Opportunity Information: Apply for ED GRANTS 060515 002
Apply for ED GRANTS 060515 002
- The Department of Education in the education sector is offering a public funding opportunity titled "Office of Innovation and Improvement (OII) Investing in Innovation (I3) Fund VALIDATION GRANTS CFDA Number 84.411B" and is now available to receive applicants.
- Interested and eligible applicants and submit their applications by referencing the CFDA number(s): 84.411 Investing in Innovation (i3) Fund.
- This funding opportunity was created on Jun 5, 2015 and posted on Jun 5, 2015.
- Applicants must submit their applications by Aug 4, 2015 Applications Available June 8, 2015. Deadline for Notice of Intent to Apply June 25, 2015. We will be able to develop a more efficient process for reviewing grant applications if we know the approximate number of applicants that intend to apply for funding under this competition. Therefore, the Secretary strongly encourages each potential applicant to notify us of the applicants intent to submit an application by completing a Web based form. When completing this form, applicants will provide (1) the applicant organizations name and address and (2) the one absolute priority the applicant intends to address. Applicants may access this form online at https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/VX6M7SF . Applicants that do not complete this form may still submit an application. Deadline for Transmittal of Applications August 4, 2015.. (Agency may still review applications by suitable applicants for the remaining/unused allocated funding in 2026.)
- The funding agency has allocated a total of $24,000,000.00 to eligible and selected applicants.
- Each selected applicant is eligible to receive up to $12,000,000.00 in funding.
- The number of recipients for this funding is limited to 2 candidate(s).
- Eligible applicants include: Others (see text field entitled Additional Information on Eligibility for clarification).
- Eligible Applicants Entities eligible to apply for i3 grants include either of the following (a) An LEA. (b) A partnership between a nonprofit organization and (1) One or more LEAs or (2) A consortium of schools. Statutory Eligibility Requirements Except as specifically set forth in the Note about Eligibility for an Eligible Applicant that Includes a Nonprofit Organization that follows, to be eligible for an award, an eligible applicant must (a)(1) Have significantly closed the achievement gaps between groups of students described in section 1111(b)(2) of the ESEA (economically disadvantaged students, students from major racial and ethnic groups, students with limited English proficiency, students with disabilities) or (2) Have demonstrated success in significantly increasing student academic achievement for all groups of students described in that section (b) Have made significant improvements in other areas, such as high school graduation rates (as defined in this notice) or increased recruitment and placement of high quality teachers and principals, as demonstrated with meaningful data (c) Demonstrate that it has established one or more partnerships with the private sector, which may include philanthropic organizations, and that organizations in the private sector will provide matching funds in order to help bring results to scale and (d) In the case of an eligible applicant that includes a nonprofit organization, provide in the application the names of the LEAs with which the nonprofit organization will partner, or the names of the schools in the consortium with which it will partner. If an eligible applicant that includes a nonprofit organization intends to partner with additional LEAs or schools that are not named in the application, it must describe in the application the demographic and other characteristics of these LEAs and schools and the process it will use to select them. Note An entity submitting an application should provide, in Appendix C, under Other Attachments Form, of its application, information addressing the eligibility requirements described in this section. An applicant must provide, in its application, sufficient supporting data or other information to allow the Department to determine whether the applicant has met the eligibility requirements. Note that in order to address the statutory eligibility requirement above, applicants must provide data that demonstrate a change. In other words, applicants must provide data for at least two points in time when addressing this requirement in Appendix C of their applications. If the Department determines that an applicant has provided insufficient information in its application, the applicant will not have an opportunity to provide additional information.
[Watch] Creating a grant proposal using the step-by-step wizard inside the applicant portal:
Opportunity Summary:
The Office of Innovation and Improvement (OII) Investing in Innovation (i3) Fund Validation Grants opportunity (CFDA 84.411B) was a U.S. Department of Education discretionary grant competition designed to help proven educational practices grow to a much larger footprint while continuing to build strong evidence about what works. Created under section 14007 of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), the broader i3 program was built around the idea that federal funds should both encourage innovation and require credible proof of impact. In practical terms, i3 tied grant size and expectations to the strength of evidence behind a proposed approach, pushing applicants not only to implement an intervention but also to study it in a serious way so educators and policymakers can better understand which strategies improve student outcomes, for which students, and under what conditions.
This particular notice invited applications only for Validation Grants, one of three i3 grant types (Development, Validation, and Scale-up). Validation Grants were intended for projects backed by "moderate evidence of effectiveness" (as defined in the official Federal Register notice) and were meant to support expansion to a regional or national level, rather than small pilots. The Department emphasized that Validation funding should be used not just to replicate a program in more places, but to strengthen the organization and delivery system behind it. Applicants were expected to build capacity early in the grant period, anticipate growth challenges, and directly address barriers to scaling, including cost-effectiveness issues that can prevent an otherwise successful model from being sustained or adopted widely.
A central requirement of i3 Validation Grants was rigorous, independent evaluation. Every funded project had to dedicate part of its budget to an evaluation conducted independently (again, per the definition in the notice). The evaluation expectation went beyond a single-site study: the Department anticipated studies conducted across varied contexts and student populations, with an emphasis on identifying where the practice works best and for whom. Grantees were also expected to clarify and document the core components of the intervention and to codify the practice in a way that supports high-quality adoption and replication by others, not just by the original applicant. In other words, the program was designed to generate usable knowledge for the field while also helping effective practices scale.
Eligibility was limited to (1) local educational agencies (LEAs) applying on their own, or (2) partnerships in which a nonprofit organization applied in collaboration with one or more LEAs or with a consortium of schools. Beyond fitting into one of those categories, applicants also had to meet statutory eligibility conditions demonstrating prior performance and readiness to scale. Specifically, applicants needed to show they had either significantly closed achievement gaps or significantly increased academic achievement for key student groups identified in ESEA section 1111(b)(2), including economically disadvantaged students, major racial and ethnic groups, English learners, and students with disabilities. They also had to show meaningful improvements in other important outcomes such as graduation rates or stronger recruitment and placement of high-quality teachers and principals, using meaningful data. Another major eligibility requirement was evidence of private-sector partnership and matching support, since i3 required cost sharing or matching; applicants had to demonstrate that private-sector entities (including philanthropic partners) would provide matching funds to help bring results to scale. Nonprofit-led applicants also had to name the partner LEAs or consortium schools in the application, or, if additional partners were not yet named, describe the characteristics of the intended partners and the process for selecting them. The Department warned that eligibility documentation had to be complete at submission and include data showing change over time (at least two points in time); if information was insufficient, the applicant would not be given a chance to supplement it later.
From a funding and administration standpoint, this competition was posted June 5, 2015 (Funding Opportunity Number ED-GRANTS-060515-002) with an estimated total funding amount of $24,000,000 and an award ceiling of $12,000,000. The Department anticipated making about two awards. The funding instrument type was listed as a grant and/or cooperative agreement under the education activity category, and it included a matching requirement. Applications became available June 8, 2015. The Department strongly encouraged a non-binding Notice of Intent to Apply by June 25, 2015 through an online form; this was meant to help the agency plan the review process, though applicants could still apply without submitting the notice. The deadline for transmittal of applications was August 4, 2015, and submissions had to be made electronically through Grants.gov. Applicants were instructed to search by CFDA 84.411 (without the "B" suffix) when locating the application package, and they were explicitly told they could not submit applications by email.
Finally, the opportunity repeatedly stressed that the synopsis was not a substitute for the official Federal Register notice. Key details such as absolute priorities, definitions (including what counts as "moderate evidence" and "independent evaluation"), selection criteria, performance measures, and full application requirements were contained in the Federal Register notice inviting applications for FY 2015 Validation Grants. For assistance, the announcement listed Grants.gov technical support contact information as well as a program contact at the Department of Education (including the i3 program email mailbox).
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs): OII Investing in Innovation (i3) Fund Validation Grants (CFDA 84.411B)
1) What is this grant opportunity?
This opportunity is the Office of Innovation and Improvement (OII) Investing in Innovation (i3) Fund Validation Grants competition (CFDA 84.411B), a U.S. Department of Education discretionary grant competition. It was designed to help proven educational practices expand to a much larger footprint while continuing to build strong evidence about what works.
2) What is the purpose of the i3 program overall?
The broader i3 program was built around the idea that federal funds should encourage innovation while also requiring credible proof of impact. In practice, i3 linked grant size and expectations to the strength of evidence behind a proposed approach and expected applicants to implement an intervention and study it seriously to understand which strategies improve student outcomes, for which students, and under what conditions.
3) Which i3 grant type does this notice cover?
This notice invited applications only for Validation Grants (one of three i3 grant types: Development, Validation, and Scale-up).
4) What level of evidence is required for a Validation Grant?
Validation Grants were intended for projects backed by "moderate evidence of effectiveness," as defined in the official Federal Register notice.
5) Is a Validation Grant intended for pilots or for scaling?
Validation Grants were meant to support expansion to a regional or national level rather than small pilots. The emphasis was on growth to a much larger footprint.
6) Beyond expanding to more sites, what did the Department expect Validation funding to support?
The Department emphasized that Validation funding should strengthen the organization and delivery system behind the practice, not simply replicate it in more places. Applicants were expected to build capacity early, anticipate growth challenges, and address barriers to scaling, including cost-effectiveness issues that can limit sustainability and wider adoption.
7) Is an evaluation required?
Yes. A central requirement was rigorous, independent evaluation. Every funded project had to dedicate part of its budget to an evaluation conducted independently, as defined in the notice.
8) What kind of evaluation did the Department anticipate?
The expectation went beyond a single-site study. The Department anticipated studies across varied contexts and student populations, with an emphasis on identifying where the practice works best and for whom.
9) Do applicants need to define and document what their intervention is?
Yes. Grantees were expected to clarify and document the core components of the intervention and codify the practice so that others can adopt and replicate it with high quality, not just the original applicant.
10) Who is eligible to apply?
Eligibility was limited to: (1) local educational agencies (LEAs) applying on their own, or (2) partnerships where a nonprofit organization applied in collaboration with one or more LEAs or with a consortium of schools.
11) What prior-results eligibility conditions had to be met?
Applicants had to meet statutory eligibility conditions demonstrating prior performance and readiness to scale. Specifically, they needed to show they had either significantly closed achievement gaps or significantly increased academic achievement for key student groups identified in ESEA section 1111(b)(2).
12) Which student groups were explicitly referenced for the achievement-gap/achievement requirement?
The notice referenced key student groups identified in ESEA section 1111(b)(2), including economically disadvantaged students, major racial and ethnic groups, English learners, and students with disabilities.
13) Were applicants required to show improvement in outcomes beyond test scores?
Yes. Applicants also had to show meaningful improvements in other important outcomes such as graduation rates or stronger recruitment and placement of high-quality teachers and principals, using meaningful data.
14) Was a private-sector partnership or matching support required?
Yes. A major eligibility requirement was evidence of private-sector partnership and matching support. The competition included a matching requirement, and applicants had to demonstrate that private-sector entities (including philanthropic partners) would provide matching funds to help bring results to scale.
15) If a nonprofit is the applicant, do LEA partners have to be identified in the application?
Yes. Nonprofit-led applicants had to name the partner LEAs or consortium schools in the application. If additional partners were not yet named, the applicant had to describe the characteristics of intended partners and the process for selecting them.
16) How strict were the eligibility documentation rules?
The Department warned that eligibility documentation had to be complete at submission and include data showing change over time (at least two points in time). If information was insufficient, the applicant would not be given a chance to supplement it later.
17) What was the Funding Opportunity Number for this competition?
The Funding Opportunity Number was ED-GRANTS-060515-002.
18) When was the competition posted and when did applications become available?
The competition was posted on June 5, 2015, and applications became available on June 8, 2015.
19) What was the deadline for submitting an application?
The deadline for transmittal of applications was August 4, 2015.
20) How were applications required to be submitted?
Applications had to be submitted electronically through Grants.gov. Applicants were explicitly told they could not submit applications by email.
21) How should applicants find the application package in Grants.gov?
Applicants were instructed to search by CFDA 84.411 (without the "B" suffix) when locating the application package.
22) Was a Notice of Intent to Apply required?
No. The Department strongly encouraged a non-binding Notice of Intent to Apply by June 25, 2015 through an online form to help plan the review process, but applicants could still apply without submitting the notice.
23) How much funding was expected to be available?
The estimated total funding amount was $24,000,000.
24) What was the maximum award size?
The award ceiling was $12,000,000.
25) About how many awards did the Department expect to make?
The Department anticipated making about two awards.
26) What was the funding instrument type and activity category?
The funding instrument type was listed as a grant and/or cooperative agreement under the education activity category.
27) Did this opportunity include cost sharing or matching?
Yes. The opportunity included a matching requirement, and applicants had to demonstrate matching support from private-sector entities (including philanthropic partners).
28) Is the synopsis enough to understand all requirements?
No. The opportunity repeatedly stressed that the synopsis was not a substitute for the official Federal Register notice.
29) What kinds of details were contained in the official Federal Register notice (rather than the synopsis)?
Key details were contained in the Federal Register notice inviting applications for FY 2015 Validation Grants, including absolute priorities, definitions (including "moderate evidence" and "independent evaluation"), selection criteria, performance measures, and full application requirements.
30) What support contacts were referenced for applicants who needed help?
The announcement listed Grants.gov technical support contact information and a program contact at the Department of Education, including the i3 program email mailbox.
Browse more opportunities from the same category: Education
Next opportunity: Extending Alaska Region National Hydrography Dataset Editing Protocols and Data Production to Accommodate Wetlands and other Value Added Attributes
Previous opportunity: Office of Innovation and Improvement (OII) Investing in Innovation (I3) Fund SCALE UP GRANTS CFDA Number 84.411A
USGrants.org Applicant Portal:
Are you interested in learning about about how to apply for this government funding opportunity? You can create a free applicant account and receive instant access to our applicant portal that many business owners like you have benefited from.
Apply for ED GRANTS 060515 002
[Watch] how do funding administrators access proposals?
Applicants also applied for:
Applicants who have applied for this opportunity (ED GRANTS 060515 002) also looked into and applied for these:
| Funding Opportunity |
|---|
| Marine Debris Education, Outreach and Cleanup in Kotzebue Sound Communities Apply for P15AC00686 Funding Number: P15AC00686 Agency: National Park Service Category: Education Funding Amount: $40,000 |
| Denali Susitna Camp Apply for P15AS00997 Funding Number: P15AS00997 Agency: National Park Service Category: Education Funding Amount: $20,000 |
| Using GIS and SAR imagery to assess fish and yellow billed loon habitat in the Arctic Network of Alaska Parklands Apply for P15AS01001 Funding Number: P15AS01001 Agency: National Park Service Category: Education Funding Amount: $100,000 |
| Communicating Marine Science to Alaskan Communities through Discovery Labs Apply for P15AS01000 Funding Number: P15AS01000 Agency: National Park Service Category: Education Funding Amount: $100,000 |
| Detection and avoidance of whales by cruise ships in Glacier Bay National Park Apply for P15AS00993 Funding Number: P15AS00993 Agency: National Park Service Category: Education Funding Amount: $500,000 |
| Ethnographic Overview and Assessment Apply for P15AS00994 Funding Number: P15AS00994 Agency: National Park Service Category: Education Funding Amount: $200,000 |
| Changing Tides Bivalve Bioassay and Analysis Component Apply for P15AS00797 Funding Number: P15AS00797 Agency: National Park Service Category: Education Funding Amount: $200,000 |
| Review of Vegetation Distributions in Klondike Gold Rush National Historical Park from Historic Aerial Imagery Apply for P15AS00998 Funding Number: P15AS00998 Agency: National Park Service Category: Education Funding Amount: $50,000 |
| Sitka Youth Expedition to Glacier Bay (Find your Parks) Apply for P15AS11111 Funding Number: P15AS11111 Agency: National Park Service Category: Education Funding Amount: $60,000 |
| Assessing the Impacts of Ocean Acidification on Plankton Populations in Glacier Bay Apply for P15AS01037 Funding Number: P15AS01037 Agency: National Park Service Category: Education Funding Amount: $300,000 |
| Conduct Geophysical Sub surface Resource Survey at Brooks River, Katmai National Park Apply for P15AS01041 Funding Number: P15AS01041 Agency: National Park Service Category: Education Funding Amount: $50,000 |
| Subtidal and Intertidal Habitats and Invertebrate Biota in Lower Cook Inlet, Alaska Apply for P15AS01028 Funding Number: P15AS01028 Agency: National Park Service Category: Education Funding Amount: $20,000 |
| Large Fires in Wrangell St. Elias National Park Apply for P15AS01029 Funding Number: P15AS01029 Agency: National Park Service Category: Education Funding Amount: $20,000 |
| Mapping Lichen Cover and Biomass in the Western Caribou Arctic Herd Home Range Apply for P15AS01022 Funding Number: P15AS01022 Agency: National Park Service Category: Education Funding Amount: $50,000 |
| Population Dynamics of Forest Carnivores in Denali Apply for P15AS01013 Funding Number: P15AS01013 Agency: National Park Service Category: Education Funding Amount: $50,000 |
| SUPPORTING THE ALASKA NATIVE SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING PROGRAM (ANSEP) Apply for P15AS01023 Funding Number: P15AS01023 Agency: National Park Service Category: Education Funding Amount: $200,000 |
| Effects of Infanticide Risk on Brown Bear Resource Selection in Lake Clark National Park and Preserve, Alaska Apply for P15AS01024 Funding Number: P15AS01024 Agency: National Park Service Category: Education Funding Amount: $10,000 |
| Identify Vulnerable Populations of Dall s Sheep in Alaska s National Parks Using Climate Models Apply for P15AS01026 Funding Number: P15AS01026 Agency: National Park Service Category: Education Funding Amount: $150,000 |
| Dinosaurs of the Cantwell Formation, Denali National Park and Preserve insights into a Late Cretaceous, high latitude ecosystem in a Greenhouse World. Apply for P15AS01027 Funding Number: P15AS01027 Agency: National Park Service Category: Education Funding Amount: $40,000 |
| High resolution hydrologic modeling of Glacier Bay National Park Apply for P15AS01065 Funding Number: P15AS01065 Agency: National Park Service Category: Education Funding Amount: $100,000 |
Grant application guides and resources
It is always free to apply for government grants. However the process may be very complex depending on the funding opportunity you are applying for. Let us help you!
Apply for Grants
Premium leads for funding administrators, grant writers, and loan issuers
Thousands of people visit our website for their funding needs every day. When a user creates a grant proposal and files for submission, we pass the information on to funding administrators, grant writers, and government loan issuers.
If you manage government grant programs, provide grant writing services, or issue personal or government loans, we can help you reach your audience.
Subscribe to Leads
Request more information:
Would you like to learn more about this funding opportunity, similar opportunities to "ED GRANTS 060515 002", eligibility, application service, and/or application tips? Submit an inquiry below:
Don't forget to subscribe to our grant alerts mailing list to receive weekly alerts on new and updated grant funding opportunities like this one in your email.