Vol. 78 Wednesday, 

No. 59 March 27, 2013 

Part II 

Department of Education 

34 CFR Subtitle A 

Final Priorities, Requirements, Definitions, and Selection Criteria—Investing 

in Innovation Fund; Applications for New Awards; Investing in Innovation 

Fund, Development Grants; Rule and Notice 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
18682 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 27, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

34 CFR Subtitle A 

RIN 1855–AA09 

[Docket No. ED–2012–OII–0027] 

Final Priorities, Requirements, 

Definitions, and Selection Criteria— 

Investing in Innovation Fund 

AGENCY: Office of Innovation and 

Improvement, Department of Education. 

ACTION: Final priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria. 

[CFDA Numbers: 84.411A, 84.411B, and 

84.411C] 

SUMMARY: The Assistant Deputy 

Secretary for Innovation and 

Improvement announces priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria under the Investing in 

Innovation Fund (i3). The Assistant 

Deputy Secretary may use one or more 

of these priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria for 

competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2013 

and later years. 

We clarify and redesign key aspects of 

the program by incorporating lessons 

learned from past i3 competitions. 

Specifically, we intend to improve the 

i3 program to better achieve its purposes 

and goal by making changes that will 

result in accelerating the identification 

of promising solutions to pressing 

challenges in K–12 public education, 

supporting the evaluation of the efficacy 

of such solutions, and developing new 

approaches to scaling effective practices 

to serve more students. 

DATES: These priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria are 

effective April 26, 2013. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Carol Lyons, U.S. Department of 

Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., 

Room 4W203 LBJ, Washington, DC 

20202. Telephone: (202) 453–7122 or by 

email: i3@ed.gov. 

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. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary 

Purpose of This Regulatory Action: 

The purpose of this action is to establish 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria that will enable 

effective grant making, resulting in the 

selection of high-quality applicants who 

propose to implement activities that are 

most likely to have a significant national 

impact on educational reform and 

improvement. This document refines 

the selection criteria for the i3 program 

to better articulate the expectations for 

the three types of i3 grants, provides 

greater clarity regarding the program’s 

evidence standards, widens the range of 

these standards by broadening the types 

of evidence that can be used to support 

Development grants, and identifies a 

comprehensive set of priorities that the 

Secretary may select from to use in an 

i3 grant competition for any given year. 

Summary of the Major Provisions of 

This Regulatory Action: This document 

establishes priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria that 

allow the Department to improve the 

design of the i3 program to better 

achieve its purposes and goals. 

This document includes 11 priorities 

that the Secretary may select from when 

establishing priorities for each type of 

grant (i.e., Development, Validation, and 

Scale-up) in an i3 competition in a 

given year. These priorities represent a 

range of education topics: 

• Improving the effectiveness of 

teachers or principals; 

• Improving low-performing schools; 

• Improving science, technology, 

engineering, and mathematics (STEM) 

education; 

• Improving academic outcomes for 

students with disabilities; 

• Improving academic outcomes for 

English learners (ELs); 

• Improving parent and family 

engagement; 

• Improving cost-effectiveness and 

productivity; 

• Effective use of technology; 

• Enabling broad adoption of effective 

practices; serving rural communities; 

and 

• Supporting novice applicants. 

Of these priorities, ten were proposed 

and one is added in response to public 

comment. Specifically, in order to 

expand the reach of the i3 program and 

encourage entities that have not applied 

previously for an i3 grant, we add a 

priority for ‘‘novice i3 applicants,’’ 

meaning applicants that have never 

received an i3 grant. 

The Secretary will consider several 

factors when selecting the priorities to 

use in a given competition, including 

the Department’s policy priorities, the 

need for new solutions in a particular 

priority area, the availability of other 

funding sources to support a particular 

priority area, and the results and lessons 

learned from i3 competitions. 

This document also clarifies and 

strengthens the requirements and 

definitions for the i3 program. For 

example, the i3 program focuses on K– 

12 public education. Therefore, we 

clarify that all i3 grantees must 

implement practices that serve students 

who are in grades K–12 at some point 

during the funding period. Further, we 

strengthen the project evaluation 

requirement so that i3 grantees will 

conduct high-quality evaluations that 

rigorously measure the effect of an i3- 

supported practice, at the proposed 

level of scale, on a relevant outcome (as 

defined in this document). We also 

revise the evidence standards and 

definitions so that applicants can better 

understand what is required to meet 

each level of evidence. 

Finally, this document establishes 

new selection criteria designed to 

ensure that applications selected for 

funding have the potential to generate 

substantial improvements in student 

achievement and other key outcomes 

and include well-articulated plans for 

the implementation and evaluation of 

the proposed project. Specifically, we 

include selection factors that consider a 

proposed project’s significance, the 

quality of the project design, the 

management plan, and the project 

evaluation, as well as the qualifications 

of key personnel. 

This document includes some 

revisions from the proposed priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria (NPP) (published in the Federal 

Register on December 14, 2012 (77 FR 

74407)). We discuss changes from the 

NPP in greater detail in the Analysis of 

Comments and Changes. We do not 

discuss minor technical or editorial 

changes. 

Costs and Benefits: The Secretary 

believes that these priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria do not impose significant costs 

on eligible local educational agencies 

(LEAs), nonprofit organizations, or other 

entities that would receive assistance 

through the i3 program. 

The Secretary believes that the costs 

imposed on applicants by these 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria are limited to 

paperwork burden related to preparing 

an application and that the benefits of 

implementing them outweigh any costs 

incurred by applicants. The costs of 

carrying out activities would be paid for 

with program funds and with matching 

funds provided by private-sector 

partners. Thus, the costs of 

implementation would not be a burden 

for any eligible applicants, including 

small entities. Please refer to the 

Regulatory Impact Analysis section in 

this preamble for a more complete 

discussion of the costs and benefits of 

this regulatory action. 

This document provides an 

accounting statement that estimates that 

approximately $140 million will 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 27, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 18683 

transfer from the Federal Government to 

LEAs and nonprofit organizations under 

this program. Please refer to the 

accounting statement in this preamble 

for a more detailed discussion. 

Purpose of Program: The i3 program 

is designed to generate and validate 

solutions to persistent educational 

challenges and to support the expansion 

of effective solutions across the country 

to serve substantially larger numbers of 

students. The central design element of 

the i3 program is its multi-tier structure 

that links the amount of funding that an 

applicant may receive to the quality of 

the evidence supporting the efficacy of 

the proposed project. Applicants 

proposing practices supported by 

limited evidence can receive relatively 

small grants that support the 

development and initial evaluation of 

promising practices and help to identify 

new solutions to pressing challenges; 

applicants proposing practices 

supported by evidence from rigorous 

evaluations, such as large randomized 

controlled trials, can receive sizable 

grants to support expansion across the 

Nation. This structure provides 

incentives for applicants to build 

evidence of effectiveness of their 

proposed projects and to address the 

barriers to serving more students across 

schools, districts, and States so that 

applicants can compete for more 

sizeable grants. 

As importantly, all i3 projects are 

required to generate additional evidence 

of effectiveness. All i3 grantees must use 

part of their budgets to conduct 

independent evaluations (as defined in 

this document) of their projects. This 

ensures that projects funded under the 

i3 program contribute significantly to 

improving the information available to 

practitioners and policymakers about 

which practices work, for which types 

of students, and in what contexts. 

The Department awards three types of 

grants under this program: 

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

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

grants differ in terms of the level of 

prior evidence of effectiveness required 

for consideration of funding, the level of 

scale the funded project should reach, 

and consequently the amount of funding 

available to support the project. We 

provide an overview to clarify the 

expectations for each grant type: 

1. Development grants provide 

funding to support the development or 

testing of practices that are supported by 

evidence of promise (as defined in this 

document) or strong theory (as defined 

in this document) and whose efficacy 

should be systematically studied. 

Development grants will support new or 

substantially more effective practices for 

addressing widely shared challenges. 

Development projects are novel and 

significant nationally, not projects that 

simply implement existing practices in 

additional locations or support needs 

that are primarily local in nature. 

All Development grantees must 

evaluate the effectiveness of the project 

at the level of scale proposed in the 

application. 

2. Validation grants provide funding 

to support expansion of projects 

supported by moderate evidence of 

effectiveness (as defined in this 

document) to the national or regional 

level (as defined in this document). 

Validation grants must further assess the 

effectiveness of the i3-supported 

practice through a rigorous evaluation, 

with particular focus on the populations 

for and the contexts in which the 

practice is most effective. We expect 

and consider it appropriate that each 

applicant will propose to use the 

Validation funding to build its capacity 

to deliver the i3-supported practice, 

particularly early in the funding period, 

to successfully reach the level of scale 

proposed in its application. 

Additionally, we expect each applicant 

to address any specific barriers to the 

growth or scaling of the organization or 

practice (including barriers related to 

cost-effectiveness) in order to deliver 

the i3-supported practice at the 

proposed level of scale and provide 

strategies to address these barriers as 

part of its proposed scaling plan. 

All Validation grantees must evaluate 

the effectiveness of the practice that the 

supported project implements and 

expands. We expect that these 

evaluations will be conducted in a 

variety of contexts and for a variety of 

students, will identify the core elements 

of the practice, and will codify the 

practices to support adoption or 

replication by the applicant and other 

entities. 

3. Scale-up grants provide funding to 

support expansion of projects supported 

by strong evidence of effectiveness (as 

defined in this document) to the 

national level (as defined in this 

document). In addition to improving 

outcomes for an increasing number of 

high-need students, Scale-up grants will 

generate information about the students 

and contexts for which a practice is 

most effective. We expect that Scale-up 

grants will increase practitioners’ and 

policymakers’ understanding of 

strategies that allow organizations or 

practices to expand quickly and 

efficiently while maintaining their 

effectiveness. 

Similar to Validation grants, all Scaleup grantees must evaluate the 

effectiveness of the i3-supported 

practice that the project implements and 

expands; this is particularly important 

in instances in which the proposed 

project includes changing the i3- 

supported practice in order to more 

efficiently reach the proposed level of 

scale (for example, by developing 

technology-enabled training tools). The 

evaluation of a Scale-up grant must 

identify the core elements of, and 

codify, the i3-supported practice that 

the project implements to support 

adoption or replication by other entities. 

We also expect that evaluations of 

Scale-up grants will be conducted in a 

variety of contexts and for a variety of 

students in order to determine the 

context(s) and population(s) for which 

the i3-supported practice is most 

effective. 

Program Authority: American Recovery 

and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), 

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

We published a notice of proposed 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria for this program in the 

Federal Register on December 14, 2012 

(77 FR 74407). That notice contained 

background information and our reasons 

for proposing the particular priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria. 

Public Comment: In response to our 

invitation in the proposed priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria, 37 parties submitted comments. 

We group major issues according to 

subject. Generally, we do not address 

technical and other minor changes. 

Analysis of Comments and Changes: 

An analysis of the comments and of any 

changes in the priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria since 

publication of the proposed priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria follows. 

Priorities 

Priorities—General 

Comment: Two commenters 

expressed support for the i3 program’s 

proposed approach of selecting from a 

variety of priorities, each containing 

several possible project focus areas, 

rather than using broad priorities as we 

have in the past. One commenter stated 

that the approach was strategic and 

would allow the Department to consider 

the sequencing of priority areas across 

years. One commenter stated that the 

proposed approach would allow 

flexibility and creativity that would 

facilitate wholesale transformation of 

the education field. 

Two commenters disagreed with the 

proposed approach. One stated that 

allowing the Department to select from 

a wide range of priorities and focus 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
18684 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 27, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

areas renders the priorities meaningless, 

and recommended that the Department 

focus on a smaller range of priorities 

that are designed to close achievement 

gaps in low-performing schools. 

Another commenter expressed concern 

that the Department’s proposed 

approach would narrow the range of 

projects funded under the i3 program by 

limiting the focus of the priorities to 

preconceived ideas of what works best 

in education. The commenter suggested 

that focusing on areas of acute need or 

encouraging applicants to address 

particular challenges would 

disadvantage applicants proposing more 

comprehensive approaches. 

Discussion: We appreciate the support 

from commenters regarding the 

proposed structure of the priorities. The 

flexibility to select from a variety of 

possible project focus areas (i.e., the 

subparts under each priority) within a 

given priority will allow the Secretary to 

prioritize areas based on the education 

environment in a given year. This 

flexibility will ensure that the i3 

program reflects priorities that are 

important and relevant to the field on an 

ongoing basis. 

We recognize that the priorities have 

several subparts; however the priorities 

will not be rendered meaningless 

because the notice inviting applications 

for each competition will provide a 

concise list of the priorities that 

establish a coherent and manageable 

focus. Further, we do not agree that this 

approach will narrow the range of 

projects funded under the i3 program, 

nor will it disadvantage comprehensive 

projects because the priorities— 

although specific about the need or 

challenge a project must address—do 

not prescribe the intervention or 

practice that an applicant could 

propose. Moreover, the i3 program may 

include a broader priority if the 

particular issue warrants it. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

achieving college, career, and 

citizenship-ready skills should be the 

core focus of the i3 program. The 

commenter explained that these skills 

are necessary for deeper learning and 

lifelong success. The commenter 

suggested that requiring all i3 projects to 

produce measures aligned with these 

outcomes would benefit the i3 program 

because the Department could then 

make comparisons across projects. 

Discussion: We agree that it is 

essential for students to be prepared to 

think critically, solve complex 

problems, and communicate effectively. 

While these ‘‘deeper learning’’ skills are 

important for long-term success, given 

the diversity of the projects under the i3 

program, applicants have discretion in 

determining the specific outcomes and 

measures that are relevant to their 

proposed projects. Moreover, nothing in 

the authorizing statute or the priorities, 

requirements, definitions, or selection 

criteria for this program prohibits 

eligible applicants from using deeper 

learning outcomes to evaluate their 

projects. In addition, subparts (d) and 

(e) of proposed priority 8 (Effective Use 

of Technology) are explicitly focused on 

the types of skills that are of interest to 

the commenter. 

Further, ARRA established the i3 

program to expand the implementation 

of, and investment in, innovative 

practices that are demonstrated to 

improve student achievement or student 

growth, close achievement gaps, 

decrease dropout rates, or increase high 

school graduation rates. Although we 

are not requiring all applicants to 

respond to any one specific measure, all 

i3 grantees are required to implement 

practices that are designed to improve 

one of these measures for high-need 

students (as defined in this document). 

By providing grantees the discretion to 

determine which measure is most 

appropriate to their projects, we avoid 

compelling grantees to adopt measures 

that do not fit their project and strike a 

reasonable balance between providing 

an opportunity to compare similar 

projects without greatly limiting the 

types of projects that we could fund. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: A few commenters 

recommended the Department add other 

priorities, including priorities that focus 

on improving college access, 

transitioning between secondary and 

postsecondary schooling, promoting 

diversity, and implementing new 

models for teaching and learning that 

are based on the science of learning and 

research on youth development. 

One commenter noted the absence of 

a priority focused on assessment literacy 

and suggested that the Department 

either create an additional priority 

focused on building educators’ 

assessment literacy or include 

references to assessment literacy in 

proposed priorities 1 (Improving the 

Effectiveness of Teachers or Principals), 

2 (Improving Low-Performing Schools), 

3 (Improving Science, Technology, 

Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) 

Education), and 5 (Improving Academic 

Outcomes for English Learners (ELs)), as 

well as the definitions of ‘‘highly 

effective teacher’’ and ‘‘highly effective 

principal.’’ The commenter also 

discussed the Accessible Portable Item 

Profile (APIP) standards and the 

importance of ensuring that the delivery 

of digital test content is tailored to each 

student’s specific accessibility needs so 

that students can demonstrate what they 

know and can do. The commenter 

suggested the Department consider 

whether the use of APIP should be a 

separate priority or a requirement for 

any applicant addressing proposed 

priorities 2 (Improving Low-Performing 

Schools), 4 (Improving Academic 

Outcomes for Students with 

Disabilities), 5 (Improving Academic 

Outcomes for English Learners (ELs)), 7 

(Improving Cost Effectiveness and 

Productivity), and 8 (Effective Use of 

Technology). 

Discussion: Although we recognize 

the importance of the issues and topics 

mentioned by the commenters, we 

decline to include additional priorities 

or revise the proposed priorities in the 

ways suggested. 

As noted in the NPP, in any i3 

competition we may include priorities 

from the notice of final supplemental 

priorities and definitions for 

discretionary grant programs, published 

in the Federal Register on December 15, 

2010 (75 FR 78486), and corrected on 

May 12, 2011 (76 FR 27637) 

(Supplemental Priorities). Because the 

Supplemental Priorities include 

priorities on increasing postsecondary 

success, including the academic 

preparation for and persistence in 

postsecondary education, and 

promoting diversity, we conclude that it 

is not necessary for the Department to 

develop new priorities to address these 

areas here. In addition, there is nothing 

in the priorities that would preclude an 

eligible applicant from proposing 

projects that promote school and 

classroom diversity, provided that the 

proposed project otherwise meets the 

requirements in the relevant priority. 

Further, because promoting diversity 

aligns with many of the other priorities 

we establish, we do not think it is 

necessary to add a new priority to 

address this topic. 

We also do not consider it necessary 

to create a separate priority that focuses 

on new models for teaching and 

learning because many of the priorities 

in this document would allow 

applicants to propose new models for 

teaching and learning while addressing 

a content-specific challenge. For 

example, under priority 1 (Improving 

the Effectiveness of Teachers or 

Principals), we include a subpart on 

developing new models for teacher 

preparation. Similarly, under priority 9 

(Effective Use of Technology), we 

include a subpart on developing and 

implementing technology-enabled 

strategies for teaching and learning 

concepts and content that are difficult to 

teach using traditional approaches. We 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 27, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 18685 

think that the development and 

implementation of new models for 

teaching and learning is most effective 

when the models address a specific 

challenge. 

With regard to the recommendation 

that we include assessment literacy in 

several priority areas, although we agree 

that it is important for teachers and 

principals to understand and use data 

and assessment results to improve 

teaching, we do not think it is necessary 

to prescribe assessment literacy as a 

requirement because nothing prohibits 

applicants from addressing it under the 

priorities as written. Similarly, with 

regard to the APIP standards, we agree 

that assessments should be designed to 

be accessible to all students and that the 

use of standards to ensure 

interoperability is critical to the 

portability of assessments. While we 

expect any i3 grant that is developing 

and implementing assessments to 

consider accessibility standards, given 

the variety of projects that can be 

funded under the i3 program, we do not 

think it is appropriate for the 

Department to prescribe a specific set of 

standards. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Four commenters 

suggested revisions to several of the 

proposed priorities that would 

encourage the use of the principles of 

universal design for learning (UDL). 

Specifically, these commenters 

provided revised text incorporating UDL 

into subparts under proposed priorities 

1 (Improving the Effectiveness of 

Teachers or Principals), 2 (Improving 

Low-Performing Schools), 3 (Improving 

Science, Technology, Engineering, and 

Mathematics (STEM) Education), 4 

(Improving Academic Outcomes for 

Students with Disabilities), 5 

(Improving Academic Outcomes for 

English Learners (ELs)), 6 (Improving 

Parent and Family Engagement), and 8 

(Effective Use of Technology). One 

commenter explained that these 

revisions would support the inclusion 

of students with disabilities and their 

interests in general education and the i3 

program. 

Discussion: There is nothing in the 

priorities precluding an eligible 

applicant from proposing projects that 

use principles of UDL or that support 

greater inclusion of students with 

disabilities, provided that the proposed 

project otherwise meets the 

requirements of the relevant priority. 

Given the variety of projects that can be 

funded under the i3 program and our 

intent to maximize the number of 

potential applicants, we do not want to 

prescribe a specific principle of 

learning. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended the Department revise 

priorities 1 (Improving the Effectiveness 

of Teachers or Principals), 3 (Improving 

Science, Technology, Engineering, and 

Mathematics (STEM) Education), 5 

(Improving Academic Outcomes for 

English Learners (ELs)), and 8 (Effective 

Use of Technology) to add specific 

references to the use of high-quality, 

multiplatform digital content and 

services. The commenter explained that 

digital tools make learning accessible to 

all students and are essential to teacher 

preparation and development. Further, 

the commenter stated that multiplatform 

digital content improves the services 

provided to students with different 

learning needs. 

Discussion: There is nothing in these 

priorities that would preclude an 

eligible applicant from proposing 

projects that utilize multiplatform 

digital content and services, provided 

that the proposed project otherwise 

meets the requirements of the relevant 

priority. Given the variety of projects 

that can be funded under the i3 program 

and our intent to maximize the number 

of potential applicants, we do not want 

to prescribe specific tools or approaches 

that must be used. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter supported 

the inclusion of subparts focused on 

capacity building in proposed priority 2 

(Improving Low-Performing Schools) 

and recommended the Department 

include similar provisions under 

proposed priorities 1 (Improving the 

Effectiveness of Teachers or Principals), 

3 (Improving Science, Technology, 

Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) 

Education), 4 (Improving Academic 

Outcomes for Students with 

Disabilities), 5 (Improving Academic 

Outcomes for English Learners (ELs)), 

and 6 (Improving Parent and Family 

Engagement). The commenter stated 

that projects under these priorities 

would benefit from a similar capacity 

building to support external 

relationships at the partner, district, or 

State level. 

Discussion: The i3 program supports 

the expansion and scaling of effective 

programs by providing sufficient 

funding to build organizational capacity 

and to overcome barriers to reaching 

additional students. The different tiers 

of i3 grants provide a continuum for 

funding effective programs that spans 

initial, localized development to 

implementation on a national scale. The 

hope is that more effective practices will 

replace less effective practices and lead 

to increases in student achievement and 

improvements in other student 

outcomes. Thus, a general expectation 

under the i3 program, particularly for 

the Scale-up and Validation grants, is 

that applicants consider how to build 

their capacity both internally and 

externally to scale their projects to serve 

more students. For that reason, we do 

not think it is necessary to include 

subparts in all of the priorities 

identified by the commenter in order to 

encourage grantees to build external 

relationships. 

Additionally, one of the goals of the 

i3 program is to demonstrate how to 

effectively build capacity amongst key 

entities in K–12 public education (e.g., 

educators, schools, parents) in order to 

improve student achievement for highneed students. However, the 

Department believes that this is best 

accomplished without being overly 

prescriptive about the role of outside 

entities. 

We proposed two subparts under 

priority 2 (Improving Low-Performing 

Schools) that are specific to capacity 

building and external partners because 

initiatives to turn around lowperforming schools often benefit from 

the involvement of diverse stakeholders. 

To clarify that the intent of these 

subparts is to improve school-, 

district-, and State-level capacity to 

support school turnaround efforts, we 

are making technical revisions to 

subparts (e) and (f) of the priority. 

Changes: We have revised subpart (e) 

under priority 2 (Improving LowPerforming Schools) to clarify that 

projects must support the efforts of lowperforming schools or districts in their 

turnaround efforts by increasing access 

to, and use of, high-quality partners. 

We also have revised subpart (f) under 

this priority to clarify that projects must 

be designed to increase district- or Statelevel capacity to turn around lowperforming schools, which would 

encompass, among other things, 

improvements to State and district 

support and oversight of turnaround 

efforts. 

Comment: One commenter questioned 

whether the Department has the 

authority to include priorities or 

definitions that reference diverse 

student populations, racial and ethnic 

groups, and gender. The commenter 

further stated that it is generally illegal 

for government programs to show 

favoritism or use classifications based 

on race, ethnicity, or sex. 

Discussion: We agree that priority 3 

(Improving Science, Technology, 

Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) 

Education), and the requirement that all 

i3 grants implement projects that are 

designed to improve student 

achievement for high-need students (as 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
18686 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 27, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

defined in this document) support 

investments in and encourage 

innovative strategies that are designed 

to increase access to rigorous 

educational opportunities for high-need 

students or individuals traditionally 

underrepresented in STEM fields. 

However, we do not agree that this 

priority and requirement show any 

favoritism toward a specific population 

group. Furthermore, recipients of any 

Department of Education funding, 

including i3 funds, must comply with 

all of the nondiscrimination 

requirements set forth in Title VI of the 

Civil Rights Act of 1964, Section 504 of 

the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Title IX 

of the Education Amendments of 1972, 

and the Age Discrimination Act of 1975. 

On December 2, 2011, the Departments 

of Education and Justice jointly issued 

guidance that explains how educational 

institutions can use generalized racebased approaches (i.e., approaches that 

employ racial criteria, such as the 

overall racial composition of 

neighborhoods, but do not involve 

decision-making on the basis of any 

individual student’s race or treat 

individual students differently because 

of their race) within the framework of 

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 

The ‘‘Guidance on the Voluntary Use of 

Race to Achieve Diversity and Avoid 

Racial Isolation in Elementary and 

Secondary Schools’’ is available on the 

Department’s Web site at www.ed.gov/ 

ocr/docs/guidance-ese-201111.pdf. For 

additional information and assistance 

on civil rights laws that may impose 

additional requirements on recipients 

and subrecipients of Federal financial 

assistance, visit www2.ed.gov/policy/ 

gen/leg/recovery/notices/civilrights.html. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: In response to the 

Department’s specific request for 

comment, a few commenters supported 

the establishment of a priority for 

applicants that have never received, or 

partnered with, an entity that has 

received a grant under the i3 program. 

The commenters stated that such a 

priority would increase the pool of 

innovative applicants. However, one 

commenter expressed concern that such 

a priority would discourage applicants 

from partnering with multiple entities. 

The commenter also suggested that 

entities proposing to provide effective 

services to students should be 

encouraged to continue to partner with 

multiple entities regardless of whether 

they have been part of an i3 grant in the 

past. 

Discussion: We recognize that the 

dual goals of supporting practices that 

are both innovative and evidence-based 

have the potential to limit the universe 

of applicants. In order to expand the 

reach of the i3 program and encourage 

entities that have not applied previously 

for an i3 grant, we will add a priority 

for ‘‘novice i3 applicants,’’ meaning 

applicants that have never received an 

i3 grant. Although this priority will 

provide an incentive for new applicants, 

we do not think it will discourage 

applicants with multiple partners from 

applying for i3 grants, particularly given 

the high volume of applications the i3 

program, particularly the Development 

grant competition, typically receives. 

However, because we do not want to 

discourage applicants from seeking 

partnerships, we will focus the priority 

only on entities that have never received 

an i3 grant directly. 

Changes: We have established a 

priority (Supporting Novice i3 

Applicants) for an eligible applicant that 

has never directly received a grant 

under this program. We may use this 

priority to establish a separate 

competition for applicants that have 

never received an i3 grant or to select 

an application that meets this priority 

over an application of comparable merit 

that does not meet this priority (see 34 

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

Proposed Priority 1—Improving the 

Effectiveness of Teachers or Principals 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended including this priority 

because it supports projects that will 

bring more highly effective teachers into 

high-need schools. 

Discussion: We appreciate the 

commenter’s support for this priority, 

and agree with the importance of 

ensuring that students have access to 

highly effective teachers and principals. 

That is why this priority focuses on all 

dimensions of the teacher and principal 

career path and seeks to identify 

effective methods for recruiting, 

preparing, supporting, evaluating, and 

retaining effective principals and 

teachers, particularly at schools that 

serve high-need students. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter proposed 

specific revisions to several of the 

subparts under this priority to focus 

more on school leadership, including 

developing new or improved models for 

principal preparation, such as leading 

instruction, aligning resources across 

classrooms, managing talent, and 

increasing teacher retention. The 

commenter proposed adding a new 

subpart to support projects that develop 

models of teacher and principal 

certification and licensure. The 

commenter also suggested that we revise 

subpart (c) to include models for the 

induction and support of novice 

principals in addition to novice 

teachers. 

Discussion: We agree with the 

commenter about the importance of 

strong school leadership. Therefore, we 

have revised the priority to include a 

new subpart that specifically focuses on 

principal preparation and to clarify that 

projects under subpart (c) may propose 

models of induction and support that 

serve either teachers or principals. 

However, we decline to add a subpart 

regarding the development of models for 

teacher and principal certification and 

licensures. Certification and licensure 

are typically State-level functions, and it 

is not clear that an applicant for an i3 

program could or should develop such 

models, particularly as eligible entities 

for i3 grants do not include State 

agencies. 

Changes: We have created a new 

subpart (c) that specifically focuses on 

principal preparation and training. 

Additionally, we have revised proposed 

subpart (c) to include models of 

induction and support that serve 

principals and re-designated it as 

subpart (d). With the addition of the 

new subpart, we re-designate proposed 

subparts (d)–(i) so that they are now 

labeled (e)–(j), respectively. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that the Department 

require that projects focus on the 

recruitment of teachers to also address 

teacher retention. The commenter stated 

that the greater challenge in high-need, 

low-performing schools is teacher 

retention. Thus, according to the 

commenter, in order for recruitment 

efforts to be cost-effective, projects must 

also include components that provide 

ongoing investment in newly recruited 

teachers to ensure that they remain in 

the profession for a minimum of three 

to five years. The commenter also 

suggested that this priority focus on 

programs that begin recruitment and 

preparation for future teachers as early 

as middle and high school. 

Discussion: We agree with the 

commenter that recruitment without 

effective induction, support, or other 

retention strategies would have a 

limited impact. However, we also 

recognize that the parties responsible for 

recruitment tend to be different than 

those responsible for retention. That is 

why we include different subparts 

under the priority to focus on the 

different dimensions of a teacher’s 

career path. Although subpart (a) 

focuses on recruitment models and 

subpart (d) (initially proposed as 

subpart (c)) addresses models of 

induction and support to increase 

teacher retention, nothing in either 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 27, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 18687 

subpart prohibits an applicant from 

proposing to address both recruitment 

and retention. 

With regard to adding a subpart to 

this priority for projects that begin 

teacher recruitment as early as middle 

or high school, it is not clear that a 

project with this approach could be 

implemented and evaluated in the 

maximum funding period for a grant. 

The Department’s current regulations 

authorize the Secretary to approve a 

project period up to 60 months (see 34 

CFR 75.250). As most teachers complete 

postsecondary education, a project 

focusing on teacher recruitment with 

middle school students would need a 

minimum of 120 months (assuming one 

year of middle school, four years of high 

school, four years of postsecondary 

education, and one year of work). Thus, 

the necessary project period would be 

significantly longer than what the 

Department’s current regulations allow 

and we do not think it would be 

prudent to add a subpart that would 

require a waiver of the regulations in 

order to use it. In addition, we are not 

aware of research that indicates that 

recruitment at such an early age is likely 

to be particularly effective. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

revising subpart (b) of this priority to 

specify that teacher training include 

practices addressing family and 

community engagement. 

Discussion: We agree with the 

commenter about the importance of 

including parent and community 

engagement in teacher training 

programs. However, we think that 

training is most effective when it is 

specific to the needs of the students and 

the surrounding community. For that 

reason, we already include teacher 

training related to parent and family 

engagement at the school- or districtlevel instead of the pre-service or 

preparation stage. Specifically, subpart 

(b) under priority 6 (Improving Parent 

and Family Engagement) would support 

projects implementing initiatives that 

are designed to enhance skills and 

competencies of school staff to build 

relationships and collaborate with 

families. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

revising proposed subpart (f) to specify 

that the supports must be evidencebased and address cognitive, social, 

emotional, and behavioral barriers to 

student achievement. The commenter 

also recommended adding a new 

subpart under this priority for projects 

that develop high-quality pathways into 

schools. These would include nonuniversity-based programs that recruit, 

select, train, and recommend teachers or 

principals to the State for certification 

and licensure, and full-time residency 

programs that develop national service 

members, community volunteers, and 

part-time educators to become 

credentialed teachers. 

Discussion: The i3 program already 

requires that all projects meet certain 

evidence standards. Therefore, we do 

not think it is necessary to specify in 

this priority that the projects must be 

evidence-based. With regard to the 

second recommendation, as nonuniversity-based programs could 

address subpart (a) under this priority, 

we do not think it is necessary to create 

a separate subpart that targets a specific 

type of entity or program. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that proposed subpart (g), 

increasing the equitable distribution of 

effective teachers or principals across 

schools, should also include efforts to 

increase the actual number of effective 

teachers within a high-need district. The 

commenter noted that, without an equal 

emphasis on increasing the number of 

effective teachers, a project could meet 

this priority by redistributing a 

relatively small number of highly 

effective teachers. The commenter 

stated that professional learning 

communities and induction programs 

for early career teachers should be 

supported in order to increase the 

number of effective teachers within a 

high-need district. 

Discussion: We agree with the 

commenter that the initial wording for 

proposed subpart (g) (now subpart (h)) 

could result in projects that redistribute 

only a small number of highly effective 

teachers without significantly increasing 

students’ access to them. Therefore, we 

have revised the subpart to focus on 

student access to effective teachers or 

principals. 

We also agree with the commenter 

about the importance of increasing the 

total number of effective teachers in 

high-need districts. However, as 

subparts (b), (c), and (g) (initially 

proposed as subpart (f)) would support 

projects designed to increase the 

number of highly effective teachers, we 

do not think it is necessary to include 

the specific strategies recommended by 

the commenter in current subpart (h) 

(initially proposed as subpart (g)). 

Changes: We have revised current 

subpart (h) (initially proposed as 

subpart (g)) under this priority to clarify 

that projects addressing this subpart 

must increase the equitable access to 

effective teachers or principals for lowincome and high-need students, which 

may include increasing the equitable 

distribution of effective teachers or 

principals for low-income and highneed students across schools. 

Comment: None. 

Discussion: Under this priority, 

subpart (i) (initially proposed as subpart 

(h)) addresses the development and 

implementation of models that improve 

school conditions for teaching and 

learning. We intend for this subpart to 

promote the development and 

implementation of projects that allow 

highly effective teachers to serve more 

students. With this change, we have 

removed the explicit reference to 

improving conditions for teaching and 

learning because we consider it to be 

included in the identified strategies. For 

example, a new staffing model that 

relieves effective teachers of some of 

their administrative responsibilities in 

order to enable them to teach online 

classes to students in another school 

could extend the influence of highly 

effective teachers. We also have revised 

this subpart to clarify that, in addressing 

this subpart, projects could focus on 

developing and implementing strategies 

that allow effective teachers either to 

serve more students or reduce the 

burdens or challenges that impede them 

from doing so. 

Changes: We have revised subpart (i) 

(initially proposed as subpart (h)) to 

clarify the types of projects it is 

intended to address. Specifically, this 

subpart will support projects that 

extend highly effective teachers’ reach 

to serve more students, including 

strategies such as new course designs, 

staffing models, technology platforms, 

or new opportunities for collaboration 

that allow highly effective teachers to 

reach more students, or approaches or 

tools that reduce administrative and 

other burdens while maintaining or 

improving teacher effectiveness and 

efficiency. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

the demographic shift in the Nation is 

increasing the number of multilingual 

and multicultural classrooms and 

recommended that the Department 

address this shift by incorporating 

language into this priority addressing 

preparing teachers to work with diverse 

populations. 

Discussion: We agree that it is 

important that teachers are prepared to 

work with diverse student populations, 

particularly given current demographic 

shifts. There is nothing that would 

preclude an eligible applicant from 

proposing projects that improve the 

effectiveness of teachers by increasing 

their ability to work with diverse 

student populations. However, in order 

to ensure flexibility for all potential 

applicants responding to this priority, 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
18688 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 27, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

we decline to specify the types of 

student populations, which could 

include diverse student populations, 

with whom teachers must be prepared 

work. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Two commenters proposed 

the addition of a new subpart for 

projects that would improve the 

development of teachers and external 

partners working to implement 

expanded learning opportunities in 

schools. Another commenter expressed 

support for several of the subparts but 

recommended the addition of a new 

subpart for projects that develop models 

for labor-management partnerships 

designed to improve teacher 

effectiveness by having expert teachers 

mentor and evaluate their peers. 

Discussion: The commenters’ 

recommendations for new subparts are 

already addressed by other priorities. 

For example, subpart (a) of priority 2 

(Improving Low-Performing Schools) 

supports projects that expand learning 

opportunities for both teachers and 

students. Similarly, applicants could 

propose projects that focus on labormanagement partnerships and peer 

evaluations under subpart (f) (initially 

proposed as subpart (e)), provided the 

proposed projects otherwise meet the 

requirements of the subpart. Thus, we 

do not think it is necessary to add new 

subparts under priority 1 (Improving the 

Effectiveness of Teachers or Principals). 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

concern that this priority does not 

encourage teachers to use practices that 

would drive the development and 

implementation of new ‘‘learning 

environments.’’ The commenter 

recommended the i3 program support 

projects that would equip teachers with 

knowledge of the science of learning 

and youth development and with the 

skills needed to analyze data and 

develop assessments, to advance the use 

of expanded learning time, to 

collaborate effectively, and to make 

better use of technology. 

Discussion: We agree that it is 

important for teachers to have the 

knowledge and skills suggested by the 

commenter. However, because these 

topics are addressed in other priorities, 

we decline to add additional subparts 

under this priority. For example, 

priority 2 (Improving Low-Performing 

Schools) includes subparts that focus on 

extending and enhancing learning time 

and priority 8 (Effective Use of 

Technology) includes subparts that 

focus on developing methods and 

resources to increase the use and 

integration of technology to improve 

teaching and learning. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: None. 

Discussion: As part of our internal 

discussion of the comments on this 

priority, we noted that a number of the 

proposed subparts refer to ‘‘developing’’ 

models or methods. As all i3 grantees 

must implement the practices they 

develop to serve students who are in 

grades K–12 at some point during the 

funding period, we have revised these 

subparts to clarify that the projects 

under these subparts must both develop 

and implement the proposed models or 

methods. 

Changes: We have revised subparts 

(a), (b), and (d) (initially proposed as 

subpart (c)) from ‘‘developing’’ to 

‘‘developing and implementing’’ in 

order to clarify our intent that 

applications addressing these subparts 

must implement the practices that they 

develop during the project period. 

Comment: None. 

Discussion: As part of our internal 

discussion of the comments on this 

priority, we noted that subpart (f) 

(initially proposed as subpart (e)), 

included an inconsistency in the use of 

‘‘teachers or principals.’’ Specifically, 

the subpart focused on designing and 

implementing ‘‘teacher or principal 

evaluation systems,’’ but also referred to 

feedback that guides professional 

development for ‘‘teachers and 

principals.’’ To ensure that applicants 

understand that they may focus on 

teachers or principals when submitting 

projects under this subpart, we have 

revised it so that we consistently refer 

to ‘‘teachers or principals.’’ 

Changes: We have revised subpart (f) 

(initially proposed as subpart (e)) from 

‘‘* * * guides professional 

development for teachers and 

principals’’ to ‘‘* * * guides 

professional development for teachers 

or principals’’ in order to clarify our 

intent that applications addressing this 

subpart may focus on either teacher or 

principal evaluation systems. 

Proposed Priority 2—Improving LowPerforming Schools 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that the Department 

revise this proposed priority to include 

the use of arts education to 

academically engage students as an 

example of strengthening the 

instructional program in a whole-school 

model. The commenter also 

recommended adding a subpart for 

projects proposing to develop arts 

education programs and improve the 

skills of arts educators. Another 

commenter offered a similar 

recommendation, suggesting the 

Department revise subparts (a) and (d) 

of this priority to include a focus on 

student’s health and nutrition as a part 

of designing whole-school models. 

Discussion: Subpart (a) provides 

examples of strategies that may be used 

in whole school models. However, these 

strategies are broad, concerning changes 

to a school’s design, instructional 

program, staffing, or culture. We do not 

think it is appropriate for the 

Department to prescribe the specifics of 

how applicants must implement these 

strategies (e.g., arts education), because 

we want to ensure applicants have as 

much flexibility as possible to propose 

whole-school models that best meet the 

needs of the students and schools they 

are proposing to serve. As nothing in 

this priority prohibits an applicant from 

proposing to use arts education to 

strengthen the instructional program in 

a whole-school model, we do not 

believe an additional subpart is 

necessary. 

We agree with the commenter that a 

student’s health and nutrition affects the 

student’s ability to learn. That is why 

proposed subpart (a) references 

strategies that address non-academic 

factors that affect student learning and 

proposed subpart (d) focuses on services 

and strategies that address nonacademic barriers to student learning. 

Because health and nutrition services 

may be addressed under this priority, 

we do not think it is necessary to create 

a separate subpart that focuses only on 

health services. Moreover, as noted 

previously, applicants should have the 

flexibility to identify the specific nonacademic barriers and strategies to 

address those barriers that are relevant 

to their particular project. 

However, we have revised subpart (d) 

to clarify that projects also may focus on 

mitigating the effects of poverty, 

including health and nutrition issues, 

on student engagement in learning. In 

addition, because we think it is 

important that the social supports 

provided under this priority relate to 

improved student outcomes, we have 

revised subpart (d) to focus on the 

intended outcomes rather than the 

specific type of strategies that an 

applicant must be use. 

Changes: We have revised subpart (d) 

to focus on projects that are designed to 

improve students’ non-cognitive 

abilities and enhance student 

engagement in learning, or that mitigate 

the effects of poverty, including 

physical, mental, or emotional health 

issues, on student engagement in 

learning. 

Comment: One commenter discussed 

the distinction between whole-school 

reform efforts and ‘‘wraparound’’ social 

supports that might result in targeted 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 27, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 18689 

interventions that do not affect all 

students in a school. The commenter 

encouraged the Department to look 

beyond whole-school efforts because 

some interventions may not be as 

efficient or effective if offered to an 

entire school population. 

Discussion: We agree that wholeschool reform models may not be the 

most appropriate option for all schools. 

That is why under this priority we 

include multiple subparts that address 

different types of interventions for 

turning around low-performing schools. 

However, we disagree with the 

commenter’s conclusion that a wholeschool reform model requires that all 

students receive the same set of services 

or interventions. For example, a whole 

school reform model could strengthen a 

school’s instructional program by 

providing personalized learning 

experiences that address each student’s 

unique needs. Under this scenario, a 

whole school reform model would be 

used to provide each student with a 

unique, as opposed to identical, set of 

services. 

Additionally, we consider wholeschool reform to be a powerful and 

important approach that is effective, in 

certain contexts, in improving student 

outcomes. Therefore, we believe it is 

important to include a subpart in this 

priority that specifically addresses 

whole-school reform models and have 

revised subpart (a) to clarify that the 

intent is to support projects that lead to 

significant and sustained improvement 

in individual student performance and 

overall school performance and culture. 

Although we agree that whole-school 

reform efforts are distinct from targeted 

approaches to reforming low-performing 

schools, we also believe that it is 

essential for applicants to ensure that 

their proposed projects complement the 

broader turnaround efforts of the school, 

LEA, or State. We have revised the 

requirements of this priority to clarify 

this expectation. 

Changes: We have revised subpart (a) 

to clarify that projects addressing 

subpart (a) must implement processes 

that lead to significant and substantial 

improvement in individual student 

performance and overall school 

performance and culture. In addition, 

we have provided examples of the types 

of strategies applicants may incorporate 

into their proposed whole-school 

models. We also have revised the 

requirements of priority 2 to include a 

condition that projects complement 

broader reform efforts for turning 

around low-performing schools. 

Comment: Five commenters 

recommended the Department revise the 

language in subpart (a) ‘‘redesigning the 

school day, week, or year’’ to 

‘‘extending or expanding the school day, 

week, or year’’ in order to clarify that 

before-, after-, and summer school 

programs would meet this priority. 

Three of these commenters also 

suggested a similar revision to subpart 

(e). One commenter noted that 

extending the school year might reduce 

summer learning loss, and provide 

additional time for high school students 

to focus more on work-based learning, 

service-learning, or various other 

learning opportunities. 

Discussion: Applicants may propose 

projects under subpart (a) that redesign 

the school day by extending or 

expanding the school day, week, or 

year, including before-, after-, and 

summer school programs, provided 

their proposed projects meet the 

requirements of the priority. We decline 

to change the language of subpart (a) as 

the commenter suggested because we do 

not think adding time to the school day, 

week, or year, unless done in 

conjunction with other strategies or 

reforms, is sufficient to meet the 

requirements of this priority. 

However, we recognize that extending 

learning time is one way that schools 

can change their organizational design, 

and we have therefore revised subpart 

(b) to include a greater focus on 

organizational design. As proposed, 

subpart (b) focused on changing 

elements of a school’s organizational 

design to mitigate non-academic barriers 

to learning through strategies such as 

differentiating staff roles, changing 

student groups, or enhancing 

instructional time. Because subpart (a) 

addresses particular approaches for 

school turnaround that can be 

undertaken within a school’s existing 

organization, we have modified subpart 

(b) to include a greater focus on 

extending and enhancing instructional 

time and the organizational implications 

associated with improving instruction 

by extending learning time. 

Changes: We have revised subpart (b) 

to support projects that would change 

elements of the school’s organizational 

design to improve instruction by 

differentiating staff roles and extending 

and enhancing instructional time. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that, in addition to increasing the rigor 

of instructional practices, subpart (a) 

should address students’ access to 

rigorous coursework at the secondary 

level. The commenter also 

recommended that the Department 

create a new subpart under this priority 

to support competency-based systems 

that measure the effects of these 

practices on increasing graduation rates 

and student learning. 

Discussion: Nothing in this priority 

prohibits an applicant from proposing to 

strengthen the instructional program in 

a whole-school model by increasing 

students’ access to rigorous coursework 

at the secondary level or implementing 

a competency-based system. Because 

these activities are permissible under 

subpart (a) and we want to ensure 

applicants have as much flexibility as 

possible to propose whole-school 

models that best meet the needs of the 

students and schools they are proposing 

to serve, we do not think it is necessary 

to revise subpart (a) or establish a 

separate subpart that addresses only 

these approaches. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

adding personalized instruction enabled 

by technology as an example of a reform 

strategy in subpart (a). The commenter 

noted that using differentiated 

instructional content allows for the 

effective and efficient use of data in 

determining the needs of students 

struggling in low-performing schools. 

Discussion: As noted in response to a 

prior comment on priority 2, we do not 

think it is appropriate for the 

Department to prescribe how applicants 

would strengthen the instructional 

programs because we think it is 

important for applicants to have as 

much flexibility as possible to propose 

whole-school models that best meet the 

needs of the students and schools they 

are proposing to serve. To that end, we 

provide applicants discretion in 

proposing how they would strengthen 

the instructional program in a wholeschool model; and nothing prohibits 

applicants from using personalized 

instruction. For these reasons, we 

decline to revise subpart (a). However, 

we have revised subpart (a) under 

priority 8 (Effective Use of Technology) 

to clarify that to meet subpart (a), 

projects must focus on personalized 

instruction. As the subpart language 

maintains that the learning experiences 

must be adaptive and self-improving, 

we do not think this change loses the 

subpart’s focus on learning experiences 

that improve or adapt based on 

students’ needs in real-time. 

Changes: We have revised subpart (a) 

under priority 8 (Effective Use of 

Technology) to clarify that the learning 

experiences must be personalized to 

individual students’ learning needs, as 

opposed to simply providing adaptive 

learning experiences. 

Comment: Three commenters 

suggested that the Department clarify 

that the reference to external partners in 

subpart (e) includes results-driven 

organizations, intermediaries, 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
18690 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 27, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

professional providers, national service 

members, and community volunteers. 

Discussion: We think an applicant is 

best suited to select the external 

providers or partners for its project. 

Because we do not want to narrow the 

potential for external partnerships, we 

decline to list the types of external 

partners with which an applicant may 

work. 

To ensure projects under subpart (e) 

are designed to increase schools’ and 

districts’ access to high-quality partners, 

we have revised this subpart to focus on 

the intended outcomes for schools and 

districts rather than on developing the 

capacity of external partners. 

Changes: As noted in response to a 

prior comment on priority 2, we have 

revised subpart (e) to clarify that 

projects addressing it must support lowperforming schools or districts in their 

turnaround efforts by increasing access 

to and use of high-quality partners. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended this priority be revised to 

support fundamental changes to 

schools’ governance and management 

structures that impede school 

innovations or educator and student 

engagement. 

Discussion: Subpart (f) under this 

priority supports projects that are 

designed to increase capacity at the 

school, district, and State levels to 

improve the support and oversight for 

turnaround efforts. Thus, projects could 

include a focus on improving 

governance and management structures 

that may impede a school’s turnaround 

efforts. To clarify that applicants may 

propose a variety of approaches under 

this subpart (e.g., changing governance 

and management structures), we have 

revised it to focus on the intended 

outcomes of increased capacity (i.e., 

better support and oversight), thus 

encouraging applicants to develop 

approaches that are appropriate to their 

specific contexts and challenges. 

Changes: As noted previously, we 

have revised subpart (f) to clarify that 

projects must be designed to increase 

district- or State-level capacity to turn 

around low-performing schools, 

including improvements to State and 

district support and oversight of 

turnaround efforts. 

Comment: None. 

Discussion: Although recent reports 

indicate that the Nation’s dropout rate is 

decreasing, the rate is still much higher 

than in other developed countries. To 

address this, we have added a subpart 

that specifically focuses on serving lowperforming high schools and their 

turnaround efforts. This subpart is 

written broadly to provide applicants 

discretion in how best to serve these 

schools and may include projects that 

focus on the use of early warning 

indicators to identify students who are 

at risk of dropping out. 

Changes: We have added subpart (g) 

to this priority for projects that support 

the implementation of turnaround 

efforts in secondary schools. 

Proposed Priority 3—Improving Science, 

Technology, Engineering, and 

Mathematics (STEM) Education 

Comment: Two commenters 

expressed general support for this 

priority. One commenter stated that K– 

12 education must continue to be a 

priority in Federal programs and noted 

that the i3 program has the potential to 

identify effective science instruction 

programs that could make use of 

informal learning institutions, such as 

science centers and museums. One 

commenter reflected on the need for 

high quality teachers in STEM subject 

areas, and applauded the Department’s 

recognition of this need. 

Discussion: We appreciate the 

commenter’s support for this priority 

and agree with the importance of 

ensuring students’ access to high-quality 

STEM education. That is why this 

priority focuses on students’ access to 

rigorous STEM coursework and 

learning, redesigning STEM course 

content and instructional practices, and 

improving the STEM teacher pipeline. 

With regard to the need for high quality 

teachers in STEM subject areas, subpart 

(c) targets projects that propose to 

develop new methods and resources for 

recruiting individuals with STEM 

expertise into teaching. 

Also, as noted previously, all i3 

grantees must implement (as well as 

develop) practices that serve K–12 

students at some point during the 

funding period. Thus, we have revised 

this subpart to clarify that the projects 

must develop and implement methods 

and resources for recruiting individuals 

with STEM expertise into teaching. 

Similarly, we have revised subpart (g) to 

clarify that teachers or educators of 

STEM subjects who participate in 

projects addressing subpart (g) must 

receive, not just have increased 

opportunities for, high-quality 

preparation and teacher development. 

Changes: We have revised subpart (c) 

to focus on projects that develop and 

implement new methods and resources 

for recruiting individuals with STEM 

expertise into teaching. We also have 

revised subpart (g) to clarify that 

projects addressing subpart (g) must 

increase 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 receive highquality preparation or professional 

development. 

Comment: Three commenters 

recommended that the Department 

include increased access to coursework 

in environmental literacy as a subpart 

under this priority. The commenters 

stressed that environmental literacy is 

critical to the Nation’s economy and 

noted the correlation between 

environmental education and student 

engagement and achievement in STEM 

subjects. 

Discussion: We recognize the 

importance of environmental education, 

and it is part of STEM education. As 

subpart (a) focuses on providing 

students with increased access to 

rigorous and engaging coursework in 

STEM, which could include 

environmental education, and in order 

to ensure applicants have flexibility in 

responding to this subpart, we do not 

think it is appropriate to add a separate 

subpart that focuses only on one STEM 

subject. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Two commenters 

discussed concerns regarding student 

access to STEM education. One 

commenter recommended that the 

Department encourage the development 

and use of more online learning tools to 

increase access to the most effective 

STEM courses, while the other 

commenter suggested that the 

Department amend subparts (a), (b), and 

(d) to require applicants to use highquality multiplatform digital content 

and services. 

Discussion: Nothing in this priority or 

the authorizing statute prohibits an 

applicant from proposing to use online 

learning or multiplatform digital content 

to increase student access to STEM 

content. Thus, applicants have the 

discretion to propose to use the 

approaches specified by the commenter. 

We decline to make the proposed 

revisions, however, because we do not 

want to prescribe the specific tools or 

approaches an applicant must use to 

increase students’ access to STEM 

content. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that, in addition to a 

focus on expanding opportunities for 

high-quality out-of-school and 

extended-day activities under subpart 

(e), the Department require STEMrelated community problem-solving and 

service learning. Additionally, the 

commenter suggested the Department 

include a subpart for projects designed 

to integrate STEM learning across other 

K–12 academic areas. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 27, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 18691 

Discussion: Nothing in this priority or 

the authorizing statute prohibits an 

applicant from proposing to use service 

learning in responding to subpart (e), so 

long as the proposed project is designed 

to provide students with opportunities 

for deliberate practice that increases 

STEM learning, engagement, and 

expertise. We decline to make the 

proposed, specific revisions because we 

do not want to narrow or prescribe the 

types of out-of-school or extended-day 

activities that an applicant may propose. 

Similarly, we decline to add a subpart 

that would require applicants to 

integrate STEM learning into other K–12 

academic areas because we do not want 

to prescribe how applicants would 

propose to increase student access to 

rigorous or engaging coursework in 

STEM. Further, nothing in the statute or 

priorities prohibits an applicant from 

proposing a project that integrates 

STEM learning across other K–12 

academic areas. For example, under 

subparts (a) and (b) of this priority as 

well as subpart (a) of priority 2 

(Improving Low-Performing Schools), 

an applicant could propose integrating 

STEM across other K–12 academic 

areas, provided the applicant meets the 

requirements of the priority under 

which it is submitting its application. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Two commenters 

recommended adding language to 

subpart (e) that would increase 

opportunities for high-quality expanded 

learning opportunities, including 

extending the day, week, or year, or 

before-, after-, or summer school 

programs. The commenters stated that 

implementing expanded learning 

opportunities will provide students 

with a well-rounded education that 

focuses on multiple STEM subjects. 

Discussion: We agree that expanding 

STEM learning opportunities may 

include extending the school day, week, 

or year, or implementing before-, 

after-, or summer school programs. 

Therefore, we have revised the priority 

to include this as an example of an 

approach that may be used to address 

subpart (e). 

Changes: We have revised subpart (e) 

to clarify that expanding STEM learning 

opportunities may include extending 

the day, week, or year, or implementing 

before- or after-school or summer 

learning programs. 

Proposed Priority 4—Improving 

Academic Outcomes for Students With 

Disabilities 

Comment: Four commenters proposed 

specific revisions to this proposed 

priority to reinforce the importance of 

ensuring that students with disabilities 

are provided with opportunities to 

participate and progress in general 

education classrooms. Additionally, the 

commenters suggested that subpart (d) 

include transition and postsecondary 

programs, and they suggested including 

two new subparts addressing postschool employment data collection and 

the implementation of school-wide 

initiatives that benefit all students, such 

as UDL, multi-tiered systems of 

supports, and positive behavior 

interventions and supports. 

Discussion: We agree with the 

commenters about the importance of 

providing students with disabilities 

with opportunities to participate in 

general education; and therefore have 

revised subpart (c) accordingly. 

Specifically, we clarify that projects 

must be designed to accelerate student 

achievement and the appropriate 

transition from restrictive settings to 

more inclusive settings or general 

education classes or programs, 

including strategies that improve 

student learning and developmental 

outcomes (i.e., academic, social, 

emotional, or behavioral). We also note 

that these projects may include 

appropriate strategies to prevent 

unnecessary suspensions and 

expulsions from these more inclusive 

settings, classes, or programs. 

With regard to the commenters’ 

recommendation to focus on collecting 

data on postsecondary and post-school 

employment outcomes, we agree that 

the data collection on, and 

understanding the indicators that 

predict success of, students with 

disabilities in their transition to 

postsecondary education is important. 

However, given that the i3 program 

focuses on K–12 education and that the 

Secretary may only award grants with 

project periods up to 60 months (see 34 

CFR 75.250), we do not think it is 

reasonable to add a subpart that focuses 

only on post-secondary school 

employment data. As such, we have 

revised subpart (d), but we decline to 

propose a new subpart focused solely on 

employment data. 

With regard to the commenters’ 

recommendation that we add a subpart 

on school-wide initiatives that include 

multi-tiered systems of support, we 

agree it is important that the various 

systems of support for students with 

disabilities and their families are 

coordinated across all service providers, 

including schools, health care providers 

and social service agencies. That is why 

we included proposed subpart (a). 

However, we recognize that as 

proposed, subpart (a) focused only on 

technical assistance programs. 

Therefore, we have revised this subpart 

to provide for a broader focus that may 

include school-wide programs. 

Changes: We have revised three 

subparts under this priority. Subpart (a) 

has been revised to support projects that 

implement coherent systems of support 

that appropriately coordinate and 

integrate programs to address the needs 

of children and youth with disabilities 

and improve the quality of for those 

children and their families. 

Subpart (c) has been revised to 

support projects that design and 

implement strategies that improve 

student achievement for students with 

disabilities in inclusive settings, 

including accelerating student 

development and the transition from 

restrictive settings to inclusive settings, 

including general education classes or 

programs. 

Subpart (d) has been revised to 

support projects that improve secondary 

and postsecondary data collection and 

tracking of academic and related 

outcomes for students with disabilities 

to understand their transition into 

postsecondary education and the factors 

associated with their success. 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

support for this proposed priority and 

encouraged the Department to fund 

projects that would produce information 

about interventions that are successful 

in decreasing the achievement gap 

between students with disabilities and 

students without disabilities. 

Discussion: All i3 grantees are 

required to participate in communities 

of practice and to produce evaluations 

about the implementation and efficacy 

of their projects. Therefore, we do not 

think it is necessary to create a separate 

requirement under this priority for 

projects to produce information about 

interventions that are successful in 

decreasing the achievement gap 

between students with disabilities and 

students without disabilities. 

Changes: None. 

Proposed Priority 5—Improving 

Academic Outcomes for English 

Learners (ELs) 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

teachers of English for Speakers of Other 

Languages (ESOL) often do not have the 

necessary content knowledge to be the 

primary educators for ELs. For this 

reason, the commenter expressed 

concern that the proposed priority 

would not produce significant change 

because it focuses too much on 

improving ELs’ vocabulary. According 

to the commenter, the priority would be 

improved if it included systematic 

reforms that ensure students who are 

ELs are not marginalized. The 

commenter recommended systemic 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
18692 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 27, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

reforms that include, for example, 

specific supports and processes to 

improve ELs’ transition between K–12 

grades and from K–12 to postsecondary 

education. 

Discussion: We recognize that 

systematic reforms are the most 

comprehensive approach to addressing 

ELs’ learning needs. However, we also 

recognize that schools and LEAs may 

have different needs regarding how to 

best improve academic outcomes for 

ELs. That is why under this priority we 

include multiple subparts that address 

different types of interventions, ranging 

from systematic reform to specific gaps 

or challenges for addressing ELs’ 

learning needs. For example, subpart (d) 

allows for a systematic approach 

because it focuses on projects that 

provide school-wide professional 

development for teachers, 

administrators, and other personnel in 

schools with a significant percentage of 

students who are ELs. Because a subpart 

under this priority does allow for 

projects that focus on systematic reform 

to improve student achievement for ELs 

and because we think it is important to 

also include subparts that focus on 

specific gaps, we conclude that is not 

appropriate for the Department to 

prescribe that applicants must only 

address ELs’ needs through systematic 

reform. 

Additionally, because one of the 

primary goals of the i3 program is to 

identify and document best practices, 

we think it is important to maintain 

subparts under this priority that would 

support projects that focus on specific 

challenges, needs, or gaps that affect all 

students, including students who are 

ELs. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that the priority include 

a subpart to develop and strengthen 

teacher preparation programs that 

provide substantial clinical experiences 

and develop curricula to prepare 

teachers of ELs. Specifically, the 

commenter stated that the way in which 

language is used for academic purposes 

within a given domain and the 

differences of individual ELs are 

important; and, as a result, more 

attention is needed to developing 

teachers who can meet the widely 

differing needs of ELs when the teachers 

enter the classroom. 

Discussion: Although we agree that 

teachers entering the classroom should 

be prepared to meet the needs of all of 

their students, including ELs, we think 

the limited funds available for the i3 

program should be focused on 

improving the skills of current EL 

educators rather than on improving 

teacher preparation programs’ focus on 

ELs in particular. Therefore, we decline 

to make the changes recommended by 

this commenter. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

support for this proposed priority, 

particularly subparts (c) and (d); and 

recommended revising subpart (d) to 

also focus on improving the capacity of 

schools and districts to increase the 

number of teachers trained to work with 

linguistically diverse students. 

Discussion: We agree that it is 

important for schools and districts to 

consider ways to increase the number of 

current teachers trained to work with 

ELs. We believe that this is already 

reflected in the current priorities. For 

example, nothing prohibits an applicant 

from focusing on increasing the number 

of teachers trained to work with ELs 

under subparts (a) and (b) of priority 1 

(Improving the Effectiveness of Teachers 

or Principals). Moreover, in order to 

avoid the marginalization of ELs, this 

priority incorporates school-level 

interventions that respond to student 

needs. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: In response to the 

Department’s specific request for 

comment, three commenters 

recommended the Department allow 

applicants to propose projects that 

address instruction in English and a 

language other than English to meet 

subpart (c). One commenter stated that 

using a student’s native language to 

learn a second language is consistent 

with practices in many States and 

districts that employ dual-language 

immersion and other bilingual 

methodologies. Thus, the commenter 

suggested that limiting subpart (c) to 

projects addressing instruction in 

English only may reduce the number of 

entities that could apply. Similarly, 

another commenter stated that the 

Department’s rules should not limit 

school districts to a predetermined 

instructional methodology because this 

could limit the potential for learning 

about effective instructional strategies 

under the i3 program. One commenter 

urged the Department to encourage 

applicants to consider all products and 

processes available when addressing 

this proposed priority. 

Discussion: The Department 

appreciates the commenters’ responses 

to this request for comment. We 

conclude that we will continue to use 

the phrase, ‘‘English or English and 

another language’’ to ensure that we do 

not inadvertently limit the potential 

applicants under subpart (c) of this 

priority. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

concern that the proposed priority 

reinforces false stereotypes by referring 

to limitations or impediments of ELs. To 

address this concern, the commenter 

provided revised text to focus on the 

range of academic language that all 

students must master to fully engage in 

their learning. The commenter also 

suggested clarifying that applicants 

applying under subpart (e) must focus 

on all students who enter school as ELs 

so that long-term outcomes of former 

ELs are considered. 

Discussion: We agree with the 

commenter and have revised subpart (b) 

to clarify that projects funded under it 

need to provide sufficient exposure to, 

engagement in, and acquisition of 

academic language and literacy 

practices necessary for preparing ELs to 

be college and career ready. We also 

have revised subpart (e) as the 

commenter suggested. 

Changes: We have revised subpart (b) 

to clarify the skills a project needs to 

address with regards to ELs’ acquisition 

of academic language and literacy 

practices. We also have revised subpart 

(e) to clarify that teacher evaluation 

systems implemented under this 

priority define and measure the 

effectiveness of teachers of students 

who at some point have been identified 

as ELs (i.e., both current and former 

ELs). 

Proposed Priority 6—Improving Parent 

and Family Engagement 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

support for the proposed priority, and 

appreciated the focus on providing 

training to families to support their 

children’s academic success, as well as 

professional development for 

administrators and teachers designed to 

improve relationships between parents 

and school staff. 

Discussion: We appreciate the 

commenter’s support for this priority. 

Subpart (a) addresses the need for 

building parents’ and families’ 

awareness of their role in improving 

their children’s educational outcomes 

while subpart (b) focuses on projects 

designed to build relationships between 

parents and school staff. Together these 

subparts aim to increase family 

engagement to improve support for 

student and school achievement. In 

order to further clarify that improving 

students’ academic outcomes is the 

ultimate goal of this priority, we have 

included specific academic outcomes 

under subpart (a). 

Changes: We have revised subpart (a) 

to clarify that training for parents and 

families must provide the skills and 

strategies that will help parents and 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 27, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 18693 

families improve their children’s 

academic outcomes, including increased 

engagement and persistence in school. 

Comment: Three commenters 

recommended that the Department 

include, under subpart (a), training for 

parents and families of students with 

disabilities on ways to participate and 

make progress in a grade-level general 

education curriculum in the least 

restrictive environment. 

Discussion: All i3 grantees must 

implement practices designed to 

improve academic outcomes for highneed students (as defined in this 

document). Therefore, projects 

addressing this priority must serve highneed students, which may include 

students with disabilities. Nothing in 

this priority precludes an applicant 

from proposing projects that focus on 

parents and families of students with 

disabilities, provided that the proposed 

project otherwise meets the 

requirements of the priority and 

therefore we are not changing the 

subpart language as requested. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

revising subpart (d) to specify that the 

data and information collected on 

students’ progress must include targeted 

‘‘parent-level’’ metrics, such as math 

and verbal achievement, high school 

graduation rates, college enrollment 

rates, and number of credits 

accumulated. 

Discussion: Although we appreciate 

the commenter’s recommendation that 

the Department specify the data and 

information that projects under subpart 

(d) would need to collect, we do not 

want to narrow the projects that could 

be proposed or funded under this 

priority by prescribing a required list of 

metrics. Moreover, nothing in the 

statute or priorities would preclude an 

applicant from including ‘‘parent-level’’ 

metrics in addition to information about 

students’ progress and performance. 

However, we share the commenter’s 

underlying concern that data about 

student performance should, among 

other things, be relevant and useful to 

parents. Access to data does not ensure 

its relevance or usefulness to parents. 

Thus, we have revised subpart (d) to 

clarify that the projects must improve 

both parents’ access to and use of data 

about students’ progress and 

performance, as opposed to only 

improving parents’ access to data. 

Changes: We have revised subpart (d) 

to clarify that projects addressing 

subpart (d) must develop tools or 

practices that provide students and 

parents with improved, ongoing access 

to, and use of, data and other 

information about students’ progress 

and performance. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

the i3 program should make explicit 

allowance for the training and 

professional development of teachers, 

school leaders, and other school-based 

personnel regarding acquisition and 

maintenance of the specific knowledge, 

skills, and abilities required to 

effectively engage families and 

communities to improve student 

outcomes. To that end, the commenter 

provided specific revisions that require 

evidence-based initiatives and access to 

meaningful data to track students’ 

progress. Additionally, the commenter 

proposed two new subparts under this 

priority: (1) Purposefully connecting the 

school with the family and community 

through a school-based facilitator, and 

(2) implementing initiatives that 

develop family and community 

leadership to sustain school 

improvements. 

Discussion: We agree with the 

commenter about the importance of 

enhancing teachers’ abilities to 

effectively engage families to improve 

student outcomes. That is why subpart 

(b) supports projects designed to 

enhance the skills and competencies of 

school staff to build relationships and 

collaborate with parents and families. 

With regard to the commenter’s 

proposal to require evidence-based 

initiatives and access to meaningful data 

to track students’ progress, we note that 

this program requires projects to meet 

specific evidence standards. Similarly, 

all i3 grantees are required to conduct 

evaluations that estimate the impact of 

their projects on student outcomes. 

Therefore, we do not think it is 

necessary to specify evidence or data 

collection requirements under this 

priority. 

We appreciate the commenter’s 

recommendation that we add two new 

subparts. However, as subpart (c) does 

not preclude projects that would 

support connecting school-based 

facilitators with families and the 

community, or projects that would 

develop and implement initiatives that 

bolster family and community 

leadership for sustained school 

improvement, we do not think it is 

appropriate to add new subparts that 

could limit applicants’ flexibility in 

designing their proposed projects. 

Additionally, although we recognize the 

importance of community engagement, 

we conclude that it is not necessary for 

the Department to revise this priority to 

address it because the Supplemental 

Priorities include a priority that does so 

and the i3 program could use that 

priority. See priority 5 of the 

Supplemental Priorities, Improving 

School Engagement, School 

Environment, and School Safety and 

Improving Family and Community 

Engagement. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: None. 

Discussion: As part of our internal 

discussion of the comments about this 

priority, we noted that proposed subpart 

(b) refers to ‘‘school and other 

administrative staff.’’ In order to ensure 

applicants understand that we consider 

teachers to be school staff, we have 

revised subpart (b) to explicitly list 

teachers in addition to school and other 

administrative staff. 

Changes: We have revised subpart (b) 

to clarify that, when addressing this 

subpart, applicants must implement 

initiatives that are designed to enhance 

the skills and competencies of teachers, 

and of school and other administrative 

staff in building relationships and 

collaborating with students’ families, 

particularly those who have been 

underengaged with the school(s) in the 

past, in order to support student 

achievement and school improvement. 

Proposed Priority 7—Improving CostEffectiveness and Productivity 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

concern about the focus on costeffectiveness because it may emphasize 

budgetary issues over educational 

‘‘ends.’’ 

Discussion: We appreciate and 

recognize the commenter’s concern; 

however, it is essential for schools and 

LEAs to closely examine their spending 

practices and reallocate resources to use 

them more efficiently and costeffectively. The i3 program’s focus on 

cost-effectiveness is consistent with the 

Department’s broader initiative to 

encourage and support schools, LEAs, 

and States to ‘‘do more with less’’ 

through the adoption of promising 

practices and the responsible use of 

resources. We do not intend for this 

focus to overshadow the importance of 

the i3 program’s requirement of 

implementing projects designed to 

improve student achievement. 

Additionally, we establish selection 

criteria that peer reviewers will use to 

consider the likelihood that a proposed 

project will achieve what it is designed 

to achieve and the extent to which a 

proposed project substantially improves 

outcomes. By using such criteria to 

evaluate applications, the Department 

encourages the adoption of costeffective practices while also providing 

peer reviewers a mechanism to consider 

the cost and expected outcomes 

together. 

Changes: None. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
18694 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 27, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

revising this priority to specify the ways 

in which projects are to improve costeffectiveness, including schoolcommunity partnerships. 

Discussion: Under section 14007 of 

the ARRA, in order to be eligible for i3 

grants, applicants must demonstrate that 

they have established partnerships with 

the private sector and that the private 

sector will provide matching funds to 

help bring results to scale. Moreover, we 

recognize that using external 

partnerships is one approach to 

improving cost-effectiveness. However, 

because nothing in the ARRA or this 

priority precludes an applicant from 

proposing projects that improve costeffectiveness through such partnerships, 

we do not think it is appropriate to 

prescribe that applicants must use 

school-community partnerships to meet 

this priority. 

Changes: None. 

Proposed Priority 8—Effective Use of 

Technology 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

strong support for this proposed 

priority, and recommended that 

applicants applying under any of the 

other proposed priorities also identify 

how technology would be used to 

advance the proposed projects. The 

commenter specifically cited proposed 

priorities 1 (Improving the Effectiveness 

of Teachers or Principals), 2 (Improving 

Low-Performing Schools), and 6 

(Improving Parent and Family 

Engagement) as priorities under which 

applicants should be expected to 

address the use of technology in their 

applications and receive preference for 

doing so. 

Discussion: While we encourage 

applicants to propose projects that use 

technology effectively, we do not think 

it is appropriate to require all applicants 

to design their projects around the use 

of technology. Nothing in any priority or 

the authorizing statute prohibits an 

applicant from proposing to use 

technology in a proposed project, 

provided that the use of technology is 

necessary for carrying out the proposed 

project and that the project otherwise 

meets the requirements of the priority. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

the topics included in the subparts 

under this priority have been addressed 

and improved over time. The 

commenter further stated that adopting 

existing, effective uses of technology, 

such as online or blended learning, 

must be promoted. 

Discussion: The i3 program aims to 

support expanding effective practices to 

serve more students across schools, 

districts, and States and to identify new 

solutions to pressing challenges. With 

that goal in mind, we designed this 

priority to support projects that focus on 

adopting or augmenting existing 

practices or developing new practices 

that use technology effectively to 

improve student achievement. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Two commenters 

recommended that the Department add 

a new subpart under this priority for 

projects that integrate technology into 

expanded learning opportunities. 

Discussion: Nothing in the 

authorizing statute or this priority 

precludes an applicant from proposing 

a project that integrates technology into 

expanded learning opportunities, 

provided that the project otherwise 

addresses the requirements of the 

priority. For example, applicants have 

discretion to propose such projects 

under subpart (e). We think that the 

applicants are best suited to determine 

how to integrate the effective use of 

technology into their proposed projects, 

and we do not think it is appropriate to 

create a subpart that focuses only on 

integrating technology to expand 

learning opportunities. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter agreed 

with the focus on using technology to 

improve instruction and increase access 

to high-quality learning opportunities. 

But the commenter also stated that the 

priority should be strengthened by 

encouraging applicants to approach 

technology acquisition and use in a 

manner that would provide teachers 

more time for individualized instruction 

and for establishing student-centered 

classrooms. The commenter also 

recommended that applicants 

addressing this priority should be 

expected to provide implementation 

strategies that would ensure that 

technology would be used to promote 

equity rather than exacerbate existing 

student achievement gaps. The 

commenter also stated that applicants 

should be required to ensure equitable 

access to the necessary technology so 

that no students are excluded due to a 

lack or shortage of the necessary 

technology. 

Discussion: We agree with the 

commenter’s recommendation that this 

priority support projects designed to use 

technology to provide students more 

time for individualized instruction. 

Therefore, we have modified subpart (a) 

to clarify that the learning experiences 

must be personalized and focus on 

students with a variety of learning 

needs. 

We also agree that applicants 

proposing projects under this priority 

should consider how the proposed 

implementation strategies would ensure 

equitable access to the technology. 

Section 427 of the General Education 

Provisions Act (GEPA) addresses 

equitable access by requiring all 

applicants to provide a statement that 

identifies access barriers to participation 

in their projects and identifies solutions 

to overcome those barriers. 

With regard to the commenter’s 

concern about shortage of the necessary 

technology, we use selection criteria to 

consider the extent to which the 

applicant has planned for sufficient 

resources to carry out the project. For 

example, the selection criterion on the 

quality of the management plan 

includes a selection factor that 

considers the extent to which the 

applicant demonstrates it will have the 

resources to operate the project at the 

proposed level of scale during the grant 

period. This selection factor provides 

peer reviewers with a mechanism to 

consider whether an applicant has 

sufficient resources to carry out the 

project, which may include whether the 

applicant’s plan ensures equitable 

access to the technology being 

implemented. 

However an applicant chooses to 

ensure full and equitable access to the 

technology being used in the proposed 

project, we do not want projects funded 

under this priority to exacerbate 

inequities for students. Thus, we have 

revised subpart (b) to clarify that 

projects must provide students and 

teachers with equitable access to 

‘‘anytime, anywhere’’ learning materials 

and experiences. We have also revised 

subpart (c) to include closing 

achievement gaps as a required outcome 

for projects addressing the subpart. Both 

of these revisions mitigate the risk that 

existing inequities or gaps would be 

compounded by projects addressing this 

priority. 

Changes: We have revised subpart (b) 

to require applicants to propose projects 

that provide students and teachers with 

equitable ‘‘anytime, anywhere’’ access 

to learning materials and experiences. 

We have revised subpart (c) to require 

that projects must, in addition to 

improving student achievement (as 

defined in this document), also be 

designed to close achievement gaps. 

Comment: Three commenters stated 

that technology is critically important to 

improving instruction for students with 

disabilities, and recommended that the 

Department revise subparts (c) and (f) to 

require that technology methods, 

resources, and integration be consistent 

with principles of UDL. 

Discussion: We recognize and agree 

that technology is an effective tool for 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 27, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 18695 

improving instruction for students with 

disabilities. However, we do not think it 

is appropriate to prescribe a single 

approach or principle that all applicants 

must use when integrating technology 

into their projects. Additionally, 

nothing in the statute or the priority 

prohibits an applicant from using the 

approach or principle it determines to 

be most suitable for its project. 

In order to comply with the 

requirements of the Americans with 

Disabilities Act of 1990 and Section 504 

of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as 

amended, any technology used by 

recipients must be accessible to 

individuals with disabilities. For 

additional information about the 

application of these laws to technology, 

please refer to www.ed.gov/ocr/letters/ 

colleague-201105-ese.pdf and 

www.ed.gov/ocr/docs/dcl-ebook-faq201105.pdf. Provided the requirements 

of the civil rights laws and the priority 

are met, an applicant may propose a 

project under this priority that uses 

technology methods, resources, and 

integration that are consistent with the 

principles of UDL. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter urged the 

Department to include in the priority 

other educators who may not be 

teachers of record, such as media 

specialists or instructional aides, but 

who have instructional responsibilities 

in projects that are designed to use 

technology to improve instructional 

effectiveness. 

Discussion: Nothing in the 

authorizing statute or this priority 

prohibits eligible applicants from 

including staff who are not teachers but 

have instructional responsibility in their 

projects. We decline to specifically 

reference these educators in the priority 

to ensure applicants have the maximum 

flexibility when developing their 

proposals. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter described 

this priority as ‘‘strongly written and 

comprehensive.’’ Although the 

commenter applauded the Department’s 

commitment to encouraging adaptive 

learning experience and ‘‘anytime, 

anywhere’’ access to academic content 

and learning, the commenter suggested 

the Department clarify that 

technological tools are understood to be 

used for both instructional and 

assessment purposes. 

Discussion: The Department agrees 

that ‘‘anytime, anywhere’’ access to 

academic content may include 

technological tools that are used for 

purposes of instruction, assessment, or 

both. Because we do not want to limit 

the types of content and learning that 

may be used in projects under subpart 

(b), we have revised this subpart to 

focus on access to learning materials 

and experiences instead of access to 

‘‘academic content.’’ 

Changes: We have revised subpart (b) 

to focus on learning materials and 

experiences. 

Comment: None. 

Discussion: As part of our internal 

discussion of the comments about this 

priority, we noted that proposed subpart 

(f) did not include a reference to the 

intended outcomes for projects 

integrating technology with the 

implementation of college- and careerready standards. In order for the use or 

integration of technology to be effective, 

we believe it is important that projects 

addressing this subpart focus on 

improving student and teacher 

outcomes. Thus, to correct this 

oversight, we have revised subpart (f) to 

include these outcomes, as we have 

done with other subparts, and to clarify 

that embedded, real-time assessments 

and feedback for students and teachers 

are examples of projects that could be 

proposed under this subpart. 

Change: We have revised subpart (f) 

to clarify that projects integrating 

technology with the implementation of 

rigorous college- and career-ready 

standards must be designed to increase 

student achievement (as defined in this 

document), student engagement, and 

teacher efficacy, such as by providing 

embedded, real-time assessment and 

feedback to students and teachers. 

Comment: None. 

Discussion: As part of our internal 

discussion of the comments on this 

priority, we noted an oversight in how 

subpart (d) was phrased. Specifically, 

the subpart only referred to the outcome 

that would need to be achieved, but did 

not clarify that projects addressing it 

would need to implement strategies to 

achieved the stated outcomes. As all i3 

grantees must implement the practices 

that serve students who are in grades K– 

12 at some point during the funding 

period, we have revised this subpart to 

clarify that the projects addressing it 

must implement strategies that improve 

student proficiencies. 

Changes: We have revised subpart (d) 

in order to clarify our intent that 

applications addressing this subpart 

must implement strategies that improve 

student proficiencies in complex skills, 

such as critical thinking and 

collaboration across academic 

disciplines. 

Proposed Priority 9—Formalizing and 

Codifying Effective Practices 

Comment: A few commenters 

suggested clarifying that, under this 

proposed priority, an applicant must 

address the proposed practice’s 

effectiveness for all learners and 

identify the practice’s critical 

components for different teaching and 

learning environments as well as for 

diverse learners. 

Discussion: A primary goal of this 

priority is to enable broad adoption of 

effective practices. We agree with the 

commenters that an applicant 

addressing this priority needs to 

evaluate different forms of a practice in 

order to determine whether the practice 

may be adapted for diverse learners. 

However, we recognize that some 

practices may be developed for, or 

targeted to, the needs of a specific 

student population and, by its very 

nature, may not be relevant or effective 

for students outside of that target group. 

For these reasons, we have revised the 

priority to clarify that applicants must 

address whether the proposed practice 

is effective for diverse learners; 

however, we decline to revise subpart 

(c) to require that applicants develop 

materials and tools on how to 

implement the practice effectively for 

all learners. 

Changes: To clarify the goal of this 

priority, we have changed its title from 

‘‘Formalizing and Codifying Effective 

Practices’’ to ‘‘Enabling Broad Adoption 

of Effective Practices.’’ Further, in 

response to comments, we have revised 

subpart (b) to clarify that applicants 

addressing this priority must identify 

the adaptability of the practice’s critical 

components to diverse learners as well 

as to different teaching and learning 

environments. 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

support for the Department’s placing a 

high priority on sharing and 

disseminating effective practices under 

this proposed priority. However, the 

commenter encouraged the Department 

to only use this priority for the 

Validation and Scale-up competitions 

because projects under those categories 

are based on moderate and strong 

evidence of effectiveness. 

Discussion: By establishing this 

priority, the Department may use it for 

any of the three types of grants under 

the i3 program (i.e., Development, 

Validation, and Scale-up). We agree 

with the commenter that this priority is 

most appropriate for i3 Scale-up and 

Validation grants because projects 

funded in those grant categories must be 

supported, respectively, by strong and 

moderate evidence of effectiveness. 

However, we decline to specify that the 

priority will be used only for a subset 

of i3 competition because we do not 

want to unnecessarily limit when this 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
18696 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 27, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

priority can be used in future i3 

competitions. 

The Department will consider several 

factors, including the level of evidence 

or research available, when determining 

which of the priorities would be most 

appropriate for the different types of 

grants offered in any given year under 

the i3 program. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter urged the 

Department to allow current i3 grantees 

to apply to extend their grants under 

this priority, which would allow for 

additional years of implementation and 

data collection. The commenter 

explained that such an approach would 

allow third-party evaluators to collect 

the data necessary to demonstrate what 

educational elements are required to 

fundamentally change a student’s 

academic trajectory. Without the option 

of extending current i3 grants, the 

commenter stated a concern that the 

opportunity to learn from these grants 

would be limited. 

Discussion: We appreciate the 

commenter’s concern. Although we 

agree with the commenter about the 

importance of maximizing the 

opportunity to learn from current i3 

grantees, the Department’s current 

regulations authorize the Secretary to 

approve a project period up to 60 

months (see 34 CFR 75.250). We 

decline, however, to make the suggested 

change for two reasons. First, the 

Department has, under limited 

circumstances, allowed for a waiver of 

the 60-month project period. More 

importantly, the Department published 

a notice of proposed rulemaking on 

December 14, 2012 that proposed 

amending this regulation to address this 

specific situation. We have concluded 

that the proposed revisions to EDGAR 

are the appropriate place to address this 

issue. 

Changes: None. 

Proposed Priority 10—Serving Rural 

Communities 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

support for the proposed priority 

because it is not limited to projects that 

improve high school graduation rates 

and college enrollment rates and, 

therefore, offers a broader focus than the 

previous rural priority used by the i3 

program. However, another commenter 

expressed concern that urban education 

is not given a similar priority under the 

proposed priorities as rural education, 

and suggested the Department utilize a 

separate slate for rural applicants rather 

than establishing a separate rural 

priority. 

Discussion: We aim to ensure that 

projects serving high-need students in 

diverse contexts, including urban, 

suburban, and rural communities, are 

eligible to compete for i3 funding. 

However, we acknowledge that rural 

communities face unique challenges 

(e.g., e more limited resources than 

urban and suburban communities to 

complete for Federal funds). We also 

recognize that the solutions to 

educational challenges may be different 

in rural areas than in urban and 

suburban communities and that there is 

a need for solutions that are unique to 

rural communities. For these reasons, 

we have established this priority to 

provide a mechanism for the 

Department to consider rural projects 

under a separate funding category, 

which is effectively the same as 

considering them as part of a separate 

slate, while also providing applicants 

proposing rural projects the ability to 

select among the same absolute 

priorities as other applicants. This 

approach does not advantage or 

disadvantage rural or non-rural 

applicants—it just ensures that both sets 

of applicants are competing against 

other applicants that face similar 

problems and challenges. 

Changes: None. 

Requirements 

Comment: Several commenters 

proposed revisions to the types of 

entities that could apply for and receive 

a grant under the i3 program. Four 

commenters requested that the 

Department change the categories of 

eligible applicants for i3 grants to 

include nonprofit organizations 

applying on their own. The commenters 

stated that nonprofit organizations 

should have the ability to develop and 

implement i3 grants alone, as opposed 

to being eligible only in partnership 

with LEAs or schools. However, another 

commenter expressed concern that the 

i3 program has become a revenue source 

for nonprofit organizations, and 

recommended that the Department 

allow only LEAs to apply as the lead 

applicant and fiscal agent for i3 grants. 

Two commenters recommended the 

Department change the eligible 

applicants for i3 grants to include (1) 

tribal educational agencies (TEAs), (2) a 

nonprofit organization in partnership 

with one or more TEAs, and (3) a 

nonprofit organization in partnership 

with one or more Bureau of Indian 

Education (BIE) schools. These 

commenters also stated that the 

Department should clarify that BIE 

schools meet the definition of ‘‘LEA’’ 

under the i3 program. 

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

ARRA specifies the types of entities that 

are eligible to apply for funding under 

this program. They are: 

(a) An LEA 

(b) A partnership between a nonprofit 

organization and— 

(1) One or more LEAs; or 

(2) A consortium of schools. 

The Department has no authority to 

revise or expand these statutorily 

prescribed eligibility requirements. 

However, we do want to clarify that, as 

public schools, BIE schools are eligible 

to be part of the consortium of schools 

in a partnership applying for an i3 grant. 

A BIE school may also be eligible to 

apply as an LEA on its own, or in 

partnership with a nonprofit 

organization as an LEA, because the 

definition of ‘‘local educational agency’’ 

in section 9101(26) of the ESEA 

includes a provision under which a BIE 

school may be considered an LEA. If a 

BIE school is an LEA, the BIE school 

would be able to apply as an eligible 

LEA on its own, or in partnership with 

a nonprofit organization as an LEA, 

consistent with the requirements for 

eligible applicants under section 

14007(a)(1). 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Two commenters 

recommended the Department require 

any LEA located on Indian lands to 

consult with the appropriate tribes and 

provide them with adequate time to 

comment on the application prior to its 

submission. The commenters explained 

that an LEA’s engagement with the tribe 

should include direct input regarding 

native student education, ongoing 

consultation and partnership, and the 

sharing of best practices. The 

commenters stated that any LEA that 

does not participate in this consultation 

should be ineligible to receive an i3 

grant. 

Discussion: We agree that any LEA 

located on tribal lands, or proposing to 

address native student education of a 

particular tribe or tribes, should 

coordinate with the appropriate tribe(s) 

when developing an application and 

implementing the project. Although 

under the i3 program such coordination 

is not required, we consider 

collaboration and coordination among 

project partners to be important to the 

success of any project. For that reason, 

we include a factor under the Quality of 

the Management Plan selection criterion 

that considers the extent to which the 

applicant demonstrates that it will have 

the resources to operate the project at 

the proposed level of scale both during 

the project period and beyond the 

length of the grant, including the 

demonstrated commitment of any 

partners and evidence of broad support 

from stakeholders critical to the 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 27, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 18697 

project’s long-term success. Therefore, 

we do not feel it is necessary to make 

consultation an eligibility requirement. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter criticized 

the requirement that nonprofit 

organizations must identify partner 

districts or schools before an i3 grant is 

awarded because this undermines the 

development of effective partnerships. 

The commenter stated that it is critically 

important for nonprofit organizations 

proposing to conduct turnaround 

projects to ensure that the participating 

superintendents and principals are 

committed to the project, but the 

nonprofit organization is in a stronger 

position to select partners after 

receiving a grant, not before. The 

commenter proposed that the 

Department require applicants who are 

nonprofit organizations to specify the 

types of districts or schools that will 

participate in the project without 

identifying specific partners. 

Discussion: As noted previously, 

section 14007(a)(1) of the ARRA 

specifies the entities eligible for funding 

under this program. Because the ARRA 

specifies that a nonprofit organization is 

only eligible to receive an i3 grant in 

partnership with one or more LEAs or 

a consortium of schools, we cannot 

award a nonprofit organization an i3 

grant without any identified LEAs or 

schools. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter requested 

that the Department clarify that entities 

implementing programs that serve outof-school youth, such as students 

beyond the compulsory school age or 

students participating in alternative 

education programs, are eligible to 

apply for i3 grants. 

One commenter questioned the value 

of requiring that i3 projects to serve K– 

12 students and expressed concern that 

this requirement may result in 

applicants changing the focus on their 

planned interventions to serve a 

population for whom the intervention is 

not designed. The commenter further 

stated that this requirement conflicts 

with the requirement that i3 projects be 

supported by evidence of effectiveness, 

and distracts from the i3 program goal 

of learning what works in education. 

Discussion: This requirement clarifies 

that the i3 program focuses on K–12 

education. Although grantees are not 

prohibited from serving out-of-school 

youth or students who are beyond 

compulsory school age, all grantees 

must implement practices that serve 

students who are in grades K–12 at 

some point during the funding period. 

We do not agree with the comment 

that this requirement conflicts with the 

required evidence standards or the 

program goal of learning what works in 

education. This requirement aims to 

ensure that all i3 grants support 

students in grades K–12, but it does not 

require applicants to propose projects 

that are not designed to serve students 

in the target population. As long as K– 

12 students are served by the grantee at 

some point during the funding period, 

it is within the applicant’s discretion to 

determine what intervention will best 

address the competition’s priority and 

meet the needs of the targeted student 

population. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

support for the Department’s proposal to 

strengthen the evidence standards 

required for eligibility; and two other 

commenters expressed concern 

regarding the proposed evidence 

standards themselves. One of these 

commenters questioned whether tying 

the evidence definitions to the What 

Works Clearinghouse (WWC) Evidence 

Standards was limiting because new 

innovations that show promise would 

not be able to move beyond the 

Development grant level. One 

commenter stated that the evidence 

definitions needed to be weakened to be 

more practical. 

Discussion: A unique design feature of 

the i3 program is how it links funding 

to the quality and extent of existing 

evidence showing the likelihood of a 

proposed practice improving student 

outcomes. We recognize that the new 

definitions narrow the allowable 

evaluation methodologies at the strong 

and moderate evidence of effectiveness 

levels; but note that the new evidence 

standards also broaden the types of 

evidence that can be used at the 

Development level. Considering the 

level of public investment and the 

expectations that Scale-up and 

Validation projects serve students at a 

national or regional level, we believe it 

is reasonable to require such projects to 

have evidence of their effectiveness that 

uses evaluation methodologies that are 

most likely to support causal 

conclusions. Moreover, this evidence 

requirement provides incentives for 

entities to conduct rigorous, highquality evaluations of existing 

widespread practices so that they can 

move beyond the Development grant 

level. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Two commenters stated 

that the requirement that an eligible 

nonprofit organization must have a 

record of significantly improving 

student achievement, attainment, or 

retention is limiting because it seems to 

exclude nonprofit organizations that (1) 

demonstrate success in designing and 

implementing programs similar to those 

for which there is moderate evidence of 

success and (2) are implementing 

programs that reflect programs 

supported by evidence of promise or 

strong theory but for which no direct 

evaluation exists. Both commenters 

suggested that the Department allow 

nonprofit organizations to implement 

these programs. 

Discussion: The comment references 

two different eligibility requirements: 

(1) Eligible applicants must have a 

record of significantly improving 

student achievement, attainment, or 

retention; and (2) the requirement that 

i3 grants be supported by evidence— 

Scale-up grants must be supported by 

strong evidence of effectiveness, 

Validation grants must be supported by 

moderate evidence of effectiveness, and 

Development grants must be supported 

by evidence of promise or strong theory. 

While we recognize these requirements 

appear similar, we think it is important 

to distinguish them in order to address 

the comments fully. 

First, the requirement for applicants 

to have a record of significantly 

improving student achievement, 

attainment, or retention is statutory, and 

the Department has no authority to 

revise or remove it. Specifically, section 

14007(b)(1) through (b)(3) and section 

14007(c) of the ARRA require that, to be 

eligible for an i3 grant, an applicant 

have a record of improving student 

achievement. 

Second, while the requirement that 

applicants have a record of significantly 

improving student achievement refers to 

the applicant’s past work with LEAs and 

schools, the evidence standards refer to 

evidence that the proposed intervention 

is effective. That is, the applicant must 

provide information on its history of 

working to improve student outcomes, 

as well as the evidence of effectiveness 

of the proposed intervention. We 

consider both of these requirements 

important to the i3 program goal of 

identifying and supporting the 

replication of best practices in 

education. 

Finally, while we have provided 

specific definitions for each level of 

evidence, we have not prescribed 

specific measures that must be used to 

meet the statutory eligibility 

requirement. We consider the applicant 

to be best suited to present information 

on how its past work has significantly 

improved student achievement and to 

determine the metrics it uses to measure 

those accomplishments. This approach 

provides an applicant with the 

discretion to demonstrate its record of 

improving student achievement but 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
18698 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 27, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

maintains the program’s structure of 

linking the amount of funding that an 

applicant may receive to the quality of 

the evidence supporting the efficacy of 

the proposed project. As noted earlier, 

this structure provides incentives for 

applicants to build evidence of 

effectiveness of their proposed projects. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Two commenters proposed 

that the Department revise the statutory 

eligibility requirement to require an 

eligible applicant to have a record of 

significantly closing the achievement 

gaps between groups of students 

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

ESEA and students not in the subgroup 

(e.g., the gap between students with 

disabilities and students without 

disabilities). 

Discussion: As explained previously, 

we have no authority to revise or 

expand the statutorily prescribed 

eligibility requirements; and, therefore, 

we cannot require applicants to have a 

record of significantly closing the 

achievement gaps between students in a 

particular subgroup and students not in 

that particular subgroup. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

support for the Department’s proposal to 

strengthen the evaluation requirement. 

Discussion: We appreciate the support 

for requiring each i3 grantee to conduct 

an evaluation that will produce an 

estimate of the impact of the i3- 

supported practice (as implemented at 

the proposed level of scale) on a 

relevant outcome (as defined in this 

document). This requirement also aims 

to increase the evidence available on 

existing practices. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

concern about the amount and timing of 

the matching requirement. The 

commenter stated that the requirement 

for matching funds conflicts with the 

Department’s interest in identifying 

imaginative approaches to improving 

education. 

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

ARRA specifically requires a privatesector match for grants awarded under 

this program. We understand the 

commenter’s concern about the 

challenges of securing significant 

private-sector investments. This 

concern, however, is addressed by the 

flexibility provided in the ‘‘Cost Sharing 

or Matching’’ requirement, which 

allows the Secretary to determine the 

required amount of private-sector 

matching funds or in-kind contributions 

that eligible applicants must obtain 

under an i3 competition in a given year. 

Moreover, the requirement now 

provides additional flexibility for the 

Secretary to announce in the notice 

inviting applications when and how 

selected eligible applicants must submit 

evidence of the private-sector matching 

funds. We expect the determination of 

the amount of the private-sector match, 

as well as the determination of when 

and how evidence of the private-sector 

match must be submitted, will be based 

on an assessment of the capacity and 

resources available in that particular 

year. In addition, an eligible applicant 

continues to have the option, under this 

requirement, to request in its 

application that the Secretary decrease 

the private-sector match amount that a 

particular applicant must provide. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Three commenters 

recommended that the i3 program 

require that any learning materials, 

professional development, or tools 

created with i3 funding be made 

publicly available as open educational 

resources. The commenters specifically 

cited the Creative Commons Attribution 

license as an exemplar because, 

according to the commenter, it is both 

consistent with the Department of 

Labor’s policy and clarifies how all 

users can access and use resources 

developed with Federal funds. One 

commenter stated that, although the 

Department’s current regulations reserve 

the right to make content available for 

government purposes, a policy similar 

to the Creative Commons Attribution 

license would provide a more 

immediate indication of the return on 

investment in i3-funded projects. 

Discussion: The Department’s 

regulations on project materials and 

copyrightable intellectual property 

produced with grant funds apply to all 

grants awarded under this program. 

Specifically, under 34 CFR 75.621, 

grantees may copyright project materials 

produced with Department grant funds. 

However, 34 CFR 74.36 and 80.34 state 

that the Department retains a nonexclusive and irrevocable license to 

reproduce, publish, or otherwise use 

project materials developed with grant 

funds for government purposes. 

Together these regulations allow i3 

grantees to copyright innovative project 

materials, thereby providing an 

incentive for the grantees to disseminate 

those materials through the commercial 

marketplace, while also recognizing that 

any such materials are the result of a 

public investment to promote learning, 

and can, if necessary, be made available 

to the public by the Department. 

Further, one of the primary objectives 

of the i3 program is to identify and 

document best practices that can be 

shared and replicated. One way we do 

so is through the requirement that all i3 

grantees participate in communities of 

practice. In addition, we establish 

priority 9 (Enabling Broad Adoption of 

Effective Practices) under which an 

applicant must share knowledge about 

the practice broadly and support the 

implementation of the practice in other 

settings and locations. We believe that 

the approach set out in the Department’s 

current regulations properly balances 

the intellectual property interests of 

grantees and the public’s interest in 

ensuring that copyrightable material 

produced with Department grant funds 

is widely disseminated. For these 

reasons, we decline to make the 

suggested change. 

Changes: None. 

Definitions 

Comment: One commenter urged the 

Department to include definitions for 

‘‘community engagement’’ and ‘‘family 

engagement,’’ and proposed definitions 

for the terms. The commenter’s 

proposed definitions describe qualities 

of effective engagement and include 

explicit references to engagement being 

an ongoing or continuous process. 

Discussion: We appreciate the 

commenter’s recommendation. 

However, we also recognize that the 

range of projects aimed at improving 

parent and family engagement is vast, 

and that the meaning of ‘‘parent and 

family engagement’’ is evolving. To 

ensure that we do not limit or narrow 

the types of projects that could be 

submitted under this program, we 

decline to provide a specific definition. 

Moreover, because priority 6 (Improving 

Parent and Family Engagement) focuses 

on specific gaps or needs related to 

parent and family engagement, it does 

not seem necessary to further define 

these terms. Finally, because 

community engagement is not part of 

the priorities under this program, we 

conclude that it is not necessity to 

establish a definition. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

concern that the current definition of 

‘‘high-need student’’ encompasses any 

student who functions below gradelevel. The commenter suggested the 

Department revise this definition to 

mean students with traditional 

achievement gaps, including lowincome students, racial and ethnic 

minority students, ELs, or students with 

disabilities. 

Discussion: The definition of ‘‘highneed student’’ could include students 

with traditional achievement gaps, 

including low-income students, racial 

and ethnic minority students, ELs, or 

students with disabilities. However, 

given the diversity of the projects that 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 27, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 18699 

could be funded under the i3 program, 

we think it is important that an 

applicant have the discretion to 

determine which students are at risk of 

educational failure, and to discuss how 

the proposed project will meet the 

needs of those students. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Three commenters 

recommended that the Department 

revise the examples of supplemental 

measures provided in the definition of 

‘‘highly effective principal’’ to include 

the percentage of students with 

disabilities educated in general 

classrooms. 

Discussion: The supplemental 

measures listed in the definition of 

‘‘highly effective principal’’ are 

examples and not exhaustive. 

Applicants have the discretion to 

consider other measures, including the 

percentage of students with disabilities 

in general education classrooms. 

Because of this, and because of the 

Department’s interest in maintaining 

consistency in the definition of ‘‘highly 

effective principal’’ across various 

Department programs, we decline to 

revise the definition to include 

additional examples of supplemental 

measures. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: A few commenters 

proposed revisions to the definition of 

‘‘highly effective teacher.’’ One 

commenter stated that the proposed 

definition narrowly conforms to the 

traditional role of a teacher lecturing a 

classroom and must be broadened to 

include all educators. As student 

learning occurs at individual rates, and 

because learning can happen any time 

and in any place, the commenter 

suggested that a teacher’s effectiveness 

rating should be more flexible and allow 

for differentiated timetables for content 

mastery, consistent with the learning at 

any time, any place, and any pace. 

Another commenter stated that the 

proposed definition fails to reflect the 

new world of teaching because it does 

not recognize that multiple adults affect 

student learning in schools using a 

differential staffing model. 

One commenter recommended the 

definition be revised to clarify that the 

measures of effectiveness for highly 

effective teachers be based on standards 

for teaching that relate to student 

learning. The commenter suggested that, 

in addition to student growth, standards 

created by the National Board for 

Professional Teaching Standards or the 

Interstate New Teacher Assessment and 

Support Consortium should be included 

as measures of teacher effectiveness. 

Three commenters recommended that 

the Department revise the definition of 

‘‘highly effective teacher’’ to incorporate 

additional supplemental measures that 

are specific to teachers of students with 

disabilities, including knowledge and 

implementation of the principles of 

UDL and assessments that measure 

effectiveness of addressing diverse 

learners’ needs. 

Discussion: We recognize that the 

classroom teacher is not the only 

individual to affect student 

achievement, and that learning may 

occur outside of the traditional 

classroom. However, as the definition of 

‘‘highly effective teacher’’ refers to 

‘‘student growth,’’ we conclude that the 

definition would not need to take into 

consideration differentiated timetables 

for content mastery because the 

definition for ‘‘student growth’’ does not 

prescribe the two or more points in time 

that needs to be used to measure a 

change in student achievement. Further, 

because multiple measures may be used 

to determine teacher effectiveness, we 

do not agree it is necessary to prescribe 

that applicants use a specific set of 

teaching standards. 

The list of supplemental measures 

provided in the definition of ‘‘highly 

effective teacher’’ provides examples 

and is not exhaustive. Applicants have 

the discretion to consider other 

measures, including measures proposed 

by the commenters. Because the use of 

the proposed supplemental measures is 

possible under the current definition 

and because of the Department’s interest 

in maintaining consistency in the 

definition of ‘‘highly effective teachers’’ 

across Department programs, we decline 

to revise the definition to include 

additional examples of supplemental 

measures. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that the Department broaden the types 

of assessments used in the definition of 

‘‘student achievement.’’ The commenter 

stated that assessments specified in the 

definition should be as robust as the 

skills students are expected to 

demonstrate, including assessments that 

measure a student’s ability to: master 

core content, think critically and solve 

complex problems, collaborate with 

peers, be self-directed, and integrate 

feedback. 

Three commenters recommended that 

the Department revise the definitions of 

‘‘student achievement’’ and ‘‘student 

growth’’ to include measures that are 

evidence-based and comparable across 

student groups. 

Discussion: We agree that students 

need to be proficient in a robust set of 

skills. That is why the definition of 

‘‘student achievement’’ includes, in 

addition to the assessments required 

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

other measures of student learning. 

Because other measures of student 

learning may be used under the current 

definition, and because of the 

Department’s interest in maintaining 

consistency in the definitions of 

‘‘student achievement’’ and ‘‘student 

growth’’ across Department programs, 

we decline to revise the definition. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: None. 

Discussion: As part of our internal 

review, we noted that we inadvertently 

omitted the definition for ‘‘nonprofit 

organization’’ from the notice of 

proposed priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection. As we did not 

propose, or have any intention of 

making, a change to this definition, we 

have added the definition that we have 

used in prior i3 competitions. 

Changes: We have defined ‘‘nonprofit 

organization’’ to mean 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. 

Comment: None. 

Discussion: We have revised the 

definitions of ‘‘moderate evidence of 

effectiveness’’ and ‘‘strong evidence of 

effectiveness’’ by adding the phrase 

‘‘and overriding’’ to the second 

parenthetical in sections (a) and (b) of 

both definitions. The purpose of our 

adding this phrase is to clarify the 

meaning of the parenthetical, which was 

intended to apply only to studies with 

unfavorable outcomes that were so 

substantial as to call into question the 

potential effectiveness of the 

intervention. The modification to the 

parenthetical makes clear the narrow 

scope of the parenthetical. 

Changes: We have revised the second 

parenthetical in sections (a) and (b) of 

the definitions of ‘‘moderate evidence of 

effectiveness’’ and ‘‘strong evidence of 

effectiveness’’ to add the phrase ‘‘and 

overriding.’’ The parenthetical now 

reads ‘‘with no statistically significant 

and overriding unfavorable impacts on 

that outcome for relevant populations in 

the study or in other studies of the 

intervention reviewed by and reported 

on by the What Works Clearinghouse.’’ 

Selection Criteria 

The Department did not receive any 

comments on the proposed selection 

criteria. Therefore, we make no changes 

to the selection criteria. 

FINAL PRIORITIES: 

Priority 1—Improving the 

Effectiveness of Teachers or Principals. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
18700 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 27, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

Under this priority, we provide 

funding to projects that address one or 

more of the following priority areas: 

(a) Developing and implementing new 

methods and sources for recruiting: 

(1) Highly effective teachers (as 

defined in this document); 

(2) Highly effective principals (as 

defined in this document); or 

(3) Highly effective teachers and 

principals (as defined in this 

document). 

(b) Developing and implementing 

models for teacher preparation that 

deepen pedagogical knowledge and 

skills which have been demonstrated to 

improve student achievement (as 

defined in this document), such as 

knowledge of instructional practices or 

knowledge and skills in classroom 

management, or that deepen 

pedagogical content knowledge. 

(c) Developing and implementing 

models for principal preparation that 

deepen leadership skills which have 

been demonstrated to improve student 

achievement (as defined in this 

document). 

(d) Developing and implementing 

models of induction and support for 

improving the knowledge and skills of 

novice teachers or novice principals to 

accelerate student performance, 

including but not limited to strategies 

designed to increase teacher retention or 

improve teacher or principal 

effectiveness. 

(e) Creating career pathways with 

differentiated opportunities and roles 

for teachers or principals, which may 

include differentiated compensation. 

(f) Designing and implementing 

teacher or principal evaluation systems 

that provide clear, timely, and useful 

feedback, including feedback that 

identifies areas for improvement and 

that guides professional development 

for teachers or principals. 

(g) Developing supports for the 

ongoing development and performance 

improvement of teachers, principals, or 

instructional leaders, such as local and 

virtual communities, tools, training, and 

other mechanisms. 

(h) Increasing the equitable access to 

effective teachers or principals for lowincome and high-need students (as 

defined in this document), which may 

include increasing the equitable 

distribution of effective teachers or 

principals for low-income and highneed students across schools. 

(i) Extending highly effective teachers’ 

reach to serve more students, including 

strategies such as new course designs, 

staffing models, technology platforms, 

or new opportunities for collaboration 

that allow highly effective teachers to 

reach more students, or approaches or 

tools that reduce administrative and 

other burden while maintaining or 

improving effectiveness. 

(j) Projects addressing pressing needs 

related to improving teacher or 

principal effectiveness. 

Priority 2—Improving Low-Performing 

Schools. 

Under this priority, we provide 

funding to projects that address one or 

more of the following priority areas: 

(a) Designing whole-school models 

and implementing processes that lead to 

significant and sustained improvement 

in individual student performance and 

overall school performance and culture. 

These models may incorporate such 

strategies as providing strong school 

leadership; strengthening the 

instructional program; embedding 

professional development that provides 

teachers with frequent feedback to 

increase the rigor and effectiveness of 

their instructional practice; redesigning 

the school day, week, or year; using data 

to inform instruction and improvement; 

establishing a school environment that 

promotes a culture of high expectations; 

addressing non-academic factors that 

affect student achievement; and 

providing ongoing mechanisms for 

parent and family engagement. 

(b) Changing elements of the school’s 

organizational design to improve 

instruction by differentiating staff roles 

and extending and enhancing 

instructional time. 

(c) Recruiting, developing, or 

retaining highly effective staff, 

specifically teachers, principals, or 

instructional leaders, to work in lowperforming schools. 

(d) Implementing programs, supports, 

or other strategies that improve 

students’ non-cognitive abilities (e.g., 

motivation, persistence, or resilience) 

and enhance student engagement in 

learning or mitigate the effects of 

poverty, including physical, mental, or 

emotional health issues, on student 

engagement in learning. 

(e) Supporting the turnaround efforts 

of low-performing schools or districts by 

increasing access to, and use of, highquality partners. 

(f) Increasing district- or State-level 

capacity to turn around low-performing 

schools, including improvements to 

State and district support and oversight 

of turnaround efforts. 

(g) Projects that support the 

implementation of turnaround efforts in 

secondary schools. 

(h) Projects addressing pressing needs 

related to improving low-performing 

schools. 

Other requirements related to Priority 

2: 

To meet this priority, a project must 

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

academic performance measures; (2) 

schools in the State with the largest 

within-school performance gaps 

between student subgroups described in 

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

secondary schools in the State with the 

lowest graduation rate over a number of 

years or the largest within-school gaps 

in graduation rates between student 

subgroups described in section 

1111(b)(2) of the ESEA. Additionally, 

projects funded under this priority must 

complement the broader turnaround 

efforts of the school(s), LEA(s), or 

State(s) where the projects will be 

implemented. 

Priority 3—Improving Science, 

Technology, Engineering, and 

Mathematics (STEM) Education. 

Under this priority, we provide 

funding to projects that address one or 

more of the following priority areas: 

(a) Providing students with increased 

access to rigorous and engaging 

coursework in STEM. 

(b) Redesigning STEM course content 

and instructional practices to engage 

students and increase student 

achievement (as defined in this 

document). 

(c) Developing and implementing new 

methods and resources for recruiting 

individuals with content expertise in 

STEM subject areas into teaching. 

(d) Increasing the high-quality 

preparation of, or professional 

development for, teachers or other 

educators in STEM subjects, through 

activities that include building content 

and pedagogical content knowledge. 

(e) Expanding high-quality out-ofschool and extended-day activities, 

including extending the day, week, or 

year, or before- or after- school, or 

summer learning programs, that provide 

students with opportunities for 

deliberate practice that increase STEM 

learning, engagement, and expertise. 

(f) Increasing the number of 

individuals from groups traditionally 

underrepresented in STEM, including 

minorities, individuals with disabilities, 

and women and girls, who access 

rigorous and engaging coursework in 

STEM and are prepared for 

postsecondary study in STEM. 

(g) Increasing the number of 

individuals from groups traditionally 

underrepresented in STEM, including 

minorities, individuals with disabilities, 

and women, who are teachers or 

educators of STEM subjects and receive 

high-quality preparation or professional 

development. 

(h) Projects addressing pressing needs 

for improving STEM education. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 27, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 18701 

Priority 4—Improving Academic 

Outcomes for Students with Disabilities. 

Under this priority, we provide 

funding to projects that address one or 

more of the following priority areas: 

(a) Implementing coherent systems of 

support that appropriately coordinate 

and integrate programs to address the 

needs of children and youth with 

disabilities and improve the quality of 

service for those children and their 

families. 

(b) Designing and implementing 

teacher evaluation systems that define 

and measure effectiveness of special 

education teachers and related service 

providers. 

(c) Designing and implementing 

strategies that improve student 

achievement (as defined in this 

document) for students with disabilities 

in inclusive settings, including 

strategies that improve learning and 

developmental outcomes (i.e., academic, 

social, emotional, or behavioral) and the 

appropriate transition from restrictive 

settings to inclusive settings or general 

education classes or programs, and 

appropriate strategies to prevent 

unnecessary suspensions and 

expulsions. 

(d) Improving secondary and 

postsecondary data collection and 

tracking of academic and related 

outcomes for students with disabilities 

to understand their transition into 

postsecondary education and the factors 

associated with their success. 

(e) Projects addressing pressing needs 

related to improving academic outcomes 

for students with disabilities. 

Priority 5—Improving Academic 

Outcomes for English Learners (ELs). 

Under this priority, we provide 

funding to projects that address one or 

more of the following priority areas: 

(a) Increasing the number and 

proportion of ELs successfully 

completing courses in core academic 

subjects by developing, implementing, 

and evaluating new instructional 

approaches and tools that are sensitive 

to the language demands necessary to 

access challenging content, including 

technology-based tools. 

(b) Aligning and implementing the 

curriculum and instruction used in 

grades 6–12 for language development 

and content courses to provide 

sufficient exposure to, engagement in, 

and acquisition of academic language 

and literacy practices necessary for 

preparing ELs to be college- and careerready. 

(c) Preparing ELs to be on track to be 

college- and career-ready when they 

graduate from high school by 

developing comprehensive, 

developmentally appropriate, early 

learning programs (birth-grade 3) that 

are aligned with the State’s high-quality 

early learning standards, designed to 

improve readiness for kindergarten, and 

support development of literacy and 

academic skills in English or in English 

and another language. 

(d) Developing and implementing 

school-wide professional development 

for teachers, administrators, and other 

personnel in schools in which a 

significant percentage of students are 

ELs. 

(e) Designing and implementing 

teacher evaluation systems that define 

and measure the effectiveness of 

teachers of students who at some point 

have been identified as ELs (i.e., both 

current and former ELs). 

(f) Projects addressing pressing needs 

related to improving academic outcomes 

for ELs. 

Priority 6—Improving Parent and 

Family Engagement. 

Under this priority, we provide 

funding to projects that address one or 

more of the following priority areas: 

(a) Developing and implementing 

initiatives that train parents and 

families in the skills and strategies that 

will support their students in improving 

academic outcomes, including increased 

engagement and persistence in school. 

(b) Implementing initiatives that are 

designed to enhance the skills and 

competencies of teachers, and of school 

and other administrative staff, in 

building relationships and collaborating 

with students’ families, particularly 

those who have been underengaged 

with the school(s) in the past, in order 

to support student achievement and 

school improvement. 

(c) Implementing initiatives that 

cultivate sustainable partnerships and 

increase connections between parents 

and school staff in order to support 

student achievement and school 

improvement. 

(d) Developing tools or practices that 

provide students and parents with 

improved, ongoing access to, and use of, 

data and other information about 

students’ progress and performance. 

(e) Projects addressing pressing needs 

related to improving student outcomes 

by improving parent and family 

engagement. 

Priority 7—Improving CostEffectiveness and Productivity. 

Under this priority, we provide 

funding to projects that address one of 

the following areas: 

(a) Substantially improving student 

outcomes without commensurately 

increasing per-student costs. 

(b) Maintaining student outcomes 

while substantially decreasing perstudent costs. 

(c) Substantially improving student 

outcomes while substantially decreasing 

per-student costs. 

Other requirements related to Priority 

7: 

An application addressing this 

priority must provide— 

(1) A clear and coherent budget that 

identifies expected student outcomes 

before and after the practice, the cost 

per student for the practice, and a clear 

calculation of the cost per student 

served; 

(2) A compelling discussion of the 

expected cost-effectiveness of the 

practice compared with alternative 

practices; 

(3) A clear delineation of one-time 

costs versus ongoing costs and a plan for 

sustaining the project, particularly 

ongoing costs, after the expiration of i3 

funding; 

(4) Identification of specific activities 

designed to increase substantially the 

cost-effectiveness of the practice, such 

as re-designing costly components of the 

practice (while maintaining efficacy) or 

testing multiple versions of the practice 

in order to identify the most costeffective approach; and 

(5) A project evaluation that addresses 

the cost-effectiveness of the proposed 

practice. 

Priority 8—Effective Use of 

Technology. 

Under this priority, we will provide 

funding to projects that use technology 

to address one or more of the following 

priority areas: 

(a) Providing access to learning 

experiences that are personalized, 

adaptive, and self-improving in order to 

optimize the delivery of instruction to 

learners with a variety of learning 

needs. 

(b) Providing students and teachers 

with equitable ‘‘anytime, anywhere’’ 

access to learning materials and 

experiences that they otherwise would 

not have access to, such as rigorous 

coursework that is not offered in a 

particular school, or effective 

professional development activities or 

learning communities enabled by 

technology. 

(c) Developing new methods and 

resources for teacher preparation or 

professional development that increase 

teachers’ abilities to utilize technology 

to enhance their knowledge and skills to 

improve student achievement (as 

defined in this document) and to close 

achievement gaps. 

(d) Implementing strategies that 

improve student proficiencies in 

complex skills, such as critical thinking 

and collaboration across academic 

disciplines. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
18702 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 27, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

(e) Developing and implementing 

technology-enabled strategies for 

teaching and learning concepts and 

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

difficult to teach using traditional 

approaches, such as models and 

simulations, collaborative virtual 

environments, or ‘‘serious games’’. 

(f) Integrating technology with the 

implementation of rigorous college- and 

career-ready standards to increase 

student achievement (as defined in this 

document), student engagement, and 

teacher efficacy, such as by providing 

embedded, real-time assessment and 

feedback to students and teachers. 

(g) Projects that increase the use of 

technology for effective teaching and 

learning. 

Priority 9—Enabling Broad Adoption 

of Effective Practices. 

Under this priority, we provide 

funding to projects that enable broad 

adoption of effective practices. An 

application proposing to address this 

priority must, as part of its application: 

(a) Identify the practice or practices 

that the application proposes to prepare 

for broad adoption, including 

formalizing the practice (i.e., establish 

and define key elements of the practice), 

codifying (i.e., develop a guide or tools 

to support the dissemination of 

information on key elements of the 

practice), and explaining why there is a 

need for formalization and codification. 

(b) Evaluate different forms of the 

practice to identify the critical 

components of the practice that are 

crucial to its success and sustainability, 

including the adaptability of critical 

components to different teaching and 

learning environments and to diverse 

learners. 

(c) Provide a coherent and 

comprehensive plan for developing 

materials, training, toolkits, or other 

supports that other entities would need 

in order to implement the practice 

effectively and with fidelity. 

(d) Commit to assessing the 

replicability and adaptability of the 

practice by supporting the 

implementation of the practice in a 

variety of locations during the project 

period using the materials, training, 

toolkits, or other supports that were 

developed for the i3-supported practice. 

Priority 10—Serving Rural 

Communities. 

Under this priority, we provide 

funding to projects that address one of 

the absolute priorities established for a 

particular i3 competition and under 

which the majority of students to be 

served are enrolled in rural local 

educational agencies (as defined in this 

document). 

Priority 11—Supporting Novice i3 

Applicants. 

Eligible applicants that have never 

directly received a grant under this 

program. 

Types of Priorities: 

When inviting applications for a 

competition using one or more 

priorities, we designate the type of each 

priority as absolute, competitive 

preference, or invitational through a 

notice in the Federal Register. The 

effect of each type of priority follows: 

Absolute priority: Under an absolute 

priority, we consider only applications 

that meet the priority (34 CFR 

75.105(c)(3)). 

Competitive preference priority: 

Under a competitive preference priority, 

we give competitive preference to an 

application by (1) awarding additional 

points, depending on the extent to 

which the application meets the priority 

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

an application that meets the priority 

over an application of comparable merit 

that does not meet the priority (34 CFR 

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

Invitational priority: Under an 

invitational priority, we are particularly 

interested in applications that meet the 

priority. However, we do not give an 

application that meets the priority a 

preference over other applications (34 

CFR 75.105(c)(1)). 

Final Requirements: 

1. Innovations that Improve 

Achievement for High-Need Students: 

All grantees must implement practices 

that are designed to improve student 

achievement (as defined in this 

document) or student growth (as 

defined in this document), close 

achievement gaps, decrease dropout 

rates, increase high school graduation 

rates (as defined in this document), or 

increase college enrollment and 

completion rates for high-need students 

(as defined in this document). 

2. Innovations that Serve 

Kindergarten-through-Grade-12 (K–12) 

Students: All grantees must implement 

practices that serve students who are in 

grades K–12 at some point during the 

funding period. To meet this 

requirement, projects that serve early 

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

preschoolers) must provide services or 

supports that extend into kindergarten 

or later years, and projects that serve 

postsecondary students must provide 

services or supports during the 

secondary grades or earlier. 

3. Eligible Applicants: Entities eligible 

to apply for i3 grants include either of 

the following: 

(a) An LEA. 

(b) A partnership between a nonprofit 

organization and— 

(1) One or more LEAs; or 

(2) A consortium of schools. 

Statutory Eligibility Requirements: 

Except as specifically set forth in the 

Note about Eligibility for an Eligible 

Applicant that Includes a Nonprofit 

Organization that follows, to be eligible 

for an award, an eligible applicant 

must— 

(a)(1) Have significantly closed the 

achievement gaps between groups of 

students described in section 1111(b)(2) 

of the ESEA (economically 

disadvantaged students, students from 

major racial and ethnic groups, students 

with limited English proficiency, 

students with disabilities); or 

(2) Have demonstrated success in 

significantly increasing student 

academic achievement for all groups of 

students described in that section; 

(b) Have made significant 

improvements in other areas, such as 

high school graduation rates (as defined 

in this document) or increased 

recruitment and placement of highquality teachers and principals, as 

demonstrated with meaningful data; 

(c) Demonstrate that it has established 

one or more partnerships with the 

private sector, which may include 

philanthropic organizations, and that 

organizations in the private sector will 

provide matching funds in order to help 

bring results to scale; and 

(d) In the case of an eligible applicant 

that includes a nonprofit organization, 

provide in the application the names of 

the LEAs with which the nonprofit 

organization will partner, or the names 

of the schools in the consortium with 

which it will partner. If an eligible 

applicant that includes a nonprofit 

organization intends to partner with 

additional LEAs or schools that are not 

named in the application, it must 

describe in the application the 

demographic and other characteristics 

of these LEAs and schools and the 

process it will use to select them. 

Note about LEA Eligibility: For 

purposes of this program, an LEA is an 

LEA located within one of the 50 States, 

the District of Columbia, or the 

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. 

Note about Eligibility for an Eligible 

Applicant that Includes a Nonprofit 

Organization: The authorizing statute 

specifies that an eligible applicant that 

includes a nonprofit organization meets 

the requirements in paragraphs (a) and 

(b) of the eligibility requirements for 

this program if the nonprofit 

organization has a record of 

significantly improving student 

achievement, attainment, or retention. 

For an eligible applicant that includes a 

nonprofit organization, the nonprofit 

organization must demonstrate that it 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 27, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 18703 

has a record of significantly improving 

student achievement, attainment, or 

retention through its record of work 

with an LEA or schools. Therefore, an 

eligible applicant that includes a 

nonprofit organization does not 

necessarily need to include as a partner 

for its i3 grant an LEA or a consortium 

of schools that meets the requirements 

in paragraphs (a) and (b) of the 

eligibility requirements in this 

document. 

In addition, the authorizing statute 

specifies that an eligible applicant that 

includes a nonprofit organization meets 

the requirements of paragraph (c) of the 

eligibility requirements in this 

document if the eligible applicant 

demonstrates that it will meet the 

requirement for private-sector matching. 

4. Cost-Sharing or Matching Funds: 

To be eligible for an award, an applicant 

must demonstrate that one or more 

private sector organizations, which may 

include philanthropic organizations, 

will provide matching funds in order to 

help bring project results to scale. An 

eligible applicant must obtain matching 

funds or in-kind donations equal to an 

amount that the Secretary will specify 

in the notice inviting applications for 

the specific i3 competition. The 

Secretary will announce in the notice 

inviting applications when and how 

selected eligible applicants must submit 

evidence of the private-sector matching 

funds. 

The Secretary may consider 

decreasing the matching requirement in 

the most exceptional circumstances. 

The Secretary will provide instructions 

for how to request a reduction of the 

matching requirement in the notice 

inviting applications. 

5. Evidence Standards: To be eligible 

for an award, an application for a 

Development grant must be supported 

by one of the following: 

(a) Evidence of promise (as defined in 

this document); 

(b) Strong theory (as defined in this 

document); or 

(c) Evidence of promise (as defined in 

this document) or strong theory (as 

defined in this document). 

The Secretary will announce in the 

notice inviting applications which 

options will be used as the evidence 

standard for a Development grant in a 

given competition. Note that under (c), 

applicants must identify whether the 

application is supported by evidence of 

promise (as defined in this document) 

or strong theory (as defined in this 

document). 

To be eligible for an award, an 

application for a Validation grant must 

be supported by moderate evidence of 

effectiveness (as defined in this 

document). 

To be eligible for an award, an 

application for a Scale-up grant must be 

supported by strong evidence of 

effectiveness (as defined in this 

document). 

6. Funding Categories: An applicant 

will be considered for an award only for 

the type of i3 grant (i.e., Development, 

Validation, and Scale-up) for which it 

applies. An applicant may not submit 

an application for the same proposed 

project under more than one type of 

grant. 

7. Limit on Grant Awards: (a) No 

grantee may receive more than two new 

grant awards of any type under the i3 

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

more than one new Scale-up or 

Validation grant; and (c) No grantee may 

receive in a single year new i3 grant 

awards that total an amount greater than 

the sum of the maximum amount of 

funds for a Scale-up grant and the 

maximum amount of funds for a 

Development grant for that year. For 

example, in a year when the maximum 

award value for a Scale-up grant is $25 

million and the maximum award value 

for a Development grant is $5 million, 

no grantee may receive in a single year 

new grants totaling more than $30 

million. 

8. Subgrants: In the case of an eligible 

applicant that is a partnership between 

a nonprofit organization and (1) one or 

more LEAs or (2) a consortium of 

schools, the partner serving as the 

applicant and, if funded, as the grantee, 

may make subgrants to one or more 

entities in the partnership. 

9. Evaluation: The grantee must 

conduct an independent evaluation (as 

defined in this document) of its project. 

This evaluation must estimate the 

impact of the i3-supported practice (as 

implemented at the proposed level of 

scale) on a relevant outcome (as defined 

in this document). The grantee must 

make broadly available digitally and 

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

newsletters) mechanisms, the results of 

any evaluations it conducts of its 

funded activities. For Scale-up and 

Validation grants, the grantee must also 

ensure that the data from its evaluation 

are made available to third-party 

researchers consistent with applicable 

privacy requirements. 

In addition, the grantee and its 

independent evaluator must agree to 

cooperate with any technical assistance 

provided by the Department or its 

contractor and comply with the 

requirements of any evaluation of the 

program conducted by the Department. 

This includes providing to the 

Department, within 100 days of a grant 

award, an updated comprehensive 

evaluation plan in a format and using 

such tools as the Department may 

require. Grantees must update this 

evaluation plan at least annually to 

reflect any changes to the evaluation. 

All of these updates must be consistent 

with the scope and objectives of the 

approved application. 

10. Communities of Practice: Grantees 

must participate in, organize, or 

facilitate, as appropriate, communities 

of practice for the i3 program. A 

community of practice is a group of 

grantees that agrees to interact regularly 

to solve a persistent problem or improve 

practice in an area that is important to 

them. 

11. Management Plan: Within 100 

days of a grant award, the grantee must 

provide an updated comprehensive 

management plan for the approved 

project in a format and using such tools 

as the Department may require. This 

management plan must include detailed 

information about implementation of 

the first year of the grant, including key 

milestones, staffing details, and other 

information that the Department may 

require. It must also include a complete 

list of performance metrics, including 

baseline measures and annual targets. 

The grantee must update this 

management plan at least annually to 

reflect implementation of subsequent 

years of the project. 

Final Definitions: 

The Assistant Deputy Secretary 

establishes the following definitions for 

this program. We may apply one or 

more of these definitions in any year in 

which this program is in effect. 

Consortium of schools means two or 

more public elementary or secondary 

schools acting collaboratively for the 

purpose of applying for and 

implementing an i3 grant jointly with an 

eligible nonprofit organization. 

Evidence of promise means there is 

empirical evidence to support the 

theoretical linkage between at least one 

critical component and at least one 

relevant outcome presented in the logic 

model (as defined in this document) for 

the proposed process, product, strategy, 

or practice. Specifically, evidence of 

promise means the following conditions 

are met: 

(a) There is at least one study that is 

either a— 

(1) Correlational study with statistical 

controls for selection bias; 

(2) Quasi-experimental study (as 

defined in this document) that meets the 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
18704 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 27, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

1See What Works Clearinghouse Procedures and 

Standards Handbook (Version 2.1, September 2011), 

which can currently be found at the following link: 

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

DocumentSum.aspx?sid=19. 

2See What Works Clearinghouse Procedures and 

Standards Handbook (Version 2.1, September 2011), 

which can currently be found at the following link: 

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

DocumentSum.aspx?sid=19. 

3See What Works Clearinghouse Procedures and 

Standards Handbook (Version 2.1, September 2011), 

which can currently be found at the following link: 

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

DocumentSum.aspx?sid=19. 

4See What Works Clearinghouse Procedures and 

Standards Handbook (Version 2.1, September 2011), 

which can currently be found at the following link: 

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

DocumentSum.aspx?sid=19. 

What Works Clearinghouse Evidence 

Standards with reservations 1; or 

(3) Randomized controlled trial (as 

defined in this document) that meets the 

What Works Clearinghouse Evidence 

Standards with or without 

reservations; 2 and 

(b) Such a study found a statistically 

significant or substantively important 

(defined as a difference of 0.25 standard 

deviations or larger), favorable 

association between at least one critical 

component and one relevant outcome 

presented in the logic model for the 

proposed process, product, strategy, or 

practice. 

High-need student means a student at 

risk of educational failure or otherwise 

in need of special assistance and 

support, such as students who are living 

in poverty, who attend high-minority 

schools (as defined in this document), 

who are far below grade level, who have 

left school before receiving a regular 

high school diploma, who are at risk of 

not graduating with a diploma on time, 

who are homeless, who are in foster 

care, who have been incarcerated, who 

have disabilities, or who are English 

learners. 

High-minority school is defined by a 

school’s LEA in a manner consistent 

with the corresponding State’s Teacher 

Equity Plan, as required by section 

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

applicant must provide, in its i3 

application, the definition(s) used. 

High school graduation rate means a 

four-year adjusted cohort graduation 

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

and may also include an extended-year 

adjusted cohort graduation rate 

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

the State in which the proposed project 

is implemented has been approved by 

the Secretary to use such a rate under 

Title I of the ESEA. 

Highly effective principal means a 

principal whose students, overall and 

for each subgroup as described in 

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

(economically disadvantaged students, 

students from major racial and ethnic 

groups, migrant students, students with 

disabilities, students with limited 

English proficiency, and students of 

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

one and one-half grade levels in an 

academic year) of student growth. 

Eligible applicants may include 

multiple measures, provided that 

principal effectiveness is evaluated, in 

significant part, based on student 

growth. Supplemental measures may 

include, for example, high school 

graduation rates; college enrollment 

rates; evidence of providing supportive 

teaching and learning conditions, 

support for ensuring effective 

instruction across subject areas for a 

well-rounded education, strong 

instructional leadership, and positive 

family and community engagement; or 

evidence of attracting, developing, and 

retaining high numbers of effective 

teachers. 

Highly effective teacher means a 

teacher whose students achieve high 

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

in an academic year) of student growth. 

Eligible applicants may include 

multiple measures, provided that 

teacher effectiveness is evaluated, in 

significant part, based on student 

academic growth. Supplemental 

measures may include, for example, 

multiple observation-based assessments 

of teacher performance or evidence of 

leadership roles (which may include 

mentoring or leading professional 

learning communities) that increase the 

effectiveness of other teachers in the 

school or LEA. 

Independent evaluation means that 

the evaluation is designed and carried 

out independent of, but in coordination 

with, any employees of the entities who 

develop a process, product, strategy, or 

practice and are implementing it. 

Innovation means a process, product, 

strategy, or practice that improves (or is 

expected to improve) significantly upon 

the outcomes reached with status quo 

options and that can ultimately reach 

widespread effective usage. 

Large sample means a sample of 350 

or more students (or other single 

analysis units) who were randomly 

assigned to a treatment or control group, 

or 50 or more groups (such as 

classrooms or schools) that contain 10 

or more students (or other single 

analysis units) and that were randomly 

assigned to a treatment or control group. 

Logic model (also referred to as theory 

of action) means a well-specified 

conceptual framework that identifies 

key components of the proposed 

process, product, strategy, or practice 

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

hypothesized to be critical to achieving 

the relevant outcomes) and describes 

the relationships among the key 

components and outcomes, theoretically 

and operationally. 

Moderate evidence of effectiveness 

means one of the following conditions 

is met: 

(a) There is at least one study of the 

effectiveness of the process, product, 

strategy, or practice being proposed that: 

meets the What Works Clearinghouse 

Evidence Standards without 

reservations; 3 found a statistically 

significant favorable impact on a 

relevant outcome (as defined in this 

document) (with no statistically 

significant and overriding unfavorable 

impacts on that outcome for relevant 

populations in the study or in other 

studies of the intervention reviewed by 

and reported on by the What Works 

Clearinghouse); and includes a sample 

that overlaps with the populations or 

settings proposed to receive the process, 

product, strategy, or practice. 

(b) There is at least one study of the 

effectiveness of the process, product, 

strategy, or practice being proposed that: 

meets the What Works Clearinghouse 

Evidence Standards with reservations; 4

found a statistically significant favorable 

impact on a relevant outcome (as 

defined in this document) (with no 

statistically significant and overriding 

unfavorable impacts on that outcome for 

relevant populations in the study or in 

other studies of the intervention 

reviewed by and reported on by the 

What Works Clearinghouse); includes a 

sample that overlaps with the 

populations or settings proposed to 

receive the process, product, strategy, or 

practice; and includes a large sample (as 

defined in this document) and a multisite sample (as defined in this 

document). (Note: multiple studies can 

cumulatively meet the large and multisite sample requirements as long as each 

study meets the other requirements in 

this paragraph). 

Multi-site sample means more than 

one site, where site can be defined as an 

LEA, locality, or State. 

National level describes the level of 

scope or effectiveness of a process, 

product, strategy, or practice that is able 

to be effective in a wide variety of 

communities, including rural and urban 

areas, as well as with different groups 

(e.g., economically disadvantaged, racial 

and ethnic groups, migrant populations, 

individuals with disabilities, English 

learners, and individuals of each 

gender). 

Nonprofit organization means an 

entity that meets the definition of 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 27, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 18705 

5See What Works Clearinghouse Procedures and 

Standards Handbook (Version 2.1, September 2011), 

which can currently be found at the following link: 

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

6See What Works Clearinghouse Procedures and 

Standards Handbook (Version 2.1, September 2011), 

which can currently be found at the following link: 

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

7See What Works Clearinghouse Procedures and 

Standards Handbook (Version 2.1, September 2011), 

which can currently be found at the following link: 

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

DocumentSum.aspx?sid=19. 8See What Works Clearinghouse Procedures and 

Standards Handbook (Version 2.1, September 2011), 

which can currently be found at the following link: 

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

DocumentSum.aspx?sid=19. 

‘‘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. 

Quasi-experimental design study 

means a study using a design that 

attempts to approximate an 

experimental design by identifying a 

comparison group that is similar to the 

treatment group in important respects. 

These studies, depending on design and 

implementation, can meet What Works 

Clearinghouse Evidence Standards with 

reservations 5 (they cannot meet What 

Works Clearinghouse Evidence 

Standards without reservations). 

Randomized controlled trial means a 

study that employs random assignment 

of, for example, students, teachers, 

classrooms, schools, or districts to 

receive the intervention being evaluated 

(the treatment group) or not to receive 

the intervention (the control group). The 

estimated effectiveness of the 

intervention is the difference between 

the average outcome for the treatment 

group and for the control group. These 

studies, depending on design and 

implementation, can meet What Works 

Clearinghouse Evidence Standards 

without reservations.6

Regional level describes the level of 

scope or effectiveness of a process, 

product, strategy, or practice that is able 

to serve a variety of communities within 

a State or multiple States, including 

rural and urban areas, as well as with 

different groups (e.g., economically 

disadvantaged, racial and ethnic groups, 

migrant populations, individuals with 

disabilities, English learners, and 

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

regional-level project, a process, 

product, strategy, or practice must serve 

students in more than one LEA, unless 

the process, product, strategy, or 

practice is implemented in a State in 

which the State educational agency is 

the sole educational agency for all 

schools. 

Relevant outcome means the student 

outcome or outcomes (or the ultimate 

outcome if not related to students) that 

the proposed project is designed to 

improve, consistent with the specific 

goals of the project and the i3 program. 

Rural local educational agency means 

a local educational agency (LEA) that is 

eligible under the Small Rural School 

Achievement (SRSA) program or the 

Rural and Low-Income School (RLIS) 

program authorized under Title VI, Part 

B of the ESEA. Eligible applicants may 

determine whether a particular LEA is 

eligible for these programs by referring 

to information on the Department’s Web 

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

reap.html. 

Strong evidence of effectiveness 

means that one of the following 

conditions is met: 

(a) There is at least one study of the 

effectiveness of the process, product, 

strategy, or practice being proposed that: 

meets the What Works Clearinghouse 

Evidence Standards without 

reservations; 7 found a statistically 

significant favorable impact on a 

relevant outcome (as defined in this 

document) (with no statistically 

significant and overriding unfavorable 

impacts on that outcome for relevant 

populations in the study or in other 

studies of the intervention reviewed by 

and reported on by the What Works 

Clearinghouse); includes a sample that 

overlaps with the populations and 

settings proposed to receive the process, 

product, strategy, or practice; and 

includes a large sample (as defined in 

this document) and a multi-site sample 

(as defined in this document). (Note: 

multiple studies can cumulatively meet 

the large and multi-site sample 

requirements as long as each study 

meets the other requirements in this 

paragraph). 

(b) There are at least two studies of 

the effectiveness of the process, product, 

strategy, or practice being proposed, 

each of which: meets the What Works 

Clearinghouse Evidence Standards with 

reservations; 8 found a statistically 

significant favorable impact on a 

relevant outcome (as defined in this 

document) (with no statistically 

significant and overriding unfavorable 

impacts on that outcome for relevant 

populations in the studies or in other 

studies of the intervention reviewed by 

and reported on by the What Works 

Clearinghouse); includes a sample that 

overlaps with the populations and 

settings proposed to receive the process, 

product, strategy, or practice; and 

includes a large sample (as defined in 

this document) and a multi-site sample 

(as defined in this document). 

Strong theory means a rationale for 

the proposed process, product, strategy, 

or practice that includes a logic model 

(as defined in this document). 

Student achievement means— 

(a) For grades and subjects in which 

assessments are required under ESEA 

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

on such assessments and may include 

(2) other measures of student learning, 

such as those described in paragraph 

(b), provided they are rigorous and 

comparable across schools within an 

LEA. 

(b) For grades and subjects in which 

assessments are not required under 

ESEA section 1111(b)(3): alternative 

measures of student learning and 

performance such as student results on 

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

objective performance-based 

assessments; student learning 

objectives; student performance on 

English language proficiency 

assessments; and other measures of 

student achievement that are rigorous 

and comparable across schools within 

an LEA. 

Student growth means the change in 

student achievement (as defined in this 

document) for an individual student 

between two or more points in time. An 

applicant may also include other 

measures that are rigorous and 

comparable across classrooms. 

Final Selection Criteria: 

The Secretary establishes the 

following selection criteria for 

evaluating an application under this 

program. We may apply one or more of 

these criteria in any year in which this 

program is in effect. We propose that the 

Secretary may use: 

• One or more of the selection criteria 

established in the notice of final 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria; 

• Any of the selection criteria in 34 

CFR 75.210; criteria based on the 

statutory requirements for the i3 

program in accordance with 34 CFR 

75.209; or 

• Any combination of these when 

establishing selection criteria for each 

particular type of grant (Development, 

Validation, and Scale-up) in any i3 

competition. We propose that the 

Secretary may further define each 

criterion by selecting specific factors for 

it. The Secretary may select these factors 

from any selection criterion in the list 

above. In the notice inviting 

applications, the application package, or 

both we will announce the specific 

selection criteria that apply to a 

competition and the maximum possible 

points assigned to each criterion. 

(a) Significance. 

In determining the significance of the 

proposed project, the Secretary will 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
18706 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 27, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

9See What Works Clearinghouse Procedures and 

Standards Handbook. (Version 2.1, September 

consider one or more of the following 

factors: 

(1) The extent to which the proposed 

project addresses a national need. 

(2) The extent to which the proposed 

project addresses a challenge for which 

there is a national need for solutions 

that are better than the solutions 

currently available. 

(3) The extent to which the proposed 

project would implement a novel 

approach as compared with what has 

been previously attempted nationally. 

(4) The extent of the expected impact 

of the project on relevant outcomes (as 

defined in this document), including the 

estimated impact of the project on 

student outcomes (particularly those 

related to student achievement (as 

defined in this document)) and the 

breadth of the project’s impact, 

compared with alternative practices or 

methods of addressing similar needs. 

(5) The extent to which the proposed 

project demonstrates that it is likely to 

have a meaningful impact on relevant 

outcomes (as defined in this document), 

particularly those related to student 

achievement (as defined in this 

document), if it were implemented and 

evaluated in a variety of settings. 

(6) The extent to which the proposed 

project will substantially improve on 

the outcomes achieved by other 

practices, such as through better student 

outcomes, lower cost, or accelerated 

results. 

(7) The importance and magnitude of 

the proposed project’s expected impact 

on a relevant outcome (as defined in 

this document), particularly one related 

to student achievement (as defined in 

this document). 

(8) The likelihood that the project will 

have the estimated impact, including 

the extent to which the applicant 

demonstrates that unmet demand for the 

proposed project or the proposed 

services will enable the applicant to 

reach the proposed level of scale. 

(9) The feasibility of national 

expansion if favorable outcomes are 

achieved. 

(b) Quality of the Project Design. 

In determining the quality of the 

project design, the Secretary will 

consider one or more of the following 

factors: 

(1) The extent to which the proposed 

project addresses the national need and 

priorities the applicant is seeking to 

meet. 

(2) The extent to which the proposed 

project addresses the absolute priority 

the applicant is seeking to meet. 

(3) The clarity and coherence of the 

project goals, including the extent to 

which the proposed project articulates 

an explicit plan or actions to achieve its 

goals (e.g., a fully developed logic 

model of the proposed project). 

(4) The extent to which the proposed 

project has a clear set of goals and an 

explicit plan or actions to achieve the 

goals, including identification of any 

elements of the project logic model that 

require further testing or development. 

(5) The extent to which the proposed 

project will produce a fully codified 

practice, including a fully articulated 

logic model of the project by the end of 

the project period. 

(6) The clarity, completeness, and 

coherence of the project goals and 

whether the application includes a 

description of project activities that 

constitute a complete plan for achieving 

those goals, including the identification 

of potential risks to project success and 

strategies to mitigate those risks. 

(7) The extent to which the applicant 

addresses potential risks to project 

success and strategies to mitigate those 

risks. 

(8) The extent to which the applicant 

will use grant funds to address a 

particular barrier or barriers that 

prevented the applicant, in the past, 

from reaching the level of scale 

proposed in the application. 

(9) The extent to which the project 

would build the capacity of the 

applicant to scale up and sustain the 

project or would create an organization 

capable of expanding if successful 

outcomes are achieved. 

(10) The sufficiency of the resources 

to support effective project 

implementation, including the project’s 

plan for ensuring funding after the 

period of the Federal grant. 

(11) The sufficiency of the resources 

to support effective project 

implementation. 

(c) Quality of the Management Plan. 

In determining the quality of the 

management plan, the Secretary will 

consider one or more of the following 

factors: 

(1) The extent to which the 

management plan articulates key 

responsibilities and well-defined 

objectives, including the timelines and 

milestones for completion of major 

project activities, the metrics that will 

be used to assess progress on an ongoing 

basis, and annual performance targets 

the applicant will use to monitor 

whether the project is achieving its 

goals. 

(2) The clarity and coherence of the 

applicant’s multi-year financial and 

operating model and accompanying 

plan to operate the project at a national 

level (as defined in this document) 

during the project period. 

(3) The clarity and coherence of the 

applicant’s multi-year financial and 

operating model and accompanying 

plan to operate the project at a national 

or regional level (as defined in this 

document) during the project period. 

(4) The extent to which the applicant 

demonstrates that it will have the 

resources to operate the project at the 

proposed level of scale during the 

project period and beyond the length of 

the grant, including the demonstrated 

commitment of any partners and 

evidence of broad support from 

stakeholders critical to the project’s 

long-term success (e.g., State 

educational agencies, teachers’ unions). 

(5) The extent of the demonstrated 

commitment of any key partners or 

evidence of broad support from 

stakeholders whose participation is 

critical to the project’s long-term 

success. 

(d) Personnel. 

When evaluating the personnel of the 

proposed project, the Secretary will 

consider one or more of the following 

factors: 

(1) The adequacy of the project’s 

staffing plan, particularly for the first 

year of the project, including the 

identification of the project director 

and, in the case of projects with unfilled 

key personnel positions at the beginning 

of the project, that the staffing plan 

identifies how critical work will 

proceed. 

(2) The qualifications and experience 

of the project director and other key 

project personnel and the extent to 

which they have the expertise to 

accomplish the proposed tasks. 

(3) The extent to which the project 

director has experience managing large, 

complex, and rapidly growing projects. 

(4) The extent to which the project 

director has experience managing large, 

complex projects. 

(5) The extent to which the project 

director has experience managing 

projects of similar size and scope as the 

proposed project. 

(e) Quality of the Project Evaluation. 

In determining the quality of the 

project evaluation, the Secretary will 

consider one or more of the following 

factors: 

(1) The clarity and importance of the 

key questions to be addressed by the 

project evaluation, and the 

appropriateness of the methods for how 

each question will be addressed. 

(2) The extent to which the methods 

of evaluation will, if well implemented, 

produce evidence about the project’s 

effectiveness that would meet the What 

Works Clearinghouse Evidence 

Standards without reservations.9


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 27, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 18707 

2011), which can currently be found at the 

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

DocumentSum.aspx?sid=19. 

10See What Works Clearinghouse Procedures and 

Standards Handbook (Version 2.1, September 2011), 

which can currently be found at the following link: 

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

DocumentSum.aspx?sid=19. 

(3) The extent to which the methods 

of evaluation will, if well implemented, 

produce evidence about the project’s 

effectiveness that would meet the What 

Works Clearinghouse Evidence 

Standards with or without 

reservations.10

(4) The extent to which the methods 

of evaluation will provide valid and 

reliable performance data on relevant 

outcomes, particularly student 

achievement outcomes. 

(5) The extent to which the evaluation 

will study the project at the proposed 

level of scale, including, where 

appropriate, generating information 

about potential differential effectiveness 

of the project in diverse settings and for 

diverse student population groups. 

(6) The extent to which the evaluation 

will study the project at the proposed 

level of scale, including in diverse 

settings. 

(7) The extent to which the evaluation 

plan includes a clear and credible 

analysis plan, including a proposed 

sample size and minimum detectable 

effect size that aligns with the expected 

project impact, and an analytic 

approach for addressing the research 

questions. 

(8) The extent to which the evaluation 

plan includes a clear, well-documented, 

and rigorous method for measuring 

implementation of the critical features 

of the project, as well as the intended 

outcomes. 

(9) The extent to which the evaluation 

plan clearly articulates the key 

components and outcomes of the 

project, as well as a measurable 

threshold for acceptable 

implementation. 

(10) The extent to which the 

evaluation plan will provide sufficient 

information on the project’s effect as 

compared to alternative practices 

addressing similar need. 

(11) The extent to which the proposed 

project plan includes sufficient 

resources to carry out the project 

evaluation effectively. 

This document does not preclude us 

from proposing additional priorities, 

requirements, definitions, or selection 

criteria, subject to meeting applicable 

rulemaking requirements. 

Note: This document does not solicit 

applications. In any year in which we choose 

to use one or more of these priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria], we invite applications through a 

notice in the Federal Register. 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

Regulatory Impact Analysis 

Under Executive Order 12866, the 

Secretary must determine whether this 

regulatory action is ‘‘significant’’ and, 

therefore, subject to the requirements of 

the Executive order and subject to 

review by the Office of Management and 

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

Order 12866 defines a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ as an action likely to 

result in a rule that may— 

(1) Have an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more, or 

adversely affect a sector of the economy, 

productivity, competition, jobs, the 

environment, public health or safety, or 

State, local or tribal governments or 

communities in a material way (also 

referred to as an ‘‘economically 

significant’’ rule); 

(2) Create serious inconsistency or 

otherwise interfere with an action taken 

or planned by another agency; 

(3) Materially alter the budgetary 

impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, 

or loan programs or the rights and 

obligations of recipients thereof; or 

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues 

arising out of legal mandates, the 

President’s priorities, or the principles 

stated in the Executive order. 

This final regulatory action will have 

an annual effect on the economy of 

more than $100 million because 

Department anticipates more than that 

amount will be appropriated for i3 and 

awarded as grants. Therefore, this final 

action is ‘‘economically significant’’ and 

subject to review by OMB under section 

3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866. 

Notwithstanding this determination, we 

have assessed the potential costs and 

benefits, both quantitative and 

qualitative, of this final regulatory 

action and have determined that the 

benefits justify the costs. 

We have also reviewed this final 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

13563, which supplements and 

explicitly reaffirms the principles, 

structures, and definitions governing 

regulatory review established in 

Executive Order 12866. To the extent 

permitted by law, Executive Order 

13563 requires that an agency— 

(1) Propose or adopt regulations only 

upon a reasoned determination that 

their benefits justify their costs 

(recognizing that some benefits and 

costs are difficult to quantify); 

(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the 

least burden on society, consistent with 

obtaining regulatory objectives and 

taking into account—among other things 

and to the extent practicable—the costs 

of cumulative regulations; 

(3) In choosing among alternative 

regulatory approaches, select those 

approaches that maximize net benefits 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health and safety, 

and other advantages; distributive 

impacts; and equity); 

(4) To the extent feasible, specify 

performance objectives, rather than the 

behavior or manner of compliance a 

regulated entity must adopt; and 

(5) Identify and assess available 

alternatives to direct regulation, 

including economic incentives—such as 

user fees or marketable permits—to 

encourage the desired behavior, or 

provide information that enables the 

public to make choices. 

Executive Order 13563 also requires 

an agency ‘‘to use the best available 

techniques to quantify anticipated 

present and future benefits and costs as 

accurately as possible.’’ The Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs of 

OMB has emphasized that these 

techniques may include ‘‘identifying 

changing future compliance costs that 

might result from technological 

innovation or anticipated behavioral 

changes.’’ 

We are issuing these final priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria only on a reasoned 

determination that their benefits justify 

their costs. In choosing among 

alternative regulatory approaches, we 

selected those approaches that 

maximize net benefits. Based on the 

analysis that follows, the Department 

believes that this regulatory action is 

consistent with the principles in 

Executive Order 13563. 

We also have determined that this 

final regulatory action does not unduly 

interfere with State, local, and tribal 

governments in the exercise of their 

governmental functions. 

In this regulatory impact analysis we 

discuss the need for regulatory action, 

the potential costs and benefits, net 

budget impacts, assumptions, 

limitations, and data sources, as well as 

regulatory alternatives we considered. 

Discussion of Costs and Benefits 

The Secretary believes that these 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria would not impose 

significant costs on eligible LEAs, 

nonprofit organizations, or other entities 

that would receive assistance through 

the i3 program. The Secretary also 

believes that the benefits of 

implementing the priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria contained in this document 

outweigh any associated costs. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
18708 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 27, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

The Secretary expects that these 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria will result in selection 

of high-quality applications to 

implement activities that are most likely 

to have a significant national impact on 

educational reform and improvement. 

Additionally, the priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria in this document clarify the 

scope of activities the Secretary expects 

to support with program funds and the 

expected burden of work involved in 

preparing an application and 

implementing a project under the 

program. Potential applicants, both 

LEAs and nonprofit organizations, need 

to consider carefully the effort that will 

be required to prepare a strong 

application, their capacity to implement 

a project successfully, and their chances 

of submitting a successful application. 

Program participation is voluntary. 

The Secretary believes that the costs 

imposed on applicants by these 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria would be limited to 

paperwork burden related to preparing 

an application and that the benefits of 

implementing them would outweigh 

any costs incurred by applicants. The 

costs of carrying out activities would be 

paid for with program funds and with 

matching funds provided by privatesector partners. Thus, the costs of 

implementation would not be a burden 

for any eligible applicants, including 

small entities. 

Regulatory Alternatives Considered 

The Department considered using the 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria established for and 

used during prior i3 competitions 

instead of establishing these final 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria. However, although we 

maintain the overall purpose and 

structure of the i3 program, we 

incorporate changes based on specific 

lessons learned from the first three 

competitions. For example, the original 

i3 priorities were written broadly and 

generated a wide range of projects in the 

first three competitions. With this 

regulatory action, we establish final 

priorities that provide for a more 

focused set of projects within areas of 

acute need. Similarly, the final 

requirement on cost-sharing and 

marching provides more flexibility for 

when and how selected eligible 

applicants must submit evidence of the 

private-sector matching funds. We also 

use this regulatory action to provide 

clarification on the expectations for the 

three types of grants under the i3 

program (i.e., Development, Validation, 

and Scale-up) by making changes to the 

descriptions of the types of grants and 

the selection criteria. 

The priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria in this 

document reflect and promote the 

purpose of the i3 program. They also 

align the i3 program, where possible 

and permissible, with other 

Departmental priorities. 

Accounting Statement 

As required by OMB Circular A–4 

(available at www.whitehouse.gov/sites/ 

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

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

have prepared an accounting statement 

showing the classification of the 

expenditures associated with the 

provisions of this regulatory action. This 

table provides our best estimate of the 

changes in annual monetized transfers 

as a result of this regulatory action. 

Expenditures are classified as transfers 

from Federal Government to LEAs and 

nonprofit organizations. 

ACCOUNTING STATEMENT CLASSIFICATION OF ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES

Category Transfers 

Annualized Monetized Transfers .............................................................. $140,011,000 

From Whom To Whom? ........................................................................... from the Federal Government to LEAs and nonprofit organizations 

Waiver of Delayed Effective Date Under 

Congressional Review Act 

These priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria are a 

major rule for purposes of the 

Congressional Review Act (CRA) (5 

U.S.C. 801, et seq.). Generally, under the 

CRA, a major rule takes effect 60 days 

after the date on which the rule is 

published in the Federal Register. 

Section 808(2) of the CRA, however, 

provides that any rule which an agency 

for good cause finds (and incorporates 

the finding and a brief statement of 

reasons therefore in the rule issued) that 

notice and public procedure thereon are 

impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary 

to the public interest, shall take effect at 

such time as the Federal agency 

promulgating the rule determines. 

These final priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria are 

needed to implement the i3 program, 

authorized under the American 

Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, 

Division A, Section 14007, Public Law 

111–5. The Department must make grant 

awards under this authority by 

December 31, 2013, or the funds will 

lapse. 

Even under an expedited timeline, it 

is impracticable for the Department to 

adhere to a 60-day delayed effective 

date for this final regulatory action and 

make awards to qualified applicants by 

the December deadline. When the 60- 

day delayed effective date is added to 

the time the Department will need to 

receive pre-applications (approximately 

30 days), review the pre-applications 

and invite full applications 

(approximately 60 days), receive full 

applications (approximately 45 days), 

review applications (approximately 35 

days), approve applications 

(approximately 50 days), and, finally, 

provide time for grantees to secure the 

required private-sector matching funds 

(approximately 30 days), the 

Department will not be able to award 

funds by December 31, 2013. The 

Department has therefore determined 

that, under section 808(2) of the CRA, 

the 60-day delay in the effective date 

generally required for congressional 

review is impracticable, contrary to the 

public interest, and waived for good 

cause. 

Intergovernmental Review: This 

program is subject to Executive Order 

12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR 

part 79. One of the objectives of the 

Executive order is to foster an 

intergovernmental partnership and a 

strengthened federalism. The Executive 

order relies on processes developed by 

State and local governments for 

coordination and review of proposed 

Federal financial assistance. 

This document provides early 

notification of our specific plans and 

actions for this program. 

Accessible Format: Individuals with 

disabilities can obtain this document in 

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

print, audiotape, or compact disc) on 

request to the program contact person 

listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

Electronic Access to This Document: 

The official version of this document is 

the document published in the Federal 

Register. Free Internet access to the 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 27, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 18709 

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, 2013. 

James H. Shelton, III, 

Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and 

Improvement. 

[FR Doc. 2013–07016 Filed 3–26–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2