Summary Document March 2010 Investing in Innovation (i3) Fund Pre-Application Workshop Note: These slides are intended as guidance only. Please refer to.

Summary Document March 2010 Investing in Innovation (i3) Fund Pre-Application Workshop Note: These slides are intended as guidance only. Please refer to the official documents published in the Federal Register.

Schedule for Today 2 Speaker Morning Overview of i3 Program Jim EligibilityRon EvidenceJon PrioritiesErin Break Afternoon Selection Criteria & Review ProcessErin Matching & Other Pre-Award RequirementsRon Post-Award RequirementsJon Important Dates and ClosingJim

3 A Few Notes on Q&A We have budgeted time during each segment of the schedule for Q&A – Live participants should submit their questions via the four computers that are set up to receive questions around the room – Webinar participants should submit their questions via the webinar chat function Due to time constraints, we will not be able to answer all questions received If you have additional questions, please send them to the i3 email address: i3@ed.govi3@ed.gov

4 A Few Notes on Q&A (cont’d) What We Can Address What We Can Address What We Cannot Address Questions about the eligibility of a specific entity Questions about the competitiveness of a specific entity or research focus Substantive explanation of the rationale behind inclusion or exclusion of specific items in i3 beyond what is in the Federal Register Content of the Investing in Innovation (i3) Notices and Application Timeline of the i3 program Application process

i3 Is One Part of Unprecedented Direct Federal Investment in Education 6 $4.35B - Race to the Top Fund, including $350MM for development of assessments $3.5B* - School Improvement Grants $650MM - Investing in Innovation Fund $650MM - Education Technology $300MM* - Teacher Incentive Fund $250MM - Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems * Includes regular FY 09 appropriations SFSF $48.6B Formula Grants $26B Race To The Top and Other Grants ($9.7B in FY2009 Funding) ARRA K-12 Investment Aligned with Four Assurances

Investing in Innovation (i3) Fund Summary 7 Purpose Funding Applicants To provide competitive grants to applicants with a record of improving student achievement and attainment 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 $650 million to be obligated by September 30, 2010 Eligible applicants are: (1)Local educational agencies (LEAs) (2)Nonprofit organizations in partnership with (a) one or more LEAs or (b) a consortium of schools

Types of Awards Available Under i3 8 i3 Development Validation Scale-up Estimated Funding Available Up to $5MM/awardUp to $30MM/awardUp to $50MM/award Evidence Required Reasonable – research findings or hypotheses, including related research or theories in education and other sectors Moderate – either high internal validity and medium external validity, or vice versa Strong – both high internal validity and high external validity Scaling Required Able to further develop and scale Able to be scaled to the regional or state level Able to be scaled to the national, regional, or state level

Applicants 10 Eligible Applicants can be: 1)A local educational agency (LEA) 2)A nonprofit organization in partnership with (a) one or more LEAs or (b) a consortium of schools

Key Definitions: Eligibility 11 Applicant means the entity that applies for a grant under this program on behalf of an eligible applicant (i.e., an LEA or a partnership in accordance with section 14007(a)(1)(B) of the ARRA). Why It Is Important The applicant will, if selected for funding, become the grantee/fiscal agent

Key Definitions: Eligibility 12 The definition used under ESEA applies to the i3 program. Under that definition, a local educational agency is a public board of education or other public authority legally constituted within a State for either administrative control or direction of, or to perform a service function for, public elementary schools or secondary schools in a city, county, township, or school district. The definition used under ESEA applies to the i3 program. Under that definition, a local educational agency is a public board of education or other public authority legally constituted within a State for either administrative control or direction of, or to perform a service function for, public elementary schools or secondary schools in a city, county, township, or school district. Why It Is Important The definition of LEA includes: Charter schools that are LEAs Bureau of Indian Education schools Educational service agencies State educational agencies in states where the SEA is the sole educational agency for all public schools

Key Definitions: Eligibility 13 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. Why It Is Important Definition of nonprofit includes public or private institutions of higher education

Key Definitions: Eligibility 14 Consortium of schools means two or more public elementary or secondary schools acting collaboratively for the purpose of applying for and implementing an Investing in Innovation Fund grant jointly with an eligible nonprofit organization. Why It Is Important Consortia are limited to public schools, which includes public charter schools but excludes private schools

Eligibility Requirements: LEA 15 MUST Eligible Applicant: LEA Eligible Applicant: LEA MUST, TO RECEIVE A GRANT Address one absolute priority Demonstrate that it: (a) significantly closed achievement gaps between groups of students or demonstrated success in significantly increasing academic achievement for all groups of students, and (b) made significant improvement in other areas  Establish partnerships with private sector  Secure commitment for required 20% private sector match  Meet the evidence requirement for the type of grant for which it has applied Address one absolute priority Demonstrate that it: (a) significantly closed achievement gaps between groups of students or demonstrated success in significantly increasing academic achievement for all groups of students, and (b) made significant improvement in other areas  Establish partnerships with private sector  Secure commitment for required 20% private sector match  Meet the evidence requirement for the type of grant for which it has applied TO RECEIVE A GRANT, MUST

Eligibility Requirements: Non-Profit with LEA/Consortium 16 MUST Eligible Applicant: Non-profits, in partnership with LEA(s) or a consortium of schools Eligible Applicant: Non-profits, in partnership with LEA(s) or a consortium of schools Address one absolute priority  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  Secure commitment for required 20% private sector match  Meet the evidence requirement for the type of grant for which they have applied Address one absolute priority  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  Secure commitment for required 20% private sector match  Meet the evidence requirement for the type of grant for which they have applied TO RECEIVE A GRANT, MUST

Key Definition: Partners 17 Official partner means any of the entities required to be part of a partnership under section 14007(a)(1)(B) of the ARRA (i.e., a non-profit organization, an LEA, or a consortium of schools). Other partner means any entity, other than the applicant and any official partner, that may be involved in a proposed project. 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 that was the applicant, and became the grantee when the partnership was selected to receive an award, may make subgrants to one or more of the official partners Why It Is Important

Grantee/Fiscal Agent 18 The grantee is the fiscal agent, the party responsible for implementation of the grant and proper use of i3 grant funds –If an application is submitted by an LEA, applying on its own, the LEA is the grantee and the fiscal agent if selected for funding –If an application is submitted by a partnership that consists of a nonprofit organization and either one or more LEAs or a consortium of schools, any official partner can be the lead applicant and would become the grantee and fiscal agent if selected for funding

All Eligible Applicants Must Implement Practices, Strategies, or Programs for High-need Students 19 MUST 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, who are far below grade level, who are over- age and under-credited, who have left school before receiving a regular high school diploma, who are at risk of not graduating with a regular high school diploma on time, who are homeless, who are in foster care, who have been incarcerated, who have disabilities, or who are limited English proficient.

Types of Awards Available Under i3 20 i3 Development Validation Scale-up Estimated Funding Available Up to $5MM/awardUp to $30MM/awardUp to $50MM/award Evidence Required Reasonable – research findings or hypotheses, including related research or theories in education and other sectors Moderate – either high internal validity and medium external validity, or vice versa Strong – both high internal validity and high external validity Scaling Required Able to further develop and scale Able to be scaled to the regional or state level Able to be scaled to the national, regional, or state level

Grant Types and Evidence 22 All applications must meet the evidence requirement for the type of grant they are seeking 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 is judged by reviewers not to meet the “standards of evidence” of the grant type applied for, it will not be considered for a different type of i3 grant The strength of evidence presented by an applicant is also a selection criterion

Strong Evidence: Scale-up 23 Internal Validity and External Validity Evidence from previous studies whose designs can support causal conclusions (i.e., studies with high internal validity), and studies that in total include enough of the range of participants and settings to support scaling up to the State, regional, or national level (i.e., studies with high external validity) Practice, Strategy, or Program in Prior Research The same as that proposed for support under the Scale-up grant Participants and Settings in Prior Research Included the kinds of participants and settings proposed to receive the treatment under the Scale-up grant Significance of Effect Effect in prior research was statistically significant, and would be likely to be statistically significant in a sample of the size proposed for the Scale-up grant Magnitude of EffectBased on prior research, substantial and important for the target population for the Scale-up project

Strong Evidence: Scale-up (cont’d) 24 Examples of Strong Evidence (1)More than one well-designed and well- implemented experimental study or well- designed and well- implemented quasi- experimental study; or (2)One large, well-designed and well- implemented randomized controlled, multisite trial

Moderate Evidence: Validation 25 Internal Validity and External Validity Evidence from previous studies whose designs can support causal conclusions (i.e., studies with high internal validity) but have limited generalizability (i.e., moderate external validity), or studies with high external validity but moderate internal validity Practice, Strategy, or Program in Prior Research The same as, or very similar to, that proposed for support under the Validation grant Participants and Settings in Prior Research Participants or settings may have been more limited than those proposed to receive the treatment under the Validation grant Significance of Effect Effect in prior research would be likely to be statistically significant in a sample of the size proposed for the Validation grant Magnitude of EffectBased on prior research, substantial and important, with the potential of the same for the target population for the Validation project

Moderate Evidence: Validation (cont’d) 26 Examples of Moderate Evidence (1)At least one well-designed and well-implemented experimental or quasi-experimental study, with small sample sizes or other conditions of implementation or analysis that limit generalizability; (2)At least one well-designed and well-implemented experimental or quasi-experimental study that does not demonstrate equivalence between the intervention and comparison groups at program entry but that has no other major flaws related to internal validity; or (3)Correlational research with strong statistical controls for selection bias and for discerning the influence of internal factors

Reasonable Hypothesis: Development 27 Internal Validity and External Validity Theory and reported practice suggest the potential for efficacy for at least some participants and settings Practice, Strategy, or Program in Prior Research The same as, or similar to, that proposed for support under the Development grant Participants and Settings in Prior Research Participants or settings may have been more limited than those proposed to receive the treatment under the Development grant Significance of EffectPractice, strategy, or program warrants further study to investigate efficacy Magnitude of EffectBased on prior implementation, promising for the target population for the Development project

Reasonable Hypothesis: Development (cont’d) 28 Example of Reasonable Hypothesis (1)Evidence that the proposed practice, strategy, or program, or one similar to it, has been attempted previously, albeit on a limited scale or in a limited setting, and yielded promising results that suggest that more formal and systematic study is warranted; and (2) A rationale for the proposed practice, strategy, or program that is based on research findings or reasonable hypotheses, including related research or theories in education and other sectors

30 Improve Achievement for High-Need Students Teacher and Principal Effectiveness Improved Use of Data Systems Improved Use of Data Systems College- and Career-ready Standards and High Quality Assessments College- and Career-ready Standards and High Quality Assessments Improving Achievement in Persistently Low- performing Schools Early Learning (0 or 1 point) Early Learning (0 or 1 point) College Access and Success (0 or 1 point) College Access and Success (0 or 1 point) Serving Students with Disabilities and Limited English Proficient Students (0 or 1 point) Serving Students with Disabilities and Limited English Proficient Students (0 or 1 point) Serving Students in Rural LEAs (0, 1, or 2 points) Serving Students in Rural LEAs (0, 1, or 2 points) i3 Absolute Priorities Required for all applications Must select one (Absolute Priority) May select one or more (Competitive Preference)

31 Absolute Priority 1: Innovations that Support Effective Teachers and Principals Under this priority, the Department provides funding to support practices, strategies, or programs that are designed to increase the number or percentages of teachers or principals who are highly effective teachers or principals or reduce the number or percentages of teachers or principals who are ineffective, especially for teachers of high-need students, by identifying, recruiting, developing, placing, rewarding, and retaining highly effective teachers or principals (or removing ineffective teachers or principals). In such initiatives, teacher or principal effectiveness should be determined through an evaluation system that is rigorous, transparent, and fair; performance should be differentiated using multiple rating categories of effectiveness; multiple measures of effectiveness should be taken into account, with data on student growth as a significant factor; and the measures should be designed and developed with teacher and principal involvement.

32 Notes on Absolute Priority 1 “…increase the number or percentages of teachers or principals who are highly effective teachers or principals or reduce the number or percentages of teachers or principals who are ineffective, especially for teachers of high-need students…” “…by identifying, recruiting, developing, placing, rewarding, and retaining highly effective teachers or principals (or removing ineffective teachers or principals).” “…teacher or principal effectiveness should be determined through an evaluation system that is rigorous, transparent, and fair; performance should be differentiated using multiple rating categories of effectiveness; multiple measures of effectiveness should be taken into account, with data on student growth as a significant factor, and the measures should be designed and developed with teacher and principal involvement.” Two Possible Routes Multiple Measures of Effectiveness Multiple Methods

33 Absolute Priority 1: Key Definitions 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. 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, achieve high rates (e.g., one and one-half grade levels in an academic year) of student growth. Eligible applicants may include multiple measures.

34 Absolute Priority 1: Key Definitions Student growth means the change in student achievement data for an individual student between two or more points in time. Growth may be measured by a variety of approaches… Student achievement means (a)For tested grades and subjects: (1) A student’s score on the State’s assessments under section 1111(b)(3) of the ESEA; and, as appropriate, (2) other measures of student learning, such as those described in paragraph (b) of this definition, provided they are rigorous and comparable across classrooms; and (b) For non-tested grades and subjects: alternative measures of student learning and performance such as student scores on pre-tests and end-of-course tests; student performance on English language proficiency assessments; and other measures of student achievement that are rigorous and comparable across classrooms. Student achievement means (a)For tested grades and subjects: (1) A student’s score on the State’s assessments under section 1111(b)(3) of the ESEA; and, as appropriate, (2) other measures of student learning, such as those described in paragraph (b) of this definition, provided they are rigorous and comparable across classrooms; and (b) For non-tested grades and subjects: alternative measures of student learning and performance such as student scores on pre-tests and end-of-course tests; student performance on English language proficiency assessments; and other measures of student achievement that are rigorous and comparable across classrooms.

Under this priority, the Department provides funding to support strategies, practices, or programs that are designed to (a) encourage and facilitate the evaluation, analysis, and use of student achievement or student growth data by educators, families, and other stakeholders inform decision-making and improve student achievement, student growth, or teacher, principal, school, or LEA performance and productivity; or (b) enable data aggregation, analysis, and research. Where LEAs and schools are required to do so under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA), these data must be disaggregated using the student subgroups described in section 1111(b)(3)(C)(xiii) of the ESEA (i.e., economically disadvantaged students, students from major racial and ethnic groups, migrant students, students with limited English proficiency, students with disabilities, and student gender). 35 Absolute Priority 2: Innovations that Improve the Use of Data

36 Notes on Absolute Priority 2 “…(a) encourage and facilitate the evaluation, analysis, and use of student achievement or student growth data by educators, families, and other stakeholders in order to inform decision- making and improve student achievement, student growth, or teacher, principal, school, or LEA performance and productivity; or (b) enable data aggregation, analysis, and research” “…data must be disaggregated using the student subgroups described in section 1111(b)(3)(C)(xiii) of the ESEA…” Two Possible Areas of Focus Data Disaggregation

37 Absolute Priority 2: Key Definitions Student growth means the change in student achievement data for an individual student between two or more points in time. Growth may be measured by a variety of approaches… Student achievement means (a)For tested grades and subjects: (1) A student’s score on the State’s assessments under section 1111(b)(3) of the ESEA; and, as appropriate, (2) other measures of student learning, such as those described in paragraph (b) of this definition, provided they are rigorous and comparable across classrooms; and (b) For non-tested grades and subjects: alternative measures of student learning and performance such as student scores on pre-tests and end-of-course tests; student performance on English language proficiency assessments; and other measures of student achievement that are rigorous and comparable across classrooms. Student achievement means (a)For tested grades and subjects: (1) A student’s score on the State’s assessments under section 1111(b)(3) of the ESEA; and, as appropriate, (2) other measures of student learning, such as those described in paragraph (b) of this definition, provided they are rigorous and comparable across classrooms; and (b) For non-tested grades and subjects: alternative measures of student learning and performance such as student scores on pre-tests and end-of-course tests; student performance on English language proficiency assessments; and other measures of student achievement that are rigorous and comparable across classrooms.

38 Absolute Priority 3: Innovations that Complement the Implementation of High Standards and High-Quality Assessments Under this priority, the Department provides funding for practices, strategies, or programs that are designed to support States’ efforts to transition to standards and assessments that measure students’ progress toward college and career-readiness, including curricular and instructional practices, strategies, or programs in core academic subjects (as defined in section 9101(11) of the ESEA) that are aligned with high academic content and achievement standards and with high-quality assessments based on those standards. Proposed projects may include, but are not limited to, practices, strategies, or programs that are designed to: (a) increase the success of underrepresented student populations in academically rigorous courses and programs (such as Advanced Placement or International Baccalaureate courses; dual- enrollment programs; “early college high schools;” and science, technology, engineering, and mathematics courses, especially those that incorporate rigorous and relevant project-, inquiry-, or design-based contextual learning opportunities); (b) increase the development and use of formative assessments or interim assessments, or other performance-based tools and “metrics” that are aligned with high student content and academic achievement standards; or (c) translate the standards and information from assessments into classroom practices that meet the needs of all students, including high-need students. Under this priority, an eligible applicant must propose a project that is based on standards that are at least as rigorous as its State’s standards. If the proposed project is based on standards other than those adopted by the eligible applicant’s State, the applicant must explain how the standards are aligned with and at least as rigorous as the eligible applicant’s State’s standards as well as how the standards differ.

39 Notes on Absolute Priority 3 “…standards and assessments that measure students’ progress toward college and career-readiness…” “…may include, but are not limited to, … (a)increase the success of underrepresented student populations in academically rigorous courses and programs…; (b)increase the development and use of formative assessments or interim assessments, or other performance-based tools and “metrics” that are aligned with high student content and academic achievement standards; or (c)translate the standards and information from assessments into classroom practices that meet the needs of all students, including high-need students. “…eligible applicant must propose a project that is based on standards that are at least as rigorous as its State’s standards…” Focus on College & Career Readiness Range of Allowable Projects Rigorous Standards

40 Absolute Priority 3: Key Definitions Core academic subjects means “English, reading or language arts, mathematics, science, foreign languages, civics and government, economics, arts, history, and geography.” The Department interprets the core academic subject of “science” to include STEM education (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics). Core academic subjects means “English, reading or language arts, mathematics, science, foreign languages, civics and government, economics, arts, history, and geography.” The Department interprets the core academic subject of “science” to include STEM education (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics).

41 Absolute Priority 4: Innovations that Turn Around Persistently Low-Performing Schools Under this priority, the Department provides funding to support strategies, practices, or programs that are designed to turn around schools that are in any of the following categories: (a) Persistently lowest- achieving schools (as defined in the final requirements for the School Improvement Grants program); (b) Title I schools that are in corrective action or restructuring under section 1116 of the ESEA; or (c) secondary schools (both middle and high schools) eligible for but not receiving Title I funds that, if receiving Title I funds, would be in corrective action or restructuring under section 1116 of the ESEA. These schools are referred to as Investing in Innovation Fund Absolute Priority 4 schools. Proposed projects must include strategies, practices, or programs that are designed to turn around Investing in Innovation Fund Absolute Priority 4 schools through either whole-school reform or targeted approaches to reform. Applicants addressing this priority must focus on either: (a) Whole-school reform, including, but not limited to, comprehensive interventions to assist, augment, or replace Investing in Innovation Fund Absolute Priority 4 schools, including the school turnaround, restart, closure, and transformation models of intervention supported under the Department’s School Improvement Grants program (see Final Requirements for School Improvement Grants as Amended in January 2010 (January 28, 2010) at http://www2.ed.gov/programs/sif/faq.html); or (b) Targeted approaches to reform, including, but not limited to: (1) Providing more time for students to learn core academic content by expanding or augmenting the school day, school week, or school year, or by increasing instructional time for core academic subjects (as defined in section 9101(11) of the ESEA); (2) integrating ‘‘student supports’’ into the school model to address non-academic barriers to student achievement; or (3) creating multiple pathways for students to earn regular high school diplomas (e.g., by operating schools that serve the needs of over-aged, under-credited, or other students with an exceptional need for support and flexibility pertaining to when they attend school; awarding credit based on demonstrated evidence of student competency; and offering dual-enrollment options).

42 Absolute Priority 4: Innovations that Turn Around Persistently Low-Performing Schools “Whole-school reform, including, but not limited to, comprehensive interventions to assist, augment, or replace Investing in Innovation Fund Absolute Priority 4 schools, including the school turnaround, restart, closure, and transformation models of intervention … or …” “Targeted approaches to reform, including, but not limited to: (1)Providing more time for students to learn core academic content by expanding or augmenting the school day, school week, or school year, or by increasing instructional time for core academic subjects (2)integrating ‘‘student supports’’ into the school model to address non-academic barriers to student achievement (3)creating multiple pathways for students to earn regular high school diplomas” Projects May Choose Either Approach

43 i3 Priority 4 Schools Elementary Schools Title 1 schools in corrective action or restructuring Title 1 schools in improvement and in the lowest-achieving five percent (or lowest- achieving five schools) Middle Schools Elementary school categories + Title 1 eligible schools that would be in corrective action or restructuring High Schools Elementary and middle school categories + Title 1 eligible schools with a graduation rate lower than 60% over a number of years

44 Absolute Priority 4: Key Definitions Persistently lowest-achieving schools means: (1) any Title I school in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring that: (i)is among the lowest-achieving five percent of Title I schools in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring or the lowest-achieving five Title I schools in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring in the State, whichever number of schools is greater; or (ii) is a high school that has had a graduation rate as defined in 34 CFR 200.19(b) that is less than 60 percent over a number of years; (2) any secondary school that is eligible for, but does not receive, Title I funds that (i) is among the lowest-achieving five percent of secondary schools or the lowest-achieving five secondary schools in the State that are eligible for, but do not receive, Title I funds, whichever number of schools is greater; or (ii) is a high school that has had a graduation rate as defined in 34 CFR 200.19(b) that is less than 60 percent over a number of years. Persistently lowest-achieving schools means: (1) any Title I school in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring that: (i)is among the lowest-achieving five percent of Title I schools in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring or the lowest-achieving five Title I schools in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring in the State, whichever number of schools is greater; or (ii) is a high school that has had a graduation rate as defined in 34 CFR 200.19(b) that is less than 60 percent over a number of years; (2) any secondary school that is eligible for, but does not receive, Title I funds that (i) is among the lowest-achieving five percent of secondary schools or the lowest-achieving five secondary schools in the State that are eligible for, but do not receive, Title I funds, whichever number of schools is greater; or (ii) is a high school that has had a graduation rate as defined in 34 CFR 200.19(b) that is less than 60 percent over a number of years.

45 Improve Achievement for High-Need Students Teacher and Principal Effectiveness Improved Use of Data Systems Improved Use of Data Systems College- and Career-ready Standards and High Quality Assessments College- and Career-ready Standards and High Quality Assessments Improving Achievement in Persistently Low- performing Schools Early Learning (0 or 1 point) Early Learning (0 or 1 point) College Access and Success (0 or 1 point) College Access and Success (0 or 1 point) Serving Students with Disabilities and Limited English Proficient Students (0 or 1 point) Serving Students with Disabilities and Limited English Proficient Students (0 or 1 point) Serving Students in Rural LEAs (0, 1, or 2 points) Serving Students in Rural LEAs (0, 1, or 2 points) i3 Competitive Preference Priorities Required for all applications Must select one (Absolute Priority) May select one or more (Competitive Preference)

46 Explanation of Competitive Preference Priorities Applicants for all types of grants may, but are not required to, address any one or more of the four competitive preference priorities Points will be awarded depending on how well the applicant addresses a particular competitive preference priority, based on the judgment of the peer reviewers The four competitive preference priorities are: –Innovations for Improving Early Learning Outcomes (0 or 1 Point) –Innovations That Support College Access and Success (0 or 1 Point) –Innovations to Address the Unique Learning Needs of Students With Disabilities and Limited English Proficient Students (0 or 1 Point) –Innovations That Serve Schools in Rural LEAs (Up to 2 Points)

47 Competitive Preference Priority 5: Innovations for Improving Early Learning Outcomes We give competitive preference to applications for projects that would implement innovative practices, strategies, or programs that are designed to improve educational outcomes for high-need students who are young children (birth through 3rd grade) by enhancing the quality of early learning programs. To meet this priority, applications must focus on (a) improving young children’s school readiness (including social, emotional, and cognitive readiness) so that children are prepared for success in core academic subjects (as defined in section 9101(11) of the ESEA); (b) improving developmental milestones and standards and aligning them with appropriate outcome measures; and (c) improving alignment, collaboration, and transitions between early learning programs that serve children from birth to age three, in preschools, and in kindergarten through third grade.

48 Notes on Competitive Preference Priority 5 “…improve educational outcomes for high- need students who are young children (birth through 3rd grade) by enhancing the quality of early learning programs” “…(a) improving young children’s school readiness (including social, emotional, and cognitive readiness) so that children are prepared for success in core academic subjects (as defined in section 9101(11) of the ESEA); (b) improving developmental milestones and standards and aligning them with appropriate outcome measures; and (c) improving alignment, collaboration, and transitions between early learning programs that serve children from birth to age three, in preschools, and in kindergarten through third grade…” Focus on High- need Children Projects Must Address All 3

49 Competitive Preference Priority 6: Innovations that Support College Access and Success We give competitive preference to applications for projects that would implement innovative practices, strategies, or programs that are designed to enable kindergarten through grade 12 (K–12) students, particularly high school students, to successfully prepare for, enter, and graduate from a two- or four-year college. To meet this priority, applications must include practices, strategies, or programs for K–12 students that (a) address students’ preparedness and expectations related to college; (b) help students understand issues of college affordability and the financial aid and college application processes; and (c) provide support to students from peers and knowledgeable adults.

50 Competitive Preference Priority 6: Innovations that Support College Access and Success “… enable kindergarten through grade 12 (K–12) students, particularly high school students, to successfully prepare for, enter, and graduate from a two- or four-year college…” “…(a) address students’ preparedness and expectations related to college; (b) help students understand issues of college affordability and the financial aid and college application processes; and (c) provide support to students from peers and knowledgeable adults.” Focus on College Graduation Projects Must Address All 3

51 Competitive Preference Priority 7: Innovations to Address the Unique Learning Needs of Students with Disabilities and Limited English Proficient Students We give competitive preference to applications for projects that would implement innovative practices, strategies, or programs that are designed to address the unique learning needs of students with disabilities, including those who are assessed based on alternate academic achievement standards, or the linguistic and academic needs of limited English proficient students. To meet this priority, applications must provide for the implementation of particular practices, strategies, or programs that are designed to improve academic outcomes, close achievement gaps, and increase college- and career-readiness, including increasing high school graduation rates (as defined in this notice), for students with disabilities or limited English proficient students.

52 Notes on Competitive Preference Priority 7 “…address the unique learning needs of students with disabilities, including those who are assessed based on alternate academic achievement standards, or the linguistic and academic needs of limited English proficient students.” “…must provide for the implementation of particular practices, strategies, or programs that are designed to improve academic outcomes, close achievement gaps, and increase college- and career-readiness, including increasing high school graduation rates (as defined in this notice), for students with disabilities or limited English proficient students.” Focus on Either Student Population Projects That Improve Specific Outcomes

53 Competitive Preference Priority 7: Key Definitions 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.

54 Competitive Preference Priority 8: Innovations that Serve Schools in Rural LEAs We give competitive preference to applications for projects that would implement innovative practices, strategies, or programs that are designed to focus on the unique challenges of high- need students in schools within a rural LEA (as defined in this notice) and address the particular challenges faced by students in these schools. To meet this priority, applications must include practices, strategies, or programs that are designed to improve student achievement or student growth, close achievement gaps, decrease dropout rates, increase high school graduation rates, or improve teacher and principal effectiveness in one or more rural LEAs.

55 Notes on Competitive Preference Priority 8 “…focus on the unique challenges of high- need students in schools within a rural LEA…” “…must include practices, strategies, or programs that are designed to improve student achievement or student growth, close achievement gaps, decrease dropout rates, increase high school graduation rates, or improve teacher and principal effectiveness in one or more rural LEAs.” Focus on Specific Locations Projects May Address Range of Outcomes

56 Competitive Preference Priority 8: Key Definitions Rural LEA means an LEA that is eligible under the Small Rural School Achievement program or the Rural and Low- Income School program authorized under Title VI, Part B of the ESEA.

Notes on i3 Selection Criteria and Points 59 The selection criteria are worded slightly differently for each grant type The points assigned to each selection criterion vary by grant type Detailed wording for each selection criterion may be found in the Notices at the i3 website: http://www.ed.gov/programs/innovation/index.html http://www.ed.gov/programs/innovation/index.html

i3 Selection Criteria and Points 60 * Development grants will be judged in two tiers: all eligible applications will be scored on Criteria A, C, E, F, and G and the competitive preference priorities; then high-scoring applications will be scored on Criteria B and D by a different panel of reviewers. Selection CriteriaDevelopmentValidationScale-Up A.Need for the Project and Quality of the Project Design 252015 B.Strength of Research, Significance of Effect and Magnitude of Effect 10*1520 C.Experience of the Eligible Applicant 252015 D.Quality of the Project Evaluation 15*15 E.Strategy and Capacity to Bring to Scale or to Further Develop and Bring to Scale 51015 F.Sustainability 10 G.Quality of the Management Plan and Personnel 10 Total Points 100

Competitive Preference Priorities and Points 61 Early Learning College Access and Success Serving Students with Disabilities and Limited English Proficient Students Serving Students in Rural LEAs POSSIBLE TOTAL 0 or 1 Point Up to 2 Points 5 Points

i3 Peer Review Process 62 For all three grant types… The Department will use independent peer reviewers from various backgrounds and professions who have been thoroughly screened for conflicts of interest Evidence and evaluation experts will score the selection criteria (B and D) focused on evidence and evaluation Peer reviewers will determine whether any competitive preference priority points should be added Development Only… Scale-Up Only… Scale-Up finalists may be invited to an in-person interview in which they may clarify elements of their application to a panel of reviewers – finalists will not be able to present new information. Development applications will be reviewed in a two tier process –In Tier 1, all eligible applicants will be reviewed and scored against Selection Criteria A, C, E, F and G. Competitive Preference Points will also be added as appropriate by peer reviewers. –Only those highest rated in Tier 1 will advance to Tier 2, where selection criteria (B and D) will be scored

Key Requirements That Must Be Met Before an Award Is Made 64 The Department, before awarding i3 grants, will confirm that all eligibility requirements have been met by potential grantees, including: Requirements related to evidence –Scale-up applications must be supported by strong evidence –Validation applications must be supported by moderate evidence –Development applications must be supported by a reasonable hypothesis Evidence of an adequate match has been provided

i3 Matching Requirement 65 An eligible applicant must obtain matching funds or in-kind donations equal to at least 20 percent of its grant award. Selected eligible applicants must submit evidence of the full 20 percent private-sector matching funds following the peer review of applications. Only contributions from non-governmental (private) sources count towards the 20 percent matching requirement Contributions may be cash or in-kind Eligible applicants may count existing private sector support towards the required match so long as these funds are reallocated in support of the proposed project, and the applicant submits appropriate evidence of this commitment

i3 Matching Requirement 66 Pre- submission Applicants may begin to secure matching funds Applicants may indicate in their application whether they have already secured matching funds A pre-secured match will have no competitive impact Post - Peer Review Eligible applicants will be notified if they are “highest- rated” Highest-rated applicants will have several weeks to secure the 20% match and provide evidence of that match If applicant cannot secure its match, ED may award to a highly-rated applicant that can secure a match

Explanation of Limits on Grant Awards 67 Award Cap No grantee may receive more than two grant awards under this program. In addition, no grantee may receive more than $55 million in grant awards under this program in a single year’s competition. Award Cap No grantee may receive more than two grant awards under this program. In addition, no grantee may receive more than $55 million in grant awards under this program in a single year’s competition. Allowable Examples Scale-up ($50M) + Development ($5M) 2 Validation ($25M each) Validation ($30M) + Development ($5M) Allowable Examples Scale-up ($50M) + Development ($5M) 2 Validation ($25M each) Validation ($30M) + Development ($5M) Unallowable Examples 2 Scale-up ($40M each) Scale-up ($50M) + Validation ($30M) 3 Development ($5M) Unallowable Examples 2 Scale-up ($40M each) Scale-up ($50M) + Validation ($30M) 3 Development ($5M) Notes: Applicants with more than 2 highest-rated applications may select which 2 applications receive awards, consistent with the Award Cap The Award Cap applies to the applicant; official partners and other partners may participate in more than 2 successful applications Notes: Applicants with more than 2 highest-rated applications may select which 2 applications receive awards, consistent with the Award Cap The Award Cap applies to the applicant; official partners and other partners may participate in more than 2 successful applications

Post Award Requirements 69 MUST All i3 Grantees MUST Evaluation –Conduct an independent project evaluation* –Cooperate with technical assistance provided by the Department and its program evaluation contractor –Share broadly the results of any evaluation (and data sets for Validation and Scale-up) Participate in, organize, or facilitate, as appropriate, communities of practice for the i3 program Evaluation –Conduct an independent project evaluation* –Cooperate with technical assistance provided by the Department and its program evaluation contractor –Share broadly the results of any evaluation (and data sets for Validation and Scale-up) Participate in, organize, or facilitate, as appropriate, communities of practice for the i3 program MUST * Note: The quality of an applicant’s project evaluation is also a selection criterion.

Important i3 Dates 71 Notices Published in Federal Register:March 12, 2010 Technical Assistance: Informational Conference Calls:March and April 2010 Pre-Application Workshops:March 19 (Baltimore) March 24 (Denver) March 30 (Atlanta) Other Events:TBD Applications: Intent to Apply Due:April 1, 2010 Applications Due:May 11, 2010, 4:30:00 PM DC Time Applications Reviewed:Late Spring/ Summer 2010 All Grant Awards Announced: September 2010

Submitting Intent to Apply 72 Intent to Apply Due: April 1, 2010 Information Requested A.Applicant’s name, address and contact person’s email B.Type of applicant (LEA or Nonprofit applying in partnership with LEAs or consortium of schools) C.Type of grant for which the applicant intends to apply (Development, Validation, or Scale-up) D.The one absolute priority the applicant intends to address E.All competitive preference priorities the applicant intends to address i3intent@ed.gov

Other Important Resources 73 Investing in Innovation Fund Website: (http://www.ed.gov/programs/innovation/index.html)http://www.ed.gov/programs/innovation/index.html  Notice of Final Priorities, Requirements, Definitions, and Selection Criteria  Application Package (includes the Notice Inviting Applications)  Eligibility Checklists  Frequently Asked Questions  Evidence Summary Table  Selection Criteria Summary Table  i3 Overview (PowerPoint)  i3 At-A-Glance (Quick Reference)  Call for Peer Reviewers: http://www.ed.gov/programs/innovation/peerreviewers.html http://www.ed.gov/programs/innovation/peerreviewers.html Open Innovation Portal: https://innovation.ed.govhttps://innovation.ed.gov All questions about i3 may be sent to i3@ed.govi3@ed.gov All questions about i3 may be sent to i3@ed.govi3@ed.gov

Summary Document March 2010 Investing in Innovation (i3) Fund Pre-Application Workshop Note: These slides are intended as guidance only. Please refer to.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Summary Document March 2010 Investing in Innovation (i3) Fund Pre-Application Workshop Note: These slides are intended as guidance only. Please refer to."— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

Summary Document March 2010 Investing in Innovation (i3) Fund Pre-Application Workshop Note: These slides are intended as guidance only. Please refer to.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Summary Document March 2010 Investing in Innovation (i3) Fund Pre-Application Workshop Note: These slides are intended as guidance only. Please refer to."— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback