Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 241 / Friday, December 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 74407 

Strong theory means a rationale for 

the proposed process, product, strategy, 

or practice that includes a logic model. 

[FR Doc. 2012–29897 Filed 12–13–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

34 CFR Subtitle A 

RIN 1855–AA09 

[Docket No. ED 2012–OII–0027] 

Proposed Priorities, Requirements, 

Definitions, and Selection Criteria— 

Investing in Innovation Fund 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

(CFDA) Numbers: 84.411A, 84.411B, and 

84.411C 

AGENCY: Office of Innovation and 

Improvement, Department of Education. 

ACTION: Proposed priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria. 

SUMMARY: The Assistant Deputy 

Secretary for Innovation and 

Improvement proposes priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria under the Investing in 

Innovation Fund (i3). The Assistant 

Deputy Secretary may use these 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria for competitions in 

fiscal year (FY) 2013 and later years. 

The U.S. Department of Education 

(Department) has conducted three 

competitions under the i3 program and 

awarded 92 i3 grants since the program 

was established under the American 

Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 

(ARRA). These proposed priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria maintain the overall purpose 

and structure of the i3 program, which 

is discussed later in this document, and 

incorporate changes based on specific 

lessons learned from the first three 

competitions. 

DATES: We must receive your comments 

on or before January 14, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments 

through the Federal eRulemaking Portal 

or via postal mail, commercial delivery, 

or hand delivery. We will not accept 

comments by fax or by email. To ensure 

that we do not receive duplicate copies, 

please submit your comments only 

once. In addition, please include the 

Docket ID at the top of your comments. 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

www.regulations.gov to submit your 

comments electronically. Information 

on using Regulations.gov, including 

instructions for accessing agency 

documents, submitting comments, and 

viewing the docket, is available on the 

site under ‘‘How to Use This Site.’’ 

• Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery, 

or Hand Delivery: If you mail or deliver 

your comments about these proposed 

regulations, address them to Carol 

Lyons, U.S. Department of Education, 

400 Maryland Avenue SW., room 

4W203, LBJ, Washington, DC 20202– 

5930. 

Privacy Note: The Department’s policy is 

to make all comments received from 

members of the public available for public 

viewing in their entirety on the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov. 

Therefore, commenters should be careful to 

include in their comments only information 

that they wish to make publicly available. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Carol Lyons. Telephone: (202) 453– 

7122. Or by email: i3@ed.gov. If you use 

a telecommunications device for the 

deaf (TDD) or text telephone (TTY), call 

the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll 

free, at 1–800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Invitation 

to Comment: We invite you to submit 

comments regarding this notice. To 

ensure that your comments have 

maximum effect in developing the 

notice of final priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria, we 

urge you to identify clearly the specific 

proposed priority, requirement, 

definition, or selection criterion that 

each comment addresses. We make 

additional, specific requests for 

comment in the sections setting out the 

proposed priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria 

elsewhere in this notice. 

We invite you to assist us in 

complying with the specific 

requirements of Executive Orders 12866 

and 13563 and their overall requirement 

of reducing regulatory burden that 

might result from these proposed 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria. Please let us know of 

any further ways we could reduce 

potential costs or increase potential 

benefits while preserving the effective 

and efficient administration of the 

program. 

During and after the comment period, 

you may inspect all public comments 

about this notice by accessing 

Regulations.gov. You may also inspect 

the comments in person in room 

4W335, LBJ, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC, between the hours of 

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

DC time, Monday through Friday of 

each week except Federal holidays. 

Please contact the person listed under 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

Assistance to Individuals with 

Disabilities in Reviewing the 

Rulemaking Record: On request we will 

provide an appropriate accommodation 

or auxiliary aid to an individual with a 

disability who needs assistance to 

review the comments or other 

documents in the public rulemaking 

record for this notice. If you want to 

schedule an appointment for this type of 

accommodation or auxiliary aid, please 

contact the person listed under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

Purpose of Program: The i3 program 

addresses two related challenges. First, 

there are too few practices in education 

supported by rigorous evidence of 

effectiveness, despite national attention 

paid to finding practices that are 

effective at improving education 

outcomes in the decade since the 

establishment of the Department’s 

Institute of Education Sciences (IES). 

Second, there are limited incentives to 

expand effective practices substantially 

and to use those practices to serve more 

students across schools, districts, and 

States. Student achievement suffers as a 

result. 

The central innovation of the i3 

program, and how it addresses these 

two challenges, is its multi-tier structure 

that links the amount of funding that an 

applicant may receive to the quality of 

the evidence supporting the efficacy of 

the proposed project. Applicants 

proposing practices supported by 

limited evidence can receive small 

grants that support the development and 

initial evaluation of promising practices 

and help to identify new solutions to 

pressing challenges; applicants 

proposing practices supported by 

evidence from rigorous evaluations, 

such as large randomized controlled 

trials, can receive sizable grants to 

support expansion across the Nation. 

This structure provides incentives for 

applicants to build evidence of 

effectiveness of their proposed projects 

and to address the barriers to serving 

more students across schools, districts, 

and States so that applicants can 

compete for more sizeable grants. 

As importantly, all i3 projects are 

required to generate additional evidence 

of effectiveness. All i3 grantees must use 

part of their budgets to conduct 

independent evaluations (as defined in 

this notice) of their projects. This 

ensures that projects funded under the 

i3 program contribute significantly to 

improving the information available to 

practitioners and policymakers about 

which practices work, for which types 

of students, and in which contexts. 

Program Authority: American Recovery 

and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), 

Division A, Section 14007, Pub. L. 111–5. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with 

74408 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 241 / Friday, December 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

Background 

The Statutory Context 

The ARRA established the i3 program 

to provide competitive grants to local 

educational agencies (LEAs) and 

nonprofit organizations with a record of 

improving student achievement in order 

to expand the implementation of, and 

investment in, innovative practices that 

are demonstrated to improve student 

achievement (as defined in this notice) 

or student growth (as defined in this 

notice), close achievement gaps, 

decrease dropout rates, increase high 

school graduation rates (as defined in 

this notice), or increase college 

enrollment and completion rates. The 

ARRA provided funding for the i3 

program’s first competition carried out 

during FY 2010; the FY 2011 and FY 

2012 competitions were funded under 

the Department’s annual appropriations. 

The Administration’s reauthorization 

proposal for the Elementary and 

Secondary Education Act of 1965, as 

amended (20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq.) (ESEA) 

would authorize the i3 program under 

that act. 

Overview of the Investing in Innovation 

Fund (i3) 

As the Department’s primary 

evidence-based grantmaking program, 

the i3 program is designed to generate 

and validate solutions to persistent 

educational challenges and support the 

expansion of effective solutions across 

the country to serve substantially larger 

numbers of students. 

There are a number of features that 

make the i3 program different from 

many other Federal grant programs in 

education. 

First, the i3 program builds a portfolio 

of different practices in critical priority 

areas. As the Proposed Priorities section 

of this document makes clear, the i3 

program supports projects in a broad 

range of areas, from increasing teacher 

and principal effectiveness to turning 

around low-performing schools. We 

anticipate that after a number of i3 

competitions, practices will emerge that 

can address challenges in each of these 

areas that are effective in improving 

student outcomes across the Nation. 

Second, the i3 program links funding 

to the quality and extent of existing 

evidence showing the likelihood of a 

proposed practice improving student 

outcomes. Different tiers of grants, with 

increasing funding available at each tier, 

are linked to different levels of 

evidence. 

Third, the i3 program supports the 

expansion (scaling) of effective 

programs by providing sufficient 

funding to build organizational capacity 

and to overcome barriers to reaching 

additional students. The different tiers 

of i3 grants comprise a funding 

continuum for effective programs that 

spans initial, localized development to 

implementation on a national scale, in 

the hope that more effective practices 

will displace less effective ones and 

lead to increases in student achievement 

and improvements in other student 

outcomes. 

Fourth, the i3 program both requires 

and provides funding for an 

independent evaluation of each project 

to build understanding of ‘‘what works’’ 

in critical priority areas. An 

independent evaluation addresses 

issues such as for which populations or 

student subgroups particular practices 

are most effective and whether practices 

maintain their effectiveness as they 

expand to serve more students in more 

diverse contexts. An independent 

evaluation also provides an opportunity 

for grantees to generate the evidence 

needed to compete for funds at the next 

level of i3 funding (e.g., from a 

Development grant to a Validation grant; 

see description of the three types of 

grants that follows) if their projects are 

successful. 

As in prior i3 competitions, in FY 

2013 we intend to award three types of 

grants under this program: 

‘‘Development’’ grants, ‘‘Validation’’ 

grants, and ‘‘Scale-up’’ grants. These 

grants differ in terms of the level of 

prior evidence of effectiveness required 

for consideration of funding, the level of 

scale the funded project should reach, 

and consequently the amount of funding 

available to support the project. We 

provide an overview to clarify the 

expectations for each grant type: 

1. Development grants provide 

funding to support the development or 

testing of practices that are supported by 

evidence of promise (as defined in this 

notice) or strong theory (as defined in 

this notice) and whose efficacy should 

be systematically studied. We intend 

Development grants to support new or 

substantially more effective practices for 

addressing widely shared challenges. 

Development projects should be novel 

and significant nationally, not projects 

that simply implement existing 

practices in additional locations or 

support needs that are primarily local in 

nature. 

All Development grantees must 

evaluate the effectiveness of the project 

at the level of scale proposed in the 

application. Development grant 

evaluations should assess whether the 

i3-supported practice is better than 

other approaches at increasing student 

achievement (as defined in this notice) 

or student growth (as defined in this 

notice), closing achievement gaps, 

decreasing dropout rates, increasing 

high school graduation rates (as defined 

in this notice), or increasing college 

enrollment and completion rates. 

2. Validation grants provide funding 

to support expansion of projects 

supported by moderate evidence of 

effectiveness (as defined in this notice) 

to the national or regional level (as 

defined in this notice). Validation 

projects must further assess the 

effectiveness of the i3-supported 

practice through a rigorous evaluation, 

with particular focus on the populations 

for and the contexts in which the 

practice is most effective. 

The outcomes of the first three i3 

competitions have demonstrated that 

Validation grantees vary widely in their 

organizational maturity and capacity to 

expand significantly, far more than have 

Scale-up grantees. Given this history, 

we expect and consider it appropriate 

that each applicant would propose to 

use the Validation funding to build its 

capacity to deliver the i3-supported 

practice, particularly early in the 

funding period, to successfully reach 

the level of scale proposed in its 

application. The applicant would need 

to address any specific barriers to the 

growth or scaling of the organization or 

practice (including barriers related to 

cost-effectiveness) in order to deliver 

the i3-supported practice at the 

proposed level of scale and provide 

strategies to address these barriers as 

part of its proposed scaling plan. 

All Validation grantees must evaluate 

the effectiveness of the practice that the 

supported project implements and 

expands. We expect that these 

evaluations will be conducted in a 

variety of contexts and for a variety of 

students, will identify the core elements 

of the practice, and will codify the 

practices to support adoption or 

replication by the applicant and other 

entities. 

3. Scale-up grants provide funding to 

support expansion of projects supported 

by strong evidence of effectiveness (as 

defined in this notice) to the national 

level (as defined in this notice). In 

addition to improving outcomes for an 

increasing number of high-need 

students, we expect that Scale-up 

projects will generate information about 

the students and contexts for which a 

practice is most effective. We expect 

that Scale-up projects will increase 

understanding of strategies that allow 

organizations or practices to expand 

quickly and efficiently while 

maintaining their effectiveness. 

A Scale-up grant may support the 

expansion of practices that have 

demonstrated through prior experience 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with 

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 241 / Friday, December 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 74409 

1Wright, S.P., Horn, S.P., Sanders, W.L. (1997). 

Teacher and classroom context effects on student 

achievement: Implications for teacher evaluation. 

Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education 

11:57–67; Rivkin, S.G., Hanushek, E.A., Kain, J.F. 

(2005). Teachers, schools, and academic 

achievement. Economerica, 73(2):417–458. 

Leithwood, K., Louis, K.S., Anderson, S., and 

Wahlstrom, K. (2004). Review of research: How 

leadership influences student learning. University 

of Minnesota, Center for Applied Research and 

Educational Improvement. Found at 

www.cehd.umn.edu/carei/Leadership/ 

ReviewofResearch.pdf. 

and rigorous evaluation that they are 

effective at improving student 

achievement. An entity applying for a 

Scale-up grant should use the grant 

funding, at least in part, to address 

specific barriers to the growth or scaling 

up of an organization or practice 

(including barriers related to costeffectiveness) in order to deliver the i3- 

supported practice at the proposed level 

of scale so that the entity is wellpositioned to continue expansion 

following the expiration of Federal 

funding. 

Similar to Validation grants, all Scaleup grantees must evaluate the 

effectiveness of the i3-supported 

practice that the project implements and 

expands; this is particularly important 

in instances in which the proposed 

project includes changing the i3- 

supported practice in order to more 

efficiently reach the proposed level of 

scale (for example, by developing 

technology-enabled training tools). We 

expect that these evaluations would be 

conducted in a variety of contexts and 

for a variety of students in order to 

determine the context(s) and 

population(s) for which the i3- 

supported practice is most effective. 

Regardless, the evaluation of a Scale-up 

grant must identify core elements of and 

codify the i3-supported practice that the 

project implements to support adoption 

or replication by other entities. 

Proposed Priorities 

This notice contains 10 proposed 

priorities. In addition, in any i3 

competition we may include priorities 

from the notice of final supplemental 

priorities and definitions for 

discretionary grant programs, published 

in the Federal Register on December 15, 

2010 (75 FR 78486), and corrected on 

May 12, 2011 (76 FR 27637) 

(Supplemental Priorities). We are not 

proposing in this notice priorities in 

such areas as early learning or standards 

and assessments, which are already 

included in the Supplemental Priorities, 

because the language in the 

Supplemental Priorities adequately 

addresses those areas for the purposes of 

the i3 program. 

Proposed Priorities 

Background 

The original set of four absolute 

priorities that the Department used for 

the FY 2010 i3 competition focused on 

the four assurances (or education reform 

areas) the Department used in 

implementing multiple programs 

funded under ARRA. We continue to 

consider these reform areas important 

and, thus, either include them in these 

proposed priorities or may include them 

in future competitions through the 

Supplemental Priorities. 

The original i3 priorities were written 

broadly and generated a wide range of 

projects in the first three competitions. 

Now we are interested in supporting a 

more focused set of projects within 

areas of acute need and in more directly 

addressing particular challenges. Thus, 

we propose to modify our approach to 

the structure of the priorities so that 

each priority area includes the 

particular needs that the Secretary may 

address when establishing the priorities 

for a particular i3 competition. Our 

intent is to establish the flexibility to 

select from a variety of possible project 

focus areas within a given priority 

rather than using broad priorities as we 

have in the past; however, we expect to 

use only a subset of the priorities and 

the project focus areas within them in 

any particular future notice inviting 

applications. The Department will 

consider several factors when selecting 

the priorities to use in a given year, 

including the Administration’s policy 

priorities, the need for new solutions in 

a particular priority area, other available 

funding for a particular priority area, 

and the results and lessons learned from 

prior i3 competitions. Further, the 

Department will consider the level of 

evidence or research available across the 

different priorities when determining 

which of the priorities would be most 

appropriate for the different types of 

grants under the i3 program. In a given 

year, the notice inviting applications 

will provide a concise list of the 

priorities that will be used for that 

year’s i3 competition. 

We propose that the Secretary may 

use any of the priorities established in 

the notice of final priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria when establishing the priorities 

for each particular type of grant 

(Development, Validation, and Scaleup) in an i3 competition in FY 2013 and 

in subsequent years. 

Proposed Priority 1—Improving the 

Effectiveness of Teachers or Principals 

Background: Research indicates that 

teachers and principals are the most 

critical in-school factors in improving 

student achievement.1 Proposed priority 

1, therefore, focuses on improving the 

effectiveness of teachers and principals. 

Specifically, the proposed priority 

focuses on all dimensions of the teacher 

and principal career path and seeks to 

identify effective methods for recruiting, 

preparing, supporting, evaluating, and 

retaining effective principals and 

teachers, particularly at schools that 

serve high-needs students. 

The proposed priority highlights the 

need for schools and districts to 

consider how to recruit effective 

teachers and principals, create distinct 

career pathways based on the strengths 

of its teachers and principals and the 

needs of its schools, and develop 

evaluation systems that provide 

information that can be used to provide 

timely and useful feedback for teachers 

and principals. Schools and districts 

can use these evaluation data to identify 

and provide necessary resources and 

tailored professional development in 

order to support the teachers and 

principals currently in the schools and 

to improve the processes for recruiting 

new talent. Providing teachers with 

tailored development and supports is 

important for improving teacher 

effectiveness and retaining teachers to 

ensure all schools have highly effective 

teachers and principals. Thus, the 

priority includes developing 

professional development supports and 

tools for teachers, including creating 

and implementing models that help 

teachers utilize time and resources more 

efficiently while maintaining or 

improving outcomes. 

Finally, to ensure that all schools, 

especially those serving high-need 

students, benefit from projects funded 

under this priority, the priority also 

supports efforts to equitably distribute 

effective teachers and principals among 

schools. 

Proposed Priority 1—Improving the 

Effectiveness of Teachers or Principals 

Under this proposed priority, we 

would provide funding to projects that 

address one or more of the following 

priority areas: 

(a) Developing new methods and 

sources for recruiting: 

(1) Highly effective teachers (as 

defined in this notice); 

(2) Highly effective principals (as 

defined in this notice); or 

(3) Highly effective teachers and 

principals (as defined in this notice). 

(b) Developing models for teacher 

preparation that deepen pedagogical 

knowledge and skills, such as 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with 

74410 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 241 / Friday, December 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

2Balfanz, R., Bridgeland, J.M., Horning Fox, J., 

Moore, L.A. (2010). Building a Grad nation: 

Progress and Challenge in Ending the High School 

Dropout Epidemic 2010–2011 Annual Update. See 

www.americaspromise.org/Our-Work/Grad-Nation/ 

Building-a-Grad-Nation.aspx. 

3See www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ 

ostp/pcast/docsreports. 

knowledge of instructional practices or 

knowledge and skills in classroom 

management, or that deepen 

pedagogical content knowledge, that 

have been demonstrated to improve 

student achievement. 

(c) Developing models of induction 

and support for improving the 

knowledge and skills of novice teachers 

to increase teacher retention, improve 

teaching effectiveness, and accelerate 

student performance. 

(d) Creating career pathways with 

differentiated opportunities and roles 

for teachers or principals, which may 

include differentiated compensation. 

(e) Designing and implementing 

teacher or principal evaluation systems 

that provide clear, timely, and useful 

feedback, including feedback that 

identifies areas for improvement and 

that guides professional development 

for teachers and principals. 

(f) Developing supports for ongoing 

development and improvement of 

teachers, principals, or instructional 

leaders, such as local and virtual 

communities, tools, training, and other 

mechanisms. 

(g) Increasing the equitable 

distribution of effective teachers or 

principals across schools. 

(h) Extending the reach of highly 

effective teachers to more students such 

as through developing and 

implementing school models that 

improve conditions for teaching and 

learning; or offering new opportunities 

for teachers to collaborate to accelerate 

student performance. 

(i) Other projects addressing pressing 

needs related to improving teacher or 

principal effectiveness. 

Proposed Priority 2—Improving LowPerforming Schools 

Background: Approximately 10 

percent of all high schools produce 

nearly half of the Nation’s dropouts.2

Proposed priority 2 addresses the 

pressing need to ensure all students 

receive a quality K–12 education by 

providing funding for activities that are 

designed to accelerate the performance 

of severely low-performing schools and 

the schools that feed students into them. 

Given the range of schools that this 

proposed priority aims to address, we 

are designing this priority to identify 

and support multiple approaches that 

can successfully turn around lowperforming schools and improve 

outcomes for students in them. 

Providing a combination of reform 

strategies, including effective teachers, 

strong school leadership, embedded 

professional development, greater use of 

data to inform instruction, increased 

learning time, and collaboration among 

teachers, can improve instruction and 

student outcomes in low-performing 

schools. Additionally, whole-school and 

‘‘wraparound’’ reform strategies also can 

be used to improve the school 

environment and address other nonacademic factors that affect student 

achievement. Thus, this proposed 

priority supports projects that would 

implement these strategies in lowperforming schools. 

Community engagement also is 

crucial to successfully turning around 

low-performing schools, so the 

proposed priority provides for 

enhancing the capacity of external 

partners to support these schools. 

Finally, to support States and districts 

specifically in their ongoing school 

reform efforts, the proposed priority 

supports projects designed to expand 

State and district capacity to turn 

around low-performing schools. 

Proposed Priority 2—Improving LowPerforming Schools 

Under this proposed priority, we 

would provide funding to projects that 

address one or more of the following 

priority areas: 

(a) Designing whole-school models 

that incorporate such strategies as 

providing strong school leadership; 

strengthening the instructional program; 

embedding professional development 

that provides teachers with frequent 

feedback to increase the rigor and 

effectiveness of their instructional 

practice; redesigning the school day, 

week, or year; using data to inform 

instruction and improvement; 

establishing a school environment that 

promotes a culture of high expectations 

and addresses non-academic factors that 

affect student achievement; and 

providing ongoing mechanisms for 

parent and family engagement. 

(b) Changing selected elements of the 

school’s organizational design, such as 

by differentiating staff roles, changing 

student groupings, or enhancing 

instructional time. 

(c) Recruiting, developing, or 

retaining highly effective staff, 

specifically teachers, principals, or 

instructional leaders, to work in lowperforming schools. 

(d) Implementing ‘‘wraparound’’ and 

social supports for students that address 

non-academic factors that impede 

student learning. 

(e) Developing and enhancing the 

capacity of external partners to support 

efforts to turn around low-performing 

schools or districts. 

(f) Expanding district- or State-level 

capacity to turn around low-performing 

schools by developing systems and 

processes to improve State and district 

support and oversight. 

(g) Other projects addressing pressing 

needs related to improving lowperforming schools. 

Other Proposed Requirements Related to 

Proposed Priority 2 

To meet this priority, a project must 

serve schools among (1) The lowestperforming schools in the State on 

academic performance measures; (2) 

schools in the State with the largest 

within-school performance gaps 

between student subgroups described in 

section 1111(b)(2) of the ESEA; or (3) 

secondary schools in the State with the 

lowest graduation rate over a number of 

years or the largest within-school gaps 

in graduation rates between student 

subgroups described in section 

1111(b)(2) of the ESEA. 

Proposed Priority 3—Improving 

Science, Technology, Engineering, and 

Mathematics (STEM) Education 

Background: Ensuring that all 

students can access and excel in STEM 

fields is essential to our Nation’s 

innovation economy and future 

prosperity. An increasing number of 

careers require an understanding of 

STEM concepts and the application of 

the skills and techniques of science, 

technology, engineering and 

mathematics; this proposed priority 

addresses this growing need. 

The President’s Council of Advisors 

on Science and Technology (PCAST) 3

has produced reports on K–12 and 

undergraduate STEM education that 

provided recommendations on 

increasing achievement and 

postsecondary enrollment in STEM 

fields. The recommendations include 

cultivating and recruiting STEM 

teachers, creating STEM-related 

experiences to inspire and engage 

students, and encouraging partnerships 

among stakeholders in order to diversify 

pathways to STEM careers. Proposed 

priority 3 supports projects that would 

address these recommendations by 

revising STEM courses, making STEM 

learning more engaging to a wider range 

of students, increasing the number of 

effective STEM teachers, and expanding 

STEM education and career 

opportunities for groups traditionally 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with 

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 241 / Friday, December 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 74411 

underrepresented in the STEM fields, 

including minorities, individuals with 

disabilities, and women and girls. 

Proposed Priority 3—Improving 

Science, Technology, Engineering, and 

Mathematics (STEM) Education 

Under this proposed priority, we 

would provide funding to projects that 

address one or more of the following 

priority areas: 

(a) Providing students with increased 

access to rigorous and engaging 

coursework in STEM. 

(b) Redesigning STEM course content 

and instructional practices to engage 

students and increase student academic 

success. 

(c) Developing new methods and 

resources for recruiting individuals with 

content expertise in STEM subject areas 

into teaching. 

(d) Increasing the opportunities for 

high-quality preparation of, or 

professional development for, teachers 

or other educators in STEM subjects, 

through activities that include building 

content and pedagogical content 

knowledge. 

(e) Expanding opportunities for highquality out-of-school and extended-day 

activities that provide students with 

opportunities for deliberate practice that 

increase STEM learning, engagement, 

and expertise. 

(f) Increasing the number of 

individuals from groups traditionally 

underrepresented in STEM, including 

minorities, individuals with disabilities, 

and women and girls, who are provided 

with access to rigorous and engaging 

coursework in STEM and are prepared 

for postsecondary study in STEM. 

(g) Increasing the number of 

individuals from groups traditionally 

underrepresented in STEM, including 

minorities, individuals with disabilities, 

and women, who are teachers or 

educators of STEM subjects and have 

increased opportunities for high-quality 

preparation or professional 

development. 

(h) Other projects addressing pressing 

needs for improving STEM education. 

Proposed Priority 4—Improving 

Academic Outcomes for Students With 

Disabilities 

Background: One of the primary goals 

of the ESEA is to improve the quality of 

education for all students, including 

students with disabilities, and ensuring 

the provision of an appropriate 

education to students with disabilities is 

the primary objective of the Individuals 

with Disabilities Education Act. 

Proposed priority 4 would support 

activities focused on improving the 

instruction for and assessment of 

students with disabilities from early 

learning through postsecondary 

education. Thus, the proposed priority 

would support projects that coordinate 

technical assistance across programs 

serving infants, toddlers, or 

preschoolers with disabilities to ensure 

the operation of coherent systems 

supporting these children and their 

families. And, at the postsecondary 

level, the priority would support 

projects that collect data on academic 

and other outcomes for students with 

disabilities to better understand their 

transition into postsecondary education 

and how their secondary school 

education prepares them for higher 

education. 

Consistent with our approach under 

proposed priority 1 and recognizing the 

critical importance of evaluating teacher 

effectiveness, this proposed priority also 

would support projects to design and 

implement teacher evaluation systems 

that measure the performance of special 

education teachers and related service 

providers. 

Finally, because we know that 

students with differing abilities can 

learn and excel at high levels, provided 

they receive appropriate academic and 

non-academic supports, this priority 

would support projects designed to 

improve academic outcomes for 

students with disabilities in inclusive 

settings. 

Proposed Priority 4—Improving 

Academic Outcomes for Students With 

Disabilities 

Under this proposed priority, we 

would provide funding to projects that 

address one or more of the following 

priority areas: 

(a) Coordinating technical assistance 

across programs that address the needs 

of infants, toddlers, or preschoolers with 

disabilities, in order to ensure the 

operation of coherent systems of 

support for those children and their 

families. 

(b) Designing and implementing 

teacher evaluation systems that define 

and measure effectiveness of special 

education teachers and related service 

providers. 

(c) Improving academic outcomes for 

students with disabilities in inclusive 

settings. 

(d) Improving postsecondary data 

collection and tracking of academic and 

related outcomes for students with 

disabilities to understand their 

transition into postsecondary education 

and how their secondary school 

education prepared them for higher 

education. 

(e) Other projects addressing pressing 

needs related to improving academic 

outcomes for students with disabilities. 

Proposed Priority 5—Improving 

Academic Outcomes for English 

Learners (ELs) 

Background: School districts across 

the country have experienced a 

substantial increase in the enrollment of 

students who cannot speak, read, or 

write English well enough to participate 

meaningfully in educational programs 

without appropriate support services. 

Proposed priority 5 would support 

activities that are designed to address 

the language-related limitations that can 

impede student learning. 

A student’s ability to master core 

academic subjects depends on the 

student’s ability to understand academic 

language, including discipline-specific 

vocabulary. Therefore, proposed priority 

5 aims to increase opportunities for ELs 

to develop their academic and literacy 

skills and for ELs to build their skills in 

using and understanding English 

language oral discourse, varying and 

complex text types, and disciplinespecific vocabulary that are typical of 

core academic courses. 

Consistent with our approach under 

Proposed Priorities 1 and 4 and 

recognizing the critical importance of 

evaluating teacher effectiveness, this 

proposed priority also would support 

projects to design and implement 

teacher evaluation systems that measure 

the performance of teachers of ELs. 

The proposed priority also aims to 

improve the high school graduation 

rates and college-readiness of ELs by 

supporting projects that would align the 

curriculum used in the language 

development and content courses in 

which they enroll with college- and 

career-ready standards as well as 

projects that would provide robust and 

targeted professional development to 

teachers, administrators, and other 

school personnel serving EL students. 

Proposed Priority 5—Improving 

Academic Outcomes for English 

Learners (ELs) 

Under this proposed priority, we 

would provide funding to projects that 

address one or more of the following 

priority areas: 

(a) Increasing the number and 

proportion of ELs successfully 

completing courses in core academic 

subjects by developing, implementing, 

and evaluating new instructional 

approaches and tools that are sensitive 

to the language demands necessary to 

access challenging content, including 

technology-based tools. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with 

74412 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 241 / Friday, December 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

4See www.ed.gov/edblogs/technology/netp-2010/. 

(b) Aligning and implementing the 

curriculum and instruction used in 

grades 6–12 for language development 

and content courses to provide the 

academic vocabuarly and discourse 

skills necessary for preparing ELs to be 

college- and career-ready. 

(c) Preparing young ELs to be on track 

to be college- and career-ready when 

they graduate from high school by 

developing comprehensive, 

developmentally appropriate, early 

learning programs (birth-grade 3) that 

are aligned with the State’s high-quality 

early learning standards, designed to 

improve readiness for kindergarten, and 

support development of literacy and 

academic skills in English or in English 

and another language. 

(d) Developing and implementing 

school-wide professional development 

for teachers, administrators, and other 

personnel in schools in which a 

significant percentage of students are 

ELs. 

(e) Designing and implementing 

teacher evaluation systems that define 

and measure effectiveness of teachers of 

ELs. 

(f) Other projects addressing pressing 

needs related to improving academic 

outcomes for ELs. 

Proposed Priority 6—Improving Parent 

and Family Engagement 

Background: Parents and families are 

instrumental in helping children 

improve their academic performance. 

Proposed priority 6 addresses the need 

for building parents’ and families’ 

awareness of their role in improving 

their children’s educational outcomes 

and enhancing their ability to support 

student learning and school 

improvement through training. 

Additionally, the proposed priority 

addresses the corresponding need to 

provide professional development to 

school staff so that they have the skills 

needed to support and cultivate 

environments that are welcoming to 

parents and families and to build 

relationships that increase their capacity 

to support their children’s educational 

needs. 

Finally, to ensure that parents and 

families have the information they need 

to be full partners in their children’s 

education, this proposed priority would 

support the development of tools and 

initiatives that provide them with 

ongoing access to data about their 

children’s progress and performance. 

Proposed Priority 6—Improving Parent 

and Family Engagement 

Under this proposed priority, we 

would provide funding to projects that 

address one or more of the following 

priority areas: 

(a) Developing and implementing 

initiatives that provide training for 

parents and families to learn skills and 

strategies that will support their 

students in improving academic 

outcomes. 

(b) Implementing initiatives that are 

designed to enhance the skills and 

competencies of school and other 

administrative staff in building 

relationships and collaborating with 

families, particularly those who have 

been underengaged with the school(s) in 

the past, in order to support student 

achievement and school improvement. 

(c) Implementing initiatives that 

cultivate sustainable partnerships and 

increase connections between parents 

and school staff in order to support 

student achievement and school 

improvement. 

(d) Developing tools or practices that 

provide students and parents with 

improved, ongoing access to data and 

other information about the students’ 

progress and performance. 

(e) Other projects addressing pressing 

needs related to improving student 

outcomes by improving parent and 

family engagement. 

Proposed Priority 7—Improving CostEffectiveness and Productivity 

Background: It is essential for schools 

and LEAs to closely examine their 

spending practices and reallocate 

resources toward more efficient and 

more cost-effective strategies. 

Accordingly, through proposed priority 

7, the Department continues to 

emphasize the importance of costeffectiveness and productivity. 

Improvements in operational, 

organizational, and instruction 

processes and structures will allow 

organizations to achieve the best 

possible results in the most efficient 

manner. 

With proposed priority 7, we continue 

and strengthen this focus by including 

specific requirements that applicants 

must address. These additional details 

clarify important elements to ensure 

that an applicant’s proposed plan to 

improve productivity would provide 

sufficient detail about how the applicant 

aims to modify its processes and 

structures and how the applicant would 

evaluate whether the proposed project 

was cost-effective when implemented. A 

detailed budget, an examination of 

different types of costs, and a plan to 

monitor and evaluate the cost savings 

are essential to any reasoned attempt at 

improving productivity. 

Proposed Priority 7—Improving CostEffectiveness and Productivity 

Under this proposed priority, we 

would provide funding to projects that 

address one of the following areas: 

(a) Substantially improving student 

outcomes without commensurately 

increasing per-student costs. 

(b) Maintaining student outcomes 

while substantially decreasing perstudent costs. 

(c) Substantially improving student 

outcomes while substantially decreasing 

per-student costs. 

Other Proposed Requirements Related to 

Proposed Priority 7 

An application proposing to address 

this priority must provide— 

(1) A clear and coherent budget that 

identifies expected student outcomes 

before and after the practice, the cost 

per student for the practice, and a clear 

calculation of the cost per student 

served; 

(2) A compelling discussion of the 

expected cost-effectiveness of the 

practice compared with alternative 

practices; 

(3) A clear delineation of one-time 

costs versus ongoing costs and a plan for 

sustaining the project, particularly 

ongoing costs, after the expiration of i3 

funding; 

(4) Identification of specific activities 

designed to increase substantially the 

cost-effectiveness of the practice, such 

as re-designing costly components of the 

practice (while maintaining efficacy) or 

testing multiple versions of the practice 

in order to identify the most costeffective approach; and 

(5) A project evaluation that addresses 

the cost-effectiveness of the proposed 

practice. 

Proposed Priority 8—Effective Use of 

Technology 

Background: Technology can improve 

student academic outcomes, often 

rapidly and in unprecedented ways. 

While there have been significant 

advances in the use of technology, the 

core operations of most schools and 

LEAs remain untouched. The 

Department’s National Education 

Technology Plan 2010 4 highlighted the 

potential of ‘‘connected teaching’’ to 

extend the reach of the most effective 

teachers by using online tools, and it 

also highlighted the need for highquality learning resources that can reach 

learners wherever and whenever they 

are needed. Thus, proposed priority 8 

supports strategies that address these 

needs. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with 

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 241 / Friday, December 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 74413 

Technological solutions also can be 

used effectively to assess the learning 

progress of individual students and to 

provide appropriate feedback to 

students and teachers. Proposed priority 

8 would therefore support projects using 

instructional platforms that provide 

customized instruction for different 

learners, including integrated 

assessments and continuous feedback. 

Proposed Priority 8—Effective Use of 

Technology 

Under this proposed priority, we 

would provide funding to projects that 

use technology to address one or more 

of the following priority areas: 

(a) Providing real-time access to 

learning experiences that are adaptive 

and self-improving in order to optimize 

the delivery of instruction to learners 

with a variety of learning needs. 

(b) Providing students and teachers 

with ‘‘anytime, anywhere’’ access to 

academic content and learning 

experiences that they otherwise would 

not have access to, such as rigorous 

coursework that is not offered in a 

particular school, or effective 

professional development activities or 

learning communities enabled by 

technology. 

(c) Developing new methods and 

resources for teacher preparation or 

professional development that increase 

a teacher’s ability to utilize technology 

in the classroom to improve student 

outcomes. 

(d) Assessing student proficiencies in 

complex skills, such as critical thinking 

and collaboration across academic 

disciplines. 

(e) Developing and implementing 

technology-enabled strategies for 

teaching and learning, such as models 

and simulations, collaborative virtual 

environments, or ‘‘serious games,’’ 

especially for teaching concepts and 

content (e.g., systems thinking) that are 

difficult to teach using traditional 

approaches. 

(f) Integrating technology with the 

implementation of rigorous college- and 

career-ready standards. 

(g) Other projects that increase the use 

of technology for effective teaching and 

learning. 

Proposed Priority 9—Formalizing and 

Codifying Effective Practices 

Background: A primary goal of the i3 

program is to identify and support the 

expansion of effective practices. The 

education field’s knowledge 

management systems and dissemination 

of effective practices, particularly in 

instances where an effective practice 

could displace a less effective or 

ineffective practice, is underdeveloped. 

Proposed priority 9 aims to address 

these challenges and improve student 

outcomes by supporting strategies that 

identify key elements of effective 

practices and capturing lessons learned 

about the implementation of the 

practices. An applicant meeting this 

priority must commit to sharing 

knowledge about the practice broadly 

and supporting the implementation of 

the practice in other settings and 

locations in order to assess whether the 

practice can be successfully replicated. 

Proposed Priority 9—Formalizing and 

Codifying Effective Practices 

Under this proposed priority, we 

would provide funding to projects that 

formalize and codify effective practices. 

An application proposing to address 

this priority must, as part of its 

application: 

(a) Identify the practice or practices 

that the application proposes to 

formalize (i.e., establish and define key 

elements of the practice) and codify 

(i.e., develop a guide or tools to support 

the dissemination of information on key 

elements of the practice) and explain 

why there is a need for formalization 

and codification. 

(b) Evaluate different forms of the 

practice to identify the critical 

components of the practice that are 

crucial to its success and sustainability, 

including the adaptability of critical 

components to different teaching and 

learning environments. 

(c) Provide a coherent and 

comprehensive plan for developing 

materials, training, toolkits, or other 

supports that other entities would need 

in order to implement the practice 

effectively and with fidelity. 

(d) Commit to assessing the 

replicability and adaptability of the 

practice by supporting the 

implementation of the practice in a 

variety of locations during the project 

period using the materials, training, 

toolkits, or other supports that were 

developed for the i3-supported practice. 

Proposed Priority 10—Serving Rural 

Communities 

Background: Educational challenges 

and the corresponding solutions 

frequently are different in rural areas 

from those in urban or suburban areas. 

Proposed priority 10 recognizes this and 

would support projects that serve 

students from rural areas. In so doing, 

proposed priority 10 would help 

ensures that rural areas have access to 

and benefit from innovative education 

reforms that specifically address their 

needs. 

Proposed Priority 10—Serving Rural 

Communities 

Under this proposed priority, we 

would provide funding to projects that 

address one of the absolute priorities 

established for a particular i3 

competition and under which the 

majority of students to be served are 

enrolled in rural local educational 

agencies (as defined in this notice). 

Specific Requests for Comment 

In addition to our general interest in 

receiving comment on the priorities 

proposed in this notice, we are 

particularly interested in comments 

related to proposed priority 7, 

Improving Cost-Effectiveness and 

Productivity, and proposed priority 5, 

Improving Academic Outcomes for ELs. 

We seek comments on whether the 

language of proposed priority 7 should 

establish a specific numeric target or 

threshold of cost-effectiveness or 

productivity improvement and, if we 

were to establish such a target, 

suggestions for what that target or 

threshold should be and how we should 

require that applicants or grantees 

measure progress toward and attainment 

of it. With regards to (c) of proposed 

priority 5, we seek comments on 

whether the Department should allow 

applicants to meet the priority by 

proposing processes, products, 

strategies, or practices that address 

instruction in English or in English and 

a language other than English. 

We also recognize that the goals of 

supporting practices that are both 

innovative and evidence-based has the 

potential to limit the universe of 

applicants. Therefore, we are interested 

in receiving comments on whether we 

should establish a priority for applicants 

that have never received or partnered 

with an entity that has received a grant 

under the i3 program. 

Types of Priorities 

When inviting applications for a 

competition using one or more 

priorities, we designate the type of each 

priority as absolute, competitive 

preference, or invitational through a 

notice in the Federal Register. The 

effect of each type of priority follows: 

Absolute priority: Under an absolute 

priority, we consider only applications 

that meet the priority (34 CFR 

75.105(c)(3)). In the i3 competition, each 

application must choose to address one 

of the absolute priorities and projects 

are grouped by that absolute priority for 

the purposes of peer review and funding 

determinations. 

Competitive preference priority: 

Under a competitive preference priority, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with 

74414 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 241 / Friday, December 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

we give competitive preference to an 

application by (1) awarding additional 

points, depending on the extent to 

which the application meets the priority 

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

an application that meets the priority 

over an application of comparable merit 

that does not meet the priority (34 CFR 

75.105(c)(2)(ii)). 

Invitational priority: Under an 

invitational priority, we are particularly 

interested in applications that meet the 

priority. However, we do not give an 

application that meets the priority a 

preference over other applications (34 

CFR 75.105(c)(1)). 

Proposed Requirements 

Background 

We propose to revise some of the 

nonstatutory i3 program requirements 

that the Department has previously 

established based on our experiences 

with the three i3 competitions the 

Department has held to date. For 

example, many existing, widespread 

practices in the field currently lack the 

evidence base to compete for Scale-up 

or Validation grants because of limited 

prior investments in rigorous, highquality evaluations and limited internal 

capacity to conduct these evaluations. 

One of the primary goals of the i3 

program is to increase knowledge of 

what works in education for i3 grantees 

and non-grantees alike. As such, we 

propose to strengthen the project 

evaluation requirement so that i3 

grantees will produce high-quality 

evaluations that estimate the impact of 

the i3-supported practice (as 

implemented at the proposed level of 

scale) on a relevant outcome (as defined 

in this notice). 

Evaluations might consider whether 

the i3-supported practice is more 

effective than other approaches or its 

effect on improving student 

achievement (as defined in this notice) 

or student growth (as defined in this 

notice), closing achievement gaps, 

decreasing dropout rates, increasing 

high school graduation rates (as defined 

in this notice), or increasing college 

enrollment and completion rates. 

Proposed Requirements 

The Assistant Deputy Secretary 

proposes the following requirements for 

this program. We may apply one or 

more of these requirements in any year 

in which this program is in effect. 

1. Innovations that Improve 

Achievement for High-Need Students: 

All grantees must implement practices 

that are designed to improve student 

achievement (as defined in this notice) 

or student growth (as defined in this 

notice), close achievement gaps, 

decrease dropout rates, increase high 

school graduation rates (as defined in 

this notice), or increase college 

enrollment and completion rates for 

high-need students (as defined in this 

notice). 

2. Innovations that Serve 

Kindergarten-through-Grade-12 (K–12) 

Students: All grantees must implement 

practices that serve students who are in 

grades K–12 at some point during the 

funding period. To meet this 

requirement, projects that serve early 

learners (i.e., infants, toddlers, or 

preschoolers) must provide services or 

supports that extend into kindergarten 

or later years, and projects that serve 

postsecondary students must provide 

services or supports during the 

secondary grades or earlier. 

3. Eligible Applicants: Entities eligible 

to apply for i3 grants include either of 

the following: 

(a) An LEA. 

(b) A partnership between a nonprofit 

organization and— 

(1) One or more LEAs; or 

(2) A consortium of schools. 

Statutory Eligibility Requirements: 

Except as specifically set forth in the 

Note about Eligibility for an Eligible 

Applicant that Includes a Nonprofit 

Organization that follows, to be eligible 

for an award, an eligible applicant 

must— 

(a)(1) Have significantly closed the 

achievement gaps between groups of 

students described in section 1111(b)(2) 

of the ESEA (economically 

disadvantaged students, students from 

major racial and ethnic groups, students 

with limited English proficiency, 

students with disabilities); or 

(2) Have demonstrated success in 

significantly increasing student 

academic achievement for all groups of 

students described in that section; 

(b) Have made significant 

improvements in other areas, such as 

high school graduation rates (as defined 

in this notice) or increased recruitment 

and placement of high-quality teachers 

and principals, as demonstrated with 

meaningful data; 

(c) Demonstrate that it has established 

one or more partnerships with the 

private sector, which may include 

philanthropic organizations, and that 

organizations in the private sector will 

provide matching funds in order to help 

bring results to scale; and 

(d) In the case of an eligible applicant 

that includes a nonprofit organization, 

provide in the application the names of 

the LEAs with which the nonprofit 

organization will partner, or the names 

of the schools in the consortium with 

which it will partner. If an eligible 

applicant that includes a nonprofit 

organization intends to partner with 

additional LEAs or schools that are not 

named in the application, it must 

describe in the application the 

demographic and other characteristics 

of these LEAs and schools and the 

process it will use to select them. 

Note about LEA Eligibility: For purposes of 

this program, an LEA is an LEA located 

within one of the 50 States, the District of 

Columbia, or the Commonwealth of Puerto 

Rico. 

Note about Eligibility for an Eligible 

Applicant that Includes a Nonprofit 

Organization: The authorizing statute 

specifies that an eligible applicant that 

includes a nonprofit organization meets the 

requirements in paragraphs (a) and (b) of the 

eligibility requirements for this program if 

the nonprofit organization has a record of 

significantly improving student achievement, 

attainment, or retention. For an eligible 

applicant that includes a nonprofit 

organization, the nonprofit organization must 

demonstrate that it has a record of 

significantly improving student achievement, 

attainment, or retention through its record of 

work with an LEA or schools. Therefore, an 

eligible applicant that includes a nonprofit 

organization does not necessarily need to 

include as a partner for its i3 grant an LEA 

or a consortium of schools that meets the 

requirements in paragraphs (a) and (b) of the 

eligibility requirements in this notice. 

In addition, the authorizing statute 

specifies that an eligible applicant that 

includes a nonprofit organization meets the 

requirements of paragraph (c) of the 

eligibility requirements in this notice if the 

eligible applicant demonstrates that it will 

meet the requirement for private-sector 

matching. 

4. Cost-Sharing or Matching Funds: 

To be eligible for an award, an applicant 

must demonstrate that one or more 

private sector organizations, which may 

include philanthropic organizations, 

will provide matching funds in order to 

help bring project results to scale. An 

eligible applicant must obtain matching 

funds or in-kind donations equal to an 

amount that the Secretary will specify 

in the notice inviting applications for 

the specific i3 competition. The 

Secretary will announce in the notice 

inviting applications when and how 

selected eligible applicants must submit 

evidence of the private-sector matching 

funds. 

The Secretary may consider 

decreasing the matching requirement in 

the most exceptional circumstances. 

The Secretary will provide instructions 

for how to request a reduction of the 

matching requirement in the notice 

inviting applications. 

5. Evidence Standards: To be eligible 

for an award, an application for a 

Development grant must be supported 

by one of the following: 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with 

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 241 / Friday, December 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 74415 

5See What Works Clearinghouse Procedures and 

Standards Handbook (Version 2.1, September 2011), 

which can currently be found at the following link: 

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/DocumentSum.aspx?

sid=19. 

6See What Works Clearinghouse Procedures and 

Standards Handbook (Version 2.1, September 2011), 

which can currently be found at the following link: 

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/DocumentSum.aspx?

sid=19. 

(a) Evidence of promise (as defined in 

this notice); 

(b) Strong theory (as defined in this 

notice); or 

(c) Evidence of promise (as defined in 

this notice) or strong theory (as defined 

in this notice). 

The Secretary will announce in the 

notice inviting applications which 

options will be used as the evidence 

standard for a Development grant in a 

given competition. Note that under (c), 

applicants must identify whether the 

application is supported by evidence of 

promise (as defined in this notice) or 

strong theory (as defined in this notice). 

To be eligible for an award, an 

application for a Validation grant must 

be supported by moderate evidence of 

effectiveness (as defined in this notice); 

To be eligible for an award, an 

application for a Scale-up grant must be 

supported by strong evidence of 

effectiveness (as defined in this notice). 

6. Funding Categories: An applicant 

will be considered for an award only for 

the type of i3 grant (Development, 

Validation, or Scale-up grant) for which 

it applies. An applicant may not submit 

an application for the same proposed 

project under more than one type of 

grant. 

7. Limit on Grant Awards: (a) No 

grantee may receive more than two new 

grant awards of any type under the i3 

program in a single year; (b) In any twoyear period, no grantee may receive 

more than one new Scale-up or 

Validation grant; and (c) No grantee may 

receive in a single year new i3 grant 

awards that total an amount greater than 

the sum of the maximum amount of 

funds for a Scale-up grant and the 

maximum amount of funds for a 

Development grant for that year. For 

example, in a year when the maximum 

award value for a Scale-up grant is $25 

million and the maximum award value 

for a Development grant is $5 million, 

no grantee may receive in a single year 

new grants totaling more than $30 

million. 

8. Subgrants: In the case of an eligible 

applicant that is a partnership between 

a nonprofit organization and (1) one or 

more LEAs or (2) a consortium of 

schools, the partner serving as the 

applicant and, if funded, as the grantee, 

may make subgrants to one or more 

entities in the partnership. 

9. Evaluation: The grantee must 

conduct an independent evaluation (as 

defined in this notice) of its project. 

This evaluation must estimate the 

impact of the i3-supported practice (as 

implemented at the proposed level of 

scale) on a relevant outcome (as defined 

in this notice). The grantee must make 

broadly available digitally and free of 

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

newsletters) mechanisms, the results of 

any evaluations it conducts of its 

funded activities. For Scale-up and 

Validation grants, the grantee must also 

ensure that the data from its evaluation 

are made available to third-party 

researchers consistent with applicable 

privacy requirements. 

In addition, the grantee and its 

independent evaluator must agree to 

cooperate with any technical assistance 

provided by the Department or its 

contractor and comply with the 

requirements of any evaluation of the 

program conducted by the Department. 

This includes providing to the 

Department, within 100 days of a grant 

award, an updated comprehensive 

evaluation plan in a format and using 

such tools as the Department may 

require. Grantees must update this 

evaluation plan at least annually to 

reflect any changes to the evaluation. 

All these updates must be consistent 

with the scope and objectives of the 

approved application. 

10. Communities of Practice: Grantees 

must participate in, organize, or 

facilitate, as appropriate, communities 

of practice for the i3 program. A 

community of practice is a group of 

grantees that agrees to interact regularly 

to solve a persistent problem or improve 

practice in an area that is important to 

them. 

11. Management Plan: Within 100 

days of a grant award, the grantee must 

provide an updated comprehensive 

management plan for the approved 

project in a format and using such tools 

as the Department may require. This 

management plan must include detailed 

information about implementation of 

the first year of the grant, including key 

milestones, staffing details, and other 

information that the Department may 

require. It must also include a complete 

list of performance metrics, including 

baseline measures and annual targets. 

The grantee must update this 

management plan at least annually to 

reflect implementation of subsequent 

years of the project. 

Proposed Definitions 

Background: To ensure that terms 

used in the i3 program have clear and 

commonly understood meanings and 

are aligned with other Department 

programs, we propose the following 

definitions. The majority of these 

definitions are the same as, or 

substantially similar to, those we have 

established and used in prior i3 

competitions. However, we are 

proposing some changes to those 

definitions related to evidence of 

effectiveness. In that regard, we are 

particularly interested in comments on 

the level of rigor required under the 

proposed definitions for ‘‘strong 

evidence of effectiveness,’’ ‘‘moderate 

evidence of effectiveness,’’ ‘‘evidence of 

promise,’’ and ‘‘strong theory.’’ We have 

attempted to clarify the definitions so 

that applicants can better understand 

what is required to meet each level of 

evidence. We have also narrowed the 

allowable evaluation methodologies at 

the strong and moderate evidence of 

effectiveness levels so that the allowable 

evaluation methodologies are those that 

are most likely to support causal 

conclusions. We welcome comments 

about whether the updated definitions 

are too restrictive or not restrictive 

enough and whether there are particular 

parts of the definitions that remain 

unclear or undefined. 

Proposed Definitions 

The Assistant Deputy Secretary 

proposes the following definitions for 

this program. We may apply one or 

more of these definitions in any year in 

which this program is in effect. 

Consortium of schools means two or 

more public elementary or secondary 

schools acting collaboratively for the 

purpose of applying for and 

implementing an i3 grant jointly with an 

eligible nonprofit organization. 

Evidence of promise means there is 

empirical evidence to support the 

theoretical linkage between at least one 

critical component and at least one 

relevant outcome presented in the logic 

model (as defined in this notice) for the 

proposed process, product, strategy, or 

practice. Specifically, evidence of 

promise means the following conditions 

are met: 

(a) There is at least one study that is 

either a— 

(1) Correlational study with statistical 

controls for selection bias; 

(2) Quasi-experimental study (as 

defined in this notice) that meets the 

What Works Clearinghouse Evidence 

Standards with reservations; 5 or 

(3) Randomized controlled trial (as 

defined in this notice) that meets the 

What Works Clearinghouse Evidence 

Standards with or without 

reservations; 6 and 

(b) Such a study found a statistically 

significant or substantively important 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with 

74416 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 241 / Friday, December 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

7See What Works Clearinghouse Procedures and 

Standards Handbook (Version 2.1, September 2011), 

which can currently be found at the following link: 

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/DocumentSum.aspx?

sid=19. 

8See What Works Clearinghouse Procedures and 

Standards Handbook (Version 2.1, September 2011), 

which can currently be found at the following link: 

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/DocumentSum.aspx?

sid=19. 

9See What Works Clearinghouse Procedures and 

Standards Handbook (Version 2.1, September 2011), 

which can currently be found at the following link: 

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/DocumentSum.aspx?

sid=19. 

(defined as a difference of 0.25 standard 

deviations or larger), favorable 

association between at least one critical 

component and one relevant outcome 

presented in the logic model for the 

proposed process, product, strategy, or 

practice. 

High-need student means a student at 

risk of educational failure or otherwise 

in need of special assistance and 

support, such as students who are living 

in poverty, who attend high-minority 

schools (as defined in this notice), who 

are far below grade level, who have left 

school before receiving a regular high 

school diploma, who are at risk of not 

graduating with a diploma on time, who 

are homeless, who are in foster care, 

who have been incarcerated, who have 

disabilities, or who are English learners. 

High-minority school is defined by a 

school’s LEA in a manner consistent 

with the corresponding State’s Teacher 

Equity Plan, as required by section 

1111(b)(8)(C) of the ESEA. The 

applicant must provide, in its i3 

application, the definition(s) used. 

High school graduation rate means a 

four-year adjusted cohort graduation 

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

and may also include an extended-year 

adjusted cohort graduation rate 

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

the State in which the proposed project 

is implemented has been approved by 

the Secretary to use such a rate under 

Title I of the ESEA. 

Highly effective principal means a 

principal whose students, overall and 

for each subgroup as described in 

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

(economically disadvantaged students, 

students from major racial and ethnic 

groups, migrant students, students with 

disabilities, students with limited 

English proficiency, and students of 

each gender), achieve high rates (e.g., 

one and one-half grade levels in an 

academic year) of student growth. 

Eligible applicants may include 

multiple measures, provided that 

principal effectiveness is evaluated, in 

significant part, based on student 

growth. Supplemental measures may 

include, for example, high school 

graduation rates; college enrollment 

rates; evidence of providing supportive 

teaching and learning conditions, 

support for ensuring effective 

instruction across subject areas for a 

well-rounded education, strong 

instructional leadership, and positive 

family and community engagement; or 

evidence of attracting, developing, and 

retaining high numbers of effective 

teachers. 

Highly effective teacher means a 

teacher whose students achieve high 

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

in an academic year) of student growth. 

Eligible applicants may include 

multiple measures, provided that 

teacher effectiveness is evaluated, in 

significant part, based on student 

academic growth. Supplemental 

measures may include, for example, 

multiple observation-based assessments 

of teacher performance or evidence of 

leadership roles (which may include 

mentoring or leading professional 

learning communities) that increase the 

effectiveness of other teachers in the 

school or LEA. 

Independent evaluation means that 

the evaluation is designed and carried 

out independent of, but in coordination 

with, any employees of the entities who 

develop a process, product, strategy, or 

practice and are implementing it. 

Innovation means a process, product, 

strategy, or practice that improves (or is 

expected to improve) significantly upon 

the outcomes reached with status quo 

options and that can ultimately reach 

widespread effective usage. 

Large sample means a sample of 350 

or more students (or other single 

analysis units) who were randomly 

assigned to a treatment or control group, 

or 50 or more groups (such as 

classrooms or schools) that contain 10 

or more students (or other single 

analysis units) and that were randomly 

assigned to a treatment or control group. 

Logic model (also referred to as theory 

of action) means a well-specified 

conceptual framework that identifies 

key components of the proposed 

process, product, strategy, or practice 

(i.e., the active ‘‘ingredients’’ that are 

hypothesized to be critical to achieving 

the relevant outcomes) and describes 

the relationships among the key 

components and outcomes, theoretically 

and operationally. 

Moderate evidence of effectiveness 

means one of the following conditions 

is met: 

(a) There is at least one study of the 

effectiveness of the process, product, 

strategy, or practice being proposed that 

meets the What Works Clearinghouse 

Evidence Standards without 

reservations; 7 found a statistically 

significant favorable impact on a 

relevant outcome (as defined in this 

notice) (with no statistically significant 

unfavorable impacts on that outcome for 

relevant populations in the study or in 

other studies of the intervention 

reviewed by and reported on by the 

What Works Clearinghouse); and 

includes a sample that overlaps with the 

populations or settings proposed to 

receive the process, product, strategy, or 

practice. 

(b) There is at least one study of the 

effectiveness of the process, product, 

strategy, or practice being proposed that 

meets the What Works Clearinghouse 

Evidence Standards with reservations,8

found a statistically significant favorable 

impact on a relevant outcome (as 

defined in this notice) (with no 

statistically significant unfavorable 

impacts on that outcome for relevant 

populations in the study or in other 

studies of the intervention reviewed by 

and reported on by the What Works 

Clearinghouse), includes a sample that 

overlaps with the populations or 

settings proposed to receive the process, 

product, strategy, or practice, and 

includes a large sample (as defined in 

this notice) and a multi-site sample (as 

defined in this notice) (Note: multiple 

studies can cumulatively meet the large 

and multi-site sample requirements as 

long as each study meets the other 

requirements in this paragraph). 

Multi-site sample means more than 

one site, where site can be defined as an 

LEA, locality, or State. 

National level describes the level of 

scope or effectiveness of a process, 

product, strategy, or practice that is able 

to be effective in a wide variety of 

communities, including rural and urban 

areas, as well as with different groups 

(e.g., economically disadvantaged, racial 

and ethnic groups, migrant populations, 

individuals with disabilities, English 

learners, and individuals of each 

gender). 

Quasi-experimental design study 

means a study using a design that 

attempts to approximate an 

experimental design by identifying a 

comparison group that is similar to the 

treatment group in important respects. 

These studies, depending on design and 

implementation, can meet What Works 

Clearinghouse Evidence Standards with 

reservations 9 (they cannot meet What 

Works Clearinghouse Evidence 

Standards without reservations). 

Randomized controlled trial means a 

study that employs random assignment 

of, for example, students, teachers, 

classrooms, schools, or districts to 

receive the intervention being evaluated 

(the treatment group) or not to receive 

the intervention (the control group). The 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with 

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 241 / Friday, December 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 74417 

10See What Works Clearinghouse Procedures and 

Standards Handbook (Version 2.1, September 2011), 

which can currently be found at the following link: 

ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/DocumentSum.aspx?sid=19. 

11See What Works Clearinghouse Procedures and 

Standards Handbook (Version 2.1, September 2011), 

which can currently be found at the following link: 

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/DocumentSum.aspx?

sid=19. 

12See What Works Clearinghouse Procedures and 

Standards Handbook (Version 2.1, September 2011), 

which can currently be found at the following link: 

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/DocumentSum.aspx?

sid=19. 

estimated effectiveness of the 

intervention is the difference between 

the average outcome for the treatment 

group and for the control group. These 

studies, depending on design and 

implementation, can meet What Works 

Clearinghouse Evidence Standards 

without reservations.10

Regional level describes the level of 

scope or effectiveness of a process, 

product, strategy, or practice that is able 

to serve a variety of communities within 

a State or multiple States, including 

rural and urban areas, as well as with 

different groups (e.g., economically 

disadvantaged, racial and ethnic groups, 

migrant populations, individuals with 

disabilities, English learners, and 

individuals of each gender). For an LEAbased project to be considered a 

regional-level project, a process, 

product, strategy, or practice must serve 

students in more than one LEA, unless 

the process, product, strategy, or 

practice is implemented in a State in 

which the State educational agency is 

the sole educational agency for all 

schools. 

Relevant outcome means the student 

outcome or outcomes (or the ultimate 

outcome if not related to students) that 

the proposed project is designed to 

improve, consistent with the specific 

goals of the project and the i3 program. 

Rural local educational agency means 

a local educational agency (LEA) that is 

eligible under the Small Rural School 

Achievement (SRSA) program or the 

Rural and Low-Income School (RLIS) 

program authorized under Title VI, Part 

B of the ESEA. Eligible applicants may 

determine whether a particular LEA is 

eligible for these programs by referring 

to information on the Department’s Web 

site at www2.ed.gov/nclb/freedom/local/ 

reap.html. 

Strong evidence of effectiveness 

means that one of the following 

conditions is met: 

(a) There is at least one study of the 

effectiveness of the process, product, 

strategy, or practice being proposed that 

meets the What Works Clearinghouse 

Evidence Standards without 

reservations; 11 found a statistically 

significant favorable impact on a 

relevant outcome (as defined in this 

notice) (with no statistically significant 

unfavorable impacts on that outcome for 

relevant populations in the study or in 

other studies of the intervention 

reviewed by and reported on by the 

What Works Clearinghouse); includes a 

sample that overlaps with the 

populations and settings proposed to 

receive the process, product, strategy, or 

practice; and includes a large sample (as 

defined in this notice) and a multi-site 

sample (as defined in this notice) (Note: 

multiple studies can cumulatively meet 

the large and multi-site sample 

requirements as long as each study 

meets the other requirements in this 

paragraph). 

(b) There are at least two studies of 

the effectiveness of the process, product, 

strategy, or practice being proposed, 

each of which meets the What Works 

Clearinghouse Evidence Standards with 

reservations,12 found a statistically 

significant favorable impact on a 

relevant outcome (as defined in this 

notice) (with no statistically significant 

unfavorable impacts on that outcome for 

relevant populations in the studies or in 

other studies of the intervention 

reviewed by and reported on by the 

What Works Clearinghouse), includes a 

sample that overlaps with the 

populations and settings proposed to 

receive the process, product, strategy, or 

practice, and includes a large sample (as 

defined in this notice) and a multi-site 

sample (as defined in this notice). 

Strong theory means a rationale for 

the proposed process, product, strategy, 

or practice that includes a logic model 

(as defined in this notice). 

Student achievement means— 

(a) For grades and subjects in which 

assessments are required under ESEA 

section 1111(b)(3): (1) A student’s score 

on such assessments and may include 

(2) other measures of student learning, 

such as those described in paragraph 

(b), provided they are rigorous and 

comparable across schools within an 

LEA. 

(b) For grades and subjects in which 

assessments are not required under 

ESEA section 1111(b)(3): Alternative 

measures of student learning and 

performance such as student results on 

pre-tests, end-of-course tests, and 

objective performance-based 

assessments; student learning 

objectives; student performance on 

English language proficiency 

assessments; and other measures of 

student achievement that are rigorous 

and comparable across schools within 

an LEA. 

Student growth means the change in 

student achievement (as defined in this 

notice) for an individual student 

between two or more points in time. An 

applicant may also include other 

measures that are rigorous and 

comparable across classrooms. 

Proposed Selection Criteria 

Background 

The proposed selection criteria are 

designed to ensure that applications 

selected for funding have the potential 

to generate substantial improvements in 

student achievement and other key 

outcomes and include well-articulated 

plans for the implementation and 

evaluation of the proposed project. Peer 

reviewers will use these criteria to 

determine how well an applicant’s 

proposed project aligns with our 

expectations for the Development, 

Validation, or Scale-up grant the 

applicant seeks. As such, although we 

are proposing these criteria as a single 

list, the criteria selected and the number 

of points that each may be worth would 

vary by the type of i3 grant 

(Development, Validation, or Scale-up 

grant). 

The proposed selection criteria are 

similar to those used in prior i3 

competitions; the revisions reflect our 

experiences with their use. In particular, 

the selection criteria used in prior 

competitions did not articulate as 

clearly as intended our expectations for 

scaling up projects and what peer 

reviewers should assess to determine 

whether a project could feasibly achieve 

its proposed scale. In the proposed 

selection criteria, we include several 

factors that address whether there is 

unmet demand for the services that a 

grantee would provide and whether an 

applicant has identified and will 

address barriers that prevent the 

applicant from reaching that scale at the 

time of its application. 

Proposed Selection Criteria 

The Secretary proposes the following 

selection criteria for evaluating an 

application under this program. We may 

apply one or more of these criteria in 

any year in which this program is in 

effect. We propose that the Secretary 

may use: 

• One or more of the selection criteria 

established in the notice of final 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria; 

• Any of the selection criteria in 34 

CFR 75.210; criteria based on the 

statutory requirements for the i3 

program in accordance with 34 CFR 

75.209; or 

• Any combination of these when 

establishing selection criteria for each 

particular type of grant (Development, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with 

74418 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 241 / Friday, December 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

Validation, and Scale-up) in any i3 

competition. We propose that the 

Secretary may further define each 

criterion by selecting specific factors for 

it. The Secretary may select these factors 

from any selection criterion in the list 

above. In the notice inviting 

applications, the application package, or 

both we will announce the specific 

selection criteria that apply to a 

competition and the maximum possible 

points assigned to each criterion. 

(a) Significance 

In determining the significance of the 

proposed project, the Secretary proposes 

to consider one or more of the following 

factors: 

(1) The extent to which the proposed 

project addresses a national need. 

(2) The extent to which the proposed 

project addresses a challenge for which 

there is a national need for solutions 

that are better than the solutions 

currently available. 

(3) The extent to which the proposed 

project would implement a novel 

approach as compared with what has 

been previously attempted nationally. 

(4) The extent of the expected impact 

of the project on relevant outcomes (as 

defined in this notice), including the 

estimated impact of the project on 

student outcomes (particularly those 

related to student achievement (as 

defined in this notice)) and the breadth 

of the project’s impact, compared with 

alternative practices or methods of 

addressing similar needs. 

(5) The extent to which the proposed 

project demonstrates that it is likely to 

have a meaningful impact on relevant 

outcomes (as defined in this notice), 

particularly those related to student 

achievement (as defined in this notice), 

if it were implemented and evaluated in 

a variety of settings. 

(6) The extent to which the proposed 

project will substantially improve on 

the outcomes achieved by other 

practices, such as through better student 

outcomes, lower cost, or accelerated 

results. 

(7) The importance and magnitude of 

the proposed project’s expected impact 

on a relevant outcome (as defined in 

this notice), particularly one related to 

student achievement (as defined in this 

notice). 

(8) The likelihood that the project will 

have the estimated impact, including 

the extent to which the applicant 

demonstrates that unmet demand for the 

proposed project or the proposed 

services will enable the applicant to 

reach the proposed level of scale. 

(9) The feasibility of national 

expansion if favorable outcomes are 

achieved. 

(b) Quality of the Project Design 

In determining the quality of the 

project design, the Secretary proposes to 

consider one or more of the following 

factors: 

(1) The extent to which the proposed 

project addresses the national need and 

priorities the applicant is seeking to 

meet. 

(2) The extent to which the proposed 

project addresses the absolute priority 

the applicant is seeking to meet. 

(3) The clarity and coherence of the 

project goals, including the extent to 

which the proposed project articulates 

an explicit plan or actions to achieve its 

goals (e.g., a fully developed logic 

model of the proposed project). 

(4) The extent to which the proposed 

project has a clear set of goals and an 

explicit plan or actions to achieve the 

goals, including identification of any 

elements of the project logic model that 

require further testing or development. 

(5) The extent to which the proposed 

project will produce a fully codified 

practice, including a fully articulated 

logic model of the project by the end of 

the project period. 

(6) The clarity, completeness, and 

coherence of the project goals and 

whether the application includes a 

description of project activities that 

constitute a complete plan for achieving 

those goals, including the identification 

of potential risks to project success and 

strategies to mitigate those risks. 

(7) The extent to which the applicant 

addresses potential risks to project 

success and strategies to mitigate those 

risks. 

(8) The extent to which the applicant 

will use grant funds to address a 

particular barrier or barriers that 

prevented the applicant, in the past, 

from reaching the level of scale 

proposed in the application. 

(9) The extent to which the project 

would build the capacity of the 

applicant to scale up and sustain the 

project or would create an organization 

capable of expanding if successful 

outcomes are achieved. 

(10) The sufficiency of the resources 

to support effective project 

implementation, including the project’s 

plan for ensuring funding after the 

period of the Federal grant. 

(11) The sufficiency of the resources 

to support effective project 

implementation. 

(c) Quality of the Management Plan 

In determining the quality of the 

management plan, the Secretary 

proposes to consider one or more of the 

following factors: 

(1) The extent to which the 

management plan articulates key 

responsibilities and well-defined 

objectives, including the timelines and 

milestones for completion of major 

project activities, the metrics that will 

be used to assess progress on an ongoing 

basis, and annual performance targets 

the applicant will use to monitor 

whether the project is achieving its 

goals. 

(2) The clarity and coherence of the 

applicant’s multi-year financial and 

operating model and accompanying 

plan to operate the project at a national 

level (as defined in this notice) during 

the project period. 

(3) The clarity and coherence of the 

applicant’s multi-year financial and 

operating model and accompanying 

plan to operate the project at a national 

or regional level (as defined in this 

notice) during the project period. 

(4) The extent to which the applicant 

demonstrates that it will have the 

resources to operate the project at the 

proposed level of scale during the 

project period and beyond the length of 

the grant, including the demonstrated 

commitment of any partners and 

evidence of broad support from 

stakeholders critical to the project’s 

long-term success (e.g., State 

educational agencies, teachers’ unions). 

(5) The extent of the demonstrated 

commitment of any key partners or 

evidence of broad support from 

stakeholders whose participation is 

critical to the project’s long-term 

success. 

(d) Personnel 

When evaluating the personnel of the 

proposed project, the Secretary proposes 

to consider one or more of the following 

factors: 

(1) The adequacy of the project’s 

staffing plan, particularly for the first 

year of the project, including the 

identification of the project director 

and, in the case of projects with unfilled 

key personnel positions at the beginning 

of the project, that the staffing plan 

identifies how critical work will 

proceed. 

(2) The qualifications and experience 

of the project director and other key 

project personnel and the extent to 

which they have the expertise to 

accomplish the proposed tasks. 

(3) The extent to which the project 

director has experience managing large, 

complex, and rapidly growing projects. 

(4) The extent to which the project 

director has experience managing large, 

complex projects. 

(5) The extent to which the project 

director has experience managing 

projects of similar size and scope as the 

proposed project. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with 

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 241 / Friday, December 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 74419 

13See What Works Clearinghouse Procedures and 

Standards Handbook. (Version 2.1, September 

2011), which can currently be found at the 

following link: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/

DocumentSum.aspx?sid=19. 

14See What Works Clearinghouse Procedures and 

Standards Handbook (Version 2.1, September 2011), 

which can currently be found at the following link: 

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/DocumentSum.aspx?

sid=19. 

(e) Quality of the Project Evaluation 

In determining the quality of the 

project evaluation, the Secretary 

proposes to consider one or more of the 

following factors: 

(1) The clarity and importance of the 

key questions to be addressed by the 

project evaluation, and the 

appropriateness of the methods for how 

each question will be addressed. 

(2) The extent to which the methods 

of evaluation will, if well implemented, 

produce evidence about the project’s 

effectiveness that would meet the What 

Works Clearinghouse Evidence 

Standards without reservations.13

(3) The extent to which the methods 

of evaluation will, if well implemented, 

produce evidence about the project’s 

effectiveness that would meet the What 

Works Clearinghouse Evidence 

Standards with or without 

reservations.14

(4) The extent to which the methods 

of evaluation will provide valid and 

reliable performance data on relevant 

outcomes, particularly student 

achievement outcomes. 

(5) The extent to which the evaluation 

will study the project at the proposed 

level of scale, including, where 

appropriate, generating information 

about potential differential effectiveness 

of the project in diverse settings and for 

diverse student population groups. 

(6) The extent to which the evaluation 

will study the project at the proposed 

level of scale, including in diverse 

settings. 

(7) The extent to which the evaluation 

plan includes a clear and credible 

analysis plan, including a proposed 

sample size and minimum detectable 

effect size that aligns with the expected 

project impact, and an analytic 

approach for addressing the research 

questions. 

(8) The extent to which the evaluation 

plan includes a clear, well-documented, 

and rigorous method for measuring 

implementation of the critical features 

of the project, as well as the intended 

outcomes. 

(9) The extent to which the evaluation 

plan clearly articulates the key 

components and outcomes of the 

project, as well as a measurable 

threshold for acceptable 

implementation. 

(10) The extent to which the 

evaluation plan will provide sufficient 

information on the project’s effect as 

compared to alternative practices 

addressing similar need. 

(11) The extent to which the proposed 

project plan includes sufficient 

resources to carry out the project 

evaluation effectively. 

Specific Requests for Comment 

We are particularly interested in 

comments about whether there are 

important aspects of identifying 

promising projects or assessing the 

likelihood of project success that the 

proposed selection criteria and factors 

do not address. In addition, we are 

interested in feedback about whether 

there is ambiguity in the language of 

specific criteria or factors that will make 

it difficult for applicants to respond to 

the criteria and peer reviewers to 

evaluate the applications with respect to 

the selection criteria. 

Final Priorities, Requirements, 

Definitions, and Selection Criteria 

We will announce the final priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria in a notice in the Federal 

Register. We will determine the final 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria after considering 

responses to this notice and other 

information available to the Department. 

This notice does not preclude us from 

proposing additional priorities, 

requirements, definitions, or selection 

criteria, subject to meeting applicable 

rulemaking requirements. 

Note: This notice does not solicit 

applications. In any year in which we choose 

to use one or more of these priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria, we invite applications through a 

notice in the Federal Register. 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

Regulatory Impact Analysis 

Under Executive Order 12866, the 

Secretary must determine whether a 

regulatory action is ‘‘significant’’ and, 

therefore, subject to the requirements of 

the Executive order and subject to 

review by the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive 

Order 12866 defines a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ as an action likely to 

result in a rule that may— 

(1) Have an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more, or 

adversely affect a sector of the economy, 

productivity, competition, jobs, the 

environment, public health or safety, or 

State, local or Tribal governments or 

communities in a material way (also 

referred to as an ‘‘economically 

significant’’ rule); 

(2) Create serious inconsistency or 

otherwise interfere with an action taken 

or planned by another agency; 

(3) Materially alter the budgetary 

impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, 

or local programs or the rights and 

obligations of recipients thereof; or 

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues 

arising out of legal mandates, the 

President’s priorities, or the principles 

stated in the Executive order. 

This proposed regulatory action 

would have an annual effect on the 

economy of more than $100 million 

because Department anticipates more 

than that amount will be appropriated 

for i3 and awarded as grants. Therefore, 

this proposed action is ‘‘economically 

significant’’ and subject to review by 

OMB under section 3(f)(1) of Executive 

Order 12866. Notwithstanding this 

determination, we have assessed the 

potential costs and benefits, both 

quantitative and qualitative, of this 

proposed regulatory action and have 

determined that the benefits would 

justify the costs. 

The Department has also reviewed 

these proposed requirements under 

Executive Order 13563, which 

supplements and explicitly reaffirms the 

principles, structures, and definitions 

governing regulatory review established 

in Executive Order 12866. To the extent 

permitted by law, Executive Order 

13563 requires that an agency— 

(1) Propose or adopt regulations only 

upon a reasoned determination that 

their benefits justify their costs 

(recognizing that some benefits and 

costs are difficult to quantify); 

(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the 

least burden on society, consistent with 

obtaining regulatory objectives, taking 

into account—among other things, and 

to the extent practicable—the costs of 

cumulative regulations; 

(3) In choosing among alternative 

regulatory approaches, select those 

approaches that maximize net benefits 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health and safety, 

and other advantages; distributive 

impacts; and equity); 

(4) To the extent feasible, specify 

performance objectives, rather than 

specifying the behavior or manner of 

compliance a regulated entity must 

adopt; and 

(5) Identify and assess available 

alternatives to direct regulation, 

including providing economic 

incentives—such as user fees or 

marketable permits—to encourage the 

desired behavior, or provide 

information that enables the public to 

make choices. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with 

74420 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 241 / Friday, December 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

Executive Order 13563 also requires 

an agency ‘‘to use the best available 

techniques to quantify anticipated 

present and future benefits and costs as 

accurately as possible.’’ The Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs of 

OMB has emphasized that these 

techniques may include ‘‘identifying 

changing future compliance costs that 

might result from technological 

innovation or anticipated behavioral 

changes.’’ 

We are issuing these proposed 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria only on a reasoned 

determination that their benefits justify 

their costs. In choosing among 

alternative regulatory approaches, we 

selected those approaches that would 

maximize net benefits. Based on the 

analysis that follows, the Department 

believes these proposed regulations are 

consistent with the principles in 

Executive Order 13563. 

We have also determined that this 

regulatory action would not unduly 

interfere with State, local, and Tribal 

governments in the exercise of their 

governmental functions. 

Discussion of Costs and Benefits 

The Secretary believes that the 

proposed priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria would 

not impose significant costs on eligible 

LEAs, nonprofit organizations, or other 

entities that would receive assistance 

through the i3 program. The Secretary 

also believes that the benefits of 

implementing the proposals contained 

in this notice outweigh any associated 

costs. 

The Secretary believes that the 

proposed priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria would 

result in selection of high-quality 

applications to implement activities that 

are most likely to have a significant 

national impact on educational reform 

and improvement. The proposed 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria in this notice clarify 

the scope of activities the Secretary 

expects to support with program funds 

and the expected burden of work 

involved in preparing an application 

and implementing a project under the 

program. The pool of possible 

applicants is very large, and there is 

great interest in the program. During the 

first 3 years of implementation the 

Department received over 3,000 

applications. Potential applicants, both 

LEAs and nonprofit organizations, need 

to consider carefully the effort that will 

be required to prepare a strong 

application, their capacity to implement 

a project successfully, and their chances 

of submitting a successful application. 

Program participation is voluntary. 

The Secretary believes that the costs 

imposed on applicants by the proposed 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria would be limited to 

paperwork burden related to preparing 

an application and that the benefits of 

implementing these proposals would 

outweigh any costs incurred by 

applicants. The costs of carrying out 

activities would be paid for with 

program funds and with matching funds 

provided by private-sector partners. 

Thus, the costs of implementation 

would not be a burden for any eligible 

applicants, including small entities. 

However, under the proposed selection 

criteria the Secretary would assess the 

extent to which an applicant would be 

able to sustain a project once Federal 

funding through the i3 program is no 

longer available. Thus, eligible 

applicants should propose activities that 

they will be able to sustain without 

funding from the program and, thus, in 

essence, should include in their project 

plans the specific steps they will take 

for sustained implementation of the 

proposed project. The continued 

proposal for the three types of grants 

under i3—Development, Validation, or 

Scale-up grants—would allow potential 

applicants to determine which type of 

grant they are best suited to apply for, 

based on their own priorities, resources, 

and capacity to implement grant 

activities. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification 

The Secretary certifies that this 

proposed regulatory action will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The small entities that this proposed 

regulatory action will affect are small 

LEAs or nonprofit organizations 

applying for and receiving funds under 

this program. The Secretary believes 

that the costs imposed on applicants by 

the proposed priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria would 

be limited to paperwork burden related 

to preparing an application and that the 

benefits of implementing these 

proposals would outweigh any costs 

incurred by applicants. 

Participation in this program is 

voluntary. For this reason, the proposed 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria would impose no 

burden on small entities in general. 

Eligible applicants would determine 

whether to apply for funds, and have 

the opportunity to weigh the 

requirements for preparing applications, 

and any associated costs, against the 

likelihood of receiving funding and the 

requirements for implementing projects 

under the program. Eligible applicants 

most likely would apply only if they 

determine that the likely benefits exceed 

the costs of preparing an application. 

The likely benefits include the potential 

receipt of a grant as well as other 

benefits that may accrue to an entity 

through its development of an 

application, such as the use of that 

application to spur educational reforms 

and improvements without additional 

Federal funding. 

The U.S. Small Business 

Administration Size Standards defines 

as ‘‘small entities’’ for-profit or 

nonprofit institutions with total annual 

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

institutions controlled by small 

governmental jurisdictions (that are 

comprised of cities, counties, towns, 

townships, villages, school districts, or 

special districts), with a population of 

less than 50,000. The Urban Institute’s 

National Center for Charitable Statistics 

reported that of 196,663 nonprofit 

organizations that had an educational 

mission and reported revenue to the IRS 

by March of 2012, 168,784 (or about 86 

percent) had revenues of less than $5 

million. In addition, there are 

approximately 16,000 LEAs in the 

country that meet the definition of small 

entity. However, the Secretary believes 

that only a small number of these 

entities would be interested in applying 

for funds under this program, thus 

reducing the likelihood that the 

proposals contained in this notice 

would have a significant economic 

impact on small entities. As discussed 

earlier, the number of applications 

received during the last 3 competitions 

from any type of applicant is 

approximately 3,000. 

In addition, the Secretary believes 

that the proposed priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria discussed in this notice do not 

impose any additional burden on small 

entities applying for a grant than they 

would face in the absence of the 

proposed action. That is, the length of 

the applications those entities would 

submit in the absence of the regulatory 

action and the time needed to prepare 

an application would likely be the same. 

Further, the proposed action may help 

small entities determine whether they 

have the interest, need, or capacity to 

implement activities under the program 

and, thus, prevent small entities that do 

not have such an interest, need, and 

capacity from absorbing the burden of 

applying, or assist those entities in 

determining whether they should seek a 

capable partner to pursue the 

application process. 

This proposed regulatory action 

would not have a significant economic 

impact on small entities once they 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with 

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 241 / Friday, December 14, 2012 / Proposed Rules 74421 

receive a grant because they would be 

able to meet the costs of compliance 

using the funds provided under this 

program and with any matching funds 

provided by private-sector partners. 

The Secretary invites comments from 

small nonprofit organizations and small 

LEAs as to whether they believe this 

proposed regulatory action would have 

a significant economic impact on them 

and, if so, requests evidence to support 

that belief. 

Accounting Statement 

As required by OMB Circular A–4 

(available at www.whitehouse.gov/sites/ 

default/files/omb/assets/omb/circulars/ 

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

have prepared an accounting statement 

showing the classification of the 

expenditures associated with the 

provisions of this regulatory action. This 

table provides our best estimate of the 

changes in annual monetized transfers 

as a result of this regulatory action. 

Expenditures are classified as transfers 

from the Federal Government to LEAs 

and nonprofit organizations. 

ACCOUNTING STATEMENT CLASSIFICATION OF ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES

[In millions] 

Category Transfers 

Annualized Monetized 

Transfers.

$140.9 million. 

From Whom To 

Whom? 

From the Federal 

Government to 

LEAs and nonprofit 

organizations. 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

The requirements and selection 

criteria proposed in this notice will 

require the collection of information 

that is subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) under 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3501–3520). The burden 

associated with the i3 program was 

approved by OMB under OMB Control 

Number 1855–0021, which expires on 

October 31, 2013. These proposed 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria would allow the 

Department to improve the design of the 

i3 program to better achieve its purposes 

and goals. However, the revisions do not 

change the number of applications an 

organization may submit or the burden 

that an applicant would otherwise incur 

in the development and submission of 

a grant application under the i3 

program. Therefore, the Department 

expects that this proposed regulatory 

action will not affect the total burden of 

hours. 

Intergovernmental Review: This 

program is subject to Executive Order 

12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR 

part 79. One of the objectives of the 

Executive order is to foster an 

intergovernmental partnership and a 

strengthened federalism. The Executive 

order relies on processes developed by 

State and local governments for 

coordination and review of proposed 

Federal financial assistance. 

This document provides early 

notification of our specific plans and 

actions for this program. 

Accessible Format: Individuals with 

disabilities can obtain this document in 

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

print, audiotape, or compact disc) on 

request to the program contact person 

listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

Electronic Access to This Document: 

The official version of this document is 

the document published in the Federal 

Register. Free Internet access to the 

official edition of the Federal Register 

and the Code of Federal Regulations is 

available via the Federal Digital System 

at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site you 

can view this document, as well as all 

other documents of this Department 

published in the Federal Register, in 

text or Adobe Portable Document 

Format (PDF). To use PDF you must 

have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is 

available free at the site. 

You may also access documents of the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register by using the article search 

feature at: www.federalregister.gov. 

Specifically, through the advanced 

feature at this site, you can limit your 

search to documents published by the 

Department. 

Dated: December 11, 2012. 

James H. Shelton, III, 

Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and 

Improvement. 

[FR Doc. 2012–30199 Filed 12–13–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R02–OAR–2010–0482; [FRL–9762–2]] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans for 

PM2.5; New Jersey; Attainment 

Demonstration, Reasonably Available 

Control Measures; Base and Projection 

Year Emission Inventories, and Motor 

Vehicle Emissions Budgets 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing action on 

New Jersey’s State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) revision for attaining the 1997 fine 

particle (PM2.5) national ambient air 

quality standards (NAAQS), which was 

submitted to EPA on April 1, 2009. EPA 

is proposing to fully approve elements 

of the New Jersey SIP for the New Jersey 

portion of two nonattainment areas in 

the State: The New York-N. New JerseyLong Island, NY-NJ-CT, PM2.5

nonattainment area, and the 

Philadelphia-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE, 

PM2.5 nonattainment area. 

EPA is taking action on several 

elements of the SIP, including proposed 

approval of New Jersey’s attainment 

demonstration and motor-vehicle 

emissions budgets used for 

transportation conformity purposes, as 

well as the Reasonably Available 

Control Technology and Reasonably 

Available Control Measures (RACT/ 

RACM) analysis, and base-year and 

projection-year modeling emission 

inventories. 

This action is being taken in 

accordance with the Clean Air Act and 

the Clean Air Fine Particle 

Implementation Rule issued by EPA. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before January 14, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R02–OAR–2010–0482 by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: Werner.Raymond@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: 212–637–3901. 

4. Mail: Raymond Werner, Chief, Air 

Programs Branch, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, 290 

Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New 

York 10007–1866. 

5. Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver 

your comments to: Raymond Werner, 

Chief, Air Programs Branch, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 2 Office, 290 Broadway, 25th 

Floor, New York, New York 10007– 

1866. Such deliveries are only accepted 

during the Regional Office’s normal 

hours of operation. The Regional 

Office’s official business hours is 

Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R02–OAR–2010– 

0482. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with