investing in innovation (i3) fund

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)






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





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


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


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


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





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 [email protected] 24

investing in innovation (i3) fund

Documents