```

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 51 (Tuesday, March 17, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13803-13806]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-05956]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

34 CFR Subtitle A

[Docket No.: ED-2015-OII-0006; (CFDA) Numbers: 84.411A (Scale-up 
grants), 84.411B (Validation grants), and 84.411C (Development grants)]
RIN 1855-ZA10

Proposed Priority--Investing in Innovation Fund; Catalog of 
Federal Domestic Assistance

AGENCY: Office of Innovation and Improvement, Department of Education.

ACTION: Proposed priority.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and Improvement 
proposes a priority under the Investing in Innovation Fund (i3). The 
Assistant Deputy Secretary may use this priority for competitions in 
fiscal year (FY) 2015 and later years. The proposed priority would not 
repeal or replace currently established priorities for this program.

DATES: We must receive your comments on or before April 16, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal 
or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. We will not 
accept comments by fax or by email or those submitted after the comment 
period. To ensure that we do not receive duplicate copies, please 
submit your comments only once. In addition, please include the Docket 
ID at the top of your comments.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to www.regulations.gov to 
submit your comments electronically. Information on using 
Regulations.gov, including instructions for accessing agency documents, 
submitting comments, and viewing the docket, is available on the site 
under ``Are you new to this site?''
     Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery, or Hand Delivery: If you 
mail or deliver your comments about these proposed regulations, address 
them to Allison Moss, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue 
SW., Room 4W319, Washington, DC 20202-5930.

    Privacy Note:  The Department of Education's (Department) policy 
is to make all comments received from members of the public 
available for public viewing in their entirety on the Federal 
eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov. Therefore, commenters 
should be careful to include in their comments only information that 
they wish to make publicly available.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Allison Moss. Telephone: (202) 205-
7726 or by email: Allison.moss@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:
    Summary of the Major Provisions of This Regulatory Action: In this 
document, the Department proposes a priority for the i3 program that 
would promote the implementation of comprehensive high school reform 
and redesign strategies. This proposed priority could be used in the 
Development, Validation, or Scale-up tier of the i3 program in future 
years, as appropriate.
    Costs and Benefits: The Assistant Deputy Secretary believes that 
the proposed priority would not impose significant costs on eligible 
applicants seeking assistance through the i3 program.
    The proposed priority is designed to be used in conjunction with 
several priorities that have already been established under the i3 
program, and no priority, whether it is used as an absolute or 
competitive preference priority, affects the overall amount of funding 
available to individual applicants in any given fiscal year.
    In addition, we note that participation in this program is 
voluntary. Potential applicants 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. We believe that the costs imposed on applicants 
by the proposed priority would be limited to paperwork burden related 
to preparing an application and that the benefits of implementing these 
proposals would outweigh any costs incurred by applicants. The costs of 
carrying out activities would be paid for with program funds and with 
matching funds provided by private-sector partners. Thus, the costs of 
implementation would not be a burden for any eligible applicants, 
including small entities.
    Invitation to Comment: We invite you to submit comments regarding 
this notice.
    We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific 
requirements of Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 and their overall 
requirement of reducing regulatory burden that might result from this 
proposed priority. Please let us know of any further ways we could 
reduce potential costs or increase potential benefits while preserving 
the effective and efficient administration of the program.
    During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public 
comments about this notice by accessing Regulations.gov. You may also 
inspect the comments in person in Room 4W335, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., 
Washington, DC, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., 
Washington, DC time, Monday through Friday of each week except Federal 
holidays. Please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT in order to schedule a time to inspect comments in 
person.
    Assistance to Individuals With Disabilities in Reviewing the 
Rulemaking Record: On request we will provide an appropriate 
accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability who 
needs assistance to review the comments or other documents in the 
public rulemaking record for this notice. If you want to schedule an 
appointment for this type of accommodation or auxiliary aid, please 
contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
     Purpose of Program: The i3 program addresses two related 
challenges. First,

[[Page 13804]]

there are too few practices in education supported by rigorous evidence 
of effectiveness, despite national attention paid to finding practices 
that are effective in improving education outcomes in the decade since 
the establishment of the Department's Institute of Education Sciences. 
Second, there are limited incentives to expand effective practices 
substantially and to use those practices to serve more students across 
schools, districts, and States. As a result, students do not always 
have access to high-quality programs.
    The i3 program addresses these two challenges through its multi-
tier structure that links the amount of funding that an applicant may 
receive to the quality of the evidence supporting the efficacy of the 
proposed project. Applicants proposing practices supported by limited 
evidence can receive small grants to 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 substantially larger 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 grant 
award to conduct independent evaluations of their projects. This 
ensures that projects funded under the i3 program contribute 
significantly to improving the information available to practitioners 
and policymakers about which practices work, for which types of 
students, and in which contexts. More information about the i3 program, 
including information about eligible applicants, can be found in the 
notice of final priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection 
criteria, published in the Federal Register on March 27, 2013 (78 FR 
18682).

    Program Authority: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 
2009 (ARRA), Division A, Section 14007, Public Law 111-5.

    Proposed Priority: This notice contains one proposed priority.

Proposed Priority--Implementing Comprehensive High School Reform and 
Redesign

Background

    The Department has conducted five competitions under the i3 program 
and awarded 143 i3 grants since the program was established under ARRA.
    In FY 2015, Congress directed the Department, in making new awards 
with FY 2015 i3 funds, to establish a priority to support high school 
reform that will increase the number and percentage of students who 
graduate from high school and enroll in postsecondary education without 
the need for remediation and with the ability to think critically, 
solve complex problems, evaluate arguments on the basis of evidence, 
and communicate effectively. Congress further recommended that the 
Department use this priority to support schools where not less than 40 
percent of students are from low-income families.
    There is a growing body of evidence about what works in 
comprehensive high school reform. Interventions supported by research 
include: Implementing a rigorous college- and career-ready curriculum 
that links student work and real-world experiences; \1\ providing 
accelerated learning opportunities that allow students to earn credit 
toward a postsecondary degree, including dual enrollment programs and 
early college high schools; \2\ implementing early warning indicator 
systems to identify and target supports for struggling students; \3\ 
personalizing learning for students; \4\ and strengthening 
relationships with business and post-secondary partners, linking 
student work to real-world expectations and experiences.\5\ There is a 
particular need to improve readiness for college and careers in 
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields, both 
because these are high-growth fields and because too many of our high 
schools fall short in this area.\6\ There is also substantial evidence 
that demonstrates that comprehensive academic supports for high school 
students can improve student outcomes, increasing high school 
graduation and college preparation,\7\ including for at-risk 
students.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Dynarski, M., Clarke, L., Cobb, B., Finn, J., Rumberger, R., 
and Smink, J. (2008). Dropout Prevention: A Practice Guide (NCEE 
2008-4025). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation 
and Regional Assistance (NCEE), Institute of Education Sciences 
(IES), U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc (see Recommendation 6); Kemple, J., Herlihy, C., 
& Smith, T. (2005). Making progress toward graduation: Evidence from 
the Talent Development High School model. New York: MDRC. IES 
Intervention Report Available at: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/interventionreport.aspx?sid=506; and Forbes, J. (2011). A model for 
success: CART's Linked Learning program increases college 
enrollment. Clovis, CA: The Center for Advanced Research and 
Technology. What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) Quick Review Available 
at: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/quickreviewsum.aspx?sid=171.
    \2\ U.S. Department of Education, IES, WWC (March 2014). WWC 
review of the report: Early college, early success: Early College 
High School Initiative impact study. Retrieved from http://whatworks.ed.gov; and An, B. P. (2012). The impact of dual 
enrollment on college degree attainment: Do low-SES students 
benefit? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 35, 57-75. WWC 
Single Study Review Available at: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/singlestudyreview.aspx?sid=20004.
    \3\ Sinclair, M.F., Christenson, S.L., Lehr, C.A., & Anderson, 
A.R. (2003). Facilitating student engagement: Lessons learned from 
Check & Connect longitudinal studies. The California School 
Psychologist, 8(1), 29-42. IES Intervention Report Available at: 
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/interventionreport.aspx?sid=78.
    \4\ Dynarski, M., Clarke, L., Cobb, B., Finn, J., Rumberger, R., 
and Smink, J. (2008). Dropout Prevention: A Practice Guide (NCEE 
2008-4025). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation 
and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. 
Department of Education. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc 
(see Recommendation 5).
    \5\ Kemple, J. J., & Snipes, J. C. (2000). Career Academies: 
Impacts on students' engagement and performance in high school. New 
York: MDRC (Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation). IES 
Intervention Report Available at: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/interventionreport.aspx?sid=70.
    \6\ National Research Council (2011). Successful K-12 STEM 
Education: Identifying Effective Approaches in Science, Technology, 
Engineering, and Mathematics. Committee on Highly Successful Science 
Programs for K-12 Science Education. Board on Science Education and 
Board on Testing and Assessment, Division of Behavioral and Social 
Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies 
Press. Available at: http://www.stemreports.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/NRC_STEM_2.pdf.
    \7\ Fryer, Roland G. (April 2014). Injecting Charter School Best 
Practices into Traditional Public Schools: Evidence from Field 
Experiments. Available at: http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/fryer/files/2014_injecting_charter_school_best_practices_into_traditional_public_schools.pdf; Sinclair, M. F., Christenson, S. L., Lehr, C. A., & 
Anderson, A. R. (2003). Facilitating student engagement: Lessons 
learned from Check & Connect longitudinal studies. The California 
School Psychologist, 8(1), 29-42. IES Intervention Report Available 
at: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/interventionreport.aspx?sid=78; and 
Constantine, J. M., Seftor, N. S., Martin, E. S., Silva, T., & 
Myers, D. (2006). A study of the effect of the Talent Search program 
on secondary and postsecondary outcomes in Florida, Indiana, and 
Texas: Final report from phase II of the national evaluation. Report 
prepared by Mathematica Policy Research for the U.S. Department of 
Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development, 
Policy and Program Studies Service. Washington, DC: U.S. Department 
of Education. IES Intervention Report Available at: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/interventionreport.aspx?sid=508.
    \8\ Bloom, D., Gardenhire-Crooks, A., & Mandsager, C. (2009). 
Reengaging high school dropouts: Early results of the National Guard 
Youth ChalleNGe Program evaluation. New York, NY: MDRC; Cave, G., 
Bos, H., Doolittle, F., & Toussaint, C. (1993). JOBSTART: Final 
report on a program for school dropouts. New York, NY: MDRC. IES 
Intervention Report Available at: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/interventionreport.aspx?sid=248; and Larson, K. A., & Rumberger, R. 
W. (1995). ALAS: Achievement for Latinos through Academic Success. 
In H. Thornton (Ed.), Staying in school. A technical report of three 
dropout prevention projects for junior high school students with 
learning and emotional disabilities. Minneapolis, MN: University of 
Minnesota, Institute on Community Integration. IES Intervention 
Report Available at: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/interventionreport.aspx?sid=22.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 13805]]

    The Department expects that any high school reform strategy would, 
at a minimum, be designed to improve outcomes for all students in a 
school, and these strategies may be composed from a variety of 
activities and interventions, including, but not limited to, those 
outlined above. In addition, for this proposed priority, we are also 
interested in projects that are designed to prepare students with the 
skills necessary to succeed in postsecondary programs, such as critical 
thinking, persistence, solving complex and non-routine problems, making 
arguments using evidence, and communicating effectively.
    To better ensure that projects addressing this proposed priority 
will improve outcomes for high-need students, and to ensure that this 
proposed priority serves the populations intended by Congress, we seek 
projects that will be implemented in high schools that are eligible to 
operate Title I schoolwide programs under Section 1114 of the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended. Through 
this proposed priority, we aim to expand the development, use, and 
evidence base of effective strategies for helping high-need students 
attain the skills they need to succeed in college, career, and life.

Proposed Priority--Implementing Comprehensive High School Reform and 
Redesign

    Under this priority, we provide funding to support comprehensive 
high school reform and redesign strategies in high schools eligible to 
operate Title I schoolwide programs under section 1114 of the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended. These 
strategies must be designed to increase the number and percentage of 
students who graduate from high school college- and career-ready and 
enroll in college, other postsecondary education, or other career and 
technical education.
    These strategies could include elements such as implementing a 
rigorous college- and career-ready curriculum; providing accelerated 
learning opportunities; supporting personalized learning; developing 
robust links between student work and real-world experiences to better 
prepare students for their future; improving the readiness of students 
for post-secondary education in STEM fields; or reducing the need for 
remediation, among others.

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)).

    Note:  In the i3 competition, each application must choose to 
address one of the absolute priorities and projects are grouped by 
that absolute priority for the purposes of peer review and funding 
determinations. In FY 2015, Congress directed the Department to 
establish the priority proposed in this document as an absolute 
priority.

    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 Priority

    We will announce the final priority in a notice in the Federal 
Register. We will determine the final priority after considering 
responses to this notice and other information available to the 
Department. This notice does not preclude us from proposing additional 
priorities, requirements, definitions, or selection criteria, subject 
to meeting applicable rulemaking requirements.

    Note:  This notice does not solicit applications. In any year in 
which we choose to use this priority, we invite applications through 
a notice in the Federal Register.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

Regulatory Impact Analysis

    This proposed regulatory action, i.e., the addition of the proposed 
priority for implementing comprehensive high school reform and 
redesign, is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by 
OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.
    We have also reviewed this proposed 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 this proposed priority only on a reasoned 
determination that their benefits would justify their costs. In 
choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, we selected those 
approaches that would maximize net benefits. Based on the analysis that 
follows, the Department believes that this regulatory action is 
consistent with the principles in Executive Order 13563.
    We also have determined that this regulatory action would not 
unduly interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the 
exercise of their governmental functions.
    In accordance with both Executive orders, the Department has 
assessed the

[[Page 13806]]

potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and qualitative, of 
this regulatory action. The potential costs associated with this 
regulatory action are those resulting from statutory requirements and 
those we have determined as necessary for administering the 
Department's programs and activities.
    Intergovernmental Review: This program is subject to Executive 
Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of the 
objectives of the Executive order is to foster an intergovernmental 
partnership and a strengthened federalism. The Executive order relies 
on processes developed by State and local governments for coordination 
and review of proposed Federal financial assistance.
    This document provides early notification of our specific plans and 
actions for this program.
    Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this 
document in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, 
audiotape, or compact disc) on request to the program contact person 
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this 
document is the document published in the Federal Register. Free 
Internet access to the official edition of the Federal Register and the 
Code of Federal Regulations is available via the Federal Digital System 
at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site you can view this document, as well 
as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal 
Register, in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF 
you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the 
site.
    You may also access documents of the Department published in the 
Federal Register by using the article search feature at: 
www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search 
feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published 
by the Department.

    Dated: March 11, 2015.
Nadya Chinoy Dabby,
Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and Improvement.
[FR Doc. 2015-05956 Filed 3-16-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
```