[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 107 (Friday, June 3, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 32073-32081]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-13589]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Chapter II
[Docket ID ED-2011-OII-0001]
Investing in Innovation Fund
AGENCY: Office of Innovation and Improvement, Department of Education.
ACTION: Final revisions to priorities, requirements, and selection
criteria.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and Improvement
amends the final priorities, requirements, and selection criteria under
the Investing in Innovation Fund (i3) program as established in the
notice of final priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection
criteria (2010 i3 NFP) that was published in the Federal Register on
March 12, 2010. The 2010 i3 NFP established specific priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria to be used in
evaluating grant applications for the i3 program. This document
provides the Secretary with additional flexibility in using the
priorities and selection criteria for i3 competitions in fiscal year
(FY) 2011 and subsequent years. In addition, the document modifies the
requirements on the ``Limits on Grant Awards'' and ``Cost Sharing or
Matching.'' The revisions we establish in this document respond to
specific lessons learned from the first competition of the i3 program
in FY 2010 and allow the Department to simplify and improve the design
of the i3 program to better achieve its purposes and goals.
DATES: Effective Date: These revisions to priorities, requirements, and
selection criteria are effective July 5, 2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thelma Leenhouts, U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 4W302, Washington, DC 20202.
Telephone: (202) 453-7122; or by e-mail: [email protected].
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the
Federal Relay Service, toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Purpose of Program: The Investing in Innovation Fund, established
under section 14007 of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of
2009 (ARRA),
[[Page 32074]]
provides funding to (1) local educational agencies (LEAs), and (2)
nonprofit organizations in partnership with (a) one or more LEAs or (b)
a consortium of schools. The purpose of the i3 program is to provide
competitive grants to applicants with a record of improving student
achievement and attainment in order to expand the implementation of,
and investment in, innovative practices that are demonstrated to have
an impact on improving student achievement or student growth, closing
achievement gaps, decreasing dropout rates, increasing high school
graduation rates, or increasing college enrollment and completion
rates.
Grants awarded under the i3 program (1) Allow eligible entities to
expand and develop innovative practices that can serve as models of
best practices, (2) allow eligible entities to carry out that work in
partnership with the private sector and the philanthropic community,
and (3) support eligible entities in identifying and documenting best
practices that can be shared and taken to scale based on demonstrated
success.
Program Authority: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009,
Division A, Section 14007, Public Law 111-5.
Applicable Regulations: (a) The Education Department General
Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) in 34 CFR parts 74, 75, 77, 79, 80,
81, 82, 84, 85, 86, 97, 98, and 99. (b) The notice of final priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria for this program,
published in the Federal Register on March 12, 2010 (75 FR 12004-
12071).
Background: The Department published a proposed notice of revisions
to priorities, requirements, and selection criteria (2011 Notice of
Proposed i3 Revisions) in the Federal Register on January 10, 2011 (76
FR 1412-1415). That notice contained background information and our
reasons for the proposed revisions.
There is one difference between the proposed revisions to
priorities, requirements, and selection criteria and these final
revisions to priorities, requirements, and selection criteria.
Public Comment: In response to our invitation in the 2011 Notice of
Proposed i3 Revisions, 18 parties, including nonprofit organizations,
professional associations, and private citizens, submitted comments.
We address general comments and then discuss other substantive
issues under the title of the item to which they pertain. Generally, we
do not address technical and other minor changes.
Analysis of Comments and Changes: An analysis of the comments
received on, and any changes to, the revisions to the priorities,
requirements, and selection criteria since publication of the 2011
Notice of Proposed i3 Revisions follows.
General Comments
Comment: While one commenter endorsed all of the proposed
revisions, a few commenters expressed dissatisfaction with the overall
structure and operation of the i3 program, stating that the proposed
revisions were insufficient and would not improve the program.
Discussion: The Department appreciates the feedback on how the i3
program could be improved. However, the proposed revisions to the
priorities, requirements, and selection criteria were not intended to
substantially change the program but, instead, were intended to give
the Secretary flexibility in a few discrete areas (selecting priorities
and selection criteria and adjusting the private-sector matching
percentages on a competition-by-competition basis) and to modify our
requirement on grant award limits. We believe that by establishing the
flexibility to select the most appropriate priorities, requirements,
and selection criteria for each type of grant (Scale-up, Validation, or
Development) under this program in any year in which the Department
makes new i3 awards, the Secretary will be able to use the i3 program
to meet the evolving needs of the American education system. A
substantial revision of the structure and operation of the i3 program
could be proposed by the Department in the future. If the Department
decides to propose such a revision, the concerns raised and suggestions
made in comments regarding the overall structure of the i3 program
would be considered.
Changes: None.
Priorities
Comment: A few commenters stated that the Department should use all
four absolute priorities in all future i3 competitions. One commenter
stated that the integrity of the i3 program relies on whole-scale
reform that can be achieved only by applying all four absolute
priorities in all future competitions. One commenter noted that the
priorities established under the 2010 i3 NFP are generally broad and
would be relevant in most years of the foreseeable future, which would
make it unnecessary to exclude a priority in a given year.
Discussion: The Department agrees that all four absolute priorities
are important to whole-scale education reform. However, the Department
also recognizes that one or more of the four absolute priorities may be
relatively more important in a given year. With the flexibility to
select the absolute priorities for a given i3 competition, the
Secretary can consider and select priorities that best support the
needs of the American education system in a given year.
Additionally, although applicants selected for funding in the FY
2010 competition officially applied under one absolute priority, they
tended to address several of the absolute priorities in responding to
the selection criteria. Therefore, even if all four absolute priorities
established in the 2010 i3 NFP are not used in a given year's
competition, it is still likely that we would receive applications
addressing the four reform areas.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter stated that the applications funded in the
FY 2010 i3 competition under Absolute Priority 1: Innovations that
Support Effective Teachers and Principals focused predominantly on
teachers instead of principals, resulting in minimal funding of efforts
to improve school leadership. The commenter recommended that the
Department separate Absolute Priority 1 into two separate priorities--
one focused on teachers and one focused on principals.
Discussion: Absolute Priority 1 focuses on practices, strategies,
or programs that increase the number or percentages of highly effective
teachers or principals (or reduce the number or percentages of
ineffective teachers or principals), especially for high-need students.
Under this priority, applicants already may determine whether their
proposed project will focus on teachers or principals.
The 2011 Notice of Proposed i3 Revisions did not propose any
changes to the text of the absolute priorities established in the 2010
i3 NFP. For this reason, we do not believe it is appropriate to make
changes to the text of the priorities through this notice. However,
when designing future i3 competitions, the Department may consider
revising Absolute Priority 1 or developing a priority focused
exclusively on school leadership. If in a future competition the
Department decides to propose such a new priority or revise an existing
priority, rather than select from the established priorities, the
Department would comply with any applicable rulemaking requirements.
Changes: None.
[[Page 32075]]
Comment: A number of commenters recommended additional priorities
for the Department to use in future i3 competitions, including
priorities on promoting diversity, expanding learning time, supporting
school start-up models, and using technology to improve instruction.
Discussion: While the Department recognizes the importance of the
issues and topics mentioned by the commenters, this notice is not
intended to specify the absolute or competitive preference priorities
that will be used in a given year's i3 competition. Rather, the purpose
of this notice is to provide the Secretary with the flexibility to use
any of the absolute or competitive preference priorities announced in
the 2010 i3 NFP in any future i3 competition. When designing future i3
competitions, the Department may consider using other priorities,
including the priorities recommended by the commenters as well as the
Secretary's Supplemental Priorities, published in the Federal Register
on December 15, 2011 (75 FR 78486-78511). If in a future competition
the Department decides to propose a new priority or revise an
established i3 priority, rather than select from existing priorities,
the Department would comply with any applicable rulemaking
requirements.
Changes: None.
Comment: A few commenters expressed support for giving the
Secretary the flexibility to use one or more of the established
competitive preference priorities in a given year's competition. One
commenter requested that the Department use this flexibility to remove
Competitive Preference Priority 8: Innovations that Serve Schools in
Rural LEAs because, according to the commenter, it disadvantages all
other applicants.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' support for providing the
Secretary with the flexibility to use one or more of the established
priorities in a given year's competition.
With regard to the commenter's recommendation that the Department
use the flexibility afforded under this notice to remove Competitive
Preference Priority 8: Innovations that Serve Schools in Rural LEAs, we
note that the flexibility provided enables the Secretary to select
priorities on a competition-by-competition basis--that is, through the
notice inviting applications, not this notice. In any given year,
Competitive Preference Priority 8 may be appropriate because it
acknowledges that solutions to educational challenges may be different
in rural areas than in urban and suburban communities and that there is
a need for solutions to unique rural challenges. The Department aims to
ensure that projects serving high-needs students in diverse contexts
can compete for i3 funding.
Changes: None.
Comment: A few commenters opposed giving the Secretary the
flexibility to use one or more of the established competitive
preference priorities in a given year's competition. One commenter
recommended that the Department use all of the competitive preference
priorities established in the 2010 i3 NFP in all future competitions.
Another commenter opposed the proposed revision because it would allow
any future Secretary to determine that early learning is not a priority
in a given year.
Discussion: In the FY 2010 i3 competition, the Department
identified four competitive preference priorities aligned with the
Department's reform goals. Although we recognize the importance of
these priorities, we appreciate that the needs of the American
education system may change. We believe it is important that the
Secretary have the flexibility to consider multiple factors in
determining whether to award competitive preference points in a given
competition. This notice allows for that consideration by providing the
Secretary with flexibility to use one or more of the competitive
preference priorities established in the 2010 i3 NFP.
Changes: None.
Comment: Two commenters expressed support for providing the
Secretary with the flexibility to use one or more of the established
priorities in a given year's competition, but recommended that the
Department provide the public with the opportunity to comment on the
selected priorities for each year's competition.
Discussion: Under the General Education Provisions Acts (GEPA) and
the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), the Department, in most cases,
is required to seek public comment on proposed rules, including
proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria
for a grant competition, and then publish a final rule along with
responses to the comments received on the proposed rule. The Department
already sought, received, and responded to public comment on the
absolute and competitive preference priorities established in the 2010
i3 NFP. As we stated in that notice, in any year in which we choose to
use these priorities, we will announce them in a notice inviting
applications published in the Federal Register. Following this process
(rather than seeking additional public comment on priorities that have
already gone through rulemaking) allows the Department to award grants
on a more efficient and timely basis. However, if in a future
competition the Department decides to propose a new priority or revise
an established i3 priority, rather than select from existing
priorities, the Department would comply with any applicable rulemaking
requirements.
Changes: None.
Requirement on Limits on Grant Awards
Comment: Many commenters supported the proposed change that
clarified that the limit of two grant awards applies to a single year's
competition. However, two commenters recommended that the Department
apply the requirement differently depending on the type of grant award
(Scale-up, Validation, or Development). One commenter stated that the
limit of two grant awards in a single year's competition should apply
only to Validation and Development grants and that a Scale-up grantee
should not be permitted to reapply or receive funding for the same or a
similar project in the year immediately following the year it was
awarded a grant. In addition, one commenter recommended that no grantee
be allowed to receive more than two Scale-up or Validation grants in a
single year's competition.
Discussion: In the 2010 i3 NFP, the Department established the
requirement on the ``Limits on Grant Awards'' to ensure that i3 funds
are used to support the widest possible array of innovative projects.
Generally, we agree with commenters that the limitations on grant
awards for Scale-up and Validation grantees should be more stringent
than the limitation on grant awards for Development grants because of
the size of the awards and the complexity of these grants. As a result,
we have modified the proposed requirement on the ``Limit on Grant
Awards'' to further limit the number of Scale-up and Validation grants
a grantee may receive to only one grant in two consecutive years. Thus,
if a grantee receives a Scale-up or Validation grant in one year, that
grantee would not be eligible to receive a Scale-up or Validation grant
the next year.
We have also modified the requirement on ``Limits on Grant Awards''
to clarify that the limit applies to new grant awards made in a year in
which the Department funds down the slate from a prior year's
competition, but not to continuation awards. The
[[Page 32076]]
purpose of this requirement is to limit the number of new awards
received by a single grantee, whether through a competition or funding
down the slate from a prior year's competition; the purpose is not to
limit possible continuation awards.
Changes: We have revised the proposed ``Limits on Grant Awards''
requirement to clarify that the limitation applies to new awards.
Specifically, the revised requirement states that (a) No grantee may
receive more than two new grant awards of any type under the i3 program
in a single year; (b) In any two-year period, no grantee may receive
more than one new Scale-up or Validation grant; and (c) No grantee may
receive more than $55 million in new grant awards under the i3 program
in a single year.
Comment: One commenter opposed the proposed change to limit an
applicant to two grant awards in a single year's competition. The
commenter stated that limiting grant awards in only a single year's
competition would allow successful applicants to pull further ahead of
unsuccessful applicants and, thus, would increase the resource gap
among applicants.
Discussion: As discussed elsewhere in this notice, in addition to
clarifying that no grantee may receive more than two grant awards in a
single year, the Department further modified the requirement on the
``Limits on Grant Awards'' so that no Scale-up or Validation grantee
can receive more than one Scale-up or Validation grant in any two-year
period. The Department appreciates the commenter's concern and believes
that this additional change appropriately balances the program's
purpose of supporting the implementation of and investment in
innovative practices that are demonstrated to improve student academic
achievement and attainment with the desire to support a wide array of
innovative projects.
With regard to Development grants, we note that most of the i3
applications submitted in the FY 2010 i3 competition were applications
for Development grants. Given the high volume of applications, and our
expectation that the competition for Development grants will remain
highly competitive, we are not establishing this same limitation on
Development grantees.
Changes: As noted elsewhere in this notice, we have revised the
``Limits on Grant Awards'' requirement to state that no grantee may
receive more than two new grant awards of any type under the i3 program
in a single year; in any two-year period, no grantee may receive more
than one new Scale-up or Validation grant; and no grantee may receive
more than $55 million in new grant awards under the i3 program in a
single year.
Requirement on Cost-Sharing or Matching
Comment: Many commenters expressed support for the proposed
revisions to the ``Cost Sharing and Matching'' requirement, which
provides the Secretary with the flexibility to determine the required
amount of private-sector matching funds or in-kind contributions that
an eligible applicant must obtain for an i3 grant in a given year. One
commenter stated that replacing a ``one-size fits all'' policy with
this flexibility to determine the private-sector match on a more
customized basis would broaden participation in future competitions.
In addition, two commenters provided recommendations on how the
Department might use the proposed flexibility to require different
matching levels for the different types of i3 grant awards (Scale-up,
Validation, or Development). One commenter encouraged the Department to
consider limiting the percentage of private-sector matches required for
Scale-up grantees because they would have already received a
significant level of private funding. In contrast, another commenter
recommended that the Department maintain a significant matching
requirement for Scale-up and Validation grants, but that a lower
matching requirement be set for Development grants.
Discussion: The ``Cost Sharing or Matching'' requirement contained
in the 2011 Notice of Proposed i3 Revisions states that to be eligible
for an award, an eligible applicant must obtain private-sector matching
funds or in-kind contributions equal to an amount that the Secretary
will specify in the notice inviting applications for a particular i3
competition. We appreciate the commenters' support for this revision to
the ``Cost Sharing or Matching'' requirement.
With respect to the comments requesting that we further modify this
requirement to provide for different matching levels for the different
types of grants, we do not believe that establishing fixed matching
levels in this notice is appropriate. Furthermore, such a modification
is not necessary because the proposed revision allows the Department to
establish different matching levels for different types of grants when
designing future i3 competitions.
Changes: None.
Comment: Two commenters expressed general support for the proposed
changes to the ``Cost Sharing or Matching'' requirement in the 2011
Proposed i3 Revisions, but recommended that the Department also
establish a ceiling on the private-sector match that could be required
under any i3 competition.
Discussion: As noted in the 2010 i3 NFP, the Department considers
the private-sector match to be a strong indicator of the potential for
the scalability and sustainability of a proposed project over time. We
decline to set a ceiling on the private-sector match because doing so
would limit the Department's flexibility to leverage public- and
private-sector investments in education. The flexibility offered by the
revision will allow the Department to consider multiple factors when
determining the required private-sector match, including the economic
climate or the amount of time available for the highest-rated
applicants to secure their private-sector matches.
Changes: None.
Comment: Two commenters suggested that the Department allow local
educational agency (LEA) funds or other public funds to be used to meet
the matching requirement. One commenter stated that this change would
encourage LEAs to demonstrate their commitment to i3 projects, which
would enhance the sustainability of those projects. Another commenter
stated that it may be difficult for potential applicants to secure
sizeable private-sector contributions and that undue reliance on the
private sector could result in LEAs becoming overly beholden to private
funders.
Discussion: Section 14007(b)(3) of the ARRA specifically requires a
private-sector match for this program. Thus, an eligible applicant may
not use funding from other Federal programs or other public sources
(including an LEA's own funds) to satisfy the statutory ``Cost Sharing
or Matching'' requirement. However, nothing prohibits an eligible
applicant from securing public funds in addition to the required
private-sector matching funds or in-kind contributions. In addition,
eligible applicants can establish the terms and conditions of their
private-sector partnerships and diversify the sources from which they
seek support for i3 projects in order to avoid becoming unduly
dependent on or beholden to any particular source or type of funding.
The Department understands the commenter's concern about the
challenges of securing significant private-sector investments. This
concern, however, is addressed by the
[[Page 32077]]
flexibility provided in the ``Cost Sharing or Matching'' requirement,
which allows the Secretary to determine the required amount of private-
sector matching funds or in-kind contributions that eligible applicants
must obtain under an i3 competition in a given year. We expect this
determination to be based on an assessment of the capacity and
resources available in that particular year. Moreover, an eligible
applicant continues to have the option, under this requirement, to
request in its application that the Secretary decrease the private-
sector match amount it must provide.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter opposed the proposed revisions to the ``Cost
Sharing or Matching'' requirement. Specifically, the commenter opposed
providing the Secretary with the flexibility to determine the required
amount of private-sector matching funds or in-kind contributions that
an eligible applicant must obtain for an i3 competition in a given
year. The commenter stated that requiring a private-sector partnership
would be a violation of State and local laws.
Discussion: As noted elsewhere in this notice, an eligible
applicant must demonstrate that it has established one or more
partnerships with the private sector and that the private sector will
provide matching funds. The ``Cost Sharing or Matching'' requirement is
based on the cost-sharing and matching requirement in the authorizing
legislation for the i3 program. Moreover, the commenter did not cite,
and the Department is not aware of, any State or local laws that
prohibit State and local governmental entities or private organizations
from securing a private sector matching requirement in a Federal grant
program.
Changes: None.
Selection Criteria
Comment: A few commenters supported permitting the Department, in
establishing selection criteria used in grant competitions conducted
under the i3 program, to choose selection criteria and factors--(i)
From those established in the 2010 i3 NFP for the i3 program, (ii) from
the menu of general selection criteria in the Education Department
General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) in 34 CFR 75.210, (iii)
based on statutory provisions in accordance with 34 CFR 75.209, or (iv)
from any combination of (i) through (iii) for competitions in FY 2011
and in subsequent years. However, one commenter encouraged the
Department to maintain the selection criteria that focus on strength of
research and evaluation.
Some commenters encouraged the Department to publish the specific
selection criteria for a given competition as far in advance as
possible. Two commenters recommended that the Department provide the
public with an opportunity to comment on the selection criteria for
each year's competition.
Discussion: We decline to establish specific mandatory selection
criteria and factors within each criterion that must be used in all i3
competitions. As we discussed in the 2011 Notice of Proposed i3
Revisions, the purpose of the revisions concerning the use of the i3
selection criteria is to provide the Secretary with the flexibility to
choose the selection criteria, and the factors included under each
criterion, in order to better align the selection criteria used for the
different types of grants (Scale-up, Validation, and Development) with
the critical aims of that specific grant type and to better ensure that
i3 projects address the most critical needs of education in a given
year. With regard to the comment requesting that we maintain the
selection criterion on strength of research evidence, we note that
whether or not the Department uses this selection criterion, the
evidence standards requirement must be met in order for an application
to be eligible to receive an award. Specifically, an application for a
Scale-up grant must be supported by strong evidence (as defined in the
2010 i3 NFP), an application for a Validation grant must be supported
by moderate evidence (as defined in the 2010 i3 NFP), and an
application for a Development grant must be supported by a reasonable
hypothesis.
Regarding the recommendation that the specific selection criteria
for each competition be submitted for public comment, the Department
already sought, received, and responded to public comments on the
selection criteria established in the 2010 i3 NFP, as well as the
general selection criteria in EDGAR. However, in any year in which we
choose to use these selection criteria, we will announce them in a
notice inviting applications published in the Federal Register.
Following this process (rather than seeking additional public comment
on priorities that have already gone through rulemaking) allows the
Department to award grants on a more efficient and timely basis.
However, if in a future competition the Department decides to propose
new selection criteria or revise the established selection criteria
rather than select from among them, the Department would comply with
all applicable rulemaking requirements.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter expressed concern that the proposed revision
to the selection criteria would not simplify or improve the design of
the program. The commenter further stated that the optional menu of
EDGAR criteria suggests that the Department is unsure of the direction
of the i3 program and suggested that applicants would prefer more
predictability and responsiveness.
Discussion: Section 75.200 of EDGAR establishes that, to evaluate
the applications for new grants, the Secretary may use: (i) The
selection criteria established in Sec. 75.209, (ii) the selection
criteria in program-specific regulations, (iii) the selection criteria
established under Sec. 75.210, and (iv) any combination of criteria
from (i) through (iii) of that section. We disagree that the proposed
revision would not simplify or improve the design of the i3 program. We
note that it is not unusual for Department programs to use the EDGAR
selection criteria found in Sec. 75.210 or developed under Sec.
75.209 or to use different selection criteria in a given year. We
believe that having greater flexibility to choose the selection
criteria and the factors included in each criterion will allow the
Department to simplify and better align the competition design and
priorities for the three types of grants for a particular year's
competition thereby resulting in projects that address the most
pressing needs of the American educational system at that time.
Changes: None.
Comments Not Directly Related to Proposed Changes
We received a number of comments on issues that were unrelated to
the specific proposals in the 2011 Notice of Proposed i3 Revisions.
These comments focused on the overall design of the i3 program.
Although the Department previously addressed these issues in the 2009
i3 notice of proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and
selection criteria or in the 2010 i3 NFP, we want to be responsive and
transparent in establishing rules under the i3 program and, therefore,
are addressing these comments in this notice.
Comment: Three commenters provided recommendations on who may apply
for and receive an i3 grant award. One commenter encouraged the
Department to continue to allow nonprofit organizations in partnership
with LEAs or schools to be eligible applicants. In contrast, another
commenter recommended that the Department allow only LEAs to be
[[Page 32078]]
eligible applicants for Development grants. Another commenter
recommended that the Department allow for-profit organizations to be
eligible applicants or official partners that may receive subgrants.
Discussion: Section 14007(a)(1) of the ARRA specifies the types of
entities that are eligible to apply for funding under this program.
Entities eligible for i3 grants are:
(a) An LEA
(b) A partnership between a nonprofit organization and--
(1) One or more LEAs; or
(2) A consortium of schools.
The Department has no authority to revise or expand these
statutorily prescribed eligibility requirements.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department redefine the
role of the official partner, a term that is defined in the 2010 i3
NFP, so that schools without a track record of success can participate
in future i3 projects.
Discussion: A low-performing LEA or school may participate in
projects under this program as either an official partner (as defined
in the 2010 i3 NFP) or other partner (as defined in the 2010 i3 NFP).
While an LEA that applies for funds under section 14007(a)(1)(A) of the
ARRA must meet the requirements in section 14007(b)(1) through (b)(3)
of the ARRA, as amended by section 307 of Division D of the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 (Pub. L. 111-117), nothing in the
statute or the priorities, requirements, definitions, or selection
criteria for this program prohibits such an eligible LEA from proposing
a project that involves the LEA partnering with other partners,
including other LEAs. Such other partners may be low-performing LEAs or
schools. In addition, a partnership between a non-profit organization
and one or more LEAs or a consortium of schools could include one or
more LEAs, either as an official partner (as defined in the 2010 i3
NFP) or as an other partner (as defined in the 2010 i3 NFP) that does
not meet the eligibility requirements. This is because such a
partnership is deemed to have met the eligibility requirements in
section 14007(b)(1) through (b)(3) of the ARRA if the nonprofit
organization in the partnership satisfies the requirements in section
14007(c) of the ARRA.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter stated that the term ``high-need student''
should be deleted from the 2010 i3 NFP because the term is defined too
broadly and does not focus solely on reducing the achievement gap among
the subgroups of students specified in the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA) (e.g., economically
disadvantaged students, students from major racial and ethnic groups,
students with disabilities, and limited English proficient students).
Discussion: The 2010 i3 NFP established a requirement that all
eligible applicants implement practices, strategies, or programs for
high-need students. The 2010 i3 NFP also defined a high-need student as
a student at risk of educational failure or otherwise in need of
special assistance and support. This requirement and definition of
high-need student were not within the scope of the 2011 Notice of
Proposed i3 Revisions. However, as noted in the 2010 i3 NFP, we believe
that this program's focus on funding projects that serve high-need
students is consistent with the goal of this program, which is to
improve student academic achievement and attainment. We believe that it
is important to improve the academic achievement and attainment of any
student at risk of educational failure. In addition, we note that the
definition of high-need student included in the 2010 i3 NFP is
appropriate because it also includes students who attend high-minority
schools, who are far below grade level, who are over-age and under-
credited, who have left school before receiving a regular high school
diploma, who are at risk of not graduating with a regular high school
diploma on time, who are homeless, who are in foster care, and who have
been incarcerated. These students typically have very high needs, but
are not included among the subgroups of students specified in the ESEA.
Consequently, we do not believe the definition of high-need student in
the 2010 i3 NFP is too broad.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department set aside
more funding for early-stage innovation or Development grants.
Discussion: As noted in the 2010 i3 NFP, the Department has found
that the structure of this program and the use of three categories of
grants appropriately balance support for the development of promising
yet relatively untested ideas with the growth and scaling of practices
that have made demonstrable improvements in student achievement and
attainment outcomes. The Department will consider multiple factors,
including the quality of the applications received and the amount of
funds available for new grant awards in a given year, when determining
the number of awards made under each type of grant.
Changes: None.
Comment: Two commenters opposed any additional funding for the
Department's innovative discretionary grant programs. These commenters
argued that formula grants are a more reliable stream of funding for
LEAs and are particularly beneficial for small and rural LEAs that
often lack the resources to compete for discretionary funds. Both
commenters expressed concern with the Department's lack of emphasis on
the needs of rural schools and one commenter recommended that a
specific set-aside be available to rural States or LEAs that
demonstrate innovative initiatives that are expressly applicable in
rural settings.
Discussion: The Department understands and shares the commenters'
concerns about the unique challenges of schools in rural LEAs. In the
FY 2010 i3 competition, we addressed those challenges by providing up
to two competitive preference priority points for innovations that are
designed to focus on the unique challenges of high-needs students in
schools in rural LEAs. The other competitive preference priorities were
awarded only one point. As with all of the Department's competitions,
we have learned from experience, and we understand that more needs to
be done under the i3 program to adequately address the needs of rural
States and LEAs. In future i3 competitions, we will increase our
outreach efforts to rural applicants as well as our efforts to recruit
peer reviewers who are from rural areas or who have other experience
working in rural schools and communities. We also hope that the
flexibility this notice establishes in terms of choosing selection
criteria and factors will allow the Department to simplify the
application, thus minimizing the burden on schools and LEAs with
limited resources.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter expressed concern that the selection
criterion on strategy and capacity to scale is an impediment to
applicants from rural America because the criterion requires applicants
to serve 100,000, 250,000, and 500,000 students with their proposed i3
projects. The commenter encouraged the Department to reward scale-up
strategies that are appropriate to the project instead of rewarding
applicants that propose to serve an arbitrary number of students.
Discussion: The i3 program does not include requirements for
scaling proposed projects to a specific number of students. Under
selection criterion E(4) of the 2010 i3 NFP, the Secretary considers
cost estimates both-- (a) for
[[Page 32079]]
the total number of students to be served by the proposed project,
which is determined by the eligible applicant, and (b) for the eligible
applicant or others (including other partners) to reach the scaling
targets for the respective grant types (100,000, 250,000, and 500,000
students for Development and Validation grants; and 100,000, 500,000,
and 1,000,000 students for Scale-up grants). An eligible applicant is
free to propose the number of students it will serve under its project,
consistent with its project goals, capacity, and resources, and is
expected to serve 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 general cost-effectiveness of proposed
projects, whether implemented by the eligible applicant or by any other
entity. Grantees are not required to reach these numbers during the
grant period or to provide a plan to do so.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department provide more
emphasis on ``social return on investment'' than unit cost and scale
numbers.
Discussion: The Department agrees that ``social return on
investment'' would provide valuable information about a project's cost-
effectiveness. However, the Department recognizes the challenges of
calculating ``social return on investment'' and believes that requiring
such a measure would increase the burden on applicants.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter encouraged the Department to allow
applicants to modify existing practices, strategies, or programs as
part of their plans to scale and sustain their proposed projects.
Discussion: As noted in the 2010 i3 NFP, evidence of the
effectiveness of a proposed practice, strategy, or program will be
stronger in terms of internal validity if the prior research applies to
the same innovation the eligible applicant is proposing, rather than to
a similar innovation or to a component of the proposed strategy or
program. The 2010 i3 NFP does not prohibit applicants from proposing in
their applications to modify an existing practice, strategy, or program
as part of their plans to scale or sustain the project. However,
modification and adaptation of existing, well-tested practices for new
contexts may mean that strong evidence of effectiveness in the original
context is only moderate evidence of effectiveness in the new context.
To the extent possible, if an eligible applicant is proposing to modify
or adapt an existing, well-tested practice, then it should provide a
rationale for the proposed changes in its application and justify why
those changes are desirable or necessary in order to improve the
effectiveness of the project or to scale or sustain the project, and
why the eligible applicant believes those changes would not invalidate
the prior evidence of effectiveness.
Changes: None.
Comment: Some commenters submitted recommendations regarding the
strong and moderate evidence requirements for the Scale-up and
Validation grants. One commenter encouraged the Department to use the
changes proposed in the 2011 Notice of Proposed i3 Revisions that
provide for additional flexibility in using selection criteria in order
to apply selection criteria that accurately reflect the state of
research in the field of education.
Two commenters stated that the current evidence requirements
established in the 2010 i3 NFP focus too heavily on experimental and
quasi-experimental studies that are typically possible only for more
mature organizations and recommended that the Department give more
weight to publicly reported data. One commenter expressed concern that
the current evidence requirements are overly restrictive and discourage
LEAs from applying on their own because it is rare for an LEA to
produce research evidence. The commenter recommended that the
Department remove the moderate evidence requirement for Validation
grants and instead require proposed projects to be supported by
evidence of effectiveness (e.g., school-based outcome data, student
progress across performance levels, attainment of adequate yearly
progress (AYP), gains exceeding comparable schools, subgroup progress,
closing achievement gaps, graduation and dropout data, course
completion, engagement indicators, teacher evaluation improvements,
program evaluations). In contrast, another commenter encouraged the
Department to retain the evidence definitions and requirements included
in the 2010 i3 NFP and recommended that applications proposing
evaluation plans that would get them to the next level of evidence
receive additional points.
Discussion: The 2010 i3 NFP established standards of evidence for
each type of grant under this program. Specifically, to be eligible for
an award, an application for a Scale-up grant must be supported by
strong evidence (as defined in the 2010 i3 NFP), an application for a
Validation grant must be supported by moderate evidence (as defined in
the 2010 i3 NFP), and an application for a Development grant must be
supported by a reasonable hypothesis. The Department believes that,
given the magnitude of public investment and the scale on which Scale-
up and Validation grants will be implemented, the requirements for
strong and moderate evidence are appropriate. Nothing would preclude an
applicant from using publicly available data to meet the moderate and
strong evidence requirements. The evidence standards requirement
addresses the design of the study as opposed to the source of the data
used by the study.
Regarding the comment that the Department provide additional points
to applications proposing evaluation plans that would meet the next
level of evidence, all applications in the FY 2010 i3 competition were
judged in part on the quality of the eligible applicant's plan to
evaluate its proposed project (see Selection Criterion D (Quality of
the Project Evaluation) of the 2010 i3 NFP). The Department believes
that this selection criterion adequately rewards applications with
well-designed evaluation plans.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department add
``intervention'' and ``service'' to the list of ``proposed practice,
strategy, or program,'' in every place where the list occurs in the i3
priorities and selection criteria. The commenter expressed concern that
without these revisions applicants might assume that projects focused
on interventions or services could not be funded under the i3 program.
Discussion: The Department understands that, in the context of the
i3 program, a ``practice, strategy, or program'' includes an
``intervention'' or ``service.''
Changes: None.
Comment: Two commenters requested clarification regarding the
Department's policies on open educational resources and intellectual
property.
Discussion: The Department's regulations on project materials and
copyrightable intellectual property produced with grant funds apply to
grants awarded under this program. Specifically, under 34 CFR 75.621,
grantees may copyright project materials produced with Department grant
funds. However, under 34 CFR 74.36 and 80.34, the Department retains a
non-exclusive and irrevocable license to reproduce, publish, or
otherwise use those project materials for government purposes.
Changes: None.
[[Page 32080]]
Comment: A few commenters requested that the Department provide
additional information on the i3 application process, including the
requirements for securing an independent evaluator and the assumptions
under which the Department may standardize application scores. One
commenter thanked the Department for its efforts to provide a
transparent application process and noted areas where the process might
be improved, including by streamlining the application and
incorporating responses to frequently asked questions into future
notices inviting applications for the i3 program. One commenter
recommended the Department provide additional training as well as
audits to ensure consistent scoring among reviewers.
Discussion: The Department maintains an i3 Web site that addresses
many of the issues highlighted by the comments. The Department's i3 Web
site is available at http://www2.ed.gov/programs/innovation/index.html.
Changes: None.
Final Priorities
The Secretary may use any of the priorities established in the
notice of final priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection
criteria (2010 i3 NFP) that was published in the Federal Register on
March 12, 2010 (75 FR 12004-12071) when establishing the priorities for
a particular i3 competition. We may apply one or more of these
priorities in any year in which this program is in effect.
Final Requirements
The Secretary modifies the following requirements for the i3
program:
Limits on Grant Awards: (a) No grantee may receive more than two
new grant awards of any type under the i3 program in a single year; (b)
In any two-year period, no grantee may receive more than one new Scale-
up or Validation grant; and (c) No grantee may receive more than $55
million in new grant awards under the i3 program in a single year.
Cost Sharing or Matching: To be eligible for an award, an eligible
applicant must demonstrate that it has established one or more
partnerships with an entity or organization in the private sector,
which may include philanthropic organizations, and that the entity or
organization in the private sector will provide matching funds in order
to help bring project results to scale. An eligible applicant must
obtain matching funds or in-kind donations equal to an amount that the
Secretary will specify in the notice inviting applications for the
specific i3 competition. Selected eligible applicants must submit
evidence of the full amount of private-sector matching funds following
the peer review of applications. An award will not be made unless the
applicant provides adequate evidence that the full amount of the
private-sector match has been committed or the Secretary approves the
eligible applicant's request to reduce the matching-level requirement.
The Secretary may consider decreasing the matching requirement in
the most exceptional circumstances, on a case-by-case basis. An
eligible applicant that anticipates being unable to meet the full
amount of the private-sector matching requirement must include in its
application a request to the Secretary to reduce the matching-level
requirement, along with a statement of the basis for the request.
Final Selection Criteria
The Secretary may use one or more of the selection criteria
established in the 2010 i3 NFP, any of the selection criteria in 34 CFR
75.210, criteria based on the statutory requirements for the i3 program
in accordance with 34 CFR 75.209, or any combination of these when
establishing selection criteria for each particular type of grant
(Scale-up, Validation, and Development) in an i3 competition. This
includes the authority to reduce the number of selection criteria. In
addition, within each criterion from these sources, the Secretary may
further define each criterion by selecting one or more specific factors
within a criterion or assigning factors from one criterion, from any of
those sources, to another criterion, in any of those sources. The
Secretary may apply one or more of these criteria in any year in which
this program is in effect. The Secretary may also select one or more of
these selection criteria to review pre-applications, if the Secretary
decides to invite pre-applications in accordance with 34 CFR 75.103. In
the notice inviting applications, the application package, or both, we
would announce the maximum possible points assigned to each criterion.
Note: This notice does not solicit applications. In any year in
which we choose to use these priorities, requirements, and selection
criteria, we invite applications through a notice in the Federal
Register.
Executive Order 12866: This notice has been reviewed in accordance
with Executive Order 12866. Under the terms of the order, we have
assessed the potential costs and benefits of this proposed regulatory
action.
The potential costs associated with this final regulatory action
are those resulting from statutory requirements and those we have
determined as necessary for administering the Department's
discretionary grant programs effectively and efficiently.
In assessing the potential costs and benefits--both quantitative
and qualitative--of this final regulatory action, we have determined
that the benefits of the proposed priorities and definitions justify
the costs.
We have determined, also, that this final regulatory action does
not unduly interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the
exercise of their governmental functions.
We summarized the costs and benefits of this regulatory action in
the 2011 Notice of Proposed i3 Revisions, published in the Federal
Register on January 10, 2011 (76 FR1412-1415).
Intergovernmental Review: This program is subject to Executive
Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of the
objectives of the Executive order is to foster an intergovernmental
partnership and a strengthened federalism. The Executive order relies
on processes developed by State and local governments for coordination
and review of proposed Federal financial assistance.
This document provides early notification of our specific plans and
actions for this program.
Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this
document in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print,
audiotape, or computer diskette) on request to the program contact
person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this
document is the document published in the Federal Register. Free
Internet access to the official edition of the Federal Register and the
Code of Federal Regulations is available via the Federal Digital System
at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site you can view this document,
as well as all other documents of this Department published in the
Federal Register, in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF). To
use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at
the site.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Federal Register by using the article search feature at: http://www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search
feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published
by the Department.
[[Page 32081]]
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Numbers: 84.411A
(Scale-up grants), 84.411B (Validation grants), and 84.411C
(Development grants).
Dated: May 26, 2011.
James H. Shelton, III,
Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and Improvement.
[FR Doc. 2011-13589 Filed 6-2-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P