Nfp

Friday,
March 12, 2010

Part II

Department of
Education

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

34 CFR Part Chapter II
Investing in Innovation Fund; Final Rule
and Notice

VerDate Nov<24>2008

17:35 Mar 11, 2010

Jkt 220001

PO 00000

Frm 00001

Fmt 4717

Sfmt 4717

E:\FR\FM\12MRR2.SGM

12MRR2

12004

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Chapter II
[Docket ID ED–2009–OII–0012]
RIN 1855–AA06

Investing in Innovation Fund

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

AGENCY: Office of Innovation and
Improvement, Department of Education.
ACTION: Final priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria.
SUMMARY: The Secretary of Education
(Secretary) establishes priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection
criteria under the Investing in
Innovation Fund. The Secretary may use
these priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria in any
year in which this program is in effect.
DATES: These priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria are
effective May 11, 2010.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Telephone: (202) 453–7122; or by email: i3@ed.gov; or by mail: (Attention:
Margo Anderson, Investing in
Innovation), U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW.,
room 4W302, Washington, DC 20202.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
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) local
educational agencies (LEAs), and (2)
nonprofit organizations in partnership
with (a) one or more LEAs or (b) a
consortium of schools. The purpose of
this program is to provide competitive
grants to applicants with a record of
improving student achievement and
attainment in order to expand the
implementation of, and investment in,
innovative practices that are
demonstrated to have an impact on
improving student achievement or
student growth (as defined in this
notice), closing achievement gaps,
decreasing dropout rates, increasing
high school graduation rates, or
increasing college enrollment and
completion rates.
These grants will (1) allow eligible
entities to expand and develop
innovative practices that 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)
support eligible entities in identifying
and documenting best practices that can
be shared and taken to scale based on
demonstrated success.
Background: One of the overall goals
of the ARRA is to improve student

VerDate Nov<24>2008

17:35 Mar 11, 2010

Jkt 220001

achievement and attainment through
school improvement and reform. Within
the context of the ARRA, the Investing
in Innovation Fund focuses on four
education reform areas that will help
achieve this goal: (1) Improving teacher
and principal effectiveness and ensuring
that all schools have effective teachers
and principals, (2) gathering
information to improve student
learning, teacher performance, and
college and career readiness through
enhanced data systems, (3)
implementing college-and career-ready
standards and rigorous assessments
aligned with those standards, and (4)
improving achievement in lowperforming schools through intensive
support and effective interventions. The
Department is using the Investing in
Innovation Fund to support the
overarching ARRA goal of improving
student achievement and attainment by
establishing four absolute priorities that
are directly aligned with the four
education reform areas under the ARRA.
We are also establishing in this notice
four competitive preference priorities
that are aligned with Department reform
goals in the following areas: (1) Early
learning, (2) college access and success,
(3) serving students with disabilities
and limited English proficient students,
and (4) serving students in rural LEAs.
Finally, we are requiring that all
projects funded under this program be
designed to serve high-need students (as
defined in this notice).
Under this program, the Department
is awarding three types of grants: ‘‘Scaleup’’ grants, ‘‘Validation’’ grants, and
‘‘Development’’ grants. Among the three
grant types, there are differences in
terms of the evidence that an applicant
is 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 is eligible to
receive. The following is an overview of
the three types of grants:
(1) Scale-up grants 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, increasing high school graduation
rates, or increasing college enrollment
and completion rates, and that the effect
of implementing the proposed practice,
strategy, or program will be substantial
and important. An applicant for a Scaleup grant may also demonstrate success
through an intermediate variable

PO 00000

Frm 00002

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

strongly correlated with these outcomes,
such as teacher or principal
effectiveness.
An applicant for a Scale-up grant
must 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, an
applicant for a Scale-up grant must
provide evidence of its capacity (e.g., in
terms of qualified personnel, financial
resources, or management capacity) to
scale up to a State, regional, or national
level, working directly or through
partners either during or following the
grant period. We recognize that LEAs
are not typically responsible for taking
to scale their practices, strategies, or
programs in other LEAs and States.
However, all applicants, including
LEAs, can and should partner with
others (e.g., State educational agencies)
to disseminate and take to scale their
effective practices, strategies, and
programs.
Peer reviewers will review all eligible
Scale-up grant applications. However, if
an application does not meet the
definition of strong evidence in this
notice, the Department will not consider
the application for funding.
Successful applicants for Scale-up
grants will receive more funding than
successful applicants for Validation or
Development grants.
(2) Validation grants 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, increasing high school graduation
rates, or increasing college enrollment
and completion rates and that, with
further study, the effect of implementing
the proposed practice, strategy, or
program may prove to be substantial
and important. Thus, applications for
Validation grants do not need to have
the same level of research evidence to
support the proposed project as is
required for Scale-up grants. An
applicant may also demonstrate success
through an intermediate variable
strongly correlated with these outcomes,
such as teacher or principal
effectiveness.
An applicant for a Validation grant
must 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, an
applicant for a Validation grant must

E:\FR\FM\12MRR2.SGM

12MRR2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
provide evidence of its capacity (e.g., in
terms of qualified personnel, financial
resources, or management capacity) to
scale up to a State or regional level,
working directly or through partners
either during or following the grant
period. As noted earlier, we recognize
that LEAs are not typically responsible
for taking to scale their practices,
strategies, or programs in other LEAs
and States. However, all applicants,
including LEAs, can and should partner
with others to disseminate and take to
scale their effective practices, strategies,
and programs.
Peer reviewers will review all eligible
Validation grant applications. However,
if an application does not meet the
definition of moderate evidence in this
notice, the Department will not consider
the application for funding.
Successful applicants for Validation
grants will receive more funding than
successful applicants for Development
grants.
(3) Development grants provide
funding to support high-potential and
relatively untested practices, strategies,
or programs whose efficacy should be

systematically studied. An applicant
must 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, applications for
Development grants do not need to
provide the same level of evidence to
support the proposed project as is
required for Validation or Scale-up
grants.
An applicant for a Development grant
must estimate the number of students to
be served by the project, and provide
evidence of the applicant’s 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

12005

resources, or management capacity) to
further develop and bring the project to
a larger scale directly or through
partners either during or following the
grant period. As noted earlier, we
recognize that LEAs are not typically
responsible for taking to scale their
practices, strategies, or programs. Again,
however, all applicants can and should
partner with others to disseminate and
take to scale their effective practices,
strategies, and programs.
Peer reviewers will review all eligible
Development grant applications.
However, if an application is not
supported by a reasonable hypothesis
for the proposed project, the Department
will not consider the application for
funding.
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.

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

TABLE 1—DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE THREE TYPES OF INVESTING IN INNOVATION FUND 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 ......................
Internal Validity (Strength of Causal
Conclusions) and External Validity (Generalizability).

Strong evidence ...........................
High internal validity and high external validity.

Prior Research Studies Supporting
Effectiveness or Efficacy of the
Proposed Practice, Strategy, or
Program.

(1) More than one well-designed
and well-implemented experimental study or well-designed
and well-implemented quasi-experimental study; or (2) one
large, well-designed and wellimplemented randomized controlled, multisite trial.

Reasonable hypotheses.
Theory and reported practice suggest the potential for efficacy
for at least some participants
and settings.
(1) 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; and (2) 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.

Practice, Strategy, or Program in
Prior Research.

The same as that proposed for
support under the Scale-up
grant.
Participants and settings included
the kinds of participants and
settings proposed to receive
the treatment under the Scaleup grant.

Moderate evidence .......................
(1) High internal validity and moderate external validity; or (2)
moderate internal validity and
high external validity.
(1) At least one well-designed
and well-implemented experimental or quasi-experimental
study, 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 quasiexperimental 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.
The same as, or very similar to,
that proposed for support under
the Validation grant.
Participants or settings may have
been more limited than those
proposed to receive the treatment under the Validation grant.

Participants and Settings in Prior
Research.

VerDate Nov<24>2008

17:35 Mar 11, 2010

Jkt 220001

PO 00000

Frm 00003

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\12MRR2.SGM

The same as, or similar to, that
proposed for support under the
Development grant.
Participants or settings may have
been more limited than those
proposed to receive the treatment under the Development
grant.

12MRR2

12006

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE 1—DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE THREE TYPES OF INVESTING IN INNOVATION FUND GRANTS IN TERMS OF THE
EVIDENCE REQUIRED TO SUPPORT THE PROPOSED PRACTICE, STRATEGY, OR PROGRAM—Continued
Scale-up grants
Significance of Effect ......................

Magnitude of Effect .........................

Validation grants

Development grants

Effect in prior research was sta- Effect in prior research would be
tistically significant, and would
likely to be statistically signifibe likely to be statistically sigcant in a sample of the size
nificant in a sample of the size
proposed for the Validation
proposed for the Scale-up grant.
grant.
Based on prior research, substan- Based on prior research, substantial and important for the target
tial and important, with the popopulation for the Scale-up
tential of the same for the tarproject.
get population for the Validation
project.

In addition, the three types of grants
differ in terms of the expectations to
scale up successful projects during or

following the grant period, either
directly or through partners, and the

Practice, strategy, or program
warrants further study to investigate efficacy.
Based on prior implementation,
promising for the target population for the Development
project.

level of funding that would be available.
(See Table 2.)

TABLE 2—DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE THREE TYPES OF INVESTING IN INNOVATION FUND GRANTS IN TERMS OF
EXPECTATIONS TO SCALE UP AND THE FUNDING TO BE PROVIDED

Scale up ..........................................
Funding to be provided ...................

Scale-up grants

Validation grants

National, Regional, or State .........
Highest .........................................

Regional or State .........................
Moderate ......................................

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

Major Changes in the Final Priorities,
Requirements, Definitions, and
Selection Criteria
The Department published a notice of
proposed priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria (NPP)
for this program in the Federal Register
on October 9, 2009 (74 FR 52214–
52228). We received comments on the
NPP from 346 commenters, including
from LEAs, nonprofit organizations,
professional associations, parents, and
private citizens. We used these
comments to revise, improve, and
clarify the priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria. In
addition to minor technical and
editorial changes, there are several
substantive differences between the
priorities, requirements, definitions, and
selection criteria proposed in the NPP
and the final priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria that
we establish in this notice. Those
substantive changes are summarized in
this section and discussed in greater
detail in the Analysis of Comments and
Changes that follows. We do not discuss
minor technical or editorial changes,
nor do we address comments that
suggested changes that we are not
authorized to make under the law.
Priorities
We are making the following changes
to the priorities for this program:
• We are revising Absolute Priority
1—Innovations that Support Effective
Teachers and School Leaders by

VerDate Nov<24>2008

17:35 Mar 11, 2010

Jkt 220001

substituting the term ‘‘principal’’ for the
term ‘‘school leader’’ and clarifying that,
to meet this priority, projects must
increase the number or percentages of
highly effective teachers or principals or
reduce the number or percentages of
ineffective teachers or principals;
projects need not serve both teachers
and principals to meet the priority. We
are also revising the discussion of the
teacher and principal evaluation
systems that should be used in projects
under this priority by stating that the
measures used to determine
effectiveness should be designed with
teacher and principal involvement.
• We are revising Absolute Priority
3—Innovations that Complement the
Implementation of High Standards and
High-Quality Assessments to clarify that
an eligible applicant must propose a
project that is based on standards that
are at least as rigorous as its State’s
standards. Further, we are revising the
priority to clarify that if the proposed
project is based on standards other than
those adopted by the eligible applicant’s
State, the applicant must explain how
the standards are aligned with and at
least as rigorous as the eligible
applicant’s State’s standards as well as
how the standards differ.
• We are revising Absolute Priority
4—Innovations That Turn Around
Persistently Low-Performing Schools to
specify the schools for which reform
projects may be implemented under this
priority; as noted later in this section,
we are removing the definition of

PO 00000

Frm 00004

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

Development grants
Further develop and scale.
Modest.

persistently low-performing schools. In
addition, we are revising the priority to
include in paragraph (a) additional
examples of the comprehensive
intervention approaches to wholeschool reform and to clarify in
paragraph (b)(3) the examples for
creating multiple pathways for students
to earn regular high school diplomas.
• We are revising Competitive
Preference Priority 7—Innovations to
Address the Unique Learning Needs of
Students with Disabilities and Limited
English Proficient Students by
specifying that, to meet this priority,
projects must focus on particular
practices, strategies, or programs that
are designed to improve academic
outcomes, close achievement gaps, and
increase college- and career-readiness,
including increasing high school
graduation rates (as defined in this
notice), for these students.
Requirements
We are making the following changes
to the requirements for this program:
• We are making clarifying changes to
the requirements in order to better
differentiate between eligible applicants
(i.e., LEAs, under section 14007(a)(1)(A)
of the ARRA; and partnerships between
nonprofit organizations and (1) one or
more LEAs or (2) a consortium of
schools, under section 14007(a)(1)(B) of
the ARRA) and the applicant (i.e., the
single entity that applies to the
Department on behalf of the eligible

E:\FR\FM\12MRR2.SGM

12MRR2

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
applicant, which could be itself or a
section 14007(a)(1)(B) partnership).
• As discussed in the NPP, proposed
paragraphs (1) through (4) of the
eligibility requirements of this program
repeated requirements prescribed by
section 14007 of the ARRA. Section 307
of Division D of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2010 (P.L. 111–
117), which was signed into law on
December 16, 2009, makes several
amendments to these statutory
requirements, which we are
incorporating in the final eligibility
requirements. The major substantive
changes include the following:
• Consistent with the amendments to
section 14007(b) of the ARRA, we are
revising proposed paragraph (1) of the
eligibility requirements to require that,
to be eligible for an award under this
program, an eligible applicant must (A)
have significantly closed the
achievement gaps between groups of
students described in section 1111(b)(2)
of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965, as amended
(ESEA), or (B) have demonstrated
success in significantly increasing
student academic achievement for all
groups of students described in such
section. We are also eliminating
proposed paragraph (2) of the eligibility
requirements, which would have
required that an eligible applicant 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).
• Consistent with the amendments to
section 14007(c) of the ARRA, we are
revising the Note about Eligibility for an
Eligible Applicant that Includes a
Nonprofit Organization to specify that
an eligible applicant that includes a
nonprofit organization is considered to
have met paragraph (1) and paragraph
(2) (proposed paragraph (3)) of the
eligibility requirements for this program
if the nonprofit organization has a
record of significantly improving
student achievement, attainment, or
retention. In addition, we are revising
the Note to specify that an eligible
applicant that includes a nonprofit
organization is considered to have met
paragraph (3) (proposed paragraph (4))
of the eligibility requirements if it
demonstrates that it will meet the
requirement relating to private-sector
matching.

VerDate Nov<24>2008

17:35 Mar 11, 2010

Jkt 220001

• We are establishing a requirement
that, to be eligible for an award, an
application for a Scale-up grant must be
supported by strong evidence (as
defined in this notice), an application
for a Validation grant must be supported
by moderate evidence (as defined in this
notice), and an application for a
Development grant must be supported
by a reasonable hypothesis.
• We are revising the Cost Sharing or
Matching requirement with respect to
the timing of submission of evidence of
the private-sector match. Selected
eligible applicants are now required to
submit evidence of the full 20 percent
private-sector matching funds to
support the proposed project following
the peer review of applications. An
award will not be made unless the
eligible applicant provides adequate
evidence that the full 20 percent
private-sector match has been
committed or the Secretary approves the
eligible applicant’s request to reduce the
matching-level requirement.
• Section 307 of Division D of the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010,
amended the ARRA with respect to a
grantee’s ability to make subgrants
under this program. Under new section
14007(d) of the ARRA, in the case of an
eligible entity that is a partnership
between a nonprofit organization and
(1) one or more LEAs or (2) a
consortium of schools, the partner
serving as the fiscal agent (i.e., the
applicant applying on behalf of the
eligible applicant) may make subgrants
to one or more of the other entities in
the partnership (referred to in this
notice as official partners). We are
revising the requirements for this
program to reflect this statutory change.
• We are establishing limits on grant
awards. No grantee may receive more
than two grant awards under this
program. In addition, no grantee may
receive more than $55 million in grant
awards under this program in a single
year’s competition.
• We are revising the Evaluation
requirement to establish that, in
addition to making the results of any
evaluation broadly available, Scale-up
and Validation grantees must also
ensure the data from their evaluations
are made available to third-party
researchers consistent with applicable
privacy requirements.
Definitions
We are making the following changes
to the definitions for this program. In
addition to providing further clarity on
the meaning of terms, these changes are
intended to ensure consistency in the
use and definition of terms in this

PO 00000

Frm 00005

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

12007

program and other programs supported
with ARRA funds where appropriate.
• We are removing the term
persistently low-performing schools.
• We are replacing the term highly
effective school leader with highly
effective principal and revising the
definition of this term.
• We are revising the definitions of
the following terms: Formative
assessment, highly effective teacher,
high-need student, regional level, and
student achievement.
• We are adding definitions of the
following terms: Applicant, official
partner, other partner, high school
graduation rate, regular high school
diploma, and well-designed and wellimplemented (with respect to an
experimental or quasi-experimental
study).
Selection Criteria
We are making the following changes
to the selection criteria for this program:
• Consistent with the Eligible
Applicants requirement and the
definitions of applicant, official partner,
and other partner, we are revising the
selection criteria for this program,
where appropriate, to clarify the entities
for which the criteria apply.
• We no longer intend to use a twotier process to review applications for
Development grants. Thus, we are
removing, from the selection criteria for
Development grants the discussion of a
two-tier application process (including
pre-applications) for those grants.
• We are revising Selection Criterion
A (Need for the Project and Quality of
the Project Design) for Validation grants
to include, among the factors for which
the Secretary will consider the quality
of the proposed project design, the
extent to which the proposed project is
consistent with the research evidence
supporting the proposed project, taking
into consideration any differences in
context.
• We are revising Selection Criterion
B (Strength of Research, Significance of
Effect, and Magnitude of Effect) for all
three types of grants to include college
enrollment and completion rates among
the student achievement and attainment
outcomes for which the Secretary will
consider the effect of a proposed project.
In addition, we are revising the criterion
for Scale-up and Validation grants to
clarify that the strength of the existing
research evidence includes the internal
validity (strength of causal conclusions)
and external validity (generalizability)
of the effects reported in prior research.
We are also revising the criterion for
Development grants to clarify that the
strength of the existing research
evidence includes reported practice,

E:\FR\FM\12MRR2.SGM

12MRR2

12008

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

theoretical considerations, and the
significance and magnitude of any
effects reported in prior research.
• We are revising Selection Criterion
C (Experience of the Eligible Applicant)
for all three types of grants to reflect the
amendments to the authorizing statute
discussed earlier in this notice. Under
Selection Criterion C (2) (proposed
Selection Criterion C (2)(b)), the
Secretary now considers, in the case of
an eligible applicant that is an LEA, the
extent to which the eligible applicant
provides information and data
demonstrating that it has (A)
significantly closed the achievement
gaps between groups of students
described in section 1111(b)(2) of the
ESEA or significantly increased student
achievement for all groups of students
described in such section; and (B) made
significant improvements in other areas,
such as graduation rates or increased
recruitment and placement of highquality teachers and principals, as
demonstrated with meaningful data. In
the case of an eligible applicant that
includes a nonprofit organization, the
Secretary now considers the extent to
which the eligible applicant provides
information and data demonstrating that
the nonprofit organization has
significantly improved student
achievement, attainment, or retention
through its record of work with an LEA
or schools. These changes are consistent
with the changes to the eligibility
requirements for this program discussed
earlier in this notice.
Analysis of Comments and Changes
An analysis of the comments received
on, and any changes to, the priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection
criteria since publication of the NPP for
this program follows.

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

Note about general comments: We received
many comments expressing general support
or making general recommendations for this
program. In most cases, these comments were
effectively duplicated by other comments
expressing support or making specific
recommendations for the program’s proposed
priorities, requirements, definitions, or
approval criteria, which we discuss in the
sections that follow. We accordingly do not
discuss those general comments here. In
other cases, we interpreted a general
comment as applying specifically to the
priorities, requirements, definitions, or
selection criteria and address the comment.
Note about comments on program issues
not covered in NPP: We received a number
of comments relating to program issues that
may have been discussed in communications
from the Department but were not proposed
for public comment in the NPP for this
program. These issues include: Specific
funding ranges or award amounts for the
grant categories, the number of grant awards,

VerDate Nov<24>2008

17:35 Mar 11, 2010

Jkt 220001

uses of funds, length of grant periods, and
technical assistance for applicants. We do not
address comments on these issues here. We
note, however, that information on these
issues will be made available through other
Department documents including the notice
inviting applications for this program.

Types of Grants
Comment: A number of commenters
expressed support for this program’s
three-tiered grant structure. Several
commenters supported the Department’s
attempt to balance the need to cultivate
new programs with support for existing
programs proven to be effective.
However, a number of commenters
recommended revising the grant
categories or structure of the program.
Many commenters recommended that
the Department structure the program to
include only two types of grants—Scaleup grants and Development grants—and
to eliminate Validation grants.
Similarly, one commenter
recommended that the Validation and
Scale-up grants be merged into a single
category so that reviewers could
consider the size of the target
population, the complexity of the
project, and other factors without
restrictions on scaling targets. A number
of other commenters recommended that
the Department change the structure of
this program to focus on funding a large
number of small projects rather than
larger projects that would be supported
under the Scale-up grant category.
Discussion: The Department believes
that the structure of this program and
the use of three categories of grants
present an appropriate balance between
support for the development of
promising yet relatively untested ideas
and the growth and scaling of practices
that have made demonstrable
improvements in student achievement
and attainment outcomes. In addition,
we believe that the scaling targets
provided for the three grant types are
needed by applicants in developing
their proposed projects. Consequently,
we do not believe changes such as those
recommended by the commenters are
warranted.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter asked how
the scale of implementation (State,
regional, or national) differs between
Validation and Development grants.
Discussion: Validation grants will be
implemented on a broader scale than
Development grants because of both the
corresponding level of evidence and the
funding provided for the practice,
strategy, or program. The level of
implementation for Validation grants is
State or regional, but the level of
implementation for Development grants

PO 00000

Frm 00006

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

would typically not extend to a
statewide level.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter requested
that the Department remove the term
‘‘new’’ from the description of the
Development grants, noting that
practices that are promising and
untested (consistent with this category
of grant) may not necessarily be new.
Discussion: We agree with the
commenter that the practices proposed
in projects for a Development grant need
not necessarily be new. We are
removing the term ‘‘new’’ from the
description of the Development grants.
Changes: We are removing the term
‘‘new’’ from the description of the
Development grants.
Comment: One commenter
recommended that the Department
allow, under the Development grant
category, funding for small-scale
projects that focus on the needs of
relatively small populations of highneed students.
Discussion: An applicant would not
be prohibited from proposing under the
Development grant category a project
that focuses on small populations of
high-need students, provided that the
project addresses one of the absolute
priorities of the program.
Changes: None.
Priorities
Priorities—General
Comment: One commenter suggested
that the Department draw explicit
connections between the final priorities
in the Investing in Innovation Fund and
the final priorities in the Race to the
Top Fund program so that projects can
be successfully scaled at the State level.
Another commenter recommended
adding a competitive preference priority
for projects that are aligned with
activities supported by other programs
administered by the Department (e.g.,
School Improvement Grants, Education
Technology Grants, Teacher Quality
Enhancement Grants) or by other
Federal agencies (e.g., Community
Development Block Grants).
Discussion: The absolute priorities
under the Investing in Innovation Fund
are aligned with the four education
reform areas under the ARRA and
complement the absolute priority of the
Race to the Top Fund program, which
requires States to submit applications
that comprehensively address these
same four reform areas. As noted
elsewhere in this notice, we are revising
the priorities, requirements, definitions,
and selection criteria for this program,
as appropriate, to ensure consistency
between this program and other

E:\FR\FM\12MRR2.SGM

12MRR2

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
programs supported with ARRA funds,
including the Race to the Top Fund
program.
We encourage eligible applicants to
align and coordinate activities under
this program with activities supported
with other ARRA funding, as well as
activities funded through other
Department and Federal programs.
Because this program is designed to
align with the ARRA’s four education
reform areas and complement activities
in other programs supported with ARRA
funds, we do not believe it is necessary
to add a competitive preference priority
for eligible applicants that align and
coordinate activities and funding from
multiple sources.
Changes: None.
Comment: A number of commenters
expressed support for the four absolute
priorities as reflecting key areas where
reform is needed in education. One
commenter, however, expressed
concern that requiring applicants to
submit an application under one
absolute priority contributes to a ‘‘silo
effect’’ whereby individual projects are
narrowly focused and implemented in
isolation or in a manner that is
disconnected from other key reform
areas.
A few commenters requested
clarification as to whether applicants
could or should address more than one
absolute priority. Some commenters
recommended adding an absolute
priority for projects that are based on
comprehensive and multi-dimensional
reform strategies that cut across the
education reform areas. Other
commenters recommended adding a
competitive preference priority for
projects that address more than one
absolute priority or that address one
absolute priority and demonstrate
capacity and expertise in other absolute
priority areas. Commenters also
recommended that the Department
require applicants to describe their work
in each of the education reform areas, or
how their proposed project would
contribute to improvements across the
spectrum of education reform. Some of
these commenters asserted that lasting
reform requires action in multiple or all
of the ARRA reform areas.
Discussion: An applicant must
identify one absolute priority under
which it is submitting its application.
Given the diversity of applications that
we are likely to receive, we are requiring
eligible applicants to write to one
absolute priority to ensure that we can
assess the quality of the applications
within a given reform area. Although it
must identify the absolute priority
under which it is submitting its
application, an eligible applicant is not

VerDate Nov<24>2008

17:35 Mar 11, 2010

Jkt 220001

prohibited from submitting an
application that addresses multiple
absolute priorities if that is necessary to
describing the effort for which the
applicant is seeking funds. However,
such applications will not receive
additional ‘‘credit’’ for doing so. All
points will be assigned based on how
well the eligible applicant addresses the
selection criteria.
Changes: None.
Comment: A number of commenters
recommended that the Department add
a competitive preference priority for
applications that serve high-need
students. Several of these commenters
stated that including a priority for
projects that focus on high-need
students would promote innovation and
direct attention toward meeting the
needs of these typically underserved
students. Two of these commenters also
recommended including a competitive
preference priority for innovative
programs in literacy instruction for
students in secondary schools. Several
commenters recommended adding a
competitive preference priority for
projects that propose to serve
disconnected youth, particularly youth
in secondary schools and youth who
have dropped out of school. Other
commenters recommended focusing on
projects that propose to create or
improve pathways to postsecondary
education for high-need and
disconnected students. One commenter
suggested focusing priorities on projects
that serve economically disadvantaged
students, Native American students, and
students from diverse ethnic and racial
backgrounds.
Discussion: Under the requirements
for this program, all projects funded
under this program must focus on highneed students (as defined in this notice).
It would, therefore, serve no purpose
also to award competitive preference
points for projects that propose to serve
high-need students. We note that we
define high-need student as a student at
risk of educational failure or otherwise
in need of special assistance and
support. While we provide examples of
students at risk of educational failure or
otherwise in need of special assistance
and support in the definition of highneed student, those examples are not
intended to be an exhaustive or
exclusive list. An eligible applicant has
flexibility in determining the types of
students that meet the definition.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter
recommended that the Department
clarify whether an applicant may
propose to serve only certain student
subgroups or students only in specific
settings. The commenter requested that

PO 00000

Frm 00007

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

12009

the Department clarify the relationship
between the competitive preference
priorities, which target specific groups
of students (e.g., students with
disabilities and limited English
proficient students), and the absolute
priorities, which do not appear to be so
targeted. Another commenter suggested
clarifying whether applications targeting
multiple student subgroups would
receive competitive preference points.
Discussion: An eligible applicant may
propose a project that targets or serves
only certain student subgroups or only
students served in particular settings,
provided that the project serves highneed students consistent with the
definition of high-need student.
However, an eligible applicant would
not receive competitive preference
points under this program simply for
proposing a project to serve multiple
student subgroups.
Changes: None.
Comment: We received numerous
comments recommending that we add
absolute priorities to address a wide
array of other issues and concerns.
Many commenters recommended that
absolute priorities be added to focus on
particular subject areas. For example,
commenters suggested adding a priority
for projects that improve vocabulary and
increase the use of vocabulary
assessments. One commenter
recommended adding a priority for
innovations in science education.
Another commenter recommended
adding a priority for eligible applicants
that propose innovative ways to instruct
students in the subjects of science,
technology, engineering and
mathematics (STEM). A number of other
commenters suggested adding a priority
for projects that propose to improve,
reform, or increase access to art and
music education. A few commenters
recommended adding a priority for
innovations in career and technical
education and focusing on careerreadiness outcomes, such as technical
skill attainment and performance on
work-readiness assessments.
A few commenters recommended
adding an absolute priority for
innovations that offer customized
educational experiences for students
based on individual learning needs and
preferences. Two of these commenters
asserted that such innovations provide a
more flexible, student-centered
approach to education and produce
schools that are ‘‘student-based.’’
Several commenters suggested adding
an absolute priority for projects that
propose to increase high school
graduation rates, such as dropout
recovery programs. Other commenters
recommended adding an absolute

E:\FR\FM\12MRR2.SGM

12MRR2

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

12010

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

priority for projects that focus on college
readiness and transition to college. One
commenter recommended that the
absolute priorities explicitly reference
middle schools because, according to
the commenter, middle schools provide
the foundation for high school
graduation and college- and careerreadiness.
In addition to recommendations to
add absolute priorities, we received a
number of comments recommending
that we re-designate competitive
preference priorities as absolute
priorities. For example, a few
commenters recommended changing the
competitive preference priority on
serving schools in rural LEAs to an
absolute priority. Likewise, one
commenter recommended that the
competitive preference priority on
supporting college access and success
be changed to an absolute priority and
several commenters recommended that
the competitive preference priority on
improving early learning outcomes be
changed to an absolute priority.
Discussion: While we recognize the
importance of the issues and topics
mentioned by the commenters, we
decline to include additional absolute
priorities for this program. As stated
elsewhere in this notice, the Department
is using the Investing in Innovation
Fund to support the overarching ARRA
goal of improving student achievement
and attainment by establishing four
absolute priorities that are directly
aligned with the four education reform
areas under the ARRA. We believe that
adding other absolute priorities would
detract from this goal.
We note, in addition, that all
applications for Investing in Innovation
Fund grants will be assessed in part on
the extent to which the proposed
projects will have an impact on student
achievement and attainment outcomes
including the following: improving
student achievement or growth, closing
achievement gaps, decreasing dropout
rates, increasing high school graduation
rates, and increasing college enrollment
and completion rates (see Selection
Criterion B (Strength of Research,
Significance of Effect, and Magnitude of
Effect) for each type of grant).
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter
recommended eliminating all the
competitive preference priorities stating
that they complicate the application
process and constrain innovation.
Discussion: The Department routinely
utilizes competitive preference
priorities in grant competitions without
any undue difficulty for either the
agency or applicants. As noted
elsewhere in this notice, we are

VerDate Nov<24>2008

17:35 Mar 11, 2010

Jkt 220001

including competitive preference
priorities that are aligned with the
Department’s reform goals. We believe
that these competitive preference
priorities complement, rather than
detract from, the four ARRA reform
areas. Furthermore, we do not believe
that including competitive preference
priorities constrains innovation. We
have written the competitive preference
priorities around broad general topics,
within which eligible applicants are free
to propose a range of innovative
projects. We note that eligible
applicants are not required to address
the competitive preference priorities.
For these reasons, we have concluded
that no changes to the competitive
preference priorities should be made in
response to this comment.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter
recommended that the Department
change the absolute priorities to
competitive preference priorities
because, according to the commenter,
the competitive preference priorities
deserve equal status with the absolute
priorities. One commenter
recommended combining some of the
absolute priorities with the competitive
preference priorities.
Discussion: Changing the absolute
priorities to competitive preference
priorities or combining absolute
priorities with competitive priorities
would, in effect, diminish the focus of
this program on the four ARRA
education reform areas because it would
allow projects that do not address any
of the four reform areas to be funded.
Therefore, we decline to make the
changes recommended by commenters.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter
recommended that the Department
permit applicants to address more than
one competitive preference priority.
Several commenters recommended that
the Department clarify whether
applications receive additional points
for addressing more than one
competitive preference priority.
Discussion: The notice inviting
applications for this program (NIA),
published elsewhere in this issue of the
Federal Register, states that competitive
preference points will be awarded on an
‘‘all or nothing’’ basis (i.e., one point or
zero points) for Competitive Preference
Priorities 5, 6, and 7, depending on how
well an application addresses the
priority. For Competitive Preference
Priority 8, we will award up to two
points, depending on how well an
application addresses this priority.
Applications may address more than
one competitive preference priority;
however, the Department will not award

PO 00000

Frm 00008

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

additional points simply for addressing
more than one competitive preference
priority.
Changes: None.
Comment: A number of commenters
recommended that the Department add
a competitive preference priority for
applicants that partner with specific
entities. For example, some commenters
recommended adding a competitive
preference priority for applicants that
partner with nonprofit organizations in
order to help ensure that projects are
innovative and can be scaled up
successfully. One commenter stated that
competitive preference points should be
awarded to LEA applicants who propose
projects that involve collaboration with
other LEAs and charter schools. Another
commenter recommended adding a
competitive preference priority for
applicants that partner with a State
educational agency to ensure that
funded activities can be implemented
statewide. One commenter suggested
that applicants who partner with
institutions of higher education should
be given competitive preference points
in light of the focus of the ARRA on
improving college- and career-readiness.
One commenter recommended adding a
competitive preference priority for
applicants that partner with a
community-based organization in order
to be consistent with the Department’s
general support for community-oriented
schools and partnerships between
communities and schools. A few
commenters recommended adding a
competitive preference priority for
applicants that propose innovative
partnerships to support program
effectiveness and sustainability
including interdisciplinary
partnerships.
Discussion: We believe that eligible
applicants should form partnerships
with those entities that they believe will
yield the best possible application and
produce the best possible results. We do
not believe it would be appropriate for
the Department to judge who the best
partners would be for a particular
project and therefore decline to add a
competitive preference priority for
eligible applicants that partner with a
specific entity.
We note that there appears to be some
confusion about the roles and
responsibilities of ‘‘eligible applicants,’’
‘‘applicants,’’ ‘‘fiscal agents,’’ and
‘‘partners’’ under this program.
Therefore, and as discussed in greater
detail in the Requirements section of
this preamble, we are adding definitions
for the terms applicant, official partner,
and other partner and using these terms,
as appropriate, throughout this notice.

E:\FR\FM\12MRR2.SGM

12MRR2

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
Changes: As discussed elsewhere in
this notice, we are adding definitions for
the terms applicant, official partner, and
other partner. We use these terms, as
appropriate, throughout this notice.
Comment: One commenter
recommended adding a competitive
preference priority for eligible
applicants that include charter schools
in their proposed projects.
Discussion: As discussed elsewhere in
this notice, depending on its legal status
under State law, a charter school may be
eligible to apply under this program in
the following ways: As an LEA on its
own if it is considered an LEA under
State law; As a nonprofit organization,
in a partnership with one or more LEAs
or a consortium of schools (provided the
charter school meets the definition of
nonprofit organization under this
program); or in a partnership with a
nonprofit organization as an LEA or as
part of a consortium of schools. Adding
a competitive preference priority for
charter schools would provide an unfair
advantage to eligible applicants that
include these schools. Therefore, we
decline to make the change
recommended by the commenter.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter
recommended adding a competitive
preference priority for eligible
applicants that propose projects that
encourage and support effective teacher
professional development and
collaboration. Another commenter
recommended adding a competitive
preference priority for projects that
propose innovative approaches to
attracting and developing school
leaders.
Discussion: Absolute Priority 1
focuses on projects that increase the
number or percentages of highly
effective teachers or principals (or
reduce the number or percentages of
ineffective teachers or principals) by
identifying, recruiting, developing,
placing, rewarding, and retaining highly
effective teachers or principals (or
removing ineffective teachers or
principals). It is unnecessary to include
both an absolute priority and a
competitive preference priority focused
on improving teacher or principal
effectiveness. Therefore, we decline to
follow the commenters’
recommendations.
As explained in our responses to
comments regarding Absolute Priority 1,
we are changing the term, ‘‘school
leader’’ to ‘‘principal’’ in order to clarify
our intent to focus this priority on
increasing the number and percentages
of highly effective principals.
Changes: We are changing the term
‘‘school leader’’ to ‘‘principal’’ in the

VerDate Nov<24>2008

17:35 Mar 11, 2010

Jkt 220001

priorities, requirements, definitions, and
selection criteria for this program and
using the latter term in our response to
comments. However, we are retaining
references to ‘‘school leader’’ that
commenters made in their statements.
Comment: A number of commenters
recommended that the Department add
a priority for projects that focus on
improving outcomes related to school
support services, school climate, school
diversity, school safety, or parent or
community involvement. Some
commenters recommended adding a
competitive preference priority for
eligible applicants that propose
initiatives to promote caring and
culturally-responsive teachers as well as
classrooms and schools that support
positive social climates. One commenter
recommended adding a competitive
preference priority for projects that
propose innovative approaches to
reducing the use of alcohol, tobacco,
and other addictive drugs. Another
commenter recommended adding a
competitive preference priority for
projects proposing innovative
approaches to reducing the incidence of
crime, violence, and ‘‘uncivil behavior’’
(including bullying) in schools. One
commenter recommended that the
Department modify the proposed
priorities to address student
engagement, character education, and
life skills; the commenter asserted that
the proposed priorities ignore factors
not directly associated with instruction
that impact a student’s ability to achieve
academically.
Some commenters recommended
adding a priority for innovations that
improve the social and other
nonacademic supports that schools
provide to students and families, such
as assistance with child care, housing,
transportation, and making collegerelated decisions. A number of
commenters recommended adding a
new priority or revising the proposed
priorities to support innovative
approaches to increase parental
involvement. One commenter
recommended focusing specifically on
parent and community involvement in
education in rural LEAs because,
according to the commenter, rural LEAs
face barriers such as limited
transportation options, limited
extracurricular programming, and
limited community-based educational
resources in promoting parent and
community involvement in education.
One commenter recommended adding
an absolute priority that would require
all projects to promote diverse student
populations in schools with respect to
demographic factors such as race,
ethnicity, and parent socioeconomic

PO 00000

Frm 00009

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

12011

status and educational attainment. A
few commenters recommended adding
an absolute priority for innovative
reforms to reduce racial and economic
segregation and isolation and to assess
the potential effects of a proposed
project on the racial and economic
segregation and isolation of students.
One commenter suggested that the
Department emphasize increasing the
economic and racial diversity of
institutions of higher education.
A number of commenters
recommended that the Department add
an absolute or competitive preference
priority for innovative projects that
engage communities in education
reform, including increasing the
representation of community
stakeholders in reform-oriented policyand decision-making.
Discussion: While we recognize the
importance of the issues and topics
mentioned by the commenters, we
decline to include additional priorities
or revise the proposed priorities for this
program as the commenters recommend.
As stated elsewhere in this notice, the
Department is using the Investing in
Innovation Fund to support the
overarching ARRA goal of improving
student achievement and attainment.
All applications for Investing in
Innovation Fund grants will be assessed
in part on the extent to which the
proposed projects will have an impact
on student achievement and attainment
outcomes including the following:
Improving student achievement or
growth, closing achievement gaps,
decreasing dropout rates, increasing
high school graduation rates, and
increasing college enrollment and
completion rates. However, in providing
evidence of the effects of their proposed
projects, eligible applicants may also
utilize intermediate variables that are
strongly correlated with improving
those outcomes (see Selection Criteria).
These intermediate variables may
include variables on the issues and
topics mentioned by the commenters.
Changes: None.
Comment: A few commenters
recommended that the Department
include a competitive preference
priority related to data collection and
evaluation of project outcomes. One
commenter recommended adding a
competitive preference priority for
eligible applicants that use systems for
collecting project data that produce
high-quality, reliable, and comparable
data in order to ensure that funded
projects can be properly evaluated.
Another commenter recommended
requiring systems for collecting project
data to be created or utilized to support
the innovation pursued under the

E:\FR\FM\12MRR2.SGM

12MRR2

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

12012

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

priority. One commenter recommended
adding a competitive preference priority
for consortia applicants that
demonstrate the capacity to collect and
analyze consortium-level project data
(as opposed to State-level data). Another
commenter recommended that the
Department add a competitive
preference priority for applicants that
propose innovative designs for
evaluating project implementation and
for disseminating project results and
best practices.
Discussion: Under the requirements
for this program, any eligible applicant
receiving funds must conduct an
independent evaluation of its proposed
project and comply with the
requirements of any evaluation of the
program conducted by the Department
(see Evaluation requirement). Further,
all applications will be judged in part
on the quality of the eligible applicant’s
plan to evaluate its proposed project
(see Selection Criterion D (Quality of the
Project Evaluation)). Therefore, it is
unnecessary to include a competitive
preference priority focused on data
collection and project evaluation as
suggested by the commenters.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter
recommended that the Department add
a competitive preference priority for an
applicant that provides confirmation in
its application that it has secured
matching funds from the private sector
or philanthropic community.
Discussion: To be eligible for an
award under this program, an eligible
applicant must demonstrate that it has
established one or more partnerships
with an entity or organization in the
private sector, which may include
philanthropic organizations, and that
the entity or organization in the private
sector will provide matching funds in
order to help bring project results to
scale. Further, the Cost Sharing or
Matching requirement for this program
specifies that an eligible applicant must
obtain matching funds or in-kind
donations from the private sector equal
to at least 20 percent of its grant award.
Because these requirements apply to all
applicants, it would serve no purpose to
give competitive preference to eligible
applicants that confirm receipt of
matching funds in their applications.
Therefore, we decline to make the
change requested by the commenter.
Changes: None.
Comment: A few commenters
recommended that the Department add
a competitive preference priority for
eligible applicants that propose projects
that are based on well-conducted
experimental studies or that have
demonstrated records of success in

VerDate Nov<24>2008

17:35 Mar 11, 2010

Jkt 220001

implementing or scaling up researchbased projects. Another commenter
recommended that the Department
investigate whether society believes it is
morally imperative that educational
practices be based on rigorous research.
Discussion: All applications will be
judged in part on the strength of the
research in support of the proposed
project and on the experience of the
applicant (see Selection Criterion B
(Strength of Research, Significance of
Effect, and Magnitude of Effect) and
Selection Criterion C (Experience of the
Eligible Applicant)). Therefore, we do
not believe it is necessary to add the
competitive preference priority
recommended by the commenter.
With regard to the recommendation
that the Department investigate whether
society believes it is morally imperative
that educational practices be based on
rigorous research, this is not the
purpose of the Investing in Innovation
Fund. Therefore, we decline to follow
the commenter’s recommendation.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter
recommended that the Department add
a competitive preference priority for
projects that would be implemented
throughout a city or urban area.
Discussion: We decline to add the
competitive preference priority
suggested by the commenter because all
applications will be evaluated in part
based on the eligible applicant’s strategy
and capacity to bring the proposed
project to scale (see Selection Criterion
E (Strategy and Capacity To Bring to
Scale) (in the case of Scale-up and
Validation grants); Strategy and
Capacity to Further Develop and Bring
to Scale (in the case of Development
grants)). As noted elsewhere in this
notice, the extent to which an eligible
applicant will bring its proposed project
to scale will vary with the type of grant
for which the eligible applicant applies
(i.e., Development, Validation, or Scaleup grant).
Changes: None.
Comment: We received the following
other recommendations for additional
competitive priorities. A few
commenters recommended that the
Department add a competitive
preference priority for projects that are
designed to reduce resource inequities
between LEAs. Other commenters
recommended adding a competitive
preference priority for technology-based
projects or projects that increase the
integration of technology into the
classroom. Another commenter
recommended that the Department add
a competitive preference priority for
projects that focus on performance-

PO 00000

Frm 00010

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

based systems that use competencybased instruction.
One commenter recommended adding
a competitive preference priority for
projects that propose to utilize effective
education models from other countries
including countries that excel on
international assessments of educational
achievement, such as the Program for
International Student Assessment
(PISA). Another commenter
recommended revising the proposed
priorities to emphasize the creation of
‘‘vertically integrated systemic
innovation zones.’’ One commenter
recommended that the Department add
an invitational priority for innovations
in the development, use, and
dissemination of open educational
resources; the commenter asserted that
using these resources is a cost-effective
and sustainable strategy to scale up
successful innovations.
Discussion: Similar to the approach
we have taken with the absolute
priorities, we decline to add more
competitive preference priorities in
order to maintain focus on the other
major priorities of the Department that
are reflected in the competitive
preference priorities. Accordingly, we
decline to include additional absolute or
competitive preference priorities or an
invitational priority, as recommended
by the commenters.
Changes: None.
Absolute Priority 1—Innovations That
Support Effective Teachers and
Principals (Proposed Absolute Priority
1—Innovations That Support Effective
Teachers and School Leaders)
Comment: One commenter
recommended that the Department
revise this absolute priority to include
support for related services
professionals, including school
psychologists, school social workers,
counselors, and speech-language
pathologists, in order to reflect the
contributions of these professionals to
student learning.
Discussion: We decline to expand
Absolute Priority 1 in this manner.
While we appreciate the important role
that such professionals play in
supporting student achievement and
attainment, we believe that the focus of
the priority should be on increasing the
number and percentages of highly
effective teachers and principals (and
reducing the number and percentages of
ineffective teachers and principals) as
teachers and principals are the
individuals directly responsible for
academic instruction. To clarify our
intent, we are changing the term ‘‘school
leader’’ to ‘‘principal’’ in this priority
and elsewhere in the priorities,

E:\FR\FM\12MRR2.SGM

12MRR2

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
requirements, definitions, and selection
criteria for this program.
We note that an applicant would not
be prohibited from proposing under this
priority an innovative strategy, practice,
or program that includes support for
related services professionals to the
extent that this support is intended to
increase the number or percentages of
highly effective teachers and principals
(or reduce the number or percentages of
ineffective teachers and principals).
Changes: As noted earlier, we are
changing the term ‘‘school leader’’ to
‘‘principal’’ in the final priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection
criteria for this program and using the
latter term in our response to comments.
However, we are retaining references to
‘‘school leader’’ that commenters made
in their statements.
Comment: A number of commenters
recommended that the Department
clarify whether projects under this
priority must increase the number of
both highly effective teachers and
highly effective school leaders.
Discussion: It was not our intent to
require projects under this priority to
increase the number or percentages of
highly effective teachers and highly
effective principals (or reduce the
number or percentages of ineffective
teachers and ineffective principals).
Therefore, we are changing the priority
to make this clear.
Changes: We are changing Absolute
Priority 1 to clarify that, under this
priority, the Department provides
funding to support practices, strategies,
or programs that increase the number or
percentages of highly effective teachers
or principals (or reduce the number or
percentages of ineffective teachers or
principals) by identifying, recruiting,
developing, placing, rewarding, and
retaining highly effective teachers or
principals (or removing ineffective
teachers or principals).
Comment: A number of commenters
expressed support for this absolute
priority. One commenter, however,
expressed concern that the priority does
not address the need to ensure that lowincome and minority children are not
taught at higher rates than other
children by inexperienced, unqualified,
or out-of-field teachers, as provided in
the ARRA. Another commenter stated
that the Department’s citations to
research on teacher effectiveness ignore
a body of research that shows that some
teacher ‘‘inputs’’ (such as teacher
qualifications) have an impact on
student achievement.
Discussion: Absolute Priority 1
focuses on practices, strategies, or
programs that increase the number or
percentages of highly effective teachers

VerDate Nov<24>2008

17:35 Mar 11, 2010

Jkt 220001

or principals (or reduce the number or
percentages of ineffective teachers or
principals), especially for high-need
students. We chose to focus this priority
on teacher and principal effectiveness
rather than on teacher qualifications.
Historically, in assessing the quality of
our nation’s teachers, the Department
has focused, through ‘‘highly qualified
teacher’’ measures, on teacher
qualifications (e.g., years of experience,
types and numbers of certifications) to
the exclusion of other factors. By
including considerations of teacher
effectiveness in the ARRA assurance in
this reform area, we believe the
Congress has signaled that this focus is
unnecessarily narrow and that other
measures of teacher quality are
needed—and, in particular, measures
that are associated more closely with the
outcomes of teaching and learning than
with ‘‘inputs’’ such as qualifications. We
intend to promote those measures with
this priority and believe that focusing
the priority on increasing the number or
percentages of highly effective teachers
or principals (or reducing the number or
percentages of ineffective teachers or
principals) is consistent with the ARRA
in this regard. Furthermore, we believe
that this focus will help ensure that
there is an equitable distribution of
highly effective teachers and principals
across LEAs and schools.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter
recommended that the Department
revise the priority to state that teacher
and school leader evaluation systems
should be objective, transparent, and
fair, rather than rigorous, transparent,
and fair.
Discussion: We believe that
evaluation systems that are rigorous
would necessarily be objective. Further,
we believe that it is important that such
systems be held to high standards of
design, which is best captured by the
term ‘‘rigorous.’’ In addition, we use
‘‘rigorous, transparent, and fair’’ to
ensure consistency in the use of terms
across programs supported with ARRA
funds. Therefore, we decline to make
the change suggested by the commenter.
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters
recommended that the Department
eliminate the requirement for teacher
and school leader evaluation systems to
include student growth as a significant
factor. One of these commenters stated
that there is nothing in the ARRA that
refers to or encourages the use of
student growth data in teacher and
school leader evaluation systems.
Several commenters also stated that
there are limitations and methodological
difficulties in accurately and fairly

PO 00000

Frm 00011

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

12013

isolating individual teacher effects on
student achievement. Another
commenter stated that impacts on
student performance or growth should
be estimated only at the school level
because schools are professional
communities in which teachers and
school leaders contribute collectively to
student achievement.
Discussion: Under this priority, we
encourage projects that propose
methods of determining teacher and
principal effectiveness that use an
evaluation system that is rigorous,
transparent, and fair; that differentiate
performance using multiple rating
categories of effectiveness and multiple
measures of effectiveness, with data on
student growth as a significant factor;
and that are designed and developed
with teacher and principal involvement.
Although there is nothing in the ARRA
that refers to using student growth data
in teacher and principal evaluation
systems, we believe this priority is
consistent with the ARRA assurance in
this reform area.
With regard to the commenters’
concerns about estimating individual
teacher impact on student achievement,
we recognize that the methods for
providing these estimates may need
further study or development. While
this priority supports projects that
determine teacher effectiveness using
student growth as a significant factor,
nothing in this priority requires that
projects use estimates of individual
teacher impact on student achievement
to meet the priority or that impacts on
student performance or growth be
estimated only at the school level. We
believe that such decisions are best left
to applicants given the specific settings
in which they plan to conduct their
proposed projects. For these reasons, we
have concluded that the changes
suggested by the commenters should not
be adopted.
Changes: None.
Comment: A number of commenters
recommended that the teacher and
school leader evaluation systems used
by grantees under this priority
incorporate multiple measures of
effectiveness including measures related
to the following: teacher practice;
student outcomes such as results of
written work, portfolios, and group and
individual performances and
presentations; other student factors such
as engagement, socioeconomic status,
and mobility; factors such as school
safety, climate, and resources; and
parent engagement in student learning.
Some of these commenters stated that
data on student growth should not be
the sole criterion used to evaluate
teacher and school leader performance.

E:\FR\FM\12MRR2.SGM

12MRR2

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

12014

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

Discussion: We did not intend for
student growth to be the sole factor in
determining teacher or principal
effectiveness; rather, the intent was for
student growth to be a significant, but
not the only, factor. As reflected in the
statement of the priority, an eligible
applicant should use multiple measures
in evaluating teacher and school leader
performance, and may use measures
such as those recommended by the
commenters, provided that student
growth data are used as a significant
factor.
Changes: None.
Comment: Two commenters agreed
that the measures for determining
effectiveness in teacher and school
leader evaluation systems should be
designed and developed with teacher
involvement. One commenter, however,
recommended revising the priority to
require measures used in these systems
to be designed and developed with the
involvement of school leaders and
unions, in addition to teachers. Several
other commenters recommended that
we revise the priority to require that
parents and other members of the
community be involved in the design
and development of these measures.
Discussion: We agree that teachers
and principals should be involved in
designing and developing measures of
teacher and principal effectiveness and
are revising the priority accordingly.
With regard to the involvement of other
stakeholders mentioned by the
commenters, we believe that this is a
decision that is best left to local
officials.
Changes: We are revising this priority
to include a statement that, in addition
to teachers, measures of effectiveness
should be designed and developed with
principal involvement.
Comment: One commenter
recommended revising the priority to
directly support projects that improve
the systems used to evaluate the
performance of teachers and school
leaders.
Discussion: The Department intends
for Absolute Priority 1 to focus on
innovative practices, strategies, or
programs that increase the number or
percentages of highly effective teachers
or principals (or reduce the number or
percentages of ineffective teachers or
principals), especially for high-need
students and that will have an impact
on improving student achievement and
attainment. While the priority addresses
aspects of the teacher and principal
evaluation systems that projects should
use in furtherance of these goals, the
Department does not intend for this
priority to support the development or
improvement of these systems exclusive

VerDate Nov<24>2008

17:35 Mar 11, 2010

Jkt 220001

of those goals. Therefore, we decline to
change the priority in the manner
suggested by the commenter.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter
recommended that the Department
eliminate, as a goal under this priority,
reductions in the number and
percentage of ineffective teachers and
school leaders. The commenter stated
that the only goal that is necessary
under this priority is increasing the
number and percentage of effective
teachers and school leaders.
Discussion: We believe that it is
important to remove ineffective teachers
from classrooms in addition to
increasing the number of effective
teachers in classrooms. We also have
concluded that the same is true for
principals. Therefore, we decline to
make the change recommended by the
commenter.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter
recommended that the Department
revise the priority to include support for
innovations that improve conditions for
teaching and learning, such as physical
working conditions, administrative
supports provided, and availability of
resources, because these conditions
influence a teacher’s ability to be
effective. Two commenters suggested
revising the priority to include support
for programs that enable school leaders
to provide more effective assistance to
teachers by improving school
organizational structures.
Discussion: Nothing would preclude
an applicant from proposing the
initiatives mentioned by the
commenters under this priority so long
as the proposed project increases the
number or percentages of highly
effective teachers or principals (or
reduces the number or percentages of
ineffective teachers or principals),
especially for high-need students, by
identifying, recruiting, developing,
placing, rewarding, and retaining highly
effective teachers or principals (or
removing ineffective teachers or
principals). However, we do not believe
it is necessary or advisable to change the
priority to refer specifically to
innovations that improve conditions for
teaching and learning. We cannot
include in the priority all the possible
practices, strategies, or programs that
could potentially support effective
teachers and principals, nor do we want
to restrict or constrain the innovative
practices, strategies, and programs that
this priority would support. Therefore,
we decline to change the priority in the
manner suggested by the commenters.
Changes: None.

PO 00000

Frm 00012

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

Comment: We received a number of
comments recommending that the
Department revise this absolute priority
to focus on improving the effectiveness
of specific groups of teachers and school
leaders in specific settings. One
commenter recommended changing the
priority to focus on improving the
effectiveness of teachers who teach
high-need students in low-performing
schools. Another commenter
recommended that the priority focus on
improving the effectiveness of teachers
in schools serving Native American
students. One commenter stated that the
priority should be revised to increase
the ability of teachers to effectively
teach students in racially and
economically diverse schools. Several
commenters recommended focusing the
priority on projects that improve the
effectiveness of teachers and leaders in
early childhood and pre-kindergarten
programs and one commenter
recommended revising the priority to
include programs that assist school
leaders in integrating pre-kindergarten
programs into their schools and LEAs.
Discussion: Under the requirements
for this program, projects must serve
high-need students (as defined in this
notice). Further, this priority supports
projects that increase the number or
percentages of highly effective teachers
or principals (or reduce the number or
percentages of ineffective teachers or
principals), especially for teachers of
high-need students. Provided that
proposed projects serve high-need
students, there is flexibility in
determining the groups of teachers and
principals to be served in projects under
this priority. Accordingly, we do not
believe it is necessary to change the
priority to focus on specific groups of
teachers and principals in specific
settings.
Changes: None.
Comment: A few commenters stated
that the Department should revise the
priority to focus on instructional
effectiveness rather than educator
effectiveness and include alternative
instructional programs such as online
learning and personalized digital
content. The commenters asserted that
alternative instructional programs are
needed to improve instruction in certain
subjects, such as STEM subjects.
Discussion: Teachers and principals
play a critical role in improving student
achievement and attainment outcomes.
As stated in the NPP, research indicates
that teacher quality is a critical
contributor to student learning. Further,
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

E:\FR\FM\12MRR2.SGM

12MRR2

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
schools with strong principals. In light
of these findings, we do not believe that
this absolute priority should be
expanded to include a focus on
improving instructional effectiveness
exclusive of increasing the number or
percentages of highly effective teachers
or principals (or reducing the number or
percentages of ineffective teachers or
principals). Therefore, we decline to
change the priority in the manner
recommended by the commenters.
Changes: None.
Comment: We received a number of
comments recommending that we revise
this absolute priority to focus on teacher
preparation and professional
development programs. One commenter
recommended that the Department
revise the priority to include support for
efforts by States to expand teacher
preparation programs that produce
effective teachers and to provide
financial incentives such as loan
forgiveness to recruit and retain
effective teachers. Several commenters
recommended that the priority support
teacher residency programs,
instructional coaching, and
‘‘communities of practice’’ for planning
and sharing resources, practices, and
expertise with other educators. One
commenter recommended including a
focus on initiatives that support
teachers’ efforts to help students make
connections between academic work
and college and career goals. Another
commenter recommended supporting
projects to train school leaders on
evaluating teacher effectiveness.
Discussion: The purpose of the
Investing in Innovation Fund is not to
support States to expand teacher
preparation programs or to support
specific types of teacher or principal
training (e.g., teacher residency
programs, instructional coaching).
Rather, the purpose is to support
projects at the local level that propose
to expand the implementation of, and
investment in, innovative practices,
strategies, or programs that increase the
number or percentages of highly
effective teachers or principals (or
reduce the number or percentages of
ineffective teachers or principals) and
that will have an impact on improving
student achievement or student growth,
closing achievement gaps, decreasing
dropout rates, increasing high school
graduation rates, or increasing college
enrollment or completion rates for highneed students. We believe the absolute
priority reflects this purpose and,
therefore, decline to change the priority
in the manner recommended by the
commenters.
Changes: None.

VerDate Nov<24>2008

17:35 Mar 11, 2010

Jkt 220001

Comment: One commenter
recommended that the Department
revise the priority to include support for
research on teacher effectiveness and for
disseminating the results of that
research to LEAs and schools.
Discussion: One of the purposes of the
Investing in Innovation Fund is to
identify and document best practices
that can be shared and taken to scale
based on demonstrated success.
Research unrelated to this purpose
would not be supported under this
priority.
We note that under this priority,
projects that increase the number or
percentages of highly effective teachers
or principals (or reduce the number or
percentages of ineffective teachers or
principals) will be evaluated based on
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,
increasing high school graduation rates,
or increasing college enrollment and
completion rates (see Selection Criterion
B). In addition, proposed Scale-up and
Validation projects will be evaluated
based on the quality of their evaluation
plan and the extent to which methods
of evaluation include a well-designed
experimental or quasi-experimental
study (see Selection Criterion D). With
regard to the recommendation that the
priority include support for
disseminating the results of research
findings, we note that eligible
applicants must conduct an
independent evaluation of their project
and make broadly available the results
of such evaluations (see Evaluation
requirement).
Changes: None.
Highly Effective School Leader
Comment: A few commenters
recommended that the Department
clarify the types of individuals who
would be considered a school leader
under the definition of the term highly
effective school leader used in Absolute
Priority 1. Four commenters
recommended that the term ‘‘school
leader’’ include parents and students in
addition to principals. One commenter
recommended that the term include
professional staff, such as media and
information specialists, instructional
coaches, school counselors, school
psychologists, school social workers,
and others who may not be directly
involved in classroom instruction but
nonetheless are crucial to student
academic success.

PO 00000

Frm 00013

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

12015

Another commenter expressed
concern that the terms highly effective
school leader and highly effective
teacher imply that the two categories are
mutually exclusive. The commenter
recommended revising the definitions to
clarify that these two terms are not
mutually exclusive.
Discussion: As discussed earlier, the
Department appreciates the important
role that individuals other than
principals play in providing leadership
in our Nation’s schools. However, for
purposes of this program, we intend to
focus on the effectiveness of principals,
in particular, because they have the
ultimate responsibility for the academic
achievement of the students in their
schools. For this reason and to ensure
consistency in the use of terms across
programs supported with ARRA funds,
we are changing the defined term highly
effective school leader to highly effective
principal and removing references to the
term ‘‘school leader’’ from the definition.
With this change, the terms highly
effective principal and highly effective
teacher are mutually exclusive and we
intend them to be so.
Changes: We are changing the defined
term highly effective school leader to
highly effective principal and removing
the references to the term ‘‘school
leader’’ from the definition of this term.
Comment: We received a number of
comments on the proposed definition of
the term highly effective school leader
with respect to the measures used to
determine whether a school leader is
effective. Several commenters expressed
concern that the proposed definition of
highly effective school leader requires
that, to be considered highly effective, a
school leader must demonstrate that his
or her students have achieved high rates
of student growth (e.g., more than one
grade level in an academic year). Two
commenters expressed concern that this
proposed definition appears to be based
solely on the ability to demonstrate high
annual rates of student growth and is
thus too narrow and restrictive to
properly identify effective school
leaders. These commenters
recommended that student growth
should not be the sole criterion for
determining school leader effectiveness,
and that the definition of highly
effective school leader should factor in
other aspects of the teaching and
learning environment, including
broader measures such as the use of
instructional methodologies and
adaptive technologies.
One commenter expressed
appreciation that the proposed
definition permits the use of additional
measures of school leader effectiveness,
but was concerned that the definition

E:\FR\FM\12MRR2.SGM

12MRR2

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

12016

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

fails to require the use of other measures
of effectiveness not based on student
assessments. This commenter asserted
that there are limitations in measuring
school leader effectiveness using current
student assessment instruments and
recommended that the Department
revise the definition to include school
leaders who have demonstrated superior
ability to improve student learning
(including but not limited to student
growth based on assessment results) and
who have excelled at all other essential
aspects of their profession. Another
commenter recommended that several
additional measures be included in the
definition of highly effective school
leader, including measures related to
leadership, vision, management,
learners and learning, instruction,
ethics, equity, and advocacy. Another
commenter recommended changing the
measures of effectiveness in the
definition to include high rates of
student growth, evidence of teacher
improvement in knowledge and
practice, and the use of researchsupported ongoing long-term
professional development; the
commenter argued that this change is
needed to ensure that the definition
does not benefit wealthier LEAs to the
detriment of poorer LEAs, which often
have more difficulty in showing student
growth.
Discussion: The Department believes
that student growth must be a
significant factor in identifying highly
effective principals. (As noted in the
previous discussion, the Department is
changing the defined term highly
effective school leader to highly effective
principal.) We agree with the
commenters that data on student growth
should not be used as the sole means of
identifying highly effective principals
and that eligible applicants should
supplement student growth data with
other effectiveness measures. While we
cannot include in the definition of
highly effective principals all of the
measures recommended by the
commenters, we believe it is important
to include several examples for
illustrative purposes and are adding as
examples the following measures: High
school graduation rates and college
enrollment rates, evidence of providing
supportive teaching and learning
conditions, support for ensuring
effective instruction across subject areas
for a well-rounded education, strong
instructional leadership, and positive
family and community engagement; or
evidence of attracting, developing, and
retaining high numbers of effective
teachers. However, we do not believe it
is necessary to require the use of

VerDate Nov<24>2008

17:35 Mar 11, 2010

Jkt 220001

supplemental measures in identifying
highly effective principals in projects
funded in this program.
We note that the definition of highly
effective principal in this program is
similar to the definition of this term in
the Department’s Race to the Top Fund
program. However, because in this
program the definition does not require
the use of multiple measures to identify
highly effective principals, the
definitions are not identical. We believe
that the difference between these
definitions is warranted because the
eligible applicants for these programs
differ. Given the diverse pool of eligible
applicants and the variety of projects
that may be supported under this
program, we believe that an eligible
applicant should have the flexibility
necessary to present a model for
identifying highly effective principals
that is appropriate for its proposed
project and not be required to use
multiple measures that may not be
related to its project. Although eligible
applicants may use multiple measures
and we encourage them to do so if
appropriate for their proposed projects,
under this program an eligible applicant
is only required to use student growth
data.
Changes: As noted in the previous
discussion, we are changing the defined
term highly effective school leader to
highly effective principal. We are
revising the definition to read as
follows: Highly effective principal
means a principal whose students,
overall and for each subgroup as
described in section 1111(b)(3)(C)(xiii)
of the ESEA (i.e., economically
disadvantaged students, students from
major racial and ethnic groups, migrant
students, students with disabilities,
students with limited English
proficiency, student gender), achieve
high rates (e.g., one and one-half grade
levels in an academic year) of student
growth. Eligible applicants may include
multiple measures, provided that
principal effectiveness is evaluated, in
significant part, by student growth.
Supplemental measures may include,
for example, high school graduation
rates; college enrollment rates; evidence
of providing supportive teaching and
learning conditions, support for
ensuring effective instruction across
subject areas for a well-rounded
education, strong instructional
leadership, and positive family and
community engagement; or evidence of
attracting, developing, and retaining
high numbers of effective teachers.
Comment: One commenter expressed
concern that the definition of highly
effective school leader applies only to
leaders of elementary schools and may

PO 00000

Frm 00014

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

be problematic for the secondary school
level. One commenter recommended
that the Department allow eligible
applicants to use an increase in
graduation rates as a measure of student
growth for high schools in tandem with
student growth on required State
assessments. This commenter also
recommended that the Department
require eligible applicants to propose
how they would measure student
growth for untested grades and subjects,
particularly in high schools.
Discussion: As noted in the previous
discussion, we are revising the
definition of highly effective principal
(proposed as highly effective school
leader) to clarify that eligible applicants
may include multiple measures,
provided that principal effectiveness is
evaluated, in significant part, by student
growth. Specifically, we believe the
addition of high school graduation rates
and college enrollment rates as
examples of supplemental measures
makes clear that this definition covers
principals in high schools.
Regarding the recommendation that
eligible applicants be required to
propose how they would measure
student growth for untested grades and
subjects, we believe that eligible
applicants should have the flexibility to
determine the measure(s) of student
achievement (on which determinations
of student growth are based, consistent
with the definition of student growth
used in this program) that are most
appropriate for their proposed projects.
We do not believe it is necessary to
require eligible applicants to propose
the measures they would use for
untested grades and subjects for review
and approval by the Department.
Changes: In the list of examples of
supplemental measures for determining
principal effectiveness that we are
adding to the definition of highly
effective principal, we are including
high school graduation rates and college
enrollment rates.
Comment: One commenter
recommended that the Department
clarify whether, to meet the definition of
highly effective school leader, each of
the school leader’s students must
individually demonstrate a high rate of
student growth.
Discussion: The definition of highly
effective principal (proposed as highly
effective school leader) requires that, to
be considered highly effective, the
principal’s students must demonstrate
high rates of student growth overall and
for each subgroup described in section
1111(b)(3)(c)(xiii) of the ESEA. Thus,
under this definition, effectiveness is
determined (in significant part) using
aggregate rates of student growth. There

E:\FR\FM\12MRR2.SGM

12MRR2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

is no requirement that each student in
the principal’s school demonstrate a
high rate of student growth
individually.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter
recommended that the Department
change the definition of highly effective
school leader so that a school leader is
considered to be highly effective if his
or her students achieve high rates of
student growth overall and for one or
more of the subgroups 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, and student
gender), rather than for each of these
subgroups. The commenter argued that
this change is needed to ensure that the
definition does not favor principals in
schools in wealthier LEAs to the
detriment of those in poorer LEAs,
which typically have higher
concentrations of students in these
subgroups and often have more
difficulty in showing student growth.
Discussion: We believe that in order
for a principal to be considered highly
effective, that principal’s students
should achieve high rates of student
growth for each student subgroup
represented in the school. As this
program is designed to support, in
general, projects that improve student
academic achievement and attainment
and, under Absolute Priority 1 in
particular, projects that increase the
number or percentage of highly effective
principals or reduce the number or
percentage of ineffective principals, we
believe that projects supported under
this program will help address the issue
raised by the commenter regarding
student performance in poorer LEAs.
Changes: None.
Highly Effective Teacher
Comment: Two commenters suggested
that, in Absolute Priority 1, the
Department change the defined term
highly effective teacher to ‘‘highly
qualified teacher.’’
Discussion: The term ‘‘highly
qualified teacher’’ has a specific
meaning under the ESEA and is focused
primarily on the qualifications of
teachers. In this program (as in other
programs supported with ARRA funds),
we intend to focus instead on outcomes
of teaching and the impact of teachers
on the academic achievement and
growth of their students. The definition
of highly effective teacher is consistent
with that focus and, for that reason, we
do not believe the change recommended
by the commenter is warranted.

VerDate Nov<24>2008

17:35 Mar 11, 2010

Jkt 220001

Changes: None.
Comment: We received a number of
comments on the proposed definition of
the term highly effective teacher with
respect to the measures used to
determine whether a teacher is highly
effective. A number of commenters
expressed concern about using student
growth as the measure to determine
whether a teacher is highly effective
under this definition. Specifically,
several commenters expressed concern
about the definition’s reliance on
student assessment results and
recommended that growth in student
achievement on assessments be only
one factor in determining whether a
teacher is highly effective. Other
commenters recommended that the
provision on students achieving high
rates of growth be removed from the
definition because it places too much
emphasis on State assessments. These
commenters recommended revising the
definition to encourage or require
eligible applicants to use multiple
effectiveness measures. The measures
mentioned by commenters include the
following: Student-based measures such
as local assessments, classroom
assessments, portfolio assessments,
progress monitoring, and nonacademic
forms of evaluation (such as evaluations
of student engagement); and teacherbased measures such as assessments of
teacher subject knowledge and skills
(including standards-based teacher
evaluations), assessments of teaching
practice and performance (including
assessments of teacher planning and
preparation), assessments of teacher
reflectiveness, participation in learning
communities, and training in helping
students make connections between
their performance in school and their
goals for college and careers.
Discussion: The Department believes
that student growth must be a
significant factor in identifying highly
effective teachers. As noted in our
discussion of commenters’ concerns that
student growth data should not be used
as the sole means to identify highly
effective principals, we agree with the
commenters that data on student growth
should not be used as the sole means of
identifying highly effective teachers and
that eligible applicants should
supplement student growth data with
other effectiveness measures. While we
cannot include in the definition of
highly effective teacher all of the
measures recommended by the
commenters, we believe it is important
to include several examples for
illustrative purposes and are adding as
examples the following measures:
Multiple observation-based assessments
of teacher performance or evidence of

PO 00000

Frm 00015

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

12017

leadership roles (which may include
mentoring or leading professional
learning communities) that increase the
effectiveness of other teachers in the
school or LEA. However, we do not
believe it is necessary to require the use
of supplemental measures in identifying
highly effective teachers in projects
funded under this program.
We note that the definition of highly
effective teacher in this program is
similar to the definition of this term in
the Department’s Race to the Top Fund
program. However, because in this
program the definition does not require
the use of multiple measures to identify
highly effective teachers, the definitions
are not identical. We believe that the
difference between these definitions is
warranted because the eligible
applicants for these programs differ.
Given the diverse pool of eligible
applicants and the variety of projects
that may be supported under this
program, we believe that an eligible
applicant should have the flexibility
necessary to present a model for
identifying highly effective teachers that
is appropriate for its proposed project
and not be required to use multiple
measures that may not be related to its
project. Although eligible applicants
may use multiple measures and we
encourage them to do so if appropriate
for their proposed projects, under this
program an eligible applicant is only
required to use student growth data.
Changes: We are revising the
definition of highly effective teacher to
read as follows: Highly effective teacher
means a teacher whose students achieve
high rates (e.g., one and one-half grade
levels in an academic year) of student
growth. Eligible applicants may include
multiple measures, provided that
teacher effectiveness is evaluated, in
significant part, by student growth.
Supplemental measures may include,
for example, multiple observation-based
assessments of teacher performance or
evidence of leadership roles (which may
include mentoring or leading
professional learning communities) that
increase the effectiveness of other
teachers in the school or LEA.
Comment: Two commenters
expressed concern that the measures
used to identify highly effective teachers
may be problematic for teachers at the
secondary school level. The commenters
recommended that the Department
require eligible applicants to propose
how they would measure student
growth for untested grades and subjects,
particularly in high schools.
Discussion: As noted in the previous
discussion, we are revising the
definition of highly effective teacher to
clarify that eligible applicants may

E:\FR\FM\12MRR2.SGM

12MRR2

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

12018

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

include multiple measures for
determining teacher effectiveness,
provided that teacher effectiveness is
evaluated, in significant part, by student
growth. Under this definition, an
eligible applicant would be free to use
supplemental measures that it
determines to be appropriate for
assessing effectiveness of teachers at the
secondary school level. These
supplemental measures may include
measures such as high school
graduation rates or college enrollment
rates.
As noted in our discussion of the
commenter’s recommendation that the
Department require eligible applicants
to propose how they would measure
student growth for untested grades and
subjects with respect to the definition of
highly effective principal, we believe
that eligible applicants should have the
flexibility to determine the measure(s)
of student achievement (on which
determinations of student growth are
based, consistent with the definition of
student growth used in this program)
that are most appropriate for their
proposed projects. We do not believe it
is necessary to require eligible
applicants to propose the measures they
would use for untested grades and
subjects for review and approval by the
Department.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter asked the
Department to clarify whether, to meet
the definition of highly effective teacher,
each of a teacher’s students must
individually demonstrate a high rate of
student growth.
Discussion: To meet the definition of
highly effective teacher, a teacher’s
students must achieve a high rate of
student growth in the aggregate; a
teacher’s students need not achieve high
rates of growth individually.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter expressed
concern that teachers of students with
disabilities will face disproportionate
difficulty in meeting the definition of
highly effective teacher because
students with disabilities are less likely
to achieve high rates (e.g., more than
one grade level in an academic year) of
student growth.
Discussion: We appreciate the
commenter’s concern. We believe that
evaluation systems should support the
equitable evaluation of teachers who are
providing instruction to students with
disabilities in regular education settings
consistent with the requirements of the
Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act (IDEA) to educate students with
disabilities in the least restrictive
environment. However, while the
definition of highly effective teacher

VerDate Nov<24>2008

17:35 Mar 11, 2010

Jkt 220001

provides an example of a high rate of
student growth (e.g., one and one-half
grade levels in an academic year), the
definition does not specify the rate of
student growth that eligible applicants
must use. Further, the definition does
not require that the same rate of growth
must be used for all types of teachers.
Thus, an eligible applicant would not be
prohibited from using a rate of student
growth that differs from the example
provided and may determine that
different rates of student growth are
appropriate for teachers of different
types of students included in its
proposed project. However, we urge
eligible applicants to ensure that any
rate used enables the eligible applicant
to distinguish teachers who are highly
effective from those who are not.
Changes: None.
Comment: Three commenters sought
clarification of the term ‘‘teacher’’ and
requested that the Department add a
definition of this term. In particular, two
commenters sought clarification on
whether ‘‘teacher’’ referred only to
teachers in tested grades and subjects or
to any teacher who meets the definition
of ‘‘teacher’’ used in the State.
Discussion: We do not believe that a
definition of ‘‘teacher’’ is necessary
under this program. In determining
which teachers meet the definition of
highly effective teacher an eligible
applicant may consider any educational
personnel that meet the definition of
‘‘teacher’’ used in a State in which the
project is being implemented, provided
that data on student growth are
available for those personnel. The term
highly effective teacher is not restricted
to teachers in the tested grades and
subjects.
Changes: None.
Absolute Priority 2—Innovations That
Improve the Use of Data
Comment: Several commenters
expressed support for this proposed
absolute priority. One commenter
expressed appreciation for the priority’s
support for local use of data, as opposed
to an exclusive focus on the
development and use of data systems at
the State level. One commenter,
however, expressed concern that the
priority did not reflect the ARRA
assurance in this reform area. The
commenter asserted that the ARRA
assurance pertaining to data relates to
the development and implementation of
statewide longitudinal data systems and
not the use of data to inform local
decision making as described in the
priority.
Discussion: As noted earlier, we have
designed the absolute priorities for this
program to be consistent with the four

PO 00000

Frm 00016

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

education reform areas under the ARRA.
Given that data from statewide
longitudinal data systems could be used
to inform decisions at the LEA and
school levels, we believe that the
proposed priority’s support for
improvements in the local use of data is
reasonable and consistent with the
education reform area in the ARRA.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested
that the Department clarify whether the
data to be used under this priority are
data from a statewide longitudinal data
system or data that is separately
maintained at the local level.
Discussion: We do not intend to limit
the source of data only to a statewide
longitudinal data system or to local data
systems. An eligible applicant may
propose projects under this priority that
utilize data from either or both of these
sources, or any other available data
sources.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter objected to
the Department’s inclusion, under this
priority, of estimates of individual
teacher impact on student achievement
as an example of the kinds of data on
student achievement or growth that can
drive education reform. The commenter
cited research pertaining to limitations
and difficulties in producing teacher
‘‘value-added’’ estimates. The
commenter also asserted that estimates
of individual teacher impact on student
achievement are not sufficiently stable
to determine teacher effectiveness and
should not be used in decisions to
recruit, retain or remove teachers.
Discussion: We recognize that
currently available data-driven methods
of evaluating teacher or principal
impact on student achievement and
student growth data may need further
study or development. However,
student achievement or growth data is
one of many measures that can drive
education reform in general, and
facilitate improvement in the classroom,
in particular. For this reason, we believe
that student data can drive instructional
improvement decisions at both the
individual teacher level and the district
level. That is why we have included
innovations under this priority that
encourage projects that increase the
availability of data for teachers,
principals, families, and other
stakeholders, and projects that develop
strategies to use data effectively to
improve school and classroom
instructional practices. With respect to
the commenter’s concern about student
achievement data being an ‘‘unstable’’
measure to evaluating teacher and
principal effectiveness, we note that as
previously discussed under absolute

E:\FR\FM\12MRR2.SGM

12MRR2

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
priority 1, we believe student
achievement or growth data should be
used as a significant factor, but need not
serve as a single measure of
effectiveness. Further, we believe this
measure should be a component of
teacher or principal evaluation systems
that are rigorous, transparent, and fair;
differentiate performance using multiple
rating categories of effectiveness and
multiple measures of effectiveness; and
are designed and developed with
teacher and principal involvement. For
these reasons, we have concluded that
the changes suggested by the
commenters should not be adopted.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter
recommended that the Department
revise the priority to state that, where
applicable, data should be disaggregated
for Native American students.
Discussion: The priority requires
disaggregation of data, where
applicable, to be consistent with section
1111(b)(3)(C)(xiii) of the ESEA. Section
1111(b)(3)(C)(xiii) requires the
disaggregation of data by major racial
and ethnic groups which may include,
among others, American Indians, Alaska
Natives, and Native Hawaiians. Under
this priority, an eligible applicant
proposing a project would be expected
to disaggregate data for these groups of
students, where applicable.
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters
expressed concern about protecting the
privacy of students whose data are used
under this priority. Two of these
commenters noted that the requirements
of the Family Educational Rights and
Privacy Act (FERPA) are not discussed
in the NPP and recommended that the
Department provide guidance on how
grant recipients can implement projects
under this priority in a manner
consistent with FERPA requirements.
These commenters also expressed
concerns about protecting the privacy of
teachers and school leaders.
Discussion: Eligible applicants must
consider how to protect student privacy
as data are shared. Educational agencies
and institutions, including LEAs,
schools, and IHEs, that receive awards
under this program or any other
Department of Education program, must
comply with FERPA, 20 U.S.C. 1232g,
and its implementing regulations in 34
CFR Part 99, as well as any applicable
State and local requirements. 34 CFR
99.31 specifies the conditions under
which an educational agency or
institution may non-consensually
disclose personally identifiable
information from an education record of
a student to a third party (i.e., a
nonprofit organization in partnership

VerDate Nov<24>2008

17:35 Mar 11, 2010

Jkt 220001

with an educational institution).
Consistent with 34 CFR 99.33, FERPA
also applies to the non-consensual
redisclosure of personally identifiable
information from an education record
by a third party. Because compliance
with FERPA is a requirement that must
be met by all educational agencies and
institutions that are recipients of
Department funds, we do not believe it
is necessary to amend the priority as
suggested by the commenter. In
response to the commenter’s concern
about ensuring teacher and school
leader privacy, the Department agrees
that teacher and principal privacy also
must be protected. However, teacher
and principal privacy is governed by
State law. Eligible applicants that
receive awards under this program must
comply with any applicable State and
local privacy requirements.
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters
recommended that the Department
revise the priority to support projects
pertaining to specific uses of data. For
instance, some commenters suggested
that we revise the priority to support
projects that focus on professional
development, training, or other
technical and expert assistance for
teachers and school leaders on the
analysis and use of data, as well as on
the communication of data to parents
and the community. Another
commenter recommended that we revise
the priority to include a focus on
projects that use real-time data and
related rapid response supports for
teachers (with respect to professional
development) and for students (with
respect to academic content). One
commenter recommended that we revise
the priority to include a focus on the
development of data-driven
instructional improvement systems. One
commenter recommended that we revise
the priority to include support for the
collection of data in addition to the
aggregation, analysis, and use of data.
Two commenters recommended that we
revise the priority to include support for
projects that align local data systems
with other data systems, including
statewide longitudinal data systems,
and ensure interoperability between
these systems. Similarly, another
commenter recommended that we revise
the priority to include a focus on
projects that link local data systems
with data systems of other agencies and
institutions such as workforce agencies
and institutions of higher education.
One commenter recommended that the
Department revise the priority to
include a focus on projects that
disaggregate data through crossreferencing of multiple subgroups and

PO 00000

Frm 00017

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

12019

demographic categories, rather than
disaggregating the data only by the
discrete subgroups listed in the priority.
One commenter suggested that we
revise the priority to include support for
projects that use student achievement or
student growth data to identify and
support students who are ‘‘off track’’—
presumably in reference to students that
would qualify as ‘‘high need students’’
(as defined in this notice). Similarly,
one commenter recommended that we
revise the priority to include a focus on
projects that use data specifically to
inform student dropout prevention and
recovery programs. One commenter
recommended that we revise the
priority to include a focus on projects
that use student achievement or student
growth data to improve the performance
of persistently low-performing schools.
One commenter recommended that the
Department revise the priority to
include a focus on projects that link the
achievement or growth data for students
of individual teachers to those teachers’
preparation programs so that the data
can be used to improve those programs
and ensure that they produce effective
teachers. Two commenters suggested
that we revise the priority to support
projects that include plans for
communicating the results of data
analyses effectively in the community.
Discussion: There is nothing in this
priority that precludes an eligible
applicant from proposing any of these
projects under this priority, provided
that the proposed project (1) encourages
and facilitates the evaluation, analysis
and use of student achievement or
student growth data by educators,
families or other stakeholders to inform
decision-making, (2) improves student
achievement or student growth, or
teacher, principal, school, or LEA
performance and productivity, or (3)
enables data aggregation, analysis, and
research, as specified in the priority. We
made this priority broad to provide
eligible applicants with flexibility to
propose a variety of projects. We believe
we have achieved this goal, as
evidenced by the array of projects
proposed by the commenters. For this
reason, we conclude that it is not
necessary to revise the priority to
include an express focus on such
activities.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter
recommended that the Department
revise the priority to support projects
that use data to improve student
attendance or behavior in addition to
student achievement or growth. Another
commenter recommended supporting
projects that use data to improve school
culture or climate. Another commenter

E:\FR\FM\12MRR2.SGM

12MRR2

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

12020

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

recommended that the Department
revise the priority to include support for
projects that use data to improve
families’ ability to support student
achievement at home.
Discussion: As noted elsewhere in
this notice, the Department believes
that, consistent with the ARRA, we
must preserve improving student
academic achievement and attainment
as the primary goals of this program.
Accordingly, we do not believe it is
appropriate to revise this priority to
include reference to improvements with
respect to other outcome measures. We
note, however, that in discussing the
effects of a project proposed under this
priority an eligible applicant may
include discussion of the effects of the
project on intermediate variables that
are strongly correlated with improving
student achievement and attainment
outcomes. These intermediate variables
could include variables related to the
topics suggested by the commenters.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter
recommended that the Department
revise the priority to include
community members among the list of
stakeholders receiving and using
student achievement and growth data.
Discussion: We have intentionally not
provided a definition of the term ‘‘other
stakeholders’’ to provide eligible
applicants with flexibility to determine
which stakeholders should be targeted
under this priority. Accordingly, it is at
the eligible applicant’s discretion to
determine what other stakeholders
should have a role in their proposed
projects. Further, we believe that
community members are reasonably
included amongst the other stakeholders
to whom projects would provide data
under this priority. Therefore, we
decline to make the changes requested
by the commenters.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter
recommended that States be required to
create an ‘‘Opportunity to Learn Index,’’
to track data about the quality of State
and local education systems.
Discussion: The commenter appears
to misunderstand the purpose of the
program, which is to expand the
implementation of, and investment in,
innovative practices that are
demonstrated to have an impact on
improving student achievement or
student growth for high-need students.
Because State educational agencies
cannot apply for funding under this
program, it would not be appropriate to
establish such requirements for States.
Changes: None.

VerDate Nov<24>2008

17:35 Mar 11, 2010

Jkt 220001

Absolute Priority 3—Innovations That
Complement the Implementation of
High Standards and High Quality
Assessments
Comment: Several commenters
expressed support for focusing this
priority on high standards. One of these
commenters expressed support for
implementing common high standards
across LEAs and States. One commenter
expressed support for the priority with
respect to the promotion of contextual
learning opportunities. One commenter
recommended that we specify which
entity should be responsible for
implementing initiatives that are
responsive to the priority, because,
according to the commenter, the priority
appears to refer to State activities rather
than matters for eligible applicants.
Similarly, two commenters implied that
States are the only entities that could be
assisted under this priority. One
commenter requested that the
Department clarify whether the priority
requires an LEA to work with its State
to improve the State’s systems of
standards and assessments or develop
and implement new systems. Another
commenter requested that the
Department clarify how the initiatives
included under this priority will
support States’ efforts to transition to
college- and career-ready standards and
assessments; the commenter asserted
that the initiatives do not seem related
to the adoption of college- and careerready standards and assessments.
Discussion: We appreciate the
commenters’ support for the proposed
priority. This priority is designed to
support local efforts that complement
States’ development and
implementation of college- and careerready standards and high-quality
assessments aligned with those
standards. This priority is not intended
to support States’ efforts in this area
directly or to require LEAs or other
entities to provide direct assistance to
States in the development and
implementation of standards and
assessments. Instead, this priority
encourages projects at the LEA level that
support and complement States’
transition to college and career ready
standards and assessments, such as LEA
activities of developing, acquiring,
disseminating and implementing highquality curricular instructional
materials and assessments, or delivering
high-quality professional development
pertaining to such standards or
assessments. We believe this priority in
the context of this program is
sufficiently clear.
Changes: None.

PO 00000

Frm 00018

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

Comment: Another commenter
requested that the Department clarify
whether this priority requires LEAs to
propose projects that are based on the
college- and career-ready standards and
assessments to which States are
transitioning. The commenter also
asserted that the priority appears to give
an undue advantage to LEAs in States
that have made more progress than
other States in making this transition.
Discussion: Under this priority, an
eligible applicant must propose projects
that support States’ efforts to transition
to standards and assessments that
measure students’ progress toward
college- and career-readiness. We
recognize that States’ progress in
developing and transitioning to
standards that measure college- and
career-readiness varies. However, this
variable will not impact the
competitiveness of an eligible
applicant’s proposed project. Under this
priority, eligible applicants may propose
projects that are based on standards
other than those of their home State, so
long as the standards they select are
aligned with and at least as rigorous as
their home State’s standards. For this
reason, LEAs in States that have made
less progress toward standards that
measure college- and career-readiness
are not disadvantaged by this priority.
We note that eligible applicants who
propose projects under this priority that
are not based on the applicant’s State
standards must explain how their
proposed standards are aligned with,
and are at least as rigorous as, their
home State’s standards, as well as how
these standards differ.
Changes: We are revising the priority
to clarify that an eligible applicant must
propose a project that is based on
standards that are at least as rigorous as
its State’s standards. Further, we are
revising the priority to clarify that if the
proposed project is based on standards
other than those adopted by the eligible
applicant’s State, the applicant must
explain how the standards are aligned
with and at least as rigorous as the
eligible applicant’s State’s standards as
well as how the standards differ.
Comment: One commenter
recommended that the Department
revise this priority to support initiatives
that increase students’ college and
career readiness.
Discussion: We believe that the
priority’s support for initiatives that
complement States’ implementation of
college- and career-ready standards and
assessments aligned with those
standards supports initiatives that
increase students’ college- and careerreadiness. For this reason, we do not

E:\FR\FM\12MRR2.SGM

12MRR2

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
believe revisions to this priority are
necessary.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter expressed
support for the priority with respect to
promoting the use of formative and
interim assessments. Another
commenter recommended that the
Department restrict the assessments
under this priority to formative
assessments; the commenter asserted
that interim assessments typically are
repetitions of larger-scale summative
assessments and do not provide useful
diagnostic information to educators or
students.
Discussion: We made this priority
broad to provide eligible applicants
with flexibility to propose a variety of
projects; we do not wish to constrain
innovation by prohibiting specific
activities under this priority such as
utilizing interim assessments. We
believe eligible applicants are in the
best position to determine whether
interim assessments are an appropriate
tool under a proposed project. For this
reason, we decline to amend the priority
as suggested by the commenter.
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters
recommended that the Department
revise the priority to support projects
pertaining to specific standards- and
assessments-based activities. For
instance, some commenters suggested
that we revise the priority to specify the
types of activities that would translate
standards and information from
assessments into classroom practices.
Another commenter recommended that
we revise the priority to further
emphasize initiatives that improve
student engagement through real-world
applications of learning to fully prepare
students to compete and succeed in a
global economy. One commenter
suggested that we revise the priority to
include initiatives that provide
professional development to teachers
regarding the use of results from
formative assessments supported under
the priority. Two other commenters
recommended that we revise the
priority to include initiatives that
promote family understanding, and
engagement in the implementation and
monitoring, of education standards in
order to ensure that such standards are
of high quality. A few commenters
recommended that the Department
revise the priority to ensure that the
initiatives pursued under this priority
are consistent with the principles of
universal design for learning (we
presume this to be a reference to the
principles of universal design for
learning as that term is defined in
section 103(24) of the Higher Education

VerDate Nov<24>2008

17:35 Mar 11, 2010

Jkt 220001

Act of 1965, as amended (HEA)). One
commenter recommended that the
Department revise the priority to
encourage increased access to and use of
open-content and web-based curricular
materials. One commenter
recommended that the Department
include, among the curricular and
instructional initiatives supported
under this priority, initiatives regarding
non-traditional instruction and
relationship building in order to
reengage disconnected students.
Discussion: There is nothing in this
priority that would preclude an eligible
applicant from proposing any of the
projects recommended by commenters,
provided that the proposed project
meets the requirements specified in the
priority. We made this priority broad to
provide eligible applicants with
flexibility to propose a variety of
projects. We believe we have achieved
this goal, as evidenced by the array of
projects proposed by the commenters.
For this reason, we conclude that it is
not necessary to revise the priority to
include an express focus on such
activities.
Changes: None.
Comment: Two commenters
recommended that we revise the
priority to include support for early
learning programs.
Discussion: Although, to meet this
priority, an eligible applicant must
propose a project that is designed to
benefit students in elementary and
secondary schools (by implementing
activities that support States’ efforts to
transition to college- and career-ready
standards and assessments), an eligible
applicant would not be prohibited from
proposing a project that additionally
serves students in early learning
programs. Indeed, this notice
specifically contains competitive
preference priority 5 pertaining to
Innovations for Improving Early
Learning Outcomes. For these reasons,
we do not believe it is appropriate to
revise the priority as the commenters
suggest.
Changes: None.
Comment: Two commenters
expressed support for the priority’s
focus on academically rigorous courses
and programs; another commenter
recommended that the Department
maintain the list of academically
rigorous courses and programs in the
priority. Another commenter expressed
support for including STEM courses in
the priority. Two commenters, however,
recommended that the Department
provide an example, other than STEM
subjects, of the core academic subjects
for which curricular and instructional
initiatives could be pursued under this

PO 00000

Frm 00019

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

12021

priority. Another commenter
recommended that we revise the
priority to allow applicants to pursue
activities in subjects that may not be
included in common core standards
initiatives, such as computer science;
this commenter also recommended that
the Department include references to
computer science courses along with
courses in STEM subjects.
Discussion: We appreciate the
commenters’ support, but do not believe
it is necessary to include the
commenters’ recommended revisions in
the priority; however, we are revising
the priority to provide further clarity
pertaining to the definition of ‘‘core
academic subjects.’’ This priority is
designed to support initiatives in any or
all core academic subjects, consistent
with section 9101(11) of the ESEA,
including English, reading or language
arts, mathematics, science, foreign
language, civics and government,
economics, arts, history, and geography.
Consistent with the Race to the Top
Fund program, the Department
interprets the core academic subject of
‘‘science’’ under section 9101(11) to
include STEM education (science,
technology, engineering and
mathematics) which encompasses a
wide-range of disciplines, including
computer science.
Changes: To clarify that ‘‘core
academic subjects’’ refers to those under
section 9101(11) of the ESEA, we are
changing the priority to include the
statutory reference. We are also
including a footnote regarding the
Department’s interpretation with respect
to ‘‘science’’ under section 9101(11) of
the ESEA.
Comment: Several commenters
suggested that we revise the priority to
support specific curricular and
instructional initiatives. For instance,
one commenter recommended that we
revise the priority to support initiatives
only in literacy and problem solving
skills, arguing that these two areas are
key to improving student achievement.
A few commenters recommended that
we revise the priority to specifically
support initiatives in career and
technical education. Another
commenter recommended that we revise
the priority to include initiatives that
provide experiences in diversity in the
classroom and school that prepare
students for racially and economically
diverse college and work settings. Two
commenters recommended that we
revise the priority to include initiatives
that support student achievement at
home and in other learning settings in
order to promote family and community
engagement in education. One
commenter recommended that the

E:\FR\FM\12MRR2.SGM

12MRR2

12022

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

priority be revised to include initiatives
that use technology in ways that
encourage self-directed learning.
Discussion: An eligible applicant
would not be precluded from proposing
under this priority a project that focuses
on the subjects and areas recommended
by the commenter so long as the project
supports States’ efforts to transition to
college- and career-ready standards and
assessments, as specified in the priority.
We do not believe it is appropriate or
consistent with the purpose of this
program to revise the priority to limit or
narrow the priority to these specified
initiatives.
Changes: None.
Absolute Priority 4—Innovations That
Turn Around Persistently LowPerforming Schools
Comment: A number of commenters
expressed general support for this
absolute priority. However, several
commenters recommended that the
Department clarify the initiatives the
priority would support. One of these
commenters requested clarification as to
whether projects under this priority may
serve certain groups of students within
schools rather than engage in wholeschool reform.
Discussion: The Department
appreciates the commenters’ support for
this proposed absolute priority. Under
the priority, an eligible applicant may
propose a project that serves only
certain groups of students (provided
those students meet the definition of
high-need student used in this program)
as a targeted approach to reform.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter requested
that we define the term ‘‘comprehensive
intervention’’ as used with respect to
whole-school reform supported under
this priority.
Discussion: We agree with the
commenter that further specificity
regarding the comprehensive
intervention approaches to wholeschool reform under this priority is
warranted and are revising the priority
to include additional examples of those
approaches. In addition to providing
further specificity, the revisions we are
making are intended to ensure that
projects supported under this priority
can be consistent with efforts to reform
low-performing schools under other
programs supported with ARRA funds.
As discussed later in this section, we
are removing the definition of
persistently low-performing schools and
revising the priority to specify the
schools for which the priority supports
reform projects. Consistent with those
changes, we refer to these schools as
Investing in Innovation Fund Absolute

VerDate Nov<24>2008

17:35 Mar 11, 2010

Jkt 220001

Priority 4 Schools in the discussion of
comments that follows.
Changes: We are revising paragraph
(a) of this priority as follows: (a) Wholeschool reform, including, but not
limited to, comprehensive interventions
to assist, augment, or replace Investing
in Innovation Fund Absolute Priority 4
schools, including the school
turnaround, restart, closure, and
transformation models of intervention
supported under the Department’s
School Improvement Grants program.
Comment: Several commenters
expressed support for the priority’s
encouragement of expanded learning
time as a targeted approach to reform
(paragraph (b)(1) of the priority).
However, a number of commenters
recommended that the Department
clarify whether out-of-school programs
are included as targeted approaches
under paragraph (b)(1). The commenters
also recommended that out-of-school
programs be required to include
collaboration with community-based
partners, institutions of higher
education, and museums, and that these
programs include project-based
learning.
Discussion: To the extent that an ‘‘outof-school’’ program includes programs to
provide extended learning time either
after school, over the weekend, or
during the summer, these activities
would be permissible under this priority
as targeted approaches to reform, so
long as the proposed project also meets
the requirements specified in this
priority. We made this priority broad to
provide eligible applicants with
flexibility to propose a variety of
projects, and to collaborate with a wide
range of entities that can support their
specific projects, which could include
those mentioned by the commenters.
For these reasons, we conclude that it is
not necessary to revise the priority to
include an express focus on specific
activities or entities.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter requested
that the Department provide a definition
of ‘‘core academic subjects’’ under this
priority.
Discussion: As noted previously, for
purposes of this program, we are using
the definition of ‘‘core academic subject’’
as set forth in section 9101(11) of the
ESEA, and are including a reference to
the statutory definition in paragraph (b)
of the priority.
Changes: We are revising the priority
to reference section 9101(11) of the
ESEA.
Comment: Two commenters requested
that the Department clarify the nonacademic barriers to student
achievement that an applicant may

PO 00000

Frm 00020

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

propose to address under a targeted
approach to reform under this priority.
Discussion: Although we do not
intend to unduly restrict the projects
this priority would support by
identifying specific barriers in the
priority, we note that such barriers may
relate to issues such as the following:
truancy, unsafe school environment,
poor school climate, lack of student
engagement, and lack of parent and
community involvement.
Changes: None.
Comment: A few commenters
recommended that the Department
clarify the term ‘‘transfer school’’ that is
used in the priority as an example of a
pathway for students to earn a regular
high school diploma.
Discussion: We agree with the
commenters that the term ‘‘transfer
schools’’ may not be commonly
understood. Therefore, we are replacing
the term ‘‘transfer schools’’ in the
priority with ‘‘schools that serve the
needs of over-aged, under-credited, or
other students with an exceptional need
for flexibility pertaining to when they
attend school and what additional
supports they require.’’
Changes: We are revising paragraph
(b)(3) in this priority as follows: (3)
Creating multiple pathways for students
to earn regular high school diplomas
(e.g., using schools that serve the needs
of over-aged, under-credited, or other
students with an exceptional need for
flexibility pertaining to when they
attend school and what additional
supports they require; awarding credit
based on demonstrated evidence of
student competency; and offering dual
enrollment options).
Comment: One commenter
recommended that the Department
revise the priority to ensure consistency
with the priorities and requirements for
turning around persistently lowperforming schools under the
Department’s Race to the Top Fund and
School Improvement Grants programs.
Discussion: As discussed previously,
we are revising the priority to include,
as examples of whole-school reform,
school turnaround, restart, closure, and
transformation models of intervention
supported under the Department’s
School Improvement Grants program.
We believe this will help ensure that
projects supported under this priority
are consistent with efforts to reform
low-performing schools under other
programs supported with ARRA funds.
Changes: As discussed previously, we
are revising paragraph (a) of this priority
as follows: (a) Whole-school reform,
including, but not limited to,
comprehensive interventions to assist,
augment, or replace Investing in

E:\FR\FM\12MRR2.SGM

12MRR2

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
Innovation Fund Absolute Priority 4
schools, including the school
turnaround, restart, closure, and
transformation models of intervention
supported under the Department’s
School Improvement Grants program.
Comment: Many commenters
recommended that the Department
revise the priority to provide greater
flexibility in the initiatives the priority
would support. Several of these
commenters cautioned, in particular,
that the priority places an excessive
focus on extended learning time and,
without increased flexibility, may
undercut the competency-based
programs supported under the
Department’s Race to the Top Fund
program. Another commenter requested
that the Department revise the priority
to allow applicants to propose projects
along a continuum of interventions
ranging from targeted to comprehensive,
rather than proposing projects using
either whole-school or targeted
approaches to reform. The commenter
asserted that whole-school reform
approaches typically involve multiple
targeted interventions; thus, the
commenter claimed, the distinction
between these two approaches in the
priority is artificial.
Discussion: We believe that
maintaining a distinction between
whole-school and targeted approaches
to reform is useful to eligible applicants
for the purposes of preparing
applications to turn around Investing in
Innovation Fund Absolute Priority 4
schools. We note that the priority
provides a significant amount of
flexibility and does not specify the types
of activities that would fall under either
reform approach. As such, we do not
believe the priority undercuts priorities
articulated in other Department
programs.
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters
recommended that the Department
revise the priority to support projects
pertaining to specific activities. For
instance, many commenters encouraged
the Department to revise the priority to
include the creation and replication of
high quality new schools, including
charter and magnet schools, as an
acceptable approach to reform. Another
commenter suggested that the
Department revise the priority to
support projects that increase school
choice options for parents and students.
One commenter recommended that the
Department revise the priority to
include the development of ‘‘community
schools,’’ in reference to schools that
implement comprehensive, integrated
strategies for providing academic
instruction, offer student services and

VerDate Nov<24>2008

17:35 Mar 11, 2010

Jkt 220001

supports, and engage families and the
community in the education of their
children. Two commenters suggested
that the Department revise the priority
to include, in addition to initiatives that
would expand learning time as a
targeted approach to reform, initiatives
for restructuring the current school day
to make better use of existing in-class
time.
One of these commenters suggested
that the priority support restructuring
the current school day with a greater use
of technology and other means of
differentiated instruction. Several
commenters recommended revising the
priority to include support for new or
alternative instructional practices in
persistently low-performing schools.
Several commenters recommended that
the Department revise the priority to
include initiatives that incorporate datadriven instruction and supports. Two
other commenters recommended that
the Department revise the priority to
include support for alternative
curricular approaches and instructional
tools (e.g., curricular approaches that
are based in research in cognitive
science and neuroscience, curricular
approaches that integrate the use of
technological tools) as acceptable reform
approaches. Another commenter
suggested that the Department revise the
priority to include initiatives that
incorporate instructional improvement
systems as an acceptable reform
approach; this commenter referred to
the inclusion of these systems in the
Department’s Race to the Top Fund
program. One commenter recommended
that the Department revise the priority
to include individual and small group
instruction as a targeted approach to
reform.
Several commenters recommended
that the Department revise the priority
to include afterschool programs that
provide older students with academic
supports as an example of a targeted
reform approach and, more specifically,
as a graduation pathway for students.
Two commenters recommended that the
Department revise the priority to
include as acceptable reform approaches
initiatives that reduce racial and
economic isolation such as reduction of
resource gaps between schools and
opportunities for intra- or inter-LEA
transfers for students and educators.
Several commenters recommended
that the Department revise the priority
to support initiatives that include
strategies for improving teacher
professional development and other
support such as high-quality jobembedded professional development,
common planning time, additional
compensation, and peer involvement in

PO 00000

Frm 00021

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

12023

staffing selections and resource
allocation. One commenter requested
that the Department revise the priority
to include instruction in subjects
beyond the core academic subjects in
extended learning time initiatives
implemented as targeted reform
approaches. Two commenters suggested
that the Department revise the priority
to include, as a targeted approach to
reform, strategies for increasing student
engagement in order to address truancy,
discipline, and social acceptance issues.
A number of commenters recommended
that the Department revise the priority
to include building community and
family links and increasing community
and family engagement as acceptable
school reform strategies, including
ongoing parental involvement,
wraparound services, increased parentteacher interaction, and parent
education programs regarding
instructional programs and supports.
Several commenters recommended that
the Department revise the priority to
include additional outcome measures,
including measures regarding
improvements in school climate, longterm student outcomes, and engagement
in learning tied to real-world
applications; and elimination of
bullying and student harassment.
Discussion: There is nothing in this
priority that precludes any of the
projects recommended by the
commenters, provided that the proposed
project addresses the whole-school or
targeted approaches to reform, as
specified in this priority. This priority is
intentionally broad to provide eligible
applicants with flexibility to propose a
variety of projects that best reflect the
variety of resources applicants bring to
bear and the students they intend to
serve. For this reason, we conclude that
it is not necessary to revise the priority
to include a specific list of permissible
activities.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter expressed
concern about projects under this
priority that would expand learning
time by adding hours to the school day
or extending the school year because
these projects would be costly and
constrained by teacher contracts; the
commenter recommended that the
Department focus on projects that
would reform the existing school day
using existing resources and that are not
constrained by teacher contracts.
Discussion: We agree that applicants
should be mindful of cost and
contractual obligations as they develop
their proposed projects. However,
organizations and LEAs operate in a
range of environments and therefore are
best positioned to determine which

E:\FR\FM\12MRR2.SGM

12MRR2

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

12024

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

approaches to extending learning time
are most effective for their projects.
Changes: None.
Comment: A number of commenters
recommended that the Department
include early learning programs as an
acceptable strategy for turning around
low-performing schools under this
priority in light of the impact of these
programs on student achievement in
later years. One of these commenters
suggested that the priority include
initiatives that integrate high quality
pre-kindergarten programs with early
language and literacy instruction in the
elementary grades.
Discussion: We believe that any
approach to reform under this priority
(whether whole-school or targeted) must
be designed expressly for the purpose of
turning around Investing in Innovation
Fund Absolute Priority 4 schools, which
may only be public elementary and
secondary schools. Accordingly, an
initiative focused solely on improving
early learning programs would not, by
itself, meet this absolute priority.
However, nothing would prevent an
eligible applicant from proposing a
project that includes such an initiative
alongside efforts to directly reform
Investing in Innovation Fund Absolute
Priority 4 schools in accordance with
the requirements of this priority.
Changes: None.
Comment: A number of commenters
expressed support for the provision in
this priority that included multiple
pathways for students to obtain a
regular high school diploma as a
targeted approach to reform. Several
commenters recommended, however,
that the Department revise the priority
to also support programs that provide
alternative diplomas as viable
graduation pathways. One of these
commenters recommended that the
Department recognize, in particular,
General Education Development (GED)
programs that connect GED students to
postsecondary education.
Discussion: We appreciate the
commenters’ support for the priority.
However, we do not believe it is
appropriate to include support for
programs that provide alternative
graduation credentials (such as GED
programs) because such credentials,
unlike regular high school diplomas, are
not necessarily aligned with State
academic content and achievement
standards.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter
recommended that the Department
ensure that there is continued funding
for schools that have successfully
implemented reform approaches under
this priority so that these schools do not

VerDate Nov<24>2008

17:35 Mar 11, 2010

Jkt 220001

hit a funding cliff that jeopardizes their
performance gains.
Discussion: We appreciate the
commenter’s concern and believe that
Selection Criterion F (Sustainability)
will help ensure that projects that
receive funding under this priority will
not be subject to sudden losses of or
decreases in funds at the end of the
grant period.
Changes: None.
Persistently Low-Performing Schools
Comment: One commenter noted
differences between the proposed
definition of persistently low-performing
schools used in this priority and the
definition of similar terms used in other
programs supported with ARRA funds.
The commenter recommended that the
Department use consistent terminology
and definitions of terms across
programs.
Discussion: We appreciate the
commenter’s concern. As the
commenter notes, other programs
supported with ARRA funds (including
the School Improvement Grants, State
Fiscal Stabilization Fund, and Race to
the Top Fund programs) use and define
the term ‘‘persistently lowest-achieving
schools’’.1 Under this priority, we intend
to support reform projects for schools
that include, but are not limited to, the
schools that meet the definition of
‘‘persistently lowest-achieving schools’’
used in those programs because we
believe that focusing only on schools
that meet the definition of ‘‘persistently
lowest-achieving schools’’ would create
a pool of schools for this priority that is
overly narrow. However, we recognize
that defining the term persistently lowperforming schools as including, but not
limited to, the schools that meet the
definition of the similar term
‘‘persistently lowest-achieving schools’’
1 Under the final requirements for the School
Improvement Grants program, ‘‘persistently lowestachieving schools’’ means, as determined by the
State, (a)(1) any Title I school in improvement,
corrective action, or restructuring that (i) is among
the lowest-achieving five percent of Title I schools
in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring
or the lowest-achieving five Title I schools in
improvement, corrective action, or restructuring in
the State, whichever number of schools is greater;
or (ii) is a high school that has had a graduation
rate as defined in 34 CFR 200.19(b) that is less than
60 percent over a number of years; and (2) any
secondary school that is eligible for, but does not
receive, Title I funds that (i) is among the lowestachieving five percent of secondary schools or the
lowest-achieving five secondary schools in the State
that are eligible for, but do not receive, Title I funds,
whichever number of schools is greater; or (ii) is a
high school that has had a graduation rate as
defined in 34 CFR 200.19(b) that is less than 60
percent over a number of years. See http://
www2.ed.gov/programs/sif/faq.html. The definition
of this term is used also by the State Fiscal
Stabilization Fund and Race to the Top Fund
programs.

PO 00000

Frm 00022

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

may be confusing to stakeholders
(including prospective applicants for
the different ARRA programs).
Therefore, we are removing the
definition of persistently low-performing
schools and revising the priority to
specify the schools for which the
priority supports reform projects. To
further prevent confusion with terms
used in other programs supported with
ARRA funds, we refer to these schools
as Investing in Innovation Fund
Absolute Priority 4 schools.
Changes: We are removing the
definition of persistently low-performing
schools and are revising the priority to
specify that Investing in Innovation
Fund Absolute Priority 4 schools are
schools in any of the following
categories: (a) Persistently lowestachieving schools (as defined in the
final requirements for the School
Improvement Grants program); (b) Title
I schools that are in corrective action or
restructuring under section 1116 of the
ESEA (a); or (c) secondary schools (both
middle and high schools) eligible for but
not receiving Title I funds that, if
receiving Title I funds, would be in
corrective action or restructuring under
section 1116 of the ESEA. These schools
are referred to as Investing in Innovation
Fund Absolute Priority 4 schools.
Comment: A number of commenters
recommended that the Department
revise the definition of persistently lowperforming schools used in this priority
to include additional types of schools.
Two commenters recommended that the
Department expand the definition of
persistently low-performing schools to
include low-performing non-Title I
elementary schools and schools that
without support would be at risk of
becoming low-performing because they
serve high-poverty communities. One
commenter recommended that the
Department revise the definition to
include high schools, regardless of their
AYP status, that are eligible for Title I
and are ‘‘drop-out factories’’ (where a
typical freshman class shrinks by 40
percent or more by the time the students
reach their senior year) and middle
schools, regardless of AYP status, that
are feeder schools for these high
schools. Two commenters
recommended expanding the definition
to include high schools with graduation
rates below 60 percent. Another
commenter recommended including
schools in feeder patterns of high
schools with low high school graduation
rates compared to national or statewide
averages, whether or not these schools
are in improvement, corrective action,
or restructuring. Another commenter
recommended that the Department
expand the definition to include

E:\FR\FM\12MRR2.SGM

12MRR2

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
schools, regardless of their AYP status,
that are eligible for Title I funds and
where persistent low performance has
led to a decline in enrollment of 30
percent or greater over the last three
years. One commenter recommended
that the Department expand the
definition of persistently low-performing
schools used in this priority to include
alternative schools and school programs
serving incarcerated students and
students held in juvenile detention
facilities. Another commenter
recommended including tribal and BIE
schools in this definition.
Discussion: In general, the schools
cited by commenters may be Investing
in Innovation Fund Absolute Priority 4
schools if they are included in one of
the three categories of schools listed in
the priority. We do not believe it is
appropriate to identify every type of
school that may be included in these
categories since there is variation in
performance within common school
types. For example, not all schools that
serve incarcerated youth may
necessarily be included in these
categories.
With respect to low-performing nonTitle I elementary schools, we do not
believe it is necessary to revise the
priority to include these schools
because elementary schools are much
more likely to receive Title I funds than
secondary schools. If an elementary
school is low-performing, it will thus in
all likelihood be included in category (a)
or (b) identified in the priority.
With respect to schools that without
support would be at risk of becoming
low-performing because they serve highpoverty communities, we believe that
this priority should be used to focus
attention on improving schools that
have a record of low performance and
do not believe it is appropriate to revise
the priority to include support for
reform efforts for schools that may
become but are not currently lowperforming.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter
recommended that the Department
require applicants to use data to assess
the level of need in persistently lowperforming schools. The commenter
recommended this option to avoid what
the commenter referred to as the ‘‘one
size fits all challenge’’ under the ESEA
whereby, according to the commenter,
some schools fail to meet AYP because
they miss their targets in one student
subgroup, whereas other schools
perform poorly across all subgroups and
fail to meet AYP.
Discussion: An eligible applicant
would not be prohibited from
identifying, from among the Investing in

VerDate Nov<24>2008

17:35 Mar 11, 2010

Jkt 220001

Innovation Fund Absolute Priority 4
schools, specific schools that the
eligible applicant intends to serve based
on level of need or other factors. We do
not believe that it is necessary to require
eligible applicants to consider such
factors, and that the priority, as written,
will focus resources on schools with
critical needs.
Changes: None.
Competitive Preference Priority 5—
Innovations for Improving Early
Learning Outcomes
Comment: A number of commenters
expressed support for the inclusion of
this proposed competitive preference
priority and emphasized the importance
of early learning for success later in life.
Another commenter noted that this
priority presents an opportunity to build
on early learning’s research base.
Several commenters recommended that
the Department designate this priority
as a fifth absolute priority in light of
evidence that high-quality early learning
programs can significantly close
achievement gaps.
Discussion: We appreciate the
commenters’ support for this priority.
However, as stated elsewhere, we
believe it is important to limit the
absolute priorities under this program to
the four education reform areas of the
ARRA. Therefore, we decline to add
innovations for improving early learning
outcomes as an absolute priority.
Change: None.
Comment: One commenter
recommended that the Department
revise the priority to allow applicants to
serve children from birth through fifth
grade, rather than through third grade,
in order to maintain students’ initial
academic gains.
Discussion: We appreciate the
commenter’s concern for sustaining
early learning gains of students into
later grades. While the Department is
committed to ensuring that supports for
all children are emphasized throughout
our programs, we recognize that there
are specific needs of early learners that
can be addressed through targeted
reforms. Further, inclusion of children
birth to 3rd grade is a widely-accepted
range amongst the education
community. For these reasons, we
decline to make the changes suggested
by the commenter.
Changes: None.
Comment: Two commenters asserted
that pre-kindergarten or early childhood
programs are often privately managed.
These commenters suggested that the
Department clarify whether projects
under this priority can serve children
enrolled in privately-managed
programs.

PO 00000

Frm 00023

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

12025

Discussion: The primary goal of
programs supported with ARRA funds
is to improve the academic achievement
and attainment of students in public
elementary and secondary schools.
However, to the extent that private early
learning programs support students’
future achievement and growth in
elementary and secondary education, an
eligible applicant would not be
prohibited under this priority from
serving children enrolled in private
early learning programs, provided the
applicant’s proposed project met all
requirements of the priority. An early
learning provider would be eligible to
apply for funding under this program if
it is (1) an LEA or (2) a nonprofit
organization applying in partnership
with one or more LEAs or a consortium
of schools.
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters
recommended that the Department
revise the priority to support projects
pertaining to specific innovations for
improved early learning outcomes. For
instance, one commenter recommended
that the Department revise the priority
to include support for practices,
strategies, or programs that improve,
within an LEA’s geographic area, the
collaboration among community-based
early childhood providers and schools.
Two commenters recommended that the
Department revise the priority to
include support for partnerships with
community-based organizations and
families in order to improve alignment
between early learning programs and
instruction in the early elementary
grades. One commenter recommended
that we revise the priority to include
support for practices, strategies, or
programs that serve children with
disabilities in early learning
environments. One commenter
recommended that the Department
revise the priority to emphasize the
importance of socio-economically and
racially diverse educational settings
during students’ formative years
because attitudes about race are still
forming at this time. One commenter
recommended that we revise the
priority to support projects to improve
and align early learning curricula with
developmentally, culturally, and
linguistically appropriate standards and
assessments. A few commenters
recommended that the Department
revise the priority to support practices,
strategies, or programs that emphasize
teaching strategies that illustrate realworld applications of early learning
subjects; we presume the commenter is
referring to contextual learning
opportunities. A few commenters
recommended that we revise the

E:\FR\FM\12MRR2.SGM

12MRR2

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

12026

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

priority to support practices, strategies,
or programs that improve the skills of
teachers in early learning programs.
One commenter suggested that we
revise the priority to include support for
projects that provide safe and enriching
early learning physical settings and
linkages to related health and human
services. Several commenters
recommended that the Department
revise the priority to include support for
parent engagement or assistance in the
early learning of children. Another
commenter recommended that the
Department revise the priority to
include strategies for conducting local
outreach about early learning
opportunities that target parents of highneed students in non-academic settings.
Discussion: There is nothing in this
priority that precludes an eligible
applicant from proposing any of the
projects mentioned by the commenter,
provided that the projects address
paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of the priority
and also meet the eligibility and other
requirements specified in this notice.
We made this priority broad to provide
eligible applicants with flexibility to
propose a variety of projects. For this
reason, we conclude that it is not
necessary to revise the priority to
include an express focus on the
activities identified by the commenters.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter
recommended that the Department
revise the priority to allow applicants to
address only one, rather than all three
of the areas of focus, in order to meet
the competitive preference priority.
Specifically, the commenter
recommended that the areas of focus be
separated by ‘‘or’’ rather than ‘‘and.’’
Discussion: We appreciate the
commenter’s concern for applicant
flexibility under this priority; however,
we note that this is a competitive
preference priority and applicants are
under no obligation to address the
priority in their applications. Moreover,
we believe that, in order to
meaningfully improve early learning
outcomes for children, projects under
this priority should address each of the
focus areas and that these components
are equally essential to early learning
outcomes. For these reasons, we decline
to make the changes recommended by
the commenter.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested
that the Department ensure that the
priority is aligned with the President’s
Zero to Five Plan.
Discussion: This priority is consistent
with the President’s Zero to Five Plan.
For example, the Zero to Five Plan
supports strategies that, among others,

VerDate Nov<24>2008

17:35 Mar 11, 2010

Jkt 220001

align early learning and development
standards that lead to school readiness
and are integrated with program quality
to guide curriculum and program
development. The Zero to Five Plan also
encourages the development of
evidence-based quality rating systems
structured with progressive levels of
quality—which may be used across
early learning settings and programs.
Accordingly, we believe that this
priority is consistent with the
President’s Zero to Five Plan and
supports early learning initiatives under
that program. For more information
about this plan (as well as the
Department’s Early Learning Challenge
Fund), please see http://www.ed.gov/
about/inits/ed/earlylearning/elcffactsheet.html.
Changes: None.
Comment: None.
Discussion: This priority includes a
reference to ‘‘core academic subjects.’’
Consistent with the revisions we are
making to the other priorities that use
this term, we are revising the priority to
add a reference to section 9101(11) of
the ESEA, which includes the definition
of ‘‘core academic subjects’’.
Changes: We are revising this priority
to include the statutory reference to the
definition of ‘‘core academic subjects’’ in
section 9101(11) of the ESEA.
Competitive Preference Priority 6—
Innovations That Support College
Access and Success
Comment: Two commenters
recommended that the Department
revise the priority to include career and
technical education systems that
prepare students simultaneously for
postsecondary education and careers.
Similarly, two commenters
recommended expanding the priority to
include, in addition to programs that
promote success in two- and four-year
colleges, programs that promote success
in career certificate programs and entry
into the workforce.
Discussion: This priority supports
projects that enable students to
successfully prepare for, enter, and
graduate from a two- or four-year
college. As noted in the NPP, this
priority is designed to help meet the
national goal of restoring the United
States to first in the world in the
percentage of citizens holding college
degrees. We believe we must maintain
this focus and, therefore, decline to
expand this priority to include
applications that focus on practices,
strategies, and programs that do not lead
to success in two- and four-year
colleges. A project that focuses on a
career certificate program or a careerreadiness program that is part of a career

PO 00000

Frm 00024

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

and technical education system would
be eligible for competitive preference
points under this priority only to the
extent the project promotes success in
two- and four-year colleges.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter stated that
the priority focuses too heavily on nonacademic issues such as helping
students obtain financial aid and
complete college applications. The
commenter recommended that the
Department revise the priority to
support applications addressing both
academic and non-academic issues
associated with college access and
success.
Discussion: In order to meet this
competitive preference priority,
applications must include practices,
strategies, or programs for K–12
students that address students’
preparedness related to college, which
may include ensuring that students are
academically prepared for college.
Therefore, it is unnecessary to revise the
priority in the manner recommended by
the commenter.
Changes: None.
Comment: Two commenters
recommended that the Department
revise the priority to support
approaches that focus on decreasing
dropout rates or increasing high school
graduation rates.
Discussion: As stated elsewhere in
this notice, the Department is using the
Investing in Innovation Fund to support
the overarching ARRA goal of
improving student achievement and
attainment. All applications for
Investing in Innovation Fund grants will
be assessed in part on the extent to
which the proposed projects will have
an impact on student achievement and
attainment outcomes including the
following: Improving student
achievement or growth, closing
achievement gaps, decreasing dropout
rates, increasing high school graduation
rates, or increasing college enrollment
and completion rates. Accordingly, peer
reviewers will consider the magnitude
of the effect of proposed projects on
attaining these student outcomes (see, in
particular, Selection Criterion B
(Strength of Research, Significance of
Effect, and Magnitude of Effect)).
Therefore, it is unnecessary to revise the
priority in the manner suggested by the
commenters.
Changes: None.
Comment: A few commenters
recommended that the Department
revise the priority to recognize GED
programs as a viable graduation
pathway for students and support
projects that focus on the development
of college-ready GED programs.

E:\FR\FM\12MRR2.SGM

12MRR2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

Discussion: As noted elsewhere in
this notice, we do not believe it is
appropriate to support projects that
provide alternative graduation
credentials (such as GED programs)
because such credentials, unlike regular
high school diplomas, are not
necessarily aligned with State academic
content and achievement standards.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter
recommended that the Department
revise the priority to include programs
that provide services to and monitoring
of students after enrolling in college.
Discussion: The Investing in
Innovation Fund program does not
provide funding for projects that are
designed to serve students who are
enrolled in college. Therefore, we
decline to revise this priority in the
manner suggested by the commenter.
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters
recommended that the Department
revise the priority to include support for
middle school students as well as high
school students. Other commenters
recommended that the priority be
revised to include a focus on supporting
students in the early high school grades,
including strategies that aim to assess
the college readiness of students and
close skill gaps before students
graduate.
Discussion: This priority specifically
states that competitive preference will
be given to applications for practices,
strategies, or programs that enable K–12
students to successfully prepare for,
enter, and graduate from a two- or fouryear college. Thus, this priority would
include support for middle school
students and students in the early high
school grades.
Changes: None.
Competitive Preference Priority 7—
Innovations To Address the Unique
Learning Needs of Students With
Disabilities and Limited English
Proficient Students
Comment: A number of commenters
expressed support for this priority and
the Department’s efforts to support
programs focused on improving
outcomes for students with disabilities
and limited English proficient students.
Several commenters recommended that
the Department clarify whether
applications must address the needs of
both students with disabilities and
limited English proficient students in
order to meet this competitive priority.
Two commenters recommended that the
Department separate the priority into
two competitive preference priorities
given the different needs of these
students.

VerDate Nov<24>2008

17:35 Mar 11, 2010

Jkt 220001

Discussion: We appreciate the
commenters’ support for this priority
and believe that the priority is clear that
an applicant may propose a project
under the priority that addresses the
needs of either students with disabilities
or limited English proficient students.
Therefore, we do not believe it is
necessary to provide separate
competitive preference priorities for
projects that propose to serve these
student subgroups individually.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested
that the Department clarify whether
projects under this priority may focus
on improving academic outcomes or
increasing high school graduation rates
of the students served, rather than
addressing both of these measures.
Discussion: Our intent under this
priority is to give a competitive
preference to projects that propose
practices, strategies, and programs for
students with disabilities or limited
English proficient students that both
increase academic outcomes and
increase college- and career-readiness
(including increasing high school
graduation rates) for these groups of
students. However, in light of the
achievement gaps for these students, we
are revising the priority to state that, to
meet the priority, projects must also be
designed to close achievement gaps for
these students.
Changes: We are changing this
competitive preference priority to state
that, in order to meet the priority,
applications must provide for the
implementation of particular practices,
strategies, or programs that are designed
to improve academic outcomes, close
achievement gaps, and increase collegeand career-readiness, including
increasing high school graduation rates
(as defined in this notice), for students
with disabilities or limited English
proficient students.
Comment: One commenter
recommended that, in this priority, the
Department use ‘‘English language
learners’’ in place of ‘‘students with
limited English proficiency’’ because the
former term helps educators focus on a
student’s capacity as a learner.
Discussion: The Department
recognizes that stakeholders often use
terms such as ‘‘English language
learners’’ rather than ‘‘limited English
proficient students’’ when referring to
students who are acquiring basic
English proficiency and developing
academic English skills. However,
because the ESEA defines the term
‘‘limited English proficient,’’ and both
the statute and the implementing
regulations use this term, as well as the
phrase ‘‘students with limited English

PO 00000

Frm 00025

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

12027

proficiency,’’ we will continue to use the
latter terms in this program.
Changes: None.
Comment: We received a number of
recommendations to revise the priority
to focus on specific groups of limited
English proficient students including
students from linguistically isolated
homes and underrepresented limited
English proficient subpopulations, and
high-school students who are recent
arrivals to the United States. Another
commenter recommended that the
Department revise the priority to
include a focus on ‘‘standard English
learners’’ (i.e., students who were born
in the United States and whose native
language is English but who speak a
nonstandard English dialect).
Discussion: Section 9101(25) of the
ESEA specifies that a limited English
proficient student is a student who (1)
was not born in the United States or
whose native language is a language
other than English; (2) who is a Native
American, Alaska Native, or resident of
the outlying areas who comes from an
environment where a language other
than English has had a significant
impact on the student’s level of English
language proficiency; or (3) is migratory,
whose native language is a language
other than English, and who comes from
an environment where a language other
than English is dominant. Under this
competitive preference priority, there is
nothing that would prevent an eligible
applicant from proposing an innovative
practice, strategy, or program that
addresses the needs of specific
subpopulations of limited English
proficient students or limited English
proficient students from specific
backgrounds, provided these students
meet the requirements of the ESEA
definition. We do not believe it is
necessary to refer to specific groups of
limited English proficient students in
this priority.
Regarding ‘‘standard English learners,’’
these students do not meet the ESEA
definition referenced above because
they speak English as their native
language. Because we are maintaining
the focus of this priority on students
who meet the definition of limited
English proficiency under the ESEA,
projects that focus only on these
students would not meet this priority.
Changes: None.
Comment: Two commenters
recommended including examples of
the practices, strategies, and programs
that would be supported under this
priority. One of these commenters
recommended providing examples of
instructional models that have proven to
be effective for limited English
proficient students. The other

E:\FR\FM\12MRR2.SGM

12MRR2

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

12028

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

commenter recommended revising the
priority to include innovations
referenced in the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act, as amended
(IDEA), such as response-to-intervention
models and the use of assistive
technologies.
Discussion: In order to meet this
competitive preference priority, eligible
applicants must propose innovative
practices, strategies, or programs that
address the unique learning needs of
students with disabilities or limited
English proficient students and that are
designed to improve academic
outcomes, close achievement gaps, and
increase college- and career-readiness,
including increasing graduation rates,
for these students. It is up to eligible
applicants to identify those practices,
strategies, or programs that they believe,
based on available evidence, should be
included in their proposed projects. We
do not want to restrict or constrain the
projects that this priority would support
by identifying specific initiatives in the
priority statement. Therefore, we
decline to make the changes
recommended by the commenters.
Changes: None.
Comment: Two commenters
recommended that the Department
revise the priority to ensure that projects
funded under the priority are consistent
with the principles of universal design
for learning.
Discussion: An applicant would not
be precluded from proposing under this
priority projects that are consistent with
the principles of universal design for
learning, as defined in the Higher
Education Act of 1965, as amended
(HEA), provided that the proposed
project meets the requirements in the
priority. We decline to include this level
of specificity in this competitive
preference priority, as we do not want
to restrict or constrain the innovative
practices, strategies, and programs that
this priority would support.
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters
recommended that the Department
include gifted and talented students
among the students with unique
learning needs to be served under this
priority. A few of these commenters
stated that the needs of gifted and
talented students are typically
underserved. Another commenter
recommended including students with
low literacy levels among the students
with unique learning needs to be served
under this priority.
Discussion: We recognize that gifted
and talented students have unique
learning needs and may be underserved
in some areas of the country. In
addition, we recognize that students

VerDate Nov<24>2008

17:35 Mar 11, 2010

Jkt 220001

with low literacy levels who are not
students with disabilities or limited
English proficient students may also
have unique learning needs. However,
we believe that it is important to
maintain this competitive preference for
projects that serve students with
disabilities and limited English
proficient students in light of the
achievement gaps between these
students and their peers. Therefore, we
are not changing the priority in the
manner suggested by the commenter.
Changes: None.
Proposed Competitive Preference
Priority 8—Innovations That Serve
Schools in Rural LEAs
Comment: Several commenters
expressed support for this priority.
However, other commenters
recommended that the Department
eliminate this competitive preference
priority; these commenters asserted that
the priority is unnecessary, and gives an
unfair advantage to rural areas over
urban LEAs that are equally in need of
financial support. Other commenters
stated that rural grant recipients may
reach only small numbers of students
and could not easily be brought to scale
at the State or regional level. One
commenter recommended that the
Department revise the priority to
support applications that include a
focus on students in rural LEAs, rather
than applications that serve students in
rural LEAs exclusively. Another
commenter recommended that the
Department revise the priority to
include projects that are proposed by
non-rural LEAs that would serve or
benefit students in rural LEAs.
Discussion: This competitive
preference priority acknowledges that
solutions to educational challenges may
be different in rural areas than in urban
and suburban communities and that
there is a need for solutions to unique
rural challenges. To meet this priority,
an eligible applicant need not be a rural
LEA. Any eligible applicant may
propose a project to serve students in
rural LEAs under this priority. With
regard to the concern that projects
meeting this competitive preference
priority will reach small numbers of
students or could not easily be brought
to scale at State or regional levels, we
note that all applications for Investing
in Innovation Fund grants will be
assessed in part on the number of
students to be reached by the proposed
project and the eligible applicant’s
capacity to reach the proposed number
of students during the course of the
grant period (see Selection Criteria E
(Strategy and Capacity to Bring to Scale
(in the case of Scale-up and Validation

PO 00000

Frm 00026

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

grants); Strategy and Capacity to Further
Develop and Bring to Scale (in the case
of Development grants)). For these
reasons, we decline to remove this
priority or to change this priority in the
manner recommended by commenters.
Changes: None.
Comment: We received a number of
comments recommending that we revise
this competitive preference priority to
focus on specific types of projects in
rural areas such as projects that improve
college- and career-readiness of students
in rural LEAs, projects that serve
students across county and State lines,
early learning projects, projects that
increase the use of educational
technology in rural LEAs, and projects
that promote innovative strategies for
educator recruitment in rural LEAs.
Discussion: An applicant would not
be precluded from proposing under this
priority any of the projects mentioned
by the commenters provided that the
proposed project meets the
requirements in this priority (i.e., the
proposed project focuses on the unique
challenges of high-need students in
schools within a rural LEA and
addresses the particular challenges
faced by students in these schools; and
improves student achievement or
student growth, closes achievement
gaps, decreases dropout rates, increases
high school graduation rates, or
improves teacher and principal
effectiveness in one or more rural
LEAs). We cannot include in the
priority all the possible programs that
could address this competitive priority,
nor do we want to restrict or constrain
the innovative practices, strategies, and
programs that this priority would
support. Therefore, we decline to follow
the commenters’ recommendations.
Changes: None.
Rural LEA
Comment: Several commenters
recommended that the Department
expand the definition of rural LEA used
in this priority. One commenter
recommended expanding the definition
beyond the Small Rural School
Achievement and Rural Low-Income
School programs under Title IV, Part B
of the ESEA to include small and
medium-sized, low-performing, highneed LEAs in rural areas. One
commenter recommended revising the
definition to include LEAs designated as
rural by the Locale Code in the National
Center for Education Statistics Common
Core of Data. Another commenter
recommended revising the definition to
be more expansive and inclusive of
rural LEAs that used to be urban LEAs.
Finally, several commenters
recommended that the Department

E:\FR\FM\12MRR2.SGM

12MRR2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
revise the priority to include practices,
strategies, or programs that would serve
students in one or more rural schools
(irrespective of the designation of the
LEA of those schools) rather than only
students in LEAs that meet the
definition of rural LEA.
Discussion: This competitive
preference priority is intended to
encourage applications that focus on the
particular challenges faced by students
in rural LEAs. In determining the
definition of rural LEA for use in this
program, we chose to use a definition
that is used in many Department grant
programs. In addition, we note that the
definition of rural LEA for use in this
program includes schools served by
LEAs that are designated with a school
locale code of 6, 7, or 8. Therefore, we
do not believe the definition of rural
LEA should be expanded in the ways
suggested by commenters.
With regard to the recommendation
that we include support under this
priority for practices, strategies, or
programs that serve students in one or
more rural schools (irrespective of the
designation of the LEA of those
schools), we believe that most LEAs that
have schools in rural areas would
qualify as a rural LEA under the
definition of rural LEA, and that
accordingly no change to the priority is
necessary.
Changes: None.
Requirements

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

Providing Innovations That Improve
Achievement for High-Need Students
Comment: A number of commenters
expressed support for the Department’s
requirement that applicants implement
practices, strategies, or programs for
high-need students. Two commenters,
however, argued that eligible applicants
should not be required to serve only
high-need students.
Discussion: In this program, we define
high-need student as a student at risk of
educational failure or otherwise in need
of special assistance and support. While
eligible applicants are required to
implement practices, strategies, or
programs for high-need students,
eligible applicants have discretion in
determining which types of students
meet this definition. Moreover, nothing
in the authorizing statute or the
priorities, requirements, definitions, or
selection criteria for this program
prohibits eligible applicants from using
program funds to help other students as
well. Indeed, the Department expects
that robust proposed projects would
benefit all students, but with
disproportionate benefit to high-need
students. We believe that this program’s

VerDate Nov<24>2008

17:35 Mar 11, 2010

Jkt 220001

focus on funding projects that serve
high-need students—students at risk of
educational failure or otherwise in need
of special assistance and support—is
consistent with the goal of this program,
which is to improve student academic
achievement and attainment.
Consistent with other clarifying
changes we are making with respect to
the use of the term ‘‘applicant’’ and
‘‘eligible applicant’’ throughout this
notice, we are making a minor technical
change to the Providing Innovations that
Improve Achievement for High-Need
Students requirement.
Changes: We are replacing the word
‘‘applicant’’ in this requirement with the
words ‘‘eligible applicant’’ to clarify that
it is the eligible applicant (i.e., the LEA
or the partnership) that must implement
practices, strategies, or programs for
high-need students (as defined in this
notice).
Eligible Applicants
Comment: As discussed in more
detail in the following paragraphs, a
number of commenters asked about the
roles and responsibilities of ‘‘eligible
applicants,’’ ‘‘applicants,’’ ‘‘fiscal agents,’’
and ‘‘partners’’ under this program.
Discussion: In analyzing this group of
comments, the Department determined
that there appears to be some confusion
about how these important terms are
used in the context of this program. For
this reason, we are adding definitions
for the terms applicant, official partner,
and other partner.
Section 14007(a)(1) of the ARRA
describes the types of entities that are
eligible to apply for funding under this
program. These eligible entities, referred
to in this notice as ‘‘eligible applicants,’’
must be either (a) an LEA, or (b) a
partnership between a nonprofit
organization and (1) one or more LEAs
or (2) a consortium of schools. An
‘‘eligible applicant,’’ therefore, is either
an LEA or a partnership.
For applications that are submitted on
behalf of partnerships, consortia, or
groups—as is necessarily the case under
section 14007(a)(1)(B) of the ARRA, the
Department makes an award to a single
entity only. The entity designated by the
partnership, consortia or group to apply
on behalf of it to the Department in
accordance with 34 CFR 75.127 to
75.129 (the Department’s regulations
governing group applications) is
referred to as the applicant. If the group
application is awarded a grant, the
applicant then becomes the ‘‘grantee.’’
Under this program, an applicant (or
grantee) may, therefore, be—

PO 00000

Frm 00027

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

12029

(a) An LEA 2 under section
14007(a)(1)(A) of the ARRA; or
(b) A nonprofit organization, an LEA,
or a school in a consortium of schools
applying on behalf of a partnership
provided that the partnership is
between a nonprofit organization and
(1) one or more LEAs or (2) a
consortium of schools (pursuant to
section 14007(a)(1)(B) of the ARRA).
For applications submitted under
section 14007(a)(1)(B) of the ARRA, a
single applicant, which could be the
nonprofit organization, an LEA, or a
school in the consortium of schools that
is part of the partnership, must submit
a group application on behalf of the
eligible applicant (i.e., the partnership).
This partnership must include the
partners referenced in section
14007(a)(1)(B) of the ARRA. For the sake
of clarity, we refer to each of the
partners referenced in section
14007(a)(1)(B) of the ARRA as an official
partner (i.e., the nonprofit organization
and, depending on the make-up of the
partnership, each LEA or consortium of
schools in the partnership).
The Department anticipates that LEAs
and section 14007(a)(1)(B) partnerships
may wish to propose projects that
involve working with additional entities
as well. For purposes of this program,
we define any of these other entities as
an other partner. Therefore, an LEA
applying under section 14007(a)(1)(A) of
the ARRA may apply with a proposed
project that involves working with other
partners. Likewise, an applicant
applying on behalf of a partnership in
accordance with section 14007(a)(1)(B)
of the ARRA may propose a project that
involves working with additional
official partners, other partners, or both,
provided that the partnership includes
the minimally required official partners.
We believe that the distinction
between official partners and other
partners is necessary, especially in light
of the addition of the subgrant authority
to section 14007 of the ARRA as a result
of section 307 of Division D of the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010
(Pub. L. 111–117). New section 14007(d)
of the ARRA provides that, in the case
of an eligible applicant that is awarded
2 A single LEA could submit a group application
on behalf of itself and other eligible LEAs under
section 14007(a)(1)(A) of the ARRA. In that case,
each of the other eligible LEAs included in the
group application must meet the eligibility
requirements of this program. Because an LEA that
submits an application on its own has flexibility to
work with other LEAs as other partners (as defined
in this notice), the Department sees no advantage
to an LEA submitting a group application in this
manner. For this reason, we do not address the
applicability of requirements to group applications
submitted by LEAs under section 14007(a)(1)(A) of
the ARRA in this notice.

E:\FR\FM\12MRR2.SGM

12MRR2

12030

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

a grant and is in a partnership described
in section 14007(a)(1)(B) of the ARRA,
the partner serving as the fiscal agent 3
may make subgrants to one or more of
the other entities in the partnership. We
interpret this subgrant authority to
permit the grantee to make subgrants to
only those partners identified in the
statute (i.e., official partners), but not to
other entities that are proposed to be
involved in a project (i.e., other
partners). A grantee can make subgrants
to any official partner, including those
that are in addition to the minimally
required official partners.
Changes: In the Definitions section,
we define the term applicant to mean
the entity that applies for a grant under
this program on behalf of an eligible
applicant (i.e., an LEA or partnership in
accordance with section 14007(a)(1)(B)
of the ARRA). We also define the term
official partner as any of the entities
required to be part of a partnership
under section 14007(a)(1)(B) of the
ARRA. Finally, we define the term other
partner to mean any entity, other than
the applicant and any official partner
that may be involved in a proposed
project. We use these terms, as
appropriate, throughout this notice. We
also have revised other sections of the
notice to use these terms, where
appropriate.
Comment: A number of commenters
recommended that the Department
broaden the Eligible Applicants
requirement to include additional types
of applicants. The entities suggested by
the commenters to be made eligible
include the following: State educational
agencies, municipalities and other units
of local government, and other public
agencies and institutions; Native
American Tribes and the Bureau of
Indian Education; institutions of higher
education, including community
colleges and accredited four-year
baccalaureate degree-granting
institutions; local and regional early
intervention and preschool programs
under part B or C of the IDEA; private
schools including religious schools;
community-based organizations; youth
councils; teacher unions in partnership
with LEAs; workforce investment
3 Because the Department makes a grant award to
the grantee, we interpret the term ‘‘fiscal agent’’ as
used in section 14007(d) of the ARRA as referring
to the applicant receiving an award, namely the
grantee. We recognize that the grantee may rely on
another entity to manage its grant funds, and that
the grantee or others may consider that entity as the
fiscal agent of the grant. For the Department’s
purposes, under this program, we do not consider
such entities as fiscal agents; because the
Department’s funding relationship is with the
grantee, who is responsible for ensuring the grant
is administered in accordance with program
regulations.

VerDate Nov<24>2008

17:35 Mar 11, 2010

Jkt 220001

boards; for-profit charter management
organizations; nonprofit organizations
applying independently of an LEA or
consortium partnership; and nonprofit
organizations partnering with
individual schools rather than with
consortia of schools or LEAs.
Discussion: Section 14007(a)(1) of the
ARRA describes the types of entities
that are eligible to apply for funding
under this program. The Department has
no authority to expand this statutorilyprescribed requirement.4
With respect to most of the entities
mentioned by the commenters, the
critical questions for determining
whether the entity is an eligible
applicant are (1) whether it includes an
entity that qualifies as a nonprofit
organization (as defined in this notice)
and (2) whether the nonprofit
organization has partnered with one or
more LEAs or a consortium of schools.
In this program, we define nonprofit
organization as an entity that meets the
definition of ‘‘nonprofit’’ under 34 CFR
77.1(c) or is an institution of higher
education under section 101(a) of the
HEA. Section 77.1(c) defines the term
‘‘nonprofit’’, as applied to an agency,
organization, or institution, as meaning
that it is owned and operated by one or
more corporations or associations whose
net earnings do not benefit, and cannot
lawfully benefit, any private
shareholder or entity. The definition of
‘‘institution of higher education’’ in
section 101(a) of the HEA includes both
public and private two- and four-year
institutions of higher education.
Partnerships that include an entity that
meets this definition of nonprofit
organization and that partner with one
or more LEAs or a consortium of schools
are eligible to apply for funding under
this program; those that do not include
an entity that meets the definition or
that do not partner with one or more
LEAs or a consortium of schools are not
eligible.
However, nothing in the authorizing
statute or the priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria for
this program prevents an eligible
nonprofit organization that partners
with one or more LEAs or a consortium
of schools in accordance with section
14007(a)(1)(B) of the ARRA from
applying with a proposed project that
involves the eligible applicant working
with other entities, including those
mentioned by the commenters. These
other entities would be considered other
4 Note that this requirement pertains to the
entities that are eligible to apply for funding under
this program. In order to receive funding, entities
that meet the Eligible Applicants requirement must
also meet the eligibility requirements discussed
elsewhere in this notice.

PO 00000

Frm 00028

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

partners, as that term is defined in this
notice.
Further, as noted in the preceding
discussion, the Congress amended the
authorizing statute for this program with
respect to a grantee’s ability to make
subgrants. Under new section 14007(d)
of the ARRA, in the case of an eligible
entity that is a partnership under
section 14007(a)(1)(B) of the ARRA, the
partner serving as the fiscal agent may
make subgrants to one or more of the
other entities in the partnership. We are
revising the requirements for this
program to incorporate this statutory
change. In doing so, we interpret the
fiscal agent’s (i.e., the applicant’s)
ability to make subgrants as extending
only to the official partners.5 Thus,
while an eligible applicant can include
other partners in its section
14007(a)(1)(B) partnerships, the
applicant may not make subgrants to
those other partners.
Changes: As discussed elsewhere in
this notice, we are revising the
requirements for this program,
consistent with the amendments to
section 14007 of the ARRA, to specify
that, in the case of an eligible applicant
that is a partnership between a
nonprofit organization and (1) one or
more LEAs or (2) a consortium of
schools, the partner serving as the
applicant may make subgrants to one or
more official partners.
Comment: One commenter
recommended that the Department
clarify the circumstances under which
an applicant may submit multiple
applications for different projects.
Discussion: Under this program, an
eligible applicant may apply alone, if it
is an LEA, or on behalf of a partnership
pursuant to section 14007(a)(1)(B) of the
ARRA. Applications submitted on
behalf of partnerships, consortia, or
groups are subject to the Department’s
regulations in 34 CFR 75.127 and
75.129. Any applicant, whether it is an
LEA or the entity within the partnership
designated as the applicant, may submit
multiple applications for substantially
different projects.
However, to ensure that this program
provides funding for the widest possible
array of innovative projects, we are
adding to the requirements for this
program limits on the awards made to
any individual grantee (see Limits on
Grant Awards). Under this requirement,
the Department will not award more
than two grants to any grantee.
Additionally, no grantee may receive
5 For example, in a partnership between a
nonprofit organization and one or more LEAs for
which the nonprofit organization is the fiscal agent,
the nonprofit organization may make subgrants only
to the LEAs in the partnership.

E:\FR\FM\12MRR2.SGM

12MRR2

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
more than $55 million in grant awards
under this program. Because we
estimate that the maximum awards will
be $50 million, $30 million, and $5
million for Scale-up, Validation, and
Development grants, respectively, this
requirement effectively means that a
grantee awarded a Scale-up grant may
also receive a Development grant, but
may not receive a Validation grant or a
second Scale-up grant.
We note, in addition, that the Funding
Categories requirement for this program
prohibits an applicant from submitting
an application for the same proposed
project under more than one type of
grant.
Changes: We are adding to the
requirements limits on the awards made
to an individual grantee under this
program. Under this requirement, the
Department will not award more than
two grants to any grantee under this
program. Additionally, no grantee may
receive more than $55 million in grant
awards under this program.
Comment: Several commenters asked
that the Department include definitions
of the terms ‘‘LEA’’ and ‘‘educational
service agency’’ from the ESEA in order
to clarify that educational service
agencies are eligible applicants under
this program.
Discussion: Consistent with section
14013(6) of the ARRA, any term used in
this program that is not defined in the
ARRA but is defined in section 9101 of
the ESEA shall have the meaning given
the term in that section. The term ‘‘local
educational agency’’ is defined in
section 9101(26) of the ESEA.
Accordingly, we are using the definition
of ‘‘local educational agency’’ in section
9101(26) of the ESEA for this program.
This definition specifically includes
educational service agencies (defined in
section 9101(17) of the ESEA) and
consortia of those agencies; thus, an
educational service agency may be an
eligible applicant under this program.
We believe it is unnecessary to include
these definitions in this notice as they
are readily available to interested
parties.
While we do not include these
definitions in this notice, we do include
a note about eligibility for LEAs under
this program. The note clarifies that, to
be eligible for this program, an LEA
(whether it is the applicant or an official
partner) must be within one of the 50
States, the District of Columbia, or the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
Changes: Consistent with other minor
changes related to the use of the terms
‘‘applicant’’ and ‘‘eligible applicant,’’ we
are making a minor change to the Note
about LEA Eligibility.

VerDate Nov<24>2008

17:35 Mar 11, 2010

Jkt 220001

Comment: Two commenters
recommended that the Department
clarify whether a partnership of
multiple LEAs may apply for funding
under this program (as opposed to a
single LEA applying on its own).
Discussion: The Department only
makes grant awards to single entities;
the single entity can apply on behalf of
itself or on behalf of a group,
consortium, or partnership in
accordance with the Department’s group
application regulations in 34 CFR
75.127 through 75.129.
Under this program, a single LEA may
apply for a grant pursuant to section
14007(a)(1)(A) of the ARRA. However,
as a single applicant, it could propose
a project that involves working with
other partners (as that term is defined in
this notice); these other partners could
include other LEAs that do not meet the
eligibility requirements for this
program.6 Finally, a single LEA may
serve as the applicant for a partnership
applying under section 14007(a)(1)(B) of
the ARRA. This partnership must
include the official partners, which
could include one or more LEAs, and
may also include other LEAs as other
partners.
Changes: We are adding language to
the Eligible Applicants section of the
requirements to clarify that an eligible
applicant that is a partnership applying
under section 14007(a)(1)(B) of the
ARRA must designate one of its official
partners (as defined in this notice) to
serve as the applicant in accordance
with the Department’s regulations
governing group applications in 34 CFR
75.127 through 75.129.
Comment: Several commenters
recommended that the Department
clarify whether an eligible applicant
that is a partnership may include
multiple nonprofit organizations.
Discussion: An eligible partnership
must include at least one nonprofit
organization as an official partner. An
eligible partnership may include
additional nonprofit organizations as
additional official partners (as defined
in this notice) or as other partners. If a
nonprofit organization is an other
partner (i.e., not an official partner), that
nonprofit organization would not be
eligible to receive a subgrant from the
applicant.
Changes: None.
Comment: A few commenters
recommended that the Department
clarify whether charter schools are
eligible applicants. Specifically, one
6 Pursuant to the Department’s grants regulations,
multiple eligible LEAs could also apply as a group.
However there is no advantage for multiple LEAs
to apply as a group.

PO 00000

Frm 00029

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

12031

commenter recommended clarifying
whether charter schools that are not
identified in State law as having LEA
status, but are otherwise eligible
applicants, may apply without the
review or approval of an LEA.
Discussion: As discussed earlier in
this notice, depending on its legal status
under State law, a charter school may be
eligible to apply under this program in
the following ways: As an LEA on its
own (if it is considered an LEA under
State law); as a nonprofit organization,
in partnership with one or more LEAs
or a consortium of schools (if it meets
the definition of nonprofit organization
under this program); or in partnership
with a nonprofit organization as an LEA
(if it is considered an LEA under State
law) or as part of a consortium of
schools (if it not considered an LEA
under State law). Because charter school
laws vary from State to State, we
encourage any charter school interested
in applying for funds under this
program to verify its status and
authority to receive funds before
applying.
A charter school that does not qualify
as an LEA, a nonprofit organization, or
a school in a consortium of schools may
still be able to be involved with a
project funded under this program. It
could do so as an other partner (as
defined in this notice) provided that the
eligible applicant for the project met all
of the eligibility requirements.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter expressed
concern that the legal framework of the
commenter’s State would prevent
entities from that State from being
eligible to apply for funding under this
program.
Discussion: In general, the
requirements for eligible applicants
under this program do not relate to State
statutes or regulations. Applicants are
required to certify, as part of their
application, that they have the legal
authority to receive program funds.
Changes: None.
Nonprofit Organization
Comment: Several commenters
requested that the Department explicitly
state in the notice that nonprofit
organizations may be the fiscal agent in
an application. Some of these
commenters expressed concern that if
only LEAs or consortia of schools can be
the fiscal agent for a grant, this might
lead them to minimize the roles and
responsibilities of their nonprofit
partners.
Discussion: A nonprofit organization
may serve as the fiscal agent (i.e., the
applicant) applying on behalf of a

E:\FR\FM\12MRR2.SGM

12MRR2

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

12032

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

partnership under section 14007(a)(1)(B)
of the ARRA.
Changes: None.
Comment: A few commenters
recommended that the Department
clarify whether nonprofit organizations
that do not directly work in schools or
with LEAs may still partner with LEAs
or consortia of schools as eligible
applicants.
Discussion: There is no requirement
that a nonprofit organization applying
in partnership with one or more LEAs
or a consortium of schools under section
14007(a)(1)(B) of the ARRA have a
history of working directly in schools or
with LEAs. However, consistent with
the amendments to the eligibility
requirements for this program made by
the Consolidated Appropriations Act,
2010 (as discussed elsewhere in this
notice), for partnerships that include a
nonprofit organization and one or more
LEAs or a consortium of schools, the
nonprofit organization must have a
record of significantly improving
student achievement, attainment, or
retention in order to be eligible for an
award under this program. In
accordance with the requirements
established in this notice, an eligible
applicant that includes a nonprofit
organization must demonstrate that the
nonprofit organization has such a record
through its record of work with an LEA
or schools in the past.
Changes: None.
Comment: Two commenters
recommended that the Department
clarify whether nonprofit organizations
may submit applications that include
multi-city or multi-State partners (i.e.,
LEAs or schools in different cities or
States).
Discussion: Nothing in the
authorizing statute or the priorities,
requirements, definitions, or selection
criteria for this program prohibits
nonprofit organizations from partnering
with LEAs or schools in different
geographic locations.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter expressed
concern that the proposed definition of
nonprofit organization includes
institutions of higher education. The
commenter asserted that the Congress
did not intend to include these
institutions as eligible nonprofit
organizations in section 14007(a)(1)(B)
partnerships.
Discussion: Nothing in the
authorizing statute for this program
prohibits the inclusion of institutions of
higher education in partnerships
eligible to apply under section
14007(a)(1)(B) of the ARRA. Further, we
believe that institutions of higher
education possess unique expertise—

VerDate Nov<24>2008

17:35 Mar 11, 2010

Jkt 220001

particularly regarding methods of
evaluation—that will positively benefit
the types of projects that the Department
seeks to fund under this program. We
have concluded, based on our review of
sections 14007 and 14013 of the ARRA
and section 101(a) of the HEA, that all
entities that meet the definition of
institution of higher education under
section 101(a) of the HEA—whether
they are public or private—may be
considered nonprofit organizations for
purposes of this program.
Changes: None.
Consortium of Schools
Comment: Several commenters
expressed concern that the definition of
the term consortium of schools limits
the schools that may be included in a
consortium only to public schools.
These commenters requested that the
Department expand the definition of
consortium of schools to include private
schools, as well.
Discussion: We believe that it is
consistent with the goals of the ARRA,
which include improving the academic
achievement and attainment of students
in public elementary and secondary
schools, to define consortium of schools
to include only public schools.
However, as discussed earlier in this
notice, a private school may be a partner
within an eligible applicant if it
qualifies as a nonprofit organization and
if it partners with one or more LEAs or
a consortium of public schools. In
addition, we note that private schools
may be included as other partners and
students in those schools could be
served by projects that receive funding
under this program.7
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter
recommended that the Department
expand the definition of consortium of
schools to include Bureau of Indian
Education (BIE) schools.
Discussion: The definition of
consortium of schools includes BIE
schools because BIE schools are public
schools. We note also that a BIE school
may be eligible to apply as an LEA on
its own, or in partnership with a
nonprofit organization, as an LEA,
because the definition of local
educational agency in section 9101(26)
of the ESEA (which we are using in this
program) includes a provision under
7 Note, however, that, under section 14011 of the
ARRA, no recipient of ARRA funding, including a
grantee under this program, may provide financial
assistance to students to attend private elementary
or secondary schools, unless funds are used to
provide special education and related services to
children with disabilities, as authorized by the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20
U.S.C. 1400 et seq.).

PO 00000

Frm 00030

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

which a BIE school may be considered
an LEA. If a BIE school is considered an
LEA, the BIE school would be able to
apply as an eligible LEA on its own, or
in partnership with a nonprofit
organization, consistent with the
requirements for eligible applicants
under this program. In addition, a BIE
school could also be involved with a
project as an other partner.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested
that the Department broaden the
definition of consortium of schools to
include university schools of education.
Discussion: The proposed definition
of consortium of schools is limited to
public elementary and secondary
schools. As discussed earlier in this
notice, we regard this definition as
consistent with the authorizing statute’s
goal of improving the academic
achievement and attainment of students
in public elementary and secondary
schools. However, as discussed
elsewhere in this notice, an institution
of higher education (as defined in
section 101(a) of the HEA) may apply
for funding under this program as a
nonprofit organization in partnership
with one or more LEAs or a consortium
of schools. In addition, an institution of
higher education could also be involved
with a project as an other partner.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter
recommended that the Department
expand the definition of consortium of
schools to include public or private
early learning providers.
Discussion: In the NPP, we proposed
to define consortium of schools as two
or more public elementary or secondary
schools. As discussed earlier in this
notice, we determined that including
only public elementary and secondary
schools in this definition is consistent
with the ARRA’s goal of improving the
academic achievement and attainment
of students in public elementary and
secondary schools. Thus, we decline to
include early learning providers in the
definition of consortium of schools,
unless they are considered to be part of
a public elementary school under State
law. However, any early learning
provider (whether public or private)
would be eligible to apply for funding
under this program if it is (1) an LEA or
(2) a nonprofit organization applying in
partnership with one or more LEAs or
a consortium of schools. In addition, an
eligible applicant (whether an LEA or
partnership applicant) would not be
prohibited from including early learning
providers as other partners to the
proposed project provided that the
eligible applicant otherwise met the
eligibility requirements. We believe that

E:\FR\FM\12MRR2.SGM

12MRR2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
these provisions are sufficient to allow
for the participation of early learning
providers in projects under this
program.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter expressed
concern that many public schools may
be unaware that it is illegal for them
under State law to accept Federal
funding that is not distributed through
their LEA. The commenter
recommended including a note in the
requirements providing that any
applicant that applies on behalf of a
partnership that includes a consortium
of schools must include as part of the
application a signed authorization from
the legal authority for each of the
schools in the consortium (generally the
LEA).
Discussion: Eligible applicants should
act consistent with State law when
applying for, receiving, or using funds
under this program. Applicants are
required to certify, as part of their
application, that they have the legal
authority to receive program funds. We
do not believe it is necessary also to
require that an applicant include as part
of its application a signed authorization
from the legal authority for each of the
schools in the consortium.
Changes: None.
Eligibility Requirements
Eligibility Requirements in General

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

Note: As noted in the NPP, proposed
paragraphs (1) through (4) of the eligibility
requirements for this program repeated
requirements prescribed by section 14007 of
the ARRA. We included these requirements
in the NPP for clarity. As we do not have
authority to alter or eliminate statutorilyprescribed requirements, we do not discuss
comments recommending changes to, or
deletions of, these requirements. However,
we also received a number of comments
requesting further clarification of the
proposed requirements or recommending
inclusion of additional eligibility
requirements. We discuss those comments in
the paragraphs that follow.

In addition, we note that, since
publication of the NPP, the Congress
amended the ARRA with respect to the
eligibility requirements for this
program. We are revising the eligibility
requirements for this program to
incorporate those statutory changes. We
discuss these revisions in the
immediately following paragraphs and
elsewhere in this section, as
appropriate.
Comment: None.
Discussion: As stated in the NPP,
paragraphs (1) through (4) of the
proposed eligibility requirements for
this program repeated requirements
prescribed by section 14007 of the

VerDate Nov<24>2008

17:35 Mar 11, 2010

Jkt 220001

ARRA. Section 307 of Division D of the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010
(Pub. L. 111–117), which was signed
into law on December 16, 2009, made
several amendments to these statutory
requirements. The major substantive
changes to section 14007 are discussed
in the following paragraphs.
Section 14007(b)(1) has been
amended to require that, to be eligible
for an award under this program, an
eligible applicant must (A) have
significantly closed the achievement
gaps between groups of students
described in section 1111(b)(2) of the
ESEA, or (B) have demonstrated success
in significantly increasing student
academic achievement for all groups of
students described in such section. In
addition, section 14007(b)(2) of the
ARRA has been eliminated; this section
would have required that an eligible
applicant 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). As
a result of this amendment, to be
eligible for an award, eligible applicants
are no longer required to have exceeded
the State’s annual measurable objectives
consistent with section 1111(b)(2) of the
ESEA for two or more consecutive years.
In addition, the statutory changes make
clear that eligible applicants do not have
to show that they have both
significantly closed achievement gaps
and significantly increased student
achievement for all groups described in
section 1111(b)(2) of the ESEA. Rather,
eligible applicants must show either (A)
that they have significantly closed the
achievement gaps between groups of
students described in section 1111(b)(2)
of the ESEA or (B) that they have
demonstrated success in significantly
increasing student academic
achievement for all groups described in
such section.
Section 14007(c) of the ARRA has
been amended to specify that an eligible
applicant that includes a nonprofit
organization is considered to have met
the requirements of new paragraphs (1)
and (2) of section 14007(b) if the
nonprofit organization has a record of
significantly improving student
achievement, attainment, or retention.
Under the amendments to section
14007(c), an eligible applicant that
includes a nonprofit organization is thus
no longer required to demonstrate that
the nonprofit organization has a record

PO 00000

Frm 00031

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

12033

of each of the following: (1) Having
significantly closed the achievement
gaps between groups of students
described in section 1111(b)(2) of the
ESEA; (2) having exceeded the State’s
annual measurable objectives consistent
with section 1111(b)(2) of the ESEA for
two or more consecutive years or having
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 (3) having made significant
improvement in other areas, such as
graduation rates or increased
recruitment and placement of highquality teachers and school leaders, as
demonstrated with meaningful data.
Instead, an eligible applicant is required
to demonstrate that the nonprofit
organization in the partnership has a
record of significantly improving
student achievement, attainment, or
retention.
In addition, section 14007(c) of the
ARRA has been amended to specify that
an eligible applicant that includes a
nonprofit organization is considered to
have met the requirements of new
paragraph (3) of section 14007(b) if it
demonstrates that it will meet the
requirement relating to private-sector
matching. This statutory change makes
clear that the requirement in section
14007(b)(3) of the ARRA relating to
establishing partnerships with the
private sector does not apply to such an
eligible applicant, as the eligible
applicant by its very nature consists of
such a partnership, and thus does not
require an eligible applicant that
includes a nonprofit organization to
establish additional partnerships with
the private sector.
Changes: We are making several
changes to the eligibility requirements
for this program to reflect these
statutory changes. Consistent with the
amendments to section 14007(b) of the
ARRA, we are revising proposed
paragraph (1) of the eligibility
requirements to require that, to be
eligible for an award under this
program, an eligible applicant must—
except as specifically set forth in the
requirements: (A) Have significantly
closed the achievement gaps between
groups of students described in section
1111(b)(2) of the ESEA, or (B) have
demonstrated success in significantly
increasing student academic
achievement for all groups of students
described in such section. We are also
removing proposed paragraph (2) of the
eligibility requirements, which would
have required that an eligible applicant

E:\FR\FM\12MRR2.SGM

12MRR2

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

12034

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

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).
We are redesignating the subsequent
paragraphs of the eligibility
requirements accordingly.
Consistent with the amendments to
section 14007(c) of the ARRA, we are
revising the Note about Eligibility for an
Eligible Applicant that Includes a
Nonprofit Organization to specify that
an eligible applicant that includes a
nonprofit organization is considered to
have met paragraph (1) and paragraph
(2) (proposed paragraph (3)) of the
eligibility requirements for this program
if the nonprofit organization has a
record of significantly improving
student achievement, attainment, or
retention. In addition, we are revising
the Note to specify that an eligible
applicant that includes a nonprofit
organization is considered to have met
paragraph (3) (proposed paragraph (4))
of the eligibility requirements for this
program if it demonstrates that it will
meet the requirement relating to privatesector matching.
Comment: One commenter
recommended that the Department
clarify whether low-performing LEAs
may partner with high-performing LEAs
that meet all the eligibility
requirements. This commenter argued
that this approach would allow lowperforming LEAs that do not meet the
requirements to still benefit from funds
under this program. The same
commenter also suggested that if the
lead LEA meets all the requirements, it
should not have to select LEA partners
that also meet those requirements.
Discussion: High-performing LEAs are
permitted to partner with lowperforming LEAs in projects under this
program.
While an LEA that applies for funds
under section 14007(a)(1)(A) of the
ARRA must meet the requirements in
new section 14007(b)(1) through (3) of
the ARRA (which are now reflected in
paragraphs (1) through (3) of the
eligibility requirements, as discussed
elsewhere in this notice), nothing in the
statute or the priorities, requirements,
definitions, or selection criteria for this
program prohibits such an eligible LEA
from proposing a project that involves
the LEA partnering with other partners,
including other LEAs.

VerDate Nov<24>2008

17:35 Mar 11, 2010

Jkt 220001

In addition, a section 14007(a)(1)(B)
partnership could include one or more
LEAs, either as an official partner or as
an other partner that does not meet the
eligibility requirements. This is because
the partnership is deemed to have met
the eligibility requirements in new
section 14007(b)(1) through (3) of the
ARRA if the nonprofit organization in
the partnership satisfies the
requirements in new section 14007(c) of
the ARRA.
Changes: None.
Proposed Paragraph (1) of Eligibility
Requirements: Significantly Closed
Achievement Gaps
Comment: Several commenters
recommended that the Department
clarify what the phrase ‘‘significantly
closed the achievement gaps’’ means in
proposed paragraph (1) of the eligibility
requirements. Many commenters were
particularly interested in clarification of
the term ‘‘significantly;’’ many asked for
guidance as to how to measure whether
an achievement gap was significantly
closed. For example, one commenter
requested that the Department provide
the requisite time period that should be
used to measure whether an
achievement gap has been closed.
Another commenter suggested having
flexible indicators for judging whether
or not eligible applicants have
significantly closed the achievement
gaps, such as increases in grade point
average, gains in standardized test
scores, as well as qualitative measures.
One commenter argued that the
Department should not interpret the
phrase ‘‘significantly closed’’ to mean
full achievement gap closure across all
grade levels and subject areas, while
another commenter argued that eligible
applicants who can show success in
raising achievement system-wide and
moving all students toward proficiency
should satisfy this requirement. One
commenter recommended that the
Department allow an eligible applicant
to meet this eligibility requirement
through an intermediate variable
directly correlated with significantly
closing the achievement gaps. The
commenter expressed concern that
without including such language, the
program might exclude eligible
applicants with innovative programs for
which it has been difficult to directly
measure progress in student
achievement.
Discussion: Proposed paragraph (1) of
the eligibility requirements, which
repeats the eligibility requirement in old
section 14007(b)(1) of the ARRA (new
section 14007(b)(1)(A) of the ARRA),
states that to be eligible for an award, an
eligible applicant must have

PO 00000

Frm 00032

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

significantly closed the achievement
gaps between groups of students
described in section 1111(b)(2) of the
ESEA. The Department declines to
define the term ‘‘significantly’’ for
purposes of this eligibility requirement.
Given the diversity of potential
eligible applicants under this program,
the Department wishes to encourage
eligible applicants to present their
arguments for how they have
significantly closed the achievement
gaps. Similarly, the Department
understands that eligible applicants will
bring to bear different areas of expertise
and that they likely will focus on
improving various aspects of student
achievement. Eligible applicants are
best suited to present information on
how they have significantly closed those
achievement gaps and to determine the
metrics by which they measure those
achievements. Because the Department
is not identifying the specific measures
or variables that an eligible applicant
may use to meet this requirement,
eligible applicants would not be
prohibited from using an intermediate
variable strongly correlated with
significantly closing the achievement
gaps.
Changes: None.
Comment: A number of commenters
recommended that the Department
clarify whether, to meet this eligibility
requirement, an eligible applicant must
have significantly closed achievement
gaps between all groups described in
section 1111(b)(2) of the ESEA, or
whether eligible applicants that have
significantly closed the achievement
gaps between some groups, but not all,
would be eligible for an award. One
commenter pointed to success in
narrowing the achievement gaps
between African American and white
students, but not across all groups.
Discussion: The Department interprets
the eligibility requirement reflected in
old section 14007(b)(1) of the ARRA
(new section 14007(b)(1)(A) of the
ARRA) as concerning the achievement
of students in the groups of students in
section 1111(b)(2) of the ESEA (i.e.,
economically disadvantaged students,
students from major racial and ethnic
groups, students with limited English
proficiency, students with disabilities)
relative to the achievement of the ‘‘all
students’’ category under section
1111(b)(2)(C)(v)(I) of the ESEA. To meet
this requirement, therefore, an eligible
applicant must have significantly closed
the gap in achievement between at least
one of those groups and the ‘‘all
students’’ category. An eligible applicant
is not required to have significantly
closed achievement gaps between all of
those student groups and the ‘‘all

E:\FR\FM\12MRR2.SGM

12MRR2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

students’’ category, or to have
significantly closed achievement gaps
between each of the student groups
themselves.
Changes: None.
Proposed Paragraph (2) of Eligibility
Requirements: Exceeded the State’s
Annual Measurable Objectives for Two
Years in a Row, or Demonstrated
Success in Significantly Increasing
Student Achievement for All Groups of
Students
Comment: One commenter requested
clarification as to how the Department
interprets proposed paragraph (2) of the
eligibility requirements. The commenter
asked the Department to confirm that an
eligible applicant would meet this
requirement if it satisfied either the
‘‘AMO’’ clause of this requirement (i.e.,
have exceeded the State’s annual
measurable objectives consistent with
section 1111(b)(2) of the ESEA for two
or more consecutive years) or the
‘‘another measure’’ clause (i.e., have
demonstrated success in significantly
increasing student achievement for all
groups of students described in section
1111(b)(2) of the ESEA through another
measure, such as measures described in
section 1111(c)(2) of the ESEA (i.e., the
National Assessment of Educational
Progress)).
Discussion: Proposed paragraph (2) of
the eligibility requirements, which
repeated the eligibility requirement in
old section 14007(b)(2) of the ARRA,
stated that an eligible applicant must
have exceeded the State’s annual
measurable objectives consistent with
section 1111(b)(2) of the ESEA for two
or more consecutive years (the ‘‘AMO’’
clause) or have demonstrated success in
significantly increasing student
achievement for all groups of students
described in such section through
another measure, such as measures
described in section 1111(c)(2) of the
ESEA (i.e., the National Assessment of
Educational Progress) (the ‘‘another
measure’’ clause). As discussed earlier
in this notice, section 307 of Division D
of the Consolidated Appropriations Act,
2010 amended the ARRA by removing
this requirement. As amended, the
ARRA now requires that an eligible
applicant either (A) have significantly
closed the achievement gaps between
groups of students described in section
1111(b)(2) of the ESEA (20 U.S.C.
6311(b)(2)), or (B) have demonstrated
success in significantly increasing
student academic achievement for all
groups of students described in such
section. We are revising the eligibility
requirements to incorporate these
statutory changes. Therefore, an eligible
applicant can meet this eligibility

VerDate Nov<24>2008

17:35 Mar 11, 2010

Jkt 220001

requirement by showing either (A) or (B)
above; it is not required to show that it
has done both.
Changes: Consistent with the
amendments to section 14007(b) of the
ARRA, we are revising proposed
paragraph (1) of the eligibility
requirements to require that, to be
eligible for an award under this
program, an eligible applicant must—
except as specifically set forth in the
Note about Eligibility for an Eligible
Applicant that Includes a Nonprofit
Organization: (A) Have significantly
closed the achievement gaps between
groups of students described in section
1111(b)(2) of ESEA, or (B) have
demonstrated success in significantly
increasing student academic
achievement for all groups of students
described in such section. We are also
removing proposed paragraph (2) of the
eligibility requirements, which would
have required that an eligible applicant
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).
Comment: A number of commenters
recommended that the Department
clarify the meaning of the phrase
‘‘success in significantly increasing
student achievement’’ in the ‘‘another
measure’’ clause of proposed paragraph
(2) of the eligibility requirements.
Commenters asked what standard the
Department will use to determine
whether eligible applicants have met
this requirement.
Discussion: As discussed earlier in
this notice, the Department declines to
define the term ‘‘significantly’’ as it is
used in paragraph (1)(A) of the
eligibility requirements. Similarly here,
the Department declines to define the
term ‘‘significantly’’ as it is used in the
requirement mentioned by the
commenters (which is now
incorporated, consistent with the
amendments to section 14007(b) of the
ARRA, in paragraph (1)(B) of the
eligibility requirements). Given the
diversity of potential eligible applicants,
the Department wishes to encourage
eligible applicants to present their
arguments for how they have
significantly increased student
academic achievement. The Department
also understands that eligible applicants
will bring to bear different areas of
expertise and will focus on improving
various aspects of student achievement.

PO 00000

Frm 00033

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

12035

Eligible applicants are best suited to
present information on how they have
significantly increased student
achievement and to determine the
metrics by which they measure those
achievements.
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters argued
that although the ‘‘another measure’’
clause of proposed paragraph (2) of the
eligibility requirements mentions NAEP
as an example of an appropriate
alternative measure for demonstrating
success in significantly increasing
student achievement, NAEP does not
provide information at the LEA level.
These commenters requested that the
Department provide other examples of
acceptable achievement measures that
eligible applicants can use under the
‘‘another measure’’ clause to
demonstrate success in significantly
increasing student achievement, such as
graduation rates, Advanced Placement
and International Baccalaureate course
completion, SAT or PSAT scores, and
college enrollment rates.
Two other commenters argued that
although NAEP is referenced in section
1111(c)(2) of the ESEA, that section
refers to ‘‘Other Provisions to Support
Teaching and Learning,’’ not student
achievement, which is addressed in
section 1111(b) of the ESEA. Those
commenters argued that it is, therefore,
not appropriate to cite section 1111(c)(2)
of the ESEA (i.e., NAEP) as an
appropriate measure of student
achievement.
Discussion: As discussed earlier in
this notice, section 307 of Division D of
the Consolidated Appropriations Act,
2010, amended the ARRA by
eliminating the requirement set forth in
proposed paragraph (2) of the eligibility
requirements. As amended, the ARRA
now requires that an eligible entity
either (A) have significantly closed the
achievement gaps between groups of
students described in section 1111(b)(2)
of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(2)), or
(B) have demonstrated success in
significantly increasing student
academic achievement for all groups of
students described in such section.
Under the amendments, the eligibility
requirements thus no longer mention
NAEP as an example of an appropriate
alternative measure for demonstrating
significant student achievement. We
believe that these statutory changes
respond to the commenters’ concerns
regarding NAEP.
With respect to the comments
requesting other examples of acceptable
achievement measures, we decline to
incorporate these examples in the
eligibility requirements. As discussed
earlier in this notice, we believe that

E:\FR\FM\12MRR2.SGM

12MRR2

12036

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

eligible applicants are best suited to
identify and present information on
how they have significantly increased
student achievement and do not wish to
limit the metrics by which they measure
those achievements.
Changes: Consistent with the
amendments to section 14007(b) of the
ARRA, we are revising proposed
paragraph (1) of the eligibility
requirements to require that, to be
eligible for an award under this
program, an eligible applicant must—
except as specifically set forth in the
Note about Eligibility for an Eligible
Applicant that Includes a Nonprofit
Organization: (A) have significantly
closed the achievement gaps between
groups of students described in section
1111(b)(2) of the ESEA, or (B) have
demonstrated success in significantly
increasing student academic
achievement for all groups of students
described in such section. We are also
removing proposed paragraph (2) of the
eligibility requirements and
renumbering the remaining
requirements accordingly.

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

Proposed Paragraph (3) (Newly
Redesignated Paragraph (2)) of
Eligibility Requirements: Made
Significant Improvements in Other
Areas
Comment: One commenter
recommended that the Department
clarify the term ‘‘significant
improvement’’ in proposed paragraph
(3) of the eligibility requirements.
Discussion: Proposed paragraph (3)
(newly redesignated paragraph (2)) of
the eligibility requirements, which
repeated the eligibility requirement in
old section 14007(b)(3) of the ARRA
(new section 14007(b)(2)), states that an
eligible applicant must have made
significant improvement in other areas,
such as graduation rates or increased
recruitment and placement of highquality teachers and school leaders, as
demonstrated with meaningful data.
The Department declines to provide a
definition of the term ‘‘significant
improvement’’ as that term is used in
this requirement. The Department
wishes to encourage a diverse set of
eligible applicants, and believes that
eligible applicants are best suited to
provide arguments for whether or not
their improvements are significant.
Eligible applicants are encouraged to
present their arguments for how they
have made significant improvements in
other areas and are not limited in the
metrics by which they measure those
improvements.
Changes: None.

VerDate Nov<24>2008

17:35 Mar 11, 2010

Jkt 220001

Proposed Paragraph (4) (Newly
Redesignated Paragraph (3)) of
Eligibility Requirements: Established
Private-sector Partnerships
Comment: Several commenters
suggested that the Department clarify
proposed paragraph (4) of the eligibility
requirements with respect to how many
and what types of partnerships are
permitted. Specifically, these
commenters suggested that the
Department clarify whether one or more
private-sector partners could provide
matching funds or in-kind donations.
One commenter suggested that the
Department also clarify whether eligible
applicants may include private-sector
partners that do not provide matching
funds or in-kind donations. Another
commenter suggested that the
Department clarify whether privatesector partners may provide products or
services that are used as core
components in a project.
Discussion: Proposed paragraph (4) of
the eligibility requirements, which
repeated the eligibility requirement in
old section 14007(b)(4) of the ARRA,
stated that eligible applicants must
demonstrate they that 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.
Section 307 of Division D of the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010,
amended section 14007(b)(4) of the
ARRA to clarify that, to be eligible for
an award, an eligible applicant must
demonstrate that it has established one
or more partnerships with the private
sector. We are revising proposed
paragraph (4) (newly redesignated
paragraph (3)) to incorporate this
statutory change. Thus, the revised
eligibility requirement makes clear that
there are no limits on the number of
private-sector partnerships that an
eligible applicant may establish.
The statutory requirement likewise
does not set any limits on the types of
private-sector partnerships that an
eligible applicant may establish, except
that they must be non-governmental and
that, through one or more of these
partnerships, the eligible applicant must
obtain matching funds from the private
sector in order to help bring results to
scale. An eligible applicant would not
be prohibited under this requirement
from establishing partnerships with the
private sector for additional purposes.
Changes: Consistent with the
amendments to section 14007(b) of the
ARRA, we are revising proposed
paragraph (4) (newly redesignated
paragraph (3)) to clarify that, to be

PO 00000

Frm 00034

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

eligible for an award, an eligible
applicant must demonstrate that it has
established one or more partnerships
with the private sector.
Comment: Several commenters asked
the Department to clarify the phrase
‘‘established partnerships’’ in proposed
paragraph (4) of the eligibility
requirements with respect to whether
partnerships with the private sector
must have previously existed or be
ongoing.
Discussion: Proposed paragraph (4)
(newly redesignated paragraph (3)) of
the eligibility requirements does not
require that an eligible applicant utilize
preexisting or ongoing partnerships
with the private sector. To meet this
requirement, an eligible applicant may
establish new partnerships or use
existing ones.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter
recommended that the Secretary
establish authority to waive the
requirement that eligible applicants
have established partnerships with the
private sector if it can be determined
that the lack of such partnerships will
not adversely affect the implementation
of a project under this program. Other
commenters recommended that the
Secretary waive this requirement for
eligible applicants from rural areas
because it will be difficult for these
eligible applicants to find private-sector
partners to provide matching funds.
Discussion: As noted earlier in this
notice, proposed paragraph (4) (newly
redesignated paragraph (3)) of the
eligibility requirements repeats statutory
requirements from the ARRA. The
Secretary does not intend to waive these
requirements and believes strongly that
innovative projects to improve student
achievement and attainment should
include partnerships with the private
sector. However, as discussed in the
Cost Sharing or Matching requirement
of this program, the Secretary may
consider decreasing, in the most
exceptional circumstances, on a case by
case basis, the amount of matching
funds that an eligible applicant must
obtain from the private sector to less
than the required amount (i.e., 20
percent of its grant award). An eligible
applicant that anticipates being unable
to meet the 20 percent matching
requirement may request that the
Secretary reduce the matching level
requirement. The request, along with a
statement of the basis for the request,
must be included in the application.
Changes: None.

E:\FR\FM\12MRR2.SGM

12MRR2

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
Proposed Paragraph (5) (Newly
Redesignated Paragraph (4)) of
Eligibility Requirements: Providing LEA
and School Names
Comment: One commenter offered
strong support for proposed paragraph
(5) of the eligibility requirements
regarding the LEA and school
information that a nonprofit
organization applicant must include in
its application. The commenter asserted
that providing nonprofit organizations
the option to describe the demographics
of the additional LEAs or schools with
which they will partner will give
eligible applicants that include
nonprofit organizations useful flexibility
before and after applying for funds
under this program. Another commenter
suggested that the Department allow an
eligible applicant that includes a
nonprofit organization not to name any
LEA or school partners in its
application, but rather only describe the
demographics and other characteristics
of the LEAs or schools with which the
nonprofit organization intends to
partner. The commenter argued that this
will improve project outcomes by
providing eligible applicants that
include nonprofit organizations with
greater flexibility in the timeline for
forging partnerships.
Discussion: Under section
14007(a)(1)(B) of the ARRA, an eligible
applicant must be a partnership of the
nonprofit organization with (1) one or
more LEAs or (2) a consortium of
schools. To meet this requirement, an
eligible applicant that includes a
nonprofit organization must submit an
application that identifies each of the
official partners in the partnership (i.e.,
the nonprofit organization and at least
one LEA or a consortium of schools).
We will not consider an application
submitted on behalf of an eligible
applicant that includes a nonprofit
organization that does not do so. If the
eligible applicant intends to involve
additional LEAs or schools as additional
official partners at a later date or as
other partners, it is not required to
identify those LEAs or schools in the
application.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter
recommended that the Department
clarify the point at which an eligible
applicant that includes a nonprofit
organization must name any additional
LEAs or schools as partners that were
not identified in its application. The
commenter asked specifically whether
or not additional LEAs or schools must
be named before a grant award is made.
Another commenter recommended that
the Department not allow eligible

VerDate Nov<24>2008

17:35 Mar 11, 2010

Jkt 220001

applicants that include a nonprofit
organization to identify additional LEAs
or schools as partners after a grant has
been awarded. The commenter argued
that all partners in a grant should be
involved from the outset of the grant,
and that LEA eligible applicants are
being held to a different standard than
eligible applicants that include a
nonprofit and are applying under
section 14007(a)(1)(B) of the ARRA
because they are not afforded this same
flexibility with respect to naming
partners.
Discussion: Under proposed
paragraph (5) (newly designated
paragraph (4)), we proposed to permit
an eligible applicant that includes a
nonprofit organization to describe the
demographics and other characteristics
of any additional LEAs or schools with
which it intends to partner (apart from
the official and other partners that it
names in its application) and the
process it will use to select them
because we recognize that this type of
eligible applicant may need additional
time to make official arrangements with
all of its partners beyond the date by
which applications must be submitted
under this program. However, as stated
in the NPP, an eligible applicant that
includes a nonprofit organization must
identify all of its partners (including
other partners) before a grant award is
made; it may not identify additional
partners after this date. We agree with
the commenter that all partners in a
grant should be involved from the outset
of the grant. We do not believe that
allowing nonprofit organization
applicants to name additional partners
prior to receiving a grant award holds
LEA applicants to a more stringent
standard than eligible applicants that
include nonprofit organizations. As
noted in the preceding discussion, an
eligible applicant that includes a
nonprofit organization must still
demonstrate that it has met the
requirements for eligible applicants
under this program and this requires
that the application identify at least one
LEA or a consortium of schools as an
official partner; we will not consider an
application on behalf of an eligible
applicant that includes a nonprofit
organization that does not do so.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested
that the Department require eligible
applicants that include a nonprofit
organization to describe the
demographics of all partner LEAs or
schools in order to better determine and
ensure equity among grant recipients in
terms of students or populations served.
Discussion: Although an eligible
applicant that includes a nonprofit

PO 00000

Frm 00035

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

12037

organization would not be prohibited
from describing the demographics of the
LEAs or schools with which it partners
and names in its application, we do not
believe it is necessary to require them to
do so because we do not intend to use
equity as a selection criterion in making
grant awards under this program. We
also note that if an eligible applicant
that includes a nonprofit organization
intends to partner with additional LEAs
or schools that are not named in the
application, it must describe in the
application the demographics and other
characteristics of these LEAs and
schools and the process it will use to
select them as either official or other
partners.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter
recommended that the Department
require that eligible applicants that
include a nonprofit organization specify
the proposed conditions of the
partnership agreement, including the
roles and responsibilities that each
partner will have, in the grant
application. The commenter noted that
the agreement should include
conditions for autonomy for the
nonprofit organization and specify the
degree to which each partner will have
control over the budget and program
generally.
Discussion: Consistent with the
Department’s regulations governing
group applications in 34 CFR 75.128, a
partnership applicant under this
program must enter into an agreement
that details the activities that each
member of the partnership plans to
perform. We do not believe it is
necessary, however, to require that these
agreements be included as part of the
applications. Further, we do not believe
it is appropriate for the Department to
specify the level of autonomy or control
over projects under this program that
partners may have; rather, we believe
that eligible applicants should have the
flexibility to determine the conditions of
their partnerships on an individual
basis provided that those conditions
comply with these requirements.
We do note, however, that under
Selection Criterion G (Quality of the
Management Plan and Personnel), the
Secretary will consider the adequacy of
the eligible applicant’s management
plan, including clearly defined
responsibilities, timelines and
milestones for accomplishing project
tasks. In responding to this selection
criterion, the eligible applicant is
encouraged to describe the roles and
responsibilities of its partners so that
the Secretary can appropriately evaluate
the eligible applicant’s management
plan.

E:\FR\FM\12MRR2.SGM

12MRR2

12038

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

Changes: None.
Note About Eligibility for an Eligible
Applicant That Includes a Nonprofit
Organization
Comment: One commenter
recommended that the Department
clarify what is meant by the sentence in
the Note about Eligibility for an Eligible
Applicant that Includes a Nonprofit
Organization stating that the eligible
entity shall be considered to have met
the requirements of proposed
paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of the
eligibility requirements if the nonprofit
organization has a record of meeting
those requirements. The commenter
argued that this sentence might exempt
certain eligible applicants from
complying with some of the eligibility
requirements.
Discussion: As discussed earlier in
this notice, the eligibility requirements
that were reflected in proposed
paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of the
eligibility requirements tracked the
statutory requirements from old section
14007(b)(1) through (b)(3) of the ARRA.
Those requirements have been amended
and consolidated into section
14007(b)(1) and (b)(2) of the ARRA. In
addition, section 14007(c) of the ARRA
has been amended to specify that an
eligible entity that includes a nonprofit
organization is considered to have met
the requirements of sections 14007(b)(1)
and (b)(2) of the ARRA (as amended) if
the nonprofit organization has a record
of significantly improving student
achievement, attainment, or retention.
Under the amendments to section
14007(c) of the ARRA, an eligible entity
that includes a nonprofit organization is
thus no longer required to demonstrate
that the nonprofit organization has a
record of meeting proposed paragraphs
(1), (2), and (3) of the eligibility
requirements. Instead, the eligible
applicant is required to demonstrate
that the nonprofit organization has a
record of significantly improving
student achievement, attainment, or
retention. We are revising the Note
about Eligibility for an Eligible
Applicant that Includes a Nonprofit
Organization to incorporate these
statutory changes regarding the
eligibility of an eligible applicant that
includes a nonprofit organization.
Changes: As discussed earlier in this
notice, consistent with the amendments
to section 14007(c) of the ARRA, we are
revising the Note about Eligibility for an
Eligible Applicant that Includes a
Nonprofit Organization to specify that
an eligible applicant that includes a
nonprofit organization is considered to
have met paragraph (1) and paragraph
(2) of the eligibility requirements for

VerDate Nov<24>2008

17:35 Mar 11, 2010

Jkt 220001

this program if the nonprofit
organization has a record of
significantly improving student
achievement, attainment, or retention.
Comment: One commenter
recommended that the Department
clarify whether a nonprofit organization
that cannot meet the eligibility
requirements discussed in the Note
about Eligibility for an Eligible
Applicant that Includes a Nonprofit
Organization may partner with an LEA
or a consortium of schools that meets
those requirements. A number of
commenters requested that, if a
nonprofit organization may partner with
a consortium of schools that meets these
requirements, the Department clarify
whether all schools in the consortium
must meet the requirements.
Discussion: As discussed earlier in
this notice, section 14007(c) of the
ARRA has been amended to specify that
an eligible applicant that includes a
nonprofit organization is considered to
have met the requirements of
paragraphs (1) and (2) of section
14007(b) of the ARRA (as amended) if
the nonprofit organization has a record
of significantly improving student
achievement, attainment, or retention.
We are revising the Note about
Eligibility for an Eligible Applicant that
Includes a Nonprofit Organization to
incorporate these statutory changes.
Thus, any eligible applicant that
includes a nonprofit organization must
demonstrate that the nonprofit
organization in the partnership has a
record of significantly improving
student achievement, attainment, or
retention. Accordingly, an eligible
applicant that includes a nonprofit
organization that cannot demonstrate
that the nonprofit organization in the
partnership has a record of significantly
improving student achievement,
attainment, or retention is not eligible
for an award under this program
(regardless of whether the LEA(s) or
schools with which the nonprofit
organization partners meet the
requirements of paragraph (1) and
paragraph (2) (proposed paragraph (3))
of the eligibility requirements for this
program). However, under this program,
an LEA may apply on its own as an
eligible applicant consistent with
section 14007(a)(1)(A) of the ARRA, and
may partner with other entities,
including nonprofit organizations, as
other partners. In that respect, an LEA
applying under section 14007(a)(1)(A) of
the ARRA that meets the requirements
of paragraph (1) and paragraph (2)
(proposed paragraph (3)) of the
eligibility requirements for this program
may involve entities (including
nonprofit organizations) that do not

PO 00000

Frm 00036

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

meet the applicable eligibility
requirements for this program without
limitation, except as otherwise
proscribed by law.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter
recommended that the Department
consider an eligible applicant that
includes a nonprofit organization to
have met the requirements of proposed
paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of the
eligibility requirements based on the
nonprofit organization’s record of work
with one LEA, instead of more than one
LEA.
Discussion: We originally proposed in
the Note about Eligibility for an Eligible
Applicant that Includes a Nonprofit
Organization that the eligible applicant
must demonstrate that the nonprofit
organization has a record of meeting the
requirements of proposed paragraphs
(1), (2), and (3) of the eligibility
requirements through its work with an
LEA. We are replacing this provision
with a requirement that the nonprofit
organization serving as an official
partner have a record of significantly
improving student achievement,
attainment, or retention, consistent with
the amendments to the authorizing
statute for this program through its work
with an LEA or schools. Thus, there is
no requirement that an eligible
applicant that includes a nonprofit
organization demonstrate that the
nonprofit organization serving as an
official partner has a record of
significantly improving student
achievement, attainment, or retention
through its work with more than one
LEA.
Changes: We are revising the Note to
specify that, to meet this requirement,
an eligible applicant that includes a
nonprofit organization must
demonstrate that it has a record of
significantly improving student
academic achievement, attainment, or
retention through the assistance it has
provided to an LEA or schools in the
past; we are making conforming changes
to Selection Criterion C (Experience of
the Eligible Applicant) for all three
types of grants.
Comment: Two commenters requested
that the Department amend the Note
About Eligibility for an Eligible
Applicant that Includes a Nonprofit
Organization to provide that an eligible
entity that includes a nonprofit
organization may demonstrate that the
nonprofit organization serving as an
official partner has a record of meeting
the requirements in proposed
paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of the
eligibility requirements through its
record of work with an LEA or a
consortium of schools—rather than only

E:\FR\FM\12MRR2.SGM

12MRR2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

through its record of work with an LEA.
The commenters argued that this change
would ensure that nonprofit
organizations that have not worked with
an entire LEA would be eligible if they
can meet the requirements in proposed
paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) based on
their previous work with schools.
Discussion: We agree with the
commenters that, to meet the
requirement that it have a record of
significantly improving student
achievement, attainment, or retention
(which replaces, for eligible applicants
that include a nonprofit organization,
the requirements of proposed
paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of the
eligibility requirements), a nonprofit
organization should not be limited only
to its record of work with an LEA. We
are revising the Note to specify that, to
meet this requirement, an eligible
applicant that includes a nonprofit
organization must provide the nonprofit
organization’s record of work with an
LEA or schools; we are making
conforming changes to Selection
Criterion C (Experience of the
Applicant) for all three types of grants.
Thus, an eligible applicant that includes
a nonprofit organization may provide
the nonprofit organization’s record of
work with schools. However, because
we believe that the nature of this
program and the scope of its goals
require that nonprofit organizations
serving as an official partner have broad
experience, such a nonprofit
organization may not provide its record
of work with only a single school in
order to meet this requirement.
Changes: We are revising the Note to
specify that, to meet this requirement,
an eligible applicant that includes a
nonprofit organization must
demonstrate that it has a record of
significantly improving student
academic achievement, attainment, or
retention through the assistance it has
provided to an LEA or schools in the
past; we are making conforming changes
to Selection Criterion C (Experience of
the Eligible Applicant) for all three
types of grant.
Additional Eligibility Requirements
Comment: One commenter
recommended that the Department add
an eligibility requirement that would
require eligible applicants to have
significantly closed achievement gaps
between genders.
Discussion: We decline to require
eligible applicants to have significantly
closed the achievement gap between
genders in order to be eligible for
funding under this program. While
gender equity in education is a laudable
goal that the Department supports, we

VerDate Nov<24>2008

17:35 Mar 11, 2010

Jkt 220001

do not believe it is necessary to add
such a requirement because the
authorizing statute requires eligible
applicants only to have significantly
closed achievement gaps specifically
between the groups of students
described in section 1111(b)(2) of the
ESEA, which do not include student
gender.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested
that the Department add an eligibility
requirement that would require eligible
applicants to have significantly closed
graduation rate gaps between the
designated groups of students described
in section 1111(b)(2) of the ESEA.
Discussion: The eligibility
requirement reflected in old section
14007(b)(3) of the ARRA (now section
14007(b)(2) of the ARRA) requires
eligible applicants to make significant
improvements in other areas, and
specifically mentions improving
graduation rates as an area of
improvement that would meet the
requirement. We believe that this
requirement, which is now reflected in
paragraph (2) of the eligibility
requirements, provides an appropriate
amount of focus on the need to improve
high school graduation rates. We,
therefore, decline to make the change
recommended by the commenter.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested
that the Department add an eligibility
requirement that would require eligible
applicants to provide documentation
that relevant student achievement data
will be readily available and accessible
for progress monitoring purposes.
Discussion: We do not believe it is
appropriate to include the eligibility
requirement suggested by the
commenter because it could
unnecessarily constrain the types of
projects eligible applicants may submit
for the different types of grants under
this program. We note, however, that
under Selection Criterion D (Quality of
the Project Evaluation) for each type of
grant, the Secretary will consider the
extent to which the methods of project
evaluation will provide high-quality
implementation data and performance
feedback, and permit periodic
assessment of progress toward achieving
intended outcomes.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter
recommended that the Department add
an eligibility requirement that would
require eligible applicants to ensure that
their project, by design or outcome, does
not exacerbate the concentration of
poverty or the racial or linguistic
concentration of students.

PO 00000

Frm 00037

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

12039

Discussion: As discussed earlier in
this notice, the Department believes that
the promotion of diverse student
populations is a laudable goal. We do
not, however, believe that an eligibility
requirement of the type recommended
by the commenter is appropriate for this
program. Consistent with the ARRA, we
seek to ensure that the primary focus of
this program is improving student
academic achievement and attainment.
That said, in discussing the effects of its
proposed project an eligible applicant
may include discussion of the effects of
the project on intermediate variables
that are strongly correlated with
improving student achievement and
attainment outcomes. These
intermediate variables may include
variables on topics such as those the
commenter mentions.
We also note that the Department has
for many years administered the Magnet
Schools Assistance Program. This
program provides grants to LEAs to fund
magnet schools that—in addition to
strengthening students’ academic
knowledge and their attainment of
tangible and marketable skills—will
further the elimination, reduction or
prevention of minority group isolation
in elementary and secondary schools. 20
U.S.C. 7231(b).
Changes: None.
Funding Categories
Comment: Although one commenter
supported the requirement that an
applicant be considered for an award
only for the type of grant for which it
applies, a few commenters noted that an
applicant may have difficulty
determining the grant type under which
its proposed project falls and
recommended that the Department
allow applicants to submit the same
proposed project under more than one
grant category. A few other commenters
recommended that the Department
allow reviewers to move an application
between grant categories or allow an
application that does not meet the level
of evidence for one category of grant to
be considered in another category.
Discussion: We decline to accept the
commenters’ recommendations because
we do not believe it is appropriate for
the Department or its reviewers to
determine the grant category for a
proposed project; rather, eligible
applicants should bear the
responsibility for determining which
grant type most closely matches their
capabilities and needs. Applicants may
submit as many applications as they
deem appropriate—bearing in mind that
the grant categories are different and,
therefore, a project proposed under one
category would not meet the

E:\FR\FM\12MRR2.SGM

12MRR2

12040

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

requirements of another category. This
is the reason the Department does not
believe it makes sense to permit
applicants to submit the same project
under multiple categories.
Changes: None.
Cost Sharing or Matching
Comment: While several commenters
supported the eligibility requirement
that eligible applicants demonstrate that
they have established one or more
partnerships with an entity or
organization in the private sector
(proposed paragraph (4) of the eligibility
requirements), many commenters
disagreed with the proposed
requirement that an eligible applicant
obtain private-sector matching funds or
in-kind donations equal to at least 20
percent of its grant award. These
commenters recommended that the 20
percent private-sector matching funds
requirement be eliminated or reduced.
Commenters cited several reasons for
eliminating or reducing the required
match, including: The possible lack of
available resources from the private
sector, due to current economic
conditions or other reasons; the
possibility that the size of the match
will discourage many small LEAs and
nonprofit organizations from applying;
and the possible unintended
consequence of giving unfair advantage
to entities that already have access to or
relationships with private-sector
organizations. Two commenters
suggested that the Department use a
sliding scale in which the amount of
matching funds would be higher for the
Development and Validation grant
categories and lower for Scale-up grants.
Several other commenters encouraged
the Department to allow an eligible
applicant’s current financial
commitments, including existing
philanthropic donations, to be
reallocated and used to meet the Cost
Sharing or Matching requirement and
not require eligible applicants to raise
new funds. A few commenters
recommended that the Department
allow private-sector funds that support
the entirety of an eligible applicant’s
organizational efforts, not solely or
specifically the eligible applicant’s
proposed project, to be counted toward
the 20 percent private-sector match.
Similarly, one commenter
recommended giving a grantee
flexibility to use matching funds for
more general programmatic costs that
are not necessarily tied to its project.
Discussion: As discussed in the
context of the eligibility requirements
for this program, old section 14007(b)(4)
of the ARRA (new section 14007(b)(3) of
the ARRA) requires an eligible applicant

VerDate Nov<24>2008

17:35 Mar 11, 2010

Jkt 220001

to demonstrate that it has established
one or more partnerships with the
private sector and that the private sector
will provide matching funds in order to
help bring results to scale. The purpose
of the Cost Sharing or Matching
requirement is to help ensure that the
results of the funded projects will be
brought to scale and sustained. The
Department’s decision that eligible
applicants for all three grant types—
Scale-up, Validation, and Development
grants—demonstrate a private-sector
match of at least 20 percent of the total
amount of Federal funds requested for
each proposed project is based on the
belief that this amount of private
support is a strong indicator of the
potential for sustainability of the
proposed project over time. However,
the Department understands the
concerns raised by these commenters
and, in response, provides the following
information and clarifications.
First, in-kind contributions may be
counted towards the 20 percent private
sector matching requirement.
Second, the Secretary will consider
granting waivers of the matching
requirement in the most exceptional
circumstances.
Third, the Department has reviewed
data on private giving in K–12
education over the past several years
and has concluded that the private
sector has the capacity and resources to
fulfill this matching requirement. Data
from the Foundation Center (2007, the
most recent year for which data are
available) indicate that asking the
private sector to provide $130 million
(i.e., 20 percent of the $650 million
appropriated for this program in fiscal
year 2009) over five years will amount
to less than five percent of total K–12
giving from the private sector over that
period of time. We believe that this
reasonably demonstrates availability of
private sector resources to fulfill the
matching requirement.
Fourth, eligible applicants may count
existing private sector support towards
the required match so long as these
funds are reallocated in support of the
project for which the eligible applicant
seeks funding and the eligible applicant
can provide appropriate evidence of this
commitment.
And lastly, as discussed later in this
notice, the Department is changing the
time by which eligible applicants must
demonstrate that they have fulfilled
their matching requirement.
Specifically, rather than secure this
match at the time of application, an
eligible applicant is not required to
demonstrate that it has secured the
match until so requested by the
Department after its application has

PO 00000

Frm 00038

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

been reviewed and scored at the top of
the rank-order list for the respective
types of grants. This means that not all
eligible applicants will be required to
secure a match, and that those required
to do so will not have to secure that
match until after the peer review of
applications.
Based upon this information and
considerations, we do not believe it is
necessary to reduce, eliminate, or
further modify the 20 percent matching
requirement.
Changes: None.
Comment: A few commenters
expressed concern about the time period
in which eligible applicants would need
to secure and provide evidence of the
commitment of the 20 percent privatesector matching funds. Commenters
noted the hesitancy of the private sector
to commit matching funds for multiple
applications before knowing how many
applications will be funded. One
commenter suggested allowing eligible
applicants 150 days after being
approved for funding to secure the 20
percent private-sector match. Another
commenter suggested allowing up to 10
percent of the required match to be
obtained within one year of the award.
Another commenter suggested that the
Department work with private
foundations to include a tiered review
process to minimize the number of
requests private foundations may have
to review before a Federal grant is
awarded.
Discussion: As noted earlier, the
Department is committed to requiring
eligible applicants to obtain a 20 percent
private-sector match to be eligible to
receive funds under this program but is
making some modifications to this
requirement that address the concerns
raised by these commenters. We are
revising the Cost Sharing or Matching
requirement with respect to the timing
of submission of the evidence of the
private-sector match. Selected eligible
applicants are now required to submit
evidence of the full 20 percent privatesector matching funds following the
peer review of applications—not at the
time of application as was initially
proposed by the Department. An award
will not be made unless the applicant
provides adequate evidence that the full
20 percent private-sector match has
been committed or the Secretary
approves the eligible applicant’s request
to reduce the matching-level
requirement.
Eligible applicants that score at the
top of the rank-order list for the
respective types of grant and thus are
being most seriously considered for
funding will be contacted and given a
limited period of time, approximately

E:\FR\FM\12MRR2.SGM

12MRR2

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
four to six weeks, to provide evidence
of the private-sector match. Given that
applications will be submitted in the
spring, we expect that there will be
adequate time between the completion
of the peer review process and the final
deadline for awarding funds under this
program to allow for this additional step
in the grant process.
Changes: We are revising the Cost
Sharing or Matching requirement with
respect to the timing of submission of
the evidence of the private-sector match.
Selected eligible applicants are now
required to submit evidence of the full
20 percent private-sector matching
funds following the peer review of
applications. An award will not be
made unless the applicant provides
adequate evidence that the full 20
percent private-sector match has been
committed or the Secretary approves the
eligible applicant’s request to reduce the
matching-level requirement.
Comment: Several commenters sought
clarification of the types of funding
sources that may be used to satisfy the
Cost Sharing or Matching requirement,
including clarification regarding in-kind
donations. Some commenters suggested
that the Department clarify whether inkind donations may include discounts
off products and services that are
components of the innovation to be
scaled up and that are provided by
private-sector partners. One commenter
recommended that resources from
Federal programs be counted as part of
the match. One commenter
recommended that LEAs be allowed to
reallocate their own funds to meet the
matching requirement.
Discussion: Section 14007(b)(3) of the
ARRA specifically requires a privatesector match for this program. Thus, an
eligible applicant may not use funding
from other Federal programs or other
public sources (including the LEAs’
own funds) to satisfy the Cost Sharing
or Matching requirement.
Discounts off products and services
that are components of the innovation to
be scaled up could be considered inkind donations that count toward the
Cost Sharing and Matching requirement.
Eligible applicants should review the
Department’s regulations on matching
funds, including in-kind contributions,
in 34 CFR 74.23 and 80.24 for further
clarification on requirements pertaining
to in-kind donations.
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters sought
clarification about the conditions that
would constitute the ‘‘most exceptional
circumstances’’ under which the
Secretary might consider reducing the
20 percent private-sector match under

VerDate Nov<24>2008

17:35 Mar 11, 2010

Jkt 220001

the Cost Sharing or Matching
requirement.
Discussion: The Department
understands that there may be
extenuating circumstances that will
create challenges for some eligible
applicants in securing a commitment
from the private sector for the full 20
percent private-sector match. For this
reason, we included in the NPP and are
retaining in this notice a provision in
the Cost Sharing or Matching
requirement that allows an eligible
applicant that believes it will be unable
to obtain the full 20 percent privatesector match to include in its
application a request to the Secretary to
decrease the private-sector match
amount. The Secretary will grant
waivers on a case-by-case basis. As the
Secretary’s decision to decrease the
private-sector match amount will
depend on the individual facts
presented in an eligible applicant’s
request, we decline to describe what
situations might or might not be
considered ‘‘the most exceptional
circumstances’’ warranting the grant of a
waiver.
Changes: None.
Comment: Three commenters
recommended that the Department
clarify whether the Cost Sharing or
Matching requirement applies only to
eligible applicants for Scale-up grants,
and not to eligible applicants for
Validation or Development grants. The
commenters noted that the purpose of
the Cost Sharing or Matching
requirement, as stated in the NPP, is to
help bring results to scale.
Discussion: The Cost Sharing or
Matching requirement applies to all
eligible applicants under this program,
not just to applicants for Scale-up
grants.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter expressed
concern that the Cost Sharing or
Matching requirement does not support
the goal of sustainability because a
matching requirement that lasts only as
long as the life of the grant does not
sustain meaningful reform. The
commenter recommended that the
Department require applicants to
describe the administrative and other
efforts and activities the eligible
applicant will pursue in order to raise
additional funds to sustain the project.
Discussion: The Department believes
that the requirement that matching
funds be from the private sector
increases the likelihood that projects
will be able to be sustained beyond the
grant period. Although the Department
may not require eligible applicants to
obtain matching funds from the private
sector for activities after the grant

PO 00000

Frm 00039

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

12041

period, peer reviewers will consider an
eligible applicant’s plans to sustain its
proposed project after the grant period,
consistent with the selection criteria
related to strategy and capacity to bring
to scale and sustainability (Selection
Criteria E (Strategy and Capacity to
Bring to Scale (in the case of Scale-up
and Validation grants); Strategy and
Capacity to Further Develop and Bring
to Scale (in the case of Development
grants)) and F (Sustainability)).
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter
recommended that the Department
require eligible applicants to notify their
State educational agency if they submit
an application under this program. The
commenter argued that this would
provide the State educational agency
with the ability to leverage these grants
by scaling them up with State or local
funds.
Discussion: This program is subject to
Executive Order 12372 and 34 CFR part
79, which allows States that have
chosen to participate in
Intergovernmental Review the
opportunity to review and comment on
applications submitted to the
Department for funding. We do not
believe it is necessary to separately
require an eligible applicant to notify its
State educational agency that it has
submitted an application for a grant
under this program.
However, eligible applicants should
consider including State educational
agencies as other partners and
leveraging available State and local
funds to increase the reach and
sustainability of proposed projects. As
noted in the preceding discussion, peer
reviewers will consider, in general, the
reach and sustainability of a proposed
project under this program consistent
with the selection criteria related to
strategy and capacity to bring to scale
and sustainability (Selection Criteria E
(Strategy and Capacity to Bring to Scale
(in the case of Scale-up and Validation
grants); Strategy and Capacity to Further
Develop and Bring to Scale (in the case
of Development grants)) and F
(Sustainability)). Applicants may not
include State and local funds in their
cost sharing and cost matching
calculation.
Changes: None.
Evaluation
Note: For an analysis of comments and
changes relating to the proposed evaluation
requirements, please see the Evidence and
Evaluation section elsewhere in this notice.

E:\FR\FM\12MRR2.SGM

12MRR2

12042

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

Participation in Communities of
Practice
Comment: One commenter supported
the requirement that all grantees
participate in communities of practice.
Another commenter recommended that
the Department expand the requirement
to include participation in knowledge
and innovation networks established by
the Department. Under the commenter’s
expanded model, grantees would be
required to participate not only in
communities of practice but also in the
development and implementation of
new networking opportunities. Finally,
two commenters suggested that the
Department use intermediary
organizations to organize and facilitate
the communities of practice among
grantees.
Discussion: All grantees under this
program are required to participate in
communities of practice throughout the
grant period. How those communities of
practice will be organized, who will
facilitate them, and the extent to which
grantees will participate in networks
such as those recommended by the
commenter will be determined by the
Department at a later date. The
expectation is that grantees will have
the opportunity to provide input on the
structure and activities of the
communities of practice and help shape
them as a mechanism to serve grantees
and inform the Department about what
they have learned.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter
recommended that the Department
require grantees to make all outputs
produced through grants under this
program freely available in order to
maximize the program’s reach.
Discussion: At this time, the
Department is only requiring grantees to
make the results of their evaluations
transparent to the public. We are not
specifying how grantees must
disseminate these results because we
believe that grantees are best positioned
to determine the methods of
dissemination that are most appropriate
for their organizations.
It should be noted, however, that the
Department has regulations related to
products produced with grant funds.
Specifically, under 34 CFR 75.621,
grantees may copyright intellectual
property produced with Department
grant funds. However, under 34 CFR
74.36 and 80.34, the Department retains
a non-exclusive and irrevocable license
to reproduce, publish, or otherwise use
those project materials for government
purposes. This gives the Department the
authority needed to ensure that

VerDate Nov<24>2008

17:35 Mar 11, 2010

Jkt 220001

materials produced in these grants can
be made available to the public.
Changes: None.
Definitions
Definitions Related to Evidence
Note: For an analysis of comments and
changes regarding the proposed Definitions
Related to Evidence, please see the Evidence
and Evaluation section elsewhere in this
notice.

Other Definitions
Note: We provide analyses of comments
and changes regarding the proposed
definitions of highly effective school leader,
highly effective teacher, persistently lowperforming schools, and rural LEA in the
PRIORITIES section earlier in this preamble.
We discuss comments and changes regarding
other definitions in the proposed Other
Definitions in the paragraphs that follow.

Formative Assessment
Comment: None.
Discussion: As we indicated in
footnote 9 of the NPP, we use for this
program many of the same terms that
are used and defined in the Race to the
Top Fund and other programs
supported with ARRA funds. We further
stated in the NPP that we would align
the definitions for those terms, as
appropriate, with those used in the Race
to the Top Fund program. Accordingly,
we are making minor changes to the
definition of the term formative
assessment for consistency with the
definition of this term in the Race to the
Top Fund program (see 74 FR 59804).
Changes: We are revising the
definition of formative assessment to
mean assessment questions, tools, and
processes that are embedded in
instruction and are used by teachers and
students to provide timely feedback for
purposes of adjusting instruction to
improve learning.
Interim Assessment
Comment: One commenter
recommended that the Department
include, in the definition of interim
assessment, student report card scores
provided that the scores are assigned
relative to specified standards.
Discussion: We do not believe it is
appropriate to include student report
card scores in the definition of interim
assessment because these scores are
reporting tools, not assessments.
Assessments that are used in producing
such scores, however, may meet the
definition of interim assessment to the
extent they evaluate knowledge and
skills relative to a specific set of
academic standards.
Changes: None.

PO 00000

Frm 00040

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

High-Need Student
Comment: While a number of
commenters supported the proposed
definition of the term high-need
student, several commenters
recommended that the Department
modify the definition to include the
following types of students: Gifted and
talented students, students who are
pregnant or parenting, students who
have been held in a juvenile detention
facility; students meeting only
minimum standards; students who are
high-achieving but live in high-risk
communities; American Indian, Alaska
Native, and Native Hawaiian students;
students whose parents have not
graduated from college; students who
are racially isolated; and students who
demonstrate adverse patterns of
behavior, attendance, discipline, or
other non-academic outcomes that
impede overall success.
Discussion: The Department
understands the interest of the
commenters in expanding the definition
of high-need student to include other
categories of students at risk of
educational failure or otherwise in need
of special assistance and support. While
the proposed definition provided
examples of these types of students,
those examples are not intended to be
an exclusive list. Eligible applicants
may include other types of students
they consider to be high-need as
students to be served by their proposed
projects.
As noted elsewhere in this notice, in
cases where this program defines a term
that is used and defined in other
programs supported with ARRA funds,
we intend to use the same definitions.
For consistency with the definition of
high-need student used in the Race to
the Top Fund program, we are making
a minor change in the definition of the
term for this program by including
students who attend high minority
schools (as defined by the State in
which the students attend school) as an
additional example.
Changes: We are revising the
definition of the term high-need student
by adding to the list of students who are
at risk of educational failure students
who attend high-minority schools (as
defined by the student’s State).
Regional Level
Comment: Three commenters asked
for greater clarity and specificity
regarding the definition of the term
regional level. Specifically, the
commenters sought clarification on the
following issues: What constitutes a
regional level project; whether a
regional level project must be

E:\FR\FM\12MRR2.SGM

12MRR2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

implemented in more than one LEA;
and whether a project that serves
multiple regions of a single, large, urban
LEA would qualify as a regional level
project.
Discussion: The proposed definition
of regional level, as used in connection
with Scale-up and Validation grants,
describes projects that are able to serve
a variety of communities and student
populations within a State or multiple
States, including rural and urban areas.
We are revising the definition of
regional level to clarify that, to meet the
definition, a project must serve students
in more than one LEA, excluding a
project implemented in a State in which
the State educational agency is the sole
educational agency for all schools and
thus may be considered an LEA under
section 9101(26) of the ESEA. Thus, a
project that is implemented in a single
LEA (if not the sole educational agency
for all schools in a State) would not be
considered a regional level project
consistent with the definition of
regional level used in this program.
Changes: We are revising the
definition of regional level to clarify
that, to meet the definition, a project
must serve students in more than one
LEA, excluding a project implemented
in a State in which the State educational
agency is the sole educational agency
for all schools and thus may be
considered an LEA under section
9101(26) of the ESEA.
Student Achievement
Comment: Several commenters
recommended that the Department
revise the definition of student
achievement to clarify that student
achievement can be determined using
multiple measures. These commenters
recommended that we revise the
definition to include additional
measures such as the following: Grades;
end-of-course exams; rates at which
students are on track to graduate from
high school or meet learning objectives;
Advanced Placement exams; college
readiness measures or tests; career
readiness measures such as technical
skill attainment and work-place
readiness assessments; formative
assessments; interim assessments if
aligned to end-of-course exams or LEA
pacing guides; online reading
comprehension measures; assessments
of student writing, presentations,
performances, projects, portfolios, and
group work.
Discussion: The Department agrees
with the commenters about the need for
multiple ways in which to measure
student achievement. We did not intend
for the proposed definition of student
achievement to preclude the use of

VerDate Nov<24>2008

17:35 Mar 11, 2010

Jkt 220001

multiple measures including those
recommended by the commenters
provided that, for the tested grades and
subjects, the measures include student
performance on State assessments. That
said, to ensure consistency in
definitions of terms across programs
supported with ARRA funds, we are
revising the definition of student
achievement used in this program. The
revised definition retains the flexibility
for eligible applicants to use multiple
measures of student achievement but
also requires that the measures used be
rigorous and comparable across
classrooms.
Changes: We are revising the
definition of student achievement to
mean—
(a) For tested grades and subjects:
(1) A student’s score on the State’s
assessments under section 1111(b)(3) of
the ESEA; and, as appropriate, (2) other
measures of student learning, such as
those described in paragraph (b) of this
definition, provided they are rigorous
and comparable across classrooms; and
(b) For non-tested grades and subjects:
Alternative measures of student learning
and performance such as student scores
on pre-tests and end-of-course tests;
student performance on English
language proficiency assessments; and
other measures of student achievement
that are rigorous and comparable across
classrooms.
Comment: Several commenters
recommended that the Department
revise the definition of student
achievement to include data on student
achievement in non-tested grades and
subjects including the arts.
Discussion: The definition of student
achievement under this program would
not preclude the use of data on student
achievement in non-tested grades and
subjects; in fact, paragraph (b) of the
definition requires the use of such data.
Changes: None.
Comment: A few commenters
recommended that the Department
revise the definition of student
achievement to include measures for
early learning such as school readiness
assessments. A few other commenters
recommended that the Department
include nonacademic measures such as
measures of student attendance and
engagement.
Discussion: Within the definition of
student achievement, we intend to
include only measures relating directly
to student academic performance in the
elementary and secondary grades and
subjects. We note, however, that,
consistent with the selection criterion
regarding Selection Criterion B
(Strength of Research, Significance of
Effect, and Magnitude of Effect), eligible

PO 00000

Frm 00041

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

12043

applicants may also demonstrate the
success of their proposed projects using
intermediate variables that are strongly
correlated with improving student
achievement and attainment outcomes.
These variables may include school
readiness and nonacademic measures
such as those recommended by the
commenters.
Changes: None.
Comment: Two commenters
recommended that the Department
expand the definition of student
achievement to include measures
regarding postsecondary education,
namely, rates at which students enroll
in an institution of higher education
(including two- and four-year colleges
and trade and vocational schools) and
complete one year’s worth of college
credit within two years.
Discussion: As outlined in the
preceding discussion, within the
definition of student achievement, we
intend to include only measures relating
directly to student academic
performance in the elementary and
secondary grades and subjects.
However, we agree with the commenters
that it is important to recognize and
support projects under this program that
improve college enrollment and
completion rates. We are revising
Selection Criterion B (Strength of
Research, Significance of Effect, and
Magnitude of Effect) to include college
enrollment and completion rates among
the student achievement and attainment
outcomes for which the Secretary will
consider the effect of a proposed project.
Changes: We are revising Selection
Criterion B (Strength of Research,
Significance of Effect, and Magnitude of
Effect) to include college enrollment
and completion rates among the student
achievement and attainment outcomes
for which the Secretary will consider
the effect of a proposed project.
Comment: One commenter
recommended that the Department
clarify that paragraph (b) of the
definition of student achievement refers
to STEM-related academic subjects,
thereby eliminating any confusion over
the provision’s application to all
academic subjects.
Discussion: The definition of student
achievement does not limit the nontested subjects to STEM-related subjects
and includes any non-tested academic
subject. We note also that science is a
tested subject—States are required to
administer assessments in science under
the ESEA.
Changes: None.
Student Growth
Comment: One commenter suggested
that the Department revise the

E:\FR\FM\12MRR2.SGM

12MRR2

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

12044

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

definition of student growth to specify
that student growth data must be based
on criterion-referenced growth measures
rather than norm-referenced measures.
Discussion: We do not believe it is
appropriate to require that student
growth data be based on a specific
growth measure because to do so would
effectively prevent eligible applicants in
certain States from using data from the
assessments their States administer
pursuant to section 1111(b)(3) of the
ESEA.
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters
recommended that the Department
revise the definition of student growth
so that the term would cover change in
other areas, not only student
achievement. Some of the other areas
mentioned in the comments include:
Student behavior, social and emotional
skills, collaborative skills, ethical
decision-making skills, problem solving
skills, civic skills, physical skills, and
technical skills.
Discussion: Within the definition of
student growth, we intend to include
only measures of change in student
achievement (as that term is defined in
this program). We note, however, that,
consistent with Selection Criterion B
(Strength of Research, Significance of
Effect, and Magnitude of Effect), eligible
applicants may also demonstrate the
success of their proposed projects using
intermediate variables that are strongly
correlated with improving student
achievement and attainment outcomes.
These variables may include measures
on topics such as those discussed by the
commenters.
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters
recommended that the Department
revise the definition of student growth
to include growth with respect to
improved performance on student
portfolios and other performance
measures.
Discussion: Under this program, an
eligible applicant would be permitted to
use student growth as measured by
student portfolios and other
performance measures to the extent
these measures meet the requirements
for measures of student achievement (in
particular, the requirement that the
measures are rigorous and comparable
across classrooms) included in the
definition of student achievement and
to the extent that the approach used to
determine growth on these measures is
statistically rigorous.
Changes: None.
Additional Definitions
Comment: A few commenters
suggested that the Department provide a

VerDate Nov<24>2008

17:35 Mar 11, 2010

Jkt 220001

definition of the term ‘‘innovation’’ as it
is used in this program. The
commenters expressed concern that,
without such a definition, the program
would not sufficiently promote
innovation in the projects that are
supported.
Discussion: Although we appreciate
the commenters’ concerns, we do not
believe that including a definition of
‘‘innovation’’ is necessary. Rather, we
believe that the innovativeness of
proposed projects should be determined
through the review of applications using
the selection criteria for this program.
We have designed the selection criteria
for the respective types of grants
particularly Selection Criterion A (Need
for the Project and Quality of Project
Design) and Selection Criterion B
(Strength of Research, Significance of
Effect, and Magnitude of Effect) in a way
that identifies the aspects of a proposed
project that would make it innovative.
We believe these criteria are sufficient
to ensure that only innovative projects
receive funding under this program.
Changes: None.
Comment: Two commenters
recommended that the Department
provide a definition of the term ‘‘high
school graduation rate’’ for purposes of
this program. The commenters
recommended that the Department
require eligible applicants to use a
uniform graduation rate and suggested
using either the Averaged Freshman
Graduation Rate or standards that meet
or exceed those set forth in the
Department’s regulations.
Discussion: We agree with the
commenters that a definition of ‘‘high
school graduation rate’’ is warranted for
this program. Therefore, we are adding
a definition of the term that is consistent
with the Department’s regulations in 34
CFR 200.19. To satisfy this definition of
high school graduation rate, an eligible
applicant must use a four-year adjusted
cohort graduation rate consistent with
34 CFR 200.19(b)(1) and may also use an
extended-year adjusted cohort
graduation rate consistent with 34 CFR
200.19(b)(1)(v) if the State in which the
proposed project is implemented has
been approved by the Secretary to
implement such a rate.
Changes: We are adding a definition
of high school graduation rate. As
defined in this notice, the term means
a four-year adjusted cohort graduation
rate consistent with 34 CFR 200.19(b)(1)
and may also include an extended-year
adjusted cohort graduation rate
consistent with 34 CFR 200.19(b)(1)(v) if
the State in which the proposed project
is implemented has been approved by
the Secretary to implement such a rate.

PO 00000

Frm 00042

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

Comment: Two commenters
recommended the Department provide a
definition of the term ‘‘regular high
school diploma’’ for purposes of this
program. The commenters
recommended that the definition
include diplomas awarded by
accredited institutions operating within
a State that enable students to progress
to postsecondary education, but that
may not be entirely aligned with State
academic content standards.
Discussion: We agree with the
commenters that a definition of ‘‘regular
high school diploma’’ is warranted for
this program. However, it is the intent
of the Department to support projects
under this program that enable students
to obtain diplomas that are fully aligned
with State academic content standards.
We, therefore, are adding the definition
of ‘‘regular high school diploma’’
established in the Department’s Title I
regulations (at 34 CFR 200.19(b)(1)(iv))
to accomplish this. An alternative
degree that is not fully aligned with the
State’s academic content standards,
such as a GED credential, is excluded
under this definition.
Changes: We are adding a definition
of regular high school diploma. As
defined in this notice, this term means,
consistent with 34 CFR 200.19(b)(1)(iv),
the standard high school diploma that is
awarded to students in the State and
that is fully aligned with the State’s
academic content standards or a higher
diploma and does not include a GED
credential, certificate of attendance, or
any alternative award.
Comment: One commenter
recommended that the Department
provide a definition for the term
‘‘dropout rate’’ for purposes of this
program. In particular, the commenter
requested that the Department clarify
whether students who move from the
area or transfer to another school, LEA,
or State should be considered dropouts.
Discussion: Unlike for high school
graduation rates, there are no Federal
requirements for determining dropout
rates. We recognize that there are a
variety of ways to calculate dropout
rates, and do not wish to limit eligible
applicants in how they calculate those
rates.
However, regarding whether students
who move from the area or transfer to
another school, LEA, or State should be
considered dropouts, we note that the
graduation rate that eligible applicants
must use under this program (consistent
with 34 CFR 200.19(b)(1)) is designed to
adjust the cohort of students used in the
rate for a given school to account for
when a student transfers into that
school or when a student transfers out
of that school, emigrates to another

E:\FR\FM\12MRR2.SGM

12MRR2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
country, or dies during the year covered
by the rate. Thus, students who transfer
out of a given school are not considered
dropouts (because they become part of
the cohort of students for the school into
which they transfer). In calculating a
dropout rate, an eligible applicant
should not include students who
transfer out of a school.
Changes: None.
Selection Criteria

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

Note: For an analysis of comments and
changes on the proposed selection criteria as
they relate to the evidence for and evaluation
of a proposed project (Selection Criteria B
and D), please see the Evidence and
Evaluation section below.

Selection Criteria in General
Comment: None.
Discussion: As discussed elsewhere in
this notice, we are adding definitions of
the terms applicant, official partner, and
other partner in order to clarify the roles
and responsibilities of entities included
in applications and participating in
projects under this program. Consistent
with these definitions and the Eligible
Applicants requirement, we are revising
the selection criteria, where appropriate,
to clarify the entities for which the
criteria apply. We incorporate those
changes in the responses to comments
that follow.
In addition, we are renumbering, for
each selection criterion, the factors in
the criterion in order to clarify how the
factors will be used.
Changes: Consistent with the Eligible
Applicants requirement and the
definitions of applicant, official partner,
and other partner, we are revising the
selection criteria for this program,
where appropriate, to clarify the entities
for which the criteria apply. In addition,
we are renumbering, for each selection
criterion, the factors in the criterion in
order to clarify how the factors will be
used.
Comment: One commenter
recommended that the Department
broaden the selection criteria used to
assess Development grant preapplications by including Selection
Criterion C (Experience of the Eligible
Applicant), Selection Criterion E
(Strategy and Capacity to Further
Develop and Bring to Scale), and
Selection Criterion F (Sustainability).
Discussion: As discussed elsewhere in
this notice, we no longer intend to use
a two-tier process to review applications
for Development grants. Thus, we will
no longer include a pre-application
process for Development grants.
Accordingly, we are removing, from the
selection criteria for Development
grants, the discussion of a two-tier

VerDate Nov<24>2008

17:35 Mar 11, 2010

Jkt 220001

application process (including preapplications) for those grants.
Changes: We are removing, from the
selection criteria for Development
grants, the discussion of a two-tier
application process (including preapplications) for those grants.
Comment: One commenter suggested
that the Department provide a chart to
show more clearly the differences in the
selection criteria for the three types of
grants.
Discussion: We agree with the
commenter that a chart could help
clarify the differences in selection
criteria for the three types of grants. We
will provide a chart of the selection
criteria for each type of grant on the
Department’s Web site for this program
(see http://www.ed.gov/programs/
innovation/index.html).
Changes: None.
Comment: Two commenters suggested
that the selection criteria emphasize the
importance of the effects of proposed
projects on education reform and the
importance of applicants’ plans to scale
up projects. The commenters suggested
that these changes would communicate
the importance of innovation, not as an
end in itself, but as a means to effect
significant education reform, raise
student achievement, and close
achievement gaps at State, regional, and
national levels.
Discussion: We agree with the
commenters that innovation alone
should not be the end result sought
under this program. The purpose of the
Investing in Innovation Fund is to
support the implementation of and
investment in innovative practices that
are demonstrated to have an impact on
improving student achievement or
student growth, closing achievement
gaps, decreasing dropout rates,
increasing high school graduation rates,
and increasing college enrollment and
completion rates. We believe that the
selection criteria—particularly Selection
Criteria B and E—strongly emphasize
the need for eligible applicants to
provide evidence that their proposed
projects will lead to these outcomes and
can be successfully scaled.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested
that the multiple provisions of the many
selection criteria may stifle creativity
and lead applicants to focus on
checking off criteria rather than
developing an innovative project.
Discussion: The selection criteria
identify areas that the Department has
determined are important for evaluating
applications under this program. For
Department discretionary grant
programs, it is typical to have multiple
selection criteria and factors that

PO 00000

Frm 00043

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

12045

eligible applicants will address in their
applications. In addition to helping
ensure that only the strongest
applications are selected for funding,
the selection criteria provide eligible
applicants flexibility and room for
creativity, and we expect that each
eligible applicant will address the
various criteria in ways appropriate to
the proposed project.
Changes: None.
Selection Criterion A—Need for the
Project and Quality of the Project Design
Comment: One commenter suggested
that the Department add a new factor to
Selection Criterion A that focuses on the
extent to which a proposed project
includes and effectively leverages an
established record of collaboration
across multiple LEA partners. The
commenter stated that this record of
collaboration would enable the
proposed project to address common
needs and demonstrate outcomes at the
regional or State level during the grant
period, while providing a solid
foundation to further scale the proposed
project. The commenter suggested that
the established record should be
required to include evidence of shared
plans, practices, research, and metrics to
scale success beyond the students in a
single LEA.
Discussion: Selection Criterion A
focuses on the need for the project and
the quality of the project design. The
issues identified by the commenter are
addressed under Selection Criteria C
and E. Under Selection Criterion C
(Experience of the Eligible Applicant),
the Secretary considers the past
performance of the eligible applicant in
implementing large, complex, and
rapidly growing projects (in the case of
Scale-up grants); in implementing
complex projects (in the case of
Validation grants); or in implementing
projects of the size and scope proposed
by the eligible applicant (in the case of
Development grants). In responding to
this criterion, an eligible applicant
could provide information about past
collaboration across multiple LEA
partners. Under Selection Criterion E
(Strategy and Capacity to Bring to Scale
(in the case of Scale-up and Validation
grants); Strategy and Capacity to Further
Develop and Bring to Scale (in the case
of Development grants)), the Secretary
considers the eligible applicant’s
capacity to bring the proposed project to
scale (in the case of Scale-up and
Validation grants) or to further develop
and bring to scale the proposed project
(in the case of Development grants). In
light of these criteria, we do not believe
that it is necessary to add the

E:\FR\FM\12MRR2.SGM

12MRR2

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

12046

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

recommended factor to Selection
Criterion A.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter
recommended that the Department add
a new factor to Selection Criterion A for
the pre-application for Development
grants that focuses on the extent to
which an applicant involves other
entities—including local school boards,
LEA and school administrators,
teachers, parents, community leaders,
small businesses, faith-based
organizations, and other non-profit
organizations—in designing the
proposed project.
Discussion: As discussed elsewhere in
this notice, we no longer intend to use
a two-tier application process (including
pre-applications) to review applications
for Development grants and are
removing, from the selection criteria for
Development grants, the discussion of a
two-tier application process for those
grants.
Under Selection Criterion A, the
Secretary considers the extent to which
the proposed project has a clear set of
goals and represents an exceptional
approach to the priorities the eligible
applicant is seeking to meet. In
addressing this criterion, eligible
applicants may wish to seek input from
and partner with local organizations to
determine the need that the proposed
project would meet and a process for
collaborating to implement the project.
An eligible applicant may describe this
collaborative process in addressing
Selection Criterion A without the
addition of a new factor. Thus, we do
not believe it is necessary to adopt the
commenter’s suggestion to ensure that
eligible applicants include this
information where appropriate.
Changes: As discussed elsewhere in
this notice, we are removing, from the
selection criteria for Development
grants, the discussion of a two-tier
application process (including preapplications) for those grants.
Comment: One commenter
recommended that the Department add
a new factor to Selection Criterion A
that focuses on the extent to which the
applicant shows that its proposed
project serves the needs of students,
schools, and communities in rural areas
or regions.
Discussion: Under Selection Criterion
A(1) (proposed Selection Criterion
A(2)(a)), the Secretary considers the
extent to which the proposed project
represents an exceptional approach to
the priorities the eligible applicant seeks
to meet. We believe that this criterion
provides sufficient opportunity for
eligible applicants to address the needs
of students and schools in rural LEAs.

VerDate Nov<24>2008

17:35 Mar 11, 2010

Jkt 220001

We note, in addition, that this
program includes a competitive
preference priority for projects that
serve schools in rural areas (Competitive
Preference Priority 8). Eligible
applicants are eligible to receive
additional points for addressing the
competitive preference priorities.
Changes: None.
Comment: A few commenters
recommended that the Department
clarify Selection Criterion A(2)(a)
regarding the extent to which a
proposed project should represent an
exceptional approach that has not
already been widely adopted.
Specifically, the commenters requested
that the Department clarify whether
‘‘widely adopted’’ refers to scale or
scope.
Discussion: In Selection Criterion A(1)
(proposed Selection Criterion A(2)(a)),
‘‘widely adopted’’ refers to scale. If an
eligible applicant’s proposed project
represents an approach that is already in
common usage and has achieved scale,
then the project would not meet the
purposes of this program.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter
recommended that, for Scale-up grants,
Selection Criterion A give greater weight
to projects that fulfill needs that have
already been widely documented as
critical or of national significance, such
as improving student performance in
math and science, improving student
performance in multiple grades and in
multiple subjects, or improving college
readiness and success for all students.
Discussion: We believe that Selection
Criterion A for Scale-up grants provides
adequate opportunity for eligible
applicants to substantiate the critical
need for the proposed project and to
address issues of national significance.
We do not want to limit the
consideration of project need under this
criterion only to critical or nationally
significant issues because we believe
Scale-up grants could support projects
that do not necessarily rise to the level
of critical or national significance.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested
that, for both Validation and
Development grants, the Department
award additional points under Selection
Criterion A(2)(b) to an applicant that has
a demonstrated record of implementing
a system of continuous improvement,
including the use of performance data to
improve instructional practices.
Discussion: We agree with the
commenter that continuous
improvement systems are important to
the success of projects under this
program. However, we believe that an
eligible applicant would be able to

PO 00000

Frm 00044

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

address the issue raised by the
commenter in response to Selection
Criterion C (Experience of the Eligible
Applicant) and that no additional points
need to be added to Selection Criterion
A.
Changes: None.
Comment: None.
Discussion: The Department believes
that the quality of the design of a
proposed project for this program
depends on the extent to which the
proposed project is supported by
existing research evidence. Because an
eligible applicant for a Validation grant
may use prior research on a strategy,
practice, or program that is very similar
to that of the proposed project in order
to demonstrate that there is moderate
evidence for the proposed project, we
are revising Selection Criterion A, for
Validation grants, to include
consideration of whether the design of
the proposed project is consistent with
the existing research evidence, taking
into consideration any differences in
context.
Changes: For Validation grants, we
are revising Selection Criterion A to
include, among the factors for which the
Secretary will consider the quality of
the proposed project design, the extent
to which the proposed project is
consistent with the research evidence
supporting the proposed project, taking
into consideration any differences in
context.
Selection Criterion C—Experience of the
Eligible Applicant
Comment: One commenter suggested
that the Department revise Selection
Criterion C and Selection Criterion F
(Sustainability) to include consideration
of the extent to which an applicant has
a record of support from mayors and
other local government leaders.
Discussion: We agree that a record of
support from mayors and other local
government leaders can be one
meaningful way for an eligible applicant
to demonstrate both the strength of its
past experience and the potential for
sustainability of its proposed project.
We believe that Selection Criteria C and
F adequately allow for eligible
applicants to provide evidence of that
support.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter
recommended that, under this criterion,
the Department give full weight to
applications from applicants that are
successful at increasing achievement for
all groups of students described in
section 1111(b)(2) of the ESEA at any
scale, and not consider whether
applicants have exceeded the State’s
annual measurable objectives consistent

E:\FR\FM\12MRR2.SGM

12MRR2

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
with section 1111(b)(2) for two or more
consecutive years.
Discussion: As discussed elsewhere in
this notice, section 14007(b)(1) has been
amended to require that, to be eligible
for an award under this program, an
eligible applicant must (A) have
significantly closed the achievement
gaps between groups of students
described in section 1111(b)(2) of the
ESEA, or (B) have demonstrated success
in significantly increasing student
academic achievement for all groups of
students described in that section. In
addition, section 14007(b)(2) has been
eliminated; this section would have
required that an eligible applicant 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).
Thus, to be eligible for an award,
eligible applicants are no longer
required by the statute to have exceeded
the State’s annual measurable objectives
consistent with section 1111(b)(2) of the
ESEA for two or more consecutive years.
In addition, the statutory changes
make clear that eligible applicants do
not have to show that they have both
significantly closed achievement gaps
and significantly increased student
achievement for all groups described in
section 1111(b)(2) of the ESEA. Rather,
eligible applicants must show either (A)
that they have significantly closed the
achievement gaps between groups of
students described in section 1111(b)(2)
of the ESEA or (B) that they have
demonstrated success in significantly
increasing student academic
achievement for all groups described in
that section.
Further, section 14007(c) has been
amended to specify that an eligible
applicant that includes a nonprofit
organization is considered to have met
the requirements of new paragraphs (1)
and (2) of section 14007(b) if the
nonprofit organization has a record of
significantly improving student
achievement, attainment, or retention.
Under the amendments to section
14007(c), an eligible applicant that
includes a nonprofit organization is thus
no longer required to demonstrate that
the nonprofit organization has a record
of each of the following: (1) Having
significantly closed the achievement
gaps between groups of students
described in section 1111(b)(2) of the
ESEA; (2) having exceeded the State’s

VerDate Nov<24>2008

17:35 Mar 11, 2010

Jkt 220001

annual measurable objectives consistent
with section 1111(b)(2) of the ESEA for
two or more consecutive years or having
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 (3) having made significant
improvement in other areas, such as
graduation rates or increased
recruitment and placement of highquality teachers and school leaders, as
demonstrated with meaningful data.
We are revising Selection Criterion C
to reflect these statutory changes. Under
Selection Criterion C(2) (proposed
Selection Criterion C(2)(b)), the
Secretary now considers, in the case of
an eligible applicant that is an LEA, the
extent to which the eligible applicant
provides information and data
demonstrating that it has (A)
significantly closed the achievement
gaps between groups of students
described in section 1111(b)(2) of the
ESEA, or significantly increased student
achievement for all groups of students
described in such section; and (B) made
significant improvements in other areas,
such as graduation rates or increased
recruitment and placement of highquality teachers and principals, as
demonstrated with meaningful data. In
the case of an eligible applicant that
includes a nonprofit organization, the
Secretary now considers the extent to
which the eligible applicant provides
information and data demonstrating that
the nonprofit organization has
significantly improved student
achievement, attainment, or retention
through its record of work with an LEA
or schools.
Changes: We are revising Selection
Criterion C(2) (proposed Selection
Criterion C(2)(b)) for all three types of
grants to reflect the statutory changes.
Under Selection Criterion C(2)
(proposed Selection Criterion C(2)(b)),
the Secretary now considers:
(2) The extent to which an eligible
applicant provides information and data
demonstrating that—
(a) In the case of an eligible applicant
that is an LEA, the LEA has—
(i) Significantly closed the
achievement gaps between groups of
students described in section 1111(b)(2)
of the ESEA, or significantly increased
student achievement for all groups of
students described in such section; and
(ii) Made significant improvements in
other areas, such as graduation rates or
increased recruitment and placement of
high-quality teachers and principals, as
demonstrated with meaningful data; or

PO 00000

Frm 00045

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

12047

(b) In the case of an eligible applicant
that includes a nonprofit organization,
the nonprofit organization has
significantly improved student
achievement, attainment, or retention
through its record of work with an LEA
or schools.
Comment: A few commenters
recommended that the Department
revise Selection Criterion C to consider
evidence of applicants’ past successes.
One commenter recommended that the
Department consider the extent to
which applicants have a record of
handling operations and multi-year
funding from private sources. Two other
commenters recommended that the
Department consider the extent to
which applicants have had past success
with scaling up projects. One
commenter recommended that the
Department consider applicants’ past
success with implementing projects on
a national level or in various geographic
locations and academic environments.
Discussion: Under Selection Criterion
C(1) (proposed Selection Criterion
C(2)(a)), the Secretary considers the past
performance of the eligible applicant in
implementing large, complex, and
rapidly growing projects (in the case of
Scale-up grants); in implementing
complex projects (in the case of
Validation grants); or in implementing
projects of the size and scope proposed
by the eligible applicant (in the case of
Development grants). Although this
criterion does not specifically reference
the types of past successes mentioned
by the commenters, an eligible applicant
could provide information on such
successes in response to the criterion, as
appropriate for the type of grant for
which the eligible applicant is applying.
Accordingly, we believe that the
criterion is sufficient to address the
commenters’ recommendations.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter
recommended that the Department
modify this criterion to include
consideration of the experience of key
partners who plan to work with the
applicant.
Discussion: As noted in the preceding
discussion, the Secretary considers
under Selection Criterion C(1)
(proposed Selection Criterion C(2)(a))
the past performance of the eligible
applicant in implementing large,
complex, and rapidly growing projects
(in the case of Scale-up grants); in
implementing complex projects (in the
case of Validation grants); or in
implementing projects of the size and
scope proposed by the eligible applicant
(in the case of Development grants). In
response to Selection Criterion C(1)
(proposed Selection Criterion C(2)(a)),

E:\FR\FM\12MRR2.SGM

12MRR2

12048

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

an eligible applicant may discuss the
experience of the applicant and official
partners (as those terms are defined in
this notice) in project implementation,
as appropriate for the type of grant for
which the applicant is applying.
Because the purpose of this criterion is
to assess the experience of the eligible
applicant, we will not consider the
experience of any other partners (as
defined in this notice) that are proposed
to be involved in a project.
In addition, consistent with the
changes to Selection Criterion
C(2)(proposed Selection Criterion
C(2)(b)) discussed earlier, the eligible
applicant may provide data and
information in response to C(2)(b) only
for the eligible applicant itself (if the
eligible applicant is an LEA) or for the
nonprofit organization (if the eligible
applicant includes a nonprofit
organization).
Changes: None.
Selection Criterion E—Strategy and
Capacity To Bring to Scale (in the Case
of Scale-up and Validation Grants);
Strategy and Capacity To Further
Develop and Bring to Scale (in the Case
of Development Grants)
Comment: A number of commenters
recommended that the Department
remove the geographic limitation to
scale a Validation grant to a State or
regional level and instead allow scaling
on a limited national level in
noncontiguous areas. Another
commenter recommended that the
Department broaden the geographic
areas for scaling under Validation grants
to include two or more targeted urban
locales in order to allow applicants the
opportunity to reach several large cities
and metropolitan areas. Another
commenter sought clarification about
whether scaling for Validation grants
could occur within a single urban LEA
or a large metropolitan area.
Discussion: Under Selection Criterion
E, the Secretary considers, for
Validation grants, an eligible applicant’s
capacity to bring its proposed project to
scale on a State or regional level.
Through this criterion, the Department
does not limit the geographic reach of
proposed projects for Validation grants.
If eligible applicants wish to propose a
project for a Validation grant the scale
of which extends beyond a State or
regional level, they may do so.
As discussed earlier, we are revising
the definition of regional level to clarify
that, to meet this definition, a project
must serve students in more than one
LEA, excluding a project implemented
in a State in which the State educational
agency is the sole educational agency
for all schools and thus may be

VerDate Nov<24>2008

17:35 Mar 11, 2010

Jkt 220001

considered an LEA under section
9101(26) of the ESEA. Thus, a project
that is implemented in a single LEA (if
not the sole educational agency for all
schools in a State) would not be
considered a regional level project
consistent with the definition of
regional level used in this program.
Further, a project that is implemented in
a single area would be considered a
regional level project only if the area
includes more than one LEA.
In addition, the definition of regional
level does not require that regional level
projects be implemented in contiguous
areas.
Changes: As discussed earlier, we are
revising the definition of regional level
to clarify that, to meet this definition, a
project must serve students in more
than one LEA, excluding a project
implemented in a State in which the
State educational agency is the sole
educational agency for all schools and
thus may be considered an LEA under
section 9101(26) of the ESEA.
Comment: A number of commenters
noted that the process of scaling a
project may be hampered by internal
capacity issues and recommended that
the Department revise Selection
Criterion E to provide for consideration
of the following issues: Stability of
administrative leadership, teacher and
staff capacity, consistency of LEA
policy, external monitoring, data
management, communications systems,
and alignment of K–12 curricula.
Discussion: Under Selection Criterion
E(2) (proposed Selection Criterion
E(2)(b)), the Secretary considers an
eligible applicant’s capacity, in the case
of Scale-up and Validation grants, to
bring its proposed project to scale, and
in the case of Development grants, to
develop and further scale the proposed
project. The criterion provides examples
of the types of capacity an eligible
applicant may address: Qualified
personnel, financial resources, and
management capacity. These examples
are not intended to be an exhaustive or
exclusive list. An eligible applicant may
address other types of capacity not
covered by the examples, including
those mentioned by the commenters.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter asked the
Department to clarify whether an
applicant for a grant can meet Selection
Criterion E if it has not identified in its
application all of the partners with
which it intends to work.
Discussion: So long as the eligible
applicant meets the eligibility
requirements for this program (which
include, for eligible applicants that
include a nonprofit organization, that
the eligible applicant describe the

PO 00000

Frm 00046

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

demographics and other characteristics
of any LEAs or schools with which it
intends to partner that are not named in
its application), an eligible applicant
will be considered for funding. It will be
up to reviewers to determine whether an
eligible applicant that has not identified
all of its partners has provided sufficient
documentation demonstrating the
quality of the eligible applicant’s
strategy and capacity to bring its
proposed project to scale consistent
with this criterion.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter
recommended that the Department
require an applicant to describe its
methodology for scaling up its proposed
project, including how the methodology
will minimize risks and how the
applicant will use benchmarks.
Discussion: We believe that Selection
Criterion E adequately addresses the
commenter’s recommendation that an
eligible applicant describe its scaling up
methodology. We do not believe it is
necessary therefore to include an
additional requirement that eligible
applicants provide the descriptions
recommended by the commenter. In
addition, we note that an eligible
applicant could potentially discuss the
specific methodological elements
mentioned by the commenter in
response to other selection criteria,
including Selection Criteria F
(Sustainability) and G (Quality of the
Management Plan and Personnel).
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter
recommended that the Department
emphasize the creation of platforms
(i.e., systemic frameworks) for
innovation rather than emphasizing
project replication, which suggests a
one-size-fits-all approach. The
commenter recommended that Selection
Criterion E(2)(c), under which the
Secretary considers the feasibility of the
proposed project to be replicated
successfully, should instead provide for
consideration of innovative platforms or
frameworks that can be readily adapted
and tailored to individual school
settings.
Discussion: The Department
recognizes that the ways in which
organizations replicate and bring to
scale their work may vary. We do not
intend to suggest that a one-size-fits-all
approach is preferred under this
program. Selection Criterion E(3)
(proposed Selection Criterion E(2)(c))
clearly states that the Secretary
considers the feasibility of the proposed
project to be replicated successfully in
a variety of settings and with a variety
of student populations. However, we
believe that an eligible applicant is best

E:\FR\FM\12MRR2.SGM

12MRR2

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
positioned to determine the scaling
strategy that is most appropriate for its
proposed project. We do not believe that
it is necessary to establish parameters
for these strategies and therefore decline
to modify this criterion as the
commenter recommends.
Changes: None.
Comment: Two commenters
recommended that the Department
revise Selection Criterion E to include
project outcomes, in addition to the
geographic reach of projects and the
number of students to be served, as
indicators of applicants’ capacity to
scale up projects effectively. One of
these commenters suggested that the
Department define the expected
outcomes and determine the specific
skills that projects should help students
acquire.
Discussion: The Department agrees
that geographic reach and numbers of
students to be served are not by
themselves sufficient to determine
whether the scaling up of an eligible
applicant’s project will be effective with
respect to outcomes. However, an
eligible applicant may address project
effectiveness in response to other
selection criteria. Under Selection
Criterion B (Strength of Research,
Significance of Effect, and Magnitude of
Effect), the Secretary considers the
strength of the evidence for the potential
effects of proposed projects on student
achievement and attainment outcomes,
including: improving student
achievement or student growth, closing
achievement gaps, decreasing dropout
rates, increasing high school graduation
rates, or increasing college enrollment
and completion rates. In response to this
criterion, eligible applicants may also
address the effects of proposed projects
on intermediate variables that are
strongly correlated with improving
these outcomes, such as (but not limited
to) teacher or principal effectiveness.
We believe that this criterion provides
sufficient opportunity for eligible
applicants to discuss the expected
outcomes of proposed projects and for
reviewers to assess an applicants’
capacity to scale up proposed projects
in relation to those outcomes, and thus
sufficiently addresses the
recommendations of the commenters.
Changes: None.
Comment: A number of commenters
requested that the Department clarify
whether Selection Criterion E(2)(d)
establishes specific numeric
expectations for the scale of proposed
projects. Some commenters
recommended that the Department not
require grantees to reach the numeric
student targets proposed for each type of
grant during the grant period. Many of

VerDate Nov<24>2008

17:35 Mar 11, 2010

Jkt 220001

these commenters were particularly
concerned that applicants with limited
resources or from rural areas would not
be able to meet these scaling
expectations; they requested that the
requirements be reduced or that
applicants have an opportunity to
request a waiver from meeting Selection
Criteria E(2)(d) and E(2)(b). Some
commenters expressed concern that the
numeric student targets were unrealistic
and suggested that the Department
allow alternatives for determining the
size of the student targets (such as the
size of the applying LEA) or allow other
ways of demonstrating capacity to scale
(such as evidence of collaborative
partnerships).
Discussion: Selection Criterion E(4)
(proposed Selection Criterion E(2)(d))
does not establish requirements for
scaling proposed projects to specific
numbers of students. Rather, the intent
of the criterion is to gather information
that can help judge project costeffectiveness. Under Selection Criterion
E(4) (proposed Selection Criterion
E(2)(d)), the Secretary considers cost
estimates both (a) for the total number
of students to be served by the proposed
project, which is determined by the
eligible applicant, and (b) for the
eligible applicant or others (including
other partners) to reach the scaling
targets for the respective grant types
(i.e., 100,000, 250,000, and 500,000
students for Development and
Validation grants; and 100,000, 500,000,
and 1,000,000 students for Scale-up
grants). The total number of students
that the eligible applicant proposes to
serve is expected to be reached by the
end of the grant period. The scaling
targets, in contrast, are theoretical and
allow peer reviewers to assess the costeffectiveness generally of proposed
projects, whether implemented by the
eligible applicant or any other entity;
grantees are not required to reach these
numbers during the grant period.
An eligible applicant is free to
propose how many students it will serve
under its project, consistent with its
project goals, capacity, and resources.
Because there is no minimum threshold
established for the number of students
to be served, an eligible applicant would
under no circumstance need a waiver of
Selection Criterion E(4) (proposed
Selection Criterion E(2)(d)) or Selection
Criterion E(2) (proposed Selection
Criterion E(2)(b)) (the latter of which
considers an eligible applicant’s
capacity, in the case of Scale-up and
Validation grants, to bring its proposed
project to scale, and in the case of
Development grants, to develop and
further scale the proposed project).
Neither is it necessary for the

PO 00000

Frm 00047

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

12049

Department to consider alternative
means of determining numerical student
targets or to consider alternative means
of showing capacity to scale in lieu of
meeting student targets.
The Department recognizes, however,
that the two types of estimates
considered in Selection Criterion E(4)
(proposed Selection Criterion E(2)(d))
could benefit from further distinction.
Therefore, we are revising the criterion
to explicitly distinguish between the
eligible applicant’s estimate of the perstudent cost of the proposed project,
which includes the start-up and
operating costs per student per year
(including indirect costs) for reaching
the total number of students proposed to
be served by the project, and the cost
estimates for the eligible applicant or
others (including other partners) to
reach the scaling targets for the
respective grant types (i.e., 100,000,
250,000, and 500,000 students for
Development and Validation grants; and
100,000, 500,000, and 1,000,000
students for Scale-up grants).
We note, in addition, that this
program establishes the expectation
under Selection Criterion E that eligible
applicants for Scale-up grants bring a
project to scale on a national, regional,
or State level and that eligible
applicants for Validation Grants bring a
project to scale on a State or regional
level. Both regional level and national
level are defined under this program.
Neither of these definitions, however,
references specific targets for the
numbers of students to be served.
Changes: We are revising Selection
Criterion E(4) (proposed Selection
Criterion E(2)(d)) for each type of grant
to clarify that the Secretary will
consider the following cost estimates:
the eligible applicant’s estimate of the
cost of the proposed project, which
includes the start-up and operating costs
per student per year (including indirect
costs) for reaching the total number of
students proposed to be served by the
project; and an estimate of the costs for
the eligible applicant or others
(including other partners) to reach the
scaling targets for the respective grant
types (i.e., 100,000, 250,000, and
500,000 students for Development and
Validation grants; and 100,000, 500,000,
and 1,000,000 students for Scale-up
grants).
Comment: Several commenters
recommended that the Department
revise Selection Criterion E(2)(d)
regarding the manner in which project
cost estimates are provided. A few
commenters recommended that the
Department consider total costs per
student and total costs per student per
year. One commenter recommended

E:\FR\FM\12MRR2.SGM

12MRR2

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

12050

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

that the Department consider project
costs along a timeline (i.e., at one year,
five years, and ten years) and require
grantees to evaluate project cost
estimates in self-evaluations. Another
commenter recommended that the
Department consider costs per student
per hour of programming to ensure a
more accurate and fair measure of
project cost.
Discussion: We agree that clarifying
Selection Criterion E(4) (proposed
Selection Criterion E(2)(d)) regarding
the manner in which eligible applicants
should provide project cost estimates is
warranted. We are therefore revising
Selection Criterion E(4) (proposed
Selection Criterion E(2)(d)) to specify
that the Secretary will consider the
eligible applicant’s estimate of the cost
of the proposed project, which includes
start-up and operating costs per student
per year (including indirect costs) for
reaching the total number of students
proposed to be served by the project.
Thus, the Secretary will consider
estimates of total project cost per
student per year. We believe that all
eligible applicants will be able to
provide these estimates and that this
measure will enable useful analysis of
project costs. We believe that this
change sufficiently addresses the
commenters’ recommendations that we
consider costs over time. We decline to
accept the commenter’s
recommendation that we consider costs
per student per hour of programming
because we do not believe this measure
will enable a similarly useful analysis of
project costs.
Consistent with the Evaluation
requirement for this program, eligible
applicants that receive funding must
comply with the requirements of any
program evaluation conducted by the
Department, are required to conduct an
independent evaluation of their
proposed projects, and must agree to
cooperate with technical assistance
provided by the Department to ensure
that these evaluations are of the highest
quality. We believe that these provisions
are adequate to address concerns
regarding evaluation of cost estimates.
Changes: As discussed earlier in this
notice, we are revising Selection
Criterion E(4) (proposed Selection
Criterion E(2)(d)) for each type of grant
to clarify that the Secretary will
consider the eligible applicant’s
estimate of the cost of the proposed
project, which includes start-up and
operating costs per student per year
(including indirect costs) for reaching
the total number of students proposed to
be served by the project.
Comment: Some commenters
recommended that the Department

VerDate Nov<24>2008

17:35 Mar 11, 2010

Jkt 220001

clarify the specific types of costs that
applicants should include when
estimating costs in response to Selection
Criterion E(2)(d). One commenter
recommended that the Department
require applicants to distinguish the
costs associated with research and
evaluation from the costs for project
infrastructure, development, and
operation. Two commenters
recommended that the Department
provide guidance on how applicants
should calculate indirect start-up costs
to ensure that only costs specific to the
proposed project itself are included in
cost estimates. Another commenter
recommended that the Department
consider estimated direct and indirect
cost savings during the grant period.
Discussion: Cost estimates should
include all costs for implementing the
project, including but not limited to
start-up costs, operating costs, indirect
costs, evaluation costs, materials, and
personnel training. The cost estimates
may only include costs for activities
designed to serve students directly
through the project. The eligible
applicant should discuss how it arrived
at its cost estimates and what specific
items and activities were included in
the calculations used to arrive at those
estimates. These calculations should
show fixed and variable costs,
incremental costs, and savings over
time. The eligible applicant should
provide the calculations used to arrive
at the estimates for the cost of the
proposed project (in terms of the
number of students to be served) as well
as the costs for the eligible applicant or
others (including other partners) to
reach the scaling targets for the
respective grant types (i.e., 100,000,
250,000, and 500,000 students for
Development and Validation grants; and
100,000, 500,000, and 1,000,000
students for Scale-up grants). We
believe that this guidance provides
sufficient clarification on the types of
costs an eligible applicant should
include and adequately addresses the
commenters’ concerns.
Changes: None.
Comment: A few commenters
recommended that the Department give
greater consideration to the
infrastructure costs associated with
different types of projects. The
commenters cautioned the Department
not to rely heavily on estimates of costs
for the initial stages of a proposed
project, as these estimates may not
accurately reflect infrastructure costs as
projects are expanded to serve more
students. Two commenters stated that
applicants should describe the resources
required to implement a project and
indicate whether or not the project is a

PO 00000

Frm 00048

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

replication of existing activities. Two
commenters noted that the Department
should acknowledge that start-up and
operating costs in sites that replicate a
project may decrease significantly over
time through economies of scale.
Discussion: Although we agree with
the commenters that infrastructure costs
may inflate start-up costs, we believe
that estimates of the start-up and
operational costs per student per year
(as under revised Selection Criterion
E(4) (proposed Selection Criterion
E(2)(d))) will provide reviewers a
sufficiently informative measure of
costs. To the extent that eligible
applicants can provide context for their
estimates of start-up and operating costs
(including for variable costs relating to
project infrastructure), the Department
encourages eligible applicants to
provide this information.
Changes: None.
Comment: A number of commenters
recommended that the Department
consider cost estimates, including
estimates of cost savings over time, in
relation to the impact of proposed
projects on student outcomes. Some
commenters expressed concern that
estimates of costs per student are not, by
themselves, an adequate measure of
cost-effectiveness and suggested that the
Department consider measures of the
benefits of proposed projects as well.
One commenter expressed concern that
Selection Criterion E might place
applicants that propose technologybased projects at a competitive
disadvantage relative to other applicants
because of the potential high costs of
developing and implementing such
projects; the commenter stated that cost
estimates would not address the benefits
of these projects and similarly
recommended that the Department
consider costs relative to outcome gains.
Two commenters suggested that the
Department compare cost-effectiveness
across projects that address the same
outcome.
Discussion: The Department agrees
that estimates of costs per student per
year, which may include cost savings
over time, are not, by themselves, an
adequate measure of project costeffectiveness. However, as discussed
earlier, an eligible applicant may
address project effectiveness with
respect to outcomes in response to other
selection criteria. Under Selection
Criterion B (Strength of Research,
Significance of Effect, and Magnitude of
Effect), the Secretary considers the
evidence for the potential effects of
proposed projects on outcomes
including the following: Improving
student achievement or student growth,
closing achievement gaps, decreasing

E:\FR\FM\12MRR2.SGM

12MRR2

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
dropout rates, increasing high school
graduation rates, or increasing college
enrollment and completion rates. In
response to this criterion, eligible
applicants may also address the effects
of proposed projects on intermediate
variables that are strongly correlated
with improving these outcomes, such as
(but not limited to) teacher or principal
effectiveness. We believe that this
criterion provides sufficient opportunity
for eligible applicants to discuss the
expected outcomes of proposed projects
and for reviewers to assess project costs
in relation to those outcomes. We note
that peer reviewers evaluate
applications against the selection
criteria; reviewers do not evaluate
applications by comparing them with
each other.
Changes: None.
Comment: A few commenters
expressed concern that providing the
cost estimates in response to Selection
Criterion E will be burdensome to
applicants and that this burden may
outweigh the value of the estimates. One
of these commenters suggested that the
Department instead consider other, less
burdensome cost measures such as
initial and targeted investments. One
commenter recommended that the
Department allow reviewers to assess
cost through consideration of the budget
for each year of a proposed project.
Another commenter recommended that
the Department rely on reviewers to
make sensible judgments of project costeffectiveness and not require applicants
to provide the estimates discussed in
the criterion.
Discussion: Under Selection Criterion
E(4) (proposed Selection Criterion
E(2)(d)), the Secretary considers an
eligible applicant’s estimates both of the
cost for reaching the total number of
students to be served by the proposed
project and for the eligible applicant or
others (including other partners) to
reach the scaling targets for the
respective grant types (i.e., 100,000,
250,000, and 500,000 students for
Development and Validation grants; and
100,000, 500,000, and 1,000,000
students for Scale-up grants). We
appreciate the commenters’ concerns
that providing these estimates may be
burdensome to eligible applicants.
However, as discussed earlier, we
believe that these estimates will provide
reviewers a useful and informative
measure of costs of the projects that may
be proposed under this program; and as
a result, we believe that the benefits of
these estimates outweigh the burden on
eligible applicants in providing them. In
addition, it is not clear to us that the
alternative measures recommended by
the commenters would be less

VerDate Nov<24>2008

17:35 Mar 11, 2010

Jkt 220001

burdensome to eligible applicants or
more useful to reviewers. Therefore, we
decline to add to this criterion an
alternative or additional cost measure.
Changes: None.
Selection Criterion F—Sustainability
Comment: One commenter suggested
that the Department revise Selection
Criterion F to consider the extent to
which the proposed project can be
integrated into the fabric of LEAs,
schools, and nonprofit partners. The
commenter suggested that a promise of
money to operate the project beyond the
length of the grant does not reflect the
spirit of innovation. The commenter
also suggested that the Department
foster a ‘‘doing more with less’’ approach
rather than an approach that would ‘‘add
on’’ projects, which the commenter
stated would not foster investments in
true innovation.
Discussion: We believe that the
criterion sufficiently addresses the
commenter’s concerns. Under Selection
Criterion F(2) (proposed Selection
Criterion F(2)(b)), the Secretary
considers the potential and planning for
the incorporation of project purposes,
activities, or benefits into the ongoing
work of the eligible applicant and any
other partners at the end of the grant.
Under Selection Criterion F, the
Secretary will also consider the
adequacy of resources to continue the
proposed project after the grant period
ends, which would include the
expenses associated with the continued
management of projects.
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters
recommended that the Department
revise Selection Criterion F(2)(a) to
include additional stakeholders such as
parents, students, local government,
community-based organizations, faithbased organizations, institutions of
higher education, research institutes,
and entities that may not typically be
considered education stakeholders. The
commenters stated that support from
these stakeholders may help
demonstrate the sustainability of the
proposed project.
Discussion: The list of potential
stakeholders in Selection Criterion F(1)
(proposed Selection Criterion F(2)(a)) is
not intended to be exhaustive. We
cannot include all potential
stakeholders in the criterion and so
decline to make the additions
recommended. In addressing this
criterion, eligible applicants may
provide evidence of support from other
stakeholders including those mentioned
by the commenters.
Changes: None.

PO 00000

Frm 00049

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

12051

Comment: One commenter expressed
concern that it would be difficult for
States and LEAs that currently have
budget problems to sustain funded
projects in the future.
Discussion: We agree with the
commenter that budget problems may
create challenges for some States and
LEAs to sustain projects. These
budgetary concerns, however,
emphasize the importance of LEAs and
States learning from each other and
sharing those practices that have
improved project outcomes in a costeffective manner. This program aims
both to promote this kind of sharing and
to better leverage public and private
sector investments in education. The
Cost Sharing or Matching requirement is
intended to help address the challenges
faced by grantees and increase the
sustainability of projects by securing
matching funds from the private sector.
Changes: None.
Comment: Two commenters
recommended that the Department
award additional points to applicants
with previous experience in obtaining
or leveraging funding from private
sources.
Discussion: Eligible applicants that
have a record of securing funding from
private sources or that have new
funding already secured can
demonstrate those qualities in response
to this criterion and other selection
criteria, including Selection Criterion C
(Experience of the Eligible Applicant)
and Selection Criterion E (Strategy and
Capacity to Bring to Scale (in the case
of Scale-up and Validation grants);
Strategy and Capacity to Further
Develop and Bring to Scale (in the case
of Development grants)). As a result, we
do not believe it is necessary to add a
criterion (with additional points) to
account for the consideration of this
information.
Changes: None.
Selection Criterion G—Quality of the
Management Plan and Personnel
Comment: Several commenters
recommended that the Department
modify Selection Criterion G(2)(b)) to
include consideration of the
qualifications of key partner personnel
in addition to the qualifications of the
project directors and key project
personnel. Another commenter
recommended that the Department
modify Selection Criterion G to include
consideration of partnerships that are
strategic for management and personnel
purposes.
Discussion: In response to Selection
Criterion G, an eligible applicant may
include personnel from those partners
(official partners or other partners) who

E:\FR\FM\12MRR2.SGM

12MRR2

12052

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

are important to achieving the proposed
project’s objectives and may discuss the
responsibilities of those personnel.
Accordingly, we believe that the
selection criterion addresses these
commenters’ concerns.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested
that the Department revise Selection
Criterion G to include consideration of
whether the proposed project includes
one or more key personnel who can
demonstrate understanding of and
experience with programs and practices
in rural schools or LEAs.
Discussion: The Department believes
that the commenter’s concern is
addressed in the general consideration
of the qualifications of key personnel
under Selection Criterion G. Because of
the variety of applications that are likely
to be submitted under this program, we
do not believe it is appropriate to
specifically consider whether eligible
applicants include staff with experience
working with specific types of schools
or LEAs, such as rural schools or LEAs.
Changes: None.

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

Evidence and Evaluation
Comment: The Department received a
large number of comments on the
standards of evidence for this program.
Some commenters supported the
Department’s emphasis on the proposed
use and generation of evidence for the
Development, Validation, and Scale-up
grants.
Discussion: We appreciate the
commenters’ support. To ensure that
applications for Scale-up grants are
supported by strong evidence (as
defined in this notice), that applications
for Validation grants are supported by
moderate evidence (as defined in this
notice), and that applications for
Development grants are supported by
reasonable hypotheses, we are revising
the requirements for this program to
explicitly address these evidence
standards.
Changes: We are adding a
requirement that to be eligible for an
award, an application for a Scale-up
grant must be supported by strong
evidence (as defined in this notice), an
application for a Validation grant must
be supported by moderate evidence (as
defined in this notice), and an
application for a Development grant
must be supported by a reasonable
hypothesis.
Comment: None.
Discussion: To provide further clarity,
we are adding a definition of the term
well-implemented and well-designed,
with respect to an experimental or
quasi-experimental study.

VerDate Nov<24>2008

17:35 Mar 11, 2010

Jkt 220001

Changes: We are adding that, for this
program, well-designed and wellimplemented means, with respect to an
experimental or quasi-experimental
study (as defined in this notice), that the
study meets the What Works
Clearinghouse evidence standards, with
or without reservations (see http://
ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/references/
idocviewer/doc.aspx?docid=19&tocid=1
and in particular the description of
‘‘Reasons for Not Meeting Standards’’ at
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/references/
idocviewer/
Doc.aspx?docId=19&tocId=4#reasons).
Comment: None.
Discussion: To provide further clarity
on what we will consider under
Selection Criterion B (Strength of
Research, Significance of Effect, and
Magnitude of Effect) with respect to the
strength of the existing research, we are
revising the criterion for all three types
of grants.
Changes: We are revising Selection
Criterion B (Strength of Research,
Significance of Effect, and Magnitude of
Effect) for Scale-up and Validation
grants to clarify that the strength of the
existing research evidence includes the
internal validity (strength of causal
conclusions) and external validity
(generalizability) of the effects reported
in prior research. We are also revising
the criterion for Development grants to
clarify that the strength of the existing
research evidence includes reported
practice, theoretical considerations, and
the significance and magnitude of any
effects reported in prior research.
Comment: Some commenters argued
that well-conducted experimental
studies—including delayed-treatment
studies or studies that use lotteries to
allocate slots for oversubscribed
programs—provide definitive evidence
of the effectiveness of innovations and
should receive a competitive preference
over quasi-experimental or nonexperimental studies. Other commenters
recommended that evidence from one
well-designed and well-implemented
experimental study, when feasible, be a
prerequisite for receiving a Scale-up
grant. One commenter recommended
that similar criteria be applied to
applications for Validation grants.
Discussion: This notice defines strong
evidence in a way that gives more
weight to a large, well-designed and
well-implemented (as defined in this
notice), multisite experimental study (as
defined in this notice) than to a
corresponding quasi-experimental study
(as defined in this notice). This
emphasis is justified, because a largescale experimental study is likely to
yield evidence with greater confidence
and a stronger claim to internal validity

PO 00000

Frm 00050

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

than a similarly sized quasi-experiment.
Nonetheless, we do not favor giving a
further preference to applicants relying
on experimental evidence, for example
by making a well-designed and wellimplemented (as defined in this notice)
experiment (where feasible) a
prerequisite for receiving a Scale-Up
grant. Such preferences would risk
discounting valid evidence from quasiexperimental studies and could exclude
from funding and further study
promising innovations for which
experimental evaluations are less
feasible.
Changes: None.
Comment: Many commenters argued
that the proposed definitions of
moderate evidence and strong evidence
are too narrow and restrictive given the
focus of the grants on supporting
innovation. Commenters criticized what
they perceived to be an unduly
exclusive, inflexible, and expensive
focus on experimental and quasiexperimental designs to the exclusion of
other research designs, such as
correlational and longitudinal outcomes
analyses utilizing available public data.
These commenters also expressed
concern that many organizations with
experience developing education
interventions to help struggling students
may be relatively small and may lack
experience with the costly data
infrastructure required for experimental
or quasi-experimental studies. The
commenters expressed concern that
excluding such organizations from
Scale-up and Validation grants would
be counterproductive to the goals of the
Investing in Innovation program.
Discussion: The Department does not
believe that the definitions of moderate
evidence and strong evidence are too
narrow and restrictive. A program’s
evidence of effectiveness should be
commensurate with the scale on which
the program will be implemented: thus,
we are requiring strong evidence for
implementation at the State, regional, or
national level (Scale-up grants), and
moderate evidence for implementation
at the State or regional level (Validation
grants). Where strong or moderate
evidence is lacking, study of a
promising program through a
Development grant may be appropriate.
While strong evidence focuses on
findings from well-designed and wellimplemented (as defined in this notice)
experimental and quasi-experimental
studies, moderate evidence includes not
only evidence from experimental and
quasi-experimental studies, but also
correlational research with strong
statistical controls for selection bias and
for discerning the influence of internal
factors. Analysis of the outcomes over

E:\FR\FM\12MRR2.SGM

12MRR2

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
time reported in public data can occur
in the context of quasi-experimental
studies, such as the interrupted time
series studies described in this notice.
For the purpose of submitting
applications to the Department, eligible
applicants who lack experience with the
data collection required for
experimental or quasi-experimental
evaluations can form official or other
partnerships with entities offering such
experience. In many instances, much of
the data required for the evaluation will
already be collected by the agencies
implementing the innovation, for
example by districts as part of their
school accountability and student
progress monitoring systems. Because
experimental studies require smaller
sample sizes than do other studies to
detect the same magnitude of effects,
data collection costs for experiments
may be less than data collection costs
for quasi-experiments and correlational
studies.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter proposed
that ‘‘robust, quantifiable’’ findings be
viewed as a source of strong evidence
on the effectiveness of a defined
practice, strategy, or program when
competing explanations for changes in
outcomes have been ruled out. The
commenter also proposed that
qualitative data on the relationship
between a defined practice, strategy, or
program, and proven and promising
interventions, be viewed as a source of
moderate evidence that the practice,
strategy, or program is effective.
Discussion: The Department believes
that, regardless of whether prior
research studies include a qualitative
component, ruling out competing
explanations for differences in outcomes
is necessary for either strong or
moderate evidence of effectiveness to be
present. Accounting for any differences
between program participants and nonparticipants can be accomplished by
random assignment to treatment and
control groups, or through a variety of
quasi-experimental or statistical
methods. Studies utilizing these designs
and methods can provide strong or
moderate evidence for the purposes of
this program. The identification of any
significant associations between
qualitative measures of program
implementation and outcomes can only
provide moderate evidence of
effectiveness if this research includes
strong statistical controls for selection
bias and for discerning the influence of
internal factors that could be
responsible for differences in outcomes.
Changes: None.
Comment: Some commenters
supported the use of quasi-experimental

VerDate Nov<24>2008

17:35 Mar 11, 2010

Jkt 220001

and mixed method evaluation strategies,
stating that even well-implemented
experimental designs can suffer
weaknesses and limitations in their
external validity.
Discussion: We agree with the
commenters that all evaluations can
suffer weaknesses and limitations in
their external validity, regardless of
whether they are experimental or quasiexperimental in nature. A large, welldesigned, well-implemented,
randomized, controlled, multisite trial is
likely to have strong external validity as
well as internal validity. Concerns about
external validity also can be addressed
with evidence from more than one welldesigned and well-implemented (as
defined in this notice) experimental
study (as defined in this notice) or
quasi-experimental study (as defined in
this notice) supporting the effectiveness
of the practice, strategy, or program for
different populations. The evaluation
requirements in this notice allow for
mixed method strategies, for example to
provide implementation data,
performance feedback, progress
assessment, and information relevant for
replication in other settings. A welldesigned evaluation of a Scale-up or
Validation project would take into
consideration both external validity and
internal validity when specifying either
an experimental or quasi-experimental
design.
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters
expressed concern that experimental
and quasi-experimental research designs
may be inappropriate for evaluating
complex innovations, including
innovations with multiple components
adapted to a local context. Many
commenters expressed concern that the
evidence definitions would favor, at
most, small, narrowly targeted, shortterm interventions as opposed to bold,
comprehensive, multiple-component,
long-term school- or LEA-wide
innovations. As examples of
comprehensive innovations unsuited to
analysis through random assignment,
commenters pointed to turnaround
programs implemented in particular
schools, LEA-wide initiatives in
curriculum and instruction, and family
and neighborhood engagement
strategies.
Discussion: The Department
appreciates the importance of the
commenters’ concern, but disagrees that
experimental and quasi-experimental
methods are ill-suited to study complex
innovations. Over the past thirty years,
numerous multiple-component social
programs, including those involving
education reforms, have been evaluated
rigorously using experimental and

PO 00000

Frm 00051

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

12053

quasi-experimental methods, and some
have been found to be effective. We
believe that a range of experimental and
quasi-experimental methods can be
considered to identify potentially
effective, comprehensive programs and
to evaluate those programs when
implemented on a larger scale, for
example at a State or regional level.
The evidence standards established in
this notice permit the consideration of
systemic LEA and whole-school
initiatives, as well as interventions
targeted for specific groups of children
within schools. For example, schoolwide innovations can be studied
through the random assignment of
entire schools to implement specified
practices or combinations of practices.
Other LEA-wide or school-wide
innovations can be studied through
quasi-experimental methods, such as
interrupted time series comparisons of
outcomes before and after a program
begins. Substantively significant
findings can arise when even a small
number of LEAs and schools are
included in a study. However, studies
involving larger numbers of LEAs and
schools have stronger external validity
and greater likelihood of detecting
effects at a given level of statistical
significance.
Changes: None.
Comment: A few commenters
recommended that the Department fund
the scaling up and validation of
comprehensive strategies (or
combinations of strategies) that are
associated with ‘‘extraordinary’’ student
learning gains and that the applicant
plans to evaluate rigorously. One
commenter suggested that the
Department define an ‘‘escape clause’’
that would permit a Scale-up grant to be
awarded to support an innovation that
was exceptionally promising on
theoretical grounds but that lacked
support from a randomized study.
Discussion: The Department believes
that, given the magnitude of public
investment being planned for Scale-up
grants and the number of students who
would be affected, we need to require
strong empirical evidence of significant
learning gains before awarding a Scaleup grant. Likewise, moderate empirical
evidence of significant learning gains
should be required before a Validation
grant is awarded; this evidence could be
experimental or quasi-experimental.
Learning gains that appear
extraordinary, but that lack strong or
moderate evidence of being caused by
the innovation in question, therefore,
would not justify funding for State or
regional implementation through a
Scale-up or Validation grant, but could

E:\FR\FM\12MRR2.SGM

12MRR2

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

12054

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

justify funding at the level of a
Development grant.
Changes: None.
Comment: Some commenters
criticized the Department’s proposed
definition of strong evidence because
under the definition a single, welldesigned study could provide sufficient
evidence when the same study would be
insufficient for the Department’s What
Works Clearinghouse.
Discussion: For the purposes of this
program, the Department considers a
single, large, well-implemented,
multisite, randomized, controlled trial
with evidence of effectiveness as
equivalent to two separate quasiexperimental studies or two smaller
experimental studies. Scale-up funding
will permit researchers to test whether
an innovation that has already been
validated with strong evidence of
effectiveness for diverse populations
maintains its effectiveness when
implemented on a State, regional, or
national scale. The evidence standards
of the What Works Clearinghouse were
not developed for the purpose of
evaluating effectiveness under
conditions of scale-up implementation,
but rather for the purpose of
synthesizing research evidence, often
from multiple, small-scale efficacy
studies, rather than large, multisite
evaluations.
Changes: None.
Comment: Some commenters
recommended reducing the number of
evidence levels, and the corresponding
number of grant categories, from three to
two. These commenters proposed
combining the strong and moderate
evidence criteria under Scale-up grants,
and supporting a wider range of projects
under Validation or Development
grants.
Discussion: The Department believes
that the distinction between strong
evidence of effectiveness and moderate
evidence of effectiveness is a
meaningful distinction with respect to
both the funding of innovations and the
purpose of the funding; namely, scaling
up effective practices, strategies, and
programs (Scale-up grants), as opposed
to validating claims of effectiveness
(Validation grants). The multiple tiers of
evidence corresponding with the three
categories of grants under this program
will permit the Department to support a
wide range of projects. Development
grants will permit promising
innovations to be tested, while the
larger Validation and Scale-up grants
will support the implementation and
evaluation of innovations at levels
commensurate with the corresponding
evidence of effectiveness.
Changes: None.

VerDate Nov<24>2008

17:35 Mar 11, 2010

Jkt 220001

Comment: One commenter proposed
that the principles of scientific research
in education identified by the National
Research Council in 2002 be applied to
all three types of grants.
Discussion: Many eminent
organizations have proposed definitions
of scientific evidence in education. The
six principles identified by the National
Research Council in 2002 provide a
general foundation and framework for
understanding scientific research in
education, but do not focus specifically
on criteria for identifying effective
education practices, strategies, and
programs. The evidence criteria and the
definitions for this program were
developed to be reasonable and specific
given the purposes of this grant program
to support the development, validation,
and scaling up of effective innovations.
Changes: None.
Comment: A few commenters asked
the Department to clarify how the
evidence of effectiveness will be defined
and the quality of a research design
determined. One commenter asked
whether applicants will be required to
meet the evidence criterion in the
January 25, 2005, notice on
‘‘Scientifically Based Evaluation
Methods’’ (70 FR 3585).
Discussion: Evidence of effectiveness
will be assessed relative to the internal
validity and external validity of such
claims utilizing a peer review process
that will include experts with strong
backgrounds in research and evaluation.
We are establishing the evidence
standards and evaluation requirements
for this program in this notice; the 2005
notice regarding scientifically based
evaluation methods is not being used for
this program.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter asked the
Department to provide descriptions of
what constitutes high internal and
external validity for Scale-up grants.
The same commenter also requested an
explanation of how the strong evidence
required for Scale-up grants will be
distinguished from the moderate
evidence required for Validation grants
and from the evidence required for
Development grants.
Discussion: The Department has
revised 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’’) to provide more detailed
summary information contrasting the
evidence criteria for each type of grant.
Internal validity refers to confidence
regarding causal inferences and external
validity refers to confidence regarding
generalizability of findings. Scale-up

PO 00000

Frm 00052

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

grants will support practices, strategies,
and programs for which there are few
threats to either internal or external
validity of claims of effectiveness.
Validation grants will support practices,
strategies, and programs with evidence
of effectiveness, even if some threats to
internal or external validity arise from
the limitations of previous studies, such
as small sample sizes or lack of baseline
equivalence between treatment and
comparison groups. Development grants
will support further study of promising
practices, strategies, and programs for
which evidence of effectiveness is
lacking.
Changes: None.
Comment: Many commenters
requested that the Department provide
applicants with clear guidance on the
evidence standards that will be used to
evaluate applications, including (1)
examples of case studies or actual
research in the absolute priority areas
that meet the moderate and strong
evidence requirements and (2)
specifications of desired outcome
measures and appropriate program
performance metrics, including how the
program goals should vary by grade
level across projects.
Discussion: Because of the diversity of
practices, strategies, and programs that
may be supported through the different
categories of grants, the Department
does not wish to over-emphasize any
particular area in the competition by
citing to specific examples or case
studies, or by defining specific outcome
measures beyond those mentioned in
this notice.
Changes: None.
Comment: Some commenters asked
the Department to clarify whether (1)
evidence from an experimental or quasiexperimental study of a similar solution
in a similar setting could be used as
evidence to support a Scale-up grant
application, (2) evidence from a large,
multisite, experimental evaluation of a
component of the program and peerreviewed publications on other
components could be used as evidence
to support a Validation grant
application, and (3) a Scale-up grant
applicant may have been, or should
have been, a subject of the prior study.
One commenter proposed that the
Department permit a consortium of
organizations to submit and receive
credit for research evidence from
individual organizations within the
consortium. Another commenter
requested guidance on whether adding
a new dimension to an existing program
would preclude the project from
meeting the criteria for a Scale-up grant.
In reference to Validation grants, several
commenters urged the Department to

E:\FR\FM\12MRR2.SGM

12MRR2

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
accept applications that adapt validated
practices to new contexts. Other
commenters asked whether
modifications to well-tested models
would receive points in both the
Validation and the Scale-up grant
categories.
Discussion: Evidence of the
effectiveness of a proposed practice,
strategy, or program will be stronger in
terms of internal validity if the prior
research applies to the same innovation
the eligible applicant is proposing,
rather than to a similar innovation or to
a component of the proposed strategy or
program. Evidence of effectiveness will
be stronger in terms of external validity
if the previous studies included at least
some schools associated with the
eligible applicant, and if these schools
were similar to the schools in which the
proposed innovation would be
implemented. Eligible applicants
(including consortium partners) that
were involved in the actual
implementation of the previously
studied innovation would have a more
credible application to bring to scale
that innovation, than would applicants
replicating an innovation previously
implemented by others. Modification
and adaptation of existing, well-tested
practices for new contexts may mean
that strong evidence of effectiveness in
the original context is only moderate
evidence of effectiveness in the new
context. Eligible applicants must
determine whether the weight of
evidence for the internal and external
validity of claims of effectiveness is
sufficient to apply for a Scale-up grant
as opposed to a Validation grant. In
general, innovations that are similar to,
but not the same as, those that have
been evaluated previously with strong
evidence of effectiveness will not be
eligible for a Scale-up grant, but may be
eligible for a Validation grant.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter proposed
that a third category, procedural
validity, be used in addition to internal
validity and external validity. The
commenter proposed defining
procedural validity as the extent to
which the developer followed
scientifically approved methodology in
the development, piloting, and
implementation of the innovation.
Discussion: While we appreciate the
commenter’s suggestion, the Department
believes that applications for Scale-up
and Validation grants should be based
on how the innovations have been
implemented in the past, rather than on
how they could have been
implemented. Issues of procedural
validity in the implementation of
similar practices, strategies, or programs

VerDate Nov<24>2008

17:35 Mar 11, 2010

Jkt 220001

could be considered as part of the
justification for a Development project.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter
recommended that program success be
measured by statistically significant
improvements in social and behavioral
outcomes in addition to academic
achievement.
Discussion: Social and behavioral
measures could be intermediate
outcomes that contribute to student
educational achievement and
attainment and, thus, already are
targeted under this program.
Applications should include citations of
relevant research that establishes a
direct correlation between intermediate
outcomes and the outcomes described
in this notice. This research should
include research designs or statistical
controls for selection bias and for
discerning the relationship between
intermediate outcomes and the
outcomes described in this notice.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter argued
that a single, high-quality, quasiexperimental study should be sufficient
to provide ‘‘strong evidence’’ of
effectiveness, because any study of this
quality is likely to be expensive and
because requiring more than one study
would rule out otherwise qualified
applicants. Other commenters argued in
favor of using multiple sites and
multiple studies to generate evidence,
and criticized the Department’s
proposal to require only one acceptable
experimental study. According to these
commenters, the Department’s proposed
approach would decrease the
evidentiary standard for Scale-up grants.
Discussion: In general, the
Department supports the principle that
strong evidence of effectiveness should
be established through multiple studies
in multiple sites. Scale-up
implementation at the State, regional, or
national level may be justified if an
innovation has evidence of effectiveness
in multiple settings and for different
populations. The evidence standard for
this grant program, summarized in
Table 1, makes an exception in the case
of a large, well-designed and wellimplemented (as defined in this notice)
randomized controlled, trial in multiple
sites. Threats to the internal validity of
claims of effectiveness are greater for
quasi-experimental evaluations than for
experimental evaluations. In particular,
compared with more straightforward
findings from large-scale experiments,
findings from large-scale quasiexperimental studies may be sensitive to
decisions concerning analysis methods
such as statistical matching and
regression modeling, and therefore need

PO 00000

Frm 00053

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

12055

to be confirmed through multiple
studies.
Changes: None.
Comment: Some commenters
suggested that multiple method studies
be defined and encouraged in the
standards of evidence for Scale-up,
Validation, and Development grants.
Discussion: The Department agrees
that multiple method studies can help
researchers understand the context and
implementation of a program. These
studies may be especially useful for the
evaluations of Scale-up, Validation, and
Development projects. The Department
does not believe it is necessary or
efficient to incorporate a potentially
costly multiple method requirement
into the standards of evidence for Scaleup and Validation grants, because the
qualitative data collection needs of an
evaluation are likely to depend on the
type of innovation being studied.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter
recommended that, under the
definitions, the discussion of
‘‘randomized control trials’’ include an
emphasis on minimizing overall and
differential attrition, and that the
discussion of matched comparison
group designs include a discussion of
establishing baseline equivalence.
Discussion: Studies with high levels
of overall or differential attrition, or
without baseline equivalence between
treatment and comparison groups,
would not meet the standard of strong
evidence, as defined in this notice. A
well-designed and otherwise wellimplemented study with a flaw in one
of these areas would likely be
considered moderate evidence of
effectiveness. The issues of differential
attrition and baseline equivalence are
discussed in the Department’s What
Works Clearinghouse Procedures and
Standards Handbook (see http://
ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/references/
idocviewer/
doc.aspx?docid=19&tocid=1, and also
the IES/NCEE Technical Methods
papers at http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/
tech_methods/).
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter
recommended that the Department
define ‘‘multisite’’ as including multiple
schools, LEAs, or cities.
Discussion: The definition of multisite
depends on the level at which the
innovative practice, strategy, or program
will be implemented and on the units
that will be assigned to the treatment.
For example, in the case of a schoollevel intervention, multisite would
include separate schools; in the case of
an LEA-level intervention, multisite
would include separate LEAs. For this

E:\FR\FM\12MRR2.SGM

12MRR2

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

12056

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

reason, a definition of multisite that is
limited to a specific level of
implementation would be inaccurate.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter noted the
difficulty of defining how projects can
be ‘‘innovative and comprehensive in
scope’’ and ‘‘show a cumulative effect
over time’’ as specified in the NPP (74
FR 52216). The commenter stated that
larger grants should not invest in
innovations that are ineffective or that
cannot be evaluated within the grant
period. The commenter recommended
that the Department consult with
stakeholders to define what cumulative
effects would mean in each area of a
student’s growth. Another commenter
noted that while narrowly focused
programs may result in short-term gains,
the relative efficacy of larger, macrolevel efforts to engage stakeholders may
require more time before the full impact
is revealed. The commenter
recommended that language be added to
the notice to reflect this concern.
Discussion: The Department is
interested in supporting projects with
great potential to make meaningful
improvements in students’ lives on a
long-term basis. For purposes of this
grant program, however, project
evaluations will only be able to detect
impacts on outcomes measured during
the grant period, and not on the longerterm outcomes on which programs may
be focused. For this reason, eligible
applicants for Scale-up and Validation
grants will need to identify, in
consultation with researchers and key
stakeholders, intermediate outcomes
directly correlated with the long-term
outcomes of importance, on which their
innovations are likely to have
statistically significant effects before the
grant period ends. Because of the variety
of practices, strategies, and programs
that we anticipate will be proposed by
eligible applicants under the priorities
identified by the Department, the
definition of specific effects will need to
be proposed separately by each eligible
applicant, rather than specified in this
notice.
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters
proposed broadening the range of
outcomes measures for which evidence
of effectiveness would be documented.
Several commenters highlighted the
importance of technological and other
skills needed for college attainment and
success in the 21st Century workplace,
recommended that improved career
readiness be added to the list of desired
program outcomes in the selection
criteria, and expressed concerns about
limiting measures of performance to
mathematics and to reading and

VerDate Nov<24>2008

17:35 Mar 11, 2010

Jkt 220001

language arts. One commenter
recommended that student achievement
in subjects such as science, civics, the
arts, and the impact of school climate,
school attendance, attendance rates, and
student engagement on school
achievement and graduation rates
should also be measured.
Discussion: By placing such
importance on student achievement,
student growth, closing achievement
gaps, decreasing dropout rates,
increasing high school graduation rates,
and increasing college enrollment and
completion rates, the Department is
emphasizing the attainment of those
skills and skill levels, and the
conditions that contribute to attaining
those skills, that are critical for student
success in school and in careers.
Eligible applicants can propose other
outcomes if they contribute to the
outcomes identified in this notice.
Changes: None.
Comment: A few commenters
suggested that applicants adhering
explicitly to research-based principles
and findings should be considered for
funding under this program. One
commenter specifically suggested that
applicants relying on the Department’s
own research compendia (the What
Works Clearinghouse, the Doing What
Works Web site, and the Institute of
Education Sciences reports) should be
considered ‘‘pre-qualified’’ to meet the
research evidence requirements in the
notice.
Discussion: Research studies or
reports released by the Department can
be included as evidence of effectiveness
for the practices, strategies, or programs
proposed for funding under this
program. However, whether such
studies constitute strong or moderate
evidence of effectiveness depends not
only on the internal and external
validity of the studies, but also on the
correspondence between the practices,
strategies, or programs proposed by the
eligible applicant and the practices,
strategies, and programs included in the
reports released by the Department. The
evidence of effectiveness documented in
reports released by the Department
varies in strength. Measured according
to the criteria summarized in Table 1,
this evidence would not necessarily
qualify as strong or even moderate
evidence of effectiveness for those
innovations that an applicant would
propose to implement in particular
settings. Therefore, it would not be
appropriate to pre-qualify eligible
applicants, as recommended by the
commenter.
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters
expressed concern about the quality of

PO 00000

Frm 00054

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

child assessments that would be
included in projects supported under
this program. One commenter argued
that the Department should support
applicants that use multiple measures of
developmental and academic outcomes
for children. Other commenters
criticized the emphasis the Department
placed in the NPP on State-developed
formative and interim assessments.
These commenters argued instead for
curriculum-embedded formative and
summative assessments aligned with
college-ready standards. Other
commenters argued that reliance on the
existing State and local formative and
summative assessments would be more
relevant to practice, less timeconsuming, less disruptive of student
learning time, and less expensive than
relying on formal, in-depth standardized
assessments for research purposes. One
commenter noted that, for projects
previously implemented and evaluated
in multiple States, it would be
reasonable to expect a nationallynormed standardized assessment to be
used instead of State tests. The
commenter recommended that, in a
‘‘large, well-designed and wellimplemented randomized controlled,
multisite trial, that effectiveness of the
practice, strategy, or program’’ include a
‘‘randomized controlled, multi-state trial
that uses a nationally-normed
standardized assessment that is valid
and reliable’’ for purposes of the Scaleup grants and the demonstration of
improved student achievement. Another
commenter questioned the validity of
State achievement measures and
recommended the priority consider
assessments that are not tied to AYP
determinations.
Discussion: This notice requires using
State assessments for those grades and
subjects assessed under section
1111(b)(3) of the ESEA to measure
student achievement, and also permits
alternative measures of student learning
and performance to be used, especially
for non-tested grades and subjects.
Examples of these alternative measures
include interim assessments or
formative, classroom-based assessments.
In projects spanning multiple States,
commonality of measures of student
learning and performance across all
relevant grades and subjects is desirable,
so a nationally-normed standardized
assessment that is valid and reliable
would be a reasonable measure of
project performance. The Department’s
intent is to contribute to improvements
both in the reliability and validity of
student assessments and in how these
data are used to improve instruction for

E:\FR\FM\12MRR2.SGM

12MRR2

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
each student, not to add to the burden
of schools in assessing students.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter argued
that the Department should require
projects proposed for Scale-up and
Validation grants to study, for at least
one year in at least 10 schools, the
effects of the proposed project on
student outcomes using measures other
than those inherent to the treatments.
Discussion: The Department
appreciates this suggestion to promote
the external validity of findings from
Scale-up and Validation projects.
Because of the range of projects that
could be supported by this program, the
Department believes that decisions
regarding the minimum sample size, the
length of the study, or the choice of
assessment measures should be made by
the grantee according to the type of
project being proposed.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter expressed
concern about how to define treatment
conditions and to aggregate data across
schools or over time when different
schools implement different innovations
that also change over time. The
commenter recommended that
researchers with expertise in small-scale
statistics provide guidance to support
claims of effectiveness. The commenter
also recommended that the Department
provide incentives for LEAs to release
student performance data (with
appropriate privacy protections) that
could be utilized in quasi-experimental
analyses that would compare school
outcomes.
Discussion: Elsewhere in this notice,
we provide references to information
and guidance that eligible applicants
can use to support claims of
effectiveness. An individual project’s
evaluations should include the
information needed to replicate or test
the project in other settings. This
information can include data on
corresponding student outcomes, if
appropriate privacy protections are in
place.
Changes: None.
Comment: Some commenters argued
that a sufficiently large effect size
should be required by the Department,
especially for the Scale-up and
Validation grants. A few commenters
argued that the Department should
specify a 0.20 minimum effect size as a
threshold for identifying educationally
significant effects on student
achievement. Many other commenters
argued against using a single minimum
effect size, and recommended instead
that the Department evaluate the effect
size, as reported by applicants in the
context of the type of intervention,

VerDate Nov<24>2008

17:35 Mar 11, 2010

Jkt 220001

target population, outcomes being
measured, and the existing research on
anticipated effects. Some commenters
argued that the expected effect size
should differ by grant year and should
be valued according to its long-term
benefit to students.
Discussion: The Department
appreciates the comments we received
in response to our request for input on
whether we should set a minimum
effect size for this program. We are
compelled by the arguments from
commenters that a one-size-fits-all effect
size would not be appropriate for this
program given that the target effect size
for a given practice, strategy, or program
can vary because of factors such as the
age and grade of the children receiving
services, the nature of the outcome
variable, and the cost of the innovation.
Accordingly, eligible applicants should
justify their claims regarding which
magnitude of effect is reasonable and
substantively important for their
proposed project. Because the
Department has decided to not specify
a single effect size, eligible applicants
are free to specify an anticipated effect
size that differs by year for each year
that would be included in the project
evaluation. The specification of the
anticipated effect sizes should be
informed by the evidence of
effectiveness for the innovation. Any
differences from previously documented
effect sizes should be discussed,
particularly in the case of Scale-up
grants for which evidence of
effectiveness should be strong.
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters stated
that any effect size standards adopted by
the Department should take into
account both the program costs and the
anticipated effect size per unit cost in
order to promote cost-effective
innovations.
Discussion: Although cost is an
important consideration when
interpreting the importance of an effect
size, the Department believes that the
cost information will be more useful to
reviewers of applications—and
ultimately to researchers, practitioners,
policymakers, and the public—if it is
reported separately from the effect sizes,
especially for innovations targeting
multiple outcomes.
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters
disagreed on the usefulness of
intermediate outcome variables such as
school attendance, parental engagement,
teacher satisfaction, or school climate.
Some commenters expressed concern
that focusing on intermediate variables
would detract from student achievement
or attainment. In contrast, other

PO 00000

Frm 00055

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

12057

commenters argued that removing or
‘‘downgrading’’ intermediate outcome
would ignore research on the
relationship between these outcomes
and student achievement and
attainment.
Discussion: Because of the limited
time period of the Department’s
innovation grants, the Department
believes that it may be necessary for
eligible applicants to identify and target
key intermediate outcomes in order to
understand the impact of projects in the
short term. The Department believes
that eligible applicants should carefully
select intermediate outcomes that have
a strong theoretical basis and empirical
evidence of their direct connection with
long-term student outcomes. Eligible
applicants should collect data on
intermediate outcomes only when data
collection on longer-term outcomes is
not feasible.
Changes: We are revising the selection
criterion to clarify that an applicant
choosing to demonstrate success
through an intermediate variable must
use an intermediate variable that is
strongly correlated with the proposed
project’s long-term student outcomes.
Comment: One commenter
recommended that Validation grants
support proposed practices, strategies,
or programs for which there is a
statistically significant association
between the innovation and an
intermediate variable that is highly
correlated with the outcomes of interest.
Another commenter stated that
intermediate outcomes were needed
because of validity and reliability issues
with assessing the learning of children
between birth and the third grade. One
commenter argued that gathering data
on ‘‘secondary effects’’ is also useful in
understanding a project’s impact. A few
commenters emphasized the need for
evidence that the intermediate variables
targeted by projects truly impact, and
are not merely correlated with, student
outcomes of importance, and that such
a causal connection should have both
theoretical and empirical support.
Another commenter argued that it was
important that any intermediate
measures be reliable predictors of
student learning outcomes, and that the
learning outcomes be aligned with State
standards and the range of skills and
engagement predictive of student
success. The commenter expressed
concern that the Department support
projects that provide clear presentations
of the context and populations for
which the effectiveness of supported
innovations is being measured.
Discussion: The Department believes
that defining intermediate outcome
variables is necessary because of the

E:\FR\FM\12MRR2.SGM

12MRR2

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

12058

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

limited duration of the grants provided
under this program and because not all
long-term outcomes targeted by projects
will be measurable during the grant
period. On the basis of the research
evidence, eligible applicants should
specify intermediate outcomes that are
likely to be affected by the proposed
practices, strategies, and programs, and
that contribute to, or at least predict,
improvements in the longer-term
outcomes identified by the Department.
‘‘Secondary effects’’ estimates should be
held to the same standards of evidence
as effectiveness on long-term outcomes.
However, strong evidence of effects on
secondary, intermediate outcomes does
not, in itself, constitute evidence of
effects on long-term outcomes with
which the secondary outcomes are
correlated.
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters
requested that the Department: (1)
Provide clarification of the meaning of
‘‘school climate’’ and its relationship to
personal safety, gang presence, or drug
presence; (2) list ‘‘family engagement’’ as
an intermediate outcome alongside
school climate; and (3) specify that the
list of variables is not exhaustive.
Discussion: By listing examples of
intermediate outcomes directly
correlated with longer-term student
outcomes, the Department left open the
possibility of eligible applicants
proposing other intermediate outcomes,
including family engagement. The types
of intermediate outcomes proposed by
an eligible applicant, and the specific
measures used for a variable, would
depend on the type of practice, strategy,
or program being proposed, the longterm student outcomes being targeted,
and the settings in which the innovation
would be implemented.
The Department does not wish to
privilege some types of innovations over
others by specifying a detailed list of
intermediate outcome measures.
Therefore, we are removing
‘‘improvements in school climate’’ as an
example of an intermediate variable
because we find it is not necessary to
the effective use of the selection
criterion.
Changes: We are removing
‘‘improvements in school climate’’ as an
example of an intermediate variable in
the selection criterion.
Comment: One commenter asked for
clarification of the meaning of an effect
that has a magnitude that is ‘‘substantial
and important.’’
Discussion: The meaning of
‘‘substantial and important’’ will vary
depending on the context, such as the
age and grade level of the students being
served, and the cost of the innovation.

VerDate Nov<24>2008

17:35 Mar 11, 2010

Jkt 220001

Eligible applicants should describe why
the expected effects are substantial and
important for attaining the goals of this
program.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter
recommended that the reference to the
‘‘significance’’ of an effect for
Development grants be changed to read
‘‘statistical significance.’’ Another
commenter recommended changing
‘‘statistically significant’’ to ‘‘significant’’
when discussing the strength of research
evidence regarding innovation
effectiveness.
Discussion: Development grants may
not always support innovations
implemented on a scale that would
produce statistically significant effects,
so the omission of the adjective
‘‘statistical’’ is intentional. The NPP and
this notice refer to ‘‘statistically
significant’’ with regard to the
significance of the effect that a practice,
strategy, or program is expected to have
if supported through a Scale-up or
Validation grant. The magnitude of
effect reported in prior studies—
whether statistically significant or not—
should support an eligible applicant’s
claim that the effect of the practice,
strategy, or program is likely to be
detected as statistically significant in
the sample included in the proposed
Scale-up or Validation project. Small
sample sizes in prior studies make the
detection of statistically significant
effects less likely and also weaken the
external validity of findings, reducing
the likelihood of the findings qualifying
as the strong evidence required for a
Scale-up grant. (Applicants should refer
to Table 1 and its detailed summary of
evidence criteria for the three types of
grants.)
Changes: None.
Comment: Some commenters asked
that ‘‘promising results’’ be changed to
‘‘positive results’’ in this final notice.
Discussion: ‘‘Promising results’’ refers,
in the context of Development grants, to
outcomes from practices, strategies, or
programs for which there is not yet even
moderate evidence of effectiveness.
‘‘Positive results’’ refers more generally
to outcomes or goals consistent with the
goal of the project, and encompasses
both promising results suggesting that
more formal and systematic study of
efficacy may be warranted, and results
qualifying as moderate or strong
evidence of effectiveness. ‘‘Promising
results’’ therefore is the more
appropriate term for the Department to
use in describing Development grants.
Changes: None.
Comment: A few commenters asked
whether an applicant must name an
independent evaluator in its

PO 00000

Frm 00056

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

application. Commenters asked whether
it would be sufficient for an applicant
to budget for an independent evaluator
for only Scale-up and Validation grants.
One commenter expressed concern that
there is no capacity to have independent
evaluators in place prior to a grant
award.
Discussion: The quality of the
evaluation proposed for each project,
including the methods of evaluation
planned and the resources proposed for
evaluation, will be considered by the
Department when awarding grants
under this program. Whether an
independent evaluator has been selected
at the time of application will not, in
itself, disadvantage an applicant.
Applications should include the name
of qualified independent evaluators of
projects, if these have already been
selected, and should in all cases
demonstrate the applicant’s
commitment to ensure a high-quality
and independent evaluation of the
proposed project.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter
recommended that the Department offer
technical assistance to grantees and
their evaluators to ensure that highquality independent evaluations are
conducted of projects funded under all
three types of grants. A few commenters
asked the Department to explore how
the required evaluations of funded
projects can occur in an independent
and statistically valid manner and the
results collected, analyzed, and
disseminated in a coordinated way that
builds both stakeholder knowledge and
the capacity of State and LEA
evaluators. Several commenters
emphasized the need for the Department
to ensure rigorous, independent
evaluations, scientific reporting, and the
sharing of data on the effectiveness of
grantee interventions. The commenters
suggested that the Department require
applications to include information
about how project participants will
support and cooperate with the
independent evaluator, and use
experimental or quasi-experimental
methods where feasible. A few
commenters expressed concern that the
independent evaluation of a grantee’s
project not be duplicative of the
evaluation work submitted in the
application.
Discussion: The Department’s
Institute of Education Sciences (IES)
will be involved in evaluating the
Investing in Innovation program, in
providing technical assistance to
evaluators of individual funded
projects, and in synthesizing evidence
from multiple supported projects. The
IES role will be defined in a way that

E:\FR\FM\12MRR2.SGM

12MRR2

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
will not duplicate the individual project
evaluations under this program and that
also encourages the independent
evaluators to add to existing knowledge
on the efficacy and effectiveness of the
innovations being studied. Data will be
collected and maintained by grantees.
However, we agree with commenters
that it is valuable to share the data from
these evaluations. Thus, the data from
the evaluations of Scale-up and
Validation projects must be made
available to third-party researchers. To
support the sharing of data with third
parties, the Department will work with
grantees to set up procedures to make
data available to other researchers while
safeguarding privacy.
Changes: We are revising the
Evaluation requirement under this
program to specify that, in addition to
making the results of any evaluation
broadly available, Scale-up and
Validation grantees must also ensure
that the data from their evaluations are
made available to third-party
researchers consistent with applicable
privacy requirements.
Comment: Commenters disagreed on
the prioritization for experimental
designs for the evaluations of grantee
projects. One commenter argued that the
evaluation requirements, not only for
Scale-up grants, but also for Validation
grants, should, wherever feasible, be
experimental studies led by
independent evaluators experienced
with such studies. One commenter
agreed with our proposal in the NPP
specifying that Scale-up grants be
evaluated by experimental or quasiexperimental means. Another
commenter argued that evaluating
Scale-up grants experimentally may not
be feasible because of the lack of a
control group and may not be necessary
if the evidence for the innovation is
sufficiently strong to scale it up.
Discussion: The evaluation
requirements for Scale-up and
Validation grants specify the use of
independent evaluators and welldesigned experimental or quasiexperimental studies. Because
Validation grants would need to be
supported by only moderate evidence, a
large, well-implemented quasiexperimental evaluation may be
sufficient to expand knowledge of the
program’s effectiveness. Because Scaleup grants would already be supported
by strong evidence, an experimental
evaluation is preferable, when feasible,
to assess how and under what
conditions the program is effective
when it is implemented in a fuller range
of settings than prior to the awarding of
the grant. Control or comparison groups
can be identified for Scale-up projects

VerDate Nov<24>2008

17:35 Mar 11, 2010

Jkt 220001

from sites that have not yet
implemented the innovation.
Changes: None.
Comment: Some commenters
expressed concerns that the costs of
evaluation could leave too few funds
available to support implementation of
the innovation, not only in the case of
Development grants, but also in the case
of Validation and Scale-up grants.
Discussion: Applicants should budget
appropriate amounts for the evaluation
of their project. The use of available
data and measures that LEAs and
schools already collect can help
minimize new data collection costs and
ensure that the innovations themselves
are funded adequately. Evaluation
dollars are well spent if they inform
future decisions about whether to
implement particular innovations more
broadly.
Changes: None.
Comment: A few commenters
emphasized the importance of
measuring the extent and the quality of
the implementation of grantee
innovations, as well as on providing
sufficient information to facilitate
replication or testing of the innovation
in other settings.
Discussion: We appreciate the
commenters’ emphasis on the
importance of evaluating grantee
innovations. The measurement of
program implementation and provision
of information to facilitate replication or
testing in other settings are required
under the evaluations that will be
conducted of each project funded under
this program. This information will be
especially important for understanding
whether and under what circumstances
innovations are implemented with
fidelity.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter argued
that program developers and
implementers should be involved in
evaluating the project, but should not be
the sole evaluators. Another commenter
argued that neither developers nor
implementers should evaluate the
impact of the project.
Discussion: The impact evaluation of
Validation and Scale-up projects must
be conducted by a qualified evaluator
distinct from the program developer and
project implementer. An autonomous
research or evaluation office within a
large organization could qualify as an
independent evaluator if its reporting of
findings and conclusions is not subject
to approval by the office responsible for
developing or implementing the
program. In this way, impact
evaluations of these projects would be
independent, objective, and of greater
use to all stakeholders. The Department

PO 00000

Frm 00057

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

12059

encourages independent evaluators to
consult with developers and
implementers about knowledge that
would inform evaluation design and
reporting. For Development projects,
developers and implementers can
participate in the evaluation if they are
qualified to do so because such
participation may be necessary for the
innovations to be implemented with
fidelity as part of a small-scale study of
efficacy.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter
recommended that the Department pay
LEAs for the cost of staff time that
would be associated with the
implementation of the evaluation.
Discussion: The cost of LEA staff time
associated with the implementation of
project evaluations can be included in
each applicant’s evaluation budget.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter
recommended that the Department
provide funding for robust research
studies and for a clearinghouse to
describe the funded innovations.
Discussion: Under the requirements
for this program, any eligible applicant
receiving funds must conduct an
independent evaluation of its proposed
project and comply with the
requirements of any evaluation of the
program conducted by the Department
(see Evaluation requirement). Therefore,
the cost of the evaluation may be
included in the applicant’s budget for
its proposed project. The existing What
Works Clearinghouse at IES is funded to
review and synthesize evidence of
effectiveness from education practices,
strategies, or programs, including those
that may be supported with Investing in
Innovation grants.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter
recommended that the Department treat
data systems as measurement
infrastructure for evaluating the
effectiveness of other interventions,
rather than as a separate intervention
that is subject to the evidentiary
standards for Scale-up grants.
Discussion: While data systems can be
part of the measurement infrastructure
for other interventions, the Department
does not want to preclude the
possibility of an applicant proposing a
data system as a separate intervention.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter
recommended that Development grants
only be funded if there is a clear theory
of action and if the associated research
literature suggests that the hypothesized
action on the intended outcome is likely
to occur.

E:\FR\FM\12MRR2.SGM

12MRR2

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

12060

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

Discussion: This notice already
specifies that applicants for
Development grants 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 or other sectors. Therefore, it
is not necessary to add the requirement
recommended by the commenter.
Changes: None.
Comment: A number of commenters
expressed concerns about the
application of evidence standards to
small LEAs and rural LEAs. A few
commenters expressed concern about
the difficulty of small LEAs qualifying
for Scale-up or Validation grants under
the proposed priorities given the
evidence requirements for applicants
and the time that would be required to
serve 100,000 or 250,000 students. One
commenter recommended that the
Department provide a competitive
preference priority to applications
where regional partnerships have been
identified to scale up practices across
schools and LEAs. Another commenter
recommended that applicants be
required to address ‘‘the limited human,
fiscal, and technology capacity of rural
LEAs and schools to collect data on the
innovation and for independent
evaluation.’’
Discussion: The Department
recognizes the particular challenges
faced by small LEAs and rural LEAs in
implementing and evaluating
innovations. According to the evidence
criteria described in Table 1, it may be
possible, under the category of
Validation grant funding, for rural LEAs
to apply for funding to implement
innovations with evidence of
effectiveness in non-rural settings, since
this evidence could have high internal
validity but only moderate external
validity. Challenges faced by rural LEAs
in the areas of data collection and
evaluation may be addressed by
applicants applying under Competitive
Preference Priority 8.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter
recommended removing the reference to
the What Works Clearinghouse
procedures, standards, and technical
methods papers because the commenter
thought this reference was too limited.
Discussion: Knowledge of the What
Works Clearinghouse procedures,
standards, and technical methods
papers may be useful to applicants in
developing their project evaluation
plans, but these resources are meant to
be informative, not prescriptive, of
evaluation decisions. Accordingly, we
decline to remove that reference.
Changes: None.

VerDate Nov<24>2008

17:35 Mar 11, 2010

Jkt 220001

Absolute Priority 2—Innovations That
Improve the Use of Data

Final Priorities
Types of Priorities
When inviting applications for a
competition using one or more
priorities, we designate the type of each
priority as absolute, competitive
preference, or invitational. Under an
absolute priority, as specified by 34 CFR
75.105(c)(3), we consider only
applications that meet the priority.
Under a competitive preference priority,
we 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 signal our interest in
receiving applications that meet the
priority; however, consistent with 34
CFR 75.105(c)(1), we do not give an
application that meets an invitational
priority preference over other
applications.
Final Priorities
The Secretary establishes the
following priorities for the Investing in
Innovation Fund. We may apply these
priorities in any year in which this
program is in effect.
Absolute Priorities
Absolute Priority 1—Innovations That
Support Effective Teachers and
Principals
Under this priority, the Department
provides funding to support practices,
strategies, or programs that are designed
to increase the number or percentages of
teachers or principals who are highly
effective teachers or principals or
reduce the number or percentages of
teachers or principals who are
ineffective, especially for teachers of
high-need students, by identifying,
recruiting, developing, placing,
rewarding, and retaining highly
effective teachers or principals (or
removing ineffective teachers or
principals). In such initiatives, teacher
or principal effectiveness should be
determined through an evaluation
system that is rigorous, transparent, and
fair; performance should be
differentiated using multiple rating
categories of effectiveness; multiple
measures of 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 and principal
involvement.

PO 00000

Frm 00058

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

Under this priority, the Department
provides funding to support strategies,
practices, or programs that are designed
to (a) 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 and improve student
achievement, student growth, or
teacher, principal, school, or LEA
performance and productivity; or (b)
enable data aggregation, analysis, and
research. Where LEAs and schools are
required to do so under the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act of 1965,
as amended (ESEA), these data must be
disaggregated using the student
subgroups 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
limited English proficiency, students
with disabilities, and student gender).
Absolute Priority 3—Innovations That
Complement the Implementation of
High Standards and High-Quality
Assessments
Under this priority, the Department
provides funding for practices,
strategies, or programs that are designed
to support States’ efforts to transition to
standards and assessments that measure
students’ progress toward college- and
career-readiness, including curricular
and instructional practices, strategies, or
programs in core academic subjects (as
defined in section 9101(11) of the ESEA)
that are aligned with high academic
content and achievement standards and
with high-quality assessments based on
those standards.8 Proposed projects may
include, but are not limited to,
practices, strategies, or programs that
are designed to: (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 designbased contextual learning
opportunities); (b) increase the
development and use of formative
8 Consistent with the Race to the Top Fund, the
Department interprets the core academic subject of
‘‘science’’ under section 9101(11) to include STEM
education (science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics) which encompasses a wide-range of
disciplines, including science.

E:\FR\FM\12MRR2.SGM

12MRR2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
assessments or interim assessments, or
other performance-based tools and
‘‘metrics’’ that are aligned with high
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.
Under this priority, an eligible
applicant must propose a project that is
based on standards that are at least as
rigorous as its State’s standards. If the
proposed project is based on standards
other than those adopted by the eligible
applicant’s State, the applicant must
explain how the standards are aligned
with and at least as rigorous as the
eligible applicant’s State’s standards as
well as how the standards differ.

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

Absolute Priority 4—Innovations That
Turn Around Persistently LowPerforming Schools
Under this priority, the Department
provides funding to support strategies,
practices, or programs that are designed
to turn around schools that are in any
of the following categories: (a)
Persistently lowest-achieving schools
(as defined in the final requirements for
the School Improvement Grants
program); 9 (b) Title I schools that are in
corrective action or restructuring under
section 1116 of the ESEA; or (c)
secondary schools (both middle and
high schools) eligible for but not
receiving Title I funds that, if receiving
Title I funds, would be in corrective
action or restructuring under section
1116 of the ESEA. These schools are
referred to as Investing in Innovation
Fund Absolute Priority 4 schools.
Proposed projects must include
strategies, practices, or programs that
are designed to turn around Investing in
Innovation Fund Absolute Priority 4
schools through either whole-school
reform or targeted approaches to reform.
9 Under the final requirements for the School
Improvement Grants program, ‘‘persistently lowestachieving schools’’ means, as determined by the
State, (a)(1) any Title I school in improvement,
corrective action, or restructuring that (i) is among
the lowest-achieving five percent of Title I schools
in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring
or the lowest-achieving five Title I schools in
improvement, corrective action, or restructuring in
the State, whichever number of schools is greater;
or (ii) is a high school that has had a graduation
rate as defined in 34 CFR 200.19(b) that is less than
60 percent over a number of years; and (2) any
secondary school that is eligible for, but does not
receive, Title I funds that (i) is among the lowestachieving five percent of secondary schools or the
lowest-achieving five secondary schools in the State
that are eligible for, but do not receive, Title I funds,
whichever number of schools is greater; or (ii) is a
high school that has had a graduation rate as
defined in 34 CFR 200.19(b) that is less than 60
percent over a number of years. See http://
www2.ed.gov/programs/sif/faq.html.

VerDate Nov<24>2008

17:35 Mar 11, 2010

Jkt 220001

Applicants addressing this priority must
focus on either:
(a) Whole-school reform, including,
but not limited to, comprehensive
interventions to assist, augment, or
replace Investing in Innovation Fund
Absolute Priority 4 schools, including
the school turnaround, restart, closure,
and transformation models of
intervention supported under the
Department’s School Improvement
Grants program (see Final Requirements
for School Improvement Grants as
Amended in January 2010 (January 28,
2010) at http://www2.ed.gov/programs/
sif/faq.html); or
(b) Targeted approaches to reform,
including, but not limited to: (1)
Providing more time for students to
learn core academic content by
expanding or augmenting the school
day, school week, or school year, or by
increasing instructional time for core
academic subjects (as defined in section
9101(11) of the ESEA); (2) integrating
‘‘student supports’’ into the school
model to address non-academic barriers
to student achievement; or (3) creating
multiple pathways for students to earn
regular high school diplomas (e.g., by
operating schools that serve the needs of
over-aged, under-credited, or other
students with an exceptional need for
support and flexibility pertaining to
when they attend school; awarding
credit based on demonstrated evidence
of student competency; and offering
dual-enrollment options).
Competitive Preference Priorities
Competitive Preference Priority 5—
Innovations for Improving Early
Learning Outcomes
We give competitive preference to
applications for projects that would
implement innovative practices,
strategies, or programs that are designed
to improve educational outcomes for
high-need students who are young
children (birth through 3rd grade) by
enhancing the quality of early learning
programs. To meet this priority,
applications must focus on (a)
improving young children’s school
readiness (including social, emotional,
and cognitive readiness) so that children
are prepared for success in core
academic subjects (as defined in section
9101(11) of the ESEA); (b) improving
developmental milestones and
standards and aligning them 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.

PO 00000

Frm 00059

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

12061

Competitive Preference Priority 6—
Innovations That Support College
Access and Success
We give competitive preference to
applications for projects that would
implement innovative practices,
strategies, or programs that are designed
to enable kindergarten through grade 12
(K–12) students, particularly high
school students, to successfully prepare
for, enter, and graduate from a two- or
four-year college. To meet this priority,
applications must include practices,
strategies, or programs for K–12
students that (a) address students’
preparedness and expectations related
to college; (b) help students understand
issues of college affordability and the
financial aid and college application
processes; and (c) provide support to
students from peers and knowledgeable
adults.
Competitive Preference Priority 7—
Innovations To Address the Unique
Learning Needs of Students With
Disabilities and Limited English
Proficient Students
We give competitive preference to
applications for projects that would
implement innovative practices,
strategies, or programs that are designed
to address the unique learning needs of
students with disabilities, including
those who are assessed based on
alternate academic achievement
standards, or the linguistic and
academic needs of limited English
proficient students. To meet this
priority, applications must provide for
the implementation of particular
practices, strategies, or programs that
are designed to improve academic
outcomes, close achievement gaps, and
increase college- and career-readiness,
including increasing high school
graduation rates (as defined in this
notice), for students with disabilities or
limited English proficient students.
Competitive Preference Priority 8—
Innovations That Serve Schools in Rural
LEAs
We give competitive preference to
applications for projects that would
implement innovative practices,
strategies, or programs that are designed
to 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. To meet
this priority, applications must include
practices, strategies, or programs that
are designed to improve student
achievement or student growth, close
achievement gaps, decrease dropout
rates, increase high school graduation

E:\FR\FM\12MRR2.SGM

12MRR2

12062

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

rates, or improve teacher and principal
effectiveness in one or more rural LEAs.
Final Requirements
The Secretary establishes 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 eligible 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. An
eligible applicant that is a partnership
applying under section 14007(a)(1)(B) of
the ARRA must designate one of its
official partners (as defined in this
notice) to serve as the applicant in
accordance with the Department’s
regulations governing group
applications in 34 CFR 75.127 through
75.129.
Eligibility Requirements: To be
eligible for an award, an eligible
applicant must—except as specifically
set forth in the Note about Eligibility for
an Eligible Applicant that Includes a
Nonprofit Organization that follows:
(1)(A) Have significantly closed the
achievement gaps between groups of
students described in section 1111(b)(2)
of the ESEA (economically
disadvantaged students, students from
major racial and ethnic groups, students
with limited English proficiency,
students with disabilities); or
(B) Have demonstrated success in
significantly increasing student
academic achievement for all groups of
students described in that section;
(2) Have made significant
improvements in other areas, such as
graduation rates or increased
recruitment and placement of highquality teachers and principals, as
demonstrated with meaningful data;
(3) Demonstrate that it has established
one or more 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
(4) In the case of an eligible applicant
that includes a nonprofit organization,
provide in the application the names of
the LEAs with which the nonprofit
organization will partner, or the names
of the schools in the consortium with
which it will partner. If an eligible
applicant that includes a nonprofit

VerDate Nov<24>2008

17:35 Mar 11, 2010

Jkt 220001

organization intends to partner with
additional LEAs or schools that are not
named in the application, it must
describe in the application the
demographic and other characteristics
of these LEAs and schools and the
process it will use to select them as
either official or other partners. An
applicant must identify its specific
partners before a grant award will be
made.
Note about LEA Eligibility: For
purposes of this program, an LEA is an
LEA located within one of the 50 States,
the District of Columbia, or the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
Note about Eligibility for an Eligible
Applicant that Includes a Nonprofit
Organization: The authorizing statute
(as amended) specifies that an eligible
applicant that includes a nonprofit
organization is considered to have met
the requirements in paragraphs (1) and
(2) of the eligibility requirements for
this program if the nonprofit
organization has a record of
significantly improving student
achievement, attainment, or retention.
For an eligible applicant that includes a
nonprofit organization, the nonprofit
organization must demonstrate that it
has a record of significantly improving
student achievement, attainment, or
retention through its record of work
with an LEA or schools. Therefore, an
eligible applicant that includes a
nonprofit organization does not
necessarily need to include as a partner
for its Investing in Innovation Fund
grant an LEA or a consortium of schools
that meets the requirements in
paragraphs (1) and (2).
In addition, the authorizing statute (as
amended) specifies that an eligible
applicant that includes a nonprofit
organization is considered to have met
the requirements of paragraph (3) of the
eligibility requirements for this program
if the eligible applicant demonstrates
that it will meet the requirement
relating to private-sector matching.
Evidence Standards: To be eligible for
an award, an application for a Scale-up
grant must be supported by strong
evidence (as defined in this notice), an
application for a Validation grant must
be supported by moderate evidence (as
defined in this notice), and an
application for a Development grant
must be supported by a reasonable
hypothesis.
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

PO 00000

Frm 00060

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

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 eligible
applicant must demonstrate that it has
established one or more partnerships
with an entity or organization in the
private sector, which may include
philanthropic organizations, and that
the entity or organization in the private
sector will provide matching funds in
order to help bring project results to
scale. An eligible applicant must obtain
matching funds or in-kind donations
equal to at least 20 percent of its grant
award. Selected eligible applicants must
submit evidence of the full 20 percent
private-sector matching funds following
the peer review of applications. An
award will not be made unless the
applicant provides adequate evidence
that the full 20 percent private-sector
match has been committed or the
Secretary approves the eligible
applicant’s request to reduce the
matching-level requirement.
The Secretary may consider
decreasing the 20 percent matching
requirement in the most exceptional
circumstances, on a case-by-case basis.
An eligible applicant that anticipates
being unable to meet the 20 percent
matching requirement must include in
the application a request to the
Secretary to reduce the matching-level
requirement, along with a statement of
the basis for the request.
Subgrants: In the case of an eligible
applicant that is a partnership between
a nonprofit organization and (1) one or
more LEAs or (2) a consortium of
schools, the partner serving as the
applicant may make subgrants to one or
more official partners (as defined in this
notice).
Limits on Grant Awards: No grantee
may receive more than two grant awards
under this program. In addition, no
grantee may receive more than $55
million in grant awards under this
program in a single year’s competition.
Evaluation: A grantee must comply
with the requirements of any evaluation
of the program conducted by the
Department. In addition, the grantee is
required to conduct an independent
evaluation (as defined in this notice) of
its 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 will
be to ensure that the evaluations are of
the highest quality and to encourage
commonality in evaluation approaches
across funded projects where such
commonality is feasible and useful.
Finally, the grantee must make broadly
available through formal (e.g., peer-

E:\FR\FM\12MRR2.SGM

12MRR2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
reviewed journals) or informal (e.g.,
newsletters) mechanisms, and in print
or electronically, the results of any
evaluations it conducts of its funded
activities. For Scale-up and Validation
grants, the grantee must also ensure the
data from their evaluations are made
available to third-party researchers
consistent with applicable privacy
requirements.
Participation in ‘‘Communities of
Practice’’: Grantees are 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.

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

Final Definitions
The Secretary establishes the
following definitions for the Investing in
Innovation Fund. We may apply these
definitions in any year in which this
program is in effect.
Definitions Related to Evidence
Strong evidence means evidence from
previous studies whose designs can
support causal conclusions (i.e., studies
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 wellimplemented (as defined in this notice)
experimental study (as defined in this
notice) or well-designed and wellimplemented (as defined in this notice)
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 (as defined in
this notice) 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 wellimplemented (as defined in this notice)
experimental or quasi-experimental

VerDate Nov<24>2008

17:35 Mar 11, 2010

Jkt 220001

study (as defined in this notice)
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 welldesigned and well-implemented (as
defined in this notice) experimental or
quasi-experimental study (as defined in
this notice) 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.
Well-designed and well-implemented
means, with respect to an experimental
or quasi-experimental study (as defined
in this notice), that the study meets the
What Works Clearinghouse evidence
standards, with or without reservations
(see http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/
references/idocviewer/
doc.aspx?docid=19&tocid=1 and in
particular the description of ‘‘Reasons
for Not Meeting Standards’’ at http://
ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/references/
idocviewer/
Doc.aspx?docId=19&tocId=4#reasons).
Experimental study means a study
that employs random assignment of, for
example, students, teachers, classrooms,
schools, or districts 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 average 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 quasiexperimental 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 quasiexperimental 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

PO 00000

Frm 00061

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

12063

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 10
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
comparison group time series, such as
schools not participating in the program
or schools participating in the program
in a different geographic area,
substantially 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 comparison
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 comparison group.
Independent evaluation means that
the evaluation is designed and carried
out independent of, but in coordination
10 A single subject or single case design is an
adaptation of an interrupted time series design that
relies on the comparison of treatment effects on a
single subject or group of single subjects. There is
little confidence that findings based on this design
would be the same for other members of the
population. In some single subject designs,
treatment reversal or multiple baseline designs are
used to increase internal validity. In a treatment
reversal design, after a pretreatment or baseline
outcome measurement is compared with a posttreatment measure, the treatment would then be
stopped for a period of time, a second baseline
measure of the outcome would be taken, followed
by a second application of the treatment or a
different treatment. A multiple baseline design
addresses concerns about the effects of normal
development, timing of the treatment, and amount
of the treatment with treatment-reversal designs by
using a varying time schedule for introduction of
the treatment and/or treatments of different lengths
or intensity.

E:\FR\FM\12MRR2.SGM

12MRR2

12064

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

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.
Other Definitions
Applicant means the entity that
applies for a grant under this program
on behalf of an eligible applicant (i.e.,
an LEA or a partnership in accordance
with section 14007(a)(1)(B) of the
ARRA).
Official partner means any of the
entities required to be part of a
partnership under section 14007(a)(1)(B)
of the ARRA.
Other partner means any entity, other
than the applicant and any official
partner, that may be involved in a
proposed project.
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
assessment questions, tools, and
processes that are embedded in
instruction and are used by teachers and
students to provide timely feedback for
purposes of adjusting instruction to
improve learning.
Interim assessment means an
assessment that is given at regular and
specified intervals throughout the
school year, is designed to evaluate
students’ knowledge and skills relative
to a specific set of academic standards,
and produces results that 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 principal means a
principal 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, and
students of each gender), achieve high
rates (e.g., one and one-half grade levels
in an academic year) of student growth.
Eligible applicants may include
multiple measures, provided that

VerDate Nov<24>2008

17:35 Mar 11, 2010

Jkt 220001

principal effectiveness is evaluated, in
significant part, based on student
growth. Supplemental measures may
include, for example, high school
graduation rates; college enrollment
rates; evidence of providing supportive
teaching and learning conditions,
support for ensuring effective
instruction across subject areas for a
well-rounded education, strong
instructional leadership, and positive
family and community engagement; or
evidence of attracting, developing, and
retaining high numbers of effective
teachers.
Highly effective teacher means a
teacher whose students achieve high
rates (e.g., one and one-half grade levels
in an academic year) of student growth.
Eligible applicants may include
multiple measures, provided that
teacher effectiveness is evaluated, in
significant part, based on student
growth. Supplemental measures may
include, for example, multiple
observation-based assessments of
teacher performance or evidence of
leadership roles (which may include
mentoring or leading professional
learning communities) that increase the
effectiveness of other teachers in the
school or LEA.
High-need student means a student at
risk of educational failure, or otherwise
in need of special assistance and
support, such as students who are living
in poverty, who attend high-minority
schools, who are far below grade level,
who are over-age and under-credited,
who have left school before receiving a
regular high school diploma, who are at
risk of not graduating with a regular
high school diploma on time, who are
homeless, who are in foster care, who
have been incarcerated, who have
disabilities, or who are limited English
proficient.
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 the 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, and students of
each 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 the different groups of students
described in section 1111(b)(3)(C)(xiii)

PO 00000

Frm 00062

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

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, and students of each
gender). To be considered a regionallevel project, a project must serve
students in more than one LEA. The
exception to this requirement would be
a project implemented in a State in
which the State educational agency is
the sole educational agency for all
schools and thus may be considered an
LEA under section 9101(26) of the
ESEA. Such a State would meet the
definition of regional for the purposes of
this notice.
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. Eligible 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/
eligible09/index.html. For the RLIS:
http://www.ed.gov/programs/reaprlisp/
eligibility.html.
Student achievement means—
(a) For tested grades and subjects: (1)
A student’s score on the State’s
assessments under section 1111(b)(3) of
the ESEA; and, as appropriate, (2) other
measures of student learning, such as
those described in paragraph (b) of this
definition, provided they are rigorous
and comparable across classrooms; and
(b) For non-tested grades and subjects:
Alternative measures of student learning
and performance such as student scores
on pre-tests and end-of-course tests;
student performance on English
language proficiency assessments; and
other measures of student achievement
that are rigorous and comparable across
classrooms.
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.
High school graduation rate means a
four-year adjusted cohort graduation
rate consistent with 34 CFR 200.19(b)(1)
and may also include an extended-year
adjusted cohort graduation rate
consistent with 34 CFR 200.19(b)(1)(v) if
the State in which the proposed project

E:\FR\FM\12MRR2.SGM

12MRR2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
is implemented has been approved by
the Secretary to use such a rate under
Title I of the ESEA.
Regular high school diploma means,
consistent with 34 CFR 200.19(b)(1)(iv),
the standard high school diploma that is
awarded to students in the State and
that is fully aligned with the State’s
academic content standards or a higher
diploma and does not include a General
Education Development (GED)
credential, certificate of attendance, or
any alternative award.
Selection Criteria
The Secretary establishes the
following selection criteria for
evaluating an application under the
Investing in Innovation Fund. We may
apply these criteria in any year in which
this program is in effect. In the notice
inviting applications, we will announce
the maximum possible points assigned
to each criterion.

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

1. Scale-Up Grants
A. Need for the Project and Quality of
the Project Design.
The Secretary considers the need for
the project and quality of the design of
the proposed project.
In determining the need for the
project and quality of the design of the
proposed project, the Secretary
considers the following factors:
(1) The extent to which the proposed
project represents an exceptional
approach to the priorities the eligible
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).
(2) The extent to which the proposed
project has a clear set of goals and an
explicit strategy, with actions that are
(a) aligned with the priorities the
eligible applicant is seeking to meet,
and (b) 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.
The Secretary considers the strength
of the existing research evidence,11
including the internal validity (strength
of causal conclusions) and external
validity (generalizability) of the effects
reported in prior research, on whether
the proposed project will improve
student achievement or student growth,
close achievement gaps, decrease
dropout rates, increase high school
graduation rates, or increase college
enrollment and completion rates.
Eligible applicants may also
11 For additional information on the evidence for
Scale-up grants, see Table 3 later in this section.

VerDate Nov<24>2008

17:35 Mar 11, 2010

Jkt 220001

demonstrate success through an
intermediate variable that is strongly
correlated with improving these
outcomes, such as teacher or principal
effectiveness.
In determining the strength of the
existing research evidence, the Secretary
considers the following factors:
(1) The extent to which the eligible
applicant demonstrates that there is
strong evidence (as defined in this
notice) that its implementation of the
proposed practice, strategy, or program
will have a statistically significant,
substantial, and important effect on
improving student achievement or
student growth, closing achievement
gaps, decreasing dropout rates,
increasing high school graduation rates,
or increasing college enrollment and
completion rates.
(2) 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, increase high school graduation
rates, or increase college enrollment and
completion rates. The evidence in
support of the importance and
magnitude of the effect would be the
research-based evidence provided by
the eligible applicant to support the
proposed project.
C. Experience of the Eligible
Applicant.
The Secretary considers the
experience of the eligible applicant in
implementing the proposed project.
In determining the experience of the
eligible applicant, the Secretary
considers the following factors:
(1) The past performance of the
eligible applicant in implementing
large, complex, and rapidly growing
projects.
(2) The extent to which an eligible
applicant provides information and data
demonstrating that—
(a) In the case of an eligible applicant
that is an LEA, the LEA has—
(i) Significantly closed the
achievement gaps between groups of
students described in section 1111(b)(2)
of the ESEA, or significantly increased
student achievement for all groups of
students described in such section; and
(ii) Made significant improvements in
other areas, such as graduation rates or
increased recruitment and placement of
high-quality teachers and principals, as
demonstrated with meaningful data; or
(b) In the case of an eligible applicant
that includes a nonprofit organization,
the nonprofit organization has
significantly improved student
achievement, attainment, or retention

PO 00000

Frm 00063

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

12065

through its record of work with an LEA
or schools.
D. Quality of the Project Evaluation.
The Secretary considers the quality of
the evaluation to be conducted of the
proposed project.
In determining the quality of the
evaluation, the Secretary considers the
following factors:
(1) The extent to which the methods
of evaluation will include a welldesigned experimental study or, if a
well-designed experimental study of the
project is not possible, the extent to
which the methods of evaluation will
include a well-designed quasiexperimental study.
(2) The extent to which, for either an
experimental study or a quasiexperimental study, the study will be
conducted of the practice, strategy, or
program as implemented at scale.
(3) 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.
(4) The extent to which the evaluation
will provide sufficient information
about the key elements and approach of
the project so as to facilitate replication
or testing in other settings.
(5) The extent to which the proposed
project plan includes sufficient
resources to carry out the project
evaluation effectively.
(6) The extent to which the proposed
evaluation is rigorous, independent, and
neither the program developer nor the
project implementer will evaluate the
impact of the project.
Note: We encourage eligible applicants to
review the following technical assistance
resources on evaluation: (1) What Works
Clearinghouse Procedures and Standards
Handbook: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/
references/idocviewer/doc.aspx?docid=19&
tocid=1; and (2) IES/NCEE Technical
Methods papers: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/tech_
methods/.

E. Strategy and Capacity to Bring to
Scale.
The Secretary considers the quality of
the eligible applicant’s strategy and
capacity to bring the proposed project to
scale on a national, regional, or State
level.
In determining the quality of the
strategy and capacity to bring the
proposed project to scale, the Secretary
considers:
(1) The number of students proposed
to be reached by the proposed project
and the capacity of the eligible
applicant and any other partners to
reach the proposed number of students
during the course of the grant period.
(2) The eligible applicant’s capacity
(e.g., in terms of qualified personnel,

E:\FR\FM\12MRR2.SGM

12MRR2

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

12066

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

financial resources, or management
capacity) to bring the proposed 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.
(3) 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 and 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.
(4) The eligible applicant’s estimate of
the cost of the proposed project, which
includes the start-up and operating costs
per student per year (including indirect
costs) for reaching the total number of
students proposed to be served by the
project. The eligible applicant must
include an estimate of the costs for the
eligible applicant or others (including
other partners) to reach 100,000,
500,000, and 1,000,000 students.
(5) The mechanisms the eligible
applicant will use to broadly
disseminate information on its project
so as to support replication.
F. Sustainability.
The Secretary considers the adequacy
of resources to continue the proposed
project after the grant period ends.
In determining the adequacy of
resources for the proposed project, the
Secretary considers the following
factors:
(1) The extent to which the eligible
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
any other partners; and evidence of
broad support from stakeholders (e.g.,
State educational agencies, teachers’
unions) critical to the project’s longterm success.
(2) The potential and planning for the
incorporation of project purposes,
activities, or benefits into the ongoing
work of the eligible applicant and any
other partners at the end of the Scaleup grant.
G. Quality of the Management Plan
and Personnel.
The Secretary considers the quality of
the management plan and personnel for
the proposed project.
In determining the quality of the
management plan and personnel for the
proposed project, the Secretary
considers:

VerDate Nov<24>2008

17:35 Mar 11, 2010

Jkt 220001

(1) 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 tasks related to the
sustainability and scalability of the
proposed project.
(2) The qualifications, including
relevant training and experience, of the
project director and key project
personnel, especially in managing large,
complex, and rapidly growing projects.
(3) 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.
The Secretary considers the need for
the project and quality of the design of
the proposed project.
In determining the need for the
project and quality of the design of the
proposed project, the Secretary
considers the following factors:
(1) The extent to which the proposed
project represents an exceptional
approach to the priorities the eligible
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).
(2) The extent to which the proposed
project has a clear set of goals and an
explicit strategy, with actions that are
(a) aligned with the priorities the
eligible applicant is seeking to meet,
and (b) expected to result in achieving
the goals, objectives, and outcomes of
the proposed project.
(3) The extent to which the proposed
project is consistent with the research
evidence supporting the proposed
project, taking into consideration any
differences in context.
B. Strength of Research, Significance
of Effect, and Magnitude of Effect.
The Secretary considers the strength
of the existing research evidence,
including the internal validity (strength
of causal conclusions) and external
validity (generalizability) of the effects
reported in prior research, on whether
the proposed project will improve
student achievement or student growth,
close achievement gaps, decrease
dropout rates, increase high school
graduation rates, or increase college
enrollment and completion rates.
Eligible applicants may also
demonstrate success through an

PO 00000

Frm 00064

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

intermediate variable that is strongly
correlated with improving these
outcomes, such as teacher or principal
effectiveness.
In determining the strength of the
existing research evidence,12 the
Secretary considers the following
factors:
(1) The extent to which the eligible
applicant demonstrates that there is
moderate evidence (as defined in this
notice) that the proposed practice,
strategy, or program will have a
statistically significant, substantial, and
important effect on improving student
achievement or student growth, closing
achievement gaps, decreasing dropout
rates, increasing high school graduation
rates, or increasing college enrollment
and completion rates.
(2) 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, increase high school
graduation rates, or increase college
enrollment and completion rates. The
evidence in support of the importance
and magnitude of the effect would be
the research-based evidence provided
by the eligible applicant to support the
proposed project.
C. Experience of the Eligible
Applicant.
The Secretary considers the
experience of the eligible applicant in
implementing the proposed project.
In determining the experience of the
eligible applicant, the Secretary
considers the following factors:
(1) The past performance of the
eligible applicant in implementing
complex projects.
(2) The extent to which an eligible
applicant provides information and data
demonstrating that—
(a) In the case of an eligible applicant
that is an LEA, the LEA has—
(i) Significantly closed the
achievement gaps between groups of
students described in section 1111(b)(2)
of the ESEA, or significantly increased
student achievement for all groups of
students described in such section; and
(ii) Made significant improvements in
other areas, such as graduation rates or
increased recruitment and placement of
high-quality teachers and principals, as
demonstrated with meaningful data; or
(b) In the case of an eligible applicant
that includes a nonprofit organization,
the nonprofit organization has
significantly improved student
12 For additional information on the evidence for
Validation grants, see Table 3 later in this section.

E:\FR\FM\12MRR2.SGM

12MRR2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
achievement, attainment, or retention
through its record of work with an LEA
or schools.
D. Quality of the Project Evaluation.
The Secretary considers the quality of
the evaluation to be conducted of the
proposed project.
In determining the quality of the
evaluation, the Secretary considers the
following factors:
(1) The extent to which the methods
of evaluation will include a welldesigned experimental study or welldesigned quasi-experimental study.
(2) 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.
(3) The extent to which the evaluation
will provide sufficient information
about the key elements and approach of
the project so as to facilitate replication
or testing in other settings.
(4) The extent to which the proposed
project plan includes sufficient
resources to carry out the project
evaluation effectively.
(5) The extent to which the proposed
evaluation is rigorous, independent, and
neither the program developer nor the
project implementer will evaluate the
impact of the project.

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

Note: We encourage eligible applicants to
review the following technical assistance
resources on evaluation: (1) What Works
Clearinghouse Procedures and Standards
Handbook: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/
references/idocviewer/doc.aspx?docid=19&
tocid=1; and (2) IES/NCES Technical
Methods papers: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/tech_
methods/.

E. Strategy and Capacity to Bring to
Scale.
The Secretary considers the quality of
the eligible applicant’s strategy and
capacity to bring the proposed project to
scale on a State or regional level.
In determining the quality of the
strategy and capacity to bring the
proposed project to scale, the Secretary
considers:
(1) The number of students proposed
to be reached by the proposed project
and the capacity of the eligible
applicant and any other partners to
reach the proposed number of students
during the course of the grant period.
(2) The eligible applicant’s capacity
(e.g., in terms of qualified personnel,
financial resources, or management
capacity) to bring the proposed project
to scale on a State or regional level (as
appropriate, based on the results of the
proposed project) working directly, or
through other partners, either during or
following the end of the grant period.
(3) The feasibility of the proposed
project to be replicated successfully, if

VerDate Nov<24>2008

17:35 Mar 11, 2010

Jkt 220001

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.
(4) The eligible applicant’s estimate of
the cost of the proposed project, which
includes the start-up and operating costs
per student per year (including indirect
costs) for reaching the total number of
students proposed to be served by the
project. The eligible applicant must
include an estimate of the costs for the
eligible applicant or others (including
other partners) to reach 100,000,
250,000, and 500,000 students.
(5) The mechanisms the eligible
applicant will use to broadly
disseminate information on its project to
support further development,
expansion, or replication.
F. Sustainability.
The Secretary considers the adequacy
of resources to continue to develop the
proposed project.
In determining the adequacy of
resources for the proposed project, the
Secretary considers the following
factors:
(1) The extent to which the eligible
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.
(2) The potential and planning for the
incorporation of project purposes,
activities, or benefits into the ongoing
work of the eligible applicant and any
other partners at the end of the
Validation grant.
G. Quality of the Management Plan
and Personnel.
The Secretary considers the quality of
the management plan and personnel for
the proposed project.
In determining the quality of the
management plan and personnel for the
proposed project, the Secretary
considers:
(1) 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 tasks related to the
sustainability and scalability of the
proposed project.
(2) The qualifications, including
relevant training and experience, of the
project director and key project
personnel, especially in managing
complex projects.

PO 00000

Frm 00065

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

12067

(3) 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
A. Need for the Project and Quality of
the Project Design.
The Secretary considers the need for
the project and quality of the design of
the proposed project.
In determining the need for the
project and quality of the design of the
proposed project, the Secretary
considers the following factors:
(1) The extent to which the proposed
project represents an exceptional
approach to the priorities the eligible
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).
(2) The extent to which the proposed
project has a clear set of goals and an
explicit strategy, with the goals,
objectives, and outcomes to be achieved
by the proposed project clearly specified
and measurable and linked to the
priorities the eligible applicant is
seeking to meet.
B. Strength of Research, Significance
of Effect, and Magnitude of Effect.
The Secretary considers the strength
of the existing research evidence,13
including reported practice, theoretical
considerations, and the significance and
magnitude of any effects reported in
prior research, on whether the proposed
project will improve student
achievement or student growth, close
achievement gaps, decrease dropout
rates, increase high school graduation
rates, or increase college enrollment and
completion rates. Eligible applicants
may also demonstrate success through
an intermediate variable that is strongly
correlated with improving these
outcomes, such as teacher or principal
effectiveness.
In determining the strength of the
existing research evidence, the Secretary
considers the following factors:
(1) The extent to which the eligible
applicant demonstrates that there are
research-based findings or reasonable
hypotheses that support the proposed
project, including related research in
education and other sectors.
(2) The extent to which the proposed
project has been attempted previously,
albeit on a limited scale or in a limited
13 For additional information on the evidence for
Development grants, see Table 3 later in this
section.

E:\FR\FM\12MRR2.SGM

12MRR2

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

12068

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

setting, with promising results that
suggest that more formal and systematic
study is warranted.
(3) The extent to which the eligible
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,
increasing high school graduation rates,
or increasing college enrollment and
completion rates.
C. Experience of the Eligible
Applicant.
The Secretary considers the
experience of the eligible applicant in
implementing the proposed project or a
similar project.
In determining the experience of the
eligible applicant, the Secretary
considers the following factors:
(1) The past performance of the
eligible applicant in implementing
projects of the size and scope proposed
by the eligible applicant.
(2) The extent to which an eligible
applicant provides information and data
demonstrating that—
(a) In the case of an eligible applicant
that is an LEA, the LEA has—
(i) Significantly closed the
achievement gaps between groups of
students described in section 1111(b)(2)
of the ESEA, or significantly increased
student achievement for all groups of
students described in such section; and
(ii) Made significant improvements in
other areas, such as graduation rates or
increased recruitment and placement of
high-quality teachers and principals, as
demonstrated with meaningful data; or
(b) In the case of an eligible applicant
that includes a nonprofit organization,
the nonprofit organization has
significantly improved student
achievement, attainment, or retention
through its record of work with an LEA
or schools.
D. Quality of the Project Evaluation.
The Secretary considers the quality of
the evaluation to be conducted of the
proposed project.
In determining the quality of the
evaluation, the Secretary considers the
following factors.
(1) The extent to which the methods
of evaluation are appropriate to the size
and scope of the proposed project.
(2) The extent to which the methods
of evaluation will provide high-quality

VerDate Nov<24>2008

17:35 Mar 11, 2010

Jkt 220001

implementation data and performance
feedback, and permit periodic
assessment of progress toward achieving
intended outcomes.
(3) 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.
(4) The extent to which the proposed
project plan includes sufficient
resources to carry out the project
evaluation effectively.
Note: We encourage eligible applicants to
review the following technical assistance
resources on evaluation: (1) What Works
Clearinghouse Procedures and Standards
Handbook: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/
references/idocviewer/doc.aspx?docid=19&
tocid=1; and (2) IES/NCEE Technical
Methods papers: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/tech_
methods/.

E. Strategy and Capacity to Further
Develop and Bring to Scale.
The Secretary considers the quality of
the eligible applicant’s strategy and
capacity to further develop and bring to
scale the proposed project.
In determining the quality of the
strategy and capacity to further develop
and bring to scale the proposed project,
the Secretary considers:
(1) The number of students proposed
to be reached by the proposed project
and the capacity of the eligible
applicant and any other partners to
reach the proposed number of students
during the course of the grant period.
(2) The eligible applicant’s capacity
(e.g., in terms of qualified personnel,
financial resources, or management
capacity) to further develop and bring to
scale the proposed practice, strategy, or
program, or to work with others
(including other partners) to ensure that
the proposed practice, strategy, or
program can be further developed and
brought to scale, based on the findings
of the proposed project.
(3) 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.
(4) The eligible applicant’s estimate of
the cost of the proposed project, which

PO 00000

Frm 00066

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

includes the start-up and operating costs
per student per year (including indirect
costs) for reaching the total number of
students proposed to be served by the
project. The eligible applicant must
include an estimate of the costs for the
eligible applicant or others (including
other partners) to reach 100,000,
250,000, and 500,000 students.
(5) The mechanisms the eligible
applicant will use to broadly
disseminate information on its project
so as to support further development or
replication.
F. Sustainability.
The Secretary considers the adequacy
of resources to continue to develop or
expand the proposed practice, strategy,
or program after the grant period ends.
In determining the adequacy of
resources for the proposed project, the
Secretary considers the following
factors:
(1) The extent to which the eligible
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.
(2) The potential and planning for the
incorporation of project purposes,
activities, or benefits into the ongoing
work of the eligible applicant and any
other partners at the end of the
Development grant.
G. Quality of the Management Plan
and Personnel.
The Secretary considers the quality of
the management plan and personnel for
the proposed project.
In determining the quality of the
management plan and personnel for the
proposed project, the Secretary
considers:
(1) 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.
(2) 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.

E:\FR\FM\12MRR2.SGM

12MRR2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

12069

TABLE 3 14—DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE THREE TYPES OF INVESTING IN INNOVATION FUND 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 ......................
Internal Validity (Strength of Causal
Conclusions) and External Validity (Generalizability).

Strong evidence ...........................
High internal validity and high external validity.

Prior Research Studies Supporting
Effectiveness or Efficacy of the
Proposed Practice, Strategy, or
Program.

(1) More than one well-designed
and well-implemented experimental study or well-designed
and well-implemented quasi-experimental study; or (2) one
large, well-designed and wellimplemented randomized controlled, multisite trial.

Reasonable hypotheses.
Theory and reported practice suggest the potential for efficacy
for at least some participants
and settings.
(1) 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; and (2) 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.

Practice, Strategy, or Program in
Prior Research.

Moderate evidence .......................
(1) High internal validity and moderate external validity; or (2)
moderate internal validity and
high external validity.
(1) At least one well-designed
and well-implemented experimental or quasi-experimental
study, 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 quasiexperimental 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.
The same as, or very similar to,
that proposed for support under
the Validation grant.
Participants or settings may have
been more limited than those
proposed to receive the treatment under the Validation grant.

The same as that proposed for
support under the Scale-up
grant.
Participants and settings included
the kinds of participants and
settings proposed to receive
the treatment under the Scaleup grant.
Effect in prior research was sta- Effect in prior research would be
tistically significant, and would
likely to be statistically signifibe likely to be statistically sigcant in a sample of the size
nificant in a sample of the size
proposed for the Validation
proposed for the Scale-up grant.
grant.
Based on prior research, substan- Based on prior research, substantial and important for the target
tial and important, with the popopulation for the Scale-up
tential of the same for the tarproject.
get population for the Validation
project.

Participants and Settings in Prior
Research.

Significance of Effect ......................

Magnitude of Effect .........................

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

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
14 This table is identical to Table 1 earlier in this
notice.

VerDate Nov<24>2008

17:35 Mar 11, 2010

Jkt 220001

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.

PO 00000

Frm 00067

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

The same as, or similar to, that
proposed for support under the
Development grant.
Participants or settings may have
been more limited than those
proposed to receive the treatment under the Development
grant.
Practice, strategy, or program
warrants further study to investigate efficacy.
Based on prior implementation,
promising for the target population for the Development
project.

The potential costs associated with
this 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 regulatory action,
we have determined that the benefits of
the final priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria justify
the costs.
We have determined, also, that this
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 final priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria are

E:\FR\FM\12MRR2.SGM

12MRR2

12070

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations

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 final priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection
criteria established in this notice
provide greater clarity on the types of
activities the Department seeks to fund,
and permit the Department to fund
projects 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 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 improve student
achievement and attainment outcomes
and eliminate persistent disparities in
these outcomes among different
populations of students.
Regulatory Alternatives Considered
The Department considered a variety
of possible priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria before
deciding to establish those included in
this notice. The final 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 final priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection
criteria also provide eligible applicants
with flexibility in selecting activities to

apply to carry out under the program.
The Secretary believes that the final
priorities, requirements, definitions, and
selection criteria thus appropriately
balance a limited degree of specificity
with broad flexibility in
implementation.
Summary of Costs and Benefits
The Secretary believes that the final
priorities, requirements, definitions, and
selection criteria do not impose
significant costs on eligible applicants.
The Secretary also believes that the
benefits of the final priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection
criteria outweigh any associated costs.
The Secretary believes that the final
priorities, requirements, definitions, and
selection criteria would result in the
selection of high-quality applications to
implement activities that are most likely
to have a significant national impact on
educational reform and improvement.
The final priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria are
intended to provide clarity as to the
scope of activities the Secretary 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 AYP. 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. Eligible
applicants 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 final
priorities, requirements, definitions, and
selection criteria would be limited to

paperwork burden related to preparing
an application and that the benefits of
the final priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria
outweigh any costs incurred by
applicants. The costs of carrying out
activities will 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 final selection
criteria the Secretary will assess the
extent to which an eligible applicant is
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 final priorities provide flexibility
on the topics and types of grant
activities applicants may propose. The
use of three types of grants—Scale-up,
Validation, and Development grants—
will allow potential eligible 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
final regulatory action. This table
provides our best estimate of the Federal
payments to be made to eligible
applicants under this program as a
result of this final regulatory action.
Expenditures are classified as transfers
to LEAs and nonprofit organizations.

TABLE—ACCOUNTING STATEMENT CLASSIFICATION OF ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES
Transfers
(in millions)

Category

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

Annual Monetized Transfers ....................................................................
From Whom to Whom ..............................................................................

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
The requirements and selection
criteria established in this notice 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

VerDate Nov<24>2008

17:35 Mar 11, 2010

Jkt 220001

$643.
Federal Government to LEAs and nonprofit organizations.

(44 U.S.C. 3501–3520). The Department
has received emergency approval for the
information collections described below
under OMB Control No. 1855–0021.
Estimates for Scale-up Grants: We
estimate 100 applicants for Scale-up
grants, and that each applicant would
spend approximately 120 hours of staff

PO 00000

Frm 00068

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

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).

E:\FR\FM\12MRR2.SGM

12MRR2

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 48 / Friday, March 12, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
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 1000 full applications for
Development 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 Development applicants
is an estimated 120,000 hours (1000
applicants times 120 hours equals
120,000 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 $4,800,000 ($25.00 times
192,000 (12,000 + 60,000 + 120,000)
hours equals $4,800,000).

srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES2

Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification
The Secretary certifies that this final
regulatory action will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
The small entities that this final
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
the final priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria would
be limited to paperwork burden related
to preparing an application and that the
benefits of the final priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection
criteria outweigh any costs incurred by
applicants.
Participation in this program is
voluntary. For this reason, the final
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,

VerDate Nov<24>2008

17:35 Mar 11, 2010

Jkt 220001

and any associated costs, against the
likelihood of receiving funding and the
requirements for implementing projects
under the program. Eligible applicants
would most likely 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 define 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
Internal Revenue Service 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 final
priorities, requirements, definitions, and
selection criteria in this notice would
have a significant economic impact on
small entities.
In addition, the Secretary believes
that the final priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria 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, this final regulatory action
may help small entities determine
whether they have the interest, need, or
capacity to implement activities under
the program and, thus, prevent small

PO 00000

Frm 00069

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 9990

12071

entities that do not have such an
interest, need, and capacity from
absorbing the burden of applying.
This final 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.
Intergovernmental Review: This
program is subject to Executive Order
12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR 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 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.
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.
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
(CFDA) Numbers: 84.396A (Scale-up grants),
84.396B (Validation grants), and 84.396C
(Development grants)
Dated: March 4, 2010.
Arne Duncan,
Secretary of Education.
[FR Doc. 2010–5147 Filed 3–8–10; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 4000–01–P

E:\FR\FM\12MRR2.SGM

12MRR2