Investing in Innovation (i3) Application Webinar

1. Investing in Innovation (i3) Application Webinar Scale-up Competition Overview June 2015 Note: These slides are intended as guidance only. Pleaserefer to the official documents published in the Federal Register.

2. General Information • AFrequently Asked Questions (FAQ) document is available on the i3 Web site: http://www2.ed.gov/programs/innovation/faq.html. • This document addresses many questions that applicants have asked previously. The Department may update it throughout the competition with questions that applicants submit that are of general applicability. • The Department is unable to address applicant-specific questions at any time during the competition. • The Department will hold a live webinar session on April 23, 2015 at 2PMEDT to address applicant questions related to the information presented today. If you have questions prior to that date, please send them to i3@ed.gov.

3. Sections of Webinar

4. Overview of the i3 Grant Program To generate and validate solutions to persistent educational challenges and to support the expansion of effective solutions across the country and to serve substantially larger numbers of students. Purpose Funding $112,400,000 (est.) to be obligated by December 31, 2015.

5. Overview of the i3 Grant Program • Eligible applicants are: • Local educational agencies (LEAs) • non-profit organizations in partnership with (a) one or more LEAs or (b) a consortium of schools • To provide competitive grants to applicants with a record of improving student achievement, attainment or retention in order to expand the implementation of, and investment in, innovative practices that are demonstrated to have an impact on: • Improving student achievement or student growth; • Closing achievement gaps; • Decreasing dropout rates; • Increasing high school graduation rates; or • Increasing college enrollment and completion rates Applicants Eligibility Requirements

6. What Makes i3 Different? • Builds portfolio of different solutions to address key challenges; • Aligns amount of funding with level of evidence; • Aims explicitly to scale effective programs by creating a pipeline of funding for effective programs; and • Provides funding for required independent evaluation in order to build a common understanding of “what works.”

7. Types of Awards Available Under i3 i3 Development Validation Scale-up *$112.4 M (est.) to be obligated by December 31, 2015

8. Notice Inviting Applications 2015 Scale-up Notice Inviting Applications • The full text of the Notice Inviting Applications for the FY 2015 i3 Scale-upcompetition can be found on the Federal Register Web site at the following URLs: • http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-06-05/pdf/2015-13673.pdf (PDF) • https://federalregister.gov/a/2015-13673 (text)

9. Dates to Remember Scale-up Application (84.411A) • Application available: June 05, 2015 • Webinar for potential applicants: June 23, 2015 • Notice of Intent Deadline: June 25, 2015 • Deadline for transmitting applications: August 04, 2015 • Awards announced by: December 31, 2015

10. Notice of Intent Link Scale-up Application (84.411A) Notice of Intent Deadline: June 25, 2015 Applicants are strongly encouraged to notify us of the applicant’s intent to submit an application for funding by completing a web-based form. The form can be accessed at the following URL: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/VWFQPMD (works best to copy/paste into Google Chrome). Please note that you may have to copy and paste this link into your browser.

11. Cautions from Previous Competitions • SUBMIT EARLY – The deadline for applications is Tuesday, August 4th 4:30:00pm (Washington, DC time). We will reject applications submitted after the deadline, and some applicants find it takes longer than anticipated to submit in Grants.gov. Please make sure that your System for Award Management (SAM) registration is active. • WRITE CLEARLY – Peer reviewers can only judge your application based on what you tell them, clearly and comprehensively, in your application. • UNDERSTAND ELIGIBILITY – We will declare applicants ineligible for funding if they do not meet all of the eligibility requirements. • READ THE NOTICES and FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS, UNDERSTAND THE REQUIREMENTS, AND PLAN AHEAD

12. Sections of Webinar

13. i3 Has Two Types of Eligible Applicants The entity applying for an i3 grant must be: • A local educational agency (LEA); OR (b) A partnership between a nonprofit organization and— (1) One or more LEAs; or (2) A consortium of schools. There is no competitive advantage to applying as one type of applicant or the other, but an applicant must meet the relevant eligibility requirements.

14. Some Eligibility Requirements Apply to Both Types of Applicants All applicants must: • Address one absolute priority. • Improve achievement for high-need students. • Serve students in grades K-12. • Meet the evidence requirement – for Scale-up grantees: strong evidence of effectiveness . • Secure commitment for required private sector match – for Scale-up grantees: 5% of the federal award.

15. All Eligible Applicants Must Implement Practices, Strategies, or Programs for High-Need Students High-need studentmeans 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 (as defined in the Notice of Final Priorities, Requirements, Definitions and Selection Criteria (NFP)), who are far below grade level, who have left school before receiving a regular high school diploma, who are at risk of not graduating with a diploma on time, who are homeless, who are in foster care, who have been incarcerated, who have disabilities, or who are English learners. Note: To be eligible for an i3 award, an applicant must identify how the proposed project serves high-need student populations. However, while the definition provides examples of high-need students, it does not attempt to define all possible populations. Applicants must identify how their project serves high-need students. MUST MUST

16. All Eligible Applicants Must Implement Practices that serve students in Grades K-12 All eligible applicants must implement practices that serve students who are in grades K-12 at some point during the funding period. To meet this requirement, projects that serve early learners (i.e., infants, toddlers, or preschoolers) must provide services or supports that extend into kindergarten or later years, and projects that serve postsecondary students must provide services or supports during the secondary grades or earlier. Note: To be eligible for an i3 award, an applicant must identify how the proposed project serves students in grades K-12 at some point during the funding period. MUST MUST

17. Some Eligibility Requirements Differ Based on Type of Applicant • Requirements for Eligibility of an LEA • Requirements for Eligibility of an nonprofit with one or more LEAs ; or a consortium of schools

18. Requirements for Eligibility of an LEA 1. LEA Record of Improvement (a)(1) Have significantly closed the achievement gaps between groups of students; or (a)(2) Have demonstrated success in significantly increasing student academic achievement for all groups of students 2. LEA Record of Improvement (b) Have made significant improvements in other areas, such as high school graduation rates (as defined in the NIA) or increased recruitment and placement of high-quality teachers or principals, as demonstrated with meaningful data; 3. Partnerships; Private Sector Matching (c) Demonstrate that the LEA has established one or more partnerships with the private sector, which may include philanthropic organizations, and that organizations in the private sector will provide matching funds in order to help bring results to scale

19. How to Show Record of Improvement? In order to address this eligibility requirement, applicants must provide data that demonstrates a change. • Applicants must provide data for at least two points in time when addressing this requirement in Appendix C of your applications (e.g., Percentage of students earning a proficient on the state assessment was “X” in 2013 and “Y” in 2014). There is no specific format or documentation that is required; however, applicants must ensure that regardless of the format, the documentation provided meets the eligibility requirement. • Record of improvement must show a positive improvement • Must be student data

20. Record of ImprovementExample for LEA Significantly increasing student academic achievement for all groups of students: [X County Schools] has made substantial progress in significantly increasing student academic achievement for all groups of students as described in section 1111(b)(2) of the ESEA. The data charts that follow show disaggregated data documenting our districtwide increases in student academic achievement in all student subgroups over five academic years, as measured by End-of-Grade (EOG) tests (grades 3-8) and End-of-Course (EOC) tests (grades 9-12). Growth data is presented for the five year period spanning 2007-08 to 2011-12 due to a comprehensive overhaul of [Y State’s Standard Course of Study, student assessment program, and school accountability model that went into effect during the 2012-13 academic year. Under this new framework, the [Y State] Department of Public Instruction created a new Standard Course of Study and new student assessments in all subjects and grade levels, aligning content standards in English language arts and mathematics with the Common Core State Standards and all other subjects with the [Y State] Essential Standards. Because of these changes, student assessment data for the 2012-13 academic year cannot be compared to prior year student assessment data and the state will not release 2013-14 student assessment results until October 2014.

21. Record of ImprovementExample for LEA (cont.) • Significantly increasing student academic achievement for all groups of students: • Elementary and Middle School Growth: Between 2007-08 and 2011-12, [X County Schools]  elementary and middle schools saw significant growth in student achievement: over five years the percentage of students passing End-of-Grade tests increased 16 percentage points in reading, 18 percentage points in math, and 31 percentage points in science for all students, with substantial growth (up to 33 percentage points) documented among subgroups with the greatest need in our student population, including black students, Hispanic students, economically disadvantaged students, LEP students, and students with disabilities • Reading EOG Growth: As evidenced in Table 2, End-of-Grade reading achievement increased for all student subgroups with a notable increase of 17 percentage points or greater among black, Hispanic, Asian, multi-racial, and economically disadvantaged students. • Math EOG Growth: End-of-Grade math achievement showed a strong five year gain of 18 percentage points for all students and a 19 percentage point or more increase among black, Hispanic, multi-racial, and economically disadvantaged students, as shown in Table 3. • Science EOG Growth: End-of-Grade science achievement showed the greatest five year gains, with growth of 24 percentage points or more in all but one subgroup and over a 31 percentagepoint increase for all students, white, black, multi-racial, and students with disabilities, as displayed in Table 4. • Reading and Math EOG Composite Scores: Districtwide End-of-Grade reading and math composite scores also reflect achievement gains across all student groups ranging from 5.9 to 25.3 percentage points and noteworthy increases of 19 percentage points or more for black, Hispanic, Asian, and economically disadvantaged students, as shown in Table 5 below.

22. Record of ImprovementExample for LEA (cont.) Significant improvements in other areas: Through development and implementation of a comprehensive Model for Instructional Excellence, supported by a districtwide Strategic Planning Process and individual School Improvement Plans, [X County Schools] has realized several other significant improvements and successes. • Graduation Rates: The four-year cohort graduation rate for [X County Schools] has increased by 18 percentage points since 2008 for all students, including significant gains for several high-need subgroups (18% for black students, 27% among Hispanics, and 15% for economically disadvantaged students) (Y State DPI, 2013). • Dropout Rates:[X County Schools] has one of the lowest dropout rates in the state at 1.41% (compared to the state average of 2.45%). As shown in Table 9, the [X County Schools] dropout rate has decreased nearly 70% since 2008.

23. Requirements for Eligibility of a Nonprofit with one or more LEAs; or a consortium of schools 1. Nonprofit Organization Record of Improvement If the eligible applicant is a partnership, the nonprofit organization must: Have a record of significantly improving student achievement, attainment, or retention through the assistance it has provided to an LEA or schools. 2. Partnerships; Private Sector Matching Demonstrate that organizations in the private sector will provide matching funds in order to help bring results to scale.

24. How to Show Record of Improvement? In order to address this eligibility requirement, applicants must provide data that demonstrates a change. • Applicants must provide data for at least two points in time when addressing this requirement in Appendix C of your applications (e.g., Percentage of students earning a proficient on the state assessment was “X” in 2013 and “Y” in 2014). There is no specific format or documentation that is required; however, applicants must ensure that regardless of the format, the documentation provided meets the eligibility requirement. • Record of improvement must show a positive improvement • Must be student data

25. Record of ImprovementExample for Nonprofit with one or more LEAs; or a consortium of schools [X Project]: X Project was launched in 2004 by Y Organization and has served 11 schools, 130 K-3 teachers, and 2,000 students in [LEA] each year. Similar to [Z], X Project uses a multi-level professional development approach, but with a focus on literacy and social-emotional development. A 2014 evaluation indicated that X Project schools surpassed ISAT growth in the district during the same two years (20012-2014) by 3.2 percentage points (9.6 points of growth for X Project vs. 6.4 for the district) for all students. In addition to improvements in standardized tests, an evaluation conducted by the A Evaluation Firm indicated that, due to the X Project intervention, two turnaround schools were taken off probation when reading and math scores significantly increased, one school was recognized as an [LEA] exemplary school for higher student achievement than other neighborhood schools, and K and 1st grade classrooms in the project successfully achieved accreditation.

26. Additional information for Understanding Partnerships and Eligibility If you apply as…

27. Notes on Eligibility Requirements Applicants should fully address all eligibility requirements in the application. IMPORTANT: Applicants that do not sufficiently address the eligibility requirements in the application will not be able to supplement their original application with additional information to meet the requirements if they are deemed ineligible.

28. Sections of Webinar

29. i3 Evidence Requirements • All applications must meetthe evidence requirement for the type of grant they are seeking. • Applications that do not meet the evidence requirement will notbe eligible for a grant award, regardless of scores on the selection criteria. • If an application does not meet the “evidence standard” of the grant type under which it was submitted, it will notbe considered for a different type of i3 grant.

30. i3 Scale-Up Evidence Standards Option 1 Option 2 *See What Works Clearinghouse Procedures and Standards Handbook (Version 3.0, March 2014), which can be found at the following link: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/DocumentSum.aspx?sid=19

31. Scale-up Grant Evidence Requirements • To be eligible for an award, an application for a Scale-up grant must be supported by strong evidence of effectiveness. • An applicant should identify up to four study citations to be reviewed against What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards for the purposes of meeting the i3 evidence standard requirement. An applicant should clearly identify these citations in Appendix D, under the “Other Attachments Form,” of its application. The Department will not review a study citation that an applicant fails to clearly identify for review. • In addition to the four study citations, applicants should include a description of the intervention(s) the applicant plans to implement and the intended student outcomes that the intervention(s) attempts to impact in Appendix D.

32. Sections of Webinar

33. i3 2015 Priority Structure • The i3 Scale-up Notice Inviting Applications (the NIA) was published in the Federal Register on June 05, 2015. • An applicant for a Scale-up grant must choose one of the five absolute priorities in their application. NOTE: Applicants who choose to submit an application under the absolute priority 5 for Serving Rural Communities must identify an additional absolute priority. • This year’s competition also includes three competitive preference priorities. Applicants may address more than one of the competitive preference priorities.

34. i3 Scale-up Priorities Improving Cost- Effectiveness and Productivity Teacher and Principal Effectiveness College- and Career- Ready Standards and Assessments Enabling Broad Adoptionof Effective Practices Improve Achievementfor High-Need Students Improving STEM Education High School Reform and Redesign Supporting Novice i3 Applicants Serving Rural Communities Optional Competitive Preference Priorities Must address oneabsolute priority Required forall applications

35. Absolute Priority 1: Improving the Effectiveness of Teachers and Principals Under this priority, we provide funding to projects addressing pressing needs related to improving teacher or principal effectiveness.

36. Absolute Priority 2: Implementing Internationally Benchmarked, College- and Career-Ready Elementary and Secondary Academic Standards Under this priority, we provide funding to projects that are designed to support the implementation of, and transition to, internationally benchmarked college- and career-ready standards and assessments, including developing and implementing strategies that use the standards and information from assessments to inform classroom practices that meet the needs of all students.

37. Absolute Priority 3: Improving Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education Under this priority, we provide funding to projects addressing pressing needs for improving STEM education.

38. Absolute Priority 4: Implementing Comprehensive High School Reform and Redesign Under this priority, we provide funding to support comprehensive high school reform and redesign strategies in high schools eligible to operate Title I school-wide programs under section 1114 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended, or in schools that can demonstrate that not less than 40 percent of students are from low-income families.  These strategies must be designed to increase the number and percentage of students who graduate from high school college- and career-ready and enroll in college, other postsecondary education, or other career and technical education.  These strategies could include elements such as implementing a rigorous college- and career-ready curriculum; providing accelerated learning opportunities; supporting personalized learning; developing robust links between student work and real-world experiences to better prepare students for their future; improving the readiness of students for post-secondary education in STEM fields; or reducing the need for remediation, among others.

39. Absolute Priority 5: Serving Rural Communities Under this priority, we provide funding to projects that address one of the absolute priorities established for the 2015 Scale-up i3 competition and under which the majority of students to be served are enrolled in rural local educational agencies (as defined in this notice).

40. Notes on Absolute Priority 5: Serving Rural Communities • Please note that applicants that choose to submit an application under the absolute priority for Serving Rural Communities must identify an additional absolute priority. • The peer-reviewed scores for applications submitted under the Serving Rural Communities priority will be ranked with other applications under this priority, and not included in the ranking for the additional priority that they identified. • This design helps to ensure that applicants under the Serving Rural Communities priority receive an “apples to apples” comparison with other rural applicants.

41. Competitive Priorities Competitive Preference Priorities (CPPs) • Improving Cost-Effectiveness and Productivity • Enabling Broad Adoption of Effective Practices • Supporting Novice i3 Applicants

42. Competitive Preference Priority 1: Improving Cost-Effectiveness and Productivity (zero or 3 points) Under this priority, we provide funding to projects that address one of the following areas: (a) Substantially improving student outcomes without commensurately increasing per-student costs. (b) Maintaining student outcomes while substantially decreasing per-student costs. (c) Substantially improving student outcomes while substantially decreasing per-student costs. Other requirements related to Competitive Preference Priority 1: An application addressing this priority must provide-- (1) A clear and coherent budget that identifies expected student outcomes before and after the practice, the cost per student for the practice, and a clear calculation of the cost per student served; (2) A compelling discussion of the expected cost-effectiveness of the practice compared with alternative practices; (3) A clear delineation of one-time costs versus ongoing costs and a plan for sustaining the project, particularly ongoing costs, after the expiration of i3 funding; (4) Identification of specific activities designed to increase substantially the cost-effectiveness of the practice, such as re-designing costly components of the practice (while maintaining efficacy) or testing multiple versions of the practice in order to identify the most cost-effective approach; and (5) A project evaluation that addresses the cost-effectiveness of the proposed practice.

43. Competitive Preference Priority 2: Enabling Broad Adoption of Effective Practices (zero or 5 points) Under this priority, we provide funding to projects that enable broad adoption of effective practices. An application proposing to address this priority must, as part of its application: (a) Identify the practice or practices that the application proposes to prepare for broad adoption, including formalizing the practice (i.e., establish and define key elements of the practice), codifying (i.e., develop a guide or tools to support the dissemination of information on key elements of the practice), and explaining why there is a need for formalization and codification. (b) Evaluate different forms of the practice to identify the critical components of the practice that are crucial to its success and sustainability, including the adaptability of critical components to different teaching and learning environments and to diverse learners. (c) Provide a coherent and comprehensive plan for developing materials, training, toolkits, or other supports that other entities would need in order to implement the practice effectively and with fidelity. (d) Commit to assessing the replicability and adaptability of the practice by supporting the implementation of the practice in a variety of locations during the project period using the materials, training, toolkits, or other supports that were developed for the i3-supported practice.

44. Competitive Preference Priority 3: Supporting Novice i3 Applicants (zero or 5 points) Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i) we award an additional three points to an application that meets the competitive preference priority. Eligible applicants that have never directly received a grant under this program.

45. Sections of Webinar

46. Notes on i3 Selection Criteria and Points • The selection criteria are the criteria against which the peer reviewers score each application. • The Department selects grantees based on peer reviewer scores, so clearly addressing the selection criteria is critical. • Detailed wording for each selection criterion may be found in the Notices at the i3 website: http://www.ed.gov/programs/innovation/index.html.

47. i3 Selection Criteria and Points Selection Criteria Point Allocation A. Significance 10 points B. Strategy to Scale 35 points C. Quality of the Project Design and Management Plan 35 points E. Quality of Project Evaluation 20 points Total Points 100 points

48. Scale-up Selection Criterion:A. Significance Promising New Strategies The extent to which the proposed project involves the development or demonstration of promising new strategies that build on, or are alternatives to, existing strategies. (34 CFR 75.210) The potential replicability of the proposed project or strategies, including, as appropriate, the potential for implementation in a variety of settings. (34 CFR 75.210) The extent to which the proposed project addresses a challenge for which there is a national need for solutions that are better than the solutions currently available. (2013 i3 NFP) Potential Replicability Addresses a National Need

49. Scale-up Selection Criterion:B. Strategy to Scale Unmet Demand The extent to which the applicant demonstrates there is unmet demand for the process, product, strategy or practice that will enable the applicant to reach the level of scale that is proposed in the application. (34 CFR 75.210) The extent to which the applicant will use grant funds to address a particular barrier or barriers that prevented the applicant, in the past, from reaching the level of scale proposed in the application. (2013 i3 NFP) The mechanisms the applicant will use to broadly disseminate information on its project so as to support further development or replication. (34 CFR 75.210) Address Barrier(s) Broad Dissemination

50. Scale-up Selection Criterion: C. Quality of the Project Design and Management Plan Clarity of Goals, Objectives, and Outcomes The extent to which the goals, objectives, and outcomes to be achieved by the proposed project are clearly specified and measurable. (34 CFR 75.210) 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. (34 CFR 75.210) Adequacy of Management Plan