[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 50 (Friday, March 14, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14486-14500]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing 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