Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 2012 / Notices 11087 

resources; and (9) Hazardous Toxic 

Radioactive Waste. 

4. Alternatives. Project alternatives 

being evaluated consist of an array of 

structural and non-structural 

alternatives and no action. Structural 

alternatives include ‘‘soft’’ structures 

such as beach fill (i.e., beach 

nourishment) and ‘‘hard’’ structures 

such as breakwaters, seawalls, and 

groins. An array of ‘‘soft’’ structure 

beach fill alternatives are being 

evaluated, including berm only and 

multiple dune elevation and berm width 

combinations. The use of ‘‘hard’’ 

structures will be addressed within the 

updated planning paradigm in the state 

of North Carolina and relative to 

compliance with the Federal Coastal 

Zone Management Act. Non-structural 

alternatives considered include 

relocation of structures and acquisition 

and demolition of structures. Based 

upon analyses completed to date, the 

proposed action consists of a dune and 

berm beach fill alternative. The 

currently proposed beach fill alternative 

for Oak Island and Caswell Beach is a 

14-foot-dune and 75-foot-berm 

extending along approximately 4.5 

miles of total shoreline. The proposed 

beach fill alternative for Holden Beach 

is a 14-foot-dune and 50-foot-berm 

extending along approximately 4.2 

miles of shoreline. The estimated total 

volume of beach compatible sediment 

needed for the 50-year project life, 

including initial construction and 

nourishment intervals, is approximately 

42 million cubic yards. 

Several inshore, offshore, and upland 

borrow sites were initially investigated 

for quantity and quality of beach 

compatible sediment to support the 

project. The currently proposed borrow 

site for initial construction and 

nourishment intervals is located along 

the southwestern portion of FPS, the 

cape associated shoals located southeast 

of Bald Head Island, North Carolina. 

The limits of the borrow area extend 

between 1–5 miles offshore and at depth 

contours between ¥10 and ¥30 feet. 

5. Scoping. On January 24, 2000, in 

accordance with 40 CFR 1501.7, a 

scoping letter was sent to agencies, 

interest groups, and the public 

requesting identification of significant 

resources and issues of concern with 

respect to the proposed project. 

Considering the duration of time that 

had past and the decision to prepare an 

EIS based on comments received during 

the initial scoping effort, a second 

scoping letter was sent on 6 December 

2004. All scoping comments received to 

date have been documented in the 

report and have been considered in the 

formulation of project alternatives. 

Additional scoping meetings have not 

been requested and are not anticipated 

at this time. 

All affected federal, state, and local 

agencies, affected Indian tribes, and 

other interested private organizations 

and parties having an interest in the 

study are, hereby, notified of this 

revised NOI to prepare a DEIS. 

6. Cooperating Agencies. The Corps is 

the lead agency for this project. 

Cooperating agency status has been 

initiated with the Bureau of Ocean 

Energy Management since the offshore 

limits of the proposed borrow area at 

FPS extend into the Outer Continental 

Shelf. 

Steven A. Baker, 

Colonel, U.S. Army, District Commander. 

[FR Doc. 2012–4307 Filed 2–23–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3720–58–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

Applications for New Awards; 

Investing in Innovation Fund, 

Development Grants 

AGENCY: Office of Innovation and 

Improvement, Department of Education. 

ACTION: Notice. 

Overview Information: Investing in 

Innovation Fund, Development grants 

Notice inviting applications for new 

awards for fiscal year (FY) 2012. 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

(CFDA) Number: 84.411P (Development 

grants Pre-Application). 84.411C 

(Development grants Full Application). 

Note: In order to receive an Investing in 

Innovation Fund (i3) Development grant, an 

entity must submit a pre-application. The 

pre-application is intended to reduce the 

burden of submitting a full i3 application. 

Pre-applications will be reviewed and scored 

by peer reviewers using selection criteria 

designated in this notice. Only entities that 

have submitted a top-rated pre-application 

will be eligible to submit a full i3 

application. 

DATES: 

Pre-Applications Available: February 

27, 2012. 

Deadline for Notice of Intent to 

Submit Pre-Application: March 15, 

2012. 

Deadline for Transmittal of Preapplications: April 9, 2012. 

Full Applications Available: If you are 

selected to submit a full application, we 

will transmit the full application 

package and instructions to you. 

Deadline for Transmittal of Full 

Applications: Only entities that 

submitted a top-rated pre-application as 

scored by the peer reviewers and as 

identified by the Department will be 

eligible to submit a full i3 application. 

The Department will announce on its 

Web site the deadline date for 

transmission of full applications. 

Deadline for Intergovernmental 

Review: 60 calendar days after the 

deadline date for transmittal of full 

applications. 

Full Text of Announcement 

I. Funding Opportunity Description 

Purpose of Program: The Investing in 

Innovation Fund, established under 

section 14007 of the American Recovery 

and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), 

provides funding to support (1) local 

educational agencies (LEAs), and (2) 

nonprofit organizations in partnership 

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

consortium of schools. The purpose of 

this program is to provide competitive 

grants to applicants with a record of 

improving student achievement and 

attainment in order to expand the 

implementation of, and investment in, 

innovative practices that are 

demonstrated to have an impact on 

improving student achievement or 

student growth (as defined in this 

notice), closing achievement gaps, 

decreasing dropout rates, increasing 

high school graduation rates, or 

increasing college enrollment and 

completion rates. 

These grants will (1) allow eligible 

entities to expand and develop 

innovative practices that can serve as 

models of best practices, (2) support 

partnerships between eligible entities 

and the private sector and philanthropic 

community, and (3) support eligible 

entities in identifying and documenting 

best practices that can be shared and 

taken to scale based on demonstrated 

success. 

Under this program, the Department 

awards three types of grants: ‘‘Scale-up’’ 

grants, ‘‘Validation’’ grants, and 

‘‘Development’’ grants. The three grant 

types differ in the evidence that an 

applicant is required to submit in 

support of its proposed project; the 

expectations for ‘‘scaling up’’ successful 

projects during or after the grant period, 

either directly or through partners; and 

the funding that a successful applicant 

is eligible to receive. This notice invites 

applications for Development grants. 

The Department anticipates publishing 

notices inviting applications for the 

other types of i3 grants (i.e., Validation 

and Scale-up grants) in the spring of 

2012. 

Development grants provide funding 

to support high-potential and relatively 

untested practices, strategies, or 

programs whose efficacy should be 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
11088 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 2012 / Notices 

1http://www.ed.gov/technology/netp-2010. 

2http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/ 

microsites/ostp/pcast-stemed-execsum.pdf. 

systematically studied. An applicant 

must provide evidence that the 

proposed practice, strategy, or program, 

or one similar to it, has been attempted 

previously, albeit on a limited scale or 

in a limited setting, and yielded 

promising results that suggest that more 

formal and systematic study is 

warranted. An applicant must provide a 

rationale for the proposed practice, 

strategy, or program that is based on 

research findings or reasonable 

hypotheses, including related research 

or theories in education and other 

sectors. These requirements mean that 

applications for Development grants do 

not require the same level of evidence 

to support the proposed project as is 

required for Validation or Scale-up 

grants. 

As it did in the FY 2011 i3 

Development competition, the 

Department is including in the FY 2012 

i3 Development competition 

competitive preference priorities that 

focus on technology and productivity. 

With the technology priority, the 

Department indicates its continuing 

interest in Development projects that 

have the potential to dramatically 

improve student achievement by taking 

full advantage of advances in diverse 

fields such as the learning sciences (e.g., 

cognitive science, educational 

psychology), computer science, and 

personal technology. These advances 

offer real promise for affordable, 

personalized education, the benefits of 

which have been acknowledged for 

decades, notably in Benjamin Bloom’s 

1984 article ‘‘The 2 Sigma Problem: The 

Search for Methods of Group Instruction 

as Effective as One-to-One Tutoring.’’ 

More recently, the Department’s 

National Education Technology Plan 

2010 1 highlighted the potential of 

‘‘connected teaching’’ that makes it 

possible to extend the reach of the most 

effective teachers by using online tools. 

The National Education Technology 

Plan 2010 also highlighted the need for 

high-quality learning resources that can 

reach learners wherever and whenever 

they are needed. Similarly, the 2010 

report of the President’s Council of 

Advisors on Science and Technology, 

Prepare and Inspire,2 called for ‘‘deeply 

digital’’ materials that combine 

simulations, probes, multimedia, and 

other digital resources in coherent ways; 

instructional platforms that provide 

customized paths for different learners, 

including integrated assessments and 

continuous feedback; and tools that help 

teachers grade work, solicit student 

feedback, and create lesson plans. 

With respect to the productivity 

priority, because districts and schools 

remain under financial pressure, the 

Department is also particularly 

interested in approaches that achieve 

the same or better outcomes while 

substantially reducing costs. For this 

reason, we will again give priority to 

applications for projects designed to 

increase productivity. 

We also remind LEAs of the 

continuing applicability of the 

provisions of the Individuals with 

Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) for 

students who may be served under i3 

grants. Programs proposed in 

applications in which LEAs participate 

must be consistent with the rights, 

protections, and processes of IDEA for 

students who are receiving special 

education and related services or are 

being evaluated for such services. 

As described later in this notice, in 

connection with making competitive 

grant awards, an applicant is required, 

as a condition of receiving assistance 

under this program, to make civil rights 

assurances, including an assurance that 

its program or activity will comply with 

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 

1973 and the Department’s section 504 

implementing regulations, which 

prohibit discrimination on the basis of 

disability. Regardless of whether 

students with disabilities are 

specifically targeted as ‘‘high-need’’ 

students under a particular application 

for a grant program, recipients are 

required to comply with the 

nondiscrimination requirements of 

these laws. Among other things, the 

nondiscrimination requirements of 

these laws include an obligation that 

recipients ensure that students with 

disabilities are not discriminated against 

because benefits provided to all 

students under the recipient’s program 

are inaccessible to students because of 

their disability. The Department also 

enforces Title II of the Americans with 

Disabilities Act and Title II 

implementing regulations, which 

prohibit discrimination on the basis of 

disability by public entities, with 

respect to certain public educational 

entities. 

Changes for the FY 2012 i3 

Development Competition: The 

Department has made several changes to 

the FY 2012 i3 Development 

competition that prospective applicants 

should note. 

First, as previously described, the FY 

2012 i3 Development competition will 

use a pre-application process. In the 

past, the i3 competition has received 

many more applications than it can 

fund, particularly in the Development 

category. Under the pre-application 

process, peer reviewers will read and 

score the shorter pre-application against 

an abbreviated set of selection criteria, 

and only the entities that submit the 

highest-scoring pre-applications will be 

invited to submit full applications. 

These entities will be given more time 

to complete their submission. The preapplication process thus requires fewer 

resources for applicants that are judged 

to be less competitive, while providing 

additional time for applicants that are 

judged to be more competitive to 

improve their proposal. We also 

anticipate that the shorter preapplication will simplify the application 

process for applicants from districts or 

other organizations with fewer 

resources. 

An entity that is invited to submit a 

full application for a Development grant 

must include the following information 

in its full application: an estimate of the 

number of students to be served by the 

project; evidence of the applicant’s 

ability to implement and appropriately 

evaluate the proposed project; and 

information about its capacity (i.e., 

qualified personnel, financial resources, 

management capacity) to further 

develop and bring the project to a larger 

scale directly or through partners, either 

during or following the grant period, if 

positive results are obtained. We 

recognize that LEAs are not typically 

responsible for taking to scale their 

practices, strategies, or programs. 

However, all applicants can and should 

partner with others to disseminate and 

take to scale their effective practices, 

strategies, and programs. 

The Department will screen pre- and 

full applications that are submitted for 

Development grants in accordance with 

the requirements in this notice, and it 

will determine which applications have 

met the eligibility and other 

requirements in the notice of final 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria for this program, 

published in the Federal Register on 

March 12, 2010 (75 FR 12004–12071) 

(2010 i3 NFP). Peer reviewers will 

review all pre- and full applications for 

Development grants that are submitted 

by the established deadlines. 

Applicants should note, however, that 

the Department may screen for 

eligibility at multiple points during the 

competition process, including before 

and after peer review, and applicants 

that are determined ineligible will not 

receive a grant regardless of peer 

reviewer scores or comments. If the 

Department determines that a full 

application for a Development grant is 

not supported by a reasonable 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 2012 / Notices 11089 

3The 2011 notice of final i3 revisions, which was 

published in the Federal Register on June 3, 2011 

(76 FR 32073), provides the Secretary with the 

flexibility to choose one or more of the priorities 

established in the 2010 i3 NFP for use in any i3 

competition. 

4For purposes of this priority, the Supplemental 

Priorities define ‘‘student achievement’’ and 

‘‘student growth’’ as follows: 

‘‘Student achievement’’ means—a) For tested 

grades and subjects: (1) a student’s score on the 

State’s assessments under the ESEA; and, as 

appropriate, (2) other measures of student learning, 

such as those described in paragraph (b) of this 

definition, provided they are rigorous and 

comparable across schools. 

(b) For non-tested grades and subjects: 

Alternative measures of student learning and 

performance, such as student scores on pre-tests 

and end-of-course tests; student performance on 

English language proficiency assessments; and 

other measures of student achievement that are 

rigorous and comparable across schools. 

Continued 

hypothesis for the proposed project, 

does not demonstrate the required prior 

record of improvement, or does not 

meet any other eligibility requirement, 

the Department will not consider the 

application for funding. 

Second, the Development competition 

in FY 2012 includes an absolute priority 

focused on Parent and Family 

Engagement. The Department has added 

this absolute priority because of the 

critical role that parents and families 

play in increasing student achievement 

and supporting school improvement. As 

various States and districts implement 

new, more demanding academic content 

standards, parents’ and families’ 

understanding of those standards and 

the related assessments will be 

instrumental in helping children 

improve their academic performance. 

Therefore, there is a nationwide need 

for new practices, strategies, and models 

for building parents’, families’, and 

guardians’ awareness of their role in 

improving their children’s educational 

outcomes. There is also a nationwide 

need for enhancing parents’, families’, 

and guardians’ knowledge, skills, and 

abilities to support student learning and 

school improvement. There is a 

corresponding need for school staff to 

support and cultivate environments 

welcoming to parents and to build 

relationships that increase parents’, 

families’, and guardians’ capacity to 

support their children’s educational 

needs. As with all i3 projects, 

prospective applicants choosing to 

address the Parent and Family 

Engagement priority should keep in 

mind the importance that i3 places on 

rigorous evaluation of how the activities 

that comprise a project, in this case 

increased parent and family 

engagement, lead to increased student 

achievement and school improvement. 

Third, the absolute priority focused 

on teacher and principal effectiveness 

(Absolute Priority 1) now uses the 

language from the Improving 

Effectiveness and Distribution of 

Effective Teachers or Principals priority 

established in the May 12, 2011, Federal 

Register notice of final supplemental 

priorities and definitions for 

discretionary grant programs. The 

language in this supplemental priority 

offers greater flexibility for projects to 

improve teacher and principal 

effectiveness through targeted strategies 

that address components of the teacher 

and principal pipeline, rather than its 

entirety, as required by the Innovations 

that Support Effective Teachers and 

Principals priority in the notice of final 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria for this program, 

published in the Federal Register on 

March 12, 2010 (75 FR 12004–12071) 

(2010 i3 NFP). 

Fourth, the Department notes that the 

removal of an absolute priority focused 

on the implementation of high academic 

content standards and high-quality 

assessments does not indicate that 

projects with such a focus are not of 

interest. Many such projects may be 

responsive to other absolute priorities, 

and the Department continues to be 

interested in these projects. For 

example, strategies that help increase 

teacher effectiveness or that support 

increased parental or family engagement 

with student learning can and should 

align to the State’s academic content 

standards and their associated 

assessments. 

Priorities: This competition includes 

five absolute priorities and five 

competitive preference priorities. These 

priorities are from the 2010 i3 NFP 3 and 

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). 

Absolute Priorities: For FY 2012 and 

any subsequent year in which we make 

awards from the list of unfunded 

applicants from this competition, these 

priorities are absolute priorities. Under 

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

applications that meet one of these 

priorities. 

Under this competition for 

Development grants, each of the five 

absolute priorities constitutes its own 

funding category. The Secretary intends 

to award grants under each absolute 

priority for which applications of 

sufficient quality are submitted. 

An applicant for a Development grant 

must choose one of the five absolute 

priorities contained in this notice and 

address that priority in its preapplication. Both pre-applications and 

full applications will be peer reviewed 

and scored; scores will be rank ordered 

by absolute priority, so an applicant 

must identify clearly the single absolute 

priority on which its proposed project 

focuses. 

These absolute priorities are: 

Absolute Priority 1—Improving the 

Effectiveness and Distribution of 

Effective Teachers or Principals 

Projects that are designed to address 

one or more of the following priority 

areas: 

(a) Increasing the number or 

percentage of teachers or principals who 

are effective or reducing the number or 

percentage of teachers or principals who 

are ineffective, particularly in highpoverty schools (as defined in this 

notice) including through such activities 

as improving the preparation, 

recruitment, development, and 

evaluation of teachers and principals; 

implementing performance-based 

certification and retention systems; and 

reforming compensation and 

advancement systems. 

(b) Increasing the retention, 

particularly in high-poverty schools (as 

defined in this notice), and equitable 

distribution of teachers or principals 

who are effective. 

For the purposes of this priority, 

teacher and principal effectiveness 

should be measured using: 

(1) Teacher or principal evaluation 

data, in States or local educational 

agencies that have in place a highquality teacher or principal evaluation 

system that takes into account student 

growth (as defined in this notice) in 

significant part and uses multiple 

measures, that, in the case of teachers, 

may include observations for 

determining teacher effectiveness (such 

as systems that meet the criteria for 

evaluation systems under the Race to 

the Top program as described in 

criterion (D)(2)(ii) of the Race to the Top 

notice inviting applications (74 FR 

59803)); or 

(2) Data that include, in significant 

part, student achievement (as defined in 

this notice) or student growth data (as 

defined in this notice) and may include 

multiple measures in States or local 

educational agencies that do not have 

the teacher or principal evaluation 

systems described in paragraph (1). 

(Supplemental Priorities) 4


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
11090 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 2012 / Notices 

‘‘Student growth’’ means the change in student 

achievement (as defined in this notice) for an 

individual student between two or more points in 

time. A State may also include other measures that 

are rigorous and comparable across classrooms. 

Note that the definitions in this footnote apply 

only to Absolute Priority 1. Elsewhere in this notice 

the use of these term refers to the i3 definitions 

established in the 2010 i3 NFP that are provided in 

the Definitions section of this notice. 

5Under the final requirements for the School 

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

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

corrective action, or restructuring that (i) is among 

the lowest-achieving five percent of Title I schools 

in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring 

or the lowest-achieving five Title I schools in 

improvement, corrective action, or restructuring in 

the State, whichever number of schools is greater; 

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

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

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

secondary school that is eligible for, but does not 

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

lowest-achieving five secondary schools in the State 

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

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

high school that has had a graduation rate as 

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

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

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

6 In this context, ‘‘these schools’’ refers to the 

schools described in (a) through (c)in this 

paragraph. 

Absolute Priority 2—Promoting Science, 

Technology, Engineering, and 

Mathematics (STEM) Education 

Under this priority, the Department 

provides funding to support projects 

that are designed to address one or more 

of the following areas: 

(a) Providing students with increased 

access to rigorous and engaging 

coursework in STEM. 

(b) Increasing the number and 

proportion of students prepared for 

postsecondary or graduate study and 

careers in STEM. 

(c) Increasing the opportunities for 

high-quality preparation of, or 

professional development for, teachers 

or other educators of STEM subjects. 

(d) Increasing the number of 

individuals from groups traditionally 

underrepresented in STEM, including 

minorities, individuals with disabilities, 

and women, who are provided with 

access to rigorous and engaging 

coursework in STEM or who are 

prepared for postsecondary or graduate 

study and careers in STEM. 

(e) 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. (Supplemental Priorities) 

Absolute Priority 3—Improving School 

Engagement, School Environment, and 

School Safety and Improving Family 

and Community Engagement 

Under this priority, the Department 

provides funding to support projects 

that are designed to improve student 

outcomes by improving parent and 

family engagement (as defined in this 

notice). (Supplemental Priorities) 

Absolute Priority 4—Innovations That 

Turn Around Persistently LowPerforming Schools 

Under this priority, the Department 

provides funding to support strategies, 

practices, or programs that are designed 

to turn around schools that are in any 

of the following categories: (a) 

Persistently lowest-achieving schools 

(as defined in the final requirements for 

the School Improvement Grants 

program); 5 (b) Title I schools that are in 

corrective action or restructuring under 

section 1116 of the ESEA; or (c) 

secondary schools (both middle and 

high schools) eligible for but not 

receiving Title I funds that, if receiving 

Title I funds, would be in corrective 

action or restructuring under section 

1116 of the ESEA. These schools 6 are 

referred to as Investing in Innovation 

Fund Absolute Priority 4 schools. 

Proposed projects must include 

strategies, practices, or programs that 

are designed to turn around Investing in 

Innovation Fund Absolute Priority 4 

schools through either whole-school 

reform or targeted approaches to reform. 

Applicants addressing this priority must 

focus on either: 

(a) Whole-school reform, including, 

but not limited to, comprehensive 

interventions to assist, augment, or 

replace Investing in Innovation Fund 

Absolute Priority 4 schools, including 

the school turnaround, restart, closure, 

and transformation models of 

intervention supported under the 

Department’s School Improvement 

Grants program (see Final Requirements 

for School Improvement Grants as 

Amended in January 2010 (January 28, 

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

sif/faq.html); or 

(b) Targeted approaches to reform, 

including, but not limited to: (1) 

Providing more time for students to 

learn core academic content by 

expanding or augmenting the school 

day, school week, or school year, or by 

increasing instructional time for core 

academic subjects (as defined in section 

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

‘‘student supports’’ into the school 

model to address non-academic barriers 

to student achievement; or (3) creating 

multiple pathways for students to earn 

regular high school diplomas (e.g., by 

operating schools that serve the needs of 

over-aged, under-credited, or other 

students with an exceptional need for 

support and flexibility pertaining to 

when they attend school; awarding 

credit based on demonstrated evidence 

of student competency; and offering 

dual-enrollment options). (2010 i3 NFP) 

Absolute Priority 5—Improving 

Achievement and High School 

Graduation Rates (Rural Local 

Educational Agencies) 

Under this priority, the Department 

provides funding to support projects 

that are designed to address accelerating 

learning and helping to improve high 

school graduation rates (as defined in 

this notice) and college enrollment rates 

for students in rural local educational 

agencies (as defined in this notice). 

(Supplemental Priorities) 

Note: Absolute Priority 5 aims to support 

projects that address the unique challenges of 

serving high-need students in rural LEAs (as 

defined in this notice). Based on the overall 

i3 program requirement, set out in Section 

III.1 of this Notice, and as with all i3 projects, 

applicants choosing to address this priority 

must specify how they will serve high-need 

students. In addition, applicants that choose 

to respond to Absolute Priority 5 may want 

to consider identifying in both the preapplication and full application all rural 

LEAs where the project will be implemented, 

or explain how the applicant will choose the 

rural LEAs where the project will be 

implemented. In full applications, applicants 

should also identify these rural LEAs on the 

i3 Applicant Information Sheet and provide 

information on the applicant’s experience 

and skills, or the experience and skills of 

their partners, in serving high-need students 

in rural LEAs in responding to Selection 

Criterion C. Quality of the Management Plan 

and Personnel. 

Competitive Preference Priorities: For 

FY 2012 and any subsequent year in 

which we make awards from the list of 

unfunded applicants from this 

competition, these priorities are 

competitive preference priorities. 

Competitive preference priority points 

will only be awarded in the review of 

full applications, not in the review of 

pre-applications. However, applicants 

may discuss the competitive priorities 

that are relevant to their projects in their 

pre-applications. 

Applicants may address more than 

one of the competitive preference 

priorities; however, the Department will 

review and award points only for a 

maximum of two of the competitive 

preference priorities in the review of the 

full applications. Therefore, an entity 

that is invited to submit a full 

application must identify in the project 

narrative section of its full application 

the priority or priorities it wishes the 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 2012 / Notices 11091 

7For purposes of this priority, the Supplemental 

Priorities define student achievement as follows: 

‘‘Student achievement’’ means— 

(a) For tested grades and subjects: (1) A student’s 

score on the State’s assessments under section 

1111(b)(3) of the ESEA; and, as appropriate, (2) 

other measures of student learning, such as those 

described in paragraph (b) of this definition, 

provided they are rigorous and comparable across 

schools; and 

(b) For non-tested grades and subjects: 

Alternative measures of student learning and 

performance such as student scores on pre-tests and 

end-of-course tests; student performance on English 

language proficiency assessments; and other 

measures of student achievement that are rigorous 

and comparable across schools. 

Note that this definition for student achievement 

applies only to Absolute Priority 1 and Competitive 

Preference Priority 10. Elsewhere in this notice the 

use of this term refers to the i3 definition 

established in the 2010 i3 NFP that is provided in 

the Definitions section of this notice. 

Department to consider for purposes of 

earning competitive preference priority 

points. 

Note: The Department will not review or 

award points under any competitive 

preference priority for a full application that 

(1) fails to clearly identify the competitive 

preference priority or priorities the applicant 

wishes the Department to consider for 

purposes of earning competitive preference 

priority points, or (2) identifies more than 

two competitive preference priorities the 

applicant wishes the Department to consider 

for purposes of earning competitive 

preference priority points. An entity that is 

invited to submit a full application may 

identify and address a maximum of two 

competitive preference priorities in the full 

application that it wishes the Department to 

consider for purposes of earning competitive 

preference priority points, regardless of 

whether that entity identified or addressed 

any competitive preference priorities in its 

pre-application. 

These competitive preference 

priorities are: 

Competitive Preference Priority 6— 

Innovations for Improving Early 

Learning Outcomes (zero or one point) 

We give competitive preference to 

applications for projects that would 

implement innovative practices, 

strategies, or programs that are designed 

to improve educational outcomes for 

high-need students who are young 

children (birth through 3rd grade) by 

enhancing the quality of early learning 

programs. To meet this priority, 

applications must focus on (a) 

improving young children’s school 

readiness (including social, emotional, 

and cognitive readiness) so that children 

are prepared for success in core 

academic subjects (as defined in section 

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

developmental milestones and 

standards and aligning them with 

appropriate outcome measures; and (c) 

improving alignment, collaboration, and 

transitions between early learning 

programs that serve children from birth 

to age three, in preschools, and in 

kindergarten through third grade. (2010 

i3 NFP) 

Competitive Preference Priority 7— 

Innovations That Support College 

Access and Success (zero or one point) 

We give competitive preference to 

applications for projects that would 

implement innovative practices, 

strategies, or programs that are designed 

to enable kindergarten through grade 12 

(K–12) students, particularly high 

school students, to successfully prepare 

for, enter, and graduate from a two- or 

four-year college. To meet this priority, 

applications must include practices, 

strategies, or programs for K–12 

students that (a) address students’ 

preparedness and expectations related 

to college; (b) help students understand 

issues of college affordability and the 

financial aid and college application 

processes; and (c) provide support to 

students from peers and knowledgeable 

adults. (2010 i3 NFP) 

Competitive Preference Priority 8— 

Innovations to Address the Unique 

Learning Needs of Students With 

Disabilities and Limited English 

Proficient Students (zero or one point) 

We give competitive preference to 

applications for projects that would 

implement innovative practices, 

strategies, or programs that are designed 

to address the unique learning needs of 

students with disabilities, including 

those who are assessed based on 

alternate academic achievement 

standards, or the linguistic and 

academic needs of limited English 

proficient students. To meet this 

priority, applications must provide for 

the implementation of particular 

practices, strategies, or programs that 

are designed to improve academic 

outcomes, close achievement gaps, and 

increase college- and career-readiness, 

including increasing high school 

graduation rates (as defined in this 

notice), for students with disabilities or 

limited English proficient students. 

(2010 i3 NFP) 

Competitive Preference Priority 9— 

Improving Productivity (zero or one 

point) 

We give competitive preference to 

applications for projects that are 

designed to significantly increase 

efficiency in the use of time, staff, 

money, or other resources while 

improving student learning or other 

educational outcomes (i.e., outcome per 

unit of resource). Such projects may 

include innovative and sustainable uses 

of technology, modification of school 

schedules and teacher compensation 

systems, use of open educational 

resources (as defined in this notice), or 

other strategies. (Supplemental 

Priorities) 

Competitive Preference Priority 10— 

Technology (zero or one point) 

We give competitive preference to 

applications for projects that are 

designed to improve student 

achievement 7 or teacher effectiveness 

through the use of high-quality digital 

tools or materials, which may include 

preparing teachers to use the technology 

to improve instruction, as well as 

developing, implementing, or evaluating 

digital tools or materials. (Supplemental 

Priorities) 

Definitions: 

These definitions are from the 2010 i3 

NFP and the Supplemental Priorities. 

We may apply these definitions in any 

year in which this program is in effect. 

Note: This notice invites applications for 

Development grants. The following 

definitions apply to the three types of grants 

under the i3 program (Scale-up, Validation, 

or Development). Therefore, some of the 

definitions included in this section, 

primarily those related to demonstrations of 

evidence, may be more applicable to 

applications for Scale-up and Validation 

grants. 

Definitions Related to Evidence From 

the 2010 i3 NFP 

Carefully matched comparison group 

design means a type of quasiexperimental study that attempts to 

approximate an experimental study. 

More specifically, it is a design in which 

project participants are matched with 

non-participants based on key 

characteristics that are thought to be 

related to the outcome. These 

characteristics include, but are not 

limited to: (1) Prior test scores and other 

measures of academic achievement 

(preferably, the same measures that the 

study will use to evaluate outcomes for 

the two groups); (2) demographic 

characteristics, such as age, disability, 

gender, English proficiency, ethnicity, 

poverty level, parents’ educational 

attainment, and single- or two-parent 

family background; (3) the time period 

in which the two groups are studied 

(e.g., the two groups are children 

entering kindergarten in the same year 

as opposed to sequential years); and (4) 

methods used to collect outcome data 

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

administered in the same way to both 

groups). 

Experimental study means a study 

that employs random assignment of, for 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
11092 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 2012 / Notices 

8A single subject or single case design is an 

adaptation of an interrupted time series design that 

relies on the comparison of treatment effects on a 

single subject or group of single subjects. There is 

little confidence that findings based on this design 

would be the same for other members of the 

population. In some single subject designs, 

treatment reversal or multiple baseline designs are 

used to increase internal validity. In a treatment 

reversal design, after a pretreatment or baseline 

outcome measurement is compared with a post 

treatment measure, the treatment would then be 

stopped for a period of time, a second baseline 

measure of the outcome would be taken, followed 

by a second application of the treatment or a 

different treatment. A multiple baseline design 

addresses concerns about the effects of normal 

development, timing of the treatment, and amount 

of the treatment with treatment-reversal designs by 

using a varying time schedule for introduction of 

the treatment and/or treatments of different lengths 

or intensity. 

example, students, teachers, classrooms, 

schools, or districts to participate in a 

project being evaluated (treatment 

group) or not to participate in the 

project (control group). The effect of the 

project is the average difference in 

outcomes between the treatment and 

control groups. 

Independent evaluation means that 

the evaluation is designed and carried 

out independent of, but in coordination 

with, any employees of the entities who 

develop a practice, strategy, or program 

and are implementing it. This 

independence helps ensure the 

objectivity of an evaluation and 

prevents even the appearance of a 

conflict of interest. 

Interrupted time series design 8 means 

a type of quasi-experimental study in 

which the outcome of interest is 

measured multiple times before and 

after the treatment for program 

participants only. If the program had an 

impact, the outcomes after treatment 

will have a different slope or level from 

those before treatment. That is, the 

series should show an ‘‘interruption’’ of 

the prior situation at the time when the 

program was implemented. Adding a 

comparison group time series, such as 

schools not participating in the program 

or schools participating in the program 

in a different geographic area, 

substantially increases the reliability of 

the findings. 

Moderate evidence means evidence 

from previous studies whose designs 

can support causal conclusions (i.e., 

studies with high internal validity) but 

have limited generalizability (i.e., 

moderate external validity), or studies 

with high external validity but moderate 

internal validity. The following would 

constitute moderate evidence: (1) At 

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

experimental or quasi-experimental 

study (as defined in this notice) 

supporting the effectiveness of the 

practice, strategy, or program, with 

small sample sizes or other conditions 

of implementation or analysis that limit 

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

defined in this notice) experimental or 

quasi-experimental study (as defined in 

this notice) that does not demonstrate 

equivalence between the intervention 

and comparison groups at program entry 

but that has no other major flaws related 

to internal validity; or (3) correlational 

research with strong statistical controls 

for selection bias and for discerning the 

influence of internal factors. 

Quasi-experimental study means an 

evaluation design that attempts to 

approximate an experimental design 

and can support causal conclusions (i.e., 

minimizes threats to internal validity, 

such as selection bias, or allows them to 

be modeled). Well-designed quasiexperimental studies include carefully 

matched comparison group designs (as 

defined in this notice), interrupted time 

series designs (as defined in this notice), 

or regression discontinuity designs (as 

defined in this notice). 

Regression discontinuity design study 

means, in part, a quasi-experimental 

study design that closely approximates 

an experimental study. In a regression 

discontinuity design, participants are 

assigned to a treatment or comparison 

group based on a numerical rating or 

score of a variable unrelated to the 

treatment such as the rating of an 

application for funding. Another 

example would be assignment of 

eligible students, teachers, classrooms, 

or schools above a certain score (‘‘cut 

score’’) to the treatment group and 

assignment of those below the score to 

the comparison group. 

Strong evidence means evidence from 

previous studies whose designs can 

support causal conclusions (i.e., studies 

with high internal validity), and studies 

that in total include enough of the range 

of participants and settings to support 

scaling up to the State, regional, or 

national level (i.e., studies with high 

external validity). The following are 

examples of strong evidence: (1) More 

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

experimental study (as defined in this 

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

quasi-experimental study (as defined in 

this notice) that supports the 

effectiveness of the practice, strategy, or 

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

and well-implemented (as defined in 

this notice) randomized controlled, 

multisite trial that supports the 

effectiveness of the practice, strategy, or 

program. 

Well-designed and well-implemented 

means, with respect to an experimental 

or quasi-experimental study (as defined 

in this notice), that the study meets the 

What Works Clearinghouse evidence 

standards, with or without reservations 

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

references/idocviewer/ 

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

particular the description of ‘‘Reasons 

for Not Meeting Standards’’ at http:// 

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

idocviewer/ 

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

Other Definitions From the 2010 i3 NFP 

Applicant means the entity that 

applies for a grant under this program 

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

an LEA or a partnership in accordance 

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

ARRA). 

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. 

Formative assessment means 

assessment questions, tools, and 

processes that are embedded in 

instruction and are used by teachers and 

students to provide timely feedback for 

purposes of adjusting instruction to 

improve learning. 

High-need student means a student at 

risk of educational failure, or otherwise 

in need of special assistance and 

support, such as students who are living 

in poverty, who attend high-minority 

schools, who are far below grade level, 

who are over-age and under-credited, 

who have left school before receiving a 

regular high school diploma, who are at 

risk of not graduating with a regular 

high school diploma on time, who are 

homeless, who are in foster care, who 

have been incarcerated, who have 

disabilities, or who are limited English 

proficient. 

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. 

Interim assessment means an 

assessment that is given at regular and 

specified intervals throughout the 

school year, is designed to evaluate 

students’ knowledge and skills relative 

to a specific set of academic standards, 

and produces results that can be 

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

school, or LEA) in order to inform 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 2012 / Notices 11093 

teachers and administrators at the 

student, classroom, school, and LEA 

levels. 

National level, as used in reference to 

a Scale-up grant, describes a project that 

is able to be effective in a wide variety 

of communities and student populations 

around the country, including rural and 

urban areas, as well as with the different 

groups of students described in section 

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

economically disadvantaged students, 

students from major racial and ethnic 

groups, migrant students, students with 

disabilities, students with limited 

English proficiency, and students of 

each gender). 

Nonprofit organization means an 

entity that meets the definition of 

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

institution of higher education as 

defined by section 101(a) of the Higher 

Education Act of 1965, as amended. 

Official partner means any of the 

entities required to be part of a 

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

of the ARRA. 

Other partner means any entity, other 

than the applicant and any official 

partner, that may be involved in a 

proposed project. 

Regional level, as used in reference to 

a Scale-up or Validation grant, describes 

a project that is able to serve a variety 

of communities and student populations 

within a State or multiple States, 

including rural and urban areas, as well 

as with the different groups of students 

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

of the ESEA (i.e., economically 

disadvantaged students, students from 

major racial and ethnic groups, migrant 

students, students with disabilities, 

students with limited English 

proficiency, and students of each 

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

students in more than one LEA. The 

exception to this requirement would be 

a project implemented in a State in 

which the State educational agency is 

the sole educational agency for all 

schools and thus may be considered an 

LEA under section 9101(26) of the 

ESEA. Such a State would meet the 

definition of regional for the purposes of 

this notice. 

Regular high school diploma means, 

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

the standard high school diploma that is 

awarded to students in the State and 

that is fully aligned with the State’s 

academic content standards or a higher 

diploma and does not include a General 

Education Development (GED) 

credential, certificate of attendance, or 

any alternative award. 

Student achievement means— 

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

A student’s score on the State’s 

assessments under section 1111(b)(3) of 

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

measures of student learning, such as 

those described in paragraph (b) of this 

definition, provided they are rigorous 

and comparable across classrooms; and 

(b) For non-tested grades and subjects: 

Alternative measures of student learning 

and performance such as student scores 

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

student performance on English 

language proficiency assessments; and 

other measures of student achievement 

that are rigorous and comparable across 

classrooms. 

Student growth means the change in 

student achievement data for an 

individual student between two or more 

points in time. Growth may be 

measured by a variety of approaches, 

but any approach used must be 

statistically rigorous and based on 

student achievement data, and may also 

include other measures of student 

learning in order to increase the 

construct validity and generalizability of 

the information. 

Definitions From Supplemental 

Priorities 

High-poverty school means a school 

in which at least 50 percent of students 

are eligible for free or reduced-price 

lunches under the Richard B. Russell 

National School Lunch Act or in which 

at least 50 percent of students are from 

low-income families as determined 

using one of the criteria specified under 

section 1113(a)(5) of the Elementary and 

Secondary Education Act of 1965, as 

amended. For middle and high schools, 

eligibility may be calculated on the 

basis of comparable data from feeder 

schools. Eligibility as a high-poverty 

school under this definition is 

determined on the basis of the most 

currently available data. 

Open educational resources (OER) 

means teaching, learning, and research 

resources that reside in the public 

domain or have been released under an 

intellectual property license that 

permits their free use or repurposing by 

others. 

Parent and family engagement means 

the systematic inclusion of parents and 

families, working in partnership with 

local educational agencies and school 

staff, in their child’s education, which 

may include strengthening the ability of 

(a) Parents and families to support their 

child’s education and (b) school staff to 

work with parents and families. 

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 http://www2.ed.gov/nclb/ 

freedom/local/reap.html. 

Program Authority: American 

Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, 

Division A, Section 14007, Public Law 

111–5. 

Applicable Regulations: (a) The 

Education Department General 

Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) in 

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

84, 85, 86, 97, 98, and 99. (b) The notice 

of final priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria for 

this program, published in the Federal 

Register on March 12, 2010 (75 FR 

12004–12071). (c) The notice of final 

revisions to priorities, requirements, 

and selection criteria for this program, 

published in the Federal Register on 

June 3, 2011 (76 FR 32073) (2011 Notice 

of Final i3 Revisions). (d) 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). 

Note: The regulations in 34 CFR part 79 

apply to all applicants except federally 

recognized Indian tribes. 

Note: The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 

apply to institutions of higher education 

only. 

II. Award Information 

Type of Award: Cooperative 

agreements or discretionary grants. 

Estimated Available Funds: 

$140,452,000. 

These estimated available funds are 

the total available for all three types of 

grants under the i3 program (Scale-up, 

Validation, and Development). 

Contingent upon the availability of 

funds and the quality of the applications 

received, we may make additional 

awards in FY 2013 or later years from 

the list of unfunded applicants from this 

competition. 

Estimated Range of Awards: 

Scale-up grants: Up to $25,000,000. 

Validation grants: Up to $15,000,000. 

Development grants: Up to 

$3,000,000. 

Estimated Average Size of Awards: 

Scale-up grants: $24,000,000. 

Validation grants: $14,500,000. 

Development grants: $3,000,000. 

Estimated Number of Awards: 

Scale-up grants: 0–2 awards. 

Validation grants: 1–5 awards. 

Development grants: 10–20 awards. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
11094 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 2012 / Notices 

9The 2011 Notice of Final i3 Revisions modified 

the ‘‘Cost Sharing and Matching’’ requirement 

established in the 2010 i3 NFP by providing that 

the Secretary will specify the amount of required 

private-sector matching funds or in-kind donations 

in the notice inviting applications for the specific 

i3 competition. For this competition, the Secretary 

establishes a matching requirement of at least 15 

percent of the grant award. 

Note: The Department is not bound by any 

estimates in this notice. 

Project Period: 36–60 months. 

III. Eligibility Information 

1. Providing Innovations that Improve 

Achievement for High-Need Students: 

All eligible applicants must implement 

practices, strategies, or programs for 

high-need students (as defined in this 

notice). (2010 i3 NFP) 

2. Eligible Applicants: Entities eligible 

to apply for i3 grants include: (a) An 

LEA or (b) a partnership between a 

nonprofit organization and (1) one or 

more LEAs or (2) a consortium of 

schools. An eligible applicant that is a 

partnership applying under section 

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

designate one of its official partners (as 

defined in this notice) to serve as the 

applicant in accordance with the 

Department’s regulations governing 

group applications in 34 CFR 75.127 

through 75.129. (2010 i3 NFP) 

3. 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— 

(1)(A) Have significantly closed the 

achievement gaps between groups of 

students described in section 1111(b)(2) 

of the ESEA (economically 

disadvantaged students, students from 

major racial and ethnic groups, students 

with limited English proficiency, 

students with disabilities); or 

(B) Have demonstrated success in 

significantly increasing student 

academic achievement for all groups of 

students described in that section; 

(2) Have made significant 

improvements in other areas, such as 

graduation rates or increased 

recruitment and placement of highquality teachers and principals, as 

demonstrated with meaningful data; 

(3) Demonstrate that it has established 

one or more partnerships with the 

private sector, which may include 

philanthropic organizations, and that 

the private sector will provide matching 

funds in order to help bring results to 

scale; and 

(4) In the case of an eligible applicant 

that includes a nonprofit organization, 

provide in the application the names of 

the LEAs with which the nonprofit 

organization will partner, or the names 

of the schools in the consortium with 

which it will partner. If an eligible 

applicant that includes a nonprofit 

organization intends to partner with 

additional LEAs or schools that are not 

named in the application, it must 

describe in the application the 

demographic and other characteristics 

of these LEAs and schools and the 

process it will use to select them as 

either official or other partners. An 

applicant must identify its specific 

partners before a grant award will be 

made. (2010 i3 NFP) 

Note: An entity submitting a full 

application should provide, in Appendix C, 

under ‘‘Other Attachments Form,’’ of its full 

application, information addressing the 

eligibility requirements described in this 

section. An applicant must provide, in the 

full application, sufficient supporting data or 

other information to allow the Department to 

determine whether the applicant has met the 

eligibility requirements. If the Department 

determines that an applicant has provided 

insufficient information in its full 

application, the applicant will not have an 

opportunity to provide additional 

information. 

Note: Instructions for the pre-application 

will be available on the i3 Web site. Entities 

invited to submit a full application will 

receive instructions about the full application 

package. 

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. (2010 i3 NFP) 

Note about Eligibility for an Eligible 

Applicant that Includes a Nonprofit 

Organization: The authorizing statute (as 

amended) specifies that an eligible applicant 

that includes a nonprofit organization is 

considered to have met the requirements in 

paragraphs (1) and (2) of the eligibility 

requirements for this program if the nonprofit 

organization has a record of significantly 

improving student achievement, attainment, 

or retention. For an eligible applicant that 

includes a nonprofit organization, the 

nonprofit organization must demonstrate that 

it has a record of significantly improving 

student achievement, attainment, or retention 

through its record of work with an LEA or 

schools. Therefore, an eligible applicant that 

includes a nonprofit organization does not 

necessarily need to include as a partner for 

its i3 grant an LEA or a consortium of schools 

that meets the requirements in paragraphs (1) 

and (2). 

In addition, the authorizing statute (as 

amended) specifies that an eligible applicant 

that includes a nonprofit organization is 

considered to have met the requirements of 

paragraph (3) of the eligibility requirements 

in this notice if the eligible applicant 

demonstrates that it will meet the 

requirement relating to private-sector 

matching. (2010 i3 NFP) 

4. Cost Sharing or Matching: To be 

eligible for an award, an eligible 

applicant must demonstrate that it has 

established one or more partnerships 

with an entity or organization in the 

private sector, which may include 

philanthropic organizations, and that 

the entity or organization in the private 

sector will provide matching funds in 

order to help bring project results to 

scale. An eligible applicant must obtain 

matching funds or in-kind donations 

equal to at least 15 percent of its grant 

award.9 Selected eligible applicants 

must submit evidence of the full amount 

of private-sector matching funds 

following the peer review of full 

applications. An award will not be 

made unless the applicant provides 

adequate evidence that the full amount 

of the private-sector match has been 

committed or the Secretary approves the 

eligible applicant’s request to reduce the 

matching-level requirement. 

The Secretary may consider 

decreasing the matching requirement in 

the most exceptional circumstances, on 

a case-by-case basis. An eligible 

applicant that anticipates being unable 

to meet the full amount of the privatesector matching requirement must 

include in its application a request to 

the Secretary to reduce the matchinglevel requirement, along with a 

statement of the basis for the request. 

(2010 i3 NFP, as revised by the 2011 

Notice of Final i3 Revisions) 

Note: An entity does not need to include 

a request for a reduction of the matchinglevel requirement in its pre-application. 

However, an applicant that does not provide 

a request for a reduction of the matchinglevel requirement in its full application may 

not submit that request at a later time. 

5. Other: The Secretary establishes the 

following requirements for the i3 

program. These requirements are from 

the 2010 i3 NFP. We may apply these 

requirements in any year in which this 

program is in effect. 

• Evidence Standards: To be eligible 

for an award, an application for a 

Development grant must be supported 

by a reasonable hypothesis. (2010 i3 

NFP) 

Note: An entity invited to submit a full 

application should provide, in Appendix D, 

under ‘‘Other Attachments Form,’’ of its 

application, information addressing the 

required evidence standards. An applicant 

must either ensure that all evidence is 

available to the Department from publicly 

available sources and provide links or other 

guidance indicating where it is available; or, 

in the full application, include copies of 

evidence in Appendix D. If the Department 

determines that an applicant has provided 

insufficient information, the applicant will 

not have an opportunity to provide 

additional information to support its full 

application. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 2012 / Notices 11095 

• Funding Categories: An applicant 

must state in its application whether it 

is applying for a Scale-up, Validation, or 

Development grant. An applicant may 

not submit an application for the same 

proposed project under more than one 

type of grant. An applicant will be 

considered for an award only for the 

type of grant for which it applies. (2010 

i3 NFP) 

• Subgrants: In the case of an eligible 

applicant that is a partnership between 

a nonprofit organization and (1) one or 

more LEAs or (2) a consortium of 

schools, the partner serving as the 

applicant may make subgrants to one or 

more official partners (as defined in this 

notice). (2010 i3 NFP) 

• Limits 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 more than $55 million in new 

grant awards under the i3 program in a 

single year. (2010 i3 NFP, as revised by 

the 2011 Notice of Final i3 Revisions) 

• Evaluation: A grantee must comply 

with the requirements of any evaluation 

of the program conducted by the 

Department. In addition, the grantee is 

required to conduct an independent 

evaluation (as defined in this notice) of 

its project and must agree, along with its 

independent evaluator, to cooperate 

with any technical assistance provided 

by the Department or its contractor. The 

purpose of this technical assistance will 

be to ensure that the evaluations are of 

the highest quality and to encourage 

commonality in evaluation approaches 

across funded projects where such 

commonality is feasible and useful. 

Finally, the grantee must make broadly 

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

newsletters) mechanisms, and in print 

or electronically, the results of any 

evaluations it conducts of its funded 

activities. For Scale-up and Validation 

grants, the grantee must also ensure the 

data from their evaluations are made 

available to third-party researchers 

consistent with applicable privacy 

requirements. (2010 i3 NFP) 

• Participation in ‘‘Communities of 

Practice’’: Grantees are required to 

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. 

Establishment of communities of 

practice under the i3 program will 

enable grantees to meet, discuss, and 

collaborate with each other regarding 

grantee projects. (2010 i3 NFP) 

IV. Application and Submission 

Information 

1. Submission of Proprietary 

Information: Given the types of projects 

that may be proposed in applications for 

the i3 program, some applications may 

include proprietary information as it 

relates to confidential commercial 

information. Confidential commercial 

information is defined as information 

the disclosure of which could 

reasonably be expected to cause 

substantial competitive harm. Upon 

submission, applicants, in both preapplications and full applications, 

should identify any information 

contained in their application that they 

consider to be confidential commercial 

information. Consistent with the process 

followed in the prior two i3 

competitions, we plan on posting the 

project narrative section of funded 

Development applications on the 

Department’s Web site. Identifying 

proprietary information in the 

submitted application will help 

facilitate this public disclosure process. 

Applicants are encouraged to identify 

only the specific information that the 

applicant considers to be proprietary 

and list the page numbers on which this 

information can be found in the 

appropriate Appendix section, under 

‘‘Other Attachments Form,’’ of their 

applications. In addition to identifying 

the page number on which that 

information can be found, eligible 

applicants will assist the Department in 

making determinations on public 

release of the application by being as 

specific as possible in identifying the 

information they consider proprietary. 

Please note that, in many instances, 

identification of entire pages of 

documentation would not be 

appropriate. 

2. Address to Request Application 

Package: You can obtain a preapplication package via the Internet or 

from the Education Publications Center 

(ED Pubs). To obtain a copy via the 

Internet, use the following address: 

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

innovation/index.html. To obtain a copy 

from ED Pubs, write, fax, or call the 

following: ED Pubs, U.S. Department of 

Education, P.O. Box 22207, Alexandria, 

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

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

use a telecommunications device for the 

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

call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll 

free, at 1–877–576–7734. 

You can contact ED Pubs at its Web 

site, also: www.EDPubs.gov or at its 

email address: edpubs@inet.ed.gov. 

If you request a pre-application from 

ED Pubs, be sure to identify this 

program or competition as follows: 

CFDA number 84.411P. 

Individuals with disabilities can 

obtain a copy of the pre-application 

package in an accessible format (e.g., 

braille, large print, audiotape, or 

compact disc) by contacting the person 

or team listed under Accessible Format 

in section VIII of this notice. 

Note: The full application package will be 

made available to entities invited to submit 

a full application and additional information 

will be available on the i3 Web site. 

3. Content and Form of Application 

Submission: Requirements concerning 

the content of an application, together 

with the forms you must submit, are in 

the application package for this 

competition. Deadline for Notice of 

Intent to Submit Pre-Application: March 

15, 2012. 

We will be able to develop a more 

efficient process for reviewing grant 

applications if we know the 

approximate number of applicants that 

intend to apply for funding under this 

competition. Therefore, the Secretary 

strongly encourages each potential 

applicant to notify us of the applicant’s 

intent to submit a pre-application by 

completing a web-based form. When 

completing this form, applicants will 

provide (1) the applicant organization’s 

name and address and (2) the one 

absolute priority the applicant intends 

to address. Applicants may access this 

form online at http://go.usa.gov/Qvd. 

Applicants that do not complete this 

form may still submit a pre-application. 

Page Limit: For the pre-application, 

the project narrative is where you, the 

applicant, address the selection criteria 

that reviewers use to evaluate your preapplication. For the full application, the 

project narrative (Part III of the 

application) is where you, the applicant, 

address the selection criteria that 

reviewers use to evaluate your full 

applications. 

Pre-Application page limit: 

Applicants should limit the preapplication narrative to no more than 

seven pages. 

Full-Application page limit: 

Applicants invited to submit a full 

application should limit the application 

narrative [Part III] for a Development 

application to no more than 25 pages. 

Applicants are also strongly encouraged 

not to include lengthy appendices for 

the full application that contain 

information that could not be included 

in the narrative. Aside from the required 

forms, applicants should not include 

appendices in their pre-applications. 

Applicants for both pre- and full 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
11096 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 2012 / Notices 

applications should use the following 

standards: 

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

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

and both sides. 

• Double space (no more than three 

lines per vertical inch) all text in the 

application narrative, including titles, 

headings, footnotes, quotations, 

references, and captions. 

• Use a font that is either 12 point or 

larger or no smaller than 10 pitch 

(characters per inch). 

• Use one of the following fonts: 

Times New Roman, Courier, Courier 

New, or Arial. 

The page limit for the full application 

does not apply to Part I, the cover sheet; 

Part II, the budget section, including the 

narrative budget justification; Part IV, 

the assurances and certifications; or the 

one-page abstract, the resumes, the 

bibliography, or the letters of support 

for the full application. However, the 

page limit does apply to all of the 

application narrative section [Part III] of 

the full application. 

4. Submission Dates and Times: 

Pre-Applications Available: February 

27, 2012. 

Deadline for Notice of Intent to 

Submit Pre-Application: March 15, 

2012. 

Informational Meetings: The i3 

program intends to hold meetings 

designed to provide technical assistance 

to interested applicants for all three 

types of grants. Detailed information 

regarding these meetings will be 

provided on the i3 Web site at http:// 

www2.ed.gov/programs/innovation/ 

index.html. 

Deadline for Transmittal of PreApplications: April 9, 2012. 

Deadline for Transmittal of Full 

Applications: The Department will 

announce on its Web site the deadline 

date for transmission of full 

applications. Under the pre-application 

process, peer reviewers will read and 

score the shorter pre-application against 

an abbreviated set of selection criteria, 

and only the entities that submit the 

highest-scoring pre-applications will be 

invited to submit full applications. 

Pre- and full applications for grants 

under this competition must be 

submitted electronically using the 

Grants.gov Apply site (Grants.gov). For 

information (including dates and times) 

about how to submit your application 

electronically, or in paper format by 

mail or hand delivery if you qualify for 

an exception to the electronic 

submission requirement, please refer to 

section IV. 8. Other Submission 

Requirements of this notice. 

We do not consider a pre-application 

or full application that does not comply 

with the deadline requirements. 

Individuals with disabilities who 

need an accommodation or auxiliary aid 

in connection with the application 

process should contact the person listed 

under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT in section VII of this notice. If 

the Department provides an 

accommodation or auxiliary aid to an 

individual with a disability in 

connection with the pre-application or 

full application process, the individual’s 

pre-application or full application 

remains subject to all other 

requirements and limitations in this 

notice. 

Deadline for Intergovernmental 

Review of Full Applications: 60 

calendar days after the deadline date for 

transmittal of full applications. 

5. Intergovernmental Review: This 

competition is subject to Executive 

Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 

CFR part 79. Information about 

Intergovernmental Review of Federal 

Programs under Executive Order 12372 

is in the application package for this 

competition. 

6. Funding Restrictions: We reference 

regulations outlining funding 

restrictions in the Applicable 

Regulations section of this notice. 

7. Data Universal Numbering System 

Number, Taxpayer Identification 

Number, and Central Contractor 

Registry: To do business with the 

Department of Education, you must— 

a. Have a Data Universal Numbering 

System (DUNS) number and a Taxpayer 

Identification Number (TIN); 

b. Register both your DUNS number 

and TIN with the Central Contractor 

Registry (CCR), the Government’s 

primary registrant database; 

c. Provide your DUNS number and 

TIN on your application; and 

d. Maintain an active CCR registration 

with current information while your 

application is under review by the 

Department and, if you are awarded a 

grant, during the project period. 

You can obtain a DUNS number from 

Dun and Bradstreet. A DUNS number 

can be created within one business day. 

If you are a corporate entity, agency, 

institution, or organization, you can 

obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue 

Service. If you are an individual, you 

can obtain a TIN from the Internal 

Revenue Service or the Social Security 

Administration. If you need a new TIN, 

please allow 2–5 weeks for your TIN to 

become active. 

The CCR registration process may take 

five or more business days to complete. 

If you are currently registered with the 

CCR, you may not need to make any 

changes. However, please make certain 

that the TIN associated with your DUNS 

number is correct. Also note that you 

will need to update your CCR 

registration on an annual basis. This 

may take three or more business days to 

complete. 

In addition, if you are submitting your 

application via Grants.gov, you must (1) 

be designated by your organization as an 

Authorized Organization Representative 

(AOR); and (2) register yourself with 

Grants.gov as an AOR. Details on these 

steps are outlined in the Grants.gov 

3-Step Registration Guide (see 

www.grants.gov/section910/ 

Grants.govRegistrationBrochure.pdf). 

8. Other Submission Requirements: 

Applications for grants under this 

competition must be submitted 

electronically unless you qualify for an 

exception to this requirement in 

accordance with the instructions in this 

section. 

a. Electronic Submission of 

Applications. 

Applications (both pre- and full 

applications) for grants under the i3 

program, pre application CFDA 84.411P 

and full application CFDA number 

84.411C (Development grants), must be 

submitted electronically using the 

Governmentwide Grants.gov Apply site 

at www.Grants.gov. Through this site, 

you will be able to download a copy of 

the application package, complete it 

offline, and then upload and submit 

your application. You may not email an 

electronic copy of a grant application to 

us. 

We will reject your application if you 

submit it in paper format unless, as 

described elsewhere in this section, you 

qualify for one of the exceptions to the 

electronic submission requirement and 

submit, no later than two weeks before 

the application deadline date, a written 

statement to the Department that you 

qualify for one of these exceptions. 

Further information regarding 

calculation of the date that is two weeks 

before the application deadline date is 

provided later in this section under 

Exception to Electronic Submission 

Requirement. 

You may access the electronic grant 

applications for i3 at www.Grants.gov. 

You must search for the downloadable 

application package for this competition 

by the CFDA number. Do not include 

the CFDA number’s alpha suffix in your 

search (e.g., search for 84.411, not 

84.411C). 

Please note the following: 

• When you enter the Grants.gov site, 

you will find information about 

submitting an application electronically 

through the site, as well as the hours of 

operation. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 2012 / Notices 11097 

• Applications received by Grants.gov 

are date and time stamped. Your 

application must be fully uploaded and 

submitted and must be date and time 

stamped by the Grants.gov system no 

later than 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC 

time, on the application deadline date. 

Except as otherwise noted in this 

section, we will not accept your 

application if it is received—that is, date 

and time stamped by the Grants.gov 

system—after 4:30 p.m., Washington, 

DC time, on the application deadline 

date. We do not consider an application 

that does not comply with the deadline 

requirements. When we retrieve your 

application from Grants.gov, we will 

notify you if we are rejecting your 

application because it was date and time 

stamped by the Grants.gov system after 

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

application deadline date. 

• The amount of time it can take to 

upload an application will vary 

depending on a variety of factors, 

including the size of the application and 

the speed of your Internet connection. 

Therefore, we strongly recommend that 

you do not wait until the application 

deadline date to begin the submission 

process through Grants.gov. 

• You should review and follow the 

Education Submission Procedures for 

submitting an application through 

Grants.gov that are included in the 

application package for this competition 

to ensure that you submit your 

application in a timely manner to the 

Grants.gov system. You can also find the 

Education Submission Procedures 

pertaining to Grants.gov under News 

and Events on the Department’s G5 

system home page at http://www.G5.gov. 

• You will not receive additional 

point value because you submit your 

application in electronic format, nor 

will we penalize you if you qualify for 

an exception to the electronic 

submission requirement, as described 

elsewhere in this section, and submit 

your application in paper format. 

• You must submit all documents 

electronically, including all information 

you typically provide on the following 

forms: the Application for Federal 

Assistance (SF 424), the Department of 

Education Supplemental Information for 

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

necessary assurances and certifications. 

• You must upload any narrative 

sections and all other attachments to 

your application as files in a PDF 

(Portable Document) read-only, nonmodifiable format. Do not upload an 

interactive or fillable PDF file. If you 

upload a file type other than a readonly, non-modifiable .PDF or submit a 

password-protected file, we will not 

review that material. 

• Your electronic application must 

comply with any page-limit 

requirements described in this notice. 

• After you electronically submit 

your application, you will receive from 

Grants.gov an automatic notification of 

receipt that contains a Grants.gov 

tracking number. (This notification 

indicates receipt by Grants.gov only, not 

receipt by the Department.) The 

Department then will retrieve your 

application from Grants.gov and send a 

second notification to you by email. 

This second notification indicates that 

the Department has received your 

application and has assigned your 

application a PR/Award number (an EDspecified identifying number unique to 

your application). 

• We may request that you provide us 

original signatures on forms at a later 

date. 

Application Deadline Date Extension 

in Case of Technical Issues With the 

Grants.gov System: If you are 

experiencing problems submitting your 

application through Grants.gov, please 

contact the Grants.gov Support Desk, 

toll free, at 1–800–518–4726. You must 

obtain a Grants.gov Support Desk Case 

Number and must keep a record of it. 

If you are prevented from 

electronically submitting your 

application on the application deadline 

date because of technical problems with 

the Grants.gov system, we will grant you 

an extension until 4:30 p.m., 

Washington, DC time, the following 

business day to enable you to transmit 

your application electronically or by 

hand delivery. You also may mail your 

application by following the mailing 

instructions described elsewhere in this 

notice. 

If you submit an application after 4:30 

p.m., Washington, DC time, on the 

application deadline date, please 

contact the person listed under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT in 

section VII of this notice and provide an 

explanation of the technical problem 

you experienced with Grants.gov, along 

with the Grants.gov Support Desk Case 

Number. We will accept your 

application if we can confirm that a 

technical problem occurred with the 

Grants.gov system and that that problem 

affected your ability to submit your 

application by 4:30 p.m., Washington, 

DC time, on the application deadline 

date. The Department will contact you 

after a determination is made on 

whether your application will be 

accepted. 

Note: The extensions to which we refer in 

this section apply only to the unavailability 

of, or technical problems with, the Grants.gov 

system. We will not grant you an extension 

if you failed to fully register to submit your 

application to Grants.gov before the 

application deadline date and time or if the 

technical problem you experienced is 

unrelated to the Grants.gov system. 

Exception to Electronic Submission 

Requirement: You qualify for an 

exception to the electronic submission 

requirement, and may submit your 

application in paper format, if you are 

unable to submit an application through 

the Grants.gov system because— 

• You do not have access to the 

Internet; or 

• You do not have the capacity to 

upload large documents to the 

Grants.gov system; and 

• No later than two weeks before the 

application deadline date (14 calendar 

days or, if the fourteenth calendar day 

before the application deadline date 

falls on a Federal holiday, the next 

business day following the Federal 

holiday), you mail or fax a written 

statement to the Department, explaining 

which of the two grounds for an 

exception prevent you from using the 

Internet to submit your application. 

If you mail your written statement to 

the Department, it must be postmarked 

no later than two weeks before the 

application deadline date. If you fax 

your written statement to the 

Department, we must receive the faxed 

statement no later than two weeks 

before the application deadline date. 

Address and mail or fax your 

statement to: Carol Lyons, U.S. 

Department of Education, 400 Maryland 

Avenue SW., Room 4W203, 

Washington, DC 20202–5930. FAX: 

(202) 205–5631. 

Your paper application must be 

submitted in accordance with the mail 

or hand delivery instructions described 

in this notice. 

b. Submission of Paper Applications 

by Mail. 

If you qualify for an exception to the 

electronic submission requirement, you 

may mail (through the U.S. Postal 

Service or a commercial carrier) your 

application to the Department. You 

must mail the original and two copies 

of your application, on or before the 

application deadline date, to the 

Department at the following address: 

U.S. Department of Education, 

Application Control Center, Attention: 

(CFDA Number 84.411C), LBJ Basement 

Level 1, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20202–4260. 

You must show proof of mailing 

consisting of one of the following: 

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

postmark. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
11098 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 2012 / Notices 

10The 2011 Notice of Final i3 Revisions 

establishes that the Secretary may use one or more 

of the selection criteria established in the 2010 i3 

NFP, 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 

(Scale-up, Validation, and Development) in an i3 

competition. 

(2) A legible mail receipt with the 

date of mailing stamped by the U.S. 

Postal Service. 

(3) A dated shipping label, invoice, or 

receipt from a commercial carrier. 

(4) Any other proof of mailing 

acceptable to the Secretary of the U.S. 

Department of Education. 

If you mail your application through 

the U.S. Postal Service, we do not 

accept either of the following as proof 

of mailing: 

(1) A private metered postmark. 

(2) A mail receipt that is not dated by 

the U.S. Postal Service. If your 

application is postmarked after the 

application deadline date, we will not 

consider your application. 

Note: The U.S. Postal Service does not 

uniformly provide a dated postmark. Before 

relying on this method, you should check 

with your local post office. 

c. Submission of Paper Applications 

by Hand Delivery. 

If you qualify for an exception to the 

electronic submission requirement, you 

(or a courier service) may deliver your 

paper application to the Department by 

hand. You must deliver the original and 

two copies of your application by hand, 

on or before the application deadline 

date, to the Department at the following 

address: U.S. Department of Education, 

Application Control Center, Attention: 

(CFDA Number 84.411C), 550 12th 

Street SW., Room 7041, Potomac Center 

Plaza, Washington, DC 20202–4260. 

The Application Control Center 

accepts hand deliveries daily between 8 

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

time, except Saturdays, Sundays, and 

Federal holidays. 

Note for Mail or Hand Delivery of Paper 

Applications: If you mail or hand deliver 

your application to the Department— 

(1) You must indicate on the envelope 

and—if not provided by the Department—in 

Item 11 of the SF 424 the CFDA number, 

including suffix letter, if any, of the 

competition under which you are submitting 

your application; and 

(2) The Application Control Center will 

mail to you a notification of receipt of your 

grant application. If you do not receive this 

notification within 15 business days from the 

application deadline date, you should call 

the U.S. Department of Education 

Application Control Center at (202) 245– 

6288. 

V. Application Review Information 

1. Selection Criteria: This competition 

has separate selection criteria for preapplications and full applications. The 

selection criteria for the Development 

competition are from the 2010 i3 NFP 

and from 34 CFR 75.210.10 The points 

assigned to each criterion are indicated 

in the parenthesis next to the criterion. 

An applicant may earn up to a total of 

20 points based on the selection criteria 

for the pre-application. An applicant 

may earn up to a total of 100 selection 

criteria points and up to a total of two 

competitive preference points for the 

full application. 

Note: In responding to the selection 

criteria, applicants, for pre- and full 

applications, should keep in mind that peer 

reviewers may consider only the information 

provided in the written application when 

scoring and commenting on the application. 

Therefore, applicants should draft their 

responses with the goal of helping peer 

reviewers understand: 

• What the applicant is proposing to do, 

including the single Absolute Priority under 

which the applicant intends the application 

to be reviewed; 

• How the proposed project will improve 

upon existing products, processes, or 

strategies for addressing similar needs; 

• What the outcomes of the project will be 

if it is successful; and 

• What the proposed project will cost and 

why the proposed project is an effective use 

of funds. 

Selection Criteria for the Development 

Grant Pre-Application: 

A. Quality of Project Design (up to 10 

points). 

The Secretary considers the quality of 

the design of the proposed project. In 

determining the quality of the project 

design, the Secretary considers the 

following factors: 

(1) The extent to which the proposed 

project has a clear set of goals and an 

explicit strategy, with actions that are 

(a) aligned with the priorities the 

eligible applicant is seeking to meet, 

and (b) expected to result in achieving 

the goals, objectives, and outcomes of 

the proposed project. (2010 i3 NFP) 

(2) The extent to which the costs are 

reasonable in relation to the objectives, 

design, and potential significance of the 

proposed project. (34 CFR 75.210) 

Note: In responding to this criterion, the 

Secretary encourages the applicant to 

describe what the applicant proposes to do 

in the proposed project, how the applicant 

will do it, what the project costs are, and why 

those costs are sufficient and reasonable to 

achieve the goals, objectives, and outcomes. 

B. Significance (up to 10 points). 

The Secretary considers the 

significance of the project. In 

determining the significance of the 

project, the Secretary considers the 

following factors: 

(1) The extent to which the proposed 

project represents an exceptional 

approach to the priority or priorities 

established for the competition. (34 CFR 

75.210) 

(2) The potential contribution of the 

proposed project to the development 

and advancement of theory, knowledge, 

and practices in the field of study. (34 

CFR 75.210) 

Note: In responding to this criterion, the 

Secretary encourages applicants to address 

the likely impact of the proposed project if 

it is successful and how the project would 

move the field (as opposed to only the 

entities or individuals being served with 

grant funds) forward. 

Selection Criteria for the Development 

Grant Full Application: 

A. Quality of the Project Design (up to 

25 points). 

The Secretary considers the quality of 

the design of the proposed project. In 

determining the quality of the project 

design, the Secretary considers the 

following factors: 

(1) The extent to which the proposed 

project has a clear set of goals and an 

explicit strategy, with actions that are 

(a) aligned with the priorities the 

eligible applicant is seeking to meet, 

and (b) expected to result in achieving 

the goals, objectives, and outcomes of 

the proposed project. (2010 i3 NFP) 

(2) The eligible applicant’s estimate of 

the cost of the proposed project, which 

includes the start-up and operating costs 

per student per year (including indirect 

costs) for reaching the total number of 

students proposed to be served by the 

project. The eligible applicant must 

include an estimate of the costs for the 

eligible applicant or others (including 

other partners) to reach 100,000, 

250,000, and 500,000 students. (2010 i3 

NFP) 

Note: The Secretary considers cost 

estimates both (a) to assess the 

reasonableness of the costs relative to the 

objectives, design, and potential significance 

for the total number of students to be served 

by the proposed project, which is determined 

by the eligible applicant, and (b) to 

understand the possible costs for the eligible 

applicant or others (including other partners) 

to reach the scaling targets of 100,000, 

250,000, and 500,000 students for 

Development grants. An eligible applicant is 

free to propose the number of students it will 

serve under its project, and is expected to 

reach that number of students by the end of 

the grant period. The scaling targets, in 

contrast, are theoretical and allow peer 

reviewers to assess the cost-effectiveness 

generally of proposed projects, particularly in 

cases where an initial investment may be 

required to support projects that operate at 

reduced cost in the future, whether 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 2012 / Notices 11099 

implemented by the eligible applicant or any 

other entity. Grantees are not required to 

reach these numbers during the grant period. 

(3) The extent to which the costs are 

reasonable in relation to the objectives, 

design, and potential significance of the 

proposed project. (34 CFR 75.210) 

(4) The potential and planning for the 

incorporation of project purposes, 

activities, or benefits into the ongoing 

work of the eligible applicant and any 

other partners at the end of the 

Development grant. (2010 i3 NFP) 

Note: In responding to this criterion, the 

Secretary encourages the applicant to address 

what the applicant proposes to do for the 

proposed project, how the applicant will do 

it, what the project costs will be, why the 

project costs will be sufficient and reasonable 

to achieve the goals, objectives, and 

outcomes of the proposed project, and how 

the project costs would change if the project 

were scaled to serve a larger number of 

students (i.e., which of the costs are fixed 

regardless of how many students are served 

and which of the costs are variable and 

increase as more students are served). 

Additionally, an applicant may wish to 

address why the project costs are reasonable 

compared to what the project will 

accomplish, particularly in comparison to 

similar projects or alternative ways of 

achieving similar outcomes. 

B. Significance (up to 35 points). 

The Secretary considers the 

significance of the project. In 

determining the significance of the 

project, the Secretary considers the 

following factors: 

(1) The extent to which the proposed 

project represents an exceptional 

approach to the priority or priorities 

established for the competition. (34 CFR 

75.210) 

(2) The potential contribution of the 

proposed project to the development 

and advancement of theory, knowledge, 

and practices in the field of study. (34 

CFR 75.210) 

(3) The extent to which the eligible 

applicant demonstrates that, if funded, 

the proposed project likely will have a 

positive impact, as measured by the 

importance or magnitude of the effect, 

on improving student achievement or 

student growth, closing achievement 

gaps, decreasing dropout rates, 

increasing high school graduation rates, 

or increasing college enrollment and 

completion rates. (2010 i3 NFP) 

Note: In responding to this criterion, the 

Secretary encourages the applicant to explain 

what is exceptional about how the proposed 

project addresses the absolute priority under 

which the applicant is submitting its i3 

application. Also, the Secretary encourages 

the applicant to explain how the proposed 

project fits into existing national and 

international theory, knowledge, or practice, 

and how it will move the field (as opposed 

to only the entities or individuals being 

served with grant funds) forward. 

Additionally, the Secretary encourages the 

applicant to quantify the impact if the 

proposed project is successful and why the 

applicant expects the proposed project to 

have the described impact (i.e., describe what 

existing evidence or theory supports that 

level of impact). 

C. Quality of the Management Plan 

and Personnel (up to 20 points). 

The Secretary considers the quality of 

the management plan and personnel for 

the proposed project. In determining the 

quality of the management plan and 

personnel for the proposed project, the 

Secretary considers the following 

factors: 

(1) The adequacy of the management 

plan to achieve the objectives of the 

proposed project on time and within 

budget, including clearly defined 

responsibilities, timelines, and 

milestones for accomplishing project 

tasks, as well as tasks related to the 

sustainability and scalability of the 

proposed project. (2010 i3 NFP) 

(2) The qualifications, including 

relevant training and experience, of the 

project director and key project 

personnel, especially in managing 

projects of the size and scope of the 

proposed project. (34 CFR 75.210) 

Note: In responding to this criterion, the 

Secretary encourages applicants to address 

how the team’s prior experiences have 

prepared them for implementing the 

proposed project successfully. 

D. Quality of Project Evaluation (up to 

20 points). 

The Secretary considers the quality of 

the project evaluation. In determining 

the quality of the project evaluation to 

be conducted, the Secretary considers 

the following factors: 

(1) The extent to which the methods 

of evaluation will provide high-quality 

implementation data and performance 

feedback, and permit periodic 

assessment of progress toward achieving 

intended outcomes. (2010 i3 NFP) 

(2) The extent to which the evaluation 

will provide sufficient information 

about the key elements and approach of 

the project to facilitate further 

development, replication, or testing in 

other settings. (2010 i3 NFP) 

(3) The extent to which the proposed 

project plan includes sufficient 

resources to carry out the project 

evaluation effectively. (2010 i3 NFP) 

Note: In responding to this criterion, the 

Secretary encourages applicants to describe 

the key evaluation questions and address 

how the proposed evaluation methodologies 

will allow the project to answer those 

questions. This may include whether the 

evaluation would produce information about 

the effectiveness of the proposed project with 

the specific student populations being served 

with grant funds. Further, the Secretary 

encourages applicants to identify what 

implementation and performance data the 

evaluation will generate and how the 

evaluation will provide data during the 

period to help indicate whether the project 

is on track to meet its goals. Finally, 

applicants should address whether the 

budget allocates sufficient resources to 

support the planned evaluation. 

We encourage eligible applicants to 

review the following technical 

assistance resources on evaluation: 

(1) What Works Clearinghouse 

Procedures and Standards Handbook: 

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

idocviewer/ 

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

IES/NCEE Technical Methods papers: 

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/tech_methods/. 

2. Review and Selection Process: In 

order to receive an i3 Development 

grant, an entity must submit a preapplication. The pre-application will be 

reviewed and scored by peer reviewers 

using two selection criteria established 

in this notice. Only entities that 

submitted top-rated pre-applications 

will be eligible to submit full 

applications. The Department will 

inform the entities that submitted preapplications of their eligibility to submit 

full applications. Scores received on 

pre-applications will not carry over to 

the review of the full application. 

As described earlier in this notice, 

before making awards, the Department 

will screen pre- and full applications 

submitted in accordance with the 

requirements in this notice and will 

determine which applications have met 

eligibility and other statutory 

requirements. This screening process 

may occur at various stages of the preapplication and full application 

processes and applicants that are 

determined ineligible will not receive a 

grant regardless of peer reviewer scores 

or comments. 

The Department will use independent 

peer reviewers with various 

backgrounds and professions including 

pre-kindergarten–12 teachers and 

principals, college and university 

educators, researchers and evaluators, 

social entrepreneurs, strategy 

consultants, grant makers and managers, 

and others with education expertise. 

The Department will thoroughly screen 

all reviewers for conflicts of interest to 

ensure a fair and competitive review 

process. 

Reviewers will read, prepare a written 

evaluation, and score the assigned preapplications and full applications, using 

the respective selection criteria 

provided in this notice. For 

Development pre-applications, the 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
11100 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 2012 / Notices 

Department, depending on the number 

of submissions, may use a multi-tiered 

review process. For full applications 

submitted for Development grants, peer 

reviewers will review and score the 

applications based on all four selection 

criteria. If eligible applicants have 

chosen to address competitive 

preference priorities (a maximum of 

two) for purposes of earning competitive 

preference priority points, reviewers 

will review and score those competitive 

preference priorities as part of the peer 

review of the full applications. If 

competitive preference priority points 

are awarded, those points will be added 

to the eligible applicant’s full 

application score. 

We remind potential applicants that 

in reviewing applications in any 

discretionary grant competition, the 

Secretary may consider, under 34 CFR 

75.217(d)(3), the past performance of the 

applicant in carrying out a previous 

award, such as the applicant’s use of 

funds, achievement of project 

objectives, and compliance with grant 

conditions. The Secretary may also 

consider whether the applicant failed to 

submit a timely performance report or 

submitted a report of unacceptable 

quality. 

In addition, in making a competitive 

grant award, the Secretary also requires 

various assurances including those 

applicable to Federal civil rights laws 

that prohibit discrimination in programs 

or activities receiving Federal financial 

assistance from the Department of 

Education (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 

108.8, and 110.23). 

3. Special Conditions: Under 34 CFR 

74.14 and 80.12, the Secretary may 

impose special conditions on a grant if 

the applicant or grantee is not 

financially stable; has a history of 

unsatisfactory performance; has a 

financial or other management system 

that does not meet the standards in 34 

CFR parts 74 or 80, as applicable; has 

not fulfilled the conditions of a prior 

grant; or is otherwise not responsible. 

VI. Award Administration Information 

1. Award Notices: If your full 

application is successful, we notify your 

U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators 

and send you a Grant Award 

Notification (GAN). We may notify you 

informally, also. 

If your pre-application is not 

evaluated, or following the submission 

of your pre-application you are not 

invited to submit a full application, we 

notify you. If your full application is not 

evaluated or not selected for funding, 

we notify you. 

2. Administrative and National Policy 

Requirements: We identify 

administrative and national policy 

requirements in the application package 

and reference these and other 

requirements in the Applicable 

Regulations section of this notice. 

We reference the regulations outlining 

the terms and conditions of an award in 

the Applicable Regulations section of 

this notice and include these and other 

specific conditions in the GAN. The 

GAN also incorporates your approved 

application as part of your binding 

commitments under the grant. 

3. Reporting: (a) If you apply for a 

grant under this competition, you must 

ensure that you have in place the 

necessary processes and systems to 

comply with the reporting requirements 

in 2 CFR part 170 should you receive 

funding under the competition. This 

does not apply if you have an exception 

under 2 CFR 170.110(b). 

(b) At the end of your project period, 

you must submit a final performance 

report, including financial information, 

as directed by the Secretary. If you 

receive a multi-year award, you must 

submit an annual performance report 

that provides the most current 

performance and financial expenditure 

information as directed by the Secretary 

under 34 CFR 75.118. The Secretary 

may also require more frequent 

performance reports under 34 CFR 

75.720(c). For specific requirements on 

reporting, please go to www.ed.gov/ 

fund/grant/apply/appforms/ 

appforms.html. 

4. Performance Measures: The overall 

purpose of the i3 program is to expand 

the implementation of, and investment 

in, innovative practices that are 

demonstrated to have an impact on 

improving student achievement or 

student growth for high-need students. 

We have established several 

performance measures for the i3 

Development grants. 

Short-term performance measures: (1) 

The percentage of grantees whose 

projects are being implemented with 

fidelity to the approved design; (2) the 

percentage of programs, practices, or 

strategies supported by a Development 

grant with ongoing evaluations that 

provide evidence of their promise for 

improving student outcomes; (3) the 

percentage of programs, practices, or 

strategies supported by a Development 

grant with ongoing evaluations that are 

providing high-quality implementation 

data and performance feedback that 

allow for periodic assessment of 

progress toward achieving intended 

outcomes; and (4) the cost per student 

actually served by the grant. 

Long-term performance measures: (1) 

The percentage of programs, practices, 

or strategies supported by a 

Development grant with a completed 

evaluation that provides evidence of 

their promise for improving student 

outcomes; (2) the percentage of 

programs, practices, or strategies 

supported by a Development grant with 

a completed evaluation that provides 

information about the key elements and 

approach of the project so as to facilitate 

further development, replication, or 

testing in other settings; and (3) the cost 

per student for programs, practices, or 

strategies that were proven promising at 

improving educational outcomes for 

students. 

5. Continuation Awards: In making a 

continuation award, the Secretary may 

consider, under 34 CFR 75.253, the 

extent to which a grantee has made 

‘‘substantial progress toward meeting 

the objectives in its approved 

application.’’ This consideration 

includes the review of a grantee’s 

progress in meeting the targets and 

projected outcomes in its approved 

application, and whether the grantee 

has expended funds in a manner that is 

consistent with its approved application 

and budget. In making a continuation 

grant, the Secretary also considers 

whether the grantee is operating in 

compliance with the assurances in its 

approved application, including those 

applicable to Federal civil rights laws 

that prohibit discrimination in programs 

or activities receiving Federal financial 

assistance from the Department (34 CFR 

100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23). 

VII. Agency Contact 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Carol Lyons, U.S. Department of 

Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., 

Room 4W203, Washington, DC 20202– 

5930. FAX: (202) 205–5631. Telephone: 

(202) 453–7122 or by email: i3@ed.gov. 

If you use a TDD or a TTY, call toll 

free, at 1–800–877–8339. 

VIII. Other Information 

Accessible Format: Individuals with 

disabilities can obtain this document 

and a copy of the application package in 

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

print, audiotape, or compact disc) on 

request to the program contact person 

listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT in section VII of this notice. 

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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 2012 / Notices 11101 

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 

search feature at this site, you can limit 

your search to documents published by 

the Department. 

Dated: February 21, 2012. 

James H. Shelton, III, 

Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and 

Improvement. 

[FR Doc. 2012–4357 Filed 2–23–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

Applications for New Awards; Native 

Hawaiian Education Program 

AGENCY: Office of Elementary and 

Secondary Education, Department of 

Education. 

ACTION: Notice. 

Overview Information: 

Native Hawaiian Education Program. 

Notice inviting applications for new 

awards for fiscal year (FY) 2012. 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

(CFDA) Number: 84.362A. 

DATES: Applications Available: February 

24, 2012. 

Deadline for Transmittal of 

Applications: April 24, 2012. 

Full Text of Announcement 

I. Funding Opportunity Description 

Purpose of Program: The purpose of 

the Native Hawaiian Education (NHE) 

program is to support innovative 

projects that enhance the educational 

services provided to Native Hawaiian 

children and adults. These projects may 

include those activities authorized 

under section 7205(a)(3) of the 

Elementary and Secondary Education 

Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA). 

Congress expressly authorized that FY 

2012 program funds may be used to 

support the construction, renovation, or 

modernization of any elementary 

school, secondary school, or structure 

related to an elementary school or 

secondary school, that is run by the 

Department of Education of the State of 

Hawaii that serves a predominately 

Native Hawaiian student body. 

Priorities: This competition includes 

six competitive preference priorities. In 

accordance with 34 CFR 

75.105(b)(2)(iv), competitive preference 

priorities one through four are from 

section 7205(a)(2) of the ESEA (20 

U.S.C. 7515(a)(2)). Competitive 

preference priorities five and six are 

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). 

Competitive Preference Priorities: For 

FY 2012 and any subsequent year in 

which we make awards from the list of 

unfunded applicants from this 

competition, these priorities are 

competitive preference priorities. Under 

34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i) we award up to 

an additional 12 points to an 

application, depending on how well the 

application meets one or more of these 

priorities. 

These priorities are: 

Competitive Preference Priority 1— 

Needs of At-risk Children and Youth. 

(Up to 2 points). 

Projects that are designed to address 

the needs of at-risk children and youth. 

Competitive Preference Priority 2— 

Native Hawaiian Underemployment. 

(Up to 2 points). 

Projects that are designed to address 

needs in fields or disciplines in which 

Native Hawaiians are underemployed. 

Competitive Preference Priority 3— 

Hawaiian Language Instruction. (Up to 

2 points). 

Projects that are designed to address 

the use of the Hawaiian language in 

instruction. 

Competitive Preference Priority 4— 

Beginning Reading and Literacy. (Up to 

2 points). 

Projects that are designed to address 

beginning reading and literacy among 

students in kindergarten through third 

grade. 

Competitive Preference Priority 5— 

Improving Early Learning Outcomes. 

(Up to 2 points). 

Projects that are designed to improve 

school readiness and success for highneed children (as defined in this notice) 

from birth through third grade (or for 

any age group of high-need children 

within this range) through a focus on 

one or more of the following priority 

areas: 

(a) Physical well-being and motor 

development. 

(b) Social-emotional development. 

(c) Language and literacy 

development. 

(d) Cognition and general knowledge, 

including early numeracy and early 

scientific development. 

(e) Approaches toward learning. 

Competitive Preference Priority 6— 

Improving Achievement and High 

School Graduation Rates. (Up to 2 

points). 

Projects that are designed to address 

one or more of the following priority 

areas: 

(a) Accelerating learning and helping 

to improve high school graduation rates 

(as defined in this notice) and college 

enrollment rates for students in rural 

local educational agencies (as defined in 

this notice). 

(b) Accelerating learning and helping 

to improve high school graduation rates 

(as defined in this notice) and college 

enrollment rates for students with 

disabilities. 

(c) Accelerating learning and helping 

to improve high school graduation rates 

(as defined in this notice) and college 

enrollment rates for English learners. 

(d) Accelerating learning and helping 

to improve high school graduation rates 

(as defined in this notice) and college 

enrollment rates for high-need students 

(as defined in this notice). 

(e) Accelerating learning and helping 

to improve high school graduation rates 

(as defined in this notice) and college 

enrollment rates in high-poverty schools 

(as defined in this notice). 

(f) Accelerating learning and helping 

to improve high school graduation rates 

(as defined in this notice) and college 

enrollment rates for all students in an 

inclusive manner that ensures that the 

specific needs of high-need students (as 

defined in this notice) participating in 

the project are addressed. 

Note: In order to receive additional points 

under a competitive preference priority, an 

application must provide adequate and 

sufficient information that clearly 

substantiates its claim that it meets the 

competitive priority. 

Definitions: These definitions are 

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). 

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. 

High-need children and high-need 

students means children and students at 

risk of educational failure, such as 

children and students who are living in 

poverty, who are English learners, who 

are far below grade level or who are not 

on track to becoming college- or careerready by graduation, who have left 

school or college before receiving, 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES