1. Q&A Webinar i3 Development Full Application Overview Slides July 2013 Note: These slides are intended as guidance only. Please refer to the official documents published in the Federal Register.

2. Two Parts of Today’s Webinar 1)An overview of the 2013 i3 Development Competition, with a focus on the full application process. 2)A Q&A period with a discussion organized by specific topic. These slides are intended as guidance only. Keep in mind that the overview covers only part of the information that prospective applicants should review from the Federal Register and the i3 website. 2

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

4. Overview of the i3 Grant Program Purpose To generate and validate solutions to persistent educational challenges and to support the expansion of effective solutions across the country to serve substantially larger numbers of students. Funding $135 million (est.) to be obligated by December 31, 2013. 4

5. i3 DevelopmentValidationScale-up Types of Awards Available Under i3 Funding Available* Up to $3M/awardUp to $12M/awardUp to $20M/award Estimated Awards 10-204-80-2 Evidence Required Evidence of promise or strong theory Moderate evidence of effectiveness Strong evidence of effectiveness Scaling Required Able to further develop and scale Able to be scaled to the regional level Able to be scaled to the national level *$135M (est.) to be obligated by December 31, 2013 5

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

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

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

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

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

11. Q&A: Eligibility 11

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

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

14. Strong TheoryEvidence of Promise i3 Development Grant Evidence Standards Number of Studies Not Applicable – Logic Model Only1+ Statistical Significance Statistically significant positive impact (0.25 standard deviation or larger) WWC Standards Not Applicable; Correlational study with statistical controls for selection bias Meets without reservations Meets with reservations 14 Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Note: Greyed-out/shaded cells indicate criteria on which the updated standards are silent. See What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) Procedures and Standards Handbook (Version 2.1, September 2011), which can currently be found at the following link: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/DocumentSum.aspx?sid=19. ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/DocumentSum.aspx?sid=19

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

16. Q&A: Evidence 16

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

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

19. 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 the full application. Applicants who choose to submit an application under the absolute priority for Serving Rural Communities must identify an additional absolute priority and subpart. 19

20. 20 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.

21. 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 21

22. 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 22

23. 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 23

24. 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 24

25. 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 25

26. 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 26

27. 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 27

28. Notes on Absolute Priority 8: Serving Rural Communities Please note that applicants that choose to submit an application under the absolute priority for Serving Rural Communities must identify an additional absolute priority and subpart. The peer-reviewed scores for applications submitted under the Serving Rural Communities priority will be ranked with other applications under this priority, and not included in the ranking for the additional priority that they identified. This design helps to ensure that applicants under the Serving Rural Communities priority receive an “apples to apples” comparison with other rural applicants. 28

29. Q&A: Priorities 29

30. Order of Q&A Discussion Topics Eligibility Evidence Priorities Selection Criteria & Review Process Other Topics 30

31. Notes on i3 Selection Criteria and Points The selection criteria are the criteria against which the peer reviewers score each application. The Department selects grantees based on peer reviewer scores, so clearly addressing the selection criteria is critical. There are different selection criteria for the pre-application and the full application. Detailed wording for each selection criterion may be found in the Notices at the i3 website: http://www.ed.gov/programs/innovation/index.html. http://www.ed.gov/programs/innovation/index.html 31

32. 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 Selection Criteria Development Pre- Application Development Full Application 32

33. 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. The extent to which the proposed project will substantially improve on the outcomes achieved by other practices, such as through better student outcomes, lower cost, or accelerated results. 33 Improve Outcomes

34. Notes on Selection Criterion: A. Significance Applicants should make sure that a peer reviewer, after reading the 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); 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); and How will the project improve outcomes achieved by other practices, such as through better student outcomes, lower cost, or accelerated results. 34

35. 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). The clarity, completeness, and coherence of the project goals, and whether the application includes a description of project activities that constitute a complete plan for achieving those goals, including the identification of potential risks to project success and strategies to mitigate those risks. 35

36. Notes on Selection Criterion: B. Quality of the Project Design Applicants should make sure that a peer reviewer, after reading the application narrative, would understand: 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. 36

37. Selection Criterion: C. Quality of the Management Plan Articulating Key Responsibilities and Timelines Key Partners and Stakeholders Support The extent to which the management plan articulates key responsibilities and well-defined objectives, including timelines and milestones. The extent of the demonstrated commitment of any key partners or evidence of broad support from stakeholders whose participation is critical to the project’s long-term success. The adequacy of procedures for ensuring feedback and continuous improvement in the operation of the proposed project. 37

38. Notes on Selection Criterion: C. Quality of the Management Plan Applicants should make sure that a peer reviewer, after reading the application narrative, would understand: How the project team will evaluate the success or challenges of the project; How will the project team use that feedback to make improvements to the project; and What is the role of key partners and what is their impact on the long-term success of the project. 38

39. Selection Criterion: D. Personnel Adequacy of Staffing Plan The adequacy of the project’s staffing plan, particularly for the first year of the project, including the identification of the project director and, in the case of projects with unfilled key personnel positions at the beginning of the project, that the staffing plan identifies how critical work will proceed. 39

40. Notes on Selection Criterion: D. Personnel Applicants should make sure that a peer reviewer, after reading the application narrative, would understand: How does the team’s prior experiences prepared them for implementing the proposed project successfully. 40

41. Selection Criterion: E. Quality of Project Evaluation Key Questions Clear and Credible Analysis The clarity and importance of the key questions to be addressed by the project evaluation, and the appropriateness of the methods for how each question will be addressed. The extent to which the evaluation plan includes a clear and credible analysis plan, including a proposed sample size and minimum detectable effect size that aligns with the expected project impact, and an analytic approach for addressing the research questions. The extent to which the evaluation plan clearly articulates the key components and outcomes of the project, as well as a measureable threshold for acceptable implementation. 41

42. Notes on Selection Criterion: E. Quality of Project Evaluation Applicants should make sure that a peer reviewer, after reading the application narrative, would understand: What are the key evaluation questions; How will the proposed evaluation methodologies allow the project to answer the key evaluation questions; What implementation and performance data will the evaluation generate; and How will the evaluation provide data during the period to help indicate whether the project is on track to meet its goals. 42

43. Q&A: Selection Criteria & Review Process 43

44. Order of Q&A Discussion Topics Eligibility Evidence Priorities Selection Criteria & Review Process Other Topics 44

45. Key Requirements That Must Be Met Before an Award Is Made The Department, before awarding i3 grants, will confirm that all eligibility requirements have been met by potential grantees, including that applicants: Address one absolute priority and subpart; 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 record of improving student outcomes (different requirements for LEA vs. non-profit (partnership) applicants); and Provide evidence of at least 50% of the required private-sector match. 45

46. Parts of a Complete Full Application Part A  Project Narrative Form Responses to the Selection Criteria Significance Quality of the Project Design Quality of the Management Plan Personnel Quality of Project Evaluation  Budget Narrative Form ED 524 Section C Eligible applicants must also provide a detailed budget narrative that describes their proposed multi-year project activities and the costs associated with those activities as well as all costs associated with carrying out the project.  Other Attachments Form Upload appendices here Part B ED Standard Forms  Application for Federal Assistance (SF 424)  Department of Education Supplemental Information for SF 424  Department of Education Budget Summary Form (ED 524) Sections A & B  Disclosure of Lobbying Activities (SF-LLL) Assurances/Certifications  GEPA Section 427  Assurances – Non- Construction Programs (SF 424B)  Grants.gov Lobby Form (formerly ED 80-0013 form)  i3 Applicant Information Sheet (http://www2.ed.gov/program s/innovation/applicant.html)http://www2.ed.gov/program s/innovation/applicant.html 46

47. 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 full 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. 47

48. Q&A: Other Topics 48

49. Other Important Resources Investing in Innovation Fund Website: (http://www2.ed.gov/programs/innovation/index.html)http://www2.ed.gov/programs/innovation/index.html Notice Final Priorities, Requirements, Definitions, and Selection Criteria (published in the Federal Register on March 27, 2013) Notice Inviting Applications for Development Applications Application Package (includes the Notice Inviting Applications) i3 Applicant Information Sheet Frequently Asked Questions Note: These slides are intended as guidance only. Please refer to the official Notice in the Federal Register. All questions about i3 should be sent to i3@ed.govi3@ed.gov 49

50. Closing Thoughts Write clearly to the selection criteria: they are what the peer reviewers will use to judge your application, so consider explaining what you’re going to do and what the impact will be if you are successful. Consider discussing how you will do what you claim you will do – do not just state that you will do it. Keep in mind that Development grants in particular aim to address problems of national importance – think about whether and how your idea is of broader than local importance. Register for grants.gov early, make sure you understand how to use it, and leave yourself plenty of time to submit your application on time (the deadline of 4:30:00PM DC Time on August 16 applies to the completion of the submission, not the beginning). Ensure SAM registration is up to date as soon as possible. Please visit sam.gov for additional information. 50