1. Q&A Webinar i3 Development Full Application Overview Slides July 15, 2014 Note: These slides are intended as guidance only. Please refer to the official documents published in the Federal Register.

2. Two Parts to Today’s Webinar 1)An overview of the 2014 i3 Development Competition, with a focus on the full application process. 2)A Q&A period with a discussion organized by specific topic. These slides are intended as guidance only. Keep in mind that the overview covers only part of the information that prospective applicants should review from the Federal Register and the i3 website. 2

3. A Few Notes on Q&A We have allowed substantial time after each discussion topic for Q&A. Webinar participants should submit their questions via the webinar chat function We cannot answer questions that are applicant-specific. “Am I eligible to apply?” “Does this sound like a good idea?” “Does this idea address the absolute priority?” We may not be able to answer all questions received. If you have additional questions, please send them to the i3 mailbox: i3@ed.gov.i3@ed.gov 3

4. Overview of the i3 Grant Program Purpose To generate and validate solutions to persistent educational challenges and to support the expansion of effective solutions across the country to serve substantially larger numbers of students. Funding $134,800,000 (est.) to be obligated by December 31, 2014. 4

5. i3 DevelopmentValidationScale-up Types of Awards Available Under i3 Funding Available* Up to $3M/awardUp to $12M/awardUp to $20M/award Estimated Awards 10-204-80-2 Evidence Required Evidence of promise or strong theory Moderate evidence of effectiveness Strong evidence of effectiveness Scaling Required Able to further develop and scale Able to be scaled to the regional level Able to be scaled to the national level *$134.8 M (est.) to be obligated by December 31, 2014 5

6. Overview of the i3 Grant Program Eligibility Requirements Applicants Eligible applicants are: (1)Local educational agencies (LEAs) (2)non-profit organizations in partnership with (a) one or more LEAs or (b) a consortium of schools To provide competitive grants to applicants with a record of improving student achievement, attainment, or retention in order to expand the implementation of, and investment in, innovative practices that are demonstrated to have an impact on: Improving student achievement or student growth; Closing achievement gaps; Decreasing dropout rates; Increasing high school graduation rates; or Increasing college enrollment and completion rates 6

7. Order of Q&A Discussion Topics Eligibility Evidence Priorities Selection Criteria Other Topics 7

8. i3 Has Two Types of Eligible Applicants 1)A local educational agency (LEA) and 2)A non-profit organization in partnership with (a) one or more LEAs or (b) a consortium of schools There is no competitive advantage to applying as one type of applicant or the other, but an applicant must meet the relevant eligibility requirements. 8

9. Some Eligibility Requirements Differ Based on Type of Applicant An LEA must: Demonstrate that it: (1) Significantly closed achievement gaps between groups of students; or (2) demonstrated success in significantly increasing academic achievement for all groups of students; and Made significant improvement in other areas; and Establish partnerships with private sector. A partnership must: Demonstrate that the non-profit organization has a record of significantly improving student achievement, attainment, or retention through its record of work with an LEA or schools. 9

10. Some Eligibility Requirements Apply to Both Types of Applicants All applicants must: 1.Address one absolute priority and subpart. 2.Improve achievement for high-need students. 3.Serve students in grades K-12. 4.Meet the evidence requirement – for Development grantees: evidence of promise or strong theory. 5.Secure commitment for required private sector match – for Development grantees: 15% of the federal award. 10

11. Q&A: ELIGIBILITY 11

12. Order of Q&A Discussion Topics Eligibility Evidence Priorities Selection Criteria Other Topics 12

13. i3 Evidence Requirements All applications for Development grants must meet the evidence requirement : evidence of promise or strong theory. Applications that do not meet the evidence requirement will not be eligible for a grant award, regardless of scores on the selection criteria. If an application does not meet the “evidence standard” of the grant type under which it was submitted, it will not be considered for a different type of i3 grant. 13

14. Strong Theory Evidence of Promise i3 Development Grant Evidence Standards Number of Studies Not Applicable – Logic Model Only1+ Statistical Significance Statistically significant positive impact (0.25 standard deviation or larger) WWC Standards Not Applicable; Correlational study with statistical controls for selection bias Meets without reservations Meets with reservations 14 Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Note: Greyed-out/shaded cells indicate criteria on which the updated standards are silent. See What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) 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. ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/DocumentSum.aspx?sid=19

15. Development Grant Evidence Requirements Applicants should provide information addressing the evidence standards in their full applications. Applicants either should ensure that all supporting evidence is available from publicly available sources and provide links or other guidance indicating where it is available; or should include copies of evidence with the full application. IMPORTANT: Applicants that do not sufficiently address the evidence requirements in their full applications will not be able to supplement their original applications with additional information to meet the requirements if they are deemed ineligible. 15

16. Q&A: EVIDENCE 16

17. Order of Q&A Discussion Topics Eligibility Evidence Priorities Selection Criteria Other Topics 17

18. i3 Development Priorities Required for all applications Improve Achievement for High-Need Students Must address one absolute priority Teacher and Principal Effectiveness Low Performing Schools English Learners Students with Disabilities Effective Use of Technology Serving Rural Communities 18

19. i3 2014 Priority Structure and Subparts The i3 Development Notice Inviting Applications (the NIA) was published in the Federal Register on March 14, 2014. An applicant for a Development grant must choose one of the six absolute priorities and one of the subparts under the chosen priority to address in the full application. Applicants who choose to submit an application under the absolute priority for Serving Rural Communities must identify an additional absolute priority and subpart. 19

20. Absolute Priority 1: Improving the Effectiveness of Teachers or Principals Applicants must address one of the following subpart areas: a)Developing and implementing models for principal preparation that deepen leadership skills which have been demonstrated to improve student achievement (as defined in the NIA). Or b)Increasing equitable access to effective teachers or principals for low income and high-need students (as defined in the NIA), which may include increasing the equitable distribution of effective teachers or principals for low-income and high-need students across schools. Addressing preparation that deepens leadership skills as well as equity while changing operating conditions and increasing efficiencies at the school and district level. 20

21. Absolute Priority 2: Improving Low- Performing Schools Applicants must address one of the following subpart areas: a)Changing elements of the school’s organizational design to improve instruction by differentiating staff roles and extending and enhancing instructional time. Or b)Implementing programs, supports, or other strategies that improve students’ non-cognitive abilities(e.g., motivation, persistence, or resilience) and enhance student engagement in learning or mitigate the effects of poverty, on student engagement in learning or mitigate the effects of poverty, including physical, mental, or emotional health issues, on student engagement in learning. To meet this priority, projects must serve schools among (1) the lowest-performing schools in the State on academic performance measures; (2) schools in the State with the largest within-school performance gaps between student subgroups described in section 1111(b)(2) of the ESEA; or (3) secondary schools in the State with the lowest graduation rate over a number of years or the largest within-school gaps in graduation rates between student subgroups described in section 1111(b)(2) of the ESEA. Additionally, projects funded under this priority must complement the broader turnaround efforts of the school(s), LEA(s), or State(s) where the projects will be implemented. Addressing the need for activities that accelerate the improved performance of low-performing schools to ensure that all students receive a quality K-12 education. 21

22. Absolute Priority 3: Improving Academic Outcomes for Students with Disabilities Applicants must address the following subpart area: Implementing coherent systems of support that appropriately coordinate and integrate programs to address the needs of children and youth with disabilities and improve the quality of service for those children and their families. Addressing the need to implement coherent systems of support to address needs of children and youth with disabilities and improve the quality of service for both children and their families. 22

23. Absolute Priority 4: Improving Academic Outcomes for English Learners (ELs) Applicants must address the following subpart area: a)Increasing the number and proportion of ELs successfully completing courses in core academic subjects by developing, implementing, and evaluating new instructional approaches and tools that are sensitive to the language demands necessary to access challenging content, including technology-based tools. Or b) Preparing ELs to be on track to be college- and career- ready when they graduate from high school by developing comprehensive, developmentally appropriate, early learning programs (birth-grade 3) that are aligned with the State’s high-quality early learning standards, designed to improve readiness for kindergarten, and support development of literacy and academic skills in English or in English and another language. Ensuring that students who cannot speak, read, or write English well can participate meaningfully in educational programs to achieve the academic outcomes of which they are capable. 23

24. Absolute Priority 5: Effective Use of Technology Applicants must address one of the following subpart areas: a)Providing access to learning experiences that are personalized, adaptive, and self-improving in order to optimize the delivery of instruction to learners with a variety of learning needs. Or b)Integrating technology with the implementation of rigorous college- and career-ready standards to increase student achievement (as defined in the NIA), student engagement, and teacher efficacy, such as by providing embedded, real-time assessment and feedback to students and teachers. Supporting projects that use technology to meet students’ diverse learning needs and for teaching and learning concepts that are difficult to teach using traditional approaches. 24

25. Absolute Priority 6: Serving Rural Communities Applicants must address the following: Under this priority, we provide funding to projects addressing one of the absolute priorities established for the 2014 Development i3 competition and under which the majority of students to be served are enrolled in rural local educational agencies (as defined in the NIA). Addressing the plethora of challenges that rural communities face as they work to provide a high-quality education for all students. 25

26. Notes on Absolute Priority 6: Serving Rural Communities Please note that applicants that choose to submit an application under the absolute priority for Serving Rural Communities must identify an additional absolute priority and subpart. The peer-reviewed scores for applications submitted under the Serving Rural Communities priority will be ranked with other applications under this priority, and not included in the ranking for the additional priority that they identified. This design helps to ensure that applicants under the Serving Rural Communities priority receive an “apples to apples” comparison with other rural applicants. 26

27. Q&A: PRIORITIES 27

28. Order of Q&A Discussion Topics Eligibility Evidence Priorities Selection Criteria Other Topics 28

29. Notes on i3 Selection Criteria and Points The selection criteria are the criteria against which the peer reviewers score each application. The Department selects grantees based on peer reviewer scores, so clearly addressing the selection criteria is critical. There are different selection criteria for the pre-application and the full application. Detailed wording for each selection criterion may be found in the Notices at the i3 website: http://www2.ed.gov/programs/innovation/index.html. http://www2.ed.gov/programs/innovation/index.html 29

30. i3 Selection Criteria and Points Selection Criteria Development Pre- Application Development Full Application 30 A. Significance B. Quality of the Project Design C. Quality of the Management Plan & Personnel D. Quality of the Project Evaluation Up to 10 pts Up to 35 pts Up to 15 pts Up to 20 pts Up to 30 pts Total Up to 20 pts Up to 100 pts

31. Selection Criterion: A. Significance Novel Approach to Addressing Selected Priority Develop and Advance the Field The extent to which the proposed project addresses the absolute priority the applicant is seeking to meet. The extent to which the proposed project would implement a novel approach as compared with what has been previously attempted nationally. The potential contribution of the proposed project to the development and advancement of theory, knowledge, and practices in the field of study. 31 Addressing the Absolute Priority

32. Notes on Selection Criterion: A. Significance Applicants should make sure that a peer reviewer, after reading the application narrative, would understand: How the applicant’s proposed project addresses the absolute priority and identified subpart; How the proposed project is unique; How the proposed project fits into existing theory, knowledge, or practice; and How the proposed project would serve as an exemplar for new practices in the field. 32

33. Selection Criterion: B. Quality of the Project Design Clear Articulation of Plan or Actions to Achieve Goals The clarity and coherence of the project goals, including the extent to which the proposed project articulates an explicit plan or actions to achieve its goals (e.g., a fully developed logic model of the proposed project). 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. 33 Clarity of Goals and Plan for Mitigating Risks

34. Notes on Selection Criterion: B. Quality of the Project Design Applicants should make sure that a peer reviewer, after reading the application narrative, would understand: What the applicant proposes to do in the project (i.e., goals and strategy); and How proposed activities relate to goals and strategy. 34

35. Selection Criterion: C. Quality of the Management Plan & Personnel Articulating Key Responsibilities and Timelines Key Partners and Stakeholders Support The extent to which the management plan articulates key responsibilities and well-defined objectives, including timelines and milestones. The extent of the demonstrated commitment of any key partners or evidence of broad support from stakeholders whose participation is critical to the project’s long-term success. The adequacy of procedures for ensuring feedback and continuous improvement in the operation of the proposed project. The extent to which the project director has experience managing projects of similar size and scope. 35 Feedback and Continuous Improvement Experience of the Project Director

36. Notes on Selection Criterion: C. Quality of the Management Plan & Personnel Applicants should make sure that a peer reviewer, after reading the application narrative, would understand: How the project team will evaluate the success or challenges of the project; How the project team will use feedback to make improvements to the project; What is the role of key partners and their impact on the long-term success of the project; and How the project director’s prior experiences have prepared them for implementing the proposed project. 36

37. Selection Criterion: D. Quality of Project Evaluation Key Questions Clear and Credible Analysis Plan The clarity and importance of the key questions to be addressed by the project evaluation, and the appropriateness of the methods for how each question will be addressed. 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. The extent to which the evaluation plan clearly articulates the key components and outcomes of the project, as well as a measureable threshold for acceptable implementation. The extent to which the proposed project plan includes sufficient resources to carry out the project evaluation effectively. 37 Key Components and Outcomes Sufficient Resources

38. Notes on Selection Criterion: D. Quality of Project Evaluation Applicants should make sure that a peer reviewer, after reading the application narrative, would understand: What are the key evaluation questions; How the proposed evaluation methodologies will allow the project to answer the key evaluation questions; How the proposed project will effectively serve the specific student populations identified; What implementation and performance data the evaluation will generate; How the evaluation will provide data during the period to help indicate whether the project is on track to meet its goals; and What resources are required to carry out the evaluation effectively. 38

39. Q&A: SELECTION CRITERIA 39

40. Order of Q&A Discussion Topics Eligibility Evidence Priorities Selection Criteria Other Topics 40

41. Key Requirements That Must Be Met Before an Award Is Made The Department, before awarding i3 grants, will confirm that all eligibility requirements have been met by potential grantees, including that applicants: Address one absolute priority and one of the subparts; Implement practices that serve high-need students; Implement practices that serve students in grades K-12; Be supported by evidence of promise or strong theory; Demonstrate evidence of prior improvement (different requirements for LEA vs. non-profit (partnership) applicants); and Provide evidence of at least 50% of the private-sector match. Note: Applicants should be aware that they must meet ALL eligibility requirements if they are to submit a full application. 41

42. Parts of a Complete Full Application Part A  Project Narrative Form Responses to the Selection Criteria Significance Quality of the Project Design Quality of the Management Plan Quality of Project Evaluation  Budget Narrative Form ED 524 Section C Eligible applicants must also provide a detailed budget narrative that describes their proposed multi-year project activities and the costs associated with those activities as well as all costs associated with carrying out the project.  Other Attachments Form Upload appendices here Part B ED Standard Forms  Application for Federal Assistance (SF 424)  Department of Education Supplemental Information for SF 424  Department of Education Budget Summary Form (ED 524) Sections A & B  Disclosure of Lobbying Activities (SF-LLL) Assurances/Certifications  GEPA Section 427  Assurances – Non- Construction Programs (SF 424B)  Grants.gov Lobby Form (formerly ED 80-0013 form)  i3 Applicant Information Sheet : http://www2.ed.gov/progr ams/innovation/2014comp etition.html http://www2.ed.gov/progr ams/innovation/2014comp etition.html 42

43. Completing the Applicant Information Sheet Applicants must download this form, which provides information that is crucial for the peer review process, from the i3 website and submit it with their pre-application. In previous years, applicants have failed to submit this form or have submitted it in an unusable format, which impedes peer review. To complete this form: 1.Download it from the i3 website: http://www2.ed.gov/programs/innovation/2014competitio n.html http://www2.ed.gov/programs/innovation/2014competitio n.html 2.Complete the form in Adobe Acrobat 3.Save the form in Adobe Acrobat as a PDF 4.Upload the PDF to the Other Attachments Form of the application DO NOT: Print the form, complete it, and scan it as a PDF; Save the form in any format other than PDF; Forget to include this form; Merge it with other appendices. 43

44. Q&A: OTHER TOPICS 44

45. Other Important Resources Investing in Innovation Fund Website: (http://www2.ed.gov/programs/innovation/index.html)http://www2.ed.gov/programs/innovation/index.html Notice Final Priorities, Requirements, Definitions, and Selection Criteria (published in the Federal Register on March 27, 2013) Notice Inviting Applications for Development Applications Application Package (includes the Notice Inviting Applications) i3 Applicant Information Sheet Frequently Asked Questions Note: These slides are intended as guidance only. Please refer to the official Notice in the Federal Register. All questions about i3 should be sent to i3@ed.govi3@ed.gov 45

46. Closing Thoughts Write clearly to the selection criteria: they are what the peer reviewers will use to judge your application, so consider explaining what you’re going to do and what the impact will be if you are successful. Consider discussing how you will do what you claim you will do – do not just state that you will do it. Keep in mind that Development grants in particular aim to address problems of national importance – think about whether and how your idea is of broader than local importance. Register for grants.gov early, make sure you understand how to use it, and leave yourself plenty of time to submit your application on time (the deadline of 4:30:00PM DC Time on August 11 applies to the completion of the submission, not the beginning). Ensure SAM registration is up to date as soon as possible. Please visit sam.gov for additional information. 46