| “
|
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 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 persistently low-performing schools. In addition, we are revising the priority to include in paragraph (a) additional examples of the comprehensive intervention approaches to whole-school 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 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.
- 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 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 well-implemented (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 two-tier 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, 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 high-quality 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.[5]
|
”
|
