Post on 01-Jan-2016
July 25, 2011National Education Statistics Agenda Committee
Investing in Innovation (i3) Fund
Overview
Overview of the i3 ProgramoKey features of i3oReview of the FY2010 Competition &
ResultsGrants funded under the Use of
Data PriorityFY2011 i3 Competition
Major Changes from the FY2010 Competition
i3 Looking Forward
2
Investing in Innovation (i3) Fund Summary
PurposePurpose
ApplicantsApplicants
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•Increasing college enrollment and completion rates
Eligible applicants are: (1)Local educational agencies (LEAs) (2)Nonprofit organizations in partnership with (a) one or more LEAs or (b) a consortium of schools3
i3i3
Types of Awards Available Under i3
Funding Available
Up to $5MM/award (FY2010)
Up to $3MM/award (FY2011)
Up to $25MM/award (FY2010)
Up to $15MM/award (FY2011)
Up to $50MM/award (FY2010)
Up to $25MM/award (FY2011)
Evidence Required
Reasonable - research findings or hypotheses, including related research or theories in education and other sectors
Moderate – either high internal validity and moderate external validity, or vice versa
Strong – both high internal validity and high external validity
Scaling Required
Able to further develop and scale
Able to be scaled to the regional or state level
Able to be scaled to the national, regional, or state level
4
• Builds portfolio of solutions to some of America’s most persistent educational challenges
• Aligns amount of funding with level of evidence
• Aims explicitly to scale effective programs and create a pipeline of promising innovations
• Provides funding for required independent evaluation in order to build understanding of “what works”
5
What Makes i3 Different
Innovationproduct, process,
strategy, or approach that improves
significantly upon the status quo and reaches scale
Innovationproduct, process,
strategy, or approach that improves
significantly upon the status quo and reaches scale
Invention
BaselineBaseline
Scale
Gre
ater
Im
pact
TrendTrend
Note: The definition of innovation on this slide is presented as an overview of the concept, not as a specific definition in the i3 program
6
How We Think About Innovation
• $650 million to be obligated by September 30, 2010
• Nearly 1700 applications across all three grant categories (received 19 Scale-up, 355 Validation, 1324 Development applications)
• 49 grantees - 4 Scale-up, 15 Validation, 30 Development grants – aiming to collectively serve millions of students
• All 49 grantees secured private-sector matching• Multiple unfunded i3 applicants subsequently
have identified organizations to fund at least part of their proposal
7
Vibrant Competition in 2010
Improve Achievement
for High-Need Students
Improve Achievement
for High-Need Students
Teacher and Principal Effectiveness
Teacher and Principal Effectiveness
Enhanced Data SystemsEnhanced Data Systems
College- and Career-ready Standards and
Assessments
College- and Career-ready Standards and
Assessments
Improving Achievement in Persistently Low-performing Schools
Improving Achievement in Persistently Low-performing Schools
Early Learning(0 or 1 point)
Early Learning(0 or 1 point)
College Access and Success
(0 or 1 point)
College Access and Success
(0 or 1 point)
Serving Students with Disabilities and Limited English
Proficient Students(0 or 1 point)
Serving Students with Disabilities and Limited English
Proficient Students(0 or 1 point)
Serving Students in Rural LEAs
(0, 1, or 2 points)
Serving Students in Rural LEAs
(0, 1, or 2 points)
i3 Priorities in FY2010
Required forall applications
Must address oneAbsolute Priority
May address one or moreCompetitive Preference
8
Grantees Distributed Across Grant Types and Priorities
9
MUST
MUST
All i3 Grantees All i3 Grantees
• Evaluation– Conduct an independent project evaluation– Cooperate with technical assistance provided by the
Department or its contractors– Share broadly the results of any evaluation (and data sets for
Validation and Scale-up)• Participate in, organize, or facilitate, as appropriate, communities
of practice for the i3 program
• Evaluation– Conduct an independent project evaluation– Cooperate with technical assistance provided by the
Department or its contractors– Share broadly the results of any evaluation (and data sets for
Validation and Scale-up)• Participate in, organize, or facilitate, as appropriate, communities
of practice for the i3 program
MUST
10
Post Award Requirements
Overview
Overview of the i3 ProgramoKey features of i3oReview of the FY2010 Competition &
ResultsGrants funded under the Use of
Data PriorityFY2011 i3 Competition
Major Changes from the FY2010 Competition
i3 Looking Forward
11
12
Grant Title Grantee Grant Type
Using Data to Inform College Access Programming in the 21st Century High School (Using DICAP)
Council for Opportunity in Education (DC)
Validation
Project READS: Using Data to Promote Summer Reading
Presidents and Fellows of Harvard College (MA)
Validation
Improving Data Use in Schools: Expanding the Achievement Network Model
The Achievement Network LTD (ANet) (MA)
Development
Expansion and Evaluation of Education Pilot Program(EPP)
Advancement Through Opportunity and Knowledge (CA)
Development
Every Child Ready (ECR) AppleTree Institute for Education Innovation (DC)
Development
Data-Driven School Transformation Partnership
Bay State Reading Institute (MA) Development
Engage ME: PLEASE (Personalized Learning Experiences Accelerate Standards-Based Education)
Forsyth County Schools (GA) Development
School of One New York City Department of Education (NY)
Development
Facilitating Long-Term Improvements in Graduation and Higher Education for Tomorrow (FLIGHT)
Take Stock in Children, Inc. (FL) Development
Projects Funded under Data Priority
Examples of Projects funded under Data Priority
Project READS: Using Data to Promote Summer Reading
Presidents and Fellows of Harvard CollegeValidation GrantAmount of Grant Award: $12,773,136Length of Project: 5 yearsPartnering with LEAs in NC – uses student
achievement growth data to identify which version of its program is cost effective in its goal to reduce summer learning loss and will support LEAs in using student achievement growth data to determine whether a targeted summer intervention is needed13
School of OneNew York City Department of EducationDevelopment GrantAmount of Grant Award: $4,999,560Length of Project: 4 yearsExpands model to four additional schools sites
where students receive instruction through multiple modalities and an adaptive learning platform
14
Examples of Projects funded under Data Priority
Engage ME: PLEASE (Personalized Learning Experiences Accelerate Standards-Based Education)
Forsyth County SchoolsDevelopment GrantAmount of Grant Award: $4,738,315Length of Project: 5 yearsUses a role-based portal that allows students and
teachers to access resources necessary for reflection on student learning and teacher instruction by integrating several data systems into one system
15
Examples of Projects funded under Data Priority
Expansion and Evaluation of Education Pilot Program(EPP)
Advancement Through Opportunity and Knowledge
Development GrantAmount of Grant Award: $3,742,580Length of Project: 4 yearsPartnering with LEAs in CA – shares data across
sectors through an integrated service model so that a multidisciplinary care team can monitor student progress and service provision for foster youth
16
Examples of Projects funded under Data Priority
Educator Evaluation for Excellence in Teaching and Learning (E3TL) Consortium
American Federation of Teachers Educational Foundation (AFTEF)
Development GrantAmount of Grant Award: $4,989,9944 Length of Project: 4 yearsPartnering with LEAs in NY and RI – provides training
and professional development to support LEAs in the implementation of performance-based teacher evaluation systems – to support this project, AFTEF is working to develop software that will facilitate the data collection process used in teacher evaluation
17
Example of Data Use by a Project funded under another
Priority
Overview
Overview of the i3 ProgramoKey features of i3oReview of the FY2010 Competition &
ResultsGrants funded under the Use of
Data PriorityFY2011 i3 Competition
Major Changes from the FY2010 Competition
i3 Looking Forward
18
Funding by Grant Type
The maximum award for each grant type has changed:
• Scale-up: Up to $25 million
• Validation: Up to $15 million
• Development: Up to $3 million
Absolute Priorities
The competition now includes five APs, with the changes noted below:
• Retaining: Teachers and Principals Standards and Assessments Low-Performing Schools
• Adding: Promoting STEM Education Improving Rural Achievement
19
Major Changes from 2010
Major Changes from 2010
Competitive Preference Priorities
• Applicants may identify no more than two competitive preference priorities that they wish scored.
• Applicants may address as many of the competitive preference priorities as they wish for the purpose of comprehensiveness. However, the Department will review and award points only for the maximum of two CPPs the applicant identifies.
• The competition now includes five CPPs, with the changes noted below:
• Retaining: Early Learning College Access and Success Students With Disabilities and Limited English Proficiency
• Adding: Productivity Technology
20
Major Changes from 2010Selection Criteria
• The number of selection criteria has been reduced to 4
• Specifically, selection criteria that were addressed elsewhere last year – Strength of Research, Significance of Effect, and Magnitude of Effect and Experience of the Eligible Applicant – are no longer selection criteria (but remain important parts of the competition and should be addressed by applicants)
• Allocation of points by selection criterion varies by competition
Matching Requirements
• The percentage of required private sector match now differs by competition:
• Scale-up: 5% of the total award requested
• Validation: 10% of the total award requested
• Development: 15% of the total award requested
• Applicants may still request a reduction of the required match percentage
21
Major Changes from 2010Limits on Grant Awards
• The limits on grant awards have been revised such that no grantee may receive more than one new Scale-up or Validation grant in any two-year period
• This is in addition to clarifying the existing limits of two new grant awards and no more than $55MM in funding in a single year
• This does not affect current Scale-up or Validation grantees’ opportunity to receive new Development grants or to partner on other applications
22
i3: Looking Forward
FY 2012 Competitiono Funding for i3 is in the Department’s FY2012 budget
“Long Term” Focuso The design of the i3 program supports a pipeline of
promising innovations and provides incentives for building an evidence base that may allow a project to move up funding categories
o Importance of a well-designed and well-implemented evaluation that provides data on the impact of the intervention
o Importance of collecting high-quality implementation data and performance feedback to support replication
23
Other Important ResourcesInvesting in Innovation Fund Web site: (http://www2.ed.gov/programs/innovation/index.html)
Notice of Final Priorities, Requirements, Definitions, and Selection Criteria (March 12, 2010)
Notice of Final Revisions to Priorities, Requirements, and Selection Criteria (June 3, 2011)
Notices Inviting Applications for the FY2011 i3 Competition (June 3, 2011)
Frequently Asked Questions Evidence Summary Table Selection Criteria Summary Table
i3 At-A-Glance (quick reference)
For information on the FY2010 grantees: http://www2.ed.gov/programs/innovation/awards.html
All questions about i3 may be sent to i3@ed.gov 24