any other partners to 

reach the proposed number of students 

during the course of the grant period. 

(2) The eligible applicant’s capacity 

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

financial resources, or management 

capacity) to further develop and bring to 

scale the proposed practice, strategy, or 

program, or to work with others 

(including other partners) to ensure that 

the proposed practice, strategy, or 

program can be further developed and 

brought to scale, based on the findings 

of the proposed project. 

(3) The feasibility of the proposed 

project to be replicated successfully, if 

positive results are obtained, in a variety 

of settings and with a variety of student 

populations. Evidence of this ability 

includes the availability of resources 

and expertise required for implementing 

the project with fidelity, and the 

proposed project’s evidence of relative 

ease of use or user satisfaction. 

(4) The eligible applicant’s estimate of 

the cost of the proposed project, which 

includes the start-up and operating costs 

per student per year (including indirect 

costs) for reaching the total number of 

students proposed to be served by the 

project. The eligible applicant must 

include an estimate of the costs for the 

eligible applicant or others (including 

other partners) to reach 100,000, 

250,000, and 500,000 students. 

(5) The mechanisms the eligible 

applicant will use to broadly 

disseminate information on its project 

so as to support further development or 

replication. 

F. Sustainability. 

The Secretary considers the adequacy 

of resources to continue to develop or 

expand the proposed practice, strategy, 

or program after the grant period ends. 

In determining the adequacy of 

resources for the proposed project, the 

Secretary considers the following 

factors: 

(1) The extent to which the eligible 

applicant demonstrates that it has the 

resources, as well as the support from 

stakeholders (e.g., State educational 

agencies, teachers’ unions) to operate 

the project beyond the length of the 

Development grant. 

(2) The potential and planning for the 

incorporation of project purposes, 

activities, or benefits into the ongoing 

work of the eligible applicant and any 

other partners at the end of the 

Development grant. 

G. Quality of the Management Plan 

and Personnel. 

The Secretary considers the quality of 

the management plan and personnel for 

the proposed project. 

In determining the quality of the 

management plan and personnel for the 

proposed project, the Secretary 

considers: 

(1) The adequacy of the management 

plan to achieve the objectives of the 

proposed project on time and within 

budget, including clearly defined 

responsibilities, timelines, and 

milestones for accomplishing project 

tasks. 

(2) The qualifications, including 

relevant training and experience, of the 

project director and key project 

personnel, especially in managing 

projects of the size and scope of the 

proposed project. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 12069 

14This table is identical to Table 1 earlier in this 

notice. 

TABLE 3 14—DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE THREE TYPES OF INVESTING IN INNOVATION FUND GRANTS IN TERMS OF THE

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

Scale-up grants Validation grants Development grants 

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

Internal Validity (Strength of Causal 

Conclusions) and External Validity (Generalizability).

High internal validity and high external validity.(1) High internal validity and moderate external validity; or (2) 

moderate internal validity and 

high external validity.

Theory and reported practice suggest the potential for efficacy 

for at least some participants 

and settings. 

Prior Research Studies Supporting 

Effectiveness or Efficacy of the 

Proposed Practice, Strategy, or 

Program.

(1) More than one well-designed 

and well-implemented experimental study or well-designed 

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

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

(1) At least one well-designed 

and well-implemented experimental or quasi-experimental 

study, with small sample sizes 

or other conditions of implementation or analysis that limit 

generalizability; (2) at least one 

well-designed and well-implemented experimental or 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.

(1) Evidence that the proposed 

practice, strategy, or program, 

or one similar to it, has been 

attempted previously, albeit on 

a limited scale or in a limited 

setting, and yielded promising 

results that suggest that more 

formal and systematic study is 

warranted; and (2) a rationale 

for the proposed practice, strategy, or program that is based 

on research findings or reasonable hypotheses, including related research or theories in 

education and other sectors. 

Practice, Strategy, or Program in 

Prior Research.

The same as that proposed for 

support under the Scale-up 

grant.

The same as, or very similar to, 

that proposed for support under 

the Validation grant.

The same as, or similar to, that 

proposed for support under the 

Development grant. 

Participants and Settings in Prior 

Research.

Participants and settings included 

the kinds of participants and 

settings proposed to receive 

the treatment under the Scaleup grant.

Participants or settings may have 

been more limited than those 

proposed to receive the treatment under the Validation grant.

Participants or settings may have 

been more limited than those 

proposed to receive the treatment under the Development 

grant. 

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

be likely to be statistically significant in a sample of the size 

proposed for the Scale-up grant.

Effect in prior research would be 

likely to be statistically significant in a sample of the size 

proposed for the Validation 

grant.

Practice, strategy, or program 

warrants further study to investigate efficacy. 

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

population for the Scale-up 

project.

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

project.

Based on prior implementation, 

promising for the target population for the Development 

project. 

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 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 regulatory action, 

we have determined that the benefits of 

the final priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria justify 

the costs. 

We have determined, also, that this 

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 final priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria are 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
12070 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

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 final priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria established in this notice 

provide greater clarity on the types of 

activities the Department seeks to fund, 

and permit the Department to fund 

projects 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 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 improve student 

achievement and attainment outcomes 

and eliminate persistent disparities in 

these outcomes among different 

populations of students. 

Regulatory Alternatives Considered 

The Department considered a variety 

of possible priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria before 

deciding to establish those included in 

this notice. The final 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 final priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria also provide eligible applicants 

with flexibility in selecting activities to 

apply to carry out under the program. 

The Secretary believes that the final 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria thus appropriately 

balance a limited degree of specificity 

with broad flexibility in 

implementation. 

Summary of Costs and Benefits 

The Secretary believes that the final 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria do not impose 

significant costs on eligible applicants. 

The Secretary also believes that the 

benefits of the final priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria outweigh any associated costs. 

The Secretary believes that the final 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria would result in the 

selection of high-quality applications to 

implement activities that are most likely 

to have a significant national impact on 

educational reform and improvement. 

The final priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria are 

intended to provide clarity as to the 

scope of activities the Secretary expects 

to support with program funds and the 

expected burden of work involved in 

preparing an application and 

implementing a project under the 

program. The pool of possible 

applicants is very large; during school 

year 2007–08, 9,729 LEAs across the 

country (about 65 percent of all LEAs) 

made AYP. 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. Eligible 

applicants 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 final 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria would be limited to 

paperwork burden related to preparing 

an application and that the benefits of 

the final priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria 

outweigh any costs incurred by 

applicants. The costs of carrying out 

activities will 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 final selection 

criteria the Secretary will assess the 

extent to which an eligible applicant is 

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 final priorities provide flexibility 

on the topics and types of grant 

activities applicants may propose. The 

use of three types of grants—Scale-up, 

Validation, and Development grants— 

will allow potential eligible 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 

final regulatory action. This table 

provides our best estimate of the Federal 

payments to be made to eligible 

applicants under this program as a 

result of this final regulatory action. 

Expenditures are classified as transfers 

to LEAs and nonprofit organizations. 

TABLE—ACCOUNTING STATEMENT CLASSIFICATION OF ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES

Category Transfers 

(in millions) 

Annual Monetized Transfers .................................................................... $643. 

From Whom to Whom .............................................................................. Federal Government to LEAs and nonprofit organizations. 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

The requirements and selection 

criteria established in this notice require 

the collection of information that is 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) under 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3501–3520). The Department 

has received emergency approval for the 

information collections described below 

under OMB Control No. 1855–0021. 

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). 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 12071 

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 1000 full applications for 

Development 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 Development applicants 

is an estimated 120,000 hours (1000 

applicants times 120 hours equals 

120,000 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 $4,800,000 ($25.00 times 

192,000 (12,000 + 60,000 + 120,000) 

hours equals $4,800,000). 

Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification 

The Secretary certifies that this final 

regulatory action will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The small entities that this final 

regulatory action will affect are small 

LEAs or nonprofit organizations 

applying for and receiving funds under 

this program. The Secretary believes 

that the costs imposed on applicants by 

the final priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria would 

be limited to paperwork burden related 

to preparing an application and that the 

benefits of the final priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria outweigh any costs incurred by 

applicants. 

Participation in this program is 

voluntary. For this reason, the final 

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 

would most likely 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 define 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 

Internal Revenue Service 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 final 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria in this notice would 

have a significant economic impact on 

small entities. 

In addition, the Secretary believes 

that the final priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria 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, this final regulatory 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 final 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. 

Intergovernmental Review: This 

program is subject to Executive Order 

12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR 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 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. 

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. 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

(CFDA) Numbers: 84.396A (Scale-up grants), 

84.396B (Validation grants), and 84.396C 

(Development grants) 

Dated: March 4, 2010. 

Arne Duncan, 

Secretary of Education. 

[FR Doc. 2010–5147 Filed 3–8–10; 11:15 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2