Federal Register, Volume 79 Issue 50 (Friday, March 14, 2014)

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 50 (Friday, March 14, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14486-14500]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-05706]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Applications for New Awards; Investing in Innovation Fund--
Development Grants

AGENCY: Office of Innovation and Improvement, Department of Education.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Overview Information:
Investing in Innovation Fund--Development grants Notice inviting
applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2014.
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Numbers: 84.411P
(Development grants Pre-Application). 84.411C (Development grants Full
Application).

Note: In order to receive an Investing in Innovation Fund (i3)
Development grant, an entity must submit a pre-application. The pre-
application is intended to reduce the burden of submitting a full
application for an i3 Development grant. Pre-applications will be
reviewed and scored by peer reviewers using the selection criteria
designated in this notice. Entities that submit a highly rated pre-
application will be invited to submit a full application for a
Development grant; however, any entity that submitted a pre-
application may choose to submit a full application.

Dates:
Pre-Applications Available: March 17, 2014.
Deadline for Notice of Intent to Submit Pre-Application: April 3,
2014.
Deadline for Transmittal of Pre-Applications: April 14, 2014.
Full Applications Available: If you are invited to submit a full
application for a Development grant, we will transmit the full
application package and instructions using the contact information you
provide to us in your pre-application. Other pre-applicants who choose
to submit a full application may access these items on the i3 Web

[[Page 14487]]

site at http://www2.ed.gov/programs/innovation/index.html. Deadline for
Transmittal of Full Applications: Entities that submit a highly rated
pre-application, as scored by peer reviewers and as identified by the
Department, will be invited to submit a full application for a
Development grant. Other pre-applicants may choose to submit a full
application. The Department will announce on its Web site the deadline
date for transmission of full applications and will also communicate
this deadline to applicants in the full application package and
instructions.
Deadline for Intergovernmental Review: 60 calendar days after the
deadline date for transmittal of full applications.

Full Text of Announcement

I. Funding Opportunity Description

Purpose of Program: The Investing in Innovation Fund (i3),
established under section 14007 of the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), provides funding to support (1) local
educational agencies (LEAs), and (2) nonprofit organizations in
partnership with (a) one or more LEAs or (b) a consortium of schools.
The i3 program is designed to generate and validate solutions to
persistent educational challenges and to support the expansion of
effective solutions to serve substantially larger numbers of students.
The central design element of the i3 program is its multi-tier
structure that links the amount of funding that an applicant may
receive to the quality of the evidence supporting the efficacy of the
proposed project. Applicants proposing practices supported by limited
evidence can receive relatively small grants that support the
development and initial evaluation of promising practices and help to
identify new solutions to pressing challenges; applicants proposing
practices supported by evidence from rigorous evaluations, such as
large randomized controlled trials, can receive sizable grants to
support expansion across the country. This structure provides
incentives for applicants to build evidence of effectiveness of their
proposed projects and to address the barriers to serving more students
across schools, districts, and States so that applicants can compete
for more sizeable grants.
As importantly, all i3 projects are required to generate additional
evidence of effectiveness. All i3 grantees must use part of their
budgets to conduct independent evaluations (as defined in this notice)
of their projects. This ensures that projects funded under the i3
program contribute significantly to improving the information available
to practitioners and policymakers about which practices work, for which
types of students, and in what contexts.
The Department awards three types of grants under this program:
``Development'' grants, ``Validation'' grants, and ``Scale-up'' grants.
These grants differ in terms of the level of prior evidence of
effectiveness required for consideration of funding, the level of scale
the funded project should reach, and, consequently, the amount of
funding available to support the project.
Development grants provide funding to support the development or
testing of practices that are supported by evidence of promise (as
defined in this notice) or a strong theory (as defined in this notice)
and whose efficacy should be systematically studied. Development grants
will support new or substantially more effective practices for
addressing widely shared challenges. Development projects are novel and
significant nationally, not projects that simply implement existing
practices in additional locations or support needs that are primarily
local in nature. All Development grantees must evaluate the
effectiveness of the project at the level of scale proposed in the
application.
This notice invites applications for Development grants only. The
Department anticipates publishing notices inviting applications for the
other types of i3 grants (Validation and Scale-up grants) in the spring
of 2014.
We remind LEAs of the continuing applicability of the provisions of
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) for students who
may be served under i3 grants. Any grants in which LEAs participate
must be consistent with the rights, protections, and processes
established under IDEA for students who are receiving special education
and related services or are in the process of being evaluated to
determine their eligibility for such services.
As described later in this notice, in connection with making
competitive grant awards, an applicant is required, as a condition of
receiving assistance under this program, to make civil rights
assurances, including an assurance that its program or activity will
comply with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the
Department's section 504 implementing regulations, which prohibit
discrimination on the basis of disability. Regardless of whether a
student with disabilities is specifically targeted as a ``high-need
student'' (as defined in this notice) in a particular grant
application, recipients are required to comply with all legal
nondiscrimination requirements, including, but not limited to the
obligation to ensure that students with disabilities are not denied
access to the benefits of the recipient's program because of their
disability. The Department also enforces Title II of the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA), as well as the regulations implementing Title
II of the ADA, which prohibit discrimination on the basis of disability
by public entities.
Furthermore, Title VI and Title IX of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national
origin, and sex, respectively. On December 2, 2011, the Departments of
Education and Justice jointly issued guidance that explains how
educational institutions can promote student diversity or avoid racial
isolation within the framework of Title VI (e.g., through consideration
of the racial demographics of neighborhoods when drawing assignment
zones for schools or through targeted recruiting efforts). The
``Guidance on the Voluntary Use of Race to Achieve Diversity and Avoid
Racial Isolation in Elementary and Secondary Schools'' is available on
the Department's Web site at www.ed.gov/ocr/docs/guidance-ese-201111.pdf.
Background:
Through its competitions, the i3 program strives to improve the
academic achievement of high-need students by accelerating the
identification of promising solutions to pressing challenges in
kindergarten through grade 12 (K-12) education, supporting the
evaluation of the efficacy of such solutions, and developing new
approaches to scaling effective practices to serve more students. The
i3 program aims to build a portfolio of solutions and corresponding
evidence regarding different approaches to addressing critical
challenges in education. When selecting the priorities for a given
competition, the Department considers several factors, including the
Department's policy priorities, the need for new solutions in a
particular priority area, the extent of the evidence in the field
supporting effective practices in a particular priority area, whether
other available funding exists for a particular priority area, and the
results and lessons learned from prior i3 competitions.
We include six absolute priorities in the FY 2014 Development
competition. For some of these priorities, we identify multiple
subparts. In these instances, an applicant must select one subpart that
the proposed project will address in order to meet the absolute
priority.

[[Page 14488]]

First, we include an absolute priority on improving the
effectiveness of teachers or principals. It is well established that
teachers and principals are the most critical in-school factors in
improving student achievement.\1\ This priority has two subparts from
which the applicant must select one. The first subpart encourages
applicants to develop and implement models for principal preparation
that deepen leadership skills. Many principals are reporting an
increase in the demands of the position, and we believe that providing
meaningful training and support is especially important at this time.
The Department encourages applicants to implement projects that are
designed to provide principals with the necessary skills to meet the
demands of the principal position (e.g., skills around the evaluation,
support, and development of teachers; implementation of organizational
processes; and instructional leadership, especially in the context of
implementation of college- and career-ready standards).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ Wright, S.P., Horn, S.P., Sanders, W.L. (1997). Teacher and
classroom context effects on student achievement: Implications for
teacher evaluation. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education
11:57-67; Rivkin, S.G., Hanushek, E.A., Kain, J.F. (2005). Teachers,
schools, and academic achievement. Economerica, 73(2):417-458.
Leithwood, K., Louis, K.S., Anderson, S., and Wahlstrom, K.
(2004). Review of research: How leadership influences student
learning. University of Minnesota, Center for Applied Research and
Educational Improvement. Available at: www.cehd.umn.edu/carei/Leadership/ReviewofResearch.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The other subpart encourages applicants to increase equitable
access to effective teachers or principals for low-income and high-need
students. A recent study examined access to effective teaching for
disadvantaged students in 29 diverse school districts and found that,
on average, disadvantaged students received less effective teaching.\2\
This subpart encourages applicants to address this challenge by
changing the operating conditions within schools and districts in ways
that are consistent with the Department's policy goals for
professionalizing teaching and improving outcomes for high-need
students. For example, projects addressing this subpart might implement
changes to how schools and classes with high concentrations of high-
need students are staffed and supported. The systematic changes an
applicant should propose to address this subpart also provide the
opportunity for applicants to implement strategies that would improve
teaching and learning while also increasing efficiencies at the school
and district levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ Isenberg, Eric, Jeffrey Max, Philip Gleason, Liz Potamites,
Robert Santillano, Heinrich Hock, and Michael Hansen (2013). Access
to Effective Teaching for Disadvantaged Students (NCEE 2014-4001).
Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and
Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S.
Department of Education. Available at: http://mathematica-mpr.com/publications/pdfs/education/effective_teaching_disadvantaged_students.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Second, to ensure that all students receive a quality K-12
education, we include a priority addressing the pressing need to
accelerate improvement in low-performing schools. This priority also
has two subparts. The first subpart encourages applicants to propose
projects that change selected elements of a school's organizational
design and focuses specifically on schools with the lowest academic
performance in the State or schools with the largest within-school
performance gaps between student subgroups. (See the Other Requirements
related to Absolute Priority 2 section of this notice for a full
description of the schools that must be served by projects proposed
under this priority.) This subpart provides applicants the flexibility
to implement changes to their school systems that are designed to
rapidly improve student achievement in low-performing schools, such as
changes to staff roles and how classrooms or schools are structured or
managed. We encourage applicants to think creatively about the
different ways schools can be organized to support improved
performance.
The second subpart of priority 2 invites applicants to propose
projects that will improve students' non-cognitive abilities (e.g.,
motivation, persistence, or resilience) and enhance their engagement in
learning. An emerging body of research suggests that non-cognitive
behaviors, strategies, and attitudes can improve student engagement and
academic outcomes, particularly for high-need students.\3\ Although
this subpart addresses challenges encountered by many schools, we
consider them particularly relevant for students in low-performing
schools.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ Heckman, James, Kautz, Tim. (2013). Fostering and Measuring
Skills: Interventions That Improve Character and Cognition. The
National Bureau of Economic Research. Available at: http://www.nber.org/papers/w19656.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Third, we include a priority on improving academic outcomes for
students with disabilities. The priority addresses the growing need for
coherent systems of support that appropriately coordinate and integrate
programs to address the needs of children and youth with disabilities,
and to improve the quality of services for those children and their
families. There is a great need for effective supports to help students
with disabilities meet academic content standards, particularly with
the transition to new college- and career-ready standards in most
school districts.
Fourth, we include a priority on improving academic outcomes for
English learners (ELs). School districts across the country are
experiencing increases in the enrollment of students who cannot speak,
read, write, or understand English well enough to participate
meaningfully in educational programs and who, therefore, need
specialized support services.\4\ Too often, these students' English
language needs are not adequately met, thereby inhibiting them from
achieving the academic outcomes of which they are capable.\5\ To
address this concern, we include a subpart that focuses on increasing
the number and proportion of ELs successfully completing courses in
core academic subjects by developing, implementing, and evaluating
instructional approaches and tools that are sensitive to the language
demands necessary to access challenging content, including technology-
based tools. In order to support such projects, applicants addressing
this subpart also should consider how to provide professional
development regarding instructional approaches and tools that are
specific to teaching ELs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ Ryan, Camille. (2013). Language Use in the United States:
2011. U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics
Administration. Available at: www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/acs-22.pdf.
The Growing Numbers of English Learner Students. U.S. Department
of Education. Office of English Language Acquisition. (2011).
Available at: http://ncela.us/files/uploads/9/growing_EL_0910.pdf.
\5\ Fregeau, Laureen. (2012). Preparing Pre-service Teachers to
Work With English Learners. The National Clearinghouse for English
Language Acquisition 4(3):1-24. Available at: www.ncela.us/files/
uploads/17/Accellerate4_3.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

We also include a subpart that invites applicants to propose
projects that will implement comprehensive, developmentally
appropriate, early learning programs (birth-grade 3) that are aligned
with the State's high-quality early learning standards. Improving early
learning for ELs is essential to enabling ELs to be on track to meet
college- and career-ready standards. We encourage applicants to design
an intervention which improves student readiness for kindergarten,
support development of literacy and academic skills in English or in
English and another language, and sustain improved early learning and
development outcomes throughout the early elementary years. Research
suggests that some groups of ELs stand to gain the

[[Page 14489]]

most of all student population groups from their participation in high-
quality early learning opportunities.\6\ As such, and because the
current i3 portfolio is limited in this area, the Department encourages
applicants to submit applications under this subpart.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\6\ Key Demographics & Practice Recommendations for Young
English Learners. National Clearinghouse for English Language
Acquisition and Language Instruction Educational Programs. (2011).
Available at: http://ncela.us/files/uploads/9/EarlyChildhoodShortReport.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fifth, we include a priority on the effective use of technology.
The Department's National Education Technology Plan 2010 \7\
highlighted the potential of ``connected teaching'' that makes it
possible to extend the reach of the most effective teachers by using
online tools. The National Education Technology Plan 2010 also
highlighted the need for high-quality learning resources that can reach
learners wherever and whenever they are needed. To support these
efforts, we include two subparts under this priority that focus on
projects that improve the access to and use of learning experiences
that are personalized and self-improving, and on projects that
integrate technology with the implementation of rigorous college- and
career-ready standards to increase student achievement, student
engagement, and teacher efficacy, such as by providing embedded, real-
time assessment and feedback to students and teachers. For both of
these subparts, we are particularly interested in supporting projects
that use technology to meet students' diverse learning needs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\7\ Transforming American Education: Learning Powered by
Technology. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational
Technology. (2010). Available at: www.ed.gov/sites/default/files/netp2010.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, we include an absolute priority that focuses on serving
rural communities. Students living in rural communities face unique
challenges. This year's competition welcomes applicants applying under
this priority to address one of the other five absolute priorities for
the FY 2014 i3 Development competition, as described above, while
serving students enrolled in rural LEAs.
In summary, applications must address one of the absolute
priorities for this competition and propose projects designed to
implement practices that serve students who are in grades K-12 at some
point during the funding period. Applicants must be able to demonstrate
that the proposed process, product, strategy, or practice included in
their applications is supported by either evidence of promise (as
defined in this notice) or a strong theory (as defined in this notice).
Applicants should carefully review all of the requirements in the
Eligibility Information section of this notice for instructions on how
to demonstrate the proposed project is supported by evidence of promise
(as defined in this notice) or a strong theory (as defined in this
notice) and for information on the other eligibility and program
requirements.
The i3 program includes a statutory requirement for a private-
sector match for all i3 grantees. For Development grants, an applicant
must obtain matching funds or in-kind donations from the private sector
equal to at least 15 percent of its grant award. Each highest-rated
applicant, as identified by the Department following peer review of the
applications, must submit evidence of at least 50 percent of the
required private-sector match prior to the awarding of an i3 grant. An
applicant must provide evidence of the remaining 50 percent of the
required private-sector match no later than six months after the
project start date (i.e., for the FY 2014 competition, six months after
January 1, 2015, or by July 1, 2015). The grant will be terminated if
the grantee does not secure its private-sector match by the established
deadline.
This notice also includes selection criteria for the FY 2014
Development competition that are designed to ensure that applications
selected for funding have the best potential to generate substantial
improvements in student achievement (and other key outcomes), and
include well-articulated plans for the implementation and evaluation of
the proposed projects. Applicants should review the selection criteria
and submission instructions carefully to ensure their applications
address this year's criteria.
An entity that submits a full application for a Development grant
must include the following information in its application: An estimate
of the number of students to be served by the project; evidence of the
applicant's ability to implement and appropriately evaluate the
proposed project; and information about its capacity (e.g., management
capacity, financial resources, qualified personnel) to implement the
project at the proposed level of scale. We recognize that LEAs are not
typically responsible for taking their practices, strategies, or
programs to scale; however, all applicants can and should partner with
others to disseminate their effective practices, strategies, and
programs and take them to scale.
The Department will screen applications that are submitted for
Development grants in accordance with the requirements in this notice
and determine which applications meet the eligibility and other
requirements. Peer reviewers will review all applications for
Development grants that are submitted by the established deadline.
Applicants should note, however, that we may screen for eligibility
at multiple points during the competition process, including before and
after peer review; and applicants that are determined to be ineligible
will not receive a grant award regardless of peer reviewer scores or
comments. If we determine that a Development grant application is not
supported by evidence of promise (as defined in this notice) or a
strong theory (as defined in this notice), or that the applicant does
not demonstrate the required prior record of improvement, or does not
meet any other i3 requirement, the application will not be considered
for funding.
Priorities: These priorities are from the notice of final
priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria for this
program, published in the Federal Register on March 27, 2013 (78 FR
18682) (the ``2013 i3 NFP''). The 2013 i3 NFP is available at
www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-03-27/pdf/2013-07016.pdf.
Absolute Priorities: For FY 2014 and any subsequent year in which
we make awards from the list of unfunded applicants from this
competition, these priorities are absolute priorities. Under 34 CFR
75.105(c)(3) we consider only applications that meet one of these
priorities.
Under the Development grant competition, each of the six absolute
priorities constitutes its own funding category. The Secretary intends
to award grants under each absolute priority for which applications of
sufficient quality are submitted.
An applicant for a Development grant must choose one of the six
absolute priorities and one of the subparts under the chosen priority
to address in its pre-application, and full application, if the
applicant is invited to, or chooses to, submit a full application. Both
pre-applications and full applications will be peer reviewed and
scored; and because scores will be rank ordered by absolute priority,
it is essential that an applicant clearly identify the specific
absolute priority and subpart that the proposed project addresses. It
is also important to note that applicants who choose to submit an
application under the absolute priority for Serving Rural Communities
must identify an additional absolute priority and subpart.

[[Page 14490]]

Regardless, the peer-reviewed scores for applications submitted under
the Serving Rural Communities priority will be ranked with other
applications under its priority, and not included in the ranking for
the additional priority that the applicant identified. This design
helps us ensure that applicants under the Serving Rural Communities
priority receive an ``apples to apples'' comparison with other rural
applicants.
These priorities are:
Absolute Priority 1--Improving the Effectiveness of Teachers or
Principals.
Under this priority, we provide funding to projects that address
one or more of the following priority areas:
(a) Developing and implementing models for principal preparation
that deepen leadership skills which have been demonstrated to improve
student achievement (as defined in this notice).
(b) Increasing the equitable access to effective teachers or
principals for low-income and high-need students (as defined in this
notice), which may include increasing the equitable distribution of
effective teachers or principals for low-income and high-need students
across schools.
Absolute Priority 2--Improving Low-Performing Schools.
Under this priority, we provide funding to projects that address
one or more of the following priority areas:
(a) Changing elements of the school's organizational design to
improve instruction by differentiating staff roles and extending and
enhancing instructional time.
(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, including physical, mental, or
emotional health issues, on student engagement in learning.
Other requirements related to Absolute Priority 2:
To meet this priority, a project 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.
Absolute Priority 3--Improving Academic Outcomes for Students with
Disabilities.
Under this priority, we provide funding to projects that address
the following priority area:
Implementing coherent systems of support that appropriately
coordinate and integrate programs to address the needs of children and
youth with disabilities and improve the quality of service for those
children and their families.
Absolute Priority 4--Improving Academic Outcomes for English
Learners (ELs).
Under this priority, we provide funding to projects that address
one or more of the following priority areas:
(a) Increasing the number and proportion of ELs successfully
completing courses in core academic subjects by developing,
implementing, and evaluating new instructional approaches and tools
that are sensitive to the language demands necessary to access
challenging content, including technology-based tools.
(b) Preparing ELs to be on track to be college- and career-ready
when they graduate from high school by developing comprehensive,
developmentally appropriate, early learning programs (birth-grade 3)
that are aligned with the State's high-quality early learning
standards, designed to improve readiness for kindergarten, and support
development of literacy and academic skills in English or in English
and another language.
Absolute Priority 5--Effective Use of Technology.
Under this priority, we provide funding to projects that address
one or more of the following priority 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.
(b) Integrating technology with the implementation of rigorous
college- and career-ready standards to increase student achievement (as
defined in this notice), student engagement, and teacher efficacy, such
as by providing embedded, real-time assessment and feedback to students
and teachers.
Absolute Priority 6--Serving Rural Communities.
Under this priority, we provide funding to projects addressing one
of the absolute priorities established for the 2014 Development i3
competition and under which the majority of students to be served are
enrolled in rural local educational agencies (as defined in this
notice).
Definitions:
These definitions are from the 2013 i3 NFP. We may apply these
definitions in any year in which this program is in effect.

Note: This notice invites applications for Development grants.
The following definitions apply to all three types of grants under
the i3 program (Development, Validation, and Scale-up). Therefore,
some of the definitions included in this section, primarily those
related to demonstrations of evidence, may be more applicable to
applications for Validation or Scale-up grants.

Consortium of schools means two or more public elementary or
secondary schools acting collaboratively for the purpose of applying
for and implementing an i3 grant jointly with an eligible nonprofit
organization.
Evidence of promise means there is empirical evidence to support
the theoretical linkage between at least one critical component and at
least one relevant outcome presented in the logic model (as defined in
this notice) for the proposed process, product, strategy, or practice.
Specifically, evidence of promise means the following conditions are
met:
(a) There is at least one study that is either a--
(1) Correlational study with statistical controls for selection
bias;
(2) Quasi-experimental study (as defined in this notice) that meets
the What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards with reservations \8\;
or
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\8\ See What Works Clearinghouse 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(3) Randomized controlled trial (as defined in this notice) that
meets the What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards with or without
reservations \9\; and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\9\ See What Works Clearinghouse 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(b) Such a study found a statistically significant or substantively
important (defined as a difference of 0.25 standard deviations or
larger), favorable association between at least one critical component
and one relevant outcome presented in the logic model for the proposed
process, product, strategy, or practice.
High-need student means a student at risk of educational failure or
otherwise in need of special assistance and support, such as students
who are living in poverty, who attend high-minority

[[Page 14491]]

schools (as defined in this notice), who are far below grade level, who
have left school before receiving a regular high school diploma, who
are at risk of not graduating with a diploma on time, who are homeless,
who are in foster care, who have been incarcerated, who have
disabilities, or who are English learners.
High-minority school is defined by a school's LEA in a manner
consistent with the corresponding State's Teacher Equity Plan, as
required by section 1111(b)(8)(C) of the ESEA. The applicant must
provide, in its i3 application, the definition(s) used.
High school graduation rate means a four-year adjusted cohort
graduation rate consistent with 34 CFR 200.19(b)(1) and may also
include an extended-year adjusted cohort graduation rate consistent
with 34 CFR 200.19(b)(1)(v) if the State in which the proposed project
is implemented has been approved by the Secretary to use such a rate
under Title I of the ESEA.
Highly effective principal means a principal whose students,
overall and for each subgroup as described in section
1111(b)(3)(C)(xiii) of the ESEA (economically disadvantaged students,
students from major racial and ethnic groups, migrant students,
students with disabilities, students with limited English proficiency,
and students of each gender), achieve high rates (e.g., one and one-
half grade levels in an academic year) of student growth. Eligible
applicants may include multiple measures, provided that principal
effectiveness is evaluated, in significant part, based on student
growth. Supplemental measures may include, for example, high school
graduation rates; college enrollment rates; evidence of providing
supportive teaching and learning conditions, support for ensuring
effective instruction across subject areas for a well-rounded
education, strong instructional leadership, and positive family and
community engagement; or evidence of attracting, developing, and
retaining high numbers of effective teachers.
Highly effective teacher means a teacher whose students achieve
high rates (e.g., one and one-half grade levels in an academic year) of
student growth. Eligible applicants may include multiple measures,
provided that teacher effectiveness is evaluated, in significant part,
based on student academic growth. Supplemental measures may include,
for example, multiple observation-based assessments of teacher
performance or evidence of leadership roles (which may include
mentoring or leading professional learning communities) that increase
the effectiveness of other teachers in the school or LEA.
Independent evaluation means that the evaluation is designed and
carried out independent of, but in coordination with, any employees of
the entities who develop a process, product, strategy, or practice and
are implementing it.
Innovation means a process, product, strategy, or practice that
improves (or is expected to improve) significantly upon the outcomes
reached with status quo options and that can ultimately reach
widespread effective usage.
Large sample means a sample of 350 or more students (or other
single analysis units) who were randomly assigned to a treatment or
control group, or 50 or more groups (such as classrooms or schools)
that contain 10 or more students (or other single analysis units) and
that were randomly assigned to a treatment or control group.
Logic model (also referred to as theory of action) means a well-
specified conceptual framework that identifies key components of the
proposed process, product, strategy, or practice (i.e., the active
``ingredients'' that are hypothesized to be critical to achieving the
relevant outcomes) and describes the relationships among the key
components and outcomes, theoretically and operationally.
Moderate evidence of effectiveness means one of the following
conditions is met:
(a) There is at least one study of the effectiveness of the
process, product, strategy, or practice being proposed that: Meets the
What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards without reservations; \10\
found a statistically significant favorable impact on a relevant
outcome (as defined in this notice) (with no statistically significant
and overriding unfavorable impacts on that outcome for relevant
populations in the study or in other studies of the intervention
reviewed by and reported on by the What Works Clearinghouse); and
includes a sample that overlaps with the populations or settings
proposed to receive the process, product, strategy, or practice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\10\ See What Works Clearinghouse 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(b) There is at least one study of the effectiveness of the
process, product, strategy, or practice being proposed that: Meets the
What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards with reservations,\11\
found a statistically significant favorable impact on a relevant
outcome (as defined in this notice) (with no statistically significant
and overriding unfavorable impacts on that outcome for relevant
populations in the study or in other studies of the intervention
reviewed by and reported on by the What Works Clearinghouse); includes
a sample that overlaps with the populations or settings proposed to
receive the process, product, strategy, or practice; and includes a
large sample (as defined in this notice) and a multi-site sample (as
defined in this notice) (Note: multiple studies can cumulatively meet
the large and multi-site sample requirements as long as each study
meets the other requirements in this paragraph).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\11\ See What Works Clearinghouse 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Multi-site sample means more than one site, where site can be
defined as an LEA, locality, or State.
National level describes the level of scope or effectiveness of a
process, product, strategy, or practice that is able to be effective in
a wide variety of communities, including rural and urban areas, as well
as with different groups (e.g., economically disadvantaged, racial and
ethnic groups, migrant populations, individuals with disabilities,
English learners, and individuals of each gender).
Nonprofit organization means an entity that meets the definition of
``nonprofit'' under 34 CFR 77.1(c), or an institution of higher
education as defined by section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of
1965, as amended.
Quasi-experimental design study means a study using a design that
attempts to approximate an experimental design by identifying a
comparison group that is similar to the treatment group in important
respects. These studies, depending on design and implementation, can
meet What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards with reservations \12\
(they cannot meet What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards without
reservations).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\12\ See What Works Clearinghouse 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Randomized controlled trial means a study that employs random
assignment of, for example, students, teachers, classrooms, schools, or
districts to receive the intervention being evaluated (the treatment
group) or not to receive the intervention (the control group). The
estimated effectiveness of the intervention is the difference between
the average outcome for the treatment group and for the control group.
These studies, depending on design and

[[Page 14492]]

implementation, can meet What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards
without reservations.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\13\ See What Works Clearinghouse 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regional level describes the level of scope or effectiveness of a
process, product, strategy, or practice that is able to serve a variety
of communities within a State or multiple States, including rural and
urban areas, as well as with different groups (e.g., economically
disadvantaged, racial and ethnic groups, migrant populations,
individuals with disabilities, English learners, and individuals of
each gender). For an LEA-based project to be considered a regional
level project, a process, product, strategy, or practice must serve
students in more than one LEA, unless the process, product, strategy,
or practice is implemented in a State in which the State educational
agency is the sole educational agency for all schools.
Relevant outcome means the student outcome or outcomes (or the
ultimate outcome if not related to students) that the proposed project
is designed to improve, consistent with the specific goals of the
project and the i3 program.
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.
Strong evidence of effectiveness means that one of the following
conditions is met:
(a) There is at least one study of the effectiveness of the
process, product, strategy, or practice being proposed that: Meets the
What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards without reservations; \14\
found a statistically significant favorable impact on a relevant
outcome (as defined in this notice) (with no statistically significant
and overriding unfavorable impacts on that outcome for relevant
populations in the study or in other studies of the intervention
reviewed by and reported on by the What Works Clearinghouse); includes
a sample that overlaps with the populations and settings proposed to
receive the process, product, strategy, or practice; and includes a
large sample (as defined in this notice) and a multi-site sample (as
defined in this notice). (Note: multiple studies can cumulatively meet
the large and multi-site sample requirements as long as each study
meets the other requirements in this paragraph).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\14\ See What Works Clearinghouse 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(b) There are at least two studies of the effectiveness of the
process, product, strategy, or practice being proposed, each of which:
Meets the What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards with
reservations; \15\ found a statistically significant favorable impact
on a relevant outcome (as defined in this notice) (with no
statistically significant and overriding unfavorable impacts on that
outcome for relevant populations in the studies or in other studies of
the intervention reviewed by and reported on by the What Works
Clearinghouse); includes a sample that overlaps with the populations
and settings proposed to receive the process, product, strategy, or
practice; and includes a large sample (as defined in this notice) and a
multi-site sample (as defined in this notice).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\15\ See What Works Clearinghouse 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Strong theory means a rationale for the proposed process, product,
strategy, or practice that includes a logic model (as defined in this
notice).
Student achievement means--
(a) For grades and subjects in which assessments are required under
ESEA section 1111(b)(3): (1) A student's score on such assessments and
may include (2) other measures of student learning, such as those
described in paragraph (b), provided they are rigorous and comparable
across schools within an LEA.
(b) For grades and subjects in which assessments are not required
under ESEA section 1111(b)(3): Alternative measures of student learning
and performance such as student results on pre-tests, end-of-course
tests, and objective performance-based assessments; student learning
objectives; student performance on English language proficiency
assessments; and other measures of student achievement that are
rigorous and comparable across schools within an LEA.
Student growth means the change in student achievement (as defined
in this notice) for an individual student between two or more points in
time. An applicant may also include other measures that are rigorous
and comparable across classrooms.
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, 86, 97, 98, and 99. (b) The Education Department suspension
and debarment regulations in 2 CFR part 3485. (c) The notice of final
priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria for this
program, published in the Federal Register on March 27, 2013 (78 FR
18682).

Note: The regulations in 34 CFR part 79 apply to all applicants
except federally recognized Indian tribes.

Note: The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 apply to institutions of
higher education only.

II. Award Information

Type of Award: Cooperative agreements or discretionary grants.
Estimated Available Funds: $134,800,000.
These estimated available funds are the total available for all
three types of grants under the i3 program (Development, Validation,
and Scale-up grants).
Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of the
applications received, we may make additional awards in FY 2015 or
later years from the list of unfunded applicants from this competition.
Estimated Range of Awards:
Development grants: Up to $3,000,000.
Validation grants: Up to $12,000,000.
Scale-up grants: Up to $20,000,000.
Estimated Average Size of Awards:
Development grants: $3,000,000.
Validation grants: $11,500,000.
Scale-up grants: $19,000,000.
Estimated Number of Awards:
Development grants: 10-20 awards.
Validation grants: 4-8 awards.
Scale-up grants: 0-2 awards.

Note: The Department is not bound by any estimates in this
notice.

Project Period: 36-60 months.

III. Eligibility Information

1. Innovations that Improve Achievement for High-Need Students: All
grantees must implement practices that are designed to improve student
achievement (as defined in this notice) or student growth (as defined
in this notice), close achievement gaps, decrease dropout rates,
increase high school graduation rates (as defined in this notice), or
increase college

[[Page 14493]]

enrollment and completion rates for high-need students (as defined in
this notice).
2. Innovations that Serve Kindergarten-through-Grade-12 (K-12)
Students: All grantees must implement practices that serve students who
are in grades K-12 at some point during the funding period. To meet
this requirement, projects that serve early learners (i.e., infants,
toddlers, or preschoolers) must provide services or supports that
extend into kindergarten or later years, and projects that serve
postsecondary students must provide services or supports during the
secondary grades or earlier.
3. Eligible Applicants: Entities eligible to apply for i3 grants
include either of the following:
(a) An LEA.
(b) A partnership between a nonprofit organization and--
(1) One or more LEAs; or
(2) A consortium of schools.
Statutory Eligibility Requirements: Except as specifically set
forth in the Note about Eligibility for an Eligible Applicant that
Includes a Nonprofit Organization that follows, to be eligible for an
award, an eligible applicant must--
(a)(1) Have significantly closed the achievement gaps between
groups of students described in section 1111(b)(2) of the ESEA
(economically disadvantaged students, students from major racial and
ethnic groups, students with limited English proficiency, students with
disabilities); or
(2) Have demonstrated success in significantly increasing student
academic achievement for all groups of students described in that
section;
(b) Have made significant improvements in other areas, such as high
school graduation rates (as defined in this notice) or increased
recruitment and placement of high-quality teachers and principals, as
demonstrated with meaningful data;
(c) Demonstrate that it has established one or more partnerships
with the private sector, which may include philanthropic organizations,
and that organizations in the private sector will provide matching
funds in order to help bring results to scale; and
(d) In the case of an eligible applicant that includes a nonprofit
organization, provide in the application the names of the LEAs with
which the nonprofit organization will partner, or the names of the
schools in the consortium with which it will partner. If an eligible
applicant that includes a nonprofit organization intends to partner
with additional LEAs or schools that are not named in the application,
it must describe in the application the demographic and other
characteristics of these LEAs and schools and the process it will use
to select them.

Note: An entity submitting an application should provide, in
Appendix C, under ``Other Attachments Form,'' of its application,
information addressing the eligibility requirements described in
this section. An applicant must provide, in its application,
sufficient supporting data or other information to allow the
Department to determine whether the applicant has met the
eligibility requirements. Note that in order to address the
statutory eligibility requirement above, applicants must provide
data that demonstrate a change. In other words, applicants must
provide data for at least two points in time when addressing this
requirement in Appendix C of their applications. If the Department
determines that an applicant has provided insufficient information
in its application, the applicant will not have an opportunity to
provide additional information.

Note about LEA Eligibility: For purposes of this program, an LEA
is an LEA located within one of the 50 States, the District of
Columbia, or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.

Note about Eligibility for an Eligible Applicant that Includes a
Nonprofit Organization: The authorizing statute specifies that an
eligible applicant that includes a nonprofit organization meets the
requirements in paragraphs (a) and (b) of the eligibility
requirements for this program if the nonprofit organization has a
record of significantly improving student achievement, attainment,
or retention. For an eligible applicant that includes a nonprofit
organization, the nonprofit organization must demonstrate that it
has a record of significantly improving student achievement,
attainment, or retention through its record of work with an LEA or
schools. Therefore, an eligible applicant that includes a nonprofit
organization does not necessarily need to include as a partner for
its i3 grant an LEA or a consortium of schools that meets the
requirements in paragraphs (a) and (b) of the eligibility
requirements in this notice.

In addition, the authorizing statute specifies that an eligible
applicant that includes a nonprofit organization meets the requirements
of paragraph (c) of the eligibility requirements in this notice if the
eligible applicant demonstrates that it will meet the requirement for
private-sector matching.
4. Cost Sharing or Matching: To be eligible for an award, an
applicant must demonstrate that one or more private-sector
organizations, which may include philanthropic organizations, will
provide matching funds in order to help bring project results to scale.
An eligible Development applicant must obtain matching funds, or in-
kind donations, equal to at least 15 percent of its Federal grant
award. The highest-rated eligible applicants must submit evidence of 50
percent of the required private-sector matching funds following the
peer review of applications. A Federal i3 award will not be made unless
the applicant provides adequate evidence that the 50 percent of the
required private-sector match has been committed or the Secretary
approves the eligible applicant's request to reduce the matching-level
requirement. An applicant must provide evidence of the remaining 50
percent of required private-sector match six months after the project
start date.
The Secretary may consider decreasing the matching requirement on a
case-by-case basis, and only in the most exceptional circumstances. 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 that the Secretary reduce the matching-level
requirement, along with a statement of the basis for the request.

Note: An applicant that does not provide a request for a
reduction of the matching-level requirement in its full application
may not submit that request at a later time.

5. Other: The Secretary establishes the following requirements for
the i3 program. These requirements are from the 2013 i3 NFP. We may
apply these requirements in any year in which this program is in
effect.
Evidence Standards: To be eligible for an award, an
application for a Development grant must be supported by evidence of
promise (as defined in this notice) or a strong theory (as defined in
this notice).
Applicants must identify in Appendix D and the Applicant
Information Sheet if their evidence is supported by evidence of promise
or a strong theory.

Note: In Appendix D, under the ``Other Attachments Form,'' an
entity that submits a full application should provide information
addressing one of the required evidence standards for Development
grants. This information should include a description of the
intervention(s) the applicant plans to implement and the intended
student outcomes that the intervention(s) attempts to impact.

Applicants must identify in Appendix D and the Applicant
Information Sheet if their evidence is supported by evidence of promise
or a strong theory. An applicant submitting its Development grant
application under the evidence of promise standard should identify up
to two study citations to be reviewed for the purposes of meeting the
i3 evidence standard requirement and include those citations in
Appendix D. In addition, the

[[Page 14494]]

applicant should specify the intervention that they plan to implement,
the findings within the citations that the applicant is requesting be
considered as evidence of promise, including page number(s) of specific
tables if applicable. The Department will not consider a study citation
that an applicant fails to clearly identify for review.
An applicant must either ensure that all evidence is available to
the Department from publicly available sources and provide links or
other guidance indicating where it is available; or, in the full
application, include copies of evidence in Appendix D. If the
Department determines that an applicant has provided insufficient
information, the applicant will not have an opportunity to provide
additional information at a later time.

Note: The evidence standards apply to the prior research that
supports the effectiveness of the proposed project. The i3 program
does not restrict the source of prior research providing evidence
for the proposed project. As such, an applicant could cite prior
research in Appendix D for studies that were conducted by another
entity (i.e., an entity that is not the applicant) so long as the
prior research studies cited in the application are relevant to the
effectiveness of the proposed project.

Funding Categories: An applicant will be considered for an
award only for the type of i3 grant (i.e., Development, Validation, and
Scale-up grants) for which it applies. An applicant may not submit an
application for the same proposed project under more than one type of
grant.
Limit 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 in a
single year new i3 grant awards that total an amount greater than the
sum of the maximum amount of funds for a Scale-up grant and the maximum
amount of funds for a Development grant for that year. For example, in
a year when the maximum award value for a Scale-up grant is $20 million
and the maximum award value for a Development grant is $3 million, no
grantee may receive in a single year new grants totaling more than $23
million.
Subgrants: In the case of an eligible applicant that is a
partnership between a nonprofit organization and (1) one or more LEAs
or (2) a consortium of schools, the partner serving as the applicant
and, if funded, as the grantee, may make subgrants to one or more
entities in the partnership.
Evaluation: The grantee must conduct an independent
evaluation (as defined in this notice) of its project. This evaluation
must estimate the impact of the i3-supported practice (as implemented
at the proposed level of scale) on a relevant outcome (as defined in
this notice). The grantee must make broadly available digitally and
free of charge, through formal (e.g., peer-reviewed journals) or
informal (e.g., newsletters) mechanisms, the results of any evaluations
it conducts of its funded activities.
In addition, the grantee and its independent evaluator must agree
to cooperate with any technical assistance provided by the Department
or its contractor and comply with the requirements of any evaluation of
the program conducted by the Department. This includes providing to the
Department, within 100 days of a grant award, an updated comprehensive
evaluation plan in a format and using such tools as the Department may
require. Grantees must update this evaluation plan at least annually to
reflect any changes to the evaluation. All of these updates must be
consistent with the scope and objectives of the approved application.
Communities of Practice: Grantees must participate in,
organize, or facilitate, as appropriate, communities of practice for
the i3 program. A community of practice is a group of grantees that
agrees to interact regularly to solve a persistent problem or improve
practice in an area that is important to them.
Management Plan: Within 100 days of a grant award, the
grantee must provide an updated comprehensive management plan for the
approved project in a format and using such tools as the Department may
require. This management plan must include detailed information about
implementation of the first year of the grant, including key
milestones, staffing details, and other information that the Department
may require. It must also include a complete list of performance
metrics, including baseline measures and annual targets. The grantee
must update this management plan at least annually to reflect
implementation of subsequent years of the project.

IV. Application and Submission Information

1. Address to Request Application Package: You can obtain an
application package via the Internet or from the Education Publications
Center (ED Pubs). To obtain a copy via the Internet, use the following
address: http://www2.ed.gov/programs/innovation/index.html. To obtain a
copy from ED Pubs, write, fax, or call the following: ED Pubs, U.S.
Department of Education, P.O. Box 22207, Alexandria, VA 22304.
Telephone, toll free: 1-877-433-7827. FAX: (703) 605-6794. If you use a
telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY),
call, toll free: 1-877-576-7734.
You can contact ED Pubs at its Web site, also: www.EDPubs.gov or at
its email address: edpubs@inet.ed.gov.
If you request an application from ED Pubs, be sure to identify
this program or competition as follows: CFDA number 84.411P (for pre-
applications) or 84.411C (for full applications).
Individuals with disabilities can obtain a copy of the application
package in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape,
or compact disc) by contacting the person or team listed under
Accessible Format in section VIII of this notice.
2. a. Content and Form of Application Submission: Requirements
concerning the content of an application, together with the forms you
must submit, are in the application package for this competition.
Deadline for Notice of Intent to Submit Application: April 3, 2014.
We will be able to develop a more efficient process for reviewing
grant applications if we know the approximate number of applicants that
intend to apply for funding under this competition. Therefore, the
Secretary strongly encourages each potential applicant to notify us of
the applicant's intent to submit an application by completing a web-
based form. When completing this form, applicants will provide (1) the
applicant organization's name and address and (2) the one absolute
priority the applicant intends to address. Applicants may access this
form online at http://go.usa.gov/BvuQ. Applicants that do not complete
this form may still submit an application.
Page Limit: For the pre-application, the project narrative is where
you, the applicant, address the selection criteria that reviewers use
to evaluate your pre-application. For the full application, the project
narrative (Part III of the application) is where you, the applicant,
address the selection criteria that reviewers use to evaluate your full
applications.
Pre-Application page limit: Applicants should limit the pre-
application narrative to no more than seven pages. Full-Application
page limit: Applicants submitting a full application should limit the
application narrative [Part III] for a Development

[[Page 14495]]

grant application to no more than 25 pages. Applicants are also
strongly encouraged not to include lengthy appendices for the full
application that contain information that they were unable to include
in the narrative. Aside from the required forms, applicants should not
include appendices in their pre-applications. Applicants for both pre-
and full applications should use the following standards:
A ``page'' is 8.5 x 11, on one side
only, with 1 margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.
Double space (no more than three lines per vertical inch)
all text in the application narrative, including titles, headings,
footnotes, quotations, references, and captions.
Use a font that is either 12 point or larger or no smaller
than 10 pitch (characters per inch).
Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier,
Courier New, or Arial.
The page limit for the full application does not apply to Part I,
the cover sheet; Part II, the budget section, including the narrative
budget justification; Part IV, the assurances and certifications; or
the one-page abstract, the resumes, the bibliography, or the letters of
support for the full application. However, the page limit does apply to
all of the application narrative section [Part III] of the full
application.
b. Submission of Proprietary Information:
Given the types of projects that may be proposed in applications
for the i3 program, some applications may include business information
that applicants consider proprietary. The Department's regulations
define ``business information'' in 34 CFR 5.11.
Consistent with the process followed in the prior i3 competitions,
we plan on posting the project narrative section of funded i3
applications on the Department's Web site so you may wish to request
confidentiality of business information. Identifying proprietary
information in the submitted application will help facilitate this
public disclosure process.
Consistent with Executive Order 12600, please designate in your
application any information that you feel is exempt from disclosure
under Exemption 4 of the Freedom of Information Act. In the appropriate
Appendix section of your application, under ``Other Attachments Form,''
please list the page number or numbers on which we can find this
information. For additional information please see 34 CFR 5.11(c).
3. Submission Dates and Times:
Pre-Applications Available: March 17, 2014.
Deadline for Notice of Intent to Submit Pre-Application: April 3,
2014.
Informational Meetings: The i3 program intends to hold webinars
designed to provide technical assistance to interested applicants for
all three types of grants. Detailed information regarding these
meetings will be provided on the i3 Web site at http://www2.ed.gov/programs/innovation/index.html.
Deadline for Transmittal of Pre-Applications: April 14, 2014.
Deadline for Transmittal of Full Applications: The Department will
announce on its Web site the deadline date for transmission of full
applications for Development grants. Under the pre-application process,
peer reviewers will read and score the shorter pre-application against
an abbreviated set of selection criteria, and entities that submit
highly rated pre-applications will be invited to submit full
applications for a Development grant. Other pre-applicants may choose
to submit a full application.
Pre- and full applications for Development grants under this
competition must be submitted electronically using the Grants.gov Apply
site (Grants.gov). For information (including dates and times) about
how to submit your application electronically, or in paper format by
mail or hand delivery if you qualify for an exception to the electronic
submission requirement, please refer to section IV. 7. Other Submission
Requirements of this notice.
We do not consider an application that does not comply with the
deadline requirements.
Individuals with disabilities who need an accommodation or
auxiliary aid in connection with the application process should contact
the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT in section VII
of this notice. If the Department provides an accommodation or
auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability in connection with the
application process, the individual's application remains subject to
all other requirements and limitations in this notice.
Deadline for Intergovernmental Review of Full Applications: 60
calendar days after the deadline date for transmittal of full
applications.
4. Intergovernmental Review: This competition is subject to
Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79.
Information about Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs under
Executive Order 12372 is in the application package for this
competition.
5. Funding Restrictions: We reference regulations outlining funding
restrictions in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice.
6. Data Universal Numbering System Number, Taxpayer Identification
Number, and System for Award Management: To do business with the
Department of Education, you must--
a. Have a Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number and a
Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN);
b. Register both your DUNS number and TIN with the System for Award
Management (SAM) (formerly the Central Contractor Registry (CCR)), the
Government's primary registrant database;
c. Provide your DUNS number and TIN on your application; and
d. Maintain an active SAM registration with current information
while your application is under review by the Department and, if you
are awarded a grant, during the project period.
You can obtain a DUNS number from Dun and Bradstreet. A DUNS number
can be created within one-to-two business days.
If you are a corporate entity, agency, institution, or
organization, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service.
If you are an individual, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal
Revenue Service or the Social Security Administration. If you need a
new TIN, please allow 2-5 weeks for your TIN to become active.
The SAM registration process can take approximately seven business
days, but may take upwards of several weeks, depending on the
completeness and accuracy of the data entered into the SAM database by
an entity. Thus, if you think you might want to apply for Federal
financial assistance under a program administered by the Department,
please allow sufficient time to obtain and register your DUNS number
and TIN. We strongly recommend that you register early.

Note: Once your SAM registration is active, you will need to
allow 24 to 48 hours for the information to be available in
Grants.gov and before you can submit an application through
Grants.gov.

If you are currently registered with SAM, you may not need to make
any changes. However, please make certain that the TIN associated with
your DUNS number is correct. Also note that you will need to update
your registration annually. This may take three or more business days.
Information about SAM is available at www.SAM.gov. To further
assist you

[[Page 14496]]

with obtaining and registering your DUNS number and TIN in SAM or
updating your existing SAM account, we have prepared a SAM.gov Tip
Sheet, which you can find at: http://www2.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/sam-faqs.html.
In addition, if you are submitting your application via Grants.gov,
you must (1) be designated by your organization as an Authorized
Organization Representative (AOR); and (2) register yourself with
Grants.gov as an AOR. Details on these steps are outlined at the
following Grants.gov Web page: www.grants.gov/web/grants/register.html.
7. Other Submission Requirements: Applications for grants for the
i3 program must be submitted electronically unless you qualify for an
exception to this requirement in accordance with the instructions in
this section.
a. Electronic Submission of Applications.
Applications (both pre- and full applications) for Development
grants under the i3 program, CFDA Number 84.411P (pre-applications) and
CFDA Number 84.411C (full applications), must be submitted
electronically using the Governmentwide Grants.gov Apply site at
www.Grants.gov. Through this site, you will be able to download a copy
of the application package, complete it offline, and then upload and
submit your application. You may not email an electronic copy of a
grant application to us.
We will reject your application if you submit it in paper format
unless, as described elsewhere in this section, you qualify for one of
the exceptions to the electronic submission requirement and submit, no
later than two weeks before the application deadline date, a written
statement to the Department that you qualify for one of these
exceptions. Further information regarding calculation of the date that
is two weeks before the application deadline date is provided later in
this section under Exception to Electronic Submission Requirement.
You may access the electronic grant application for the i3 program
at www.Grants.gov. You must search for the downloadable application
package for this program this competition by the CFDA number. Do not
include the CFDA number's alpha suffix in your search (e.g., search for
84.411, not 84.411P or 84.411C).
Please note the following:
When you enter the Grants.gov site, you will find
information about submitting an application electronically through the
site, as well as the hours of operation.
Applications received by Grants.gov are date and time
stamped. Your application must be fully uploaded and submitted and must
be date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system no later than 4:30:00
p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. Except as
otherwise noted in this section, we will not accept your application if
it is received--that is, date and time stamped by the Grants.gov
system--after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application
deadline date. We do not consider an application that does not comply
with the deadline requirements. When we retrieve your application from
Grants.gov, we will notify you if we are rejecting your application
because it was date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system after
4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date.
The amount of time it can take to upload an application
will vary depending on a variety of factors, including the size of the
application and the speed of your Internet connection. Therefore, we
strongly recommend that you do not wait until the application deadline
date to begin the submission process through Grants.gov.
You should review and follow the Education Submission
Procedures for submitting an application through Grants.gov that are
included in the application package for this competition to ensure that
you submit your application in a timely manner to the Grants.gov
system. You can also find the Education Submission Procedures
pertaining to Grants.gov under News and Events on the Department's G5
system home page at www.G5.gov.
You will not receive additional point value because you
submit your application in electronic format, nor will we penalize you
if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission
requirement, as described elsewhere in this section, and submit your
application in paper format.
You must submit all documents electronically, including
all information you typically provide on the following forms: The
Application for Federal Assistance (SF 424), the Department of
Education Supplemental Information for SF 424, Budget Information--Non-
Construction Programs (ED 524), and all necessary assurances and
certifications.
You must upload any narrative sections and all other
attachments to your application as files in a PDF (Portable Document)
read-only, non-modifiable format. Do not upload an interactive or
fillable PDF file. If you upload a file type other than a read-only,
non-modifiable PDF or submit a password-protected file, we will not
review that material.
Your electronic application must comply with any page-
limit requirements described in this notice.
After you electronically submit your application, you will
receive from Grants.gov an automatic notification of receipt that
contains a Grants.gov tracking number. (This notification indicates
receipt by Grants.gov only, not receipt by the Department.) The
Department then will retrieve your application from Grants.gov and send
a second notification to you by email. This second notification
indicates that the Department has received your application and has
assigned your application a PR/Award number (an ED-specified
identifying number unique to your application).
We may request that you provide us original signatures on
forms at a later date.
Application Deadline Date Extension in Case of Technical Issues
with the Grants.gov System: 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 must keep a record of it.
If you are prevented from electronically submitting your
application on the application deadline date because of technical
problems with the Grants.gov system, we will grant you an extension
until 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, the following business day to
enable you to transmit your application electronically or by hand
delivery. You also may mail your application by following the mailing
instructions described elsewhere in this notice.
If you submit an application after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC
time, on the application deadline date, please contact the person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT in section VII of this
notice and provide an explanation of the technical problem you
experienced with Grants.gov, along with the Grants.gov Support Desk
Case Number. We will accept your application if we can confirm that a
technical problem occurred with the Grants.gov system and that that
problem affected your ability to submit your application by 4:30:00
p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. The
Department will contact you after a determination is made on whether
your application will be accepted.

Note: The extensions to which we refer in this section apply
only to the unavailability

[[Page 14497]]

of, or technical problems with, the Grants.gov system. We will not
grant you an extension if you failed to fully register to submit
your application to Grants.gov before the application deadline date
and time or if the technical problem you experienced is unrelated to
the Grants.gov system.

Exception to Electronic Submission Requirement: You qualify for an
exception to the electronic submission requirement, and may submit your
application in paper format, if you are unable to submit an application
through the Grants.gov system because--
You do not have access to the Internet; or
You do not have the capacity to upload large documents to
the Grants.gov system;
and
No later than two weeks before the application deadline
date (14 calendar days or, if the fourteenth calendar day before the
application deadline date falls on a Federal holiday, the next business
day following the Federal holiday), you mail or fax a written statement
to the Department, explaining which of the two grounds for an exception
prevent you from using the Internet to submit your application.
If you mail your written statement to the Department, it must be
postmarked no later than two weeks before the application deadline
date. If you fax your written statement to the Department, we must
receive the faxed statement no later than two weeks before the
application deadline date.
Address and mail or fax your statement to: Kelly Terpak, U.S.
Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 4W111,
Washington, DC 20202-5930. FAX: (202) 205-5631.
Your paper application must be submitted in accordance with the
mail or hand delivery instructions described in this notice.
b. Submission of Paper Applications by Mail.
If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission
requirement, you may mail (through the U.S. Postal Service or a
commercial carrier) your application to the Department. You must mail
the original and two copies of your application, on or before the
application deadline date, to the Department at the following address:
U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center,
Attention: (CFDA Number 84.411C or 84.411P) LBJ Basement Level 1, 400
Maryland Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20202-4260.

Note: Entities submitting pre-applications for Development
grants will use CFDA Number 84.411P, and entities submitting full
applications for Development grants will use CFDA Number 84.411C.

You must show proof of mailing consisting of one of the following:
(1) A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark.
(2) A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the
U.S. Postal Service.
(3) A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial
carrier.
(4) Any other proof of mailing acceptable to the Secretary of the
U.S. Department of Education.
If you mail your application through the U.S. Postal Service, we do
not accept either of the following as proof of mailing:
(1) A private metered postmark.
(2) A mail receipt that is not dated by the U.S. Postal Service.
If your application is postmarked after the application deadline
date, we will not consider your application.

Note: The U.S. Postal Service does not uniformly provide a dated
postmark. Before relying on this method, you should check with your
local post office.

c. Submission of Paper Applications by Hand Delivery.
If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission
requirement, you (or a courier service) may deliver your paper
application to the Department by hand. You must deliver the original
and two copies of your application by hand, on or before the
application deadline date, to the Department at the following address:
U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center,
Attention: (CFDA Number 84.411C or 84.411P) 550 12th Street SW., Room
7039, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-4260.

Note: Entities submitting pre-applications for Development
grants will use 84.411P, and entities submitting full applications
for Development grants will use 84.411C.

The Application Control Center accepts hand deliveries daily
between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, except
Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays. Note for Mail or Hand
Delivery of Paper Applications: If you mail or hand deliver your
application to the Department--
(1) You must indicate on the envelope and--if not provided by the
Department--in Item 11 of the SF 424 the CFDA number, including suffix
letter, if any, of the competition under which you are submitting your
+application; and
(2) The Application Control Center will mail to you a notification
of receipt of your grant application. If you do not receive this
notification within 15 business days from the application deadline
date, you should call the U.S. Department of Education Application
Control Center at (202) 245-6288.

V. Application Review Information

1. Selection Criteria: This competition has separate selection
criteria for pre-applications and full applications. The selection
criteria for the Development competition are from the 2013 i3 NFP and
34 CFR 75.210, and are listed below.
The points assigned to each criterion are indicated in the
parenthesis next to the criterion. An applicant may earn up to a total
of 20 points based on the selection criteria for the pre-application.
An applicant may earn up to a total of 100 points based on the
selection criteria for the full application.

Note: An applicant must provide information on how its proposed
project addresses the selection criteria in the project narrative
section of its application. In responding to the selection criteria,
applicants for both the pre- and full applications should keep in
mind that peer reviewers may consider only the information provided
in the written application when scoring and commenting on the
application. Therefore, applicants should draft their responses with
the goal of helping peer reviewers understand the following:
What the applicant is proposing to do, including the
single absolute priority under which the applicant intends the
application to be reviewed;
How the proposed project will improve upon existing
practices, strategies, or programs for addressing similar needs;
What the outcomes of the project will be if it is
successful; and
What procedures are in place for ensuring feedback and
continuous improvement in the operation of the proposed project.

Selection Criteria for the Development Grant Pre-Application:
A. Significance (up to 10 points).
In determining the significance of the project, the Secretary
considers the following factors:
(1) The extent to which the proposed project addresses the absolute
priority the applicant is seeking to meet. (2013 i3 NFP)
(2) The extent to which the proposed project would implement a
novel approach as compared with what has been previously attempted
nationally. (2013 i3 NFP)

Note: In responding to this criterion, the Secretary encourages
applicants to address how their project is unique and how the
project would move the field forward (as opposed to affecting only
the entities or individuals being served with grant funds).

B. Quality of Project Design (up to 10 points).

[[Page 14498]]

In determining the quality of the proposed project design, the
Secretary considers:
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). (2013 i3 NFP)

Note: In responding to this criterion, the Secretary encourages
applicants to describe the goals of the proposed project as well as
the applicant's plan for achieving those goals.

Selection Criteria for the Development Grant Full Application:
A. Significance (up to 35 points).
In determining the significance of the project, the Secretary
considers the following factors:
(1) The extent to which the proposed project addresses the absolute
priority the applicant is seeking to meet. (2013 i3 NFP)
(2) The extent to which the proposed project would implement a
novel approach as compared with what has been previously attempted
nationally. (2013 i3 NFP)
(3) The potential contribution of the proposed project to the
development and advancement of theory, knowledge, and practices in the
field of study. (34 CFR 75.210)

Note: In responding to this criterion, the Secretary encourages
applicants to explain how the applicant's proposed project addresses
the absolute priority and the subpart that it seeks to meet.
Additionally, the Secretary asks that applicants explain how the
proposed project is unique. Applicants should explain how their
proposed projects fit into existing theory, knowledge, or practice,
and how their proposed projects will serve as exemplars for new
practices in the field.

B. Quality of the Project Design (up to 30 points).
In determining the quality of the proposed project design, the
Secretary considers the following factors:
(1) 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). (2013 i3 NFP)
(2) 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. (2013 i3 NFP)

Note: In responding to this criterion, the Secretary encourages
applicants to address what activities the applicant will undertake
in its proposed project, and how the applicant will ensure its
project implementation is successful in achieving the project goals.

C. Quality of the Management Plan and Personnel (up to 20 points).
In determining the quality of the management plan and personnel for
the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(1) The extent to which the management plan articulates key
responsibilities and well-defined objectives, including the timelines
and milestones for completion of major project activities, the metrics
that will be used to assess progress on an ongoing basis, and annual
performance targets the applicant will use to monitor whether the
project is achieving its goals. (2013 i3 NFP)
(2) 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. (2013 i3 NFP)
(3) The adequacy of procedures for ensuring feedback and continuous
improvement in the operation of the proposed project. (34 CFR 75.210)
(4) The extent to which the project director has experience
managing projects of similar size and scope as the proposed project.
(2013 i3 NFP)

Note: In responding to this criterion, the Secretary encourages
applicants to address how the project team will evaluate the success
or challenges of the project and use that feedback to make
improvements to the project, and the role of key partners and their
impact on the long-term success of the project, and how the project
director's prior experiences have prepared them for implementing the
proposed project of this size and scope successfully. (2013 i3 NFP)

D. Quality of Project Evaluation (up to 15 points).
In determining the quality of the project evaluation to be
conducted, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(1) 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. (2013 i3 NFP)
(2) 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. (2013
i3 NFP)
(3) 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. (2013 i3 NFP)
(4) The extent to which the proposed project plan includes
sufficient resources to carry out the project evaluation effectively.
(2013 i3 NFP)

Note: In responding to this criterion, applicants should
describe the key evaluation questions and address how the proposed
evaluation methodologies will allow the project to answer those
questions. The Secretary encourages applicants to include questions
about the effectiveness of the proposed project with the specific
student populations being served with grant funds. Further, the
Secretary encourages applicants to identify what implementation and
performance data the evaluation will generate and how the evaluation
will provide data during the grant period to help indicate whether
the project is on track to meet its goals. Finally, applicants
should also address whether sufficient resources, which may include
the qualifications of the independent evaluator, are included in the
project budget to carry out the evaluation effectively.

We encourage eligible applicants to review the following technical
assistance resources on evaluation:
(1) What Works Clearinghouse Procedures and Standards Handbook:
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/references/idocviewer/doc.aspx?docid=19&tocid=1; and
(2) IES/NCEE Technical Methods papers: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/tech_methods/.
2. Review and Selection Process: In order to receive an i3
Development grant, an entity must submit a pre-application. The pre-
application will be reviewed and scored by peer reviewers using the two
selection criteria established in this notice. We will inform the
entities that submitted pre-applications of the results of the peer
review process. Entities with highly rated pre-applications will be
invited to submit full applications. Other pre-applicants may choose to
submit a full application. Scores received on pre-applications will not
carry over to the review of the full application.
As described earlier in this notice, before making awards, we will
screen applications submitted in accordance with the requirements in
this notice to determine which applications have met eligibility and
other statutory requirements. This screening process may occur at
various stages of the pre-application and full application processes;
applicants that are determined ineligible will not receive a grant,
regardless of peer reviewer scores or comments.
For the pre- and full application review processes, we will use

[[Page 14499]]

independent peer reviewers with varied backgrounds and professions
including pre-kindergarten-grade 12 teachers and principals, college
and university educators, researchers and evaluators, social
entrepreneurs, strategy consultants, grant makers and managers, and
others with education expertise. All reviewers will be thoroughly
screened for conflicts of interest to ensure a fair and competitive
review process.
Peer reviewers will read, prepare a written evaluation, and score
the assigned pre-applications and full applications, using the
respective selection criteria provided in this notice. For Development
grant pre-applications, peer reviewers will review and score the
applications based on the two selection criteria for pre-applications
listed in the Selection Criteria for the Development Grant Pre-
Application section of this notice. For full applications submitted for
Development grants, peer reviewers will review and score the
applications based on the four selection criteria for full applications
listed in the Selection Criteria for the Development Grant Full
Application section of this notice.
We remind potential applicants that, in reviewing applications in
any discretionary grant competition, the Secretary may consider, under
34 CFR 75.217(d)(3), the past performance of the applicant in carrying
out a previous award, such as the applicant's use of funds, achievement
of project objectives, and compliance with grant conditions. The
Secretary may also consider whether the applicant failed to submit a
timely performance report or submitted a report of unacceptable
quality.
Finally, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary also
requires various assurances including those applicable to Federal civil
rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities
receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department of Education
(34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
3. Special Conditions: Under 34 CFR 74.14 and 80.12, the Secretary
may impose special conditions on a grant if the applicant or grantee is
not financially stable; has a history of unsatisfactory performance;
has a financial or other management system that does not meet the
standards in 34 CFR parts 74 or 80, as applicable; has not fulfilled
the conditions of a prior grant; or is otherwise not responsible.

VI. Award Administration Information

1. Award Notices: If your application is successful, we notify your
U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators and send you a Grant Award
Notification (GAN); or we may send you an email containing a link to
access an electronic version of your GAN. We may notify you informally,
also.
If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding,
we notify you.
2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements: We identify
administrative and national policy requirements in the application
package and reference these and other requirements in the Applicable
Regulations section of this notice.
We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of
an award in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice and
include these and other specific conditions in the GAN. The GAN also
incorporates your approved application as part of your binding
commitments under the grant.
3. Reporting: (a) If you apply for a grant under this competition,
you must ensure that you have in place the necessary processes and
systems to comply with the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 170
should you receive funding under the competition. This does not apply
if you have an exception under 2 CFR 170.110(b).
(b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final
performance report, including financial information, as directed by the
Secretary. If you receive a multi-year award, you must submit an annual
performance report that provides the most current performance and
financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34
CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance
reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting,
please go to www.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/appforms/appforms.html.
4. Performance Measures: The overall purpose of the i3 program is
to expand the implementation of, and investment in, innovative
practices that are demonstrated to have an impact on improving student
achievement or student growth for high-need students. We have
established several performance measures for the i3 Development grants.
Short-term performance measures: (1) The percentage of grantees
whose projects are being implemented with fidelity to the approved
design; (2) the percentage of programs, practices, or strategies
supported by a Development grant with ongoing evaluations that provide
evidence of their promise for improving student outcomes; (3) the
percentage of programs, practices, or strategies supported by a
Development grant with ongoing evaluations that are providing high-
quality implementation data and performance feedback that allow for
periodic assessment of progress toward achieving intended outcomes; and
(4) the cost per student actually served by the grant.
Long-term performance measures: (1) The percentage of programs,
practices, or strategies supported by a Development grant with a
completed evaluation that provides evidence of their promise for
improving student outcomes; (2) the percentage of programs, practices,
or strategies supported by a Development grant with a completed
evaluation that provides information about the key elements and
approach of the project so as to facilitate further development,
replication, or testing in other settings; and (3) the cost per student
for programs, practices, or strategies that were proven promising at
improving educational outcomes for students.
5. Continuation Awards: In making a continuation award, the
Secretary may consider, under 34 CFR 75.253, the extent to which a
grantee has made ``substantial progress toward meeting the objectives
in its approved application.'' This consideration includes the review
of a grantee's progress in meeting the targets and projected outcomes
in its approved application, and whether the grantee has expended funds
in a manner that is consistent with its approved application and
budget. In making a continuation grant, the Secretary also considers
whether the grantee is operating in compliance with the assurances in
its approved application, including those applicable to Federal civil
rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities
receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR
100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).

VII. Agency Contact

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kelly Terpak, U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 4W111, Washington, DC 20202-
5930. Telephone: (202) 453-7122. FAX: (202) 205-5631 or by email:
i3@ed.gov.
If you use a TDD or a TTY, call the Federal Relay Service, toll
free, at 1-800-877-8339.

VIII. Other Information

Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this
document and a copy of the application package in an accessible format
(e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) on request to
either program contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT in section VII of this notice.

[[Page 14500]]

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: 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:
www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search
feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published
by the Department.

Dated: March 11, 2014.
Nadya Chinoy Dabby,
Associate Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and Improvement,
delegated the authority to perform the functions and duties of the
Assistant Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-05706 Filed 3-13-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P