1. July 25, 2011 National Education Statistics Agenda Committee Investing in Innovation (i3) Fund

2. Overview Overview of the i3 Program o Key features of i3 o Review of the FY2010 Competition & Results Grants funded under the Use of Data Priority FY2011 i3 Competition Major Changes from the FY2010 Competition i3 Looking Forward 2

3. Investing in Innovation (i3) Fund Summary Purpose Applicants 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 Eligible applicants are: (1)Local educational agencies (LEAs) (2)Nonprofit organizations in partnership with (a) one or more LEAs or (b) a consortium of schools 3

4. i3 Development Validation Scale-up Types of Awards Available Under i3 Funding Available Up to $5MM/award (FY2010) Up to $3MM/award (FY2011) Up to $25MM/award (FY2010) Up to $15MM/award (FY2011) Up to $50MM/award (FY2010) Up to $25MM/award (FY2011) 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 4

5. Builds portfolio of solutions to some of America’s most persistent educational challenges Aligns amount of funding with level of evidence Aims explicitly to scale effective programs and create a pipeline of promising innovations Provides funding for required independent evaluation in order to build understanding of “what works” 5 What Makes i3 Different

6. 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 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 6 How We Think About Innovation

7. $650 million to be obligated by September 30, 2010 Nearly 1700 applications across all three grant categories (received 19 Scale-up, 355 Validation, 1324 Development applications) 49 grantees - 4 Scale-up, 15 Validation, 30 Development grants – aiming to collectively serve millions of students All 49 grantees secured private-sector matching Multiple unfunded i3 applicants subsequently have identified organizations to fund at least part of their proposal 7 Vibrant Competition in 2010

8. Improve Achievement for High-Need Students Teacher and Principal Effectiveness Enhanced Data Systems College- and Career-ready Standards and Assessments Improving Achievement in Persistently Low-performing Schools Early Learning (0 or 1 point) Early Learning (0 or 1 point) College Access and Success (0 or 1 point) College Access and Success (0 or 1 point) Serving Students with Disabilities and Limited English Proficient Students (0 or 1 point) Serving Students with Disabilities and Limited English Proficient Students (0 or 1 point) Serving Students in Rural LEAs (0, 1, or 2 points) Serving Students in Rural LEAs (0, 1, or 2 points) i3 Priorities in FY2010 Required for all applications Must address one Absolute Priority May address one or more Competitive Preference 8

9. Grantees Distributed Across Grant Types and Priorities 9

10. MUST All i3 Grantees Evaluation –Conduct an independent project evaluation –Cooperate with technical assistance provided by the Department or its contractors –Share broadly the results of any evaluation (and data sets for Validation and Scale-up) Participate in, organize, or facilitate, as appropriate, communities of practice for the i3 program Evaluation –Conduct an independent project evaluation –Cooperate with technical assistance provided by the Department or its contractors –Share broadly the results of any evaluation (and data sets for Validation and Scale-up) Participate in, organize, or facilitate, as appropriate, communities of practice for the i3 program MUST 10 Post Award Requirements

11. Overview Overview of the i3 Program o Key features of i3 o Review of the FY2010 Competition & Results Grants funded under the Use of Data Priority FY2011 i3 Competition Major Changes from the FY2010 Competition i3 Looking Forward 11

12. 12 Grant TitleGranteeGrant Type Using Data to Inform College Access Programming in the 21 st Century High School (Using DICAP) Council for Opportunity in Education (DC) Validation Project READS: Using Data to Promote Summer Reading Presidents and Fellows of Harvard College (MA) Validation Improving Data Use in Schools: Expanding the Achievement Network Model The Achievement Network LTD (ANet) (MA) Development Expansion and Evaluation of Education Pilot Program(EPP) Advancement Through Opportunity and Knowledge (CA) Development Every Child Ready (ECR)AppleTree Institute for Education Innovation (DC) Development Data-Driven School Transformation Partnership Bay State Reading Institute (MA)Development Engage ME: PLEASE (Personalized Learning Experiences Accelerate Standards-Based Education) Forsyth County Schools (GA)Development School of OneNew York City Department of Education (NY) Development Facilitating Long-Term Improvements in Graduation and Higher Education for Tomorrow (FLIGHT) Take Stock in Children, Inc. (FL)Development Projects Funded under Data Priority

13. Examples of Projects funded under Data Priority Project READS: Using Data to Promote Summer Reading Presidents and Fellows of Harvard College Validation Grant Amount of Grant Award: $12,773,136 Length of Project: 5 years Partnering with LEAs in NC – uses student achievement growth data to identify which version of its program is cost effective in its goal to reduce summer learning loss and will support LEAs in using student achievement growth data to determine whether a targeted summer intervention is needed 13

14. School of One New York City Department of Education Development Grant Amount of Grant Award: $4,999,560 Length of Project: 4 years Expands model to four additional schools sites where students receive instruction through multiple modalities and an adaptive learning platform 14 Examples of Projects funded under Data Priority

15. Engage ME: PLEASE (Personalized Learning Experiences Accelerate Standards-Based Education) Forsyth County Schools Development Grant Amount of Grant Award: $4,738,315 Length of Project: 5 years Uses a role-based portal that allows students and teachers to access resources necessary for reflection on student learning and teacher instruction by integrating several data systems into one system 15 Examples of Projects funded under Data Priority

16. Expansion and Evaluation of Education Pilot Program(EPP) Advancement Through Opportunity and Knowledge Development Grant Amount of Grant Award: $3,742,580 Length of Project: 4 years Partnering with LEAs in CA – shares data across sectors through an integrated service model so that a multidisciplinary care team can monitor student progress and service provision for foster youth 16 Examples of Projects funded under Data Priority

17. Educator Evaluation for Excellence in Teaching and Learning (E3TL) Consortium American Federation of Teachers Educational Foundation (AFTEF) Development Grant Amount of Grant Award: $4,989,9944 Length of Project: 4 years Partnering with LEAs in NY and RI – provides training and professional development to support LEAs in the implementation of performance-based teacher evaluation systems – to support this project, AFTEF is working to develop software that will facilitate the data collection process used in teacher evaluation 17 Example of Data Use by a Project funded under another Priority

18. Overview Overview of the i3 Program o Key features of i3 o Review of the FY2010 Competition & Results Grants funded under the Use of Data Priority FY2011 i3 Competition Major Changes from the FY2010 Competition i3 Looking Forward 18

19. Funding by Grant Type The maximum award for each grant type has changed: Scale-up: Up to $25 million Validation: Up to $15 million Development: Up to $3 million Absolute Priorities The competition now includes five APs, with the changes noted below: Retaining: Teachers and Principals Standards and Assessments Low-Performing Schools Adding: Promoting STEM Education Improving Rural Achievement 19 Major Changes from 2010

20. Competitive Preference Priorities Applicants may identify no more than two competitive preference priorities that they wish scored. Applicants may address as many of the competitive preference priorities as they wish for the purpose of comprehensiveness. However, the Department will review and award points only for the maximum of two CPPs the applicant identifies. The competition now includes five CPPs, with the changes noted below: Retaining: Early Learning College Access and Success Students With Disabilities and Limited English Proficiency Adding: Productivity Technology 20

21. Major Changes from 2010 Selection Criteria The number of selection criteria has been reduced to 4 Specifically, selection criteria that were addressed elsewhere last year – Strength of Research, Significance of Effect, and Magnitude of Effect and Experience of the Eligible Applicant – are no longer selection criteria (but remain important parts of the competition and should be addressed by applicants) Allocation of points by selection criterion varies by competition Matching Requirements The percentage of required private sector match now differs by competition: Scale-up: 5% of the total award requested Validation: 10% of the total award requested Development: 15% of the total award requested Applicants may still request a reduction of the required match percentage 21

22. Major Changes from 2010 Limits on Grant Awards The limits on grant awards have been revised such that no grantee may receive more than one new Scale-up or Validation grant in any two-year period This is in addition to clarifying the existing limits of two new grant awards and no more than $55MM in funding in a single year This does not affect current Scale-up or Validation grantees’ opportunity to receive new Development grants or to partner on other applications 22

23. i3: Looking Forward FY 2012 Competition o Funding for i3 is in the Department’s FY2012 budget “Long Term” Focus o The design of the i3 program supports a pipeline of promising innovations and provides incentives for building an evidence base that may allow a project to move up funding categories o Importance of a well-designed and well-implemented evaluation that provides data on the impact of the intervention o Importance of collecting high-quality implementation data and performance feedback to support replication 23

24. Other Important Resources Investing in Innovation Fund Web site: (http://www2.ed.gov/programs/innovation/index.html)http://www2.ed.gov/programs/innovation/index.html  Notice of Final Priorities, Requirements, Definitions, and Selection Criteria (March 12, 2010)  Notice of Final Revisions to Priorities, Requirements, and Selection Criteria (June 3, 2011)  Notices Inviting Applications for the FY2011 i3 Competition (June 3, 2011)  Frequently Asked Questions  Evidence Summary Table  Selection Criteria Summary Table  i3 At-A-Glance (quick reference)  For information on the FY2010 grantees: http://www2.ed.gov/programs/innovation/awards.html http://www2.ed.gov/programs/innovation/awards.html All questions about i3 may be sent to i3@ed.govi3@ed.gov 24