Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
Published byCaitlin Hodge Modified over 8 years ago
1
Investing in Innovation (i3) Pre-Application Webinar Development Competition Overview April 2013 Note: These slides are intended as guidance only. Please refer to the official documents published in the Federal Register.
2
General Information A Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) document is available on the i3 website: http://www2.ed.gov/programs/innovation/faq.html.http://www2.ed.gov/programs/innovation/faq.html This document addresses many questions that applicants have asked previously. The Department may update it throughout the competition with questions that applicants submit that are of general applicability. The Department is unable to address applicant-specific questions at any time during the competition. The Department will hold a live webinar session on April 16, 2013 at 2 PM EDT to address applicant questions related to the information presented today. If you have questions prior to that date, please send them to i3@ed.gov.i3@ed.gov 2
3
Sections of Webinar Overview of i3 Program Major Changes from 2012 Eligibility Evidence Priorities Selection Criteria & Review Process Pre- & Post-Award Requirements Closing 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 and to serve substantially larger numbers of students. Funding $135 million (est.) to be obligated by December 31, 2013. 4
5
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 5
6
What Makes i3 Different? Builds portfolio of different solutions to address key challenges; Aligns amount of funding with level of evidence; Aims explicitly to scale effective programs by creating a pipeline of funding for effective programs; and Provides funding for required independent evaluation in order to build a common understanding of “what works.” 6
7
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 or state level Able to be scaled to the national level *$135M (est.) to be obligated by December 31, 2013 7
8
Cautions from First Three Competitions SUBMIT EARLY – The deadline for pre-applications is Friday, April 26 th at 4:30:00pm (Washington, DC time). We will reject applications submitted after the deadline, and some applicants find it takes longer than anticipated to submit in Grants.gov.Grants.gov WRITE CLEARLY – Peer reviewers can only judge your application based on what you tell them, clearly and comprehensively, in your application. UNDERSTAND ELIGIBILITY – We will declare applicants ineligible for funding if they do not meet all of the eligibility requirements. READ THE NOTICES and FAQs, UNDERSTAND THE REQUIREMENTS, AND PLAN AHEAD 8
9
Sections of Webinar Overview of i3 Program Major Changes from 2012 Eligibility Evidence Priorities Selection Criteria & Review Process Pre- & Post-Award Requirements Closing 9
10
Major Changes from 2012 In the i3 Notice of Final Priorities (the 2013 i3 NFP) published on March 27, 2013, the Department redesigned key aspects of the i3 program to increase the program’s impact.i3 Notice of Final Priorities Structure of priorities remains similar but priority language is more focused Includes many of the same broad priority areas (e.g., teacher and principal effectiveness); Maintains flexibility to select different priorities for each grant competition; Creates specific sub-parts to reflect needs in the field; and Strengthens rural priority. Proposed requirements better reflect actual expectations for grantees Strengthens focus on high-need students; Strengthens focus on K-12; and Tightens focus of grantee evaluation on impact. 10
11
Major Changes from 2012 (cont’d) Revised evidence standards and definitions so that applicants can better understand what is required to meet each level of evidence Development applicants must identify the evidence standard under which they are submitting their applications (i.e., evidence of promise or strong theory) Modified the process for applicants to secure, and demonstrate evidence of, the required private-sector match. Development applicants must secure 15 percent of their Federal grant awards but the timeframe has been expanded. Highest-rated applicants must submit evidence of 50% of the required private-sector match prior to the awarding of an i3 grant. Evidence of the remaining 50% of the required private-sector match must be provided no later than six months after the project start date (i.e., 6 months after January 1, 2014, or by July 1, 2014). 11
12
Full i3 Development Cycle Pre-App Period Department published pre-application package. Applicants register early on Grants.gov and SAM. Applicants develop pre-application (7 pages). Applicants submit pre-application through Grants.gov.Grants.gov. Pre-application peer review Department announces highly rated pre-applications Full App Period Department publishes full application package. Highly-rated pre-applicants invited to submit full application (25 pages) and other pre-applicants who choose to submit a full application, including project partners and evaluation plans. Highly-rated pre-applicants submit full application through Grants.gov.Grants.gov Full application peer review Department eligibility review, incl. evidence and prior record of improvement Department announces highest-rated full applications Matching Period Highest-rated full applicants secure evidence of at least 50% of required private-sector match. Highest-rated full applicants submit evidence to the Department for approval and confirmation. Department announces awardees. 12
13
Sections of Webinar Overview of i3 Program Major Changes from 2012 Eligibility Evidence Priorities Selection Criteria & Review Process Pre- & Post-Award Requirements Closing 13
14
MUST All Eligible Applicants Must Implement Practices, Strategies, or Programs for High-Need Students 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 the NFP), 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. Note: To be eligible for an i3 award, an applicant must identify how the proposed project serves high-need student populations. However, while the definition provides examples of high-need students, it does not attempt to define all possible populations. Applicants must identify how their project serves high-need students. 14
15
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. 15
16
Understanding Partnerships and Eligibility If you apply as… An LEA…A partnership… The LEA that is the lead applicant must have a record of improvement (defined on the next slide). There may not be any subgrants. Partners may receive funding through contractual arrangements, or participate in other ways. A non-profit that is part of the partnership must have a record of improvement (defined on the next slide). Any LEA or school in the consortium, or the non- profit with a record of improvement, can be the lead applicant. Sub-granting is allowed, but only to LEAs or schools in the consortium, or to non-profits that have a record of improvement. Partners may receive funding through contractual arrangements, or participate in other ways. 16
17
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. 17
18
Some Eligibility Requirements Apply to Both Types of Applicants All applicants must: 1.Address one absolute priority. 2.Meet the evidence requirement – for Development grantees: evidence of promise or strong theory. 3.Secure commitment for required private sector match – for Development grantees: 15% of the federal award. 18
19
Notes on Eligibility Requirements Applicants do not need to address eligibility in the pre- application, but should keep it in mind if invited to submit a full application. Applicants should fully address all eligibility requirements in the full application. IMPORTANT: Applicants that do not sufficiently address the eligibility requirements in the full application will not be able to supplement their original application with additional information to meet the requirements if they are deemed ineligible. 19
20
Sections of Webinar Overview of i3 Program Major Changes from 2012 Eligibility Evidence Priorities Selection Criteria & Review Process Pre- & Post-Award Requirements Closing 20
21
i3 Evidence Requirements 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 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. 21
22
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 22 Strong TheoryEvidence of Promise 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
23
Development Grant Evidence Requirements Pre- Application Full Application Applicants are not required to address the evidence eligibility requirement in their pre-applications. However, applicants may find it valuable to discuss the evidence in support of their proposed projects in connection with or as justification of the claimed significance or impact. 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. 23
24
Sections of Webinar Overview of i3 Program Major Changes from 2012 Eligibility Evidence Priorities Selection Criteria & Review Process Pre- & Post-Award Requirements Closing 24
25
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 Improving STEM Education English Learners Students with Disabilities Parent and Family Engagement Effective Use of Technology Improving Rural Achievement 25
26
i3 2013 Priority Structure and Subparts The i3 Development Notice Inviting Applications (the NIA) was published in the Federal Register on March 27, 2013. An applicant for a Development grant must choose one of the eight absolute priorities and one of the subparts under the chosen priority to address in their pre-application. Applicants who choose to submit an application under the absolute priority for Serving Rural Communities must identify an additional absolute priority and subpart. 26
27
Absolute Priority 1: Improving the Effectiveness of Teachers or Principals Applicants must address one of the following subpart areas: a)Increasing the 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. Or 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. Addressing equity while changing operating conditions and increasing efficiencies at the school and district level 27
28
Absolute Priority 2: Improving Low- Performing Schools Applicants must address one of the following subpart areas: a)Recruiting, developing, or retaining highly effective staff, specifically teachers, principals, or instructional leaders, to work in low-performing schools. 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 28
29
Absolute Priority 3: Improving Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education Applicants must address the following subpart area: a)Redesigning STEM course content and instructional practices to engage students and increase student achievement (as defined in the NIA). Ensuring that all students can access coursework and can excel in STEM fields 29
30
Absolute Priority 4: Improving Academic Outcomes for Students with Disabilities Applicants must address one of the following subpart areas: a)Designing and implementing teacher evaluation systems that define and measure the effectiveness of special education teachers and related service providers. Or b)Designing and implementing strategies that improve student achievement (as defined in the NIA) 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. Addressing the need to meaningfully integrate teachers of students with disabilities and related service providers into evaluation systems, and mitigating the negative effects of exclusionary school discipline policies 30
31
Absolute Priority 5: Improving Academic Outcomes for English Learners Applicants must address the following subpart area: a)Aligning and implementing the curriculum and instruction used in grades 6-12 for language development and content courses to provide sufficient exposure to, engagement in, and acquisition of academic language and literacy practices necessary for preparing ELs to be college- and career-ready. Ensuring that students who cannot speak, read, or write English well enough to participate meaningfully in educational programs to achieve the academic outcomes of which they are capable 31
32
Absolute Priority 6: Improving Parent and Family Engagement Applicants must address one of the following subpart areas: (a) Developing and implementing initiatives that train parents and families in the skills and strategies that will support their students in improving academic outcomes, including increased engagement and persistence in school. Or (b) Developing tools or practices that provide students and parents with improved, ongoing access to and use of data and other information about students’ progress and performance. Enabling parents to take on an active role in improving their children’s academic performance 32
33
Absolute Priority 7: 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)Developing and implementing technology- enabled strategies for teaching and learning concepts and content (e.g., systems thinking) that are difficult to teach using traditional approaches, such as models and simulations, collaborative virtual environments, or “serious games.” 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 33
34
Absolute Priority 8: Serving Rural Communities Applicants must address the following: (a)Under this priority, we provide funding to projects addressing one of the absolute priorities established for the 2013 Development i3 competition and under which the majority of students to be served are enrolled in rural local educational agencies (as defined in the NIA). Addressing the plethora of challenges that rural communities face as they work to provide a high-quality education for all students 34
35
Notes on Absolute Priority 8: Improving Rural Achievement 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. 35
36
Sections of Webinar Overview of i3 Program Major Changes from 2012 Eligibility Evidence Priorities Selection Criteria & Review Process Pre- & Post-Award Requirements Closing 36
37
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. This presentation includes just the pre-application selection criteria. 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 37
38
i3 Selection Criteria and Points A.Significance 1035 B.Quality of the Project Design 1025 C.Quality of the Management Plan15 D.Personnel10 E.Quality of the Project Evaluation 15 Total Points20100 38 Selection Criteria Development Pre- Application Development Full Application
39
Pre-App Selection Criterion: A. Significance Novel Approach to Addressing Selected Priority Develop and Advance the Field 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. 39
40
Notes on Pre-App Selection Criterion: A. Significance Applicants should make sure that a peer reviewer, after reading the pre-application narrative, would understand: How the proposed project is unique; Why the proposed project will have the impact noted in the application (e.g., prior research or theory, previous small-scale testing); and How the project would advance theory, knowledge, and practice in the field (as opposed to being new or important only for the entities or localities being served with grant funds). 40
41
Pre-App Selection Criterion: B. Quality of the Project Design Addressing the Absolute Priority Clarity of Project Goals and Strategy to Achieve Them The extent to which the proposed project addresses the absolute priority the applicant is seeking to meet. 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). 41
42
Notes on Pre-App Selection Criterion: B. Quality of the Project Design Applicants should make sure that a peer reviewer, after reading the pre-application narrative, would understand: How the applicant will address the absolute priority under which it submits an application; What the applicant proposes to do in the project (i.e., goals and strategy); and How proposed activities relate to goals and strategy. 42
43
Sections of Webinar Overview of i3 Program Major Changes from 2012 Eligibility Evidence Priorities Selection Criteria & Review Process Pre- & Post-Award Requirements Closing 43
44
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; 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 do not need to address eligibility in their pre-applications, but applicants should be aware that they must meet ALL eligibility requirements if they are invited to submit full applications. 44
45
Explanation of Limits on Grant Awards Award Cap No grantee may receive more than two grant awards or more than $23 million in grant awards under this program in FY2013. Additionally, no grantee may receive more than one Scale-up or Validation grant in any two-year period. Allowable Examples Scale-up ($20M) + Development ($3M) Validation ($12M) + Development ($3M) 2 Development ($3M each) Scale-up in 2012 + Development in 2013 Allowable Examples Scale-up ($20M) + Development ($3M) Validation ($12M) + Development ($3M) 2 Development ($3M each) Scale-up in 2012 + Development in 2013 Unallowable Examples 2 Scale-up or Validation Scale-up + Validation Scale-up in 2012 + Validation in 2013 3 Development ($3M each) Unallowable Examples 2 Scale-up or Validation Scale-up + Validation Scale-up in 2012 + Validation in 2013 3 Development ($3M each) Notes: Applicants with more than 2 highest-rated applications may select which 2 applications receive awards The i3 award cap applies to the applicant; official partners and other partners may participate in more than 2 successful applications 2012 Scale-up or Validation grantees may receive up to 2 Development grants in 2013 Notes: Applicants with more than 2 highest-rated applications may select which 2 applications receive awards The i3 award cap applies to the applicant; official partners and other partners may participate in more than 2 successful applications 2012 Scale-up or Validation grantees may receive up to 2 Development grants in 2013 45
46
MUST Post Award Requirements All Grantees Must: Conduct an independent project evaluation.* Cooperate with technical assistance provided by the Department or its contractors. Share broadly the results of any evaluation. Participate in, organize, or facilitate, as appropriate, communities of practice for the i3 program. Provide the Department, within 100 days of grant award, an updated evaluation plan and management plan. * Note: The quality of an applicant’s project evaluation is also a selection criterion in the full application review. 46
47
Sections of Webinar Overview of i3 Program Major Changes from 2012 Eligibility Evidence Priorities Selection Criteria & Review Process Pre- & Post-Award Requirements Closing 47
48
Parts of a Complete Application Part A Project Narrative Form Responses to the Selection Criteria Significance Quality of the Project Design 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/program s/innovation/applicant.html)http://www2.ed.gov/program s/innovation/applicant.html 48
49
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/applicant.html http://www2.ed.gov/programs/innovation/applicant.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. 49
50
Registering for Grants.gov Pre- and full applications for grants under this competition must be submitted electronically using the Grants.gov site (www.Grants.gov).www.Grants.gov In order to apply for an i3 grant, you must complete the Grants.gov registration process. Go to the “Get Registered” link on the left hand side of the Grants.gov homepage. There will be a tutorial on this page that instructs applicants on how to complete the registration process. The registration process can take between three to five business days (or as long as four weeks if all steps are not completed in a timely manner). Please register early! 50
51
Applying Through Grants.gov To apply for an i3 grant, go to the “Apply for Grants” link on the left hand side of the Grants.gov homepage. Next, follow the step-by-step application instructions. The CFDA number you will enter for Step 1 is 84.411. 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 keep a record of it. You can also contact them via email at support@grants.gov. support@grants.gov 51
52
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 Notice Inviting Applications Application Package (includes the Notice Inviting Applications) – posted shortly after NIA publication 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 52
Similar presentations
© 2024 SlidePlayer.com. Inc.
All rights reserved.