Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 59 / Tuesday, March 27, 2012 / Notices 18229 

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 the 

FRS, 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 

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: March 21, 2012. 

James H. Shelton, III, 

Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and 

Improvement. 

[FR Doc. 2012–7362 Filed 3–26–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

Applications for New Awards; 

Investing in Innovation Fund, 

Validation Grants 

AGENCY: Office of Innovation and 

Improvement, Department of Education. 

ACTION: Notice. 

Overview Information 

Investing in Innovation Fund, 

Validation Grants Notice Inviting 

Applications for New Awards for Fiscal 

Year (FY) 2012 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

(CFDA) Number: 84.411B (Validation grants). 

DATES: 

Applications Available: March 29, 

2012. 

Deadline for Notice of Intent to Apply: 

April 16, 2012. 

Deadline for Transmittal of 

Applications: May 29, 2012. 

Deadline for Intergovernmental 

Review: July 25, 2012. 

Full Text of Announcement 

I. Funding Opportunity Description 

Purpose of Program: The Investing in 

Innovation Fund (i3), 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 Validation grants. The 

notice inviting applications for Scale-up 

grants is published elsewhere in this 

issue of the Federal Register. The notice 

inviting applications for Development 

grants was published in the Federal 

Register on February 24, 2012 (77 FR 

11087) and is available at http:// 

www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR–2012–02– 

24/pdf/2012–4357.pdf. 

Validation grants provide funding to 

support practices, strategies, or 

programs that show promise, but for 

which there is currently only moderate 

evidence (as defined in this notice) that 

the proposed practice, strategy, or 

program will have a statistically 

significant effect on improving student 

achievement or student growth, closing 

achievement gaps, decreasing dropout 

rates, increasing high school graduation 

rates, or increasing college enrollment 

and completion rates and that, with 

further study, the effect of implementing 

the proposed practice, strategy, or 

program may prove to be substantial 

and important. Scale-up grants require 

applicants to have strong evidence (as 

defined in this notice) to support their 

proposed project. Applications for 

Validation grants do not need to have 

the same level of research evidence to 

support the proposed project as is 

required for Scale-up grants. An 

applicant for a Validation grant may 

also demonstrate success through an 

intermediate variable strongly correlated 

with these outcomes, such as teacher or 

principal effectiveness. 

An applicant for a Validation grant 

must estimate the number of students to 

be reached by the proposed project and 

provide evidence of its capacity to reach 

the proposed number of students during 

the course of the grant. In addition, an 

applicant for a Validation grant must 

provide evidence of its capacity (e.g., 

qualified personnel, financial resources, 

management capacity) to scale up to a 

State or regional level, working directly 

or through partners either during or 

following the grant period. We 

recognize that LEAs are not typically 

responsible for taking to scale their 

practices, strategies, or programs in 

other LEAs and States. However, all 

applicants, including LEAs, can and 

should partner with others to 

disseminate and take to scale their 

effective practice, strategy, or program. 

The Department will screen 

applications that are submitted for 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

18230 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 59 / Tuesday, March 27, 2012 / Notices 

1http://www.brookings.edu/reports/2012/ 

0216_brown_education_loveless.aspx. 

2The 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. 

Validation grants in accordance with the 

requirements in this notice, and 

determine which applications have met 

the eligibility and other requirements in 

this notice. Peer reviewers will review 

all Validation grant applications that are 

submitted by the established deadline. 

However, if the Department determines 

that an application for a Validation 

grant does not meet the definition of 

moderate evidence in this notice, or any 

other eligibility requirement, the 

Department will not consider the 

application for funding. 

The 2012 i3 Validation and Scale-up 

competitions again include an absolute 

priority focused on innovations that 

complement the implementation of high 

standards and high-quality assessments. 

There has been much recent discussion 

about whether high standards, on their 

own, are likely to improve student 

achievement. As reports such as the 

2012 Brown Center Report on American 

Education 1 point out, the 

implementation of such standards is 

crucial to any impact that they may 

have. This points to the urgent need for 

practices, strategies, or programs 

(referred to elsewhere simply as 

‘‘practices’’) that will help teachers, 

principals, and others apply new 

standards and use new assessments in 

ways that improve student achievement. 

This need is particularly time-sensitive, 

as much of the implementation of these 

standards and assessments will occur in 

the next several years. As such, 

practices that demonstrate effectiveness 

and meet the rigorous evidence 

requirements of Validation and Scale-up 

grants are of particular interest to the 

Department. 

Validation and Scale-up grants 

require ambitious targets for the 

expansion of effective practices (called 

‘‘scaling up’’ in the i3 competition). The 

Department believes that scaling up 

effective practices will improve student 

outcomes, as more effective practices 

replace less effective solutions to the 

same problems. In both the Validation 

and Scale-up grant competitions, the 

Department is particularly interested in 

projects that have a well-articulated 

plan for scaling up and a well-defined 

set of challenges or barriers that the 

Validation or Scale-up funding will 

enable the applicant to overcome. Using 

i3 funding to address known barriers to 

scaling up allows i3’s limited funding to 

increase the likelihood that the work of 

successful projects endures and expands 

after Federal funding expires. 

Finally, rigorous evaluation is an 

essential component of all i3 grants— 

particularly for Validation and Scale-up 

projects. The Department is especially 

interested in evaluations that go beyond 

addressing whether a practice is 

effective to identifying and formalizing 

the key features of a model and the 

factors that contribute to the model’s 

success. In particular, the Department is 

interested in better understanding for 

whom and in what contexts particular 

practices are effective. The Department 

believes that generating this information 

is an important way to increase the use 

of effective practices in settings across 

the country. As indicated by the 

inclusion of cost-effectiveness as a 

selection criterion, the Department also 

encourages evaluations that produce 

reliable estimates of the costeffectiveness of grantees’ practices. 

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 Validation 

Competition 

The absolute priority focused on 

teacher and principal effectiveness 

(Absolute Priority 1) now uses the 

language from the Improving the 

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). 

Priorities: This competition includes 

five absolute priorities and five 

competitive preference priorities. These 

priorities are from the 2010 i3 NFP 2 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 78486–78511), 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 

Validation 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 Validation grant 

must choose one of the five absolute 

priorities contained in this notice and 

address that priority in its application. 

An applicant must provide information 

on how its proposed project addresses 

the selection criteria in the project 

narrative section of its application. 

These priorities are: 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 59 / Tuesday, March 27, 2012 / Notices 18231 

3For 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. 

‘‘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 and, with respect to the 

term ‘‘student achievement,’’ to Competitive 

Preference Priority 10. Elsewhere in this notice the 

use of these terms refers to the i3 definitions 

established in the 2010 i3 NFP that are provided in 

the Definitions section of this notice. 

4Consistent with the Race to the Top Fund, the 

Department interprets the core academic subject of 

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

include STEM education (science, technology, 

engineering, and mathematics) which encompasses 

a wide-range of disciplines, including computer 

science. 

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 

Continued 

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 the footnote to 

this priority) 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 or student 

growth (as defined in the footnote to 

this priority) data 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) 3

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—Innovations That 

Complement the Implementation of 

High Standards and High-Quality 

Assessments 

Under this priority, the Department 

provides funding for practices, 

strategies, or programs that are designed 

to support States’ efforts to transition to 

standards and assessments that measure 

students’ progress toward college- and 

career-readiness, including curricular 

and instructional practices, strategies, or 

programs in core academic subjects (as 

defined in section 9101(11) of the 

Elementary and Secondary Education 

Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA)) that 

are aligned with high academic content 

and achievement standards and with 

high-quality assessments based on those 

standards.4 Proposed projects may 

include, but are not limited to, 

practices, strategies, or programs that 

are designed to: (a) Increase the success 

of under-represented student 

populations in academically rigorous 

courses and programs (such as 

Advanced Placement or International 

Baccalaureate courses; dual-enrollment 

programs; ‘‘early college high schools’’; 

and science, technology, engineering, 

and mathematics courses, especially 

those that incorporate rigorous and 

relevant project-, inquiry-, or designbased contextual learning 

opportunities); (b) increase the 

development and use of formative 

assessments or interim assessments, or 

other performance-based tools and 

‘‘metrics’’ that are aligned with high 

student content and academic 

achievement standards; or (c) translate 

the standards and information from 

assessments into classroom practices 

that meet the needs of all students, 

including high-need students. 

Under this priority, an eligible 

applicant must propose a project that is 

based on standards that are at least as 

rigorous as its State’s standards. If the 

proposed project is based on standards 

other than those adopted by the eligible 

applicant’s State, the applicant must 

explain how the standards are aligned 

with and at least as rigorous as the 

eligible applicant’s State’s standards as 

well as how the standards differ. (2010 

i3 NFP) 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

18232 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 59 / Tuesday, March 27, 2012 / Notices 

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. 

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 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. 

Applicants should 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. 

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. Therefore, an 

applicant must identify in the project 

narrative section of its application the 

priority or priorities it wishes the 

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 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. 

These 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 59 / Tuesday, March 27, 2012 / Notices 18233 

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. 

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. 

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 

Validation grants. The following definitions 

apply to the three types of grants under the 

i3 program (Scale-up, Validation, or 

Development). Therefore, some definitions 

included in this section—primarily those 

related to the demonstration of evidence— 

may be more applicable to applications for 

Scale-up 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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

18234 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 59 / Tuesday, March 27, 2012 / Notices 

9The information found at this link when the 

2010 i3 NFP was published can now be found at 

this link: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/ 

reference_resources/ 

wwc_procedures_v2_1_standards_handbook.pdf. 

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 9). 

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 Investing in 

Innovation Fund 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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 59 / Tuesday, March 27, 2012 / Notices 18235 

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. 

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, Pub. L. 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) (2010 i3 NFP). (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) (Supplemental Priorities). 

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 amount 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. 

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: Applicants should provide 

information addressing these eligibility 

requirements in Appendix C, under ‘‘Other 

Attachments Form,’’ of their applications. An 

applicant must provide sufficient supporting 

data or other information to allow the 

Department to determine whether the 

applicant has met these eligibility 

requirements. If the Department determines 

that an applicant has provided insufficient 

information in its application, the applicant 

will not have an opportunity to provide 

additional information. 

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) 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

18236 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 59 / Tuesday, March 27, 2012 / Notices 

10The 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 10 

percent of the grant award. 

Note about Eligibility for an Eligible 

Applicant that Includes a Nonprofit 

Organization: The authorizing statute 

specifies that an eligible applicant that 

includes a nonprofit organization 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 10 percent of its grant 

award.10 Selected eligible applicants 

must submit evidence of the full amount 

of private-sector matching funds 

following the peer review of 

applications. An award will not be 

made unless the applicant provides 

adequate evidence that the full 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) 

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 

Validation grant must be supported by 

moderate evidence (as defined in this 

notice). (2010 i3 NFP) 

Note: Applicants should provide 

information addressing the required evidence 

standards in Appendix D, under ‘‘Other 

Attachments Form,’’ of its application. 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 include copies of evidence in 

Appendix D of the application. 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 

application. 

• 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 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 sections 

of funded Validation 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 Appendix 

I, under ‘‘Other Attachments Form,’’ of 

their applications. In addition to 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 59 / Tuesday, March 27, 2012 / Notices 18237 

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 an application 

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 

1–800–877–8339. 

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 an application from ED 

Pubs, be sure to identify this program or 

competition as follows: CFDA number 

84.411B. 

Individuals with disabilities can 

obtain a copy of the 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. 

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 

Apply: April 16, 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 an application for 

funding by completing a web-based 

form. When completing this form, 

applicants will provide (1) the applicant 

organization’s name and address, (2) the 

type of grant for which the applicant 

intends to apply, (3) the one absolute 

priority the applicant intends to 

address, and (4) a maximum of two of 

the competitive preference priorities the 

applicant wishes the Department to 

consider for purposes of earning the 

competitive preference priority points. 

Applicants may access this form online 

at http://go.usa.gov/PVI. Applicants that 

do not complete this form may still 

apply for funding. 

Page Limit: The application narrative 

(Part III of the application) is where you, 

the applicant, address the selection 

criteria that reviewers use to evaluate 

your application. Applicants should 

limit the application narrative [Part III] 

for a Validation application to no more 

than 35 pages. Applicants are also 

strongly encouraged not to include 

lengthy appendices that contain 

information that could not be included 

in the narrative. Applicants 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 recommended page limit does not 

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

the budget section, including the 

narrative budget justification; Part IV, 

the assurances and certifications; or the 

one-page abstract, the resumes, the 

bibliography, or the letters of support. 

However, the recommended page limit 

does apply to all of the application 

narrative section [Part III]. 

4. Submission Dates and Times 

Applications Available: March 29, 

2012. 

Deadline for Notice of Intent To 

Apply: April 16, 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 

Applications: May 29, 2012. 

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 an application 

that does not comply with the deadline 

requirements. 

Individuals with disabilities who 

need an accommodation or auxiliary aid 

in connection with the application 

process should 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 application 

process, the individual’s application 

remains subject to all other 

requirements and limitations in this 

notice. 

Deadline for Intergovernmental 

Review: July 25, 2012. 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

18238 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 59 / Tuesday, March 27, 2012 / Notices 

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 at the following 

Grants.gov Web page: www.grants.gov/ 

applicants/get_registered.jsp. 

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 for grants under the i3 

program, CFDA number 84.411B 

(Validation 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 program 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 

(i.e., search for 84.411, not 84.411B). 

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. 

• 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 4:30:00 p.m., 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 59 / Tuesday, March 27, 2012 / Notices 18239 

11The 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. 

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) 205–5637. 

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 84.411B), LBJ Basement 

Level 1, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20202–4260. 

You must show proof of mailing 

consisting of one of the following: 

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

postmark. 

(2) A legible mail receipt with the 

date of mailing stamped by the U.S. 

Postal Service. 

(3) A dated shipping label, invoice, or 

receipt from a commercial carrier. 

(4) Any other proof of mailing 

acceptable to the Secretary of the U.S. 

Department of Education. 

If you mail your application through 

the U.S. Postal Service, we do not 

accept either of the following as proof 

of mailing: 

(1) A private metered postmark. 

(2) A mail receipt that is not dated by 

the U.S. Postal Service. 

If your application is postmarked after 

the application deadline date, we will 

not consider your application. 

Note: The U.S. Postal Service does not 

uniformly provide a dated postmark. Before 

relying on this method, you should check 

with your local post office. 

c. Submission of Paper Applications by 

Hand Delivery 

If you qualify for an exception to the 

electronic submission requirement, you 

(or a courier service) may deliver your 

paper application to the Department by 

hand. You must deliver the original and 

two copies of your application by hand, 

on or before the application deadline 

date, to the Department at the following 

address: U.S. Department of Education, 

Application Control Center, Attention: 

(CFDA Number 84.411B), 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 

The selection criteria for this 

competition are from the 2010 i3 NFP 

and from 34 CFR 75.210.11 The points 

assigned to each criterion are indicated 

in the parenthesis next to the criterion. 

Applicants may earn up to a total of 100 

points. 

Note: In responding to the selection 

criteria, applicants 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. 

The selection criteria for the 

Validation grant competition are as 

follows: 

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 potential and planning for the 

incorporation of project purposes, 

activities, or benefits into the ongoing 

work of the eligible applicant and any 

other partners at the end of the 

Validation grant. (2010 i3 NFP) 

(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 eligible applicant’s estimate of 

the cost of the proposed project, which 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

18240 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 59 / Tuesday, March 27, 2012 / Notices 

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 Validation 

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 implemented by 

the eligible applicant or any other entity. 

Grantees are not required to reach these 

numbers during the grant period. 

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 25 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 extent to which the services 

to be provided by the proposed project 

reflect up-to-date knowledge from 

research and effective practice. (34 CFR 

75.210) 

(3) The importance and magnitude of 

the effect expected to be obtained by the 

proposed project, including the extent 

to which the project will substantially 

and measurably improve student 

achievement or student growth, close 

achievement gaps, decrease dropout 

rates, increase high school graduation 

rates, or increase college enrollment and 

completion rates. The evidence in 

support of the importance and 

magnitude of the effect would be the 

research-based evidence provided by 

the eligible applicant to support the 

proposed project. (2010 i3 NFP) 

Note Linking Magnitude of Effect to 

Presented Evidence: The Secretary notes that 

the research evidence provided by the 

eligible applicant is relevant to addressing 

the third factor of Selection Criterion B, 

which concerns the importance and/or 

magnitude of the expected impact of the 

proposed project. 

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 reflects up-to-date knowledge from 

research and effective practice. Additionally, 

the Secretary encourages the applicant to 

quantify the potential impact of the proposed 

project, if successful, and the extent to which 

the project will measurably improve student 

achievement or student growth, close 

achievement gaps, decrease dropout rates, 

increase high school graduation rates, or 

increase college enrollment and completion 

rates. 

C. Quality of the Management Plan and 

Personnel (Up to 25 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 

complex projects. (2010 i3 NFP) 

(3) The eligible applicant’s capacity 

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

financial resources, or management 

capacity) to bring the proposed project 

to scale on a State or regional level (as 

appropriate, based on the results of the 

proposed project) working directly, or 

through other partners, either during or 

following the end of the grant period. 

(2010 i3 NFP) 

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. In addition, 

the Secretary encourages applicants to 

identify the resources that will be required to 

bring the project to the appropriate level of 

scale, and whether the applicant possesses 

those resources or how they will secure 

them. 

D. Quality of Project Evaluation (Up to 

25 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 include a welldesigned experimental study or a welldesigned quasi-experimental study. 

(2010 i3 NFP) 

(2) The extent to which the methods 

of evaluation will provide high-quality 

implementation data and performance 

feedback, and permit periodic 

assessment of progress toward achieving 

intended outcomes. (2010 i3 NFP) 

(3) The extent to which the evaluation 

will provide sufficient information 

about the key elements and approach of 

the project so as to facilitate replication 

or testing in other settings. (2010 i3 

NFP) 

(4) 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. 

Note: We encourage eligible applicants to 

review the following technical assistance 

resources on evaluation: (1) What Works 

Clearinghouse Procedures and Standards 

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

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 59 / Tuesday, March 27, 2012 / Notices 18241 

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 

The Department will screen 

applications submitted in accordance 

with the requirements in this notice, 

and will determine which applications 

have met eligibility and other statutory 

requirements. 

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 applications 

assigned to their panel, using the 

selection criteria provided in this 

notice. For Validation grant 

applications, the Department may 

conduct a two-tier review process to 

review and score all eligible 

applications. Should the Department 

conduct a two-tier review, reviewers 

will review and score all eligible 

Validation applications on the following 

three criteria: A. Quality of the Project 

Design; B. Significance; C. Quality of the 

Management Plan and Personnel. If 

eligible applicants have chosen to 

address the competitive preference 

priorities (a maximum of two) for 

purposes of earning the competitive 

preference priority points, reviewers 

will review and score those competitive 

preference priorities. If competitive 

preference points are awarded, those 

points will be added to the eligible 

applicant’s score. Eligible applications 

that score highly on these three criteria 

will then have the remaining criterion 

reviewed and scored by a different 

panel of reviewers. The remaining 

criterion is D. Quality of the Project 

Evaluation. 

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 application is successful, we 

notify your U.S. Representative and U.S. 

Senators and send you a Grant Award 

Notification (GAN). We may notify you 

informally, also. 

If your application is not evaluated or 

not selected for funding, we notify you. 

2. Administrative and National Policy 

Requirements 

We identify administrative and 

national policy requirements in the 

application package and reference these 

and other requirements in the 

Applicable Regulations section of this 

notice. 

We reference the regulations outlining 

the terms and conditions of an award in 

the Applicable Regulations section of 

this notice and include these and other 

specific conditions in the GAN. The 

GAN also incorporates your approved 

application as part of your binding 

commitments under the grant. 

3. Reporting 

(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 

Validation grants. 

Short-term performance measures: (1) 

The percentage of grantees that reach 

their annual target number of students 

as specified in the application; (2) the 

percentage of programs, practices, or 

strategies supported by a Validation 

grant with ongoing well-designed and 

independent evaluations that will 

provide evidence of their effectiveness 

at improving student outcomes; (3) the 

percentage of programs, practices, or 

strategies supported by a Validation 

grant with ongoing evaluations that are 

providing high-quality implementation 

data and performance feedback that 

allow for periodic assessment of 

progress toward achieving intended 

outcomes; and (4) the cost per student 

actually served by the grant. 

Long-term performance measures: (1) 

The percentage of grantees that reach 

the targeted number of students 

specified in the application; (2) the 

percentage of programs, practices, or 

strategies supported by a Validation 

grant that implement a completed welldesigned, well-implemented and 

independent evaluation that provides 

evidence of their effectiveness at 

improving student outcomes; (3) the 

percentage of programs, practices, or 

strategies supported by a Validation 

grant with a completed well-designed, 

well-implemented and independent 

evaluation that provides information 

about the key elements and the 

approach of the project so as to facilitate 

replication or testing in other settings; 

and (4) the cost per student for 

programs, practices, or strategies that 

were proven to be effective at improving 

educational outcomes for students. 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

18242 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 59 / Tuesday, March 27, 2012 / Notices 

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 the 

FRS, 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 

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: March 21, 2012. 

James H. Shelton, III, 

Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and 

Improvement. 

[FR Doc. 2012–7365 Filed 3–26–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Environmental Management SiteSpecific Advisory Board Chairs 

AGENCY: Department of Energy. 

ACTION: Notice of open meeting. 

SUMMARY: This notice announces a 

meeting of the Environmental 

Management Site-Specific Advisory 

Board (EM SSAB) Chairs. The Federal 

Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92– 

463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public 

notice of this meeting be announced in 

the Federal Register. 

DATES: Wednesday, April 18, 2012, 8 

a.m.–5 p.m.; Thursday, April 19, 2012, 

8 a.m.–12:15 p.m. 

ADDRESSES: Luther F. Carson Four 

Rivers Center, 100 Kentucky Avenue, 

Paducah, Kentucky 42001. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Catherine Alexander, Designated 

Federal Officer, U.S. Department of 

Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue 

SW., Washington, DC 20585; Phone: 

(202) 586–7711. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Purpose of the Board: The purpose of 

the Board is to make recommendations 

to DOE–EM and site management in the 

areas of environmental restoration, 

waste management, and related 

activities. 

Tentative Agenda Topics 

Wednesday, April 18, 2012 

Æ EM Program Update 

Æ Recognition of Departing Chairs 

Æ EM SSAB Chairs’ Round Robin: 

Chairs’ Site Reports 

Æ EM Headquarters Budget Update 

Æ EM Headquarters Waste Disposition 

Update 

Æ EM SSAB Chairs’ Round Robin: 

Cross-Complex Issues 

Thursday, April 19, 2012 

Æ DOE Headquarters News and Views 

Æ EM SSAB Best Practices: Leveraging 

Public Involvement 

Æ EM SSAB Chairs’ Roundtable 

Discussion: Product Development and 

Summary 

Public Participation: The EM SSAB 

Chairs welcome the attendance of the 

public at their advisory committee 

meetings and will make every effort to 

accommodate persons with physical 

disabilities or special needs. If you 

require special accommodations due to 

a disability, please contact Catherine 

Alexander at least seven days in 

advance of the meeting at the phone 

number listed above. Written statements 

may be filed either before or after the 

meeting with the Designated Federal 

Officer, Catherine Alexander, at the 

address or telephone listed above. 

Individuals who wish to make oral 

statements pertaining to agenda items 

should also contact Catherine 

Alexander. Requests must be received 

five days prior to the meeting and 

reasonable provision will be made to 

include the presentation in the agenda. 

The Designated Federal Officer is 

empowered to conduct the meeting in a 

fashion that will facilitate the orderly 

conduct of business. Individuals 

wishing to make public comment will 

be provided a maximum of five minutes 

to present their comments. 

Minutes: Minutes will be available by 

writing or calling Catherine Alexander 

at the address or phone number listed 

above. Minutes will also be available at 

the following Web site: http:// 

www.em.doe.gov/stakepages/ 

ssabchairs.aspx. 

Issued at Washington, DC, on March 20, 

2012. 

LaTanya R. Butler, 

Acting Deputy Committee Management 

Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2012–7306 Filed 3–26–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Secretary of Energy Advisory Board 

AGENCY: Department of Energy. 

ACTION: Notice of open meeting. 

SUMMARY: This notice announces an 

open meeting of the Secretary of Energy 

Advisory Board (SEAB). The Federal 

Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92– 

463, 86 Stat. 770) requires public notice 

of this meeting be announced in the 

Federal Register. 

DATES: Tuesday, April 17, 2012, 9 a.m.– 

4 p.m. 

ADDRESSES: Argonne National 

Laboratory, 9700 South Cass Avenue, 

Argonne, IL 60439. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Alyssa Morrissey, Deputy Designated 

Federal Officer, U.S. Department of 

Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue 

SW., Washington, DC 20585; telephone 

(202) 586–2926 or facsimile (202) 586– 

1441; email: seab@hq.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Purpose of the Board: The Board was 

reestablished to provide advice and 

recommendations to the Secretary on 

the Department’s basic and applied 

research, economic and national 

security policy, educational issues, 

operational issues and other activities as 

directed by the Secretary. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES