Source: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/12/15/2016-30084/applications-for-new-awards-education-innovation-and-research-program-mid-phase-grants
Timestamp: 2018-03-17 22:47:08
Document Index: 241045261

Matched Legal Cases: ['arts 75', 'art 180', 'art 3485', 'art 200', 'art 3474', 'art 200']

Federal Register :: Applications for New Awards; Education Innovation and Research Program-Mid-Phase Grants
Applications for New Awards; Education Innovation and Research Program-Mid-Phase Grants
A Notice by the Education Department on 12/15/2016
Applications Available: December 19, 2016.
81 FR 90821
90821-90833 (13 pages)
2016-30084
Absolute Priority 1—Supporting High-Need Students
Absolute Priority 2—Improving Early Learning and Development Outcomes
Absolute Priority 3—Social-Behavioral Competencies
Absolute Priority 4—Improving Low-Performing Schools
Absolute Priority 5—Evidence-Driven Practices
A. Significance (Up to 15 Points)
B. Strategy to Scale (Up to 30 Points)
C. Quality of the Project Design and Management Plan (Up to 35 Points)
D. Quality of the Project Evaluation (Up to 20 Points)
https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2016-30084 https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2016-30084
Education Innovation and Research Program—Mid-phase Grants.
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 84.411B (Mid-phase Grants).
Deadline for Notice of Intent to Apply: February 13, 2017.
Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: April 13, 2017.
Deadline for Intergovernmental Review: June 13, 2017.
Purpose of Program: The Education Innovation and Research (EIR) Program, established under section 4611 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as amended by Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), provides funding to create, develop, implement, replicate, or take to scale entrepreneurial, evidence-based, field-initiated innovations to improve student achievement (as defined in this notice) and attainment for high-need students (as defined in this notice); and rigorously evaluate such innovations. The EIR program is designed to generate and validate solutions to persistent educational challenges and to support the expansion of effective solutions to serve substantially larger numbers of students.
The central design element of the EIR 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, with the expectation that projects that build this evidence will advance through EIR's grant tiers. Applicants proposing innovative practices (as defined in this notice) that are supported by limited evidence can receive relatively small grants to support the development, iteration, and initial evaluation of the practices; applicants proposing practices supported by evidence from rigorous evaluations, such as large randomized controlled trials (as defined in this notice), can receive larger grant awards to support expansion across the country. This structure provides incentives for applicants to: (1) Explore new ways of addressing persistent challenges that other educators can build on and learn from; (2) build evidence of effectiveness of their practices; and (3) replicate and scale successful practices in new schools, districts, and states while addressing the barriers to scale, such as cost structures and implementation fidelity.
All EIR projects are expected to generate information regarding their effectiveness in order to inform EIR grantees' efforts to learn about and improve upon their efforts, and to help similar, non-EIR efforts across the country benefit from EIR grantees' knowledge. By requiring that all grantees conduct independent evaluations (as defined in this notice) of their EIR projects, EIR ensures that its funded projects make a significant contribution to improving the quality and quantity of information available to practitioners and policymakers about which practices improve student achievement, for which types of students, and in what contexts.
The Department of Education (Department) awards three types of grants under this program: “Early-phase” grants, “Mid-phase” grants, and “Expansion” grants. These grants differ in terms of the level of prior evidence of effectiveness required for consideration for funding, the expectations regarding the kind of evidence and information funded projects should produce, the level of scale funded projects should reach, and, consequently, the amount of funding available to support each type of project.
Mid-phase grants provide funding to support scaling of projects supported by moderate evidence (as defined in this notice) for at least one population or setting to the regional level (as defined in this notice) or to the national level (as defined in this notice). This notice invites applications for Mid-phase grants only. The notices inviting applications for Early-phase and Expansion grants are published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.
Background: EIR builds on seven years of investments—over $1.4 billion, matched by over $200 million in private sector resources—from the Department's Investing in Innovation (i3) program in a portfolio of practices that address critical challenges in education and that generate rigorous evaluations to determine the practices' effectiveness. i3 has generated new information regarding effective educational practices and increased evaluators' capacity to conduct rigorous evaluations of student learning outcomes that provide actionable information for educators. EIR is designed expand on the successes of i3 to offer new opportunities for States, districts, schools, and educators to develop innovations and scale effective practices that address their most pressing challenges.
EIR Mid-phase projects are expected to refine and expand the use of practices with prior evidence of effectiveness, in order to improve outcomes for high-need students. They are also expected to generate important information about an intervention's effectiveness, including for whom and in which contexts a practice is most effective.
To the extent possible, we intend to fund multiple projects addressing similar challenges. By so doing, we aim to accelerate the building of a knowledge base of effective practices for addressing these challenges and increase the likelihood that grantees can learn from one another while still exploring different approaches. We Start Printed Page 90822believe that improving outcomes across the education sector depends, in part, upon policymakers, practitioners and researchers continually building upon one another's efforts to have the greatest impact.
Mid-phase grantees must evaluate the effectiveness of the EIR-supported practice that the project implements and expands, and the application must include an evaluation designed to have the potential to meet the evidence requirement of strong evidence (as defined in this notice) under Expansion. Not only will such evaluation data build the knowledge base about effective practices for underserved students, but it will also encourage future Expansion applicants to leverage the findings from Mid-phase grantees' efforts. The evaluation of a Mid-phase project must identify and codify the core elements of the EIR-supported practice that the project implements in order to support adoption or replication by other entities; furthermore, the evaluation must examine effectiveness of the project for any new populations or settings that are included in the project. Mid-phase grantees should measure the cost-effectiveness of their practices using administrative or other readily available data, and test and validate alternatives to practices that are too costly or inefficient. These types of efforts are critical to sustaining and scaling EIR-funded effective practices after the EIR grant period ends, assuming that the practice has positive effects on important student outcomes.
All EIR applicants are required to serve high-need students and are therefore required to address absolute priority one. EIR Mid-phase applicants are also required to address one of the other four absolute priorities that address persistent challenges in public education for which there are solutions that are supported by moderate evidence.
First, the Department includes an absolute priority for improving early learning and development outcomes. Research continues to demonstrate that the quality of students' early learning (birth through third grade) experiences has a significant impact on subsequent academic and social competencies.[1] Through historic investments in early learning, the number of students enrolled in high-quality preschool has expanded dramatically over the last eight years, but the gains realized during preschool often fail to persist through elementary school.[2] This is particularly true for at-risk students. More should be done to ensure the gains from high-quality preschool experiences are sustained and built upon in early elementary school. Strategies to increase alignment across preschool through elementary school or to support students' transition into and through elementary school may lead to more lasting and significant academic outcomes.
Second, the Department includes an absolute priority to enhance students' social-behavioral competencies. These social-behavioral competencies may include social skills (e.g., skills needed to positively interact with peers, teachers, and other adults), behavior (i.e., promoting positive behaviors or reducing negative behaviors), or non-cognitive factors (e.g., academic mindset, perseverance, and self-regulation).[3] There is significant research that shows a strong connection between these social-behavioral competencies and student learning,[4] but there is still a need to build the knowledge base of evidence-based practices that help students develop such skills and behaviors. These practices might include interventions that directly target students, support changes in educators' instructional practices (for example, preventative or responsive approaches to trauma), or redesign learning environments). Also needed are ways to measure such social emotional competencies in valid and reliable ways, and to demonstrate how improvement in such skills and behaviors affects overall student learning outcomes.[5]
Third, the Department includes an absolute priority for projects to improve low-performing schools (e.g., schools selected for comprehensive support and improvement activities or targeted support and improvement activities or schools with the largest within-school performance gaps between student subgroups); and to ensure that more students receive a high-quality K-12 public education. Many of our historically underserved students are concentrated in schools that do not adequately meet their learning needs. By identifying the appropriate configuration of school improvement practices, educators can more readily and reliably improve student outcomes in the low-performing schools (as defined in this notice), and as appropriate, their feeder schools. It can be especially powerful when a variety of practices, such as those that promote a positive school culture, utilize early warning indicators to intervene with students at risk of educational failure, or implement effective research-based pedagogical practices are planned and implemented in mutually reinforcing ways.
Finally, the Department includes an absolute priority for projects supported by moderate evidence. Projects must demonstrate moderate evidence, for at least one population or setting, that are designed to improve student achievement and attainment in emerging areas of critical need. In recent years, there has been an increase in rigorous education research that is relevant to education practitioners.[6] Where there is a match between compelling evidence and the most urgent challenges in K-12 education, expanding the knowledge base regarding these effective practices may be important.
Priorities: This competition includes five absolute priorities. Absolute Priority 1 is from the Department's Start Printed Page 90823notice of final supplemental priorities and definitions for discretionary grant programs, published in the Federal Register on December 10, 2014 (79 FR 73425) (Supplemental Priorities). We are establishing Absolute Priorities 2, 3, 4, and 5 in accordance with section 437(d)(1) of the General Education Provisions Act (GEPA), 20 U.S.C. 1232(d)(1). These absolute priorities will apply to the FY 2017 EIR Mid-phase competition and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applicants from this competition.
Absolute Priorities: These priorities are absolute priorities. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(3) we consider only applications that meet Absolute Priority 1, Supporting High-Need Students, and one additional priority. Applicants must clearly identify the specific absolute priority that the proposed project addresses.
Under this priority, we provide funding to projects that are designed to improve academic outcomes for high-need students.
Under this priority, we provide funding to projects that are designed to improve early learning and development outcomes across one or more of the essential domains of school readiness (as defined in this notice) by sustaining students' improved early learning and development outcomes from Pre-K programs throughout the early elementary school years.
Under this priority, we provide funding to projects that are designed to help students improve their social skills, behaviors, or underlying cognitive abilities that support social-behavioral competencies; improve students' mastery of non-cognitive skills and behaviors (such as academic behaviors, academic mindset, perseverance, self-regulation, social and emotional skills, and approaches toward learning strategies) and enhance student motivation and engagement in learning; and identify better ways of measuring the impact of students' social-behavioral competencies on student achievement.
Under this priority, we provide funding to support strategies, practices, or programs that are designed to improve outcomes for students in low-performing schools (as defined in this notice).
Under the priority, we provide funding to projects that meet the evidence standard established in Section III.3. for this competition and are designed to improve student achievement and attainment in areas of critical national need.
The definitions of “national level” and “nonprofit” are from 34 CFR 77.1. The definitions for “essential domains of school readiness,” “high-need students,” and “regular high school diploma are from the Supplemental Priorities. The definitions of “local educational agency” and “state educational agency” are from Section 8101 of the ESEA, as reauthorized by ESSA. We are establishing the definitions for “experimental study,” “high-minority school,” “independent evaluation,” “large sample,” “logic model,” “low-performing schools,” “meets What Works Clearinghouse Standards without reservations,” “meets What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards with reservations,” “moderate evidence,” “multi-site sample,” “practice,” “quasi-experimental design study,” “randomized controlled trial,” “regional level,” “regression discontinuity design study,” “relevant finding,” “relevant outcome,” “rural local educational agencies,” “single-case design study,” “strong evidence,” and “student achievement” for the FY 2017 grant competition only, in accordance with section 437(d)(1) of GEPA, 20 U.S.C. 1232(d)(1).
Experimental study means a study, such as a randomized controlled trial (RCT) (as defined in this notice), that is designed to compare outcomes between two groups of individuals that are otherwise equivalent except for their assignment to either a treatment group receiving a practice or a control group that does not. In some circumstances, a finding from a regression discontinuity design study (RDD) (as defined in this notice) or findings from a collection of single-case design studies (SCDs) (as defined in this notice) may be considered equivalent to a finding from an RCT. RCTs and RDDs, and collections of SCDs, depending on design and implementation, can Meet What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards without reservations (as defined in this notice).
High-minority school means a school as that term is defined by a local educational agency (LEA) (as defined in this notice), which must define the term in a manner consistent with its State's Teacher Equity Plan, as required by section 1111(g)(1)(B) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as amended by Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). The applicant must provide the definition(s) of high-minority schools used in its application.
High-need students means students who are at risk for educational failure or otherwise in need of special assistance and support, such as students who are living in poverty, who attend high-minority schools (as defined in this notice), who are far below grade level, who have left school before receiving a regular high school diploma (as defined in this notice), 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.
Independent evaluation means that the evaluation is designed and carried out independent of, but in coordination with, any employees of the entities who develop a practice and are implementing it.
Large sample means an analytic sample of 350 or more students (or other single analysis units), or 50 or more groups (such as classrooms or schools) that each contain, on average, 10 or more students (or other single analysis units, regardless of whether these single analysis units are disaggregated in the analysis of outcomes for the groups). Multiple studies can cumulatively be used to meet the multi-site sample (as defined in this notice) and large sample requirements of moderate evidence or strong evidence, as long as each study meets the other requirements of the particular level of evidence (i.e., moderate evidence or strong evidence).
Local educational agency means:
(a) A public board of education or other public authority legally constituted within a State for either administrative control or direction of, or to perform a service function for, public elementary schools or secondary schools in a city, county, township, school district, or other political subdivision of a State, or of or for a Start Printed Page 90824combination of school districts or counties that is recognized in a State as an administrative agency for its public elementary schools or secondary schools.
(c) Bureau of Indian Education Schools. The term includes an elementary school or secondary school funded by the Bureau of Indian Education but only to the extent that including the school makes the school eligible for programs for which specific eligibility is not provided to the school in another provision of law and the school does not have a student population that is smaller than the student population of the local educational agency receiving assistance under this Act with the smallest student population, except that the school shall not be subject to the jurisdiction of any State educational agency (as defined in this notice) other than the Bureau of Indian Education.
Logic model (also known as a theory of action) means a reasonable conceptual framework that identifies key components of the proposed project (i.e., the active “ingredients” that are hypothesized to be critical to achieving the relevant outcomes (as defined in this notice)) and describes the theoretical and operational relationships among the key components and outcomes.
Low-performing schools mean (1) elementary and secondary schools identified, at the time of submission of an application under this competition, as in need of corrective action or restructuring under the ESEA, as authorized amended by the NCLB; (2), elementary and secondary schools identified, at the time of submission of an application under this competition, as a priority or focus school by a State under ESEA flexibility; and, (3) secondary (both middle and high schools) in a State that are, at the time of submission of an application under this competition, equally as low-achieving as these Title I schools above and are eligible for, but do not receive, Title I funds.
Meets What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards without reservations is the highest possible rating for a study finding reviewed by the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC). Studies receiving this rating provide the highest degree of confidence that an estimated effect was caused by the practice studied. Experimental studies (as defined in this notice) may receive this highest rating. These standards are described in the WWC Procedures and Standards Handbooks, Version 3.0, which can be accessed at http://ies.ed.gov/​ncee/​wwc/​Handbooks.
Meets What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards with reservations is the second-highest rating for a study finding reviewed by the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC). Studies receiving this rating provide a reasonable degree of confidence that an estimated effect was caused by the practice studied. Both experimental studies (as defined in this notice) (such as randomized controlled trials with high rates of sample attrition) and quasi-experimental design studies (as defined in this notice) may receive this rating if they establish the equivalence of the treatment and comparison groups in key baseline characteristics. These standards are described in the WWC Procedures and Standards Handbooks, Version 3.0, which can be accessed at http://ies.ed.gov/​ncee/​wwc/​Handbooks.
Moderate evidence means the following conditions are met: (a) There is at least one experimental or quasi-experimental design study of the effectiveness of the practice with a relevant finding (as defined in this notice) that Meets What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards with or without reservations (e.g., a quasi-experimental design study or high-attrition randomized controlled trial that establishes the equivalence of the treatment and comparison groups in student achievement at baseline); (b) the relevant finding in the study described in paragraph (a) is of a statistically significant and positive (i.e., favorable) effect on a student outcome or other relevant outcome, with no statistically significant and overriding negative (i.e., unfavorable) evidence on that practice from other findings on the intervention reviewed by and reported on the What Works Clearinghouse that Meet What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards with or without reservations; (c) the relevant finding in the study described in paragraph (a) is based on a sample that overlaps with the populations (e.g., the types of student served) or settings proposed to receive the practice (e.g., an after-school program studied in urban high schools and proposed for rural high schools); and (d) the relevant finding in the study described in paragraph (a) is based on a large sample (as defined in this notice) and a multi-site sample (as defined in this notice).
Multi-site sample means more than one site, where site can be defined as an LEA, locality, or State. A sample could be multi-site if it includes campuses in two or more localities (e.g., cities or counties), even if the campuses all belong to the same LEA or the same postsecondary school system. Multiple studies can cumulatively meet the multi-site sample and large sample (as defined in this notice) requirements of moderate and strong evidence, as long as each study meets the other requirements of the particular level of evidence (i.e., moderate evidence and strong evidence).
Practice means an activity, strategy, or intervention included in a project. Evidence may pertain to an individual practice, or to a combination of practices (e.g., training teachers on instructional practices for English learners and follow-on coaching for these teachers).
Quasi-experimental design study (QED) 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. This type of study, depending on design and implementation, can Meet What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards with reservations (as defined in this notice) (but not without reservations).
Randomized controlled trial (RCT) means a study that employs random assignment of, for example, students, teachers, classrooms, or schools to receive the practice being evaluated (the treatment group) or not to receive the practice (the control group). The estimated effectiveness of the practice is the difference between the average Start Printed Page 90825outcomes 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.
Regional level describes the level of scope or effectiveness of a 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 LEA-based project to be considered a regional-level project, a practice must serve students in more than one LEA, unless the practice is implemented in a State in which the State educational agency is the sole educational agency for all schools.
Regression discontinuity design study (RDD) means a study that assigns the practice being evaluated using a measured variable (e.g., assigning students reading below a cutoff score to tutoring or developmental education classes) and controls for that variable in the analysis of outcomes. The effectiveness of the practice is estimated for individuals who barely qualify to receive that component. These studies, depending on design and implementation, can Meet What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards without reservations.
Regular high school diploma means the standard high school diploma that is awarded to students in the State and that is fully aligned with the State's academic content standards or a higher diploma and does not include a General Education Development (GED) credential, certificate of attendance, or any alternative award.
Relevant finding means a finding from a study regarding the relationship between (a) an activity, strategy, or intervention included as a practice of the logic model (as defined in this notice) for the proposed project, and (b) a student outcome or other relevant outcome included in the logic model for the proposed project.
Relevant outcome means the student outcome(s) (or the ultimate outcome if not related to students) the proposed practice is designed to improve; consistent with the specific goals of a project.
Rural local educational agencies means local educational agencies with an urban-centric district locale code of 32, 33, 41, 42, or 43, which can be found at the following link: https://nces.ed.gov/​ccd/​ccdLocaleCodeDistrict.asp.
Single-case design study (SCD) means a study that use observations of a single case (e.g., a student eligible for a behavioral intervention) over time in the absence and presence of a controlled treatment manipulation to determine whether the outcome is systematically related to the treatment. According to the What Works Clearinghouse Single Case Design Pilot Standards, a collection of these studies, depending on design and implementation (e.g., including a sufficient number of cases and of data points per condition), can Meet What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards without reservations.
State educational agency means the agency primarily responsible for the State supervision of public elementary schools and secondary schools.
Strong evidence means the following conditions are met: (a) There is at least one experimental study (e.g., a randomized controlled trial) of the effectiveness of the practice that has a relevant finding that Meets the What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards without reservations (e.g., a randomized controlled trial with low rates of sample attrition overall and between the treatment and control groups); (b) the relevant finding in the study described in paragraph (a) is of a statistically significant and positive (i.e., favorable) effect on a student outcome or other relevant outcome, with no statistically significant and overriding negative (i.e., unfavorable) evidence on that practice from other findings that Meet What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards with or without reservations; (c) the relevant finding in the study described in paragraph (a) is based on a sample that overlaps with the populations (i.e., the types of student served) and settings proposed to receive the practice (e.g., an after-school program both studied in, and proposed for, urban high schools); and (d) the relevant finding in the study described in paragraph (a) is based on a large sample and a multi-site sample.
For grades and subjects in which assessments are required under section 1111(b)(2) of Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as amended by Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA): (1) A student's score on such assessments; and, as appropriate (2) other measures of student learning, such as those described in the subsequent paragraph, provided that they are rigorous and comparable across schools with a local educational agency (LEA).
For grades and subjects in which assessments are not required under section 1111(b)(2) of ESEA, as amended by ESSA: (1) Alternative measures of student learning and performance, such as student results on pre-tests, end-of-course tests, and objective performance-based assessments; (2) students learning objectives; (3) student performance on English language proficiency assessments; and (4) other measures of student achievement that are rigorous and comparable across schools within an LEA.
Waiver of Proposed Rulemaking: Under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553), the Department generally offers interested parties the opportunity to comment on proposed priorities, definitions, and other requirements. Section 437(d)(1) of GEPA, however, allows the Secretary to exempt from rulemaking requirements, regulations governing the first grant competition under a new or substantially revised program authority. This grant competition is the first for the EIR program under 20 U.S.C. 1138-1138d and therefore qualifies for this exemption. In order to ensure timely grant awards, the Secretary has decided to forego public comment on the priorities, definitions, and requirements under section 437(d)(1) of GEPA. These priorities, definitions, and requirements will apply to the FY 2017 grant competition only.
Program Authority: Section 4611 of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA.
Applicable Regulations: (a) The Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) in 34 CFR parts 75, 77, 79, 81, 82, 84, 86, 97, 98, and 99. (b) The OMB Guidelines to Agencies on Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement) in 2 CFR part 180, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department in 2 CFR part 3485.(c) The Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards in 2 CFR part 200, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department in 2 CFR part 3474. (d) The Supplemental Priorities.
Estimated Available Funds: The Administration has requested $180,000,000 for the EIR program for FY 2017, of which approximately $141,000,000 would be used, in total, Start Printed Page 90826for new awards under the Early-phase, Mid-phase, and Expansion competitions. The actual level of funding, if any, depends on final congressional action. However, we are inviting applications to allow enough time to complete the grant process if Congress appropriates funds for this program.
Early-phase grants: $700,000-$800,000 per year.
Mid-phase grants: $1,400,000-$1,600,000 per year.
Expansion grants: $2,750,000-$3,000,000 per year.
Early-phase grants: $3,750,000 for the entirety of the project period.
Mid-phase grants: $7,750,000 for the entirety of the project period.
Expansion grants: $14,500,000 for the entirety of the project period.
Early-phase grants: 24-38 awards.
Mid-phase grants: 15-20 awards.
Expansion grants: 3-5 awards.
Early-phase grants: $4,000,000 for the entirety of the project period.
Mid-phase grants: $8,000,000 for the entirety of the project period.
Expansion grants: $15,000,000 for the entirety of the project period.
Under section 4611(c) of the ESEA, as amended by ESSA, the Department must use at least 25 percent of EIR funds for a fiscal year to make awards to applicants serving rural areas, contingent on receipt of a sufficient number of applications of sufficient quality. For purposes of this competition, we will consider an applicant as rural if the applicant meets the qualifications for rural applicants as described in the eligible applicants section and the applicant certifies that it meets those qualifications through the application.
In implementing this statutory provision, the Department may fund high-quality applications from rural applicants out of rank order in one or more of the EIR competitions.
(c) The Bureau of Indian Education;
(d) A consortium of State educational agencies or LEAs;
(e) A nonprofit (as defined in this notice) organization; and
(f) A State educational agency, an LEA, a consortium described in (d), or the Bureau of Indian Education, in partnership with—
(1) A nonprofit organization;
(2) A business;
(3) An educational service agency; or
(4) An institution of higher education.
To qualify as a rural applicant under the EIR program, an applicant must meet both of the following requirements:
(1) An LEA with an urban-centric district locale code of 32, 33, 41, 42, or 43, as determined by the Secretary;
(2) A consortium of such LEAs;
(3) An educational service agency or a nonprofit organization in partnership with such an LEA; or
(4) A grantee described in clause (1) or (2) in partnership with a State educational agency; and
(b) A majority of the schools to be served by the program are designated with a locale code of 32, 33, 41, 42, or 43, or a combination of such codes, as determined by the Secretary.
More information on rural applicant eligibility is in the application package.
2. a. Cost Sharing or Matching: Under section 4611 of the ESEA, as amended by ESSA, each grant recipient must provide, from Federal, State, local, or private sources, an amount equal to 10 percent of funds provided under the grant, which may be provided in cash or through in-kind contributions, to carry out activities supported by the grant. Grantees must include a budget showing their matching contributions on an annual basis relative to the annual budget amount of EIR grant funds and must provide evidence of their matching contributions for the first year of the grant in their grant applications. Section 4611 of the ESEA, as amended by ESSA also authorizes the Secretary to waive this matching requirement on a case-by-case basis, upon a showing of exceptional circumstances, such as:
(a) The difficulty of raising matching funds for a program to serve a rural area;
(b) The difficulty of raising matching funds in areas with a concentration of local educational agencies or schools with a high percentage of students aged 5 through 17—
(1) Who are in poverty, as counted in the most recent census data approved by the Secretary;
(2) Who are eligible for a free or reduced price lunch under the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1751 et seq.);
(3) Whose families receive assistance under the State program funded under part A of title IV of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); or
(4) Who are eligible to receive medical assistance under the Medicaid program; and
(c) The difficulty of raising funds on tribal land.
Applicants that wish to apply for a waiver must include a request in their application that describes why the matching requirement would cause serious hardship or an inability to carry out project activities. Further information about applying for waivers can be found in the application package. However, given the importance of matching funds to the long-term success of the project, the Secretary expects eligible entities to identify appropriate matching funds.
3. Other: The Secretary establishes the following requirements for the EIR program.
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.
Evidence Standards: To be eligible for an award, an application for a Mid-phase grant must be supported by moderate evidence for at least one population or setting.
An applicant must identify up to two study citations to be reviewed against WWC Evidence Standards for the purposes of meeting the EIR evidence standard requirement. An applicant must clearly identify these citations in the Evidence form. The Department will not review a study citation that an applicant fails to clearly identify for review. In addition to the two study citations, applicants should include (1) the positive student outcomes they intend to replicate under their Mid-phase grant, (2) the intervention the applicant plans to implement, and (3) the intended student outcomes that the intervention(s) attempts to impact in the Evidence form.
An applicant must ensure that all evidence is available to the Department from publicly available sources and provide links or other guidance indicating where it is available. If the Department determines that an applicant has provided insufficient information, the applicant will not have an opportunity to provide additional information at a later time. However, if the WWC determines that a study does not provide enough information on key aspects of the study design, such as Start Printed Page 90827sample attrition or equivalence of intervention and comparison groups, the WWC will submit a query to the study author(s) to gather information for use in determining a study rating. Authors are asked to respond to queries within 10 business days. Should the author query remain incomplete within 14 days of the initial contact to the study author(s), the study will be deemed ineligible under the grant competition. After the grant competition closes, the WWC will continue to include responses to author queries and will make updates to study reviews as necessary. However, the competition can only take into account information that is available at the time the competition is open.
The evidence standards apply to the prior research that supports the effectiveness of the proposed project. The EIR program does not restrict the source of prior research providing evidence for the proposed project. As such, an applicant could cite prior research in the Evidence form for studies that were conducted by another entity (i.e., an entity that is not the applicant) so long as the prior research studies cited in the application are relevant to the effectiveness of the proposed project.
Funding Categories: An applicant will be considered for an award only for the type of EIR grant (i.e., Early-phase, Mid-phase, and Expansion grant) for which it applies. An applicant may not submit an application for the same proposed project under more than one type of grant.
Each application will be reviewed under the competition it was submitted under in the Grants.gov system, and only applications that are successfully submitted by the established deadline will be peer reviewed. Applicants should be careful that they download the intended EIR application package and that they submit their applications under the intended EIR competition.
Limit on Grant Awards: No grantee may receive in a single year new EIR grant awards that total an amount greater than the sum of the maximum amount of funds for an Expansion grant and the maximum amount of funds for an Early-phase grant for that year. For example, in a year when the maximum award value for an Expansion grant is $15 million and the maximum award value for an Early-phase grant is $4 million, no grantee may receive in a single year new grants totaling more than $19 million.
Partnerships: An applicant must demonstrate sufficient partnerships with schools/LEA(s) by identifying in the application implementation schools/LEA(s) for years 1 and 2 of the grant project.
Evaluation: The grantee must conduct an independent evaluation (as defined in this notice) of its project. This evaluation should be designed to meet What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards without reservations and must estimate the impact of the EIR-supported practice (as implemented at the proposed level of scale) on a relevant outcome. A Mid-phase grantee's evaluation must examine the cost effectiveness of its practices and identify potential obstacles and success factors to scaling that would be relevant to other organizations.
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 or its contractor, an updated comprehensive evaluation plan in a format and using such tools as the Department may require, as outlined in the Cooperative Agreement. 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.
Public Availability of Data and Results: Applications under Mid-phase grants must include a Data Management Plan (DMP); the DMP should be no more than five pages in Appendix C that describes the applicant's plans for making the final research data from the proposed project accessible to others. Resources that may be of interest to researchers in developing a data management plan can be found at http://ies.ed.gov/​funding/​researchaccess.asp. DMPs are expected to differ depending on the nature of the project and the data collected. By addressing the items identified below, your DMP describes how you will share data under the DMP you are required to include in your application. The DMP should include the following:
(a) Type of data to be shared;
(b) Procedures for managing and for maintaining the confidentiality of personally identifiable information;
(c) Roles and responsibilities of project or institutional staff in the management and retention of research data, including a discussion of any changes to the roles and responsibilities that will occur should the Project Director/Principal Investigator and/or co-Project Directors/co-Principal Investigators leave the project or their institution;
(d) Expected schedule for data access, including how long the data will remain accessible (at least 10 years unless a shorter period of time is required to comply with applicable Federal or State laws or agreements promulgated to ensure compliance with such laws in which the destruction of records or personal information is required within a shorter period of time) and acknowledgement that the timeframe of data accessibility will be reviewed at the annual progress reviews and revised as necessary;
(e) Format of the final dataset;
(f) Dataset documentation to be provided;
(g) Method of data access (e.g., provided by the Project Director/Principal Investigator, through a data archive) and how those interested in using the data can locate and access them;
(h) Whether or not a data agreement that specifies conditions under which the data will be shared will be required; and
(i) Any circumstances that prevent all or some of the data from being made accessible. This includes data that may fall under multiple statutes and, hence, must meet the confidentiality requirements for each applicable statute (e.g., data covered by Common Rule for Protection of Human Subjects, Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), and Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)).
The costs of the DMP can be covered by the grant and should be included in the budget and explained in the budget narrative. The peer-review process will not include the DMP in the scoring of the application. The EIR team will be responsible for reviewing the completeness of the proposed DMP and will work with EIR grantees to finalize the DMP once the grant is awarded.
Recipients of awards are expected to publish or otherwise make publicly available the results of the work supported through EIR, including the evaluation report. EIR grantees must submit final studies resulting from research supported in whole or in part by EIR to the Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC), http://eric.ed.gov.
Scaling: Mid-phase grants must scale the project to the regional or national level and include new contexts and populations for implementation. Scaling targets should be established for the number of students to be served for the total project period as well as the target number of students to be served each year of the project. Mid-phase grants must also include their scaling strategy as a component of the evaluation plan for the grant. Given that all EIR grantees are required to report on the performance measure regarding the target number of students served by the Start Printed Page 90828grant, applicants should propose scaling targets that represent reasonable costs per student for the grant.
Management Plan: An EIR grantee must provide an updated comprehensive management plan for the approved project in a format and using such tools as the Department may require, as outlined in the Cooperative Agreement. 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.
1. Address to Request Application Package: You can obtain an application package via the Internet or from the Education Publications Center (ED Pubs). To obtain a copy via the Internet, use the following address: http://innovation.ed.gov/​what-we-do/​innovation/​education-innovation-and-research-eir/​. To obtain a copy from ED Pubs, write, fax, or call: ED Pubs, U.S. Department of Education, P.O. Box 22207, Alexandria, VA 22304. Telephone, toll free: 1-877-433-7827. FAX: (703) 605-6794. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call, toll free: 1-877-576-7734.
If you request an application package from ED Pubs, be sure to identify this program or competition as follows: CFDA number 84.411B.
2. a. Content and Form of Application Submission: Requirements concerning the content and form of an application, together with the forms you must submit, are in the application package for this competition.
Notice of Intent to Apply: February 13, 2017.
We will be able to develop a more efficient process for reviewing grant applications if we know the approximate number of applicants that intend to apply for funding under this competition. Therefore, the Secretary strongly encourages each potential applicant to notify us of the applicant's intent to submit an application by completing a Web-based form. When completing this form, applicants will provide (1) the applicant organization's name and address and (2) the absolute priority the applicant intends to address. Applicants may access this form online at https://www.surveymonkey.com/​r/​GRS32YH. Applicants that do not complete this form may still submit an application.
Pre-Application: The EIR program intends to hold Webinars and/or meetings designed to provide technical assistance to interested applicants for all three types of grants. Detailed information regarding these Webinars and/or meetings will be provided on the EIR Web site at http://innovation.ed.gov/​what-we-do/​innovation/​education-innovation-and-research-eir/​.
Page Limit: The application narrative (Part III of the application) is where you, the applicant, address the selection criteria that reviewers use to evaluate your application. Applicants should limit the application narrative for a Mid-phase grant application to no more than 30 pages, using the following standards:
The page limit does not apply to Part I, the cover sheet; Part II, the budget section, including the narrative budget justification; Part IV, the assurances and certifications; or the one-page abstract, the resumes, the bibliography, or the letters of support. However, the page limit does apply to all of the application narrative.
b. Submission of Proprietary Information: Given the types of projects that may be proposed in applications for the Mid-phase competition, your application may include business information that you consider proprietary. In 34 CFR 5.11 we define “business information” and describe the process we use in determining whether any of that information is proprietary and, thus, protected from disclosure under Exemption 4 of the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552, as amended).
We plan on posting the project narrative section of funded EIR applications on the Department's Web site. Accordingly, you may wish to request confidentiality of business information. Identifying proprietary information in the submitted application will help facilitate this public disclosure process.
Pre-Application Webinars and/or Meetings: The EIR program intends to hold Webinars and/or meeting designed to provide technical assistance to interested applicants for all three types of grants. Detailed information regarding these Webinars and/or meetings will be provided on the EIR Web site at http://innovation.ed.gov/​what-we-do/​innovation/​education-innovation-and-research-eir/​.
Deadline for Intergovernmental Review: June 13, 2017.Start Printed Page 90829
Applications for grants under the EIR Program, CFDA number 84.411B, must be submitted electronically using the Governmentwide Grants.gov Apply site at www.Grants.gov. Through this site, you will be able to download a copy of the application package, complete it offline, and then upload and submit your application. You may not email an electronic copy of a grant application to us.
You may access the electronic grant application for EIR Mid-phase at www.Grants.gov. You must search for the downloadable application package for this competition by the CFDA number. Do not include the CFDA number's alpha suffix in your search (e.g., search for 84.411, not 84.411B).
You must upload any narrative sections and all other attachments to Start Printed Page 90830your application as files in a read-only Portable Document Format (PDF). Do not upload an interactive or fillable PDF file. If you upload a file type other than a read-only PDF (e.g., Word, Excel, WordPerfect, etc.) or submit a password-protected file, we will not review that material. Please note that this could result in your application not being considered for funding because the material in question—for example, the application narrative—is critical to a meaningful review of your proposal. For that reason it is important to allow yourself adequate time to upload all material as PDF files. The Department will not convert material from other formats to PDF.
Address and mail or fax your statement to: Kelly Terpak, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 4W312, Washington, DC 20202-5900. FAX: (202) 401-4123.
If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you may mail (through the U.S. Postal Service or a commercial carrier) your application to the Department. You must mail the original and two copies of your application, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.411B), LBJ Basement Level 1, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20202-4260.
c. Submission of Paper Applications by Hand Delivery.Start Printed Page 90831
If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you (or a courier service) may deliver your paper application to the Department by hand. You must deliver the original and two copies of your application, by hand, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.411B), 550 12th Street SW., Room 7039, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-4260.
1. Selection Criteria: The selection criteria for the Mid-phase competition are from 34 CFR 75.210.
The points assigned to each criterion are indicated in the parentheses next to the criterion. An applicant may earn up to a total of 100 points based on the selection criteria for the application.
(2) The national significance of the proposed project.
(3) The extent to which the proposed project represents an exceptional approach to the priority or priorities established for the competition.
In determining the applicant's capacity to scale the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(1) The extent to which the applicant demonstrates there is unmet demand for the process, product, strategy, or practice that will enable the applicant to reach the level of scale that is proposed in the application.
(2) The extent to which the applicant identifies a specific strategy or strategies that address a particular barrier or barriers that prevented the applicant, in the past, from reaching the level of scale that is proposed in the application.
(3) The feasibility of successful replication of the proposed project, if favorable results are obtained, in a variety of settings and with a variety of populations.
(2) The adequacy of the management plan to achieve the objectives of the proposed project on time and within budget, including clearly defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing project tasks.
(3) The adequacy of procedures for ensuring feedback and continuous improvement in the operation of the proposed project.
(4) The potential and planning for the incorporation of project purposes, activities, or benefits into the ongoing work of the applicant beyond the end of the grant.
(1) 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.
(2) The extent to which the evaluation will provide guidance about effective strategies suitable for replication or testing in other settings.
(3) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will provide valid and reliable performance data on relevant outcomes.
(4) The extent to which the evaluation plan clearly articulates the key components, mediators, and outcomes of the grant-supported intervention, as well as a measurable threshold for acceptable implementation.
Applicants may wish to review the following technical assistance resources on evaluation: (1) WWC Procedures and Standards Handbook: http://ies.ed.gov/​ncee/​wwc/​references/​idocviewer/​doc.aspx?​docid=​19&​tocid=​1;​ and (2) “Technical Assistance Materials for Conducting Rigorous Impact Evaluations” to the list of evaluation resources: http://ies.ed.gov/​ncee/​projects/​evaluationTA.asp;​ and (3) IES/NCEE Technical Methods papers: http://ies.ed.gov/​ncee/​tech_​methods/​. In addition, applicants may view two optional Webinar recordings that were hosted by the Institute of Education Sciences. The first Webinar discussed strategies for designing and executing well-designed quasi-experimental design studies and is available at: http://ies.ed.gov/​ncee/​wwc/​Multimedia.aspx?​sid=​23. The second Webinar focused on more rigorous evaluation designs, discussing strategies for designing and executing studies that meet WWC evidence standards without reservations. This Webinar is available at: http://ies.ed.gov/​ncee/​wwc/​Multimedia.aspx?​sid=​18.
Peer reviewers will read, prepare a written evaluation of, and score the assigned applications, using the selection criteria provided in this notice. For Mid-phase grant applications we intend to conduct a single-tier review.
3. Risk Assessment and Special Conditions: Consistent with 2 CFR 200.205, before awarding grants under this competition the Department conducts a review of the risks posed by applicants. Under 2 CFR 3474.10, the Start Printed Page 90832Secretary may impose special conditions and, in appropriate circumstances, high-risk conditions on a grant if the applicant or grantee is not financially stable; has a history of unsatisfactory performance; has a financial or other management system that does not meet the standards in 2 CFR part 200, subpart D; has not fulfilled the conditions of a prior grant; or is otherwise not responsible.
4. Performance Measures: The overall purpose of the EIR program is to expand the implementation of, and investment in, innovative practices that are demonstrated to have an impact on improving student achievement or student growth for high-need students. We have established several performance measures for the EIR Mid-phase grants.
Annual performance measures: (1) The percentage of grantees that reach their annual target number of students as specified in the application; (2) the percentage of grantees that reach their annual target number of high-need students as specified in the application; (3) the percentage of grantees with ongoing well-designed and independent evaluations that will provide evidence of their effectiveness at improving student outcomes in multiple contexts; (4) the percentage of grantees that implement an evaluation that provides information about the key practices and the approach of the project so as to facilitate replication; (5) the percentage of grantees that implement an evaluation that provides information on the cost effectiveness of the key practices to identify potential obstacles and success factors to scaling; and (6) the cost per student served by the grant.
Cumulative performance measures: (1) The percentage of grantees that reach the targeted number of students specified in the application; (2) the percentage of grantees that reach the targeted number of high-need students specified in the application; (3) the percentage of grantees that implement a completed well-designed, well-implemented and independent evaluation that provides evidence of their effectiveness at improving student outcomes at scale; (4) the percentage of grantees with a completed well-designed, well-implemented and independent evaluation that provides information about the key elements and the approach of the project so as to facilitate replication or testing in other settings; (5) and the percentage of grantees with a completed evaluation that provided information on the cost effectiveness of the key practices to identify potential obstacles and success factors to scaling; and (6) the cost per student served by the grant.
Kelly Terpak, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 4W312, Washington, DC 20202-5900. Telephone: (202) 453-7122. FAX: (202) 401-4123 or by email: eir@ed.gov.
Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document and a copy of the application package in an accessible format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) on request to the program contact person listed under For Further Information Contact in section VII of this notice.Start Printed Page 90833
1. Andrews, R.J., Jargowsky, P., & Kuhne, K. (2012). The effects of Texas's pre-kindergarten program on academic performance (CALDER Working Paper No. 84). Washington, DC: National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data on Educational Research; Barnett, W.S. (2008). Preschool education and its lasting effects: Research and policy implications. Boulder, CO, & Tempe, AZ: Education and the Public Interest Center & Education Policy Research Unit. Retrieved from http://nepc.colorado.edu/​files/​PB-Barnett-EARLY-ED_​FINAL.pdf.
2. Lipsey, M.W., Farran, D.C., Hofer, K.G. (2015). A randomized control trial of a statewide voluntary prekindergarten program on children's skills and behaviors through third grade. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University, Peabody Research Institute; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families. (2010, January). Head Start Impact Study: Final report. Washington, DC: Author.
3. The University of Chicago Consortium of Chicago School Research (June 2015). Foundations for Young Adult Success: A Developmental Framework. Retrieved from https://consortium.uchicago.edu/​sites/​default/​files/​publications/​Wallace%20Report.pdf;​ Montroy, J.J., Bowles, R.P., Skibbe, L.E. and Foster, T.D. (2014). Social skills and problem behaviors as mediators of the relationship between behavioral self-regulation and academic achievement. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 29 (2014): 298-309.
4. Casillas, A., Robbins, S., Allen, J., Kuo, Y.L., Ann Hanson, M., and Schmeiser, C. (2012). Predicting early academic failure in high school from prior academic achievement, psychosocial characteristics, and behavior. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104 (2), 407-420; Yeager, D.S., and Walton, G.M. (2011). Social-psychological interventions in education: They're not magic. Review of Educational Research, 81 (2), 267-301; Weissberg, R.P. and Cascarino, J. (2013). Academic learning + social-emotional learning = national priority. Phi Delta Kappan, 95 (2): 8-13.
5. The Department's What Works Clearinghouse includes information on research on social-behavioral competencies (using “student behavior” as a filer: http://ies.ed.gov/​ncee/​wwc/​findwhatworks.aspx), as well as a Practice Guide on Reducing Behavior Problems in the Elementary School Classroom: http://ies.ed.gov/​ncee/​wwc/​PracticeGuide.aspx?​sid=​4).
6. Kantrowitz, Barbara, (2014). “Scientists Bring New Rigor to Education Research.” Scientific American, July 15, 2014, http://www.scientificamerican.com/​article/​scientists-bring-new-rigor-to-education-research/​.
[FR Doc. 2016-30084 Filed 12-14-16; 8:45 am]