Q&A Webinar i3 Development Full Application Overview Slides July 2013 Note: These slides are intended as guidance only. Please refer to the official documents published in the Federal Register.
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Q&A Webinar i3 Development Full Application
Overview SlidesJuly 2013
Note: These slides are intended as guidance only. Pleaserefer to the official documents published in the Federal Register.
Two Parts of Today’s Webinar
1) An overview of the 2013 i3 Development Competition, with a focus on the full application process.
2) A Q&A period with a discussion organized by specific topic.
These slides are intended as guidance only. Keep in mind that the overview covers only part of the information that prospective applicants should review from the Federal Register and the i3 website.
2
A Few Notes on Q&A
We have allowed substantial time after each discussion topic for Q&A.
• Webinar participants should submit their questions via the webinar chat function
We cannot answer questions that are applicant-specific.• “Am I eligible to apply?”• “Does this sound like a good idea?”• “Does this idea address the absolute priority?”
We may not be able to answer all questions received.
If you have additional questions, please send them to the i3 mailbox: [email protected].
3
Overview of the i3 Grant Program
PurposePurposeTo generate and validate solutions to persistent educational challenges and to support the expansion of effective solutions across the country to serve substantially larger numbers of students.
FundingFunding $135 million (est.) to be obligated by December 31, 2013.
4
i3i3
Types of Awards Available Under i3
Funding Available* Up to $3M/award Up to $12M/award Up to $20M/award
Estimated Awards 10-20 4-8 0-2
Evidence Required
Evidence of promise or strong theory
Moderate evidence of effectiveness
Strong evidence of effectiveness
Scaling Required
Able to further develop and scale
Able to be scaled to the regional level
Able to be scaled to the national level
*$135M (est.) to be obligated by December 31, 2013
5
Overview of the i3 Grant Program
Eligibility Requirements
Eligibility Requirements
ApplicantsApplicantsEligible 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
6
Order of Q&A Discussion Topics
• Eligibility• Evidence • Priorities• Selection Criteria & Review Process• Other Topics
7
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.
8
Some Eligibility Requirements Differ Based on Type of Applicant
An LEA 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; and•Made significant improvement in other areas; and•Establish partnerships with private sector.
A partnership must:• 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.
9
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 – for Development grantees: evidence of promise or strong theory.
5.Secure commitment for required private sector match – for Development grantees: 15% of the federal award.
10
Q&A: Eligibility
11
Order of Q&A Discussion Topics
• Eligibility• Evidence • Priorities• Selection Criteria & Review Process• Other Topics
12
i3 Evidence Requirements• All applications for Development grants must meet the
evidence requirement : evidence of promise or strong theory.
• 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.
13
i3 Development Grant Evidence Standards
Number of Studies Not Applicable – Logic Model Only 1+ 1+ 1+
Statistical Significance
Statistically significant positive impact(0.25 standard deviation or larger)
WWC Standards
Not Applicable;Correlational study
with statistical controls for selection
bias
Meets without reservations
Meets with reservations
14
Option 1Option 1 Option 2Option 2 Option 3Option 3
Note: Greyed-out/shaded 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.
Development Grant Evidence Requirements
FullApplicationFullApplication
• Applicants should provide information addressing the evidence standards in their full applications.
• Applicants either should ensure that all supporting evidence is available from publicly available sources and provide links or other guidance indicating where it is available; or should include copies of evidence with the full application.
• IMPORTANT: Applicants that do not sufficiently address the evidence requirements in their full applications will not be able to supplement their original applications with additional information to meet the requirements if they are deemed ineligible.
15
Q&A: Evidence
16
Order of Q&A Discussion Topics
• Eligibility• Evidence • Priorities• Selection Criteria & Review Process• Other Topics
17
i3 Development Priorities
Required forall applications
Improve Achievementfor High-Need
Students
Improve Achievementfor High-Need
Students
Must address oneabsolute priority
Teacher or Principal Effectiveness
Teacher or Principal Effectiveness
Low Performing SchoolsLow Performing Schools
Improving STEM Education
Improving STEM Education
English LearnersEnglish Learners
Students with DisabilitiesStudents with Disabilities
Parent and Family Engagement
Parent and Family Engagement
Effective Use of Technology
Effective Use of Technology
Serving Rural CommunitiesServing Rural Communities
18
i3 2013 Priority Structure and Subparts• The i3 Development Notice Inviting Applications (the NIA) was
published in the Federal Register on March 27, 2013.• An applicant for a Development grant must choose one of the
eight absolute priorities and one of the subparts under the chosen priority to address in the full application.
• Applicants who choose to submit an application under the absolute priority for Serving Rural Communities must identify an additional absolute priority and subpart.
19
20
Applicants must address one of the following subpart areas:a)Increasing the equitable access to effective teachers or principals for low income and high-need students (as defined in the NIA), which may include increasing the equitable distribution of effective teachers or principals for low-income and high-need students across schools.Orb)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 Low-Performing Schools
Applicants must address one of the following subpart areas:a)Recruiting, developing, or retaining highly effective staff, specifically teachers, principals, or instructional leaders, to work in low-performing schools.Orb)Implementing programs, supports, or other strategies that improve students’ non-cognitive abilities(e.g., motivation, persistence, or resilience) and enhance student engagement in learning or mitigate the effects of poverty, on student engagement in learning or mitigate the effects of poverty, including physical, mental, or emotional health issues, on student engagement in learning.
21
Absolute Priority 3: Improving Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education
Applicants must address the following subpart area:
a)Redesigning STEM course content and instructional practices to engage students and increase student achievement (as defined in the NIA).
22
Absolute Priority 4: Improving Academic Outcomes for Students with Disabilities
Applicants must address one of the following subpart areas:a)Designing and implementing teacher evaluation systems that define and measure the effectiveness of special education teachers and related service providers.Orb)Designing and implementing strategies that improve student achievement (as defined in the NIA) for students with disabilities in inclusive settings, including strategies that improve learning and developmental outcomes (i.e., academic, social, emotional, or behavioral) and the appropriate transition from restrictive settings to inclusive settings or general education classes or programs, and appropriate strategies to prevent unnecessary suspensions and expulsions.
23
Absolute Priority 5: Improving Academic Outcomes for English Learners
Applicants must address the following subpart area:
a)Aligning and implementing the curriculum and instruction used in grades 6-12 for language development and content courses to provide sufficient exposure to, engagement in, and acquisition of academic language and literacy practices necessary for preparing ELs to be college- and career-ready.
24
Absolute Priority 6: Improving Parent and Family Engagement
Applicants must address one of the following subpart areas:
a)Developing and implementing initiatives that train parents and families in the skills and strategies that will support their students in improving academic outcomes, including increased engagement and persistence in school.Orb)Developing tools or practices that provide students and parents with improved, ongoing access to and use of data and other information about students’ progress and performance.
25
Absolute Priority 7: Effective Use of Technology
Applicants must address one of the following subpart areas:
a)Providing access to learning experiences that are personalized, adaptive, and self-improving in order to optimize the delivery of instruction to learners with a variety of learning needs.Or b)Developing and implementing technology-enabled strategies for teaching and learning concepts and content (e.g., systems thinking) that are difficult to teach using traditional approaches, such as models and simulations, collaborative virtual environments, or “serious games.”
26
Absolute Priority 8: Serving Rural Communities
Applicants must address the following:
a)Under this priority, we provide funding to projects addressing one of the absolute priorities established for the 2013 Development i3 competition and under which the majority of students to be served are enrolled in rural local educational agencies (as defined in the NIA).
27
Notes on Absolute Priority 8: 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 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.
28
Q&A: Priorities
29
Order of Q&A Discussion Topics
• Eligibility• Evidence • Priorities• Selection Criteria & Review Process• Other Topics
30
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.
• There are different selection criteria for the pre-application and the full application.
• Detailed wording for each selection criterion may be found in the Notices at the i3 website: http://www.ed.gov/programs/innovation/index.html.
31
i3 Selection Criteria and Points
A. Significance10 35
B. Quality of the Project Design 10 25
C. Quality of the Management Plan 15
D. Personnel 10
E. Quality of the Project Evaluation 15
Total Points 20 100
32
Selection Criterion:A. Significance
Novel Approach to Addressing
Selected Priority
Novel Approach to Addressing
Selected Priority
Develop and Advance the Field
Develop and Advance the Field
•The extent to which the proposed project would implement a novel approach as compared with what has been previously attempted nationally.
•The potential contribution of the proposed project to the development and advancement of theory, knowledge, and practices in the field of study.
•The extent to which the proposed project will substantially improve on the outcomes achieved by other practices, such as through better student outcomes, lower cost, or accelerated results.
33
Improve OutcomesImprove Outcomes
Notes on Selection Criterion:A. Significance
Applicants should make sure that a peer reviewer, after reading the application narrative, would understand:•How the proposed project is unique;•Why the proposed project will have the impact noted in the application (e.g., prior research or theory, previous small-scale testing);•How the project would advance theory, knowledge, and practice in the field (as opposed to being new or important only for the entities or localities being served with grant funds); and•How will the project improve outcomes achieved by other practices, such as through better student outcomes, lower cost, or accelerated results.
34
Selection Criterion: B. Quality of the Project Design
Addressing the Absolute PriorityAddressing the
Absolute Priority
Clarity of Project Goals and Strategy to Achieve Them
Clarity of Project Goals and Strategy to Achieve Them
• The extent to which the proposed project addresses the absolute priority the applicant is seeking to meet.
• The clarity and coherence of the project goals, including the extent to which the proposed project articulates an explicit plan or actions to achieve its goals (e.g., a fully developed logic model of the proposed project).
• The clarity, completeness, and coherence of the project goals, and whether the application includes a description of project activities that constitute a complete plan for achieving those goals, including the identification of potential risks to project success and strategies to mitigate those risks.
35
Notes on Selection Criterion: B. Quality of the Project Design
Applicants should make sure that a peer reviewer, after reading the application narrative, would understand:•How the applicant will address the absolute priority under which it submits an application;•What the applicant proposes to do in the project (i.e., goals and strategy); and•How proposed activities relate to goals and strategy.
36
Selection Criterion: C. Quality of the Management Plan
Articulating Key Responsibilities and Timelines
Articulating Key Responsibilities and Timelines
Key Partners and Stakeholders
Support
Key Partners and Stakeholders
Support
• The extent to which the management plan articulates key responsibilities and well-defined objectives, including timelines and milestones.
• The extent of the demonstrated commitment of any key partners or evidence of broad support from stakeholders whose participation is critical to the project’s long-term success.
• The adequacy of procedures for ensuring feedback and continuous improvement in the operation of the proposed project.
37
Notes on 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;•How will the project team use that feedback to make improvements to the project; and• What is the role of key partners and what is their impact on the long-term success of the project.
38
Selection Criterion: D. Personnel
Adequacy of Staffing PlanAdequacy of Staffing Plan
• 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.
39
Notes on Selection Criterion: D. Personnel
Applicants should make sure that a peer reviewer, after reading the application narrative, would understand:•How does the team’s prior experiences prepared them for implementing the proposed project successfully.
40
Selection Criterion: E. Quality of Project Evaluation
Key QuestionsKey Questions
Clear and Credible Analysis
Clear and Credible Analysis
• 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.
• 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.
• The extent to which the evaluation plan clearly articulates the key components and outcomes of the project, as well as a measureable threshold for acceptable implementation.
41
Notes on Selection Criterion: E. Quality of Project Evaluation
Applicants should make sure that a peer reviewer, after reading the application narrative, would understand:•What are the key evaluation questions;•How will the proposed evaluation methodologies allow the project to answer the key evaluation questions; •What implementation and performance data will the evaluation generate; and• How will the evaluation provide data during the period to help indicate whether the project is on track to meet its goals.
42
Q&A: Selection Criteria & Review
Process
43
Order of Q&A Discussion Topics
• Eligibility• Evidence • Priorities• Selection Criteria & Review Process• Other Topics
44
Key Requirements That Must Be Met Before an Award Is Made
45
Parts of a Complete Full ApplicationPart A
Project Narrative FormResponses to the Selection Criteria
Significance Quality of the Project DesignQuality of the Management PlanPersonnelQuality of Project Evaluation
Budget Narrative FormED 524 Section CEligible 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
46
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 full 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 Acrobat3.Save the form in Adobe Acrobat as a PDF4.Upload the PDF to the Other Attachments Form of the applicationDO 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.
47
Q&A: Other Topics
48
Other Important Resources
Investing in Innovation Fund Website: (http://www2.ed.gov/programs/innovation/index.html)
• Notice Final Priorities, Requirements, Definitions, and Selection Criteria (published in the Federal Register on March 27, 2013)
• Notice Inviting Applications for Development Applications• Application Package (includes the Notice Inviting Applications)• i3 Applicant Information Sheet• Frequently Asked QuestionsNote: 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]
49
Closing Thoughts• Write clearly to the selection criteria: they are what the peer reviewers
will use to judge your application, so consider explaining what you’re going to do and what the impact will be if you are successful.
• Consider discussing how you will do what you claim you will do – do not just state that you will do it.
• Keep in mind that Development grants in particular aim to address problems of national importance – think about whether and how your idea is of broader than local importance.
• Register for grants.gov early, make sure you understand how to use it, and leave yourself plenty of time to submit your application on time (the deadline of 4:30:00PM DC Time on August 16 applies to the completion of the submission, not the beginning).
• Ensure SAM registration is up to date as soon as possible. Please visit sam.gov for additional information.
50
Related Documents
