Presenters: Martin J. Blank, Martin J. Blank, President, Institute for Educational Leadership; Director, Coalition for Community Schools S. Kwesi Rollins S. Kwesi Rollins, Director of Leadership Programs, Institute for Educational Leadership

 If you cannot hear the presenters try increasing your computer speaker volume.  “Q & A" will take place at the very end.  You can type questions into “chat box” during the presentation.  Presenters will address these questions at the end.

 $650 million to be obligated by September 2010  Provide competitive grants to eligible 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

 You must be either: ◦ A Local educational agencies (LEAs) or a ◦ Nonprofit organizations in partnership with (a) one or more LEAs or (b) a consortium of schools  NOTE: all applicants and official partners must be eligible individually.  In order for your application to be reviewed – you MUST be eligible!

 You must: ◦ Address needs of high-need students ◦ Address one absolute priority ◦ Demonstrate that you’ve:  closed achievement gaps or improved achievement for all groups of students, and  achieved significant improvement in other areas ◦ Establish partnerships with private sector ◦ Secure commitments for required private sector match ◦ Meet the evidence requirement for the type of grant applied for

 You must: ◦ Address needs of high-need students ◦ Address one absolute priority ◦ Demonstrate that the non-profit organization has a record of improving student achievement, attainment, or retention ◦ Secure commitment for required private sector match ◦ Meet the evidence requirement for the type of grant applied

Must address one of the following: ◦ Innovations that Support Effective Teachers and Leaders ◦ Innovations that Improve the Use of Data ◦ Innovations that Complement the Implementation of High Standards and High-Quality Assessments ◦ Innovations that Turn Around Persistently in Low- Performing Schools

 “Under this priority, the Department provides funding to support strategies, practices, or programs that are designed to turn around schools that are in any of the following categories: (a) persistently lowest-achieving schools (as defined in the final requirements for the School Improvement Grants program)…”

“Persistently lowest-achieving schools means, as determined by the State-- (a) Any Title I school in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring that —  Is among the lowest-achieving five percent of Title I schools in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring or the lowest-achieving five Title I schools in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring in the State, whichever number of schools is greater; or  Is a high school that has had a graduation rate as defined in 34 C.F.R. § (b) that is less than 60 percent over a number of years; and

(b) Any secondary school that is eligible for, but does not receive, Title I funds that —  Is among the lowest-achieving five percent of secondary schools or the lowest-achieving five secondary schools in the State that are eligible for, but do not receive, Title I funds, whichever number of schools is greater; or  Is a high school that has had a graduation rate as defined in 34 C.F.R. § (b) that is less than 60 percent over a number of years.” (source: School Improvement Guidance, January 2010)

May address one or more of the following: ◦ Innovations for Improving Early Learning Outcomes ◦ Innovations that Support College Access and Success ◦ Innovations to Address the Unique Learning Needs of Students With Disabilities and Limited English Proficient Students ◦ Innovations that Serve Schools in Rural LEAs

 Development – reasonable hypothesis  Validation – moderate evidence  Scale-up – strong evidence

Development Grants ◦ Will provide funding to support high-potential and relatively untested practices, strategies, or programs ◦ Applicants must provide evidence that the proposed practice, strategy, or program, or one similar to it, has been attempted previously, albeit on a limited scale or in a limited setting, and yielded promising results that suggest that more formal and systematic study is warranted.

Development Grants ◦ Applicants must provide a rationale for the proposed practice, strategy, or program based on research findings or reasonable hypotheses. ◦ Applicants must estimate the number of students to be served by the project, and provide evidence of the applicant’s ability to implement and appropriately evaluate the proposed project and, if positive results are obtained, its capacity to further develop and bring the project to a larger scale

Selection CriteriaDevelopment Grant A. Strength of ResearchReasonable hypotheses B. Internal Validity (Strength of Causal Conclusions) and External Validity (Generalizability) Theory and reported practice suggest the potential for efficacy for at least some participants and settings C. Prior Research Studies Supporting Effectiveness or Efficacy of the Proposed Practice, Strategy, or Program 1) Evidence that the proposed practice, strategy, or program, or one similar to it, has been attempted previously, albeit on a limited scale or in a limited setting, and yielded promising results that suggest that more formal and systematic study is warranted; and (2) a rationale for the proposed practice, strategy, or program that is based on research findings or reasonable hypotheses, including related research or theories in education and other sectors

Selection CriteriaDevelopment Grant D. Practice, Strategy, or Program in Prior Research The same as, or similar to, that proposed for support under the Development grant E. Participants and Settings in Prior Research Practice, strategy, or program warrants further study to investigate efficacy F. Significance of EffectBased on prior implementation, promising for the target population for the Development project G. Magnitude of EffectBased on prior implementation, promising for the target population for the Development project

Tier #1: Reviewers will review and score all eligible Development applications on the following five selection criteria: A. Strength of Research C. Prior Research Studies Supporting Effectiveness or Efficacy of the Proposed Practice, Strategy, or Program E. Participants and Settings in Prior Research F. Significance of Effect G. Magnitude of Effect Tier #2: Eligible applications that score highly on the above five criteria will then have the remaining two selection criteria reviewed and scored by a different panel of reviewers. B. Internal & External Validity D. Practice, Strategy, or Program in Prior Research

 i3 website  i3 Application Package - ant.html ant.html  ED’s Open Innovation Portal  Become a i3 Peer Reviewer - eviewers.html eviewers.html  All questions about i3 may be sent to

 Coalition’s i3 Planning Toolkit: ◦ Using Title I for Community Schools Using Title I for Community Schools ◦ Community Schools Logic Model Community Schools Logic Model ◦ Community Schools: Producing Results That Turn Around Failing Schools Community Schools: Producing Results That Turn Around Failing Schools ◦ Community Schools Research Brief, 2009 Community Schools Research Brief, 2009 ◦ Community & Family Engagement: Principals Share What Works Community & Family Engagement: Principals Share What Works ◦ Community-Based Learning: Engaging Students for Success and Citizenship Community-Based Learning: Engaging Students for Success and Citizenship 