Transcript Investing in Innovation (i3) Application Webinar Validation Grants Competition Overview

Investing in Innovation (i3)
Application Webinar
Validation Grants
Competition Overview
May 2013
Note: These slides are intended as guidance only. Please
refer to the official documents published in the Federal Register.
General Information
• A Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) document is available on the i3
website: 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 May 14, 2013 at
2PM EDT to address applicant questions related to the information
presented today. If you have questions prior to that date, please send
them to [email protected].
Sections of Webinar
• Overview of i3 Program
• Major Changes from 2012
• Eligibility
• Evidence
• Priorities
• Selection Criteria & Review Process
• Pre- & Post-Award Requirements
• Closing
Overview of the i3 Grant Program
Purpose
Funding
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.
$135 million (est.) to be obligated by December 31, 2013.
Overview of the i3 Grant Program
Applicants
Eligibility
Requirements
Eligible applicants are:
(1) Local educational agencies (LEAs)
(2) 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
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.”
Types of Awards Available Under i3
i3
Development
Validation
Scale-up
Funding
Available*
Up to $3M/award
Up to $12M/award
Up to $20M/award
Estimated
Awards
10-20
4-8
0-2
Evidence of promise or
strong theory
Moderate evidence of
effectiveness
Strong evidence of effectiveness
Able to further develop and
scale
Able to be scaled to the
regional or state level
Able to be scaled to the national
level
Evidence
Required
Scaling
Required
*$135M (est.) to be obligated by December 31, 2013
Cautions from First Three Competitions
• SUBMIT EARLY – The deadline for applications is Tuesday, July 2nd at
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.
• 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 FAQs, UNDERSTAND THE REQUIREMENTS, AND
PLAN AHEAD
Sections of Webinar
• Overview of i3 Program
• Major Changes from 2012
• Eligibility
• Evidence
• Priorities
• Selection Criteria & Review Process
• Pre- & Post-Award Requirements
• Closing
Major Changes from 2012
In the i3 Notice of Final Priorities (the 2013 i3 NFP) published on March 27, 2013, the
Department redesigned key aspects of the i3 program to increase the program’s
impact.
• Structure of priorities remains similar but priority language is
more focused
•
•
•
•
Includes many of the same broad priority areas (e.g., teacher and principal
effectiveness);
Maintains flexibility to select different priorities for each grant competition;
Creates specific sub-parts to reflect needs in the field; and
Strengthens rural priority.
• Proposed requirements better reflect actual expectations for
grantees
•
•
•
Strengthens focus on high-need students;
Strengthens focus on K-12; and
Tightens focus of grantee evaluation on impact.
Major Changes from 2012 (cont’d)
• Revised evidence standards and definitions so that applicants
can better understand what is required to meet each level of
evidence
• Modified the process for applicants to secure, and
demonstrate evidence of, the required private-sector match.
•
Applicants must secure a percentage of their Federal grant awards but the timeframe
has been expanded.
•
Highest-rated applicants must submit evidence of 50% of the required private-sector
match prior to the awarding of an i3 grant. Evidence of the remaining 50% of the
required private-sector match must be provided no later than six months after the
project start date (i.e., 6 months after January 1, 2014, or by July 1, 2014).
Sections of Webinar
• Overview of i3 Program
• Major Changes from 2012
• Eligibility
• Evidence
• Priorities
• Selection Criteria & Review Process
• Pre- & Post-Award Requirements
• Closing
All Eligible Applicants Must Implement Practices,
Strategies, or Programs for High-Need Students
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 (as defined in the 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
MUST
have disabilities, or who are English learners.
MUST
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.
i3 Has Two Types of Eligible Applicants
1)
A local educational agency (LEA) and
2)
A non-profit organization in partnership with (a) one
or more LEAs or (b) 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.
Understanding Partnerships and Eligibility
If you apply as…
An LEA…
•
•
•
The LEA that is the lead applicant must
have a record of improvement (defined
on the next slide).
There may not be any subgrants.
Partners may receive funding through
contractual arrangements, or
participate in other ways.
A partnership…
• A non-profit that is part of the partnership must have
a record of improvement (defined on the next slide).
• Any LEA or school in the consortium, or the nonprofit with a record of improvement, can be the lead
applicant.
• Sub-granting is allowed, but only to LEAs or schools
in the consortium, or to non-profits that have a
record of improvement.
• Partners may receive funding through contractual
arrangements, or participate in other ways.
Some Eligibility Requirements
Differ Based on Type of Applicant
An LEA must:
A partnership must:
Demonstrate that it:
• (1) Significantly closed
achievement gaps between
groups of students; or (2)
demonstrated success in
significantly increasing academic
achievement for all groups of
students;
• Made significant improvement in
other areas; and
• Establish partnerships with
private sector.
• Demonstrate that the non-profit
organization has a record of
significantly improving student
achievement, attainment, or
retention through its record of
work with an LEA or schools.
Some Eligibility Requirements
Apply to Both Types of Applicants
All applicants must:
1. Address one absolute priority and subpart.
2. Improve achievement for high-need students.
3. Serve students in grades K-12.
4. Meet the evidence requirement.
5. Secure commitment for required private sector match – for
Validation grantees– 10% of the federal award.
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.
Sections of Webinar
• Overview of i3 Program
• Major Changes from 2012
• Eligibility
• Evidence
• Priorities
• Selection Criteria & Review Process
• Pre- & Post-Award Requirements
• Closing
i3 Evidence Requirements
• All applications must meet the evidence requirement for the type of grant
they are seeking.
• Applications that do not meet the evidence requirement will not be 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 not be considered for a different type
of i3 grant.
• An applicant must either ensure that all evidence is available to the
Department from publicly available sources and provide links or other
guidance indicating where it is available; or, in the application, include copies
of evidence in Appendix D.
i3 Evidence Standards
Validation
Option 1
Scale-up
Option 2
Option 1
1+
1+
1+
2+
Statistical Significance
Statistically
significant positive
impact with no
unfavorable
impacts
Statistically
significant positive
impact with no
unfavorable
impacts
Statistically
significant positive
impact with no
unfavorable
impacts
Statistically
significant positive
impact with no
unfavorable
impacts
What Works
Clearinghouse (WWC)
Standards*
Meets w/o
reservations
Meets w/
reservations
Meets w/o
reservations
Meets w/
reservations
Large sample
Large sample
Large sample
Multi-site sample
Multi-site sample
Multi-site sample
Number of Studies
Sample Size
Number of Study Sites
Similarity of
Population
Overlaps with proposed populations or
settings
Option 2
Overlaps with proposed populations
and settings
Note: Greyed-out cells indicate criteria on which the updated standards are silent.
*See What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) Procedures and Standards Handbook (Version 2.1, September 2011), which can currently be found at the following
link: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/DocumentSum.aspx?sid=19.
Validation Grant Evidence Requirements
• To be eligible for an award, an application for a Validation
grant must be supported by moderate evidence of
effectiveness.
• An applicant should identify up to two study citations to be
reviewed against WWC 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.
Sections of Webinar
• Overview of i3 Program
• Major Changes from 2012
• Eligibility
• Evidence
• Priorities
• Selection Criteria & Review Process
• Pre- & Post-Award Requirements
• Closing
i3 2013 Priority Structure and Subparts
• The i3 Validation Notice Inviting Applications (the NIA) was
published in the Federal Register on May 3, 2013.
• An applicant for a Validation grant must choose one of the
five absolute priorities and one of the subparts under the
chosen priority to address in their application.
• Applicants for Validation grants, who choose to submit an
application under the absolute priority for Serving Rural
Communities must identify an additional absolute priority and
subpart.
i3 Validation Priorities
Improve
Achievement
for High-Need
Students
Teacher or Principal
Effectiveness
Improving STEM
Education
English Learners
Effective Use of
Technology
Improving Rural
Achievement
Required for
all applications
Must address one
absolute priority
Absolute Priority 1:
Improving the
Effectiveness of
Teachers or Principals
Encouraging applicants to
identify effective methods for
supporting, evaluating, or
retaining effective teachers or
principals.
Applicants must address one of the following
subpart areas:
a)
Developing and implementing models of induction
and support for improving the knowledge and skills of
novice teachers or novice principals to accelerate
student performance, including but not limited to
strategies designed to increase teacher retention or
improve teacher or principal effectiveness.
Or
b)
Extending highly effective teachers’ reach to serve
more students, including strategies such as new
course designs, staffing models, technology platforms,
or new opportunities for collaboration that allow
highly effective teachers to reach more students, or
approaches or tools that reduce administrative and
other burden while maintaining or improving
effectiveness.
Absolute Priority 2:
Improving Science,
Technology, Engineering,
and Mathematics (STEM)
Education
Focusing on recruiting
individuals with content
expertise in STEM into
teaching roles in public
schools and on increasing the
high-quality preparation or
professional development for
teachers or educators in STEM
subjects.
Applicants must address one of the following
subpart areas:
a)
Developing and implementing new methods
and resources for recruiting individuals with
content expertise in STEM subject areas into
teaching.
Or
b)
Increasing the high-quality preparation of, or
professional development for, teachers or other
educators in STEM subjects, through activities
that include building content and pedagogical
content knowledge.
Absolute Priority 3:
Improving Academic
Outcomes for English
Learners
Ensuring that students who
cannot speak, read, or write
English well enough to
participate meaningfully in
educational programs to
achieve the academic
outcomes of which they are
capable.
Applicants must address the following subpart
area:
a)
Increasing the number and proportion of ELs
successfully completing courses in core
academic subjects by developing,
implementing, and evaluating new instructional
approaches and tools that are sensitive to the
language demands necessary to access
challenging content, including technologybased tools.
Absolute Priority 4:
Effective Use of
Technology
Supporting projects that use
online tools to provide
customized instruction for
different learners, and
continuous feedback, or to
produce high-quality learning
resources that can reach
learners wherever and
whenever needed.
Applicants must address one of the following
subpart areas:
(a) Providing students and teachers with equitable
“anytime, anywhere” access to learning
materials and experiences, such as rigorous
coursework that is not offered in a particular
school, or effective professional development
activities or learning communities enabled by
technology.
Or
b) Developing new methods and resources for
teacher preparation or professional development
that increase teachers’ abilities to utilize
technology to enhance their knowledge and skills
to improve student achievement and to close
achievement gaps.
Absolute Priority 4:
Effective Use of
Technology (cont’d)
Supporting projects that use
online tools to provide
customized instruction for
different learners, and
continuous feedback, or to
produce high-quality learning
resources that can reach
learners wherever and
whenever needed.
Applicants must address one of the following
subpart areas:
Or
(c) Integrating technology with the implementation
of rigorous college- and career-ready standards to
increase student achievement, student engagement,
and teacher efficacy, such as by providing
embedded, real-time assessment and feedback to
students and teachers.
Absolute Priority 5:
Serving Rural
Communities
Addressing the plethora of
challenges that rural
communities face as they
work to provide a high-quality
education for all students.
Applicants must address the following subpart
area:
(a) Under this priority, we provide funding to
projects addressing one of the absolute
priorities established for the 2013 Validation i3
competition and under which the majority of
students to be served are enrolled in rural local
educational agencies (as defined in the NIA).
Notes on Absolute Priority 5:
Improving Rural Achievement
•
Please note that applicants that choose to submit an application under the
absolute priority for Serving Rural Communities must identify an additional
absolute priority and subpart.
•
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.
Competitive and Invitational Priorities
Competitive Preference Priorities (CPPs)
• Improving Cost-Effectiveness and Productivity
• Enabling Broad Adoption of Effective Practices
• Supporting Novice i3 Applicants
Invitational Priority
• Supporting High-Quality Early Learning
Competitive and Invitational Priorities
CPP1: Improving Cost-Effectiveness and Productivity
Under this priority, projects must 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 CPP1
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 costeffectiveness 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.
Competitive and Invitational Priorities
CPP2: Enabling Broad Adoption of Effective Practices
Under this priority, applicants must:
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.
Competitive and Invitational Priorities
CPP 3: Supporting Novice i3 Applicants
• To expand the reach of the i3 program and encourage entities
that have not applied previously for an i3 grant.
• Novice applicants have never directly received a grant under
the i3 program.
Competitive and Invitational Priorities
Invitational Priority: Supporting High-Quality Early
Learning
• The Secretary encourages applicants to propose projects that
incorporate high-quality early learning components that are
aligned with the early learning, elementary and secondary
education systems in participating schools and help ensure
that all children, especially those from low-income families,
enter kindergarten and ready to succeed.
Note: Applicants addressing this invitational priority will not receive additional points.
Sections of Webinar
• Overview of i3 Program
• Major Changes from 2012
• Eligibility
• Evidence
• Priorities
• Selection Criteria & Review Process
• Pre- & Post-Award Requirements
• Closing
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.
i3 Selection Criteria and Points
Selection Criteria
Point Allocation
A. Significance
20 points
B. Quality of the Project
Design
20 points
C. Quality of the
Management Plan
20 points
D. Personnel
10 points
E. Quality of Project
Evaluation
30 points
Total Points
100 points
Validation Selection Criterion:
A. Significance
Estimated Impact
and Scale
National
Expansion
1) The likelihood that the project will have the estimated
impact, including the extent to which the applicant
demonstrates that unmet demand for the proposed project
or the proposed services will enable the applicant to reach
the proposed level of scale.
2) The feasibility of national expansion if favorable outcomes
are achieved.
Notes on Validation Selection Criterion:
A. Significance
Applicants should make sure that a peer reviewer, after reading
the application narrative, would understand:
• How the proposed project will address unmet demands and enable the
applicant to reach the proposed level of scale.
• How the applicant will ensure future scaling given positive results.
Validation Selection Criterion:
B. Quality of the Project Design
Addressing
National Need and
Absolute Priority
Clarity of Goals
and Strategies
Addressing
Barriers to Scaling
1) The extent to which the proposed project addresses the
national need and priorities the applicant is seeking to meet.
2) The extent to which the proposed project has a clear set of
goals and an explicit plan or actions to achieve the goals,
including identification of any elements of the project logic
model that require further testing or development.
3) 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.
Notes on Validation Selection Criterion:
B. Quality of the Project Design
Applicants should make sure that a peer reviewer, after reading
the application narrative, would understand:
• The unmet needs within the context of the absolute priority, and the
barriers to scaling and how the proposed project will address and
overcome these barriers.
Validation Selection Criterion:
C. Quality of the Management Plan
Key
Responsibilities
and Objectives
Clarity of
Applicant’s Model
and Operational
Plan
1)
The extent to which the management plan articulates key
responsibilities and well-defined objectives, including the
timelines and milestones for completion of major project
activities, the metrics that will be used to assess progress
on an ongoing basis, and annual performance targets the
applicant will use to monitor whether the project is
achieving its goals.
2)
The clarity and coherence of the applicant’s multi-year
financial and operating model and accompanying plan to
operate the project at a national or regional level (as
defined in the NIA) during the project period.
Notes on Validation Selection Criterion:
C. Quality of the Management Plan
Applicants should make sure that a peer reviewer, after reading
the application narrative, would understand:
• How the project team will evaluate the success or challenges of the project
and use that feedback to make improvements to the project.
• How the project team will achieve expanding the project to the national or
regional level by the end of the grant.
Validation Selection Criterion:
D. Personnel
Adequacy of the
Project’s Staffing
Plan
Qualifications of
Project Director
and Key Personnel
1) The adequacy of the project’s staffing plan, particularly for
the first year of the project, including the identification of
the project director and, in the case of projects with unfilled
key personnel positions at the beginning of the project, that
the staffing plan identifies how critical work will proceed.
2) The qualifications and experience of the project director and
other key project personnel and the extent to which they
have the expertise to accomplish the proposed tasks.
Notes on Validation Selection Criterion:
D. Personnel
Applicants should make sure that a peer reviewer, after reading
the application narrative, would understand:
• The staffing plan and key personnel positions for the project, especially for
the first year.
• How the project team’s prior experiences have prepared them for
implementing the proposed project successfully.
Validation Selection Criterion:
E. Quality of Project Evaluation
Clarity of
Questions and
Appropriateness of
Methods
Evidence of
Effectiveness
Studies Project at
Proposed Level of
Scale
1) The clarity and importance of the key questions to be
addressed by the project evaluation, and the
appropriateness of the methods for how each question will
be addressed.
2) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will, if well
implemented, produce evidence about the project’s
effectiveness that would meet the What Works
Clearinghouse (WWC) Evidence Standards without
reservations.
3) The extent to which the evaluation will study the project at
the proposed level of scale, including, where appropriate,
generating information about potential differential
effectiveness of the project in diverse settings and for
diverse student population groups.
Validation Selection Criterion:
E. Quality of Project Evaluation
Clear and Credible
Analysis Plan
Clearly Articulates
Key Components
and Outcomes
4) The extent to which the evaluation plan includes a clear and
credible analysis plan, including a proposed sample size and
minimum detectable effect size that aligns with the
expected project impact, and an analytic approach for
addressing the research questions.
5) The extent to which the evaluation plan clearly articulates
the key components and outcomes of the project, as well as
a measurable threshold for acceptable implementation.
Notes on Validation Selection Criterion:
E. Quality of Project Evaluation
Applicants should make sure that a peer reviewer, after reading
the application narrative, would understand:
• The key evaluation questions and address how the proposed evaluation
methodologies will allow the project to answer those questions. These
methods for evaluation should include whether the evaluation would
meet What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards.
• How the project will be evaluated at the proposed scale, including a
description of the proposed sample size and project impacts as well as the
key components of the proposed project for implementation.
Sections of Webinar
• Overview of i3 Program
• Major Changes from 2012
• Eligibility
• Evidence
• Priorities
• Selection Criteria & Review Process
• Pre- & Post-Award Requirements
• Closing
Key Requirements That Must Be Met
Before an Award Is Made
The Department, before awarding i3 grants, will confirm that all
eligibility requirements have been met by potential grantees,
including that applicants:
•
•
•
•
•
Address one absolute priority;
Implement practices that serve high-need students;
Implement practices that serve students in grades K-12;
Be supported by evidence;
Demonstrate evidence of prior improvement (different requirements for
LEA vs. non-profit (partnership) applicants); and
• Provide evidence of at least 50% of the private-sector match.
Explanation of Limits on Grant Awards
Award Cap
No grantee may receive more than two grant awards or more than $23 million in grant awards
under this program in FY2013. Additionally, no grantee may receive more than one Scale-up or
Validation grant in any two-year period.
Allowable Examples
•
•
•
•
Scale-up ($20M) + Development ($3M)
Validation ($12M) + Development ($3M)
2 Development ($3M each)
Scale-up in 2012 + Development in 2013
Unallowable Examples
•
•
•
•
2 Scale-up or Validation
Scale-up + Validation
Scale-up in 2012 + Validation in 2013
3 Development ($3M each)
Notes:
• Applicants with more than 2 highest-rated applications may select which 2 applications receive
awards
• The i3 award cap applies to the applicant; official partners and other partners may participate in
more than 2 successful applications
• 2012 Scale-up or Validation grantees may receive up to 2 Development grants in 2013
Post Award Requirements
All Grantees Must:
• Submit evidence of the remaining 50% of the required private-sector
match no later than six months after the project start date (January 1,
2014).
• Conduct an independent project evaluation.
• Cooperate with technical assistance provided by the Department or its
contractors.
• Share broadly the results of any MUST
evaluation.
• Participate in, organize, or facilitate, as appropriate, communities of
practice for the i3 program.
• Provide the Department, within 100 days of grant award, an updated
evaluation plan and management plan.
Sections of Webinar
• Overview of i3 Program
• Major Changes from 2012
• Eligibility
• Evidence
• Priorities
• Selection Criteria & Review Process
• Pre- & Post-Award Requirements
• Closing
Parts of a Complete Application
Part A
 ED Abstract Narrative Form
 Project Narrative Form
Responses to the Selection Criteria
 Budget Narrative Form
ED form 524 C
Eligible applicants must also provide a
detailed budget narrative that describes
their proposed multi-year project
activities and the costs associated with
those activities as well as all costs
associated with carrying out the project.
 Other Attachments Form
Upload appendices here
Part B
ED Standard Forms
 Application for Federal
Assistance
(SF 424)
 Department of Education
Supplemental Information
for SF 424
 Department of Education
Budget Summary Form (ED
524) Sections A & B
 Disclosure of Lobbying
Activities (SF-LLL)
Assurances/Certifications
 GEPA Section 427
 Assurances – NonConstruction Programs (SF
424B)
 Grants.gov Lobby Form
(formerly ED 80-0013 form)
i3 Program Forms
 Eligibility Checklist for LEA
Applicants
 Eligibility Checklist for
Partnership Applicants
 i3 Applicant Information
Sheet
(http://www2.ed.gov/program
s/innovation/applicant.html)
Completing the
Applicant Information Sheet
Applicants must download this form, which
provides information that is crucial for the peer
review process, from the i3 website and submit it
with their application.
In previous years, applicants have failed to
submit this form or have submitted it in an
unusable format, which impedes peer review.
To complete this form:
1. Download it from the i3 website:
http://www2.ed.gov/programs/innovation/applicant.html
2. Complete the form in Adobe Acrobat
3. Save the form in Adobe Acrobat as a PDF
4. Upload the PDF to the Other Attachments
Form of the application
DO NOT: Print the form, complete it, and scan it as a
PDF; Save the form in any format other than PDF; Forget
to include this form; Merge it with other appendices.
Registering for Grants.gov
•
Applications for grants under this competition must be submitted electronically
using the Grants.gov site (www.Grants.gov).
•
In order to apply for an i3 grant, you must complete the Grants.gov registration
process. Go to the “Get Registered” link on the left hand side of the Grants.gov
homepage. There will be a tutorial on this page that instructs applicants on
how to complete the registration process.
•
The registration process can take between three to five business days (or as
long as four weeks if all steps are not completed in a timely manner).
•
Ensure that your organization is registered and/or up-to-date in the System
for Award Management (SAM). If your organization is not registered within
SAM, an authorizing official of your organization must register. This registration
may take up to two weeks.
Please register early!
Applying Through Grants.gov
• To apply for an i3 grant, go to the “Apply for Grants” link on the left
hand side of the Grants.gov homepage.
• Next, follow the step-by-step application instructions. The CFDA
number you will enter for Step 1 is 84.411.
• If you are experiencing problems submitting your application through
Grants.gov, please contact the Grants.gov Support Desk, toll free, at 1800-518-4726. You must obtain a Grants.gov Support Desk Case
Number and keep a record of it. You can also contact them via email at
[email protected].
Other Important Resources
Investing in Innovation Fund Website:
(http://www2.ed.gov/programs/innovation/index.html)
• Notice Final Priorities, Requirements, Definitions, and Selection
Criteria
• Notice Inviting Applications
• Application Package (includes the Notice Inviting Applications)
• i3 Applicant Information Sheet
• Frequently Asked Questions
Note: These slides are intended as guidance only. Please refer to the official Notice in the Federal Register.
All questions about i3 should be sent to [email protected]