[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 59 (Wednesday, March 27, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18710-18723]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-07003]



  Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 27, 2013 / 
Notices  

[[Page 18710]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION


Applications for New Awards; Investing in Innovation Fund, 
Development Grants

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

ACTION: Notice.

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

Overview Information

    Investing in Innovation Fund, Development grants Notice inviting 
applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2013.

    Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Numbers:

84.411P (Development grants Pre-Application).
84.411C (Development grants Full Application).

    Note: In order to receive an Investing in Innovation Fund (i3) 
Development grant, an entity must submit a pre-application. The pre-
application is intended to reduce the burden of submitting a full i3 
application. Pre-applications will be reviewed and scored by peer 
reviewers using the selection criteria designated in this notice. 
Entities that submit a highly rated pre-application will be invited 
to submit a full i3 application; other pre-applicants may choose to 
do so.


DATES: Pre-Applications Available: March 29, 2013.
    Deadline for Notice of Intent to Submit Pre-Application: April 16, 
2013.
    Deadline for Transmittal of Pre-Applications: April 26, 2013.
    Full Applications Available: If you are invited to submit a full 
application, we will transmit the full application package and 
instructions using the contact information you provide to us. Other 
pre-applicants who choose to submit a full application may request the 
full application package and instructions from the Department.
    Deadline for Transmittal of Full Applications: Entities that submit 
a highly rated pre-application as scored by peer reviewers and as 
identified by the Department will be invited to submit a full i3 
application. Other pre-applicants may choose to submit a full 
application. The Department will announce on its Web site the deadline 
date for transmission of full applications and will also communicate 
this deadline to applicants in the full application package and 
instructions.
    Deadline for Intergovernmental Review: 60 calendar days after the 
deadline date for transmittal of full applications.

Full Text of Announcement

I. Funding Opportunity Description

    Purpose of Program: The Investing in Innovation Fund (i3), 
established under section 14007 of the American Recovery and 
Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), provides funding to support (1) local 
educational agencies (LEAs), and (2) nonprofit organizations in 
partnership with (a) one or more LEAs or (b) a consortium of schools. 
The 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 notice) 
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.
    Development grants provide funding to support the development or 
testing of practices that are supported by evidence of promise (as 
defined in this notice) or strong theory (as defined in this notice) 
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.
    This notice invites applications for Development grants only. The 
Department anticipates publishing notices inviting applications for the 
other types of i3 grants (Validation and Scale-up grants) in the spring 
of 2013.
    We remind LEAs of the continuing applicability of the provisions of 
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) for students who 
may be served under i3 grants. Any grants in which LEAs participate 
must be consistent with the rights, protections, and processes 
established under IDEA for students who are receiving special education 
and related services or are in the process of being evaluated to 
determine their eligibility for such services.
    As described later in this notice, in connection with making 
competitive grant awards, an applicant is required, as a condition of 
receiving assistance under this program, to make civil rights 
assurances, including an assurance that its program or activity will 
comply with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the 
Department's section 504 implementing regulations, which prohibit 
discrimination on the basis of disability. Regardless of whether a 
student with disabilities is specifically targeted as a ``high-need 
student'' (as defined in this notice) in a particular grant 
application, recipients are required to comply with all legal 
nondiscrimination requirements, including, but not limited to the 
obligation to ensure that students with disabilities are not denied 
access to the benefits of the recipient's program because of their 
disability. The Department also enforces Title II of the Americans with 
Disabilities Act (ADA), as well as the regulations implementing Title 
II of the ADA, which prohibit discrimination on the basis of disability 
by public entities.
    Furthermore, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits 
discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin. On 
December 2, 2011, the Departments of Education and Justice jointly 
issued guidance that explains how educational institutions can promote 
student diversity or avoid racial isolation within the framework of 
Title VI (e.g., through consideration of the racial demographics of 
neighborhoods when drawing assignment zones for schools or through

[[Page 18711]]

targeted recruiting efforts). 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.
    Background: The FY 2013 i3 Development competition incorporates 
lessons learned from prior i3 competitions. As such, it includes 
several changes from prior i3 competitions that prospective applicants 
should note. These changes reflect the recently revised i3 program 
design, as described in the final priorities, requirements, 
definitions, and selection criteria for this program (2013 i3 NFP), 
published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.
    In the 2013 i3 NFP, the Department redesigned key aspects of the i3 
program to improve the FY 2013 and future i3 competitions by 
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.
    One example of the various changes we established in the 2013 i3 
NFP pertains to the breadth and specificity of the potential priorities 
for a given i3 competition. Specifically, the 2013 i3 NFP includes 11 
priorities representing a range of education topics that the Secretary 
may select from when establishing the priorities for an i3 competition 
for a given year. Although the Department has used broad priorities in 
the past, the 2013 i3 NFP includes subparts under each priority that 
target specific needs. These subparts facilitate the i3 program's goal 
of building a portfolio of solutions and corresponding evidence 
regarding different approaches to addressing critical challenges in 
public education. When selecting the priorities for a given 
competition, the Department considers several factors, including the 
Department's policy priorities, the need for new solutions in a 
particular priority area, other available funding for a particular 
priority area, and the results and lessons learned from prior i3 
competitions.
    We include eight absolute priorities in the FY 2013 Development 
competition. Under each, we identify subparts to which applicants must 
select from in order to meet the absolute priority.
    First, we include the priority on improving the effectiveness of 
teachers or principals, because these activities are integral to the 
Department's mission. To support the Department's broader equity 
agenda, we include a subpart under this priority that encourages 
applicants to implement models designed to increase the equitable 
access to effective teachers or principals for low-income and high-need 
students. We also include a subpart that encourages applicants to 
implement projects that extend highly effective teachers' reach to 
allow effective teachers to serve more students. Both subparts provide 
the opportunity for applicants to change operating conditions within 
schools and districts in ways that are consistent with the Department's 
policy goals for professionalizing teaching and improving outcomes for 
high-need students. Both subparts also provide the opportunity to 
contribute to i3's aim of supporting increased efficiencies at the 
school and district levels.
    Second, we include a priority addressing the pressing need for 
activities that accelerate the improved performance of low-performing 
schools to ensure that all students receive a quality K-12 education. 
Under this priority, we include a subpart to support projects that 
recruit, develop, or retain highly effective staff, specifically 
teachers, principals, or instructional leaders, to work in low-
performing schools. We include this subpart because building the pool 
of talented educators--both teachers and principals--who are well 
prepared for, and committed to, school turnaround efforts complements 
other school turnaround efforts of the Department. We believe that 
having more educators who are well prepared for, and committed to, 
school turnaround efforts could significantly accelerate the Nation's 
overall efforts to transform low-performing schools. We also include a 
subpart for the implementation of programs, supports, or other 
strategies that improve students' non-cognitive abilities (e.g., 
motivation, persistence, or resilience) and enhance student engagement 
in learning. An emerging body of research suggests that non-cognitive 
abilities and engagement can bolster efforts to improve academic 
outcomes, particularly for high-need students. Although both of these 
subparts address challenges encountered by many schools, we consider 
them particularly acute in low-performing schools.
    Third, we include a priority on science, technology, engineering, 
and mathematics (STEM) education. Ensuring that all students can access 
coursework and can excel in STEM fields is essential to our Nation's 
economy and future prosperity. Under this priority, we include one 
subpart that focuses on redesigning STEM course content and 
instructional practices to engage students and increase student 
achievement. To date, the STEM projects funded by the i3 program have 
not focused on redesigning STEM course content. We consider STEM course 
redesign, particularly at the secondary level, to be a key policy 
priority that may significantly improve STEM outcomes.
    Fourth, we include a priority on improving academic outcomes for 
students with disabilities. Specifically, we include a subpart that 
addresses the growing need for designing and implementing teacher 
evaluation systems that both define and measure the effectiveness of 
teachers of students with disabilities and related service providers. 
Given that many States are in the process of implementing their own 
statewide teacher evaluation systems, we are concerned that there are 
limited ways to effectively, reliably, and meaningfully integrate 
teachers of students with disabilities and related service providers 
into evaluation systems. We also include a subpart for applicants to 
design and implement strategies that improve student achievement for 
students with disabilities in inclusive settings or general education 
programs. To date, the i3 program has not funded projects in this area. 
We believe it is essential to develop and promote effective approaches 
for ensuring that students with disabilities are provided opportunities 
to participate and progress in inclusive and general education 
settings. In particular, recent data on the prevalence of exclusionary 
school discipline policies suggests that new models supporting 
students' transition to inclusive settings are needed. While the 
negative effects of exclusionary school discipline policies are not 
confined to students with disabilities, this program is particularly 
focused on the potential effect on these students.
    Fifth, we include a priority on improving academic outcomes for 
English learners (ELs). School districts across the country are 
experiencing increases in the enrollment of students who cannot speak, 
read, or write English well enough to participate meaningfully in 
educational programs and who therefore need specialized support 
services. Too often, these students' English language needs are not 
met, thereby inhibiting them from the achieving the academic outcomes 
of which they are capable. This issue is particularly acute for ELs at 
the middle- and high-school levels. To address this concern, we include 
a subpart that

[[Page 18712]]

focuses on projects that align the curriculum and instruction to be 
used in grades 6-12 that are necessary for preparing ELs to be college-
and career-ready.
    Sixth, we include a priority on improving parent and family 
engagement. Parents and families are instrumental to their children's 
academic success, but the Department has few programs that provide 
direct funding for projects that enable parents and families to take on 
an active role in improving their children's academic performance. 
Under this priority, we include a subpart for projects that provide 
parents and families the skills and strategies that increase student 
engagement and improve student outcomes. This subpart is consistent 
with the Department's new parent engagement framework.\1\ We also 
include a second subpart for projects that provide students and parents 
with improved and ongoing access to data about students' progress and 
performance. As schools enhance their ability to collect and analyze 
student-level data to inform student- and school-level decisions, 
sharing these types of data can be a powerful way to involve parents in 
their children's academic success. The Department expects that projects 
funded under this subpart will produce new approaches for sharing this 
type of information with parents and families in ways that meaningfully 
engage them in the school's mission and their children's success.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ www.ed.gov/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Family_Engagement_DRAFT_Framework.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Seventh, we include a priority on the effective use of technology. 
The Department's National Education Technology Plan 2010 \2\ 
highlighted the potential of ``connected teaching'' that makes it 
possible to extend the reach of the most effective teachers by using 
online tools. The National Education Technology Plan 2010 also 
highlighted the need for high-quality learning resources that can reach 
learners wherever and whenever they are needed. To support these 
efforts, we include two subparts under this priority that focus on 
projects that improve the access to and use of learning experiences 
that are personalized and self-improving, and on projects that develop 
and implement technology-enabled strategies for teaching and learning 
concepts that are difficult to teach using traditional approaches. For 
both of these subparts, we are particularly interested in supporting 
projects that use technology to meet students' diverse learning needs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ www.ed.gov/technology/netp-2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, we include a priority that focuses on serving rural 
communities. Prior i3 competitions, as well as other Department 
programs, have demonstrated that rural areas confront a plethora of 
challenges as they work to provide a high-quality education for all 
students. Under this year's competition, applicants applying under this 
priority must address one of the other seven absolute priorities for 
the FY 2013 i3 Development competition, as described above, while 
serving students enrolled in rural LEAs. In addition to the changes to 
the priorities, the 2013 i3 NFP also modifies aspects of the i3 
program's requirements, definitions, and selection criteria. In 
general, these changes improve clarity and strengthen the requirements 
and design aspects of the i3 program. Most notably, we have clarified 
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 
have revised the evidence standards and definitions so that applicants 
can better understand what is required to meet each level of evidence. 
For the FY 2013 Development competition, applicants must identify the 
evidence standard under which they are submitting their applications 
(i.e., evidence of promise or strong theory). Applicants should review 
the requirements section of this notice for instructions on how to 
identify the evidence standard under which they are submitting their 
applications, as well as for information on the other eligibility and 
program requirements.
    The i3 program includes a statutory requirement for a private-
sector match for all i3 grantees. Based on feedback from previous i3 
applicants, we are modifying the process for applicants to secure, and 
demonstrate evidence of, the required private-sector match for the FY 
2013 i3 competition. While an applicant must secure 15 percent of its 
Federal grant award to be eligible for an i3 Development grant, the 
timeframe in which an applicant must secure and submit evidence of the 
required private-sector matching funds has been expanded. In the past, 
the highest-rated applicants had only approximately 30 days to secure 
100 percent of their required matches and become grantees, which proved 
difficult for both applicants and potential private-sector funders. 
While all of the past highest-rated i3 applicants successfully secured 
their private-sector matches, the Department is eager to improve the 
matching process to facilitate deeper public-private partnerships. 
Therefore, for the FY 2013 i3 competition, each highest-rated 
applicant, as identified by the Department following peer review of 
full applications, must submit evidence of 50 percent of the required 
private-sector match prior to the awarding of an i3 grant. An applicant 
must provide evidence of the remaining 50 percent of the required 
private-sector match no later than six months after the project start 
date (i.e., 6 months after January 1, 2014, or by July 1, 2014). The 
grant will be terminated if the grantee does not secure its private-
sector match by the established deadline. By decreasing the amount of 
the required match that must be secured before the i3 award can be 
made, the burden for both applicants and private-sector funders will be 
reduced, which in turn will foster improved collaboration.
    This notice also includes selection criteria that are 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 projects. This notice includes selection 
criteria for both pre-applications and full applications for the FY 
2013 Development competition. Applicants should review the selection 
criteria and submission instructions carefully to ensure their 
applications reflect this year's criteria.
    The FY 2012 i3 Development competition was the first i3 competition 
that utilized a pre-application process, which was designed to decrease 
the burden on applicants and improve the responsiveness of the 
Department. Based on positive feedback from applicants and peer 
reviewers, and internal Department analyses, we believe that a pre-
application process will again benefit applicants by requiring them to 
expend fewer resources in preparing their initial applications. We also 
believe the continued use of the pre-application process will be 
helpful for applicants whose proposals are judged to be less 
competitive, while also providing additional time for applicants that 
are judged to be more competitive to improve their full proposals based 
on peer review comments on their pre-applications. In addition, the 
simplified pre-application process may be particularly meaningful for 
applicants from LEAs or other organizations without dedicated or 
contract grant writers or similar resources. For all of these reasons, 
the Department will use a pre-application process again this year.

[[Page 18713]]

    The pre-application and full application review processes will 
follow a similar review process as the 2012 i3 competition. Peer 
reviewers will read and score the shorter pre-application against an 
abbreviated set of selection criteria, and the applications rated 
highly in this process will be invited to submit full applications. 
However, this year, we have also decided to allow pre-applicants who 
are not specifically invited to submit a full application to choose 
whether to submit a full application.
    An entity that submits a full application for a Development grant 
must include the following information in its full application: An 
estimate of the number of students to be served by the project; 
evidence of the applicant's ability to implement and appropriately 
evaluate the proposed project; and information about its capacity 
(e.g., qualified personnel, financial resources, and management 
capacity) to further develop and bring the project to a larger scale 
directly or through partners, either during or following the grant 
period, if positive results are obtained. We recognize that LEAs are 
not typically responsible for taking their practices, strategies, or 
programs to scale; however, all applicants can and should partner with 
others to disseminate and take their effective practices, strategies, 
and programs to scale.
    The Department will screen pre- and full applications submitted for 
Development grants in accordance with the requirements in this notice, 
and will determine which applications have met the eligibility and 
other requirements in the 2013 i3 NFP. Peer reviewers will review all 
pre- and full applications for Development grants that are submitted by 
the established deadlines.
    Applicants should note, however, that we may screen for eligibility 
at multiple points during the competition process, including before and 
after peer review; applicants that are determined ineligible will not 
receive a grant regardless of peer reviewer scores or comments. If we 
determine that a project proposed in a full Development grant 
application is not supported by evidence of promise or strong theory, 
does not demonstrate the required prior record of improvement, or does 
not meet any other eligibility requirement, the application will not be 
considered for funding.
    Priorities: This competition includes eight absolute priorities. 
These priorities are from the 2013 i3 NFP.
    Absolute Priorities: For FY 2013 and any subsequent year in which 
we make awards from the list of unfunded applicants from this 
competition, these priorities are absolute priorities. Under 34 CFR 
75.105(c)(3) we consider only applications that meet one of these 
priorities.
    Under this competition for Development grants, each of the eight 
absolute priorities constitutes its own funding category. The Secretary 
intends to award grants under each absolute priority for which 
applications of sufficient quality are submitted.
    An applicant for a Development grant must choose one of the eight 
absolute priorities and one of the subparts under the chosen priority 
to address in its pre-application, and full application, if the 
applicant is invited to, or chooses to, submit a full application. Both 
pre-applications and full applications will be peer reviewed and 
scored; scores will be rank ordered by absolute priority, so it is 
essential that an applicant clearly identify the specific absolute 
priority and subpart that the proposed project addresses. It is also 
important to note that applicants who choose to submit an application 
under the absolute priority for Serving Rural Communities must identify 
an additional absolute priority and subpart. Regardless, the peer-
reviewed scores for applications submitted under the Serving Rural 
Communities priority will be ranked with other applications under this 
priority, and not included in the ranking for the additional priority 
that they identified. This design helps us ensure that applicants under 
the Serving Rural Communities priority receive an ``apples to apples'' 
comparison with other rural applicants.
    The absolute priorities are:

Absolute Priority 1--Improving the Effectiveness of Teachers or 
Principals

    Projects addressing one of the following priority areas:
    (a) Increasing the equitable access to effective teachers or 
principals for low-income and high-need students (as defined in this 
notice), which may include increasing the equitable distribution of 
effective teachers or principals for low-income and high-need students 
across schools.
    (b) 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.

Absolute Priority 2--Improving Low-Performing Schools

    Projects addressing one of the following priority areas:
    (a) Recruiting, developing, or retaining highly effective staff, 
specifically teachers, principals, or instructional leaders, to work in 
low-performing schools.
    (b) 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.
Other Requirements Related to Priority 2
    To meet this priority, a project must serve schools among (1) the 
lowest-performing 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.

Absolute Priority 3--Improving Science, Technology, Engineering, and 
Mathematics (STEM) Education

    Projects addressing the following priority area:
    (a) Redesigning STEM course content and instructional practices to 
engage students and increase student achievement (as defined in this 
notice).

Absolute Priority 4--Improving Academic Outcomes for Students With 
Disabilities

    Projects addressing one of the following priority areas:
    (a) Designing and implementing teacher evaluation systems that 
define and measure effectiveness of special education teachers and 
related service providers.
    (b) Designing and implementing strategies that improve student 
achievement (as defined in this notice) 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

[[Page 18714]]

unnecessary suspensions and expulsions.

Absolute Priority 5--Improving Academic Outcomes for English Learners 
(ELs)

    Projects addressing the following priority area:
    (a) 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 career-ready.

Absolute Priority 6--Improving Parent and Family Engagement

    Projects addressing one 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) 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.

Absolute Priority 7--Effective Use of Technology

    Projects addressing one 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) 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.''

Absolute Priority 8--Serving Rural Communities

    Under this priority, we provide funding to projects addressing one 
of the absolute priorities established for the 2013 Development i3 
competition and under which the majority of students to be served are 
enrolled in rural local educational agencies (as defined in this 
notice).
Definitions
    These definitions are from the 2013 i3 NFP. We may apply these 
definitions in any year in which this program is in effect.

    Note: This notice invites applications for Development grants. 
The following definitions apply to the three types of grants under 
the i3 program (Scale-up, Validation, or Development). Therefore, 
some of the definitions included in this section, primarily those 
related to demonstrations of evidence, may be more applicable to 
applications for Scale-up and Validation grants.

    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 notice) 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 notice) that meets 
the What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards with reservations;\3\ 
or
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See 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) Randomized controlled trial (as defined in this notice) that 
meets the What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards with or without 
reservations;\4\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (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 notice), 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.

[[Page 18715]]

    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; \5\ 
found a statistically significant favorable impact on a relevant 
outcome (as defined in this notice) (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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (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,\6\ found 
a statistically significant favorable impact on a relevant outcome (as 
defined in this notice) (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 notice) and a multi-site sample (as defined in this 
notice) (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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 
``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 \7\ 
(they cannot meet What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards without 
reservations).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 LEA-based 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; \9\ 
found a statistically significant favorable impact on a relevant 
outcome (as defined in this notice) (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 notice) and a multi-site sample (as 
defined in this notice). (Note: multiple studies can cumulatively meet 
the large and multi-site sample requirements as long as each study

[[Page 18716]]

meets the other requirements in this paragraph).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (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; \10\ found a statistically significant favorable impact 
on a relevant outcome (as defined in this notice) (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 notice) and a 
multi-site sample (as defined in this notice).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Strong theory means a rationale for the proposed process, product, 
strategy, or practice that includes a logic model (as defined in this 
notice).
    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 notice) 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.

    Program Authority: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 
2009, Division A, Section 14007, Pub. L. 111-5.

    Applicable Regulations: (a) The Education Department General 
Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) in 34 CFR parts 74, 75, 77, 79, 80, 
81, 82, 84, 86, 97, 98, and 99. (b) The Education Department suspension 
and debarment regulations in 2 CFR part 3485. (c) The notice of final 
priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria for this 
program, published in the Federal Register on [update date and citation 
later]

    Note: The regulations in 34 CFR part 79 apply to all applicants 
except federally recognized Indian tribes.


    Note: The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 apply to institutions of 
higher education only.

II. Award Information

    Type of Award: Cooperative Agreements or discretionary grant 
awards.

Estimated Available Funds

    The Administration has requested $150,000,000 for the Investing in 
Innovation program for FY 2013. 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.
    These estimated available funds are the total available for all 
three types of grants under the i3 program (i.e., Scale-up, Validation, 
and Development grants).
    Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of the 
applications received, we may make additional awards in FY 2014 or 
later years from the list of unfunded applicants from this competition.

Estimated Range of Awards

    Scale-up grants: Up to $20,000,000.
    Validation grants: Up to $12,000,000.
    Development grants: Up to $3,000,000.

Estimated Average Size of Awards

    Scale-up grants: $19,000,000.
    Validation grants: $11,500,000.
    Development grants: $3,000,000.

Estimated Number of Awards

    Scale-up grants: 0-2 awards.
    Validation grants: 4-8 awards.
    Development grants: 10-20 awards.

    Note: The Department is not bound by any estimates in this 
notice.

    Project Period: 36-60 months.

III. Eligibility Information

    1. Innovations that Improve Achievement for High-Need Students: All 
grantees must implement practices that are designed to improve student 
achievement (as defined in this notice) or student growth (as defined 
in this notice), close achievement gaps, decrease dropout rates, 
increase high school graduation rates (as defined in this notice), or 
increase college enrollment and completion rates for high-need students 
(as defined in this notice).
    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 notice) or increased 
recruitment and placement of high-quality teachers or 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

[[Page 18717]]

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:  An entity submitting a full application should provide, 
in Appendix C, under ``Other Attachments Form,'' of its full 
application, information addressing the eligibility requirements 
described in this section. An applicant must provide, in the full 
application, sufficient supporting data or other information to 
allow the Department to determine whether the applicant has met the 
eligibility requirements. If the Department determines that an 
applicant has provided insufficient information in its full 
application, the applicant will not have an opportunity to provide 
additional information.


    Note: Instructions for the pre-application will be available on 
the i3 Web site. Entities invited to submit a full application will 
receive instructions about the full application package.


    Note about LEA Eligibility: For purposes of this program, an LEA 
is an LEA located within one of the 50 States, the District of 
Columbia, or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.


    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 
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 notice.
    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 notice if the eligible applicant demonstrates that it will meet 
the requirement for private-sector matching.

    4. Cost Sharing or Matching: 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 at least 15 percent of its Federal grant award. The highest-
rated eligible applicants must submit evidence of 50 percent of the 
required private-sector matching funds following the peer review of 
full applications. A Federal i3 award will not be made unless the 
applicant provides adequate evidence that the 50 percent of the 
required private-sector match has been committed or the Secretary 
approves the eligible applicant's request to reduce the matching-level 
requirement. An applicant must provide evidence of the remaining 50 
percent of required private-sector match six months after the project 
start date.
    The Secretary may consider decreasing the matching requirement on a 
case-by-case basis, and only in the most exceptional circumstances. An 
eligible applicant that anticipates being unable to meet the full 
amount of the private-sector matching requirement must include in its 
application a request that the Secretary reduce the matching-level 
requirement, along with a statement of the basis for the request.

    Note: An entity does not need to include a request for a 
reduction of the matching-level requirement in its pre-application. 
However, an applicant that does not provide a request for a 
reduction of the matching-level requirement in its full application 
may not submit that request at a later time.

    5. Other: The Secretary establishes the following requirements for 
the i3 program. These requirements are from the 2013 i3 NFP. We may 
apply these requirements in any year in which this program is in 
effect.
     Evidence Standards: To be eligible for an award, an 
application for a Development grant must be supported by evidence of 
promise (as defined in this notice) or strong theory (as defined in 
this notice). (2013 i3 NFP) Applicants must identify in Appendix D and 
the Applicant Information Sheet if their evidence is supported by 
evidence of promise or strong theory.

    Note: An entity that submits a full application should provide, 
in Appendix D, under the ``Other Attachments Form,'' of its 
application, information addressing the required evidence standards. 
An applicant must either ensure that all evidence is available to 
the Department from publicly available sources and provide links or 
other guidance indicating where it is available; or, in the full 
application, include copies of evidence in Appendix D. If the 
Department determines that an applicant has provided insufficient 
information, the applicant will not have an opportunity to provide 
additional information at a later time. Applicants must identify in 
Appendix D and the Applicant Information Sheet if their evidence is 
supported by evidence of promise or strong theory.

     Funding Categories: An applicant will be considered for an 
award only for the type of i3 grant (i.e., Development, Validation, and 
Scale-up grants) for which it applies. An applicant may not submit an 
application for the same proposed project under more than one type of 
grant. (2013 i3 NFP)
     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 two-year 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. (2013 i3 NFP)
     Subgrants: In the case of an eligible applicant that is a 
partnership between a nonprofit organization and (1) one or more LEAs 
or (2) a consortium of schools, the partner serving as the applicant 
and, if funded, as the grantee, may make subgrants to one or more 
entities in the partnership. (2013 i3 NFP)
     Evaluation: The grantee must conduct an independent 
evaluation (as defined in this notice) 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 notice). The grantee must make broadly available digitally and 
free of charge, through formal (e.g., peer-reviewed journals) or 
informal (e.g., newsletters) mechanisms, the results of any evaluations 
it conducts of its funded activities.
    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.

[[Page 18718]]

All of these updates must be consistent with the scope and objectives 
of the approved application. (2013 i3 NFP)
     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. (2013 i3 NFP)
     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. (2013 i3 NFP)

IV. Application and Submission Information

    1. Address to Request Application Package: You can obtain a pre-
application package via the Internet or from the Education Publications 
Center (ED Pubs). To obtain a copy via the Internet, use the following 
address: http://www2.ed.gov/programs/innovation/index.html. To obtain a 
copy from ED Pubs, write, fax, or call the following: ED Pubs, U.S. 
Department of Education, P.O. Box 22207, Alexandria, VA 22304. 
Telephone, toll free: 1-877-433-7827. FAX: (703) 605-6794. If you use a 
telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), 
call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-877-576-7734.
    You can contact ED Pubs at its Web site, also: www.EDPubs.gov or at 
its email address: [email protected].
    If you request a pre-application from ED Pubs, be sure to identify 
this program or competition as follows: CFDA number 84.411P.

    Note: The full application package will be made available to 
entities invited to submit a full application and additional 
information will be available on the i3 Web site.

    2. Content and Form of Application Submission: Requirements 
concerning the content of an application, together with the forms you 
must submit, are in the application package for this competition.
    Deadline for Notice of Intent to Submit Pre-Application: April 16, 
2013.
    We will be able to develop a more efficient process for reviewing 
grant applications if we know the approximate number of applicants that 
intend to apply for funding under this competition. Therefore, the 
Secretary strongly encourages each potential applicant to notify us of 
the applicant's intent to submit a pre-application by completing a web-
based form. When completing this form, applicants will provide (1) the 
applicant organization's name and address and (2) the one absolute 
priority the applicant intends to address. Applicants may access this 
form online at  http://go.usa.gov/2KeF. Applicants that do not complete 
this form may still submit a pre-application. Page Limit: For the pre-
application, the project narrative is where you, the applicant, address 
the selection criteria that reviewers use to evaluate your pre-
application. For the full application, the project narrative (Part III 
of the application) is where you, the applicant, address the selection 
criteria that reviewers use to evaluate your full applications.
    Pre-Application page limit: Applicants should limit the pre-
application narrative to no more than seven pages.
    Full-Application page limit: Applicants submitting a full 
application should limit the application narrative [Part III] for a 
Development application to no more than 25 pages. Applicants are also 
strongly encouraged not to include lengthy appendices for the full 
application that contain information that could not be included in the 
narrative. Aside from the required forms, applicants should not include 
appendices in their pre-applications. Applicants for both pre- and full 
applications should use the following standards:
     A ``page'' is 8.5'' x 11'', on one side only, with 1'' 
margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.
     Double space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) 
all text in the application narrative, including titles, headings, 
footnotes, quotations, references, and captions.
     Use a font that is either 12 point or larger or no smaller 
than 10 pitch (characters per inch).
     Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, 
Courier New, or Arial.
    The page limit for the full application does not apply to Part I, 
the cover sheet; Part II, the budget section, including the narrative 
budget justification; Part IV, the assurances and certifications; or 
the one-page abstract, the resumes, the bibliography, or the letters of 
support for the full application. However, the page limit does apply to 
all of the application narrative section [Part III] of the full 
application.

Submission of Proprietary Information

    Given the types of projects that may be proposed in applications 
for the i3 program, some applications may include proprietary 
information as it relates to confidential commercial information. 
Confidential commercial information is defined as information the 
disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to cause substantial 
competitive harm. Upon submission, applicants, in both pre-applications 
and full applications, should identify any information contained in 
their application that they consider to be confidential commercial 
information. Consistent with the process followed in the prior i3 
competitions, we plan on posting the project narrative section of 
funded Development applications on the Department's Web site. 
Identifying proprietary information in the submitted application will 
help facilitate this public disclosure process. Applicants are 
encouraged to identify only the specific information that the applicant 
considers to be proprietary and list the page numbers on which this 
information can be found in the appropriate Appendix section, under 
``Other Attachments Form,'' of their applications. In addition to 
identifying the page number on which that information can be found, 
eligible applicants will assist the Department in making determinations 
on public release of the application by being as specific as possible 
in identifying the information they consider proprietary. Please note 
that, in many instances, identification of entire pages of 
documentation would not be appropriate.
    3. Submission Dates and Times:
    Pre-Applications Available: March 29, 2013.
    Deadline for Notice of Intent to Submit Pre-Application: April 16, 
2013.
    Informational Meetings: The i3 program intends to hold meetings 
designed to provide technical assistance to interested applicants for 
all three types of grants. Detailed information regarding these 
meetings will be provided on the i3 Web site at http://www2.ed.gov/programs/innovation/index.html.
    Deadline for Transmittal of Pre-Applications: April 26, 2013.
    Deadline for Transmittal of Full Applications: The Department will 
announce on its Web site the deadline date for transmission of full 
applications. Under the pre-application process, peer reviewers will 
read and

[[Page 18719]]

score the shorter pre-application against an abbreviated set of 
selection criteria, and entities that submit highly rated pre-
applications will be invited to submit full applications. Other pre-
applicants may choose to submit a full application.
    Pre- and full applications for grants under this competition must 
be submitted electronically using the Grants.gov Apply site 
(Grants.gov). For information (including dates and times) about how to 
submit your application electronically, or in paper format by mail or 
hand delivery if you qualify for an exception to the electronic 
submission requirement, please refer to section IV. 7. Other Submission 
Requirements of this notice.
    We do not consider an application that does not comply with the 
deadline requirements.
    Individuals with disabilities who need an accommodation or 
auxiliary aid in connection with the application process should contact 
the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT in section VII 
of this notice. If the Department provides an accommodation or 
auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability in connection with the 
application process, the individual's application remains subject to 
all other requirements and limitations in this notice.
    Deadline for Intergovernmental Review of Full Applications: 60 
calendar days after the deadline date for transmittal of full 
applications.
    4. Intergovernmental Review: This competition is subject to 
Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. 
Information about Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs under 
Executive Order 12372 is in the application package for this 
competition.
    5. Funding Restrictions: We reference regulations outlining funding 
restrictions in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice.
    6. Data Universal Numbering System Number, Taxpayer Identification 
Number, Central Contractor Registry, and System for Award Management: 
To do business with the Department of Education, you must--
    a. Have a Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number and a 
Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN);
    b. Register both your DUNS number and TIN with the Central 
Contractor Registry (CCR)--and, after July 24, 2012, with the System 
for Award Management (SAM),the Government's primary registrant 
database;
    c. Provide your DUNS number and TIN on your application; and
    d. Maintain an active CCR or SAM registration with current 
information while your application is under review by the Department 
and, if you are awarded a grant, during the project period.
    You can obtain a DUNS number from Dun and Bradstreet. A DUNS number 
can be created within one business day.
    If you are a corporate entity, agency, institution, or 
organization, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service. 
If you are an individual, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal 
Revenue Service or the Social Security Administration. If you need a 
new TIN, please allow 2-5 weeks for your TIN to become active. If you 
need a new TIN, please allow 2-5 weeks for your TIN to become active.
    The CCR or SAM registration process may take five or more business 
days to complete. If you are currently registered with the CCR, you may 
not need to make any changes. However, please make certain that the TIN 
associated with your DUNS number is correct. Also note that you will 
need to update your registration annually. This may take three or more 
business days to complete. Information about SAM is available at 
SAM.gov.
    In addition, if you are submitting your application via Grants.gov, 
you must (1) be designated by your organization as an Authorized 
Organization Representative (AOR); and (2) register yourself with 
Grants.gov as an AOR. Details on these steps are outlined at the 
following Grants.gov Web page: www.grants.gov/applicants/get_registered.jsp.
    7. Other Submission Requirements:
    Applications for grants under the i3 program must be submitted 
electronically unless you qualify for an exception to this requirement 
in accordance with the instructions in this section.

a. Electronic Submission of Applications

    Applications (both pre- and full applications) for grants under the 
i3 program, pre application CFDA 84.411P and full application CFDA 
number 84.411C (Development grants), must be submitted electronically 
using the Governmentwide Grants.gov Apply site at www.Grants.gov. 
Through this site, you will be able to download a copy of the 
application package, complete it offline, and then upload and submit 
your application. You may not email an electronic copy of a grant 
application to us.
    We will reject your application if you submit it in paper format 
unless, as described elsewhere in this section, you qualify for one of 
the exceptions to the electronic submission requirement and submit, no 
later than two weeks before the application deadline date, a written 
statement to the Department that you qualify for one of these 
exceptions. Further information regarding calculation of the date that 
is two weeks before the application deadline date is provided later in 
this section under Exception to Electronic Submission Requirement.
    You may access the electronic grant application for the i3 program 
at www.Grants.gov. You must search for the downloadable application 
package for this competition by the CFDA number. Do not include the 
CFDA number's alpha suffix in your search (e.g., search for 84.411, not 
84.411C).
    Please note the following:
     When you enter the Grants.gov site, you will find 
information about submitting an application electronically through the 
site, as well as the hours of operation.
     Applications received by Grants.gov are date and time 
stamped. Your application must be fully uploaded and submitted and must 
be date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system no later than 4:30:00 
p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. Except as 
otherwise noted in this section, we will not accept your application if 
it is received--that is, date and time stamped by the Grants.gov 
system--after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application 
deadline date. We do not consider an application that does not comply 
with the deadline requirements. When we retrieve your application from 
Grants.gov, we will notify you if we are rejecting your application 
because it was date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system after 
4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date.
     The amount of time it can take to upload an application 
will vary depending on a variety of factors, including the size of the 
application and the speed of your Internet connection. Therefore, we 
strongly recommend that you do not wait until the application deadline 
date to begin the submission process through Grants.gov.
     You should review and follow the Education Submission 
Procedures for submitting an application through Grants.gov that are 
included in the application package for this competition to ensure that 
you submit your application in a timely manner to the Grants.gov 
system. You can also find the Education Submission Procedures 
pertaining to Grants.gov under News and Events on the Department's G5 
system home page at http://www.G5.gov.

[[Page 18720]]

     You will not receive additional point value because you 
submit your application in electronic format, nor will we penalize you 
if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission 
requirement, as described elsewhere in this section, and submit your 
application in paper format.
     You must submit all documents electronically, including 
all information you typically provide on the following forms: The 
Application for Federal Assistance (SF 424), the Department of 
Education Supplemental Information for SF 424, Budget Information--Non-
Construction Programs (ED 524), and all necessary assurances and 
certifications.
     You must upload any narrative sections and all other 
attachments to your application as files in a PDF (Portable Document) 
read-only, non-modifiable format. Do not upload an interactive or 
fillable PDF file. If you upload a file type other than a read-only, 
non-modifiable PDF or submit a password-protected file, we will not 
review that material.
     Your electronic application must comply with any page-
limit requirements described in this notice.
     After you electronically submit your application, you will 
receive from Grants.gov an automatic notification of receipt that 
contains a Grants.gov tracking number. (This notification indicates 
receipt by Grants.gov only, not receipt by the Department.) The 
Department then will retrieve your application from Grants.gov and send 
a second notification to you by email. This second notification 
indicates that the Department has received your application and has 
assigned your application a PR/Award number (an ED-specified 
identifying number unique to your application).
     We may request that you provide us original signatures on 
forms at a later date.
    Application Deadline Date Extension in Case of Technical Issues 
with the Grants.gov System: If you are experiencing problems submitting 
your application through Grants.gov, please contact the Grants.gov 
Support Desk, toll free, at 1-800-518-4726. You must obtain a 
Grants.gov Support Desk Case Number and must keep a record of it.
    If you are prevented from electronically submitting your 
application on the application deadline date because of technical 
problems with the Grants.gov system, we will grant you an extension 
until 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, the following business day to 
enable you to transmit your application electronically or by hand 
delivery. You also may mail your application by following the mailing 
instructions described elsewhere in this notice.
    If you submit an application after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC 
time, on the application deadline date, please contact the person 
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT in section VII of this 
notice and provide an explanation of the technical problem you 
experienced with Grants.gov, along with the Grants.gov Support Desk 
Case Number. We will accept your application if we can confirm that a 
technical problem occurred with the Grants.gov system and that that 
problem affected your ability to submit your application by 4:30:00 
p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. The 
Department will contact you after a determination is made on whether 
your application will be accepted.

    Note: The extensions to which we refer in this section apply 
only to the unavailability of, or technical problems with, the 
Grants.gov system. We will not grant you an extension if you failed 
to fully register to submit your application to Grants.gov before 
the application deadline date and time or if the technical problem 
you experienced is unrelated to the Grants.gov system.

    Exception to Electronic Submission Requirement: You qualify for an 
exception to the electronic submission requirement, and may submit your 
application in paper format, if you are unable to submit an application 
through the Grants.gov system because--
     You do not have access to the Internet; or
     You do not have the capacity to upload large documents to 
the Grants.gov system; and
     No later than two weeks before the application deadline 
date (14 calendar days or, if the fourteenth calendar day before the 
application deadline date falls on a Federal holiday, the next business 
day following the Federal holiday), you mail or fax a written statement 
to the Department, explaining which of the two grounds for an exception 
prevent you from using the Internet to submit your application.
    If you mail your written statement to the Department, it must be 
postmarked no later than two weeks before the application deadline 
date. If you fax your written statement to the Department, we must 
receive the faxed statement no later than two weeks before the 
application deadline date.
    Address and mail or fax your statement to: Carol Lyons, U.S. 
Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 4W203, 
Washington, DC 20202-5930. FAX: (202) 205-5631.
    Your paper application must be submitted in accordance with the 
mail or hand delivery instructions described in this notice.

b. Submission of Paper Applications by Mail

    If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission 
requirement, you may mail (through the U.S. Postal Service or a 
commercial carrier) your application to the Department. You must mail 
the original and two copies of your application, on or before the 
application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: 
U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: 
(CFDA Number 84.411C), LBJ Basement Level 1, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., 
Washington, DC 20202-4260.
    You must show proof of mailing consisting of one of the following:
    (1) A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark.
    (2) A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the 
U.S. Postal Service.
    (3) A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial 
carrier.
    (4) Any other proof of mailing acceptable to the Secretary of the 
U.S. Department of Education.
    If you mail your application through the U.S. Postal Service, we do 
not accept either of the following as proof of mailing:
    (1) A private metered postmark.
    (2) A mail receipt that is not dated by the U.S. Postal Service.
    If your application is postmarked after the application deadline 
date, we will not consider your application.

    Note: The U.S. Postal Service does not uniformly provide a dated 
postmark. Before relying on this method, you should check with your 
local post office.

c. Submission of Paper Applications by Hand Delivery

    If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission 
requirement, you (or a courier service) may deliver your paper 
application to the Department by hand. You must deliver the original 
and two copies of your application by hand, on or before the 
application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: 
U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: 
(84.411C), 550 12th Street SW., Room 7041, Potomac Center Plaza, 
Washington, DC 20202-4260. The Application Control Center accepts hand 
deliveries daily between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC 
time, except Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays.


[[Page 18721]]


    Note for Mail or Hand Delivery of Paper Applications: If you 
mail or hand deliver your application to the Department--
    (1) You must indicate on the envelope and--if not provided by 
the Department--in Item 11 of the SF 424 the CFDA number, including 
suffix letter, if any, of the competition under which you are 
submitting your application; and
    (2) The Application Control Center will mail to you a 
notification of receipt of your grant application. If you do not 
receive this notification within 15 business days from the 
application deadline date, you should call the U.S. Department of 
Education Application Control Center at (202) 245-6288.

V. Application Review Information

    1. Selection Criteria: This competition has separate selection 
criteria for pre-applications and full applications. The selection 
criteria for the Development competition are from the 2013 i3 NFP and 
from 34 CFR 75.210, and are as follows:
    The points assigned to each criterion are indicated in the 
parenthesis next to the criterion. An applicant may earn up to a total 
of 20 points based on the selection criteria for the pre-application. 
An applicant may earn up to a total of 100 points based on the 
selection criteria for the full application.

    Note: In responding to the selection criteria, applicants for 
both the pre- and full applications should keep in mind that peer 
reviewers may consider only the information provided in the written 
application when scoring and commenting on the application. 
Therefore, applicants should draft their responses with the goal of 
helping peer reviewers understand:
     What the applicant is proposing to do, including the 
single absolute priority under which the applicant intends the 
application to be reviewed;
     How the proposed project will improve upon existing 
products, processes, or strategies for addressing similar needs;
     What the outcomes of the project will be if it is 
successful; and
     What procedures are in place for ensuring feedback and 
continuous improvement in the operation of the proposed project.

Selection Criteria for the Development Grant Pre-Application

A. Significance (Up to 10 Points)
    In determining the significance of the project, the Secretary 
considers the following factors:
    (1) The extent to which the proposed project would implement a 
novel approach as compared with what has been previously attempted 
nationally. (2013 i3 NFP)
    (2) The potential contribution of the proposed project to the 
development and advancement of theory, knowledge, and practices in the 
field of study. (34 CFR 75.210)

    Note: In responding to this criterion, the Secretary encourages 
applicants to address how their project is unique and how the 
project would move the field forward (as opposed to affecting only 
the entities or individuals being served with grant funds).

B. Quality of Project Design (Up to 10 Points)
    In determining the quality of the proposed project design, the 
Secretary considers the following factors:
    (1) The extent to which the proposed project addresses the absolute 
priority the applicant is seeking to meet. (2013 i3 NFP)
    (2) 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). (2013 i3 NFP)

    Note: In responding to this criterion, the Secretary encourages 
applicants to describe what the applicant proposes to do in the 
proposed project and how the applicant will address the absolute 
priority for which it submits an application.

Selection Criteria for the Development Grant Full Application

A. Significance (Up to 35 Points)
    In determining the significance of the project, the Secretary 
considers the following factors:
    (1) The extent to which the proposed project would implement a 
novel approach as compared with what has been previously attempted 
nationally. (2013 i3 NFP)
    (2) The potential contribution of the proposed project to the 
development and advancement of theory, knowledge, and practices in the 
field of study. (34 CFR 75.210)
    (3) The extent to which the proposed project will substantially 
improve on the outcomes achieved by other practices, such as through 
better student outcomes, lower cost, or accelerated results. (2013 i3 
NFP)

    Note: In responding to this criterion, the Secretary encourages 
applicants to explain what is unique about their proposed project. 
Also, the Secretary encourages applicants to explain how their 
proposed project fits into existing national and international 
theory, knowledge, or practice, and how it will serve as an exemplar 
for new practices in the field (as opposed to only benefitting the 
entities or individuals being served with grant funds). 
Additionally, the Secretary encourages applicants to quantify the 
impact of their proposed project if it is successful, and explain 
why the applicant expects the proposed project to have the described 
impact.

 B. Quality of the Project Design (Up to 25 Points)
    In determining the quality of the proposed project design, the 
Secretary considers the following factors:
    (1) The extent to which the proposed project addresses the absolute 
priority the applicant is seeking to meet. (2013 i3 NFP)
    (2) 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). (2013 i3 NFP)
    (3) 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. (2013 i3 NFP)

    Note: In responding to this criterion, the Secretary encourages 
applicants to address what activities the applicant will undertake 
in its proposed project, how the applicant will do it, and how the 
applicant's proposed project addresses the absolute priority and the 
subpart that it seeks to meet.

C. Quality of the Management Plan (Up to 15 Points)
    In determining the quality of the management plan and personnel for 
the proposed project, the Secretary considers 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. (2013 i3 NFP)
    (2) 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. (2013 i3 NFP)
    (3) The adequacy of procedures for ensuring feedback and continuous 
improvement in the operation of the proposed project. (34 CFR 75.210)

    Note:  In responding to this criterion, the Secretary encourages 
applicants to address how the project team will evaluate the success 
or challenges of the project and use that feedback to make 
improvements to the project, and the role of key partners and their 
impact on the long-term success of the project.


[[Page 18722]]


 D. Personnel (Up to 10 Points)
    In determining the quality and personnel for the proposed project, 
the Secretary considers the following factor:
    (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. (2013 i3 NFP)

    Note: In responding to this criterion, the Secretary encourages 
applicants to address how the team's prior experiences have prepared 
them for implementing the proposed project successfully.

E. Quality of Project Evaluation (Up to 15 Points)
    In determining the quality of the project evaluation to be 
conducted, the Secretary considers 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. (2013 i3 NFP)
    (2) 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. (2013 
i3 NFP)
    (3) The extent to which the evaluation plan clearly articulates the 
key components and outcomes of the project, as well as a measureable 
threshold for acceptable implementation. (2013 i3 NFP)

    Note: In responding to this criterion, the Secretary encourages 
applicants to describe the key evaluation questions and address how 
the proposed evaluation methodologies will allow the project to 
answer those questions. This may include whether the evaluation 
would produce information about the effectiveness of the proposed 
project with the specific student populations being served with 
grant funds. Further, the Secretary encourages applicants to 
identify what implementation and performance data the evaluation 
will generate and how the evaluation will provide data during the 
period to help indicate whether the project is on track to meet its 
goals.

    We encourage eligible applicants to review the following technical 
assistance resources on evaluation:
    (1) What Works Clearinghouse Procedures and Standards Handbook: 
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/references/idocviewer/doc.aspx?docid=19&tocid=1; and (2) IES/NCEE Technical Methods papers: 
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/tech_methods/.
    2. Review and Selection Process: In order to receive an i3 
Development grant, an entity must submit a pre-application. The pre-
application will be reviewed and scored by peer reviewers using the two 
selection criteria established in this notice. We will inform the 
entities that submitted pre-applications of the results of the peer 
review process. Entities with highly rated pre-applications will be 
invited to submit full applications. Other pre-applicants may choose to 
submit a full application. Scores received on pre-applications will not 
carry over to the review of the full application.
    As described earlier in this notice, before making awards, we will 
screen applications submitted in accordance with the requirements in 
this notice to determine which applications have met eligibility and 
other statutory requirements. This screening process may occur at 
various stages of the pre-application and full application processes; 
applicants that are determined ineligible will not receive a grant, 
regardless of peer reviewer scores or comments.
    For the pre- and full application review process, we will use 
independent peer reviewers with varied backgrounds and professions 
including pre-kindergarten-12 teachers and principals, college and 
university educators, researchers and evaluators, social entrepreneurs, 
strategy consultants, grant makers and managers, and others with 
education expertise. All reviewers will be thoroughly screened for 
conflicts of interest to ensure a fair and competitive review process.
    Peer reviewers will read, prepare a written evaluation, and score 
the assigned pre-applications and full applications, using the 
respective selection criteria provided in this notice. For Development 
pre-applications, peer reviewers will review and score the applications 
based on the two selection criteria for pre-applications. For full 
applications submitted for Development grants, peer reviewers will 
review and score the applications based on all five selection criteria.
    We remind potential applicants that, in reviewing applications in 
any discretionary grant competition, the Secretary may consider, under 
34 CFR 75.217(d)(3), the past performance of the applicant in carrying 
out a previous award, such as the applicant's use of funds, achievement 
of project objectives, and compliance with grant conditions. The 
Secretary may also consider whether the applicant failed to submit a 
timely performance report or submitted a report of unacceptable 
quality.
    Finally, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary also 
requires various assurances including those applicable to Federal civil 
rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities 
receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department of Education 
(34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
    3. Special Conditions: Under 34 CFR 74.14 and 80.12, the Secretary 
may impose special conditions on a grant if the applicant or grantee is 
not financially stable; has a history of unsatisfactory performance; 
has a financial or other management system that does not meet the 
standards in 34 CFR parts 74 or 80, as applicable; has not fulfilled 
the conditions of a prior grant; or is otherwise not responsible.

VI. Award Administration Information

    1. Award Notices: If your application is successful, we notify your 
U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators and send you a Grant Award 
Notification (GAN); or we may send you an email containing a link to 
access an electronic version of your GAN. We may notify you informally, 
also.
    If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, 
we notify you.
    2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements: We identify 
administrative and national policy requirements in the application 
package and reference these and other requirements in the Applicable 
Regulations section of this notice.
    We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of 
an award in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice and 
include these and other specific conditions in the GAN. The GAN also 
incorporates your approved application as part of your binding 
commitments under the grant.
    3. Reporting: (a) If you apply for a grant under this competition, 
you must ensure that you have in place the necessary processes and 
systems to comply with the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 170 
should you receive funding under the competition. This does not apply 
if you have an exception under 2 CFR 170.110(b).
    (b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final 
performance report, including financial information, as directed by the 
Secretary. If you receive a multi-year award, you must submit an annual 
performance report that provides the most current performance and 
financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 
CFR 75.118. The Secretary

[[Page 18723]]

may also require more frequent performance reports under 34 CFR 
75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, please go to 
www.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/appforms/appforms.html.
    4. Performance Measures: The overall purpose of the i3 program is 
to expand the implementation of, and investment in, innovative 
practices that are demonstrated to have an impact on improving student 
achievement or student growth for high-need students. We have 
established several performance measures for the i3 Development grants.
    Short-term performance measures: (1) The percentage of grantees 
whose projects are being implemented with fidelity to the approved 
design; (2) the percentage of programs, practices, or strategies 
supported by a Development grant with ongoing evaluations that provide 
evidence of their promise for improving student outcomes; (3) the 
percentage of programs, practices, or strategies supported by a 
Development grant with ongoing evaluations that are providing high-
quality implementation data and performance feedback that allow for 
periodic assessment of progress toward achieving intended outcomes; and 
(4) the cost per student actually served by the grant.
    Long-term performance measures: (1) The percentage of programs, 
practices, or strategies supported by a Development grant with a 
completed evaluation that provides evidence of their promise for 
improving student outcomes; (2) the percentage of programs, practices, 
or strategies supported by a Development grant with a completed 
evaluation that provides information about the key elements and 
approach of the project so as to facilitate further development, 
replication, or testing in other settings; and (3) the cost per student 
for programs, practices, or strategies that were proven promising at 
improving educational outcomes for students.
    5. Continuation Awards: In making a continuation award, the 
Secretary may consider, under 34 CFR 75.253, the extent to which a 
grantee has made ``substantial progress toward meeting the objectives 
in its approved application.'' This consideration includes the review 
of a grantee's progress in meeting the targets and projected outcomes 
in its approved application, and whether the grantee has expended funds 
in a manner that is consistent with its approved application and 
budget. In making a continuation grant, the Secretary also considers 
whether the grantee is operating in compliance with the assurances in 
its approved application, including those applicable to Federal civil 
rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities 
receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR 
100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).

VII. Agency Contact

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carol Lyons, U.S. Department of 
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 4W203, Washington, DC 20202-
5930. Telephone: (202) 453-7122. FAX: (202) 205-5631 or by email: 
[email protected].
    If you use a TDD or a TTY, call the FRS, toll free, at 1-800-877-
8339.

VIII. Other Information

    Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this 
document and a copy of the application package in an accessible format 
(e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) on request to 
the program contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT 
in section VII of this notice.
    Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this 
document is the document published in the Federal Register. Free 
Internet access to the official edition of the Federal Register and the 
Code of Federal Regulations is available via the Federal Digital System 
at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site you can view this document, as well 
as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal 
Register, in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF 
you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the 
site.
    You may also access documents of the Department published in the 
Federal Register by using the article search feature at: 
www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search 
feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published 
by the Department.

    Dated: March 21, 2013.
James H. Shelton, III,
Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and Improvement.
[FR Doc. 2013-07003 Filed 3-26-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P