[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 78 (Wednesday, April 23, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22649-22662]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-09262]


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

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION


Applications for New Awards; Investing in Innovation Fund--
Validation Grants

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

ACTION: Notice.

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

Overview Information

    Investing in Innovation Fund--Validation grants
    Notice inviting applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 
2014.

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 84.411B 
(Validation grants).


DATES: Applications Available: April 25, 2014.
    Deadline for Notice of Intent to Apply: May 13, 2014.
    Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: June 24, 2014.
    Deadline for Intergovernmental Review: August 21, 2014.

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 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 country. 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.
    This notice invites applications for Validation grants only. The 
notice inviting applications for Scale-up grants is published elsewhere 
in this issue of the Federal Register. The notice inviting applications 
for Development grants was published in the Federal Register on March 
14, 2014 (79 FR 14486) and available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-03-14/pdf/2014-05706.pdf.
    Validation grants provide funding to support expansion of projects 
supported by moderate evidence of effectiveness (as defined in this 
notice) to the national level (as defined in this notice) or regional 
level (as defined in this notice). Validation grants must further 
assess the effectiveness of the i3-supported practice through a 
rigorous evaluation, with particular focus on the populations for, and 
the contexts in, which the practice is most effective. We expect and 
consider it appropriate that each applicant proposes to use the 
Validation funding to build its capacity to deliver the i3-supported 
practice, particularly early in the funding period, to successfully 
reach the level of scale proposed in its application. Additionally, we 
expect each applicant to address any specific barriers to the growth or 
scaling of the organization or practice (including barriers related to 
cost-effectiveness) in order to deliver the i3-supported practice at 
the proposed level of scale and provide strategies to address these 
barriers as part of its proposed scaling plan.
    All Validation grantees must evaluate the effectiveness of the 
practice that the supported project implements and expands. We expect 
that these evaluations will be conducted in a variety of contexts and 
for a variety of students, will identify the core elements of the 
practice, and will codify the practices to support adoption or 
replication by the applicant and other entities.
    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

[[Page 22650]]

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 and Title IX of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 
prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national 
origin, and sex, respectively. 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 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

    Through its competitions, the i3 program strives to improve the 
academic achievement of high-need students by accelerating the 
identification of promising solutions to pressing challenges in 
kindergarten through grade 12 (K-12) education, supporting the 
evaluation of the efficacy of such solutions, and developing new 
approaches to scaling effective practices to serve more students. The 
i3 program aims to build a portfolio of solutions and corresponding 
evidence regarding different approaches to addressing critical 
challenges in 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, the extent of the evidence in the field 
supporting effective practices in a particular priority area, whether 
other available funding exists for a particular priority area, and the 
results and lessons learned from prior i3 competitions. The Department 
also considers the existing evidence of effectiveness when selecting 
the priorities and subparts for Validation competitions.
    We include four absolute priorities in the FY 2014 Validation 
competition. For some of these priorities, we identify multiple 
subparts. In these instances, an applicant must select one subpart that 
the proposed project will address in order to meet the absolute 
priority.
    First, we include an absolute priority on improving the 
effectiveness of teachers or principals. It is well established that 
teachers and principals are the most critical in-school factors in 
improving student achievement,\1\ yet there is dramatic variation in 
teacher and principal effectiveness within and across schools. This 
priority encourages applicants to focus on improving the effectiveness 
of teachers or principals, and encourages applicants to identify 
effective methods for supporting, evaluating, or retaining effective 
teachers or principals, particularly at schools that serve high-need 
students.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Wright, S.P., Horn, S.P., Sanders, W.L. (1997). Teacher and 
classroom context effects on student achievement: Implications for 
teacher evaluation. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education 
11:57-67.
    Rivkin, S.G., Hanushek, E.A., Kain, J.F. (2005). Teachers, 
schools, and academic achievement. Economerica, 73(2):417-458.
    Leithwood, K., Louis, K.S., Anderson, S., and Wahlstrom, K. 
(2004). Review of research: How leadership influences student 
learning. University of Minnesota, Center for Applied Research and 
Educational Improvement. Available at: www.cehd.umn.edu/carei/Leadership/ReviewofResearch.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, we include a subpart under this priority for projects 
that develop and implement models of induction and support for 
improving the knowledge and skills of novice teachers or novice 
principals. Although the Department funds several i3 projects that 
focus on teacher recruitment or content-specific professional 
development for teachers, relatively few of these projects focus on 
supporting current teachers in their early years of teaching. Given 
that many of the Nation's teachers are novice teachers, and given the 
rates at which novice teachers leave the profession, we are interested 
in expanding the number of projects in the i3 portfolio that improve 
the effectiveness and retention of novice teachers. Similarly, few of 
the current i3 projects focus on novice principals; as such, we include 
this subpart to encourage applicants to propose projects that are 
designed to provide support and development opportunities that enable 
novice principals to improve their schools' instructional programs and 
operations.
    The second subpart of this priority aims to support projects that 
are designed to extend highly effective teachers' reach to serve more 
students. Applicants are encouraged to propose projects that identify 
highly effective teachers and that implement innovative ways to extend 
their reach so that they are serving more students, without necessarily 
increasing the workload of such teachers. Applicants might consider, 
for example, using technology-enabled learning opportunities to 
facilitate student access to highly effective teachers in subject areas 
that a school may not offer, or offering highly effective teachers 
relief from some of their administrative responsibilities in order to 
allow them to teach additional students. As such, projects addressing 
this subpart could implement changes to how schools and classrooms are 
designed to increase the reach of the most effective teachers. This 
subpart provides the opportunity for applicants to change the operating 
conditions within schools and districts in ways that professionalize 
teaching and improve outcomes for high-need students. It also supports 
increased efficiencies at the school and district levels.
    Second, we include an absolute priority focused on implementing 
internationally benchmarked, college- and career-ready elementary and 
secondary academic standards. As reports, such as the 2012 Brown Center 
Report on American Education point out, the implementation of such 
standards is crucial to their effectiveness in improving student 
achievement.\2\ We include this priority to support projects that will 
help teachers, principals, and others translate these standards into 
classroom practices that help students, particularly high-need 
students, excel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Loveless, Tom. How Well are American Students Learning 
(2012). The 2012 Brown Center Report on American Education. Volume 
III Number 1. Available at: www.brookings.edu/~/media/newsletters/
0216--brown--education--loveless.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Third, we include an absolute priority focused on improving 
academic outcomes for students with disabilities. The priority 
encourages applicants to implement projects that are designed to 
improve student achievement for students with disabilities in inclusive 
and general education settings. It is essential that students with 
disabilities are provided opportunities to participate and progress in 
inclusive and general education settings and that all students are held 
to, and meet,

[[Page 22651]]

college- and career-ready standards. Recent research suggests that 
inclusively structured classrooms and schools may prove the most 
effective educational contexts for most students with disabilities, 
when considering academic, social, emotional, or behavioral 
outcomes.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Michael Grosche & Robert J. Volpe (2013). Response-to-
intervention (RTI) as a model to facilitate inclusion for students 
with learning and behavior problems. European Journal of Special 
Needs Education, 28 (3): 254-269. Available at: www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08856257.2013.768452#tabModule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, while the negative effects (e.g., removing students 
from instruction) of exclusionary school discipline policies are not 
confined to students with disabilities, students with disabilities are 
disproportionately removed from the instructional environment. This 
priority is particularly focused on the effect of these policies on 
students with disabilities and the use of behavioral frameworks to 
reduce the use of exclusionary school discipline with these 
students.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ On January 8, 2014, the Departments of Education and Justice 
jointly issued the School Discipline Guidance Package, which is 
available at http://www.ed.gov/school-discipline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, we include an absolute priority that focuses on serving 
rural communities. Students living in rural communities face unique 
challenges. Applicants applying under this priority must also address 
one of the other three absolute priorities established for the FY 2014 
i3 Validation competition, as described above, while serving students 
enrolled in rural local educational agencies (as defined in this 
notice).
    We also include three competitive preference priorities in the FY 
2014 Validation competition. The Department encourages applicants to 
design projects that address these competitive preference priorities in 
their applications.
    First, we include a competitive preference priority focusing on 
improving cost-effectiveness and productivity. Improvements in 
operational, organizational, and instructional processes and structures 
will enable organizations to achieve the best possible results in the 
most efficient manner. Applicants should provide detailed information 
about how they aim to modify their processes and structures to improve 
productivity and how they will evaluate whether the proposed projects 
are cost-effective when implemented. Further, in order to receive 
competitive preference points, applicants addressing this priority must 
provide a detailed budget, an examination of different types of costs, 
and a plan to monitor and evaluate cost savings, all of which are 
essential to improving productivity.
    Second, we include a competitive preference priority for projects 
that enable the broad adoption of effective practices. This competitive 
preference priority rewards applicants that will implement systematic 
methods for identifying and supporting the expansion of these 
practices. While Validation grantees must codify the core elements of 
their i3-supported practices, we are interested in projects that have a 
particular focus in this area. In addition, the education field needs 
access to strong, reliable data to make informed decisions about 
effective practices that could replace less effective practices. This 
competitive preference priority supports strategies that identify key 
elements of effective practices and that capture lessons learned about 
the implementation of the practices. In addition, an applicant 
addressing this priority must commit to implementing the practice in 
other settings and locations in order to ensure that the practice can 
be successfully replicated.
    Third, in order to expand the reach of the i3 program and encourage 
entities that have not previously received an i3 grant to apply, the 
Department includes a competitive preference priority for novice i3 
applicants. A novice i3 applicant is an applicant that has never 
received a grant under the i3 program. An applicant must identify 
whether it is a novice applicant when completing the applicant 
information sheet. Instructions on how to complete the applicant 
information sheet are included in the application package.
    Finally, we include one invitational priority. High-quality early 
learning programs can improve children's vocabulary, improve their 
social and emotional development so they arrive in school ready to 
learn, and help them stay on track and engaged in early elementary 
grades.\5\ To support the Department's early learning efforts, we 
include an invitational priority for projects that, in addition to 
addressing one of i3's absolute priorities, improve the coordination 
and alignment between early learning and development systems and 
elementary education systems to improve transitions for children from 
birth through third grade. Through this invitational priority, we 
encourage applicants to propose projects that sustain early learning 
and development outcomes through the early elementary school years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Heckman, James J. 2008. Schools, Skills, and Synapses. 
University of Chicago. Available at: www.heckmanequation.org/content/resource/schools-skills-synapses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In summary, applications must address one of the absolute 
priorities for this competition and propose projects designed to 
implement practices that serve students who are in grades K-12 at some 
point during the funding period. Additionally, applicants must be able 
to show moderate evidence of effectiveness for the proposed process, 
product, strategy, or practice included in their applications. 
Applicants should carefully review all of the requirements in the 
Eligibility Information section of this notice for instructions on how 
to demonstrate moderate evidence of effectiveness and 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. For Validation grants, an applicant 
must obtain matching funds or in-kind donations from the private sector 
equal to at least 10 percent of its grant award. Each highest-rated 
application, as identified by the Department following peer review of 
the applications, must submit evidence of at least 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., for the FY 2014 competition, six months after 
January 1, 2015, or by July 1, 2015). The grant will be terminated if 
the grantee does not secure its private-sector match by the established 
deadline.
    This notice also includes selection criteria for the FY 2014 
Validation competition that are designed to ensure that applications 
selected for funding have the best 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. Applicants should review the selection criteria 
and submission instructions carefully to ensure their applications 
address this year's criteria.
    An entity that submits an application for a Validation grant must 
include the following information in its 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., management 
capacity, financial resources, and qualified personnel) to implement 
the project at a State or regional level, working directly or through 
partners. We

[[Page 22652]]

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 their effective 
practices, strategies and programs and take them to scale.
    The Department will screen applications that are submitted for 
Validation grants in accordance with the requirements in this notice 
and determine which applications meet the eligibility and other 
requirements. Peer reviewers will review all applications for 
Validation grants that are submitted by the established deadline.
    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 to be ineligible will 
not receive a grant award regardless of peer reviewer scores or 
comments. If we determine that a Validation grant application is not 
supported by moderate evidence of effectiveness, or that the applicant 
does not demonstrate the required prior record of improvement, or does 
not meet any other i3 requirement, the application will not be 
considered for funding.
    Priorities: This competition includes four absolute priorities, 
three competitive preference priorities, and one invitational priority. 
Three of the absolute priorities and the three competitive preference 
priorities are from the notice of final priorities, requirements, 
definitions, and selection criteria for this program, published in the 
Federal Register on March 27, 2013 (78 FR 18682) (the ``2013 i3 NFP''). 
The 2013 i3 NFP is available at www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-03-27/pdf/2013-07016.pdf. One absolute priority is from the Department's 
notice of final supplemental priorities and definitions (Supplemental 
Priorities), published in the Federal Register on December 15, 2010 (75 
FR 78486), and corrected on May 12, 2011 (76 FR 27637).
    Absolute Priorities: For FY 2014 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 the Validation grant competition, each of the four absolute 
priorities constitutes its own funding category. The Secretary intends 
to award grants under each absolute priority for which applications of 
sufficient quality are submitted.
    An applicant for a Validation grant must choose one of the four 
absolute priorities. Applications will be peer reviewed and scored; 
scores will be rank ordered by absolute priority, so an applicant must 
clearly identify the specific absolute priority and subpart that the 
proposed project addresses. Applicants that choose to submit an 
application under the absolute priority for Serving Rural Communities 
must identify an additional absolute priority. The peer-reviewed scores 
for applications submitted under the Serving Rural Communities priority 
will be ranked with other applications under the Serving Rural 
Communities priority and not included in the ranking for the additional 
priority that the applicant identifies. This design helps to ensure 
that applicants under the Serving Rural Communities priority receive an 
``apples to apples'' comparison with other rural applicants.
    These priorities are:

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

    Under this priority, we provide funding to projects that address 
one of the following priority areas:
    (a) Developing and implementing models of induction and support for 
improving the knowledge and skills of novice teachers or novice 
principals to accelerate student performance, including but not limited 
to strategies designed to increase teacher retention or improve teacher 
or principal effectiveness.
    (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--Implementing Internationally Benchmarked, College- 
and Career-Ready Elementary and Secondary Academic Standards

    Under this priority, we provide funding to projects that are 
designed to support the implementation of internationally benchmarked, 
college- and career-ready academic standards held in common by multiple 
States and to improve instruction and learning, including strategies 
that translate the standards into classroom practice.

Absolute Priority 3--Improving Academic Outcomes for Students With 
Disabilities

    Under this priority, we provide funding to projects that address 
the following priority area:
    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 unnecessary suspensions and 
expulsions.

Absolute Priority 4--Serving Rural Communities

    Under this priority, we provide funding to projects addressing one 
of the absolute priorities established for the 2014 Validation i3 
competition and under which the majority of students to be served are 
enrolled in rural local educational agencies (as defined in this 
notice).
    Competitive Preference Priorities: For FY 2014 and any subsequent 
year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applicants from 
this competition, these priorities are competitive preference 
priorities. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i) we award one additional point 
to applications that meet the first competitive preference priority, 
two additional points to applications that meet the second competitive 
preference priority, and one additional point to applications that meet 
the third competitive preference priority.
    Applicants may address more than one of the competitive preference 
priorities. An applicant must identify in the project narrative section 
of its application the priority or priorities it wishes the Department 
to consider for purposes of earning competitive preference priority 
points.

    Note:  The Department will not review or award points under any 
competitive preference priority that the applicant fails to clearly 
identify as the competitive preference priority or priorities the 
applicant wishes the Department to consider for purposes of earning 
competitive preference priority points.

    These priorities are:

[[Page 22653]]

Competitive Preference Priority 1--Improving Cost-Effectiveness and 
Productivity (Zero or 1 Point)

    Under this priority, we provide funding to projects that address 
one of the following areas:
    (a) Substantially improving student outcomes without commensurately 
increasing per-student costs.
    (b) Maintaining student outcomes while substantially decreasing 
per-student costs.
    (c) Substantially improving student outcomes while substantially 
decreasing per-student costs.
    Other requirements related to Competitive Preference Priority 1:
    An application addressing This Priority must provide--
    (1) A clear and coherent budget that identifies expected student 
outcomes before and after the practice, the cost per student for the 
practice, and a clear calculation of the cost per student served;
    (2) A compelling discussion of the expected cost-effectiveness of 
the practice compared with alternative practices;
    (3) A clear delineation of one-time costs versus ongoing costs and 
a plan for sustaining the project, particularly ongoing costs, after 
the expiration of i3 funding;
    (4) Identification of specific activities designed to increase 
substantially the cost-effectiveness of the practice, such as re-
designing costly components of the practice (while maintaining 
efficacy) or testing multiple versions of the practice in order to 
identify the most cost-effective approach; and
    (5) A project evaluation that addresses the cost-effectiveness of 
the proposed practice.

Competitive Preference Priority 2--Enabling Broad Adoption of Effective 
Practices (Zero or 2 Points)

    Under this priority, we provide funding to projects that enable 
broad adoption of effective practices. An application proposing to 
address this priority must, as part of its application:
    (a) Identify the practice or practices that the application 
proposes to prepare for broad adoption, including formalizing the 
practice (i.e., establish and define key elements of the practice), 
codifying (i.e., develop a guide or tools to support the dissemination 
of information on key elements of the practice), and explaining why 
there is a need for formalization and codification.
    (b) Evaluate different forms of the practice to identify the 
critical components of the practice that are crucial to its success and 
sustainability, including the adaptability of critical components to 
different teaching and learning environments and to diverse learners.
    (c) Provide a coherent and comprehensive plan for developing 
materials, training, toolkits, or other supports that other entities 
would need in order to implement the practice effectively and with 
fidelity.
    (d) Commit to assessing the replicability and adaptability of the 
practice by supporting the implementation of the practice in a variety 
of locations during the project period using the materials, training, 
toolkits, or other supports that were developed for the i3-supported 
practice.

Competitive Preference Priority 3--Supporting Novice i3 Applicants 
(Zero or 1 Point)

    Eligible applicants that have never directly received a grant under 
this program.
    Invitational Priority: For FY 2014 and any subsequent year in which 
we make awards from the list of unfunded applicants from this 
competition, this priority is an invitational priority. Under 34 CFR 
75.105(c)(1) we do not give an application that meets this invitational 
priority a competitive or absolute preference over other applications.
    This priority is:

Invitational Priority--Supporting High-Quality Early Learning

    The Secretary encourages applicants to propose projects that 
improve the coordination and alignment between early learning and 
development systems and elementary education systems in order to 
improve transitions for children from birth through third grade.

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 Validation grants. 
The following definitions apply to all three types of grants under 
the i3 program (Development, Validation, and Scale-up). 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 or Development 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; \6\ 
or
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (3) Randomized controlled trial (as defined in this notice) that 
meets the What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards with or without 
reservations; \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 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.

[[Page 22654]]

    Highly effective principal means a principal whose students, 
overall and for each subgroup as described in section 
1111(b)(3)(C)(xiii) of the ESEA (economically disadvantaged students, 
students from major racial and ethnic groups, migrant students, 
students with disabilities, students with limited English proficiency, 
and students of each gender), achieve high rates (e.g., one and one-
half grade levels in an academic year) of student growth. Eligible 
applicants may include multiple measures, provided that principal 
effectiveness is evaluated, in significant part, based on student 
growth. Supplemental measures may include, for example, high school 
graduation rates; college enrollment rates; evidence of providing 
supportive teaching and learning conditions, support for ensuring 
effective instruction across subject areas for a well-rounded 
education, strong instructional leadership, and positive family and 
community engagement; or evidence of attracting, developing, and 
retaining high numbers of effective teachers.
    Highly effective teacher means a teacher whose students achieve 
high rates (e.g., one and one-half grade levels in an academic year) of 
student growth. Eligible applicants may include multiple measures, 
provided that teacher effectiveness is evaluated, in significant part, 
based on student academic growth. Supplemental measures may include, 
for example, multiple observation-based assessments of teacher 
performance or evidence of leadership roles (which may include 
mentoring or leading professional learning communities) that increase 
the effectiveness of other teachers in the school or LEA.
    Independent evaluation means that the evaluation is designed and 
carried out independent of, but in coordination with, any employees of 
the entities who develop a process, product, strategy, or practice and 
are implementing it.
    Innovation means a process, product, strategy, or practice that 
improves (or is expected to improve) significantly upon the outcomes 
reached with status quo options and that can ultimately reach 
widespread effective usage.
    Large sample means a sample of 350 or more students (or other 
single analysis units) who were randomly assigned to a treatment or 
control group, or 50 or more groups (such as classrooms or schools) 
that contain 10 or more students (or other single analysis units) and 
that were randomly assigned to a treatment or control group.
    Logic model (also referred to as theory of action) means a well-
specified conceptual framework that identifies key components of the 
proposed process, product, strategy, or practice (i.e., the active 
``ingredients'' that are hypothesized to be critical to achieving the 
relevant outcomes) and describes the relationships among the key 
components and outcomes, theoretically and operationally.
    Moderate evidence of effectiveness means one of the following 
conditions is met:
    (a) There is at least one study of the effectiveness of the 
process, product, strategy, or practice being proposed that: Meets the 
What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards without reservations; \8\ 
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 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,\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 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 \10\ 
(they cannot meet What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards without 
reservations).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 22655]]

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 http://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;\12\ 
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 
meets the other requirements in this paragraph).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 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;\13\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 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 March 27, 2013 (78 FR 
18682). (d) The Supplemental Priorities published in the Federal 
Register on December 15, 2010 (75 FR 78486), and corrected on May 12, 
2011 (76 FR 27637).

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


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

II. Award Information

    Type of Award: Cooperative agreements or discretionary grants.
    Estimated Available Funds: $134,800,000.
    These estimated available funds are the total available for all 
three types of grants under the i3 program (Development, Validation, 
and Scale-up grants).
    Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of the 
applications received, we may make additional awards in FY 2015 or 
later years from the list of unfunded applicants from this competition.

Estimated Range of Awards:

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

Estimated Average Size of Awards:

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

Estimated Number of Awards:

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

[[Page 22656]]

    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 and principals, as 
demonstrated with meaningful data;
    (c) Demonstrate that it has established one or more partnerships 
with the private sector, which may include philanthropic organizations, 
and that organizations in the private sector will provide matching 
funds in order to help bring results to scale; and
    (d) In the case of an eligible applicant that includes a nonprofit 
organization, provide in the application the names of the LEAs with 
which the nonprofit organization will partner, or the names of the 
schools in the consortium with which it will partner. If an eligible 
applicant that includes a nonprofit organization intends to partner 
with additional LEAs or schools that are not named in the application, 
it must describe in the application the demographic and other 
characteristics of these LEAs and schools and the process it will use 
to select them.

    Note:  An entity submitting an application should provide, in 
Appendix C, under ``Other Attachments Form,'' of its application, 
information addressing the eligibility requirements described in 
this section. An applicant must provide, in its application, 
sufficient supporting data or other information to allow the 
Department to determine whether the applicant has met the 
eligibility requirements. Note that in order to address the 
statutory eligibility requirement above, applicants must provide 
data that demonstrate a change. In other words, applicants must 
provide data for at least two points in time when addressing this 
requirement in Appendix C of their applications. If the Department 
determines that an applicant has provided insufficient information 
in its application, the applicant will not have an opportunity to 
provide additional information.


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


    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 Validation applicant must obtain matching funds, or in-kind 
donations, equal to at least 10 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 
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 applicant that does not provide a request for a 
reduction of the matching-level requirement in its 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 Validation grant must be supported by moderate 
evidence of effectiveness (as defined in this notice).

    Note:  An applicant should identify up to two study citations to 
be reviewed against What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards for 
the purposes of meeting the i3 evidence standard requirement. An 
applicant should clearly identify these citations in Appendix D, 
under the ``Other Attachments Form,'' of its application. The 
Department will not review a study citation that an applicant fails 
to clearly identify for review. In addition to the two study 
citations, applicants should include a description of the 
intervention(s) the applicant plans to implement and the intended 
student outcomes that the intervention(s) attempts to impact in 
Appendix D.

    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 
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.

    Note:  The evidence standards apply to the prior research that 
supports the effectiveness of the proposed project. The i3 program 
does not restrict the source of prior research providing evidence 
for the proposed project. As such, an applicant could cite prior 
research in Appendix D for studies that were conducted by another 
entity (i.e., an entity that is not the applicant) so long as the 
prior research studies cited in the application are relevant to the 
effectiveness of the proposed project.

     Funding Categories: An applicant will be considered for an 
award only for the type of i3 grant (i.e., Development, Validation, and 
Scale-up grants) for which it applies. An applicant may not

[[Page 22657]]

submit an application for the same proposed project under more than one 
type of grant.
     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 $20 million 
and the maximum award value for a Development grant is $3 million, no 
grantee may receive in a single year new grants totaling more than $23 
million.
     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.
     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. For Scale-up and Validation 
grants, the grantee must also ensure that the data from its evaluation 
are made available to third-party researchers consistent with 
applicable privacy requirements.
    In addition, the grantee and its independent evaluator must agree 
to cooperate with any technical assistance provided by the Department 
or its contractor and comply with the requirements of any evaluation of 
the program conducted by the Department. This includes providing to the 
Department, within 100 days of a grant award, an updated comprehensive 
evaluation plan in a format and using such tools as the Department may 
require. Grantees must update this evaluation plan at least annually to 
reflect any changes to the evaluation. All of these updates must be 
consistent with the scope and objectives of the approved application.
     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.
     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.

IV. Application and Submission Information

    1. Address to Request Application Package: You can obtain an 
application package via the Internet or from the Education Publications 
Center (ED Pubs). To obtain a copy via the Internet, use the following 
address: http://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, toll free: 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 an application from ED Pubs, be sure to identify 
this program or competition as follows: CFDA number 84.411B.
    Individuals with disabilities can obtain a copy of the application 
package in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, 
or compact disc) by contacting the person or team listed under 
Accessible Format in section VIII of this notice.
    2. a. 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 Application: May 13, 2014.
    We will be able to develop a more efficient process for reviewing 
grant applications if we know the approximate number of applicants that 
intend to apply for funding under this competition. Therefore, the 
Secretary strongly encourages each potential applicant to notify us of 
the applicant's intent to submit an application by completing a web-
based form. When completing this form, applicants will provide (1) the 
applicant organization's name and address and (2) the one absolute 
priority the applicant intends to address. Applicants may access this 
form online at http://go.usa.gov/krPV. Applicants that do not complete 
this form may still submit an application.
    Page Limit: The application narrative (Part III of the application) 
is where you, the applicant, address the selection criteria that 
reviewers use to evaluate your application. Applicants should limit the 
application narrative [Part III] for a Validation grant application to 
no more than 35 pages. Applicants are also strongly encouraged not to 
include lengthy appendices that contain information that they were 
unable to include within the page limits for the narrative. Applicants 
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 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 of the application. However, the page limit does apply to all 
of the application narrative section [Part III] of the application.
    b. Submission of Proprietary Information:
    Given the types of projects that may be proposed in applications 
for the i3 program, some applications may include business information 
that applicants consider proprietary. The Department's regulations 
define ``business information'' in 34 CFR 5.11.
    Consistent with the process followed in the prior i3 competitions, 
we plan on posting the project narrative section of

[[Page 22658]]

funded i3 applications on the Department's Web site so you may wish to 
request confidentiality of business information. Identifying 
proprietary information in the submitted application will help 
facilitate this public disclosure process.
    Consistent with Executive Order 12600, please designate in your 
application any information that you feel is exempt from disclosure 
under Exemption 4 of the Freedom of Information Act. In the appropriate 
Appendix section of your application, under ``Other Attachments Form,'' 
please list the page number or numbers on which we can find this 
information. For additional information please see 34 CFR 5.11(c).
    3. Submission Dates and Times: Deadline for Notice of Intent to 
Submit Application: May 13, 2014.
    Informational Meetings: The i3 program intends to hold webinars 
designed to provide technical assistance to interested applicants for 
all three types of grants. Detailed information regarding these 
meetings will be provided on the i3 Web site at http://www2.ed.gov/programs/innovation/index.html. Deadline for Transmittal of 
Applications: June 24, 2014.
    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: August 21, 2014.
    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, 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 System for Award 
Management (SAM) (formerly the Central Contractor Registry (CCR)), the 
Government's primary registrant database;
    c. Provide your DUNS number and TIN on your application; and
    d. Maintain an active 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-to-two business days.
    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.
    The SAM registration process can take approximately seven business 
days, but may take upwards of several weeks, depending on the 
completeness and accuracy of the data entered into the SAM database by 
an entity. Thus, if you think you might want to apply for Federal 
financial assistance under a program administered by the Department, 
please allow sufficient time to obtain and register your DUNS number 
and TIN. We strongly recommend that you register early.

    Note:  Once your SAM registration is active, you will need to 
allow 24 to 48 hours for the information to be available in 
Grants.gov and before you can submit an application through 
Grants.gov.

    If you are currently registered with SAM, 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.
    Information about SAM is available at www.SAM.gov. To further 
assist you with obtaining and registering your DUNS number and TIN in 
SAM or updating your existing SAM account, we have prepared a SAM.gov 
Tip Sheet, which you can find at: http://www2.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/sam-faqs.html.
    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/web/grants/register.html.
    7. Other Submission Requirements:
    Applications for grants for 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 for grants under the i3 program, CFDA number 84.411B 
(Validation grants), must be submitted electronically using the 
Governmentwide Grants.gov Apply site at www.Grants.gov. Through this 
site, you will be able to download a copy of the application package, 
complete it offline, and then upload and submit your application. You 
may not email an electronic copy of a grant application to us.
    We will reject your application if you submit it in paper format 
unless, as described elsewhere in this section, you qualify for one of 
the exceptions to the electronic submission requirement and submit, no 
later than two weeks before the application deadline date, a written 
statement to the Department that you qualify for one of these 
exceptions. Further information regarding calculation of the date that 
is two weeks before the application deadline date is provided later in 
this section under Exception to Electronic Submission Requirement.
    You may access the electronic grant application for the i3 program 
at www.Grants.gov. You must search for the downloadable application 
package for this program this competition by the CFDA number. Do not 
include the CFDA number's alpha suffix in your search (e.g., search for 
84.411, not 84.411B).
    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

[[Page 22659]]

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 www.G5.gov.
     You will not receive additional point value because you 
submit your application in electronic format, nor will we penalize you 
if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission 
requirement, as described elsewhere in this section, and submit your 
application in paper format.
     You must submit all documents electronically, including 
all information you typically provide on the following forms: The 
Application for Federal Assistance (SF 424), the Department of 
Education Supplemental Information for SF 424, Budget Information--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: Kelly Terpak, U.S. 
Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., room 4W111, 
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 84.411B), LBJ Basement Level 1, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., 
Washington, DC 20202-4260.
    You must show proof of mailing consisting of one of the following:
    (1) A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark.
    (2) A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the 
U.S. Postal Service.
    (3) A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial 
carrier.

[[Page 22660]]

    (4) Any other proof of mailing acceptable to the Secretary of the 
U.S. Department of Education.
    If you mail your application through the U.S. Postal Service, we do 
not accept either of the following as proof of mailing:
    (1) A private metered postmark.
    (2) A mail receipt that is not dated by the U.S. Postal Service.
    If your application is postmarked after the application deadline 
date, we will not consider your application.

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

    c. Submission of Paper Applications by Hand Delivery.
    If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission 
requirement, you (or a courier service) may deliver your paper 
application to the Department by hand. You must deliver the original 
and two copies of your application by hand, on or before the 
application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: 
U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: 
(CFDA Number 84.411B), 550 12th Street SW., Room 7039, 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.

    Note for Mail or Hand Delivery of Paper Applications:  If you 
mail or hand deliver your application to the Department--

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

V. Application Review Information

    1. Selection Criteria: The selection criteria for the Validation 
competition are from the 2013 i3 NFP and are listed below.
    The points assigned to each criterion are indicated in the 
parenthesis next to the criterion. An applicant may earn up to a total 
of 100 points based on the selection criteria for the application.

    Note: An applicant must provide information on how its proposed 
project addresses the selection criteria in the project narrative 
section of its application. In responding to the selection criteria, 
applicants should keep in mind that peer reviewers may consider only 
the information provided in the written application when scoring and 
commenting on the application. Therefore, applicants should 
structure their applications with the goal of helping peer reviewers 
understand:

     What the applicant is proposing to do, including the 
absolute priority (or, if the applicant has selected the absolute 
priority for Serving Rural Communities, the absolute priorities) under 
which the applicant intends the application to be reviewed;
     How the proposed project will reach a national or regional 
level of scale that the applicant was previously unable to reach; and
     What the outcomes of the project will be if it is 
successful, including how those outcomes will be evaluated.

Selection Criteria for the Validation Grant Application

A. Significance (Up to 20 Points)
    In determining the significance of the project, the Secretary 
considers the following factors:
    (1) The extent to which the proposed project addresses the national 
need and priorities the applicant is seeking to meet.
    (2) The likelihood that the project will have the estimated impact, 
including the extent to which the applicant demonstrates that unmet 
demand for the proposed project or the proposed services will enable 
the applicant to reach the proposed level of scale.
    (3) The feasibility of national expansion if favorable outcomes are 
achieved.

    Note:  In responding to this criterion, the Secretary encourages 
applicants to address the unmet needs within the context of the 
absolute priority. Additionally, the Secretary encourages applicants 
to explain how the proposed project will address unmet demands and 
enable the applicant to reach the proposed level of scale. 
Applicants are also encouraged to explain how the applicant will 
ensure future scaling should the proposed project have positive 
results.

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 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.
    (2) The extent to which the applicant will use grant funds to 
address a particular barrier or barriers that prevented the applicant, 
in the past, from reaching the level of scale proposed in the 
application.

    Note: In responding to this criterion, the Secretary encourages 
applicants to develop a clear set of goals as well as the 
applicant's plan for achieving those goals. In designing this plan, 
applicants should consider the risks that could prevent success and 
what strategies they will implement to counteract those risks to 
ensure the proposed project is implemented successfully and will 
achieve its goals. Further, applicants are encouraged to identify 
barriers to scaling the proposed project and address how they will 
overcome the identified barriers.

C. Quality of the Management Plan and Personnel (Up to 25 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.
    (2) The clarity and coherence of the applicant's multi-year 
financial and operating model and accompanying plan to operate the 
project at a national or regional level (as defined in this notice) 
during the project period.
    (3) The extent to which the project director has experience 
managing large, complex projects.

    Note:  In responding to this criterion, the Secretary encourages 
applicants to address how the project team will evaluate both the 
successes and challenges of the project and use the lessons from 
their ongoing monitoring and evaluation of the project to improve 
the project. Applicants also are encouraged to explain the 
organization's plan to operate the project at a national level or 
regional level during and after the life of the grant. Applicants 
are also encouraged to think about how the project director's past 
experience demonstrates an ability to manage large, complex 
projects, such as an i3 Validation grant.

D. Quality of Project Evaluation (Up to 30 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

[[Page 22661]]

project evaluation, and the appropriateness of the methods for how each 
question will be addressed.
    (2) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will, if well 
implemented, produce evidence about the project's effectiveness that 
would meet the What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards without 
reservations.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 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) The extent to which the evaluation will study the project at 
the proposed level of scale, including, where appropriate, generating 
information about potential differential effectiveness of the project 
in diverse settings and for diverse student population groups.
    (4) 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.
    (5) The extent to which the evaluation plan clearly articulates the 
key components and outcomes of the project, as well as a measurable 
threshold for acceptable implementation.
    (6) The extent to which the proposed project plan includes 
sufficient resources to carry out the project evaluation effectively.

    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. The applicant should address whether the 
methods for evaluation would meet What Works Clearinghouse Evidence 
Standards and how the evaluation design will ensure the project will 
be evaluated at the proposed level of scale. The response to this 
criterion should include a description of the proposed sample size 
and the estimated project impacts as well as the key components of 
the proposed project for implementation. Finally, applicants should 
also address whether sufficient resources, which may include the 
qualifications of the independent evaluator, are included in the 
project budget to carry out the evaluation effectively.

    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: As described earlier in this 
notice, before making awards, we will screen applications submitted in 
accordance with the requirements in this notice to determine whether 
applications have met eligibility and other requirements. This 
screening process may occur at various stages of the process; 
applicants that are determined to be ineligible will not receive a 
grant, regardless of peer reviewer scores or comments.
    We will use independent peer reviewers with varied backgrounds and 
professions, such as pre-kindergarten-grade 12 teachers and principals, 
college and university educators, researchers and evaluators, social 
entrepreneurs, strategy consultants, grant makers and managers, and 
others with education expertise for the peer review process. 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 applications, using the selection criteria provided in 
this notice. For Validation grant applications, the Department intends 
to conduct a single tier review. If an eligible applicant has chosen to 
address either of the first two competitive preference priorities 
(Improving Cost-Effectiveness and Productivity or Enabling Broad 
Adoption of Effective Practices) in order to earn competitive 
preference priority points, reviewers will review and score these 
competitive preference priorities. If competitive preference priority 
points are awarded, those points will be included in the eligible 
applicant's overall score. If an eligible applicant chooses to address 
the last competitive preference priority (Supporting Novice i3 
Applicants) to earn competitive preference priority points, the 
Department will review its list of previous i3 grantees in scoring this 
competitive preference priority.
    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 may also require more frequent performance 
reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on

[[Page 22662]]

reporting, please go to www.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/appforms/appforms.html.
    4. Performance Measures: The overall purpose of the i3 program is 
to expand the implementation of, and investment in, innovative 
practices that are demonstrated to have an impact on improving student 
achievement or student growth for high-need students. We have 
established several performance measures for the i3 Validation grants.
    Short-term performance measures: (1) The percentage of grantees 
that reach their annual target number of students as specified in the 
application; (2) the percentage of programs, practices, or strategies 
supported by a Validation grant with ongoing well-designed and 
independent evaluations that will provide evidence of their 
effectiveness at improving student outcomes; (3) the percentage of 
programs, practices, or strategies supported by a Validation grant with 
ongoing evaluations that are providing high-quality implementation data 
and performance feedback that allow for periodic assessment of progress 
toward achieving intended outcomes; and (4) the cost per student 
actually served by the grant.
    Long-term performance measures: (1) The percentage of grantees that 
reach the targeted number of students specified in the application; (2) 
the percentage of programs, practices, or strategies supported by a 
Validation grant that implement a completed well-designed, well-
implemented and independent evaluation that provides evidence of their 
effectiveness at improving student outcomes; (3) the percentage of 
programs, practices, or strategies supported by a Validation grant with 
a completed well-designed, well-implemented and independent evaluation 
that provides information about the key elements and the approach of 
the project so as to facilitate replication or testing in other 
settings; and (4) the cost per student for programs, practices, or 
strategies that were proven to be effective at improving educational 
outcomes for students.
    5. Continuation Awards: In making a continuation award, the 
Secretary may consider, under 34 CFR 75.253, the extent to which a 
grantee has made ``substantial progress toward meeting the objectives 
in its approved 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:  Kelly Terpak, U.S. Department of 
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 4W111, 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 Federal Relay Service, 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 
either 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: April 18, 2014.
Nadya Chinoy Dabby,
Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and Improvement.
[FR Doc. 2014-09262 Filed 4-22-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P