1. Investing in Innovation (i3) Pre-Application Webinar Validation and Scale-Up Grant Overview Document March 2012 Note: These slides are intended as guidance only. Please refer to the official documents published in the Federal Register.

2. Note About These Slides The slides that are presented on the recorded pre- application webinar are available for download on the Resources page of the i3 website at: http://www2.ed.gov/programs/innovation/resources.html 2

3. The Department is unable to address applicant-specific questions at any time during the competition. A Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) document is available on the i3 website: http://www2.ed.gov/programs/innovation/faq.htmlhttp://www2.ed.gov/programs/innovation/faq.html This document addresses many questions that applicants have asked previously. The Department also plans to update it throughout the competition with questions that applicants submit that are of general applicability. If you have additional questions, please send them to the i3 email address: i3@ed.govi3@ed.gov 3 A Few Notes on Q&A

4. Sections of Webinar Overview of i3 Program Major Changes from 2011 Eligibility Evidence Priorities Selection Criteria & Review Process Pre- & Post-Award Requirements Closing 4

5. Overview of the i3 Grant Program Purpose 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 Increasing college enrollment and completion rates Funding $140.5 million (est.) to be obligated by December 31, 2012 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 5

6. How We Talk About Innovation Innovation product, process, strategy, or approach that improves significantly upon the status quo and reaches scale Innovation product, process, strategy, or approach that improves significantly upon the status quo and reaches scale Invention Baseline Scale Greater Impact Trend 6 Note: The definition of innovation on this slide is presented as an overview of the concept, not as a specific definition in the i3 program

7. What Makes i3 Different Builds portfolio of different solutions in key areas of reform Aligns amount of funding with level of evidence Aims explicitly to scale effective programs by creating a pipeline of funding for effective programs Provides funding for required independent evaluation in order to build understanding of “what works” 7

8. i3 Development Validation Scale-up Types of Awards Available Under i3 Funding Available Up to $3M/awardUp to $15M/awardUp to $25M/award Estimated Awards 10-201-50-2 Evidence Required Reasonable – research findings or hypotheses, including related research or theories in education and other sectors Moderate – either high internal validity and moderate 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 8

9. Cautions from First Two Competitions SUBMIT EARLY – We will reject applications submitted after the deadline, and some applicants find it takes longer than anticipated to submit WRITE CLEARLY – Peer reviewers can only judge your application based on what you tell them, clearly and comprehensibly, 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 9

10. Sections of Webinar Overview of i3 Program Major Changes from 2011 Eligibility Evidence Priorities Selection Criteria & Review Process Pre- & Post-Award Requirements Closing 10

11. Major Changes from 2011 Absolute Priorities Absolute Priority 1: focused on teachers and principals new, more flexible language allows projects to address targeted components of the teacher and principal human capital pipeline NOTE: Scale-Up and Validation still use a one stage application process. There is no pre-application process, as in this year’s Development competition Scale-Up and Validation do not use the “Parent and Family Engagement” Absolute Priority that was added to Development 11

12. Sections of Webinar Overview of i3 Program Major Changes from 2011 Eligibility Evidence Priorities Selection Criteria & Review Process Pre- & Post-Award Requirements Closing 12

13. 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 Attend high-minority schools Are far below grade level Are over-age and under- credited Have left school before receiving a regular high school diploma Are at risk of not graduating with a regular high school diploma on time, Are homeless Are in foster care Have been incarcerated Have disabilities Are limited English proficient. Are living in poverty Attend high-minority schools Are far below grade level Are over-age and under- credited Have left school before receiving a regular high school diploma Are at risk of not graduating with a regular high school diploma on time, Are homeless Are in foster care Have been incarcerated Have disabilities Are limited English proficient. 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. 13

14. i3 Has Two Types of Eligible Applicants 1)A local educational agency (LEA) 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 14

15. Key Definition: Partners 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. Why It Is Important In the case of a partnership application, the partner that was the applicant, and became the grantee upon receiving the award, may make sub-grants to one or more of the official partners. 15

16. 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 Other 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 Other partners may receive funding through contractual arrangements, or participate in other ways Understanding Partnerships and Eligibility If you apply as… 16

17. MUST MUST, TO RECEIVE A GRANT Some Eligibility Requirements Differ Based on Type of Applicant An LEA applicant must: 1.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 2.Establish partnerships with private sector A partnership must: 1.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. 18 MUST MUST, TO RECEIVE A GRANT Some Eligibility Requirements Apply to Both Types of Applicants All applicants must: 1.Address one absolute priority 2.Meet the evidence requirement For Scale-Up grantees, this is strong evidence. For Validation grantees, this is moderate evidence 3.Secure commitment for required private sector match For Scale-Up grantees, this is 5% of the value of federal funding requested For Validation grantees, this is 10% of the value of the federal funding requested

19. Notes on Eligibility Requirements Applicants should fully address all eligibility requirements in the application IMPORTANT: Applicants that do not sufficiently address the eligibility requirements in the 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 2011 Eligibility Evidence Priorities Selection Criteria & Review Process Pre- & Post-Award Requirements Closing 20

21. Grant Types and Evidence 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 “standards of evidence” of the grant type applied for, it will not be considered for a different type of i3 grant 21

22. Strong Evidence: Scale-up 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 EffectEffect 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 22

23. Strong Evidence: Scale-up (cont’d) Examples of Strong Evidence 1) More than one well-designed and well- implemented experimental study OR More than one well-designed and well- implemented quasi-experimental study; OR 2) One large, well-designed and well-implemented randomized controlled, multisite trial 23

24. Moderate Evidence: Validation 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 EffectEffect 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 24

25. Moderate Evidence: Validation (cont’d) 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 25

26. Sections of Webinar Overview of i3 Program Major Changes from 2011 Eligibility Evidence Priorities Selection Criteria & Review Process Pre- & Post-Award Requirements Closing 26

27. Scale-Up and Validation Priorities Required for all applications Improve Achievement for High-Need Students Teacher and Principal Effectiveness Promoting STEM Education College- and Career-ready Standards and Assessments Improving Rural Achievement Must address one Absolute Priority Improving Achievement in Persistently Low- Performing Schools College Access and Success Serving Students with Disabilities and Limited English Proficient Students Productivity May address up to two Competitive Preferences (0 or 1 point each) Technology Early Learning 27

28. 28 Notes on Absolute Priority 1: Teacher and Principal Effectiveness Retention in High- Poverty Schools Can Focus in Targeted Areas Multiple Measures of Effectiveness Focus on Teachers or Principals “…increasing the number or percentage of teachers or principals who are effective or reducing the number or percentage of teachers or principals who are ineffective, particularly in high poverty schools…” “…through such activities as improving the preparation, recruitment, development, and evaluation of teachers and principals; implementing performance-based certification and retention systems; and reforming compensation and advancement systems.” “Increasing the retention, particularly in high-poverty schools [as defined in the notice], and equitable distribution of teachers or principals who are effective.” “Teacher or principal evaluation data … that takes into account student growth [as defined in the notice] in significant part and uses multiple measures…”

29. 29 Notes on Absolute Priority 2: Promoting STEM Education Focus on Teachers or Students Focus on High-Need Populations Multiple Areas of Focus a)“Providing students with increased access to rigorous and engaging coursework in STEM. b)Increasing the number and proportion of students prepared for postsecondary or graduate study and careers in STEM. c)Increasing the opportunities for high-quality preparation of, or professional development for, teachers or other educators of STEM subjects. d)Increasing the number of individuals from groups traditionally underrepresented in STEM, including minorities, individuals with disabilities, and women, who are provided with access to rigorous and engaging coursework in STEM or who are prepared for postsecondary or graduate study and careers in STEM. e)Increasing the number of individuals from groups traditionally underrepresented in STEM, including minorities, individuals with disabilities, and women, who are teachers or educators of STEM subjects and have increased opportunities for high-quality preparation or professional development.”

30. 30 Notes on Absolute Priority 3: Standards and Assessments Focus on College & Career Readiness Range of Allowable Projects Rigorous Standards “…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…”

31. Notes on Absolute Priority 4: Persistently Low-Performing Schools Projects Can Choose Either Approach “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” 31

32. Notes on Absolute Priority 5: Improving Rural Achievement Focus on Specific Outcomes Focus on Rural Students Improve Both Areas “…designed to address accelerating learning and helping to improve high school graduation rates (as defined in this notice) and college enrollment rates” “…for students in rural local educational agencies” Rural local educational agency means a local educational agency (LEA) that is eligible under the Small Rural School Achievement (SRSA) program or the Rural and Low-Income School (RLIS) program authorized under Title VI, Part B of the ESEA. Eligible applicants may determine whether a particular LEA is eligible for these programs by referring to information on the Department’s Web site at http://www2.ed.gov/nclb/freedom/local/reap.html. 32

33. Notes on Absolute Priority 5: Improving Rural Achievement Cont. Focus on Rural Needs Demonstrate Past Experience Identify Rural Locations “…support projects that address the unique challenges of serving high-need students in rural LEAs” “…consider identifying in both the pre-application and full application all rural LEAs where the project will be implemented, or explain how the applicant will choose the rural LEAs where the project will be implemented.” “…provide information on the applicant’s experience and skills, or the experience and skills of their partners, in serving high-need students in rural LEAs” 33

34. Scale-Up and Validation Priorities Required for all applications Improve Achievement for High-Need Students Teacher and Principal Effectiveness Promoting STEM Education College- and Career-ready Standards and Assessments Improving Rural Achievement Must address one Absolute Priority Improving Achievement in Persistently Low- Performing Schools College Access and Success Serving Students with Disabilities and Limited English Proficient Students Productivity May address up to two Competitive Preferences (0 or 1 point each) Technology Early Learning 34

35. 35 Explanation of Competitive Preference Priorities Applicants for all types of grants may, but are not required to, identify up to two competitive preference priorities (CPPs) to earn extra points Points will be awarded depending on how well the applicant addresses a particular competitive preference priority, based on the judgment of the peer reviewers All competitive preference priorities are worth up to one point, and the point is awarded all or nothing by peer reviewers Important Note on CPPs The Department will not review or award points under any competitive preference priority for an application that: 1)fails to clearly identify the competitive preference priorities it wishes the Department to consider for purposes of earning the competitive preference priority points, or 2)identifies more than two competitive preference priorities

36. Notes on Competitive Preference Priority 6: Early Learning Focus on High- Need Children “…improve educational outcomes for high- need students who are young children (birth through 3rd grade) by enhancing the quality of early learning programs” Projects Must Address All 3 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…” 36

37. 37 Notes on Competitive Preference Priority 7: College Access and Success Focus on College Graduation Projects Must Address All 3 “… 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.”

38. 38 Notes on Competitive Preference Priority 8: Students with Disabilities & Limited English Proficiency “…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.” Projects That Improve Specific Outcomes Focus on Either Student Population

39. 39 “…applications for projects that are designed to significantly increase efficiency” “…use of time, staff, money, or other resources while improving student learning or other educational outcomes (i.e., outcome per unit of resource)” “Such projects may include innovative and sustainable uses of technology, modification of school schedules and teacher compensation systems, use of open educational resources (as defined in this notice), or other strategies.” Notes on Competitive Preference Priority 9: Improving Productivity Multiple Possible Approaches Must Improve Outcomes Make Significant Improvement

40. 40 Notes on Competitive Preference Priority 10: Technology Focus on Teachers or Students Two Types of Products Multiple Possible Projects “…projects that are designed to improve student achievement or teacher effectiveness” “…use of high-quality digital tools or materials” “…which may include preparing teachers to use the technology to improve instruction, as well as developing, implementing, or evaluating digital tools or materials”

41. Sections of Webinar Overview of i3 Program Major Changes from 2011 Eligibility Evidence Priorities Selection Criteria & Review Process Pre- & Post-Award Requirements Closing 41

42. 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 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 42

43. i3 Selection Criteria and Points Selection Criteria Scale-Up Application Validation Application A.Quality of the Project Design 3025 B.Significance25 C.Quality of the Management Plan and Personnel 25 D.Quality of the Project Evaluation 2025 Total Points100 43

44. Balance of Costs with Outcomes of Project Selection Criterion: A. Quality of the Project Design Clarity of Project Goals and Strategy to Achieve Them Sustainability Designed into the Project Plan “The extent to which the proposed project has a clear set of goals and an explicit strategy, with actions that are (a) aligned with the priorities the eligible applicant is seeking to meet, and (b) expected to result in achieving the goals, objectives, and outcomes of the proposed project.” “The potential and planning for the incorporation of project purposes, activities, or benefits into the ongoing work of the eligible applicant and any other partners at the end of the … grant.” 44

45. Selection Criterion: A. Quality of the Project Design (cont.) Balance of Costs with Outcomes of Project Cost Effectiveness of Scaling Project to Larger Populations “The extent to which the costs are reasonable in relation to the objectives, design, and potential significance of the proposed project.” “…estimate of the cost of the proposed project, which includes the start up and operating costs per student per year (including indirect costs) for reaching the total number of students proposed to be served by the project…an estimate of the costs for the eligible applicant or others (including other partners)…” Scale-up: “…to reach 100,000, 500,000, and 1,000,000 students.” Validation and Development: “…to reach 100,000, 250,000, and 500,000 students.” 45

46. Guidance for All Grant Types Scaling targets help assess cost-effectiveness and ARE NOT numbers all applicants are expected to reach Note: The Secretary considers cost estimates both (a) to assess the reasonableness of the costs relative to the objectives, design, and potential significance for the total number of students to be served by the proposed project, which is determined by the eligible applicant, and (b) to understand the possible costs for the eligible applicant or others (including other partners) to reach the scaling targets of [the grant type requested]. An eligible applicant is free to propose how many students it will serve under its project, and is expected to reach that number of students by the end of the grant period. The scaling targets, in contrast, are theoretical and allow peer reviewers to assess the cost-effectiveness generally of proposed projects, particularly in cases where initial investment may be required to support projects that operate at reduced cost in the future, whether implemented by the eligible applicant or any other entity. Grantees are not required to reach these numbers during the grant period. 46

47. Selection Criterion: B. Significance Exceptional Approach to Addressing Selected Priority Balance of Proposal and Best Evidence “The extent to which the proposed project represents an exceptional approach to the priority or priorities established for the competition.” “The extent to which the services to be provided by the proposed project reflect up-to-date knowledge from research and effective practice.” 47

48. Selection Criterion: B. Significance (Cont.) Substantial Expected Improvement (e.g., prior evidence, statistical significance) “The importance and magnitude of the effect expected to be obtained by the proposed project, including the extent to which the project will substantially and measurably improve student achievement or student growth, close achievement gaps, decrease dropout rates, increase high school graduation rates, or increase college enrollment and completion rates. The evidence in support of the importance and magnitude of the effect would be the research-based evidence provided by the eligible applicant to support the proposed project.” 48

49. Guidance for Scale-up and Validation Grants If your prior research identified shortcomings in your approach that can be fixed in the proposed project, then you may do so. However, in light of the information provided in the following Note from the NIA, you should not make changes that would call into question the extent to which your research evidence is directly applicable to the proposed project. From the NIA: “Note Linking Magnitude of Effect to Presented Evidence: The Secretary notes that the research evidence provided by the eligible applicant to support the proposed project is relevant to addressing the third factor of Selection Criterion B and, therefore, will be considered by the Secretary in evaluating the importance and/or magnitude of the impact expected to be obtained by the proposed project. “ 49

50. Selection Criterion C. Quality of the Management Plan Whether There Is a Viable Plan to Carry Out the Project “The adequacy of the management plan to achieve the objectives of the proposed project on time and within budget, including clearly defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing the project tasks, as well as tasks related to the sustainability and scalability of the proposed project.” 50

51. Selection Criterion C. Quality of the Management Plan (cont.) Team’s Experience Leading Projects Like the One Proposed “The qualifications, including relevant training and experience, of the project director and key project personnel, especially in managing large, complex, and rapidly growing projects.” Scale-up “The qualifications, including relevant training and experience, of the project director and key project personnel, especially in managing complex projects.” Validation 51

52. Selection Criterion C. Quality of the Management Plan (cont.) Capacity of Resources to Scale the Project Further “…capacity (e.g., in terms of qualified personnel, financial resources, or management capacity) to bring the proposed project to scale on a national, regional, or State level working directly, or through partners, either during or following the end of the grant period.” Scale-up “…capacity (e.g., in terms of qualified personnel, financial resources, or management capacity) to bring the proposed project to scale on a State or regional level (as appropriate, based on the results of the proposed project) working directly, or through partners, either during or following the end of the grant period.” Validation 52

53. Selection Criterion D. Quality of Project Evaluation Methodologies of the Evaluation “The extent to which the methods of evaluation will include a well-designed experimental study, or if a well-designed experimental study of the project is not possible, the extent to which the methods of evaluation will include a well-designed quasi- experimental design.” Scale-up “The extent to which the methods of evaluation will include a well-designed experimental study or a well-designed quasi-experimental study.” Validation 53

54. Selection Criterion D. Quality of Project Evaluation (cont.) Understanding of Implementation and Intermediate Outcomes of Success Evaluation Includes Information to Support Follow-on Scaling or Other Activities Sufficient Funding to Carry Out Evaluation “The extent to which the methods of evaluation will provide high-quality implementation data and performance feedback, and permit periodic assessment of progress toward achieving intended outcomes.” “The extent to which the evaluation will provide sufficient information about the key elements and approach of the project so as to facilitate replication or testing in other settings.” “The extent to which the proposed project plan includes sufficient resources to carry out the project evaluation effectively.” 54

55. Guidance on Evaluation Goals All grantees are encouraged to: Design evaluations that help grantees report on the i3 performance measures described in the NIA Design evaluations that yield information about the impact or promise of i3-supported interventions Scale-up and Validation grantees are especially encouraged to: Produce evidence on the impact of the i3-supported intervention (reflecting any changes to the intervention or delivery model) as implemented at scale (reflecting the additional sites served and changes in types of participants and settings served) 55

56. Guidance on Evaluation Plans Applicants should present clear, detailed evaluation plans High-quality evaluation plans are encouraged to include: Key questions and proposed methods for addressing them A Logic model connecting inputs with intermediate and final outcomes A Sampling plan and an explanation of how it will represent implementation at the proposed scale A Summary of data collection measures and methods Justification of budget Qualifications of proposed independent evaluation staff For experimental and quasi-experimental studies: an explanation of how treatment and control/comparison groups will be formed and a plan for measuring treatment/control contrast on key implementation and outcome variables 56

57. Sections of Webinar Overview of i3 Program Major Changes from 2011 Eligibility Evidence Priorities Selection Criteria & Review Process Pre- & Post-Award Requirements Closing 57

58. Key Requirements That Must Be Met Before an Award Is Made The Department, before awarding i3 grants, will confirm that potential grantees meet all eligibility requirements, including: Requirements related to evidence –Scale-Up: Strong Evidence –Validation: Moderate Evidence Evidence of prior improvement (different requirements for LEA vs. non-profit applicants) Evidence of an adequate match has been provided 58

59. 59 Explanation of Limits on Grant Awards Award Cap No grantee may receive more than two grant awards or more than $55 million in grant awards under this program in a single year. Additionally, no grantee may receive more than one Scale-up or Validation grant in any two-year period. Award Cap No grantee may receive more than two grant awards or more than $55 million in grant awards under this program in a single year. Additionally, no grantee may receive more than one Scale-up or Validation grant in any two-year period. Allowable Examples Scale-up ($25M) + Development ($3M) Validation ($15M) + Development ($3M) 2 Development ($3M each) Scale-up in 2011 + Development in 2012 Allowable Examples Scale-up ($25M) + Development ($3M) Validation ($15M) + Development ($3M) 2 Development ($3M each) Scale-up in 2011 + Development in 2012 Unallowable Examples 2 Scale-up or Validation Scale-up + Validation Scale-up in 2011 + Validation in 2012 3 Development ($3M each) Unallowable Examples 2 Scale-up or Validation Scale-up + Validation Scale-up in 2011 + Validation in 2012 3 Development ($3M each) Notes: Applicants with more than 2 highest-rated applications may select which 2 applications receive awards The Award Cap applies to the applicant; official partners and other partners may participate in more than 2 successful applications 2011 Scale-up or Validation grantees may receive up to 2 Development grants in 2012 Notes: Applicants with more than 2 highest-rated applications may select which 2 applications receive awards The Award Cap applies to the applicant; official partners and other partners may participate in more than 2 successful applications 2011 Scale-up or Validation grantees may receive up to 2 Development grants in 2012

60. Post Award Requirements MUST All i3 Grantees must: Conduct an independent project evaluation* o Cooperate with technical assistance provided by the Department or its contractors o Share broadly the results of any evaluation Participate in, organize, or facilitate, as appropriate, communities of practice for the i3 program * Note: The quality of an applicant’s project evaluation is also a selection criterion in the full application review. 60

61. Sections of Webinar Overview of i3 Program Major Changes from 2011 Eligibility Evidence Priorities Selection Criteria & Review Process Pre- & Post-Award Requirements Closing 61

62. Parts of a Complete Application Part A  Project Narrative Form Responses to the Selection Criteria Quality of the Project Design Significance Quality of the Management Plan Quality of the 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  Survey on Ensuring Equal Opportunity for Applicants  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 62

63. 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 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. 63

64. 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). So please register early! 64

65. 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 65

66. 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 of Final Priorities & Notice of Final Revisions to Priorities, Requirements, and Selection Criteria  Notice Inviting Applications  Application Package (includes the Notice Inviting Applications) – posted shortly after NIA publication  i3 Applicant Information Sheet  Pre-recorded Webinar of i3 Highlights  Frequently Asked Questions  i3 At-A-Glance (Quick Reference) All questions about i3 may be sent to i3@ed.govi3@ed.gov Note: These slides are intended as guidance only. Please refer to the official Notices in the Federal Register. 66