[Federal Register: October 9, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 195)]
[Notices]
[Page 52214-52228]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr09oc09-57]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
[Docket ID ED-2009-OII-0012]
RIN 1855-AA06
Investing in Innovation
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Numbers: 84.396A, 84.396B
and 84.396C.
AGENCY: Office of Innovation and Improvement, Department of Education.
ACTION: Notice of proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and
selection criteria.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Secretary of Education (Secretary) proposes priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria under the Investing
in Innovation Fund. The Secretary may use these priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria for competitions of
the Investing in Innovation Fund for fiscal year (FY) 2010 and later
years. We intend for the priorities, requirements, definitions, and
selection criteria to support the efforts of local educational agencies
(LEAs) and nonprofit organizations (as defined in this notice) that
have strong track records of improving student achievement (as defined
in this notice) to expand their work; identify, document, and share
best practices; and take successful practices ``to scale.''
DATES: We must receive your comments on or before November 9, 2009.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal
or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. We will not
accept comments by fax or by e-mail. Please submit your comments only
one time in order to ensure that we do not receive duplicate copies. In
addition, please include the Docket ID and the term
[[Page 52215]]
``Investing in Innovation'' at the top of your comments.
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov to submit your comments electronically. Information
on using Regulations.gov, including instructions for accessing agency
documents, submitting comments, and viewing the docket, is available on
the site under ``How To Use This Site.'' A direct link to the docket
page is also available at http://www.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2009/10/
10062009a.html.
Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery, or Hand Delivery. If you
mail or deliver your comments about these proposed priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria, address them to
Office of Innovation and Improvement (Attention: Investing in
Innovation Comments), U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland
Avenue, SW., room 4W321, Washington, DC 20202.
Privacy Note: The Department's policy for comments
received from members of the public (including those comments submitted
by mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery) is to make these
submissions available for public viewing in their entirety on the
Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. Therefore,
commenters should be careful to include in their comments only
information that they wish to make publicly available on the Internet.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mia Howerton. Telephone: (202) 205-
0417; or Erin McHugh. Telephone: (202) 401-1304. Or by e-mail:
i3@ed.gov. Note that we will not accept comments by e-mail.
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the
Federal Relay Service, toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Invitation To Comment: We invite you to submit comments regarding
this notice. To ensure that your comments have maximum effect in
developing the notice of final priorities, requirements, definitions,
and selection criteria, we urge you to identify clearly the specific
proposed priority, requirement, definition, or selection criterion your
comment addresses.
We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific
requirements of Executive Order 12866 and its overall requirement of
reducing regulatory burden that might result from the proposed
priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria. Please
let us know of any further ways we could reduce potential costs or
increase potential benefits while preserving the effective and
efficient administration of the program.
During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public
comments about this notice by accessing Regulations.gov. You may also
inspect the comments in person, in room 4W335, 400 Maryland Avenue,
SW., Washington, DC, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.,
Washington, DC time, Monday through Friday of each week except Federal
holidays.
Assistance to Individuals With Disabilities in Reviewing the
Rulemaking Record: On request we will provide an appropriate
accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability who
needs assistance to review the comments or other documents in the
public rulemaking record for this notice. If you want to schedule an
appointment for this type of accommodation or auxiliary aid, please
contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Purpose of Program: The Investing in Innovation Fund, established
under section 14007 of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of
2009 (ARRA), provides funding to support (1) LEAs, and (2) nonprofit
organizations in partnership with (a) one or more LEAs or (b) a
consortium of schools (as defined in this notice). The purpose of the
program is to provide competitive grants to applicants with a record of
improving student achievement, in order to expand the implementation
of, and investment in, innovative practices that are demonstrated to
have an impact on improving student achievement or student growth (as
defined in this notice) for high-need students (as defined in this
notice), as well as to promote school readiness, close achievement
gaps, decrease dropout rates, increase high school graduation rates,
and improve teacher and school leader effectiveness.
These grants will (1) allow eligible entities to expand and develop
their work so that their work can serve as models of best practices,
(2) allow eligible entities to work in partnership with the private
sector and the philanthropic community, and (3) identify and document
best practices that can be shared and taken to scale based on
demonstrated success.
Program Authority: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009,
Division A, Section 14007, Public Law No. 111-5.
Background
The Statutory Context
On February 17, 2009, President Obama signed into law the ARRA
(Pub. L. 111-5), historic legislation designed to stimulate the
economy, support job creation, and invest in critical sectors,
including education. The ARRA lays the foundation for education reform
by supporting investments in innovative strategies that are most likely
to lead to improved results for students, long-term gains in school and
LEA capacity for success, and increased productivity and effectiveness.
The ARRA provides $98.2 billion to the Department for direct
expenditures on education. Within this amount, $650 million was
authorized and appropriated for the Investing in Innovation Fund
(referred to as the ``Innovation Fund'' in the ARRA), for a competitive
grant program to enable LEAs and nonprofit organizations with a record
of improving kindergarten-through-grade-12 (K-12) student achievement
to: expand their work; identify, document, and share best practices;
and take successful practices to scale.
Education Reform Areas
One of the overall goals of the ARRA is to improve student
achievement through school improvement and reform. Within the context
of the ARRA, the Investing in Innovation Fund focuses on four key
assurances, or education reform areas, that will help achieve this
goal: (1) Improvements in teacher effectiveness and ensuring that all
schools have effective teachers, (2) gathering information to improve
student learning, teacher performance, and college and career readiness
through enhanced data systems, (3) progress toward college- and career-
ready standards and rigorous assessments, and (4) improving achievement
in low-performing schools through intensive support and effective
interventions.
Overview of the Investing in Innovation Fund
The Department intends to use the Investing in Innovation Fund to
support the overarching ARRA goal of improving student achievement by
aligning four of the priorities proposed in this notice directly with
the four ARRA reform areas. In this notice we propose four additional
priorities that are aligned with other Department reform goals in the
areas of early learning, college access, students with disabilities and
limited English proficient students, and rural LEAs. Finally, we
propose to require that all funded projects provide educational or
other services to support high-need students.
In this notice, the Department proposes to award three types of
grants within the Investing in Innovation
[[Page 52216]]
Fund: ``Scale-up'' grants, ``Validation'' grants, and ``Development''
grants. We have defined each of these types of grants in the section
that follows.
Projects funded under each of the three types of grants would
provide services to high-need students and would focus on priorities
directly tied to the reform areas of the ARRA; applicants could also
choose to meet the additional priority areas. Among the three grant
types, there would be differences in terms of the evidence that an
applicant would be required to submit in support of its proposed
project; the expectations for scaling up successful projects during or
after the grant period, either directly or through partners; and the
funding that a successful applicant would receive.
The intent of these requirements is to ensure that program funds
are used to expand and take to scale the most promising practices,
strategies, and programs. We are proposing definitions and criteria
that would be used to evaluate the available evidence supporting a
proposed project, in terms of the strength of the research, the
significance of the effect, and the magnitude of the effect for each
type of grant. As such, we are particularly interested in receiving
comments on these proposed definitions and selection criteria, and
whether, in evaluating the magnitude of the effect, we should specify a
minimum effect size and, if so, what that effect size should be. We
also are interested in your comments on how to ensure that projects
that are innovative and comprehensive in scope or that may show a
cumulative effect over time are properly considered, given the proposed
definitions and selection criteria. We are cognizant of the need to
balance our interest in innovation with the importance of research-
based evidence, and welcome comments on how best to achieve the proper
balance.
We also are interested in receiving comments on the criteria we are
proposing to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a proposed practice,
strategy, or program. We believe that an important aspect of evaluating
applications under the Investing in Innovation Fund is assessing the
extent to which a proposal is feasible and can be brought to scale in a
cost-effective manner. So that we can judge the cost-effectiveness of a
proposed project, we propose that applicants provide estimated start-up
and operating costs per student (including indirect costs) for reaching
the total number of students proposed to be served by the project, as
well as for the applicant or others to reach 100,000, 250,000, and
500,000 students for Development grants and Validation grants; and to
reach 100,000, 500,000, and 1,000,000 students for Scale-up grants. We
are interested in your comments on whether there are other methods of
determining cost-effectiveness that would be more informative or less
burdensome.
Following is an overview of the three types of grants we are
proposing to award:
1. Scale-up grants would provide funding to scale up practices,
strategies, or programs for which there is strong evidence (as defined
in this notice) that the proposed practice, strategy, or program will
have a statistically significant effect on improving student
achievement or student growth, closing achievement gaps, decreasing
dropout rates, or increasing high school graduation rates, and that the
effect of implementing the proposed practice, strategy, or program will
be substantial and important. We also propose that an applicant for a
Scale-up grant could demonstrate success through an intermediate
variable directly correlated with these outcomes, such as teacher or
school leader effectiveness or improvements in school climate.
We further propose that an applicant for a Scale-up grant estimate
the number of students to be reached by the proposed project and
provide evidence of its capacity to reach the proposed number of
students during the course of the grant. In addition, we propose that
an applicant for a Scale-up grant provide evidence of its capacity
(e.g., in terms of qualified personnel, financial resources, management
capacity) to scale up to a State, regional, or national level (as
defined in this notice), working directly or through partners either
during or following the end of the grant period. We recognize that LEAs
are not typically responsible for taking to scale their practices,
strategies, or programs to other LEAs and States. Applicants can and
should partner with others (e.g., service centers, State educational
agencies, institutions of higher education) to disseminate and take to
scale their effective practices, strategies, and programs.
Successful applicants for Scale-up grants would receive larger
levels of funding than successful applicants for Validation or
Development grants.
2. Validation grants would provide funding to support practices,
strategies, or programs that show promise, but for which there is
currently only moderate evidence (as defined in this notice) that the
proposed practice, strategy, or program will have a statistically
significant effect on improving student achievement or student growth,
closing achievement gaps, decreasing dropout rates, or increasing high
school graduation rates, and that with further study, the effect of
implementing the proposed practice, strategy, or program may prove to
be substantial and important. Thus, proposals for Validation grants
would not need to have the same level of research evidence to support
the proposed project that would be required for Scale-up grants. We
also propose that applicants could demonstrate success through an
intermediate variable directly correlated with these outcomes, such as
teacher or school leader effectiveness or improvements in school
climate.
An applicant for a Validation grant would have to estimate the
number of students to be reached by the proposed project and provide
evidence of its capacity to reach the proposed number of students
during the course of the grant. In addition, we propose that an
applicant for a Validation grant provide evidence of its capacity
(e.g., in terms of qualified personnel, financial resources, management
capacity) to scale up to a State or regional level, working directly or
through partners either during or following the end of the grant
period. As noted earlier, we recognize that LEAs are not typically
responsible for taking to scale their practices, strategies, or
programs to other LEAs and States. Applicants can and should partner
with others to disseminate and take to scale their effective practices,
strategies, and programs.
Successful applicants for Validation grants would receive more
funding than successful applicants for Development grants.
3. Development grants would provide funding to support new, high-
potential, and relatively untested practices, strategies, or programs
whose efficacy should be systematically studied. An applicant would
have to provide evidence that the proposed practice, strategy, or
program, or one similar to it, has been attempted previously, albeit on
a limited scale or in a limited setting, and yielded promising results
that suggest that more formal and systematic study is warranted. An
applicant must provide a rationale for the proposed practice, strategy,
or program that is based on research findings or reasonable hypotheses,
including related research or theories in education and other sectors.
Thus, proposals for Development grants would not need to provide the
same level of evidence to support the proposed project that would be
required for Validation or Scale-up grants.
We also propose that an applicant for a Validation grant estimate
the number of students to be served by the project,
[[Page 52217]]
and provide evidence of its ability to implement and appropriately
evaluate the proposed project and, if positive results are obtained,
its capacity (e.g., in terms of qualified personnel, financial
resources, management capacity) to further develop and bring the
project to a larger scale directly or through partners either during or
following the end of the grant period. As noted earlier, we recognize
that LEAs are not typically responsible for taking to scale their
practices, strategies, or programs. Applicants can and should partner
with others to disseminate and take to scale their effective practices,
strategies, and programs.
To summarize, in terms of the evidence required to support the
proposed practice, strategy, or program, the major differences between
Scale-up, Validation, and Development grants are (see Table 1): (1) The
strength of the research; (2) the significance of the effect; and (3)
the magnitude of the effect.
Table 1--Differences Between the Three Types of Investing in Innovation Grants in Terms of the Evidence Required
To Support the Proposed Practice, Strategy, or Program
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scale-up grants Validation grants Development grants
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Strength of Research................. Strong evidence........ Moderate evidence...... Reasonable hypotheses.
Significance of Effect............... Statistically Statistically Warrants further study.
significant. significant.
Magnitude of Effect.................. Substantial and Potential to be Promising.
important. substantial and
important.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, the three types of grants differ in terms of the
expectations to scale up successful projects during or following the
end of the grant period, either directly or through partners, and the
level of funding that would be available. (See Table 2).
It is our intent to make one or more awards for each type of grant
(Scale-up, Validation, Development), assuming that we receive
applications for each type of grant that are of sufficient quality. We
will announce specific funding ranges for each type of grant in the
notice inviting applications for this program.
Table 2--Differences Between the Three Types of Investing in Innovation Grants in Terms of Expectations To Scale
up and the Funding To Be Provided
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scale-up grants Validation grants Development grants
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scale up............................. National, Regional, or Regional or State...... Further develop and
State. scale.
Funding to be provided............... Highest................ Moderate............... Modest.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Priorities
Types of Priorities
The Secretary proposes eight priorities for the Investing in
Innovation Fund. Proposed Priorities 1, 2, 3, and 4 are proposed as
absolute priorities and are aligned with the four reform areas under
the ARRA; all applicants must apply under one of these four priorities.
Proposed Priorities 5, 6, 7, and 8 are proposed as competitive
preference priorities and are aligned with other key education reform
goals of the Department. We may apply one or more of the competitive
preference priorities to one or more of the three types of grants
(Scale-up, Validation, Development grants).
We may choose, in the notice of final priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria, to change the designation of any
of these priorities to absolute, competitive preference, or
invitational priorities, or to include the substance of these
priorities in the selection criteria.
Under an absolute priority, as specified by 34 CFR 75.105(c)(3), we
would consider only applications that meet the priority. Under a
competitive preference priority, we would give competitive preference
to an application by (1) awarding additional points, depending on the
extent to which the application meets the priority (34 CFR
75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) selecting an application that meets the
priority over an application of comparable merit that does not meet the
priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(ii)). With an invitational priority, we
would signal our interest in receiving applications that meet the
priority; however, consistent with 34 CFR 75.105(c)(1), we would not
give an application that meets an invitational priority preference over
other applications.
Proposed Absolute Priorities
Proposed Absolute Priority 1--Innovations That Support Effective
Teachers and School Leaders
Background. Research indicates that teacher quality is a critical
contributor to student learning.\1\ Yet we know that there is dramatic
variation in teacher effectiveness across schools and LEAs, as well as
inequity in the distribution of effective teachers between high- and
low-poverty schools. We also know that it is difficult to predict
teacher effectiveness based on the qualifications that teachers bring
to the job.\2\ Furthermore, studies show that school leadership is a
major contributing factor to what students learn at school and that
strong teachers are more likely to teach in schools with strong
principals.\3\ Absolute priority 1 is intended to support projects that
promote practices, strategies, or programs to increase the number and
percentage of effective teachers and school leaders, or help reduce the
inequities in the distribution of effective teachers and school
leaders.
[[Page 52218]]
It is also designed to encourage the use of teacher and school leader
evaluation systems that are tied to student growth.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See, e.g., Kane, Thomas J., Jonah E. Rockoff, and Douglas O.
Staiger (2006), ``What Does Certification Tell Us About Teacher
Effectiveness? Evidence from New York City,'' NBER Working Paper No.
12155; Rivkin, Steven G., Eric A. Hanushek, and John F. Kain (2005),
``Teachers, Schools, and Academic Achievement,'' Econometrica,
73(2), 417-458; Rockoff, Jonah. E. (2004), ``The Impact of
Individual Teachers on Students' Achievement: Evidence from Panel
Data,'' American Economic Review 94(2), 247-52; Aaronson, Daniel,
Lisa Barrow, and William Sander (2003), ``Teacher and Student
Achievement in the Chicago Public High Schools,'' Federal Reserve
Bank of Chicago Working Paper 2002-28.
\2\ Rivkin, Hanushek, and Kain (2005); Kane, Rockoff, and
Staiger (2006).
\3\ Leithwood, Kenneth, Karen Seashore Louis, Stephen Anderson,
and Kyla Sahlstrom (2004), ``How Leadership Influences Student
Learning,'' Wallace Foundation Learning from Leadership Project.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Statement of the Proposed Absolute Priority. Under proposed
absolute priority 1, the Department would provide funding to support
practices, strategies, or programs that increase the number or
percentages of highly effective teachers and school leaders or reduce
the number or percentages of ineffective teachers and school leaders,
especially for high-need students, by identifying, recruiting,
developing, placing, rewarding, and retaining highly effective teachers
and school leaders (or removing ineffective teachers and school
leaders). In such initiatives, teacher or school leader effectiveness
should be determined by an evaluation system that is rigorous,
transparent, and fair; performance should be differentiated using
multiple rating categories of effectiveness; multiple measures of
teachers' effectiveness should be taken into account, with data on
student growth as a significant factor; and the measures should be
designed and developed with teacher involvement.
Proposed Absolute Priority 2--Innovations That Improve the Use of Data
Background. Section 14005(d)(3) of the ARRA requires States
receiving State Fiscal Stabilization funds to establish a longitudinal
data system that includes the elements described in section 6401(e)(2)
of the America COMPETES Act (20 U.S.C. 9871). Providing student
achievement or student growth data to teachers and principals,
including estimates of individual teacher impact on student achievement
or student growth, is key to driving education reform in general and
improvements in the classroom, in particular.\4\ This priority is
designed to increase the availability and use of practices, strategies,
and programs that provide teachers, principals, administrators,
families, and other stakeholders with the data they need to inform and
improve school and classroom instructional practices, decision-making,
and overall effectiveness.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See, e.g., The Data Quality Campaign at http://
www.dataqualitycampaign.org/using-data-systems/roadmap-for-states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Statement of the Proposed Absolute Priority. Under proposed
absolute priority 2, the Department would provide funding to support
strategies, practices, or programs that encourage and facilitate the
evaluation, analysis, and use of student achievement or student growth
data by educators, families, and other stakeholders in order to inform
decision-making; improve student achievement or student growth, and
teacher, school leader, school, or LEA performance and productivity; or
enable data aggregation, analysis, and research. Where applicable,
these data would be disaggregated using the student subgroups described
in section 1111(b)(3)(C)(xiii) of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA) (economically disadvantaged
students, students from major racial and ethnic groups, migrant
students, students with limited English proficiency, students with
disabilities, student gender).
Proposed Absolute Priority 3--Innovations That Complement the
Implementation of High Standards and High-Quality Assessments
Background. A third key ARRA reform area is improving State
academic content standards and student academic achievement standards
so that they build toward college and career readiness, and
implementing high-quality assessments aligned with those standards. In
order to make the transition to such standards and assessments, States
will need support in: Developing, acquiring, disseminating, and
implementing high-quality curricular instructional materials and
assessments; developing or acquiring and delivering high-quality
professional development to support the transition to new standards,
assessments, and instructional materials; and engaging in other
strategies that align the standards and information from assessments
with classroom practices that meet the needs of all students, including
high-need students.
Statement of the Proposed Absolute Priority. Under proposed
absolute priority 3, the Department would provide funding for
practices, strategies, or programs that support States' efforts to
transition to college- and career-readiness standards and assessments,
including curricular and instructional practices, strategies, or
programs in core academic subjects that are aligned with high academic
content and achievement standards and with high-quality assessments
based on those standards. Proposals may include practices, strategies,
or programs that: (a) Increase the success of under-represented student
populations in academically rigorous courses and programs (such as
Advanced Placement or International Baccalaureate courses; dual
enrollment programs; early college high schools; and science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics courses, especially those that
incorporate rigorous and relevant project-, inquiry-, or design-based
contextual learning opportunities); (b) increase the development and
use of formative assessments or interim assessments, or other
performance-based tools and metrics that are aligned with student
content and academic achievement standards; or (c) translate the
standards and information from assessments into classroom practices
that meet the needs of all students, including high-need students.
Proposed Absolute Priority 4--Innovations That Turn Around Persistently
Low-Performing Schools
Background. Although there are noted examples of successful school
reform efforts, persistently low-performing schools (as defined in this
notice) continue to plague this country's system of public education
and fail to adequately educate our Nation's youth to succeed in a
global economy. It is imperative that we as a Nation serve our most
educationally needy schools in order to ensure that all students are
prepared for the challenges of the global economy.
Statement of the Proposed Absolute Priority. Under proposed
absolute priority 4, the Department would provide funding to support
strategies, practices, or programs that turn around persistently low-
performing schools through either whole-school reform or targeted
approaches to reform. Applicants addressing this priority must focus on
either:
(a) Whole-school reform, such as comprehensive interventions to
assist, augment, or replace persistently low-performing schools; or
(b) Targeted approaches to reform, including, but not limited to:
(1) Providing more time for students to learn core academic content by
expanding the school day, school week, or the school year, or by
increasing instructional time for core academic subjects during the day
and in the summer; (2) integrating student supports to address non-
academic barriers to student achievement; or (3) creating multiple
pathways for students to earn regular high school diplomas (e.g.,
transfer schools, awarding credit based on demonstrated evidence of
student competency, offering dual-enrollment options).
Proposed Competitive Preference Priorities
As stated previously, we are proposing four competitive preference
priorities that we may choose to apply to one or more of the three
types of
[[Page 52219]]
grants (Scale-up, Validation, and Development grants).
Proposed Competitive Preference Priority 5--Innovations for Improving
Early Learning Outcomes
Background. Research demonstrates the importance of efforts to
build early language and literacy skills, as well as skills with
numbers and spatial thinking, as a means of eliminating the differences
in student achievement or student growth that develop between children
from low-income families and children from middle-income families
during their school years.\5\ Investing in early learning programs to
prevent the development of these gaps in skills can reduce the need for
more costly and difficult interventions, including referrals to special
education, later on in a child's life.\6\ In addition, research
indicates that investments in young children can yield dramatic
economic benefits over the course of those children's lives in the form
of reduced incidence of crime and increased employment. This proposed
competitive preference priority aligns with the Department's efforts to
increase the quality of existing early learning programs and expand
access to high-quality early learning programs, particularly for
children from low-income families.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ National Research Council. 1998. Preventing Reading
Difficulties in Young Children.
\6\ Schweinhart, L.J. (2002, June). How the HighScope Perry
Preschool Study Grew: A Researcher's Tale. Phi Delta Kappa Center
for Evaluation, Development, and Research. (No. 32).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Statement of Proposed Competitive Preference Priority 5. We propose
to give competitive preference to proposals that include practices,
strategies, or programs to improve educational outcomes for high-need
students who are young children (birth through 3rd grade) by enhancing
the quality of early learning programs. Proposals must focus on (a)
improving young children's school readiness (including social,
emotional, and cognitive) so that children are prepared for success in
core academic subjects; (b) improving and aligning developmental
milestones and standards with appropriate outcome measures; and (c)
improving alignment, collaboration, and transitions between early
learning programs that serve children from birth to age three, in
preschools, and in kindergarten through third grade.
Proposed Competitive Preference Priority 6--Innovations That Support
College Access and Success
Background. One way to help meet the President's goal of restoring
the United States to first in the world in the percentage of citizens
holding college degrees is to increase the number of high school
students with access to college who are prepared to succeed in an
institution of higher education. Proposed competitive preference
priority 6 would fund practices, strategies, and programs that prepare
K-12 students for success in college.
Statement of Proposed Competitive Preference Priority 6. We propose
to give competitive preference to proposals for practices, strategies,
or programs that enable K-12 students, particularly high school
students, to successfully prepare for, enter, and graduate from a two-
or four-year college. Proposals must include practices, strategies, or
programs for K-12 students that address students' preparedness and
expectations related to college; help students understand issues of
college affordability and the financial aid and college application
processes; and provide support to students from peers and knowledgeable
adults.
Proposed Competitive Preference Priority 7--Innovations To Address the
Unique Learning Needs of Students With Disabilities and Limited English
Proficient Students
Background. One of the primary goals of the ESEA, as well as the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), is to improve the
quality of education for all students, including students with
disabilities and students who are limited English proficient. In
particular, the ESEA requires each State and LEA to work toward
narrowing achievement gaps and demonstrate high levels of progress for
these two groups of students. However, as evidenced by results on State
assessments under section 1111(b)(3) of the ESEA, schools often lack
appropriate and effective strategies to enable a greater share of
students with disabilities and limited English proficient students to
meet high standards.
Statement of Proposed Competitive Preference Priority 7. We propose
to give competitive preference to proposals that include innovative
strategies, practices, or programs to address the unique learning needs
of students with disabilities, or the linguistic and academic needs of
limited English proficient students. Proposals must focus on particular
practices, strategies, or programs that are designed to improve
academic outcomes and increase graduation rates for students with
disabilities or limited English proficient students.
Proposed Competitive Preference Priority 8--Innovations That Serve
Schools in Rural LEAs
Background. Solutions to educational challenges in rural areas
frequently differ from what works in urban and suburban communities.\7\
This proposed competitive preference priority recognizes the need to
bring education innovation and reform to all regions of the country,
including rural LEAs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Status of Education in Rural America. (2007). U.S.
Department of Education, National Center for Educational Statistics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Statement of Proposed Competitive Preference Priority 8. We propose
to give competitive preference to proposals that focus on the unique
challenges of high-need students in schools within a rural LEA (as
defined in this notice) and address the particular challenges faced by
students in these schools. Proposals must include practices,
strategies, or programs that improve student achievement or student
growth, close achievement gaps, decrease dropout rates, increase high
school graduation rates, or improve teacher and school leader
effectiveness in one or more rural LEAs.
Proposed Requirements
Background
The Investing in Innovation Fund would provide support to LEAs, and
nonprofit organizations that partner with one or more LEAs or a
consortium of schools that apply and successfully compete for a Scale-
up, Validation, or Development grant. What follows are the statutory
and proposed eligibility requirements for LEAs and nonprofit
organizations.
Proposed Requirements
The Secretary proposes the following requirements for the Investing
in Innovation Fund. We may apply these requirements in any year in
which this program is in effect.
Providing Innovations that Improve Achievement for High-Need
Students: All applicants must implement practices, strategies, or
programs for high-need students (as defined in this notice).
Eligible applicants: Entities eligible to apply for Investing in
Innovation Fund grants include: (a) an LEA or (b) a partnership between
a nonprofit organization and (1) one or more LEAs or (2) a consortium
of schools.
Eligibility requirements: \8\ To be eligible for an award, an
eligible
[[Page 52220]]
applicant must meet several statutory requirements and one additional
requirement. The requirements in paragraphs (1), (2), (3), and (4) that
follow are statutory; we are including them here for clarity. We are
requesting comment on the proposed requirement in paragraph (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ We note that at the time of publication of this notice, the
pending House and Senate appropriations bills would, if enacted,
make technical changes to provisions of the authorizing legislation
for this program. (See http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/
?&dbname=cp111&sid=cp111LTV8y&refer=&r_n=hr220.111&item=&sel=TOC_
1120308&; and http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/
?&dbname=cp111&sid=cp111M6VRe&refer=&r_n=sr066.111&item=&sel=TOC_
904504&). These changes would modify the eligibility requirements
currently set forth in section 14007(b)(2) and (c) by: (1) Making
minor alterations to the sections concerning the basis for awards
and the special eligibility rule, and (2) removing the reference to
State measurable annual achievement objectives. In addition to these
minor changes to the eligibility requirements, enactment of the
proposed legislation would authorize eligible entities that include
a partnership with a nonprofit organization, to make subgrants
within the partnership.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To be eligible for an award, an applicant must:
(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);
(2) Have exceeded the State's annual measurable objectives
consistent with section 1111(b)(2) of the ESEA for two or more
consecutive years or have demonstrated success in significantly
increasing student achievement for all groups of students described in
that section through another measure, such as measures described in
section 1111(c)(2) of the ESEA (i.e., the National Assessment of
Educational Progress);
(3) Have made significant improvements in other areas, such as
graduation rates or increased recruitment and placement of high-quality
teachers and school leaders, as demonstrated with other meaningful
data;
(4) Demonstrate that they have established partnerships with the
private sector, which may include philanthropic organizations, and that
the private sector will provide matching funds in order to help bring
results to scale; and
(5) In the case of a nonprofit organization, provide in its
application the names of the LEAs with which it will partner, or the
names of the schools in the consortium with which it will partner. If a
nonprofit organization applicant intends to partner with additional
LEAs or schools that are not named in its application, it must describe
in its application the demographics and other characteristics of these
LEAs and schools and the process it will use to select them as
partners. An applicant must identify its specific partners before a
grant award will be made.
Note about LEA Eligibility: To be eligible for an award, an LEA
applicant must be located within one of the 50 States, the District
of Columbia, or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
Note about Eligibility for an Entity that Includes a Nonprofit
Organization: To be eligible for an award, the statute requires that
an application submitted by a nonprofit organization, in partnership
with one or more LEAs or a consortium of schools, be considered to
have met the eligibility requirements in paragraphs (1), (2), and
(3) described earlier in this notice, if the nonprofit organization
has a record of meeting those requirements. We are proposing that a
nonprofit organization applicant be considered to have met these
eligibility requirements through its record of work with an LEA.
Therefore, an applicant that is a nonprofit organization would not
necessarily need to select as a partner for its Investing in
Innovation Fund grant an LEA or a consortium of schools that meets
the eligibility requirements in paragraphs (1), (2), and (3)
described earlier. Rather, the nonprofit organization would have to
demonstrate that it has a record of meeting those requirements
through the assistance it has provided to one or more LEAs in the
past.
Funding Categories: An applicant must state in its application
whether it is applying for a Scale-up, Validation, or Development
grant. An applicant may not submit an application for the same proposed
project under more than one type of grant. An applicant will be
considered for an award only for the type of grant for which it
applies.
Cost Sharing or Matching: To be eligible for an award, an applicant
must demonstrate that it has established one or more partnerships with
an entity or organization in the private sector, which may include
philanthropic organizations, and that the entity or organization in the
private sector will provide matching funds in order to help bring
project results to scale. An applicant must obtain matching funds or
in-kind donations equal to at least 20 percent of its grant award. The
Secretary may consider decreasing the 20 percent matching requirement
in the most exceptional circumstances, on a case-by-case basis. An
applicant that anticipates being unable to meet the 20 percent matching
requirement must include in its application a request to the Secretary
to reduce the matching level requirement, along with a statement of the
basis for the request.
Evaluation: An applicant receiving funds under this program must
comply with the requirements of any evaluation of the program conducted
by the Department. In addition, an applicant is required to conduct an
independent evaluation (as defined in this notice) of its proposed
project and must agree, along with its independent evaluator, to
cooperate with any technical assistance provided by the Department or
its contractor. The purpose of this technical assistance would be to
ensure that the evaluations are of the highest quality and to encourage
commonality in evaluation approaches across funded projects where it is
feasible and useful to do so. Finally, an applicant receiving funds
under this program must make broadly available through formal (e.g.,
peer-reviewed journals) or informal (e.g., newsletters) mechanisms, and
in print or electronically, the results of any evaluations it conducts
of its funded activities
Participation in ``Communities of Practice'': Grantees will be
required to participate in, organize, or facilitate, as appropriate,
communities of practice for the Investing in Innovation Fund. 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. Establishment of communities of practice
under the Investing in Innovation Fund will enable grantees to meet,
discuss, and collaborate with each other regarding grantee projects.
Proposed Definitions
Background
Several important terms associated with the Investing in Innovation
Fund are not defined in the ARRA.
Proposed Definitions
The Secretary proposes the following definitions for the Investing
in Innovation Fund.\9\ We may apply one or more of these definitions in
any year in which this program is in effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ In this notice, we use many of the same definitions that
were in the Race to the Top notice of proposed priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria (see http://
www.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister/proprule/2009-3/072909d.html).
The comment period for the Race to the Top program is now closed,
and we are considering the comments on the definitions, as well as
other sections of that notice. In the final notice for the Investing
in Innovation Fund, we will align our definitions, as appropriate,
with those included in the final notice for the Race to the Top
program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Definitions Related to Evidence
Strong evidence means evidence from previous studies whose designs
can support causal conclusions (i.e., studies
[[Page 52221]]
with high internal validity), and studies that in total include enough
of the range of participants and settings to support scaling up to the
State, regional, or national level (i.e., studies with high external
validity). The following are examples of strong evidence: (1) More than
one well-designed and well-implemented experimental study (as defined
in this notice) or well-designed and well-implemented quasi-
experimental study (as defined in this notice) that supports the
effectiveness of the practice, strategy, or program; or (2) one large,
well-designed and well-implemented randomized controlled, multisite
trial that supports the effectiveness of the practice, strategy, or
program.
Moderate evidence means evidence from previous studies whose
designs can support causal conclusions (i.e., studies with high
internal validity) but have limited generalizability (i.e., moderate
external validity), or studies with high external validity but moderate
internal validity. The following would constitute moderate evidence:
(1) At least one well-designed and well-implemented experimental or
quasi-experimental study supporting the effectiveness of the practice
strategy, or program, with small sample sizes or other conditions of
implementation or analysis that limit generalizability; (2) at least
one well-designed and well-implemented experimental or quasi-
experimental study that does not demonstrate equivalence between the
intervention and comparison groups at program entry but that has no
other major flaws related to internal validity; or (3) correlational
research with strong statistical controls for selection bias and for
discerning the influence of internal factors.
Experimental study means a study that employs random assignment of
students, teachers, classrooms, or schools to participate in a project
being evaluated (treatment group) or not to participate in the project
(control group). The effect of the project is the difference in
outcomes between the treatment and control groups.
Quasi-experimental study means an evaluation design that attempts
to approximate an experimental design and can support causal
conclusions (i.e., minimizes threats to internal validity, such as
selection bias, or allows them to be modeled). Well-designed quasi-
experimental studies include carefully matched comparison group designs
(as defined in this notice), interrupted time series designs (as
defined in this notice), or regression discontinuity designs (as
defined in this notice).
Carefully matched comparison group design means a type of quasi-
experimental study that attempts to approximate an experimental study.
More specifically, it is a design in which project participants are
matched with non-participants based on key characteristics that are
thought to be related to the outcome. These characteristics include,
but are not limited to: (1) Prior test scores and other measures of
academic achievement (preferably, the same measures that the study will
use to evaluate outcomes for the two groups); (2) demographic
characteristics, such as age, disability, gender, English proficiency,
ethnicity, poverty level, parents' educational attainment, and single-
or two-parent family background; (3) the time period in which the two
groups are studied (e.g., the two groups are children entering
kindergarten in the same year as opposed to sequential years); and (4)
methods used to collect outcome data (e.g., the same test of reading
skills administered in the same way to both groups).
Interrupted time series design means a type of quasi-experimental
study in which the outcome of interest is measured multiple times
before and after the treatment for program participants only. If the
program had an impact, the outcomes after treatment will have a
different slope or level from those before treatment. That is, the
series should show an ``interruption'' of the prior situation at the
time when the program was implemented. Adding a nonequivalent control
group time series, such as schools not participating in the program or
schools participating in the program in a different geographic area,
increases the reliability of the findings.
Regression discontinuity design study means, in part, a quasi-
experimental study design that closely approximates an experimental
study. In a regression discontinuity design, participants are assigned
to a treatment or control group based on a numerical rating or score of
a variable unrelated to the treatment such as the rating of an
application for funding. Another example would be assignment of
eligible students, teachers, classrooms, or schools above a certain
score (``cut score'') to the treatment group and assignment of those
below the score to the control group.
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 practice, strategy, or program and are
implementing it. This independence helps ensure the objectivity of an
evaluation and prevents even the appearance of a conflict of interest.
2. Other Definitions
Consortium of schools means two or more public elementary or
secondary schools acting collaboratively for the purpose of applying
for and implementing an Investing in Innovation Fund grant jointly with
an eligible nonprofit organization.
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.
Formative assessment means an assessment that is embedded in
instruction and is used by teachers to provide timely feedback on
student understanding and to adjust ongoing teaching and learning
effectively.
Interim assessment means an assessment given at regular and
specified intervals throughout the school year, and is designed to
evaluate students' knowledge and skills relative to a specific set of
academic standards, the results of which can be aggregated (e.g., by
course, grade level, school, or LEA) in order to inform teachers and
administrators at the student, classroom, school, and LEA levels.
Highly effective school leader means a principal or other school
leader whose students, overall and for each subgroup as described in
section 1111(b)(3)(C)(xiii) of the ESEA (i.e., economically
disadvantaged students, students from major racial and ethnic groups,
migrant students, students with disabilities, students with limited
English proficiency, student gender), demonstrate high rates (e.g.,
more than one grade level in an academic year) of student growth.
Applicants may supplement this definition as they see fit so long as
school leader effectiveness is judged, in significant measure, by
student growth.
Highly effective teacher means a teacher whose students achieve
high rates (e.g., more than one grade level in an academic year) of
student growth. Applicants may supplement this definition as they see
fit so long as teacher effectiveness is judged, in significant measure,
by student growth.
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 are far below grade level, who
are over-age and under-credited, who have left school before receiving
a regular high school diploma, who are at risk of not graduating with a
regular high school diploma on time,
[[Page 52222]]
who are homeless, who are in foster care, who have been incarcerated,
who have disabilities, or who are limited English proficient.
Persistently low-performing schools means Title I schools in
corrective action or restructuring in the State and the secondary
schools (both middle and high schools) in the State that are equally as
low-achieving as these Title I schools and are eligible for, but do not
receive, Title I funds.
National level, as used in reference to a Scale-up grant, describes
a project that is able to be effective in a wide variety of communities
and student populations around the country, including rural and urban
areas, as well as with different groups of students described in
section 1111(b)(3)(C)(xiii) of the ESEA (i.e., economically
disadvantaged students, students from major racial and ethnic groups,
migrant students, students with disabilities, students with limited
English proficiency, student gender).
Regional level, as used in reference to a Scale-up or Validation
grant, describes a project that is able to serve a variety of
communities and student populations within a State or multiple States,
including rural and urban areas, as well as with different groups of
students described in section 1111(b)(3)(C)(xiii) of the ESEA (i.e.,
economically disadvantaged students, students from major racial and
ethnic groups, migrant students, students with disabilities, students
with limited English proficiency, student gender).
Rural LEA means an 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.
Applicants may determine whether a particular LEA is eligible for these
programs by referring to information on the following Department Web
sites. For the SRSA: http://www.ed.gov/programs/reapsrsa/eligible08/
index.html. For the RLIS: http://www.ed.gov/programs/reaprlisp/
eligibility.html.
Student achievement means, at a minimum--
(a) For tested grades and subjects: A student's score on the
State's assessments under section 1111(b)(3) of the ESEA and may also
include other measures of learning, as appropriate, such as those
described in paragraph (b) of this definition.
(b) For non-tested grades and subjects: An alternative academic
measure of student learning and performance (e.g., performance on
interim assessments or on other classroom-based assessments; rates at
which students are on track to graduate from high school; percentage of
students enrolled and achieving at successful levels in Advanced
Placement, pre-Advanced Placement, International Baccalaureate, or
dual-enrollment courses).
Student growth means the change in student achievement data for an
individual student between two or more points in time. Growth may be
measured by a variety of approaches, but any approach used must be
statistically rigorous and based on student achievement data, and may
also include other measures of student learning in order to increase
the construct validity and generalizability of the information.
Proposed Selection Criteria
Background
The proposed selection criteria are intended to ensure that
applicants--regardless of grant type--can demonstrate that they have
the experience and capacity to expand or develop practices, strategies,
or programs that will have a positive impact on improving student
achievement or student growth, closing achievement gaps, decreasing
dropout rates, or increasing high school graduation rates.
Proposed Selection Criteria
The Secretary proposes the following selection criteria for
evaluating an application under the Investing in Innovation Fund. We
may apply one or more of these criteria in any year in which this
program is in effect. In the notice inviting applications or the
application package, or both, we will announce the maximum possible
points assigned to each criterion.
1. Scale-Up Grants
A. Need for the Project and Quality of the Project Design
(1) The Secretary considers the need for the project and quality of
the design of the proposed project.
(2) In determining the need for the project and quality of the
design of the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following
factors:
(a) The extent to which the proposed project represents an
exceptional approach to the priorities the applicant is seeking to meet
(i.e., addresses a largely unmet need, particularly for high-need
students, and is a practice, strategy, or program that has not already
been widely adopted).
(b) The extent to which the proposed project has a clear set of
goals and an explicit strategy (i.e., logic model), with actions that
are (i) aligned with the priorities the applicant is seeking to meet,
and (ii) expected to result in achieving the goals, objectives, and
outcomes of the proposed project.
B. Strength of Research, Significance of Effect, and Magnitude of
Effect
(1) The Secretary considers the strength of the existing research
evidence and the significance of effect in support of the proposed
project, as well as the magnitude of the effect on improving student
achievement or student growth, closing achievement gaps, decreasing
dropout rates, or increasing high school graduation rates. Applicants
may also demonstrate success through an intermediate variable that is
directly correlated with improving these outcomes, such as teacher or
school leader effectiveness, or improvements in school climate.
(2) In determining the strength of the existing research evidence
and the significance of effect to support the proposed project, as well
as the magnitude of the effect, the Secretary considers the following
factors:
(a) The extent to which the applicant demonstrates that there is
strong evidence that the proposed practice, strategy, or program will
have a statistically significant effect on improving student
achievement or student growth, closing achievement gaps, decreasing
dropout rates, or increasing high school graduation rates, and that the
effect will be substantial and important.
(b) The importance and magnitude of the effect expected to be
obtained by the proposed project, including the extent to which the
project will substantially and measurably improve student achievement
or student growth, close achievement gaps, decrease dropout rates, or
increase high school graduation rates. The evidence in support of the
importance and magnitude of the effect would be the research-based
evidence provided by the applicant to support the proposed project.
C. Experience of the Applicant
(1) The Secretary considers the experience of the applicant in
implementing the proposed project.
(2) In determining the experience of the applicant, the Secretary
considers the following factors:
(a) The past performance of the applicant in implementing large,
complex, and rapidly growing projects.
(b) The extent to which an applicant provides information and data
demonstrating that it has (or has supported an LEA in taking actions
that have)--
(i) Significantly closed the achievement gaps between groups of
[[Page 52223]]
students described in section 1111(b)(2) of the ESEA;
(ii) Exceeded the State's annual measurable objectives consistent
with section 1111(b)(2) of the ESEA for two or more consecutive years
or demonstrated success in significantly increasing student achievement
for all groups of students described in that section through another
measure, such as measures described in section 1111(c)(2) of the ESEA
(i.e., the National Assessment of Educational Progress); and
(iii) Made significant improvements in other areas, such as
graduation rates or increased recruitment and placement of high-quality
teachers and school leaders, as demonstrated with other meaningful
data.
D. Quality of the Project Evaluation
1. The Secretary considers the quality of the evaluation to be
conducted of the proposed project.
2. In determining the quality of the evaluation, the Secretary
considers the following factors:
(a) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will include an
experimental study or, if a well-designed experimental study of the
project cannot be conducted, the extent to which the methods of
evaluation will include a well-designed quasi-experimental study.
(b) The extent to which, for either an experimental study or quasi-
experimental study, the study will be conducted of the practice,
strategy, or program as implemented at scale.
(c) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will provide
high-quality implementation data and performance feedback, and permit
periodic assessment of progress toward achieving intended outcomes.
(d) The extent to which the evaluation will provide sufficient
information about the key elements and approach of the project to
facilitate replication or testing in other settings.
(e) The extent to which the proposed project plan includes
sufficient resources to effectively carry out the project evaluation.
(f) The extent to which the proposed evaluation is rigorous,
independent, and neither the program developer nor the project
implementer is evaluating the impact of the project.
Note: We encourage 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/.
E. Strategy and Capacity To Scale
1. The Secretary considers the quality of the applicant's strategy
and capacity to bring the proposed project to scale on a national,
regional, or State level.
2. In determining the quality of the strategy and capacity to
scale, the Secretary considers:
(a) The number of students to be reached by the proposed project
and the applicant's capacity to reach the proposed number of students
during the course of the grant period.
(b) The applicant's capacity (e.g., in terms of qualified
personnel, financial resources, management capacity) to bring the
project to scale on a national, regional, or State level working
directly, or through partners, either during or following the end of
the grant period.
(c) The feasibility of the proposed project to be replicated
successfully, if positive results are obtained, in a variety of
settings and with a variety of student populations. Evidence of this
ability includes the proposed project's demonstrated success in
multiple settings with different types of students, the availability of
resources and expertise required for implementing the project with
fidelity, and the proposed project's evidence of relative ease of use
or user satisfaction.
(d) The applicant's estimate of the cost of the proposed project,
which includes start-up and operating costs per student (including
indirect costs) for reaching the total number of students proposed to
be served by the project, as well as for the applicant or others to
reach 100,000, 500,000, and 1,000,000 students.
(e) The mechanisms the applicant will use to broadly disseminate
information on its project to support replication.
F. Sustainability
1. The Secretary considers the adequacy of resources to continue
the proposed project after the grant period ends.
2. In determining the adequacy of resources for the proposed
project, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(a) The extent to which the applicant demonstrates that it has the
resources to operate the project beyond the length of the Scale-up
grant, including a multi-year financial and operating model and
accompanying plan; the demonstrated commitment of current and future
partners; and evidence of broad support from stakeholders (e.g., State
educational agencies, teachers' unions) critical to the project's long-
term success.
(b) The potential and planning for the incorporation of project
purposes, activities, or benefits into the ongoing work of the LEA,
schools, or nonprofit organization at the end of the Scale-up grant.
G. Quality of the Management Plan and Personnel
1. The Secretary considers the quality of the management plan and
personnel for the proposed project.
2. In determining the quality of the management plan and personnel
for the proposed project, the Secretary considers:
(a) The adequacy of the management plan to achieve the objectives
of the proposed project on time and within budget, including clearly
defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing
project tasks, as well as plans for sustainability and scalability of
the proposed project.
(b) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience,
of the project director and key project personnel, especially in
managing large, complex, and rapidly growing projects.
(c) The qualifications, including relevant expertise and
experience, of the project director and key personnel of the
independent evaluator, especially in designing and conducting large-
scale experimental and quasi-experimental studies of educational
initiatives.
2. Validation Grants
A. Need for the Project and Quality of the Project Design
(1) The Secretary considers the need for the project and quality of
the design of the proposed project.
(2) In determining the need for the project and quality of the
design of the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following
factors:
(a) The extent to which the proposed project represents an
exceptional approach to the priorities the applicant is seeking to meet
(i.e., addresses a largely unmet need, particularly for high-need
students, and is a practice, strategy, or program that has not already
been widely adopted).
(b) The extent to which the proposed project has a clear set of
goals and an explicit strategy (i.e., logic model), with actions that
are (1) aligned with the priorities the applicant is seeking to meet,
and (2) expected to result in achieving the goals, objectives, and
outcomes of the proposed project.
B. Strength of Research, Significance of Effect, and Magnitude of
Effect
(1) The Secretary considers the strength of the existing research
evidence and the significance of effect in support of the proposed
project, as
[[Page 52224]]
well as the magnitude of the effect on improving student achievement,
closing achievement gaps, decreasing dropout rates, or increasing high
school graduation rates. Applicants may also demonstrate success
through an intermediate variable that is directly correlated with these
outcomes, such as teacher or school leader effectiveness, or
improvements in school climate.
(2) In determining the strength of the existing research evidence
and the significance of the effect to support the proposed project, as
well as the magnitude of the effect the Secretary considers the
following factors:
(a) The extent to which the applicant demonstrates that there is
moderate evidence that the proposed practice, strategy, or program will
have a statistically significant effect on improving student
achievement or student growth, closing achievement gaps, decreasing
dropout rates, or increasing high school graduation rates and that with
further study, the effect may prove to be substantial and important.
(b) The importance and magnitude of the effect expected to be
obtained by the proposed project, including the likelihood that the
project will substantially and measurably improve student achievement
or student growth, close achievement gaps, decrease dropout rates, or
increase high school graduation rates. The evidence in support of the
importance and magnitude of the effect would be the research-based
evidence provided by the applicant to support the proposed project.
C. Experience of the Applicant
(1) The Secretary considers the experience of the applicant in
implementing the proposed project.
(2) In determining the experience of the applicant, the Secretary
considers the following factors:
(a) The past performance of the applicant in implementing complex
projects.
(b) The extent to which an applicant provides information and data
demonstrating that it has (or supported an LEA in taking actions that
have)--
(i) Significantly closed the achievement gaps between groups of
students described in section 1111(b)(2) of the ESEA;
(ii) Exceeded the State's annual measurable objectives consistent
with section 1111(b)(2) of the ESEA for two or more consecutive years
or demonstrated success in significantly increasing student achievement
for all groups of students described in that section through another
measure, such as measures described in section 1111(c)(2) of the ESEA
(i.e., the National Assessment of Educational Progress); and
(iii) Made significant improvements in other areas, such as
graduation rates or increased recruitment and placement of high-quality
teachers and school leaders, as demonstrated with other meaningful
data.
D. Quality of the Project Evaluation
1. The Secretary considers the quality of the evaluation to be
conducted of the proposed project.
2. In determining the quality of the evaluation, the Secretary
considers the following factors:
(a) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will include a
well-designed experimental or well-designed quasi-experimental study.
(b) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will provide
high-quality implementation data and performance feedback, and permit
periodic assessment of progress toward achieving intended outcomes.
(c) The extent to which the evaluation will provide sufficient
information about the key elements and approach of the project to
facilitate replication or testing in other settings.
(d) The extent to which the proposed project plan includes
sufficient resources to effectively carry out the project evaluation.
(e) The extent to which the proposed evaluation is rigorous,
independent, and neither the program developer nor the project
implementer is evaluating the impact of the project.
Note: We encourage 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/NCES
Technical Methods papers: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/tech_methods/.
E. Strategy and Capacity To Scale
1. The Secretary considers the quality of the applicant's strategy
and capacity to bring the proposed project to scale on a State or
regional level.
2. In determining the quality of the strategy and capacity to
scale, the Secretary considers:
(a) The number of students proposed to be reached by the proposed
project and the applicant's capacity to reach the proposed number of
students during the course of the grant period.
(b) The applicants capacity (e.g., in terms of qualified personnel,
financial resources, management capacity) to bring the project to scale
on a State or regional level (as appropriate, based on the findings of
the proposed project) working directly, or through partners, either
during or following the end of the grant period.
(c) The feasibility of the proposed project to be replicated
successfully, if positive results are obtained, in a variety of
settings and with a variety of student populations. Evidence of this
ability includes the availability of resources and expertise required
for implementing the project with fidelity, and the proposed project's
evidence of relative ease of use or user satisfaction.
(d) The applicant's estimate of the cost of the proposed project,
which includes start-up and operating costs per student (including
indirect costs) for reaching the total number of students proposed to
be served by the project, as well as for the applicant or others to
reach 100,000, 250,000, and 500,000 students.
(e) The mechanisms the applicant will use to broadly disseminate
information on its project to support further development, expansion,
or replication.
F. Sustainability
1. The Secretary considers the adequacy of resources to continue to
develop the proposed project.
2. In determining the adequacy of resources for the proposed
project, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(a) The extent to which the applicant demonstrates that it has the
resources, as well as the support of stakeholders (e.g., State
educational agencies, teachers' unions), to operate the project beyond
the length of the Validation grant.
(b) The potential and planning for the incorporation of project
purposes, activities, or benefits into the ongoing work of the LEA,
schools, or nonprofit organization at the end of the Validation grant.
G. Quality of the Management Plan and Personnel
1. The Secretary considers the quality of the management plan and
personnel for the proposed project.
2. In determining the quality of the management plan and personnel
for the proposed project, the Secretary considers:
(a) The adequacy of the management plan to achieve the objectives
of the proposed project on time and within budget, including clearly
defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing
project tasks, as well as plans for sustainability and scalability of
the proposed project.
(b) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience,
of the
[[Page 52225]]
project director and key project personnel, especially in managing
complex projects.
(c) The qualifications, including relevant expertise and
experience, of the project director and key personnel of the
independent evaluator, especially in designing and conducting
experimental and quasi-experimental studies of educational initiatives.
3. Development Grants
We anticipate using a two-tier process to review the applications
for Development grants. This two-tier review would include a pre-
application process to select applicants that would be invited to
submit a full application. We anticipate that the pre-application
process will require an applicant to submit a short summary of its
proposed project and that we will use some or all of the selection
criteria that follow to rate the proposed projects, but with a
particular focus on the need for the project and quality of the project
design and the strength of research, significance of effect, and
magnitude of effect in support of the proposed project. Applicants that
are rated highly in the pre-application phase would be invited to
submit a full application, from which the awards for Development grants
would be made.
A. Need for the Project and Quality of the Project Design
(1) The Secretary considers the need for the project and quality of
the design of the proposed project.
(2) In determining the need for the project and quality of the
design of the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following
factors:
(a) The extent to which the proposed project represents an
exceptional approach to the priorities the applicant is seeking to meet
(i.e., addresses a largely unmet need, particularly for high-need
students, and is a practice that has not already been widely adopted).
(b) The extent to which the proposed project has a clear set of
goals and an explicit strategy (i.e., logic model), with the goals,
objectives, and outcomes to be achieved by the proposed project clearly
specified and measurable and linked to the priorities the applicant is
seeking to meet.
B. Strength of Research, Significance of Effect, and Magnitude of
Effect
(1) The Secretary considers the strength of the existing research
evidence to support the proposed project and the significance of effect
in support of the proposed project, as well as the magnitude of the
effect on improving student achievement or student growth, closing
achievement gaps, decreasing dropout rates, or increasing high school
graduation rates. Applicants may also demonstrate success through an
intermediate variable that is directly correlated with improving these
outcomes, such as teacher or school leader effectiveness, or
improvements in school climate.
(2) In determining the strength of the existing research evidence,
the significance of effect to support the proposed project, and the
magnitude of effect, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(a) The extent to which the applicant demonstrates that there are
research-based findings or reasonable hypotheses that support the
proposed project, including related research in education and other
sectors.
(b) The extent to which the proposed project has been attempted
previously, albeit on a limited scale or in a limited setting, with
promising results that suggest that more formal and systematic study is
warranted.
(c) The extent to which the applicant demonstrates that, if funded,
the proposed project likely will have a positive impact, as measured by
the importance or magnitude of the effect, on improving student
achievement or student growth, closing achievement gaps, decreasing
dropout rates, or increasing high school graduation rates.
C. Experience of the Applicant
(1) The Secretary considers the experience of the applicant in
implementing the proposed project or a similar project.
(2) In determining the experience of the applicant, the Secretary
considers the following factors:
(a) The past performance of the applicant in implementing projects
of the size and scope proposed by the applicant.
(b) The extent to which an applicant provides information and data
demonstrating that it has (or supported an LEA in taking actions
that)--
(i) Significantly closed the achievement gaps between groups of
students described in section 1111(b)(2) of the ESEA;
(ii) Exceeded the State's annual measurable objectives consistent
with section 1111(b)(2) of the ESEA for two or more consecutive years
or has demonstrated success in significantly increasing student
achievement for all groups of students described in that section
through another measure, such as measures described in section
1111(c)(2) of the ESEA (i.e., the National Assessment of Educational
Progress); and
(iii) Made significant improvements in other areas, such as
graduation rates or increased recruitment and placement of high-quality
teachers and school leaders, as demonstrated with other meaningful
data.
D. Quality of the Project Evaluation
1. The Secretary considers the quality of the evaluation to be
conducted of the proposed project.
2. In determining the quality of the evaluation, the Secretary
considers the following factors.
(a) The extent to which the methods of evaluation are appropriate
to the size and scope of the proposed project.
(b) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will provide
high-quality implementation data and performance feedback, and permit
periodic assessment of progress toward achieving intended outcomes.
(c) The extent to which the evaluation will provide sufficient
information about the key elements and approach of the project to
facilitate further development, replication, or testing in other
settings.
(d) The extent to which the proposed project plan includes
sufficient resources to effectively carry out the project evaluation.
Note: We encourage 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/.
E. Strategy and Capacity to Further Develop and Scale
1. The Secretary considers the quality of the applicant's strategy
and capacity to further develop and scale the proposed project.
2. In determining the quality of the strategy and capacity to
further develop and scale the proposed project, the Secretary
considers:
(a) The number of students proposed to be reached by the proposed
project and the applicant's capacity to reach the proposed number of
students during the course of the grant period.
(b) The applicant's capacity (e.g., in terms of qualified
personnel, financial resources, management capacity) to further develop
and scale the proposed practice, strategy, or program, or to work with
others to ensure that the proposed practice, strategy, or program can
be further developed and scaled, based on the findings of the proposed
project.
(c) The feasibility of the proposed project to be replicated
successfully, if
[[Page 52226]]
positive results are obtained, in a variety of settings and with a
variety of student populations. Evidence of this ability includes the
availability of resources and expertise required for implementing the
project with fidelity, and the proposed project's evidence of relative
ease of use or user satisfaction.
(d) The applicant's estimate of the cost of the proposed project,
which includes the start-up and operating costs per student (including
indirect costs) for reaching the total number of students proposed to
be served by the project as well as for the applicant or others to
reach 100,000, 250,000, and 500,000 students.
(e) The mechanisms the applicant will use to broadly disseminate
information on its project to support further development or
replication.
F. Sustainability
1. The Secretary considers the adequacy of resources to continue to
develop or expand the proposed practice, strategy, or program after the
grant period ends.
2. In determining the adequacy of resources for the proposed
project, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(a) The extent to which the applicant demonstrates that it has the
resources, as well as the support from stakeholders (e.g., State
educational agencies, teachers' unions) to operate the project beyond
the length of the Development grant.
(b) The potential and planning for the incorporation of project
purposes, activities, or benefits into the ongoing work of the LEA,
schools, or nonprofit organization at the end of the Development grant.
G. Quality of the Management Plan and Personnel
1. The Secretary considers the quality of the management plan and
personnel for the proposed project.
2. In determining the quality of the management plan and personnel
for the proposed project, the Secretary considers:
(a) The adequacy of the management plan to achieve the objectives
of the proposed project on time and within budget, including clearly
defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing
project tasks.
(b) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience,
of the project director and key project personnel, especially in
managing projects of the size and scope of the proposed project.
Final Priorities, Requirements, Definitions, and Selection
Criteria: We will announce the final priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria in a notice in the Federal
Register. We will determine the final priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria after considering responses to this
notice and other information available to the Department. This notice
does not preclude us from proposing additional priorities,
requirements, definitions, or selection criteria, subject to meeting
applicable rulemaking requirements.
Note: This notice does not solicit applications. In any year in
which we choose to use these priorities, requirements, and selection
criteria, we invite applications through a notice in the Federal
Register.
Executive Order 12866: Under Executive Order 12866, the Secretary
must determine whether this regulatory action is ``significant'' and,
therefore, subject to the requirements of the Executive Order and
subject to review by OMB. Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 defines
a ``significant regulatory action'' as an action likely to result in a
rule that may (1) have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million
or more, or adversely affect a sector of the economy, productivity,
competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State,
local, or tribal governments, or communities in a material way (also
referred to as an ``economically significant'' rule); (2) create
serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or
planned by another agency; (3) materially alter the budgetary impacts
of entitlement grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and
obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel legal or policy
issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or
the principles set forth in the Executive order. Pursuant to the
Executive order, it has been determined that this regulatory action
will have an annual effect on the economy of more than $100 million
because the amount of government transfers provided through the
Investing in Innovation Fund will exceed that amount. Therefore, this
action is ``economically significant'' and subject to OMB review under
section 3(f)(1) of the Executive order.
The potential costs associated with this proposed regulatory action
are those resulting from statutory requirements and those we have
determined as necessary for administering this program effectively and
efficiently.
In assessing the potential costs and benefits--both quantitative
and qualitative--of this proposed regulatory action, we have determined
that the benefits of the proposed priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria justify the costs.
We have determined, also, that this proposed regulatory action does
not unduly interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the
exercise of their governmental functions.
Need for Federal Regulatory Action
These proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection
criteria are needed to implement the Investing in Innovation Fund. The
Secretary does not believe that the statute, by itself, provides a
sufficient level of detail to ensure that the program achieves the
greatest national impact in promoting educational innovation. The
authorizing language is very brief and provides only broad parameters
governing the program. The proposals discussed in this notice would
provide greater clarity on the types of activities the Department seeks
to fund, and permit the Department to use selection criteria that are
closely aligned with the Secretary's priorities.
In the absence of specific selection criteria for the Investing in
Innovation Fund, the Department would use the general selection
criteria in 34 CFR 75.210 of the Education Department General
Administrative Regulations in selecting grant recipients. The Secretary
does not believe the use of those general criteria would be appropriate
for the Investing in Innovation Fund grant competition, because they do
not focus on the educational reform and innovation activities most
likely to raise student achievement and eliminate persistent
disparities in achievement across different populations of students.
Regulatory Alternatives Considered
The Department considered a variety of possible priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria before deciding to
propose those included in this notice. The proposed priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria are those that the
Secretary believes best capture the purposes of the program while
clarifying what the Secretary expects the program to accomplish and
ensuring that program activities are aligned with Departmental
priorities. The proposals would also provide eligible applicants with
flexibility in selecting activities to apply to carry out under the
program. The Secretary believes that the proposals, thus, appropriately
balance a limited degree of specificity with broad flexibility in
implementation. We seek
[[Page 52227]]
public comment on whether we have achieved the optimal balance.
Summary of Costs and Benefits
The Secretary believes that the proposed priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria would not impose significant costs
on eligible LEAs, nonprofit organizations, or other entities that would
receive assistance through the Investing in Innovation Fund. The
Secretary also believes that the benefits of implementing the proposals
contained in this notice outweigh any associated costs.
The Secretary believes that the proposed priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria would result in selection of high-
quality applications to implement activities that are most likely to
have a significant national impact on educational reform and
improvement. Through the proposals discussed in this notice, the
Secretary seeks to provide clarity as to the scope of activities he
expects to support with program funds and the expected burden of work
involved in preparing an application and implementing a project under
the program. The pool of possible applicants is very large; during
school year 2007-08, 9,729 LEAs across the country (about 65 percent of
all LEAs) made adequate yearly progress. Although not every one of
those LEAs would necessarily meet all the eligibility requirements, the
number of LEAs that would meet them is likely to be in the thousands.
Potential applicants, both LEAs and nonprofit organizations, would need
to consider carefully the effort that will be required to prepare a
strong application, their capacity to implement a project successfully,
and their chances of submitting a successful application.
The Secretary believes that the costs imposed on applicants by the
proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria
would be limited to paperwork burden related to preparing an
application and that the benefits of implementing these proposals would
outweigh any costs incurred by applicants. The costs of carrying out
activities would be paid for with program funds and with matching funds
provided by private-sector partners. Thus, the costs of implementation
would not be a burden for any eligible applicants, including small
entities. However, under the proposed selection criteria the Secretary
would assess the extent to which an applicant would be able to sustain
a project once Federal funding through the Investing in Innovation Fund
is no longer available. Thus, eligible applicants should propose
activities that they will be able to sustain without funding from the
program and, thus, in essence, should include in their project plan the
specific steps they will take for sustained implementation of the
proposed project.
The proposed priorities would provide flexibility on the topics and
types of grant activities applicants could propose. The proposal for
the three types of grants--Scale-up, Validation, and Development
grants--would allow potential applicants to determine which type of
grant they are best suited to apply for, based on their own priorities,
resources, and capacity to implement grant activities.
Accounting Statement
As required by OMB Circular A-4 (available at http://
www.Whitehouse.gov/omb/Circulars/a004/a-4.pdf), in the following table,
we have prepared an accounting statement showing the classification of
the expenditures associated with the provisions of this proposed
regulatory action. This table provides our best estimate of the Federal
payments to be made to LEAs and nonprofit organizations under this
program as a result of this proposed regulatory action. Expenditures
are classified as transfers to those entities.
Table--Accounting Statement Classification of Estimated Expenditures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Transfers (in millions)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual Monetized Transfers................ $643.5
From Whom to Whom......................... Federal Government to LEAs,
nonprofits.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
The requirements and selection criteria proposed in this notice
will require the collection of information that is subject to review by
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). It is our plan to offer a comment
period for the information collection at the time of the notice of
final priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria. At
that time, the Department will submit the information collection to OMB
for its review and provide the specific burden hours associated with
each of the requirements and selection criteria for comment. However,
because it is likely that the information collection will be reviewed
under emergency OMB processing, the Department encourages the public to
comment on the estimates we are providing for the burden hours
associated with the requirements and selection criteria proposed in
this notice.
Estimates for Scale-up Grants: We estimate 100 applicants for
Scale-up grants, and that each applicant would spend approximately 120
hours of staff time to address the application requirements and
criteria, prepare the application, and obtain necessary clearances. The
total number of hours for all Scale-up applicants is an estimated
12,000 hours (100 applicants times 120 hours equals 12,000 hours).
Estimates for Validation Grants: We estimate 500 applicants for
Validation grants, and that each applicant would spend approximately
120 hours of staff time to address the application requirements and
criteria, prepare the application, and obtain necessary clearances. The
total number of hours for all Validation applicants is an estimated
60,000 hours (500 applicants times 120 hours equals 60,000 hours).
Estimates for Development Grants: We estimate 2000 pre-applications
and 100 full applications for Development grants. We estimate that pre-
applicants will spend approximately 60 hours of staff time to address
the pre-application requirements and criteria, prepare the pre-
application, and obtain all necessary clearances for the pre-
application. We estimate that full applicants will spend approximately
60 hours of staff time to address the full application requirements and
criteria, prepare the full application, and obtain all necessary
clearances for the full application. The total number of hours for all
Development pre-applicants and full applicants is an estimated 126,000
hours ((2000 pre-applicants times 60 hours equals 120,000 hours) plus
(100 full applicants times 60 hours equals 6,000 hours)).
Total Estimates: Across the three grant types, we estimate the
average total cost per hour of the LEA and nonprofit organization staff
who carry out this work to be $25.00 an hour. The total estimated cost
for all applicants would be $4,950,000 ($25.00 times 198,000 (12,000 +
60,000 + 126,000) hours equals $4,950,000).
Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification
The Secretary certifies that this proposed regulatory action will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The small entities that this proposed regulatory action will
affect are small LEAs or nonprofit organizations applying for and
receiving funds under this program. The Secretary believes that the
costs imposed on applicants by
[[Page 52228]]
the proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection
criteria would be limited to paperwork burden related to preparing an
application and that the benefits of implementing these proposals would
outweigh any costs incurred by applicants.
Participation in this program is voluntary. For this reason, the
proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria
would impose no burden on small entities in general. Eligible
applicants would determine whether to apply for funds, and have the
opportunity to weigh the requirements for preparing applications, and
any associated costs, against the likelihood of receiving funding and
the requirements for implementing projects under the program. Eligible
applicants most likely would apply only if they determine that the
likely benefits exceed the costs of preparing an application. The
likely benefits include the potential receipt of a grant as well as
other benefits that may accrue to an entity through its development of
an application, such as the use of that application to spur educational
reforms and improvements without additional Federal funding.
The U.S. Small Business Administration Size Standards defines as
``small entities'' for-profit or nonprofit institutions with total
annual revenue below $7,000,000 or, if they are institutions controlled
by small governmental jurisdictions (that are comprised of cities,
counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special
districts), with a population of less than 50,000. The Urban
Institute's National Center for Charitable Statistics reported that of
203,635 nonprofit organizations that had an educational mission and
reported revenue to the IRS by July 2009, 200,342 (or about 98 percent)
had revenues of less than $5 million. In addition, there are 12,484
LEAs in the country that meet the definition of small entity. However,
the Secretary believes that only a small number of these entities would
be interested in applying for funds under this program, thus reducing
the likelihood that the proposals contained in this notice would have a
significant economic impact on small entities.
In addition, the Secretary believes that the proposed priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria discussed in this
notice do not impose any additional burden on small entities applying
for a grant than they would face in the absence of the proposed action.
That is, the length of the applications those entities would submit in
the absence of the regulatory action and the time needed to prepare an
application would likely be the same.
Further, the proposed action may help small entities determine
whether they have the interest, need, or capacity to implement
activities under the program and, thus, prevent small entities that do
not have such an interest, need, and capacity from absorbing the burden
of applying.
This proposed regulatory action would not have a significant
economic impact on small entities once they receive a grant because
they would be able to meet the costs of compliance using the funds
provided under this program and with any matching funds provided by
private-sector partners.
The Secretary invites comments from small nonprofit organizations
and small LEAs as to whether they believe this proposed regulatory
action would have a significant economic impact on them and, if so,
requests evidence to support that belief.
Intergovernmental Review: This program is subject to Executive
Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of the
objectives of the Executive order is to foster an intergovernmental
partnership and a strengthened federalism. The Executive order relies
on processes developed by State and local governments for coordination
and review of proposed Federal financial assistance.
This document provides early notification of our specific plans and
actions for this program.
Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this
document in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print,
audiotape, or computer diskette) on request to the program contact
person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Electronic Access to This Document: 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) on the
Internet at the following site: http://www.ed.gov/news/fedregister.
To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available
free at this site. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S.
Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1-888-293-6498; or in
the Washington, DC, area at (202) 512-1530.
Note: 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 on GPO Access at: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/
nara/index.html.
Dated: October 6, 2009.
Arne Duncan,
Secretary of Education.
[FR Doc. E9-24387 Filed 10-8-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P