Notice2025-17670
Applications for New Awards; Education Innovation and Research (EIR) Program Mid-Phase Grants
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
September 12, 2025
Issuing agencies
Education Department
Abstract
The Department of Education (Department) is issuing a notice inviting applications for fiscal year (FY) 2025 for the EIR program Mid-phase Grants (Mid-phase Grants).
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 90 Issue 175 (Friday, September 12, 2025)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 175 (Friday, September 12, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44173-44179]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2025-17670]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Applications for New Awards; Education Innovation and Research
(EIR) Program Mid-Phase Grants
AGENCY: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of
Education.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Education (Department) is issuing a notice
inviting applications for fiscal year (FY) 2025 for the EIR program
Mid-phase Grants (Mid-phase Grants).
DATES:
Applications Available: September 12, 2025.
Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: October 14, 2025.
Deadline for Intergovernmental Review: December 11, 2025.
Pre-Application Information: The Department will post additional
competition information for prospective applicants on the EIR program
website: <a href="https://www.ed.gov/grants-and-programs/grants-special-populations/grants-economically-disadvantaged-students/education-innovation-and-research">https://www.ed.gov/grants-and-programs/grants-special-populations/grants-economically-disadvantaged-students/education-innovation-and-research</a>.
ADDRESSES: For the addresses for obtaining and submitting an
application, please refer to our Common Instructions for Applicants to
Department of Education Discretionary Grant Programs, published in the
Federal Register on August 29, 2025 (90 FR 42234), and available at
<a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/08/29/2025-16571/common-instructions-and-information-for-applicants-to-department-of-education-discretionary-grantams">https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/08/29/2025-16571/common-instructions-and-information-for-applicants-to-department-of-education-discretionary-grantams</a>.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Sonji Jones-Manson, U.S.
Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20202-
5900. Telephone: 202-987-1753. Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#0f6a667d4f6a6b21686079"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="03666a714366672d646c75">[email protected]</span></a>.
If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability and
wish to access telecommunications relay services, please dial 7-1-1.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Full Text of Announcement
I. Funding Opportunity Description
Purpose of Program: The EIR program, established under section 4611
of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended
(ESEA), provides funding to create, develop, implement, replicate, or
take to scale entrepreneurial, evidence-based (as defined in this
notice), field-initiated innovations to improve student
[[Page 44174]]
achievement and attainment for high-need students; and to rigorously
evaluate such innovations.
This notice invites applications for Mid-phase grants only. The
notice inviting applications for Expansion grants within the EIR
program is published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.
The Department does not intend to offer an Early-phase competition, yet
may fund high-scoring, unfunded applicants from any of the FY 2024 EIR
competitions.
Assistance Listing Number: 84.411B.
OMB Control Number: 1894-0006.
Background
The central design element of the EIR program is its multi-tier
structure that links the amount of funding an applicant may receive to
the quality of the evidence supporting the efficacy of the proposed
project, through three distinct grant tiers: ``Early-phase,'' ``Mid-
phase,'' and ``Expansion.''
Mid-phase grants provide funding for the implementation and
rigorous evaluation (as defined in this notice) of a program that has
been successfully implemented under an Early-phase grant or other
similar effort, such as developing and testing an innovative education
practice at a local level, for the purpose of measuring the program's
impact and cost-effectiveness.
Mid-phase grant projects refine and expand the use of practices
with prior evidence of effectiveness to improve outcomes for high-need
students. They implement and rigorously evaluate an intervention's
impact and effectiveness, including cost considerations such as
economies of scale. Mid-phase grant projects are uniquely positioned to
help answer questions about the process of scaling a practice across
geographies as well as locale types.
Mid-phase grants measure the cost-effectiveness of their practices
using administrative or other readily available data. These types of
efforts are critical to sustaining and scaling EIR-funded effective
practices after the EIR grant period ends, assuming that the practice
has positive effects on important student outcomes.
The FY 2025 Mid-phase competition prioritizes projects that tackle
persistent challenges in education through the absolute priority on
Promoting Evidence-Based Literacy, aligned with national efforts to
improve literacy achievement nationwide. Projects that directly benefit
all students, but especially high-need students, through effective
literacy instruction, aligned to the science of reading, are strongly
encouraged. By focusing on literacy--the foundation of all learning,
the Department aims to support scalable solutions that address one of
the most urgent academic needs facing schools today.
All EIR applicants and grantees should also indicate how they will
develop their organizational capacity, project financing, and business
plans to sustain their projects and continue implementation and
adaptation after Federal funding ends.
Further advancing the Department's commitment to restoring
excellence and expanding state leadership, applicants may also respond
to two competitive preference priorities.
Competitive Preference Priority 1: Returning Education to the
States encourages projects that elevate State- and Tribal-led efforts
to take the lead in serving the students, families, and educators
within their communities.
In addition, Competitive Preference Priority 2: Education Choice
(High-Impact Tutoring) supports projects such as those proposing
individualized or small-group tutoring programs through innovative
delivery models, a proven approach in demonstrating results in helping
students accelerate academic progress.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Robinson, C.D., & Loeb, S. (2021, May). High-Impact
Tutoring: State of the Research and Priorities for Future Learning.
<a href="https://nssa.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/Accelerator_Research_Agenda.pdf">https://nssa.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/Accelerator_Research_Agenda.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Collectively, these priorities reflect the Department's vision of
empowering States to lead, investing in evidence-based strategies, and
ensuring that all students have access to high-quality instruction and
support. Mid-phase grants represent a critical opportunity to scale
effective strategies and measure impact through proven, locally driven
innovation.
Priorities: This notice includes one absolute priority and two
competitive preference priorities. In accordance with 34 CFR
75.105(b)(2)(ii), the absolute priority is from section 4611(a)(1)(A)
of the ESEA and the Supplemental Priorities and Definitions for
Discretionary Grants Programs, published in the Federal Register on
September 9, 2025 (90 FR 43514) (Supplemental Priorities), and the
competitive preference priorities are from the Supplemental Priorities.
Absolute Priority: For FY 2025 and any subsequent year in which we
make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this
competition, this priority is an absolute priority. Under 34 CFR
75.105(c)(3), we consider only applications that meet this priority.
This priority is:
Field-Initiated Innovations: Promoting Evidence-Based Literacy.
Projects or proposals to--
(a) Create, develop, implement, replicate, or take to scale
entrepreneurial, evidence-based, field-initiated innovations to improve
student achievement and attainment for high-need students; and
(b) Advance, increase, or expand evidence-based literacy
instruction (as defined in this notice).
Competitive Preference Priorities: For FY 2025 and any subsequent
year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications
from this competition, these priorities are competitive preference
priorities. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i), we award up to an additional
10 points to an application, depending on how well the application
addresses Competitive Preference Priority 1, and up to an additional 5
points to an application, depending on how well the application
addresses Competitive Preference Priority 2.
These priorities are:
Competitive Preference Priority 1: Returning Education to the
States (up to 10 points).
Projects or proposals that will be carried out by one or more of
the following entities:
(a) State educational agencies (as defined in 20 U.S.C. 7801(49)),
(b) An Indian Tribe (as defined in 25 U.S.C. 5304(e)), Tribal
organization (as defined in 25 U.S.C. 5304(l)), or Tribal educational
agency (as defined in 20 U.S.C. 7452(b)(3)), or
(c) Consortia of the entities identified under this priority.
Competitive Preference Priority 2: Expanding Education Choice
(High-Impact Tutoring) (up to 5 points).
Projects or proposals that will expand access to education services
that accelerate learning such as high-impact tutoring.
Note: Applicants are encouraged to review the evidence related to
education services that accelerate learning, including high-impact
tutoring, and to cite the highest-level of evidence supporting their
response to the competitive preference priority in their application.
Definitions: The following definitions apply to this program. The
definitions of ``baseline,'' ``continuous improvement,''
``evaluation,'' ``evidence-building,'' ``independent evaluation,''
``logic model,'' ``nonprofit,'' ``performance measure,'' ``performance
target,'' ``project component,'' ``quality data,'' ``relevant
outcome,'' and ``What Works Clearinghouse Handbooks (WWC Handbooks)''
are from 34 CFR 77.1. The definitions of ``evidence-based,'' ``local
educational agency,'' and ``State
[[Page 44175]]
educational agency'' are from section 8101 of the ESEA. The definitions
of ``evidenced-based literacy instruction,'' ``evidence framework,''
``experimental study,'' and ``quasi-experimental design study'' are
from the Supplemental Priorities.
Baseline means the starting point from which performance is
measured and targets are set.
Continuous improvement means using plans for collecting and
analyzing data about a project component's implementation and outcomes
(including the pace and extent to which project outcomes are being met)
to inform necessary changes throughout the project. These plans may
include strategies to gather ongoing feedback from participants and
stakeholders on the implementation of the project component.
Evaluation means an assessment using systematic data collection and
analysis of one or more programs, policies, practices, and
organizations intended to assess their implementation, outcomes,
effectiveness, or efficiency.
Evidence-building means a systematic plan for identifying and
answering questions relevant to programs and policies through
performance measurement, exploratory studies, or program evaluation.
Evidence-based means an activity, strategy, or intervention that
demonstrates a statistically significant effect on improving student
outcomes or other relevant outcomes based on--
(i) Strong evidence from at least 1 well-designed and well-
implemented experimental study; or
(ii) Moderate evidence from at least 1 well-designed
and well-implemented quasi-experimental study.
Evidence-based literacy instruction means literacy instruction that
relates to explicit, systematic and intentional instruction in
phonological awareness, phonic decoding, oral and sign language,
vocabulary, language structure, reading fluency, reading comprehension,
and writing; promotes knowledge-rich materials; and is backed by one or
more of the following, as supported by an evidence framework (as
defined in this notice):
(a) strong evidence, meaning an activity, strategy, or intervention
that demonstrates a statistically significant effect on improving
student outcomes or other relevant outcomes based on at least one well-
designed and well-implemented experimental study (strong evidence as
defined in 20 U.S.C. 7801(21)(A)(i)(I)) or
(b) moderate evidence, meaning an activity, strategy, or
intervention that demonstrates a statistically significant effect on
improving student outcomes or other relevant outcomes based on at least
one well-designed and well-implemented quasi-experimental study
(moderate evidence as defined in 20 U.S.C. 7801(21)(A)(i)(II)).
Evidence framework means an approach to providing a determination
about whether an activity, strategy, or intervention meets each aspect
of the definition of strong evidence or moderate evidence (as defined
in 20 U.S.C. 7801(21)(A)(i)(I-II)), as applicable.
(a) An evidence framework must include each of the following:
(i) Whether or not a study is an experimental study or quasi-
experimental experimental design study;
(ii) Whether or not a study shows a positive, statistically
significant effect on student outcomes or other relevant outcomes;
(iii) Whether or not a study uses outcome measures that demonstrate
validity and reliability, that do not give an unfair advantage to
participants in one condition over another, and that are measured
consistently for the groups or participants that are being compared;
(iv) Whether or not a study design is otherwise of high quality,
including whether it minimizes factors outside the intervention that
could affect student or other relevant outcomes (confounds) and whether
random assignment (if used) was done with integrity; and
(v) Whether or not study implementation and analysis is
appropriate, including whether groups or participants being compared
demonstrate baseline equivalence on key individual and other relevant
characteristics, whether differences in baseline equivalence are
statistically controlled, and by considering the impact on the validity
of the study of any changes to the sample over time.
(b) An evidence framework may be implemented or verified by the
Department or peer reviewers with statistical expertise who affirm an
applicant's assertion that relevant information is strong evidence or
moderate evidence because it is supported by study ratings included in
the What Works Clearinghouse in one or more of:
(i) a practice guide;
(ii) an intervention report; or
(iii) individual studies otherwise assessed to meet strong evidence
or moderate evidence.
Experimental study means a study that is designed to compare
outcomes between two groups (such as students) that are otherwise
equivalent except for their assignment to a treatment group receiving
an activity, strategy, intervention, process, product, practice, or
policy as compared with a control group that does not. Experimental
studies can support claims of strong evidence. Randomized controlled
trials and single-case design studies are specific types of
experimental studies that meet this definition.
Independent evaluation means an evaluation of a project component
that is designed and carried out independently of, but in coordination
with, the entities that develop or implement the project component.
Local educational agency (LEA) means:
(a) In General. A public board of education or other public
authority legally constituted within a State for either administrative
control or direction of, or to perform a service function for, public
elementary schools or secondary schools in a city, county, township,
school district, or other political subdivision of a State, or of or
for a combination of school districts or counties that is recognized in
a State as an administrative agency for its public elementary schools
or secondary schools.
(b) Administrative Control and Direction. The term includes any
other public institution or agency having administrative control and
direction of a public elementary school or secondary school.
(c) Bureau of Indian Education Schools. The term includes an
elementary school or secondary school funded by the Bureau of Indian
Education but only to the extent that including the school makes the
school eligible for programs for which specific eligibility is not
provided to the school in another provision of law and the school does
not have a student population that is smaller than the student
population of the LEA receiving assistance under the ESEA with the
smallest student population, except that the school shall not be
subject to the jurisdiction of any SEA (as defined in this notice)
other than the Bureau of Indian Education.
(d) Educational Service Agencies. The term includes educational
service agencies and consortia of those agencies.
(e) State Educational Agency. The term includes the SEA in a State
in which the SEA is the sole educational agency for all public schools.
Logic model (also referred to as a theory of action) means a
framework that identifies key project components of the proposed
project (i.e., the active ``ingredients'' that are hypothesized to
[[Page 44176]]
be critical to achieving the relevant outcomes) and describes the
theoretical and operational relationships among the key project
components and relevant outcomes.
Nonprofit, as applied to an agency, organization, or institution,
means that it is owned and operated by one or more corporations or
associations whose net earnings do not benefit, and cannot lawfully
benefit, any private shareholder or entity.
Performance measure means any quantitative indicator, statistic, or
metric used to gauge program or project performance.
Performance target means a level of performance that an applicant
would seek to meet during the course of a project or as a result of a
project.
Project component means an activity, strategy, intervention,
process, product, practice, or policy included in a project. Evidence
may pertain to an individual project component or to a combination of
project components (e.g., training teachers on instructional practices
for students who qualify for Title I services and follow-on coaching
for these teachers).
Quality data encompasses utility, objectivity, and integrity of the
information. ``Utility'' refers to how the data will be used, either
for its intended use or other uses. ``Objectivity'' refers to data
being accurate, complete, reliable, and unbiased. ``Integrity'' refers
to the protection of data from being manipulated.
Quasi-experimental design study means a study using a design that
attempts to approximate an experimental study by identifying a
comparison group that is similar to the treatment group in important
respects. Cross-sectional group designs, comparative interrupted time
series, difference-in-difference designs, and growth curve designs are
specific types of quasi-experimental studies that meet this definition.
This type of study can meet the definition of moderate evidence but not
strong evidence.
Relevant outcome means the student outcome(s) or other outcome(s)
the key project component is designed to improve, consistent with the
specific goals of the program.
State educational agency (SEA) means the agency primarily
responsible for the State supervision of public elementary schools and
secondary schools.
What Works Clearinghouse Handbooks (WWC Handbooks) means the
standards and procedures set forth in the WWC Procedures and Standards
Handbook, Version 5.0, or in the WWC Standards Handbook, Version 4.0 or
4.1, or in the WWC Procedures Handbook, Version 4.0 or 4.1, the WWC
Procedures and Standards Handbook, Version 3.0 or Version 2.1 (all
incorporated by reference; see Sec. 77.2). Study findings eligible for
review under WWC standards can meet WWC standards without reservations,
meet WWC standards with reservations, or not meet WWC standards. WWC
practice guides and intervention reports include findings from
systematic reviews of evidence as described in the WWC Handbooks
documentation.
Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7261.
Note: Projects will be awarded and must be operated in a manner
consistent with the nondiscrimination requirements contained in Federal
civil rights laws.
Applicable Regulations: (a) The Education Department General
Administrative Regulations in 34 CFR parts 75, 77, 79, 81, 82, 84, 86,
97, 98, and 99. (b) The Office of Management and Budget Guidelines to
Agencies on Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement) in
2 CFR part 180, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department
in 2 CFR part 3485. (c) Guidance for Federal Financial Assistance in 2
CFR part 200, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department
in 2 CFR part 3474.
Note: The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 apply to institutions of
higher education (IHEs) only.
II. Award Information
Type of Award: Discretionary grants.
Estimated Available Funds: $253,000,000.
These estimated funds are the total available for new awards for
both the Mid-phase and Expansion competitions and any funding of high-
scoring, unfunded applicants from any of the FY 2024 EIR competitions.
Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of
applications, we may make additional awards in subsequent years from
the list of unfunded applications.
Estimated Average Size of Awards: Up to $10,000,000.
Maximum Award: We will not make an award exceeding $10,000,000 for
a project period of 60 months. Under 34 CFR 75.104(b) the Secretary may
reject, without consideration or evaluation, any application that
proposes a project funding level that exceeds the stated maximum award
amount. The Department intends to fund one or more projects under each
of the EIR competitions, including Expansion grants (84.411A) and Mid-
phase grants (84.411B). Entities may submit applications for different
projects for more than one competition (Mid-phase grants and Expansion
grants).
Estimated Number of Awards: 8-15.
Note: The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.
Project Period: Up to 60 months.
Note: Under section 4611(c) of the ESEA, the Department must use at
least 25 percent of EIR funds for a fiscal year to make awards to
applicants serving rural areas, contingent on receipt of a sufficient
number of applications of sufficient quality. For purposes of this
competition, we will consider an applicant as rural if the applicant
meets the qualifications for rural applicants as described in the
Eligible Applicants section and the applicant certifies that it meets
those qualifications through the application. In implementing this
statutory provision and program requirement, the Department may fund
high-quality applications from rural applicants out of rank order in
the Mid-phase grants competition.
III. Eligibility Information
1. Eligible Applicants:
(a) An LEA;
(b) An SEA;
(c) The Bureau of Indian Education (BIE);
(d) A consortium of SEAs or LEAs;
(e) A nonprofit organization; and
(f) An LEA, an SEA, the BIE, or a consortium described in clause
(d), in partnership with--
(1) A nonprofit (as defined in this notice) organization;
(2) A business;
(3) An educational service agency; or
(4) An IHE.
To qualify as a rural applicant under the EIR program, an applicant
must meet both of the following requirements:
(a) The applicant is--
(1) An LEA with an urban-centric district locale code of 32, 33,
41, 42, or 43, as determined by the Secretary;
(2) A consortium of such LEAs;
(3) An educational service agency or a nonprofit organization in
partnership with such an LEA; or
(4) A grantee described in clause (1) or (2) in partnership with an
SEA; and
(b) A majority of the schools to be served by the program are
designated with a locale code of 32, 33, 41, 42, or 43, or a
combination of such codes, as determined by the Secretary.
Note: An applicant that is a nonprofit organization may, under 34
CFR 75.51, demonstrate its nonprofit status by providing: (1) proof
that the Internal Revenue Service currently recognizes the applicant as
an organization to which contributions are tax deductible under section
501(c)(3) of the Internal
[[Page 44177]]
Revenue Code; (2) a statement from a State taxing body or the State
attorney general certifying that the organization is a nonprofit
organization operating within the State and that no part of its net
earnings may lawfully benefit any private shareholder or individual;
(3) a certified copy of the applicant's certificate of incorporation or
similar document if it clearly establishes the nonprofit status of the
applicant; or (4) any item described above if that item applies to a
State or national parent organization, together with a statement by the
State or parent organization that the applicant is a local nonprofit
affiliate.
In addition, with respect to IHEs and their affiliates, the
following entities may apply for a grant under this competition: (1) As
noted above, any IHE that is a partner in an application submitted by
an LEA, SEA, BIE, consortium of SEAs or LEAs, or a nonprofit
organization; (2) A private IHE that is a nonprofit organization; (3) A
nonprofit organization, such as a development foundation, that is
affiliated with a public IHE; and (4) A public IHE with 501(c)(3)
status. A public IHE without 501(c)(3) status (even if that entity is
tax exempt under Section 115 of the Internal Revenue Code or any other
State or Federal provision), or that could not provide any other
documentation of nonprofit status described above, however, would not
qualify as a nonprofit organization, and therefore would not be
eligible to apply for and receive an EIR grant.
2. a. Cost Sharing or Matching: Under section 4611(d) of the ESEA,
each grant recipient must provide, from Federal, State, local, or
private sources, an amount equal to 10 percent of funds provided under
the grant, which may be provided in cash or through in-kind
contributions, to carry out activities supported by the grant.
Applicants must include a budget showing their matching contributions
to the budget amount of EIR grant funds and must provide evidence of
their matching contributions for the first year of the grant in their
grant applications.
Section 4611(d) of the ESEA authorizes the Secretary to waive the
matching requirement on a case-by-case basis, upon a showing of
exceptional circumstances, such as:
(i) The difficulty of raising matching funds for a program to serve
a rural area;
(ii) The difficulty of raising matching funds in areas with a
concentration of LEAs or schools with a high percentage of students
aged 5 through 17--
(A) Who are in poverty, as counted in the most recent census data
approved by the Secretary;
(B) Who are eligible for a free or reduced-price lunch under the
Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1751 et seq.);
(C) Whose families receive assistance under the State program
funded under part A of title IV of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
601 et seq.); or
(D) Who are eligible to receive medical assistance under the
Medicaid program; and
(iii) The difficulty of raising funds on Tribal land.
An applicant that wishes to apply for a waiver must include a
request in its application, describing the exceptional circumstances
that make it difficult for the applicant to meet the matching
requirement. Further information about applying for waivers can be
found in the application package for this competition.
b. Indirect Cost Rate Information: This program uses an
unrestricted indirect cost rate. For more information regarding
indirect costs, or to obtain a negotiated indirect cost rate, please
see <a href="http://www.ed.gov/about/ed-offices/ofo#Indirect-Cost-Division">http://www.ed.gov/about/ed-offices/ofo#Indirect-Cost-Division</a>.
c. Administrative Cost Limitation: This program does not include
any program-specific limitation on administrative expenses. All
administrative expenses must be reasonable and necessary and conform to
Cost Principles described in 2 CFR part 200 subpart E of the Guidance
for Federal Financial Assistance.
3. Subgrantees: A grantee under this competition may not award
subgrants to entities to directly carry out project activities
described in its application.
4. Other: a. Evaluation: A grantee funded under this competition
must conduct an independent evaluation (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1(c)).
(see 34 CFR 75.590).
b. Independent Evaluation Report: A grantee funded under this
competition must make public the final report, including results of any
required independent evaluation and submit the final evaluation to the
Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), which is administered by
the Institute of Education Sciences. (see 34 CFR 75.590)
c. High-need students: The grantee must serve high-need students.
IV. Application and Submission Information
1. Application Submission Instructions: Applicants are required to
follow the Common Instructions for Applicants to Department of
Education Discretionary Grant Programs, published in the Federal
Register on August 29, 2025 (90 FR 42234), and available at <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/08/29/2025-16571/common-instructions-and-information-for-applicants-to-department-of-education-discretionary-grant">https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/08/29/2025-16571/common-instructions-and-information-for-applicants-to-department-of-education-discretionary-grant</a>, which contain requirements and information on how
to submit an application.
2. Intergovernmental Review: This competition is subject to
Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79.
3. Funding Restrictions: We reference regulations outlining funding
restrictions in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice.
4. Recommended Page Limit: The application narrative is where you,
the applicant, will address the selection criteria that reviewers use
to evaluate your application. We recommend that you (1) limit the
application narrative for a Mid-phase grant to no more than 30 pages
and (3) use the standards outlined in the Common Instructions.
V. Application Review Information
1. Selection Criteria: The selection criteria for the Mid-phase
grants competition are from 34 CFR 75.210. The points assigned to each
criterion are indicated in the parentheses next to the criterion.
A. Significance (up to 15 points).
The Secretary considers the significance of the proposed project.
In determining the significance of the proposed project, the Secretary
considers the extent to which the proposed project introduces an
innovative approach, such as a modification of an evidence-based
project component to serve different populations, an extension of an
existing evidence-based project component, a unique composition of
various project components to explore combined effects, or development
of an emerging project component that needs further testing.
B. Strategy to Scale (up to 35 points).
The Secretary considers the applicant's strategy to effectively
scale the proposed project for recipients, community members and
partners. In determining the applicant's strategy to effectively scale
the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(1) The extent to which there is unmet demand for broader
implementation of the project that is aligned with the proposed level
of scale. (up to 10 points)
(2) The feasibility of the management plan to achieve project
objectives and goals on time and within budget, including clearly
defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing
project tasks. (up to 10 points)
[[Page 44178]]
(3) The relevance and demonstrated commitment of each partner in
the proposed project to the implementation and success of the project.
(up to 5 points)
(4) The quality of the plan to deliver project services more
efficiently at scale and maintain effectiveness. (up to 5 points)
(5) The quality of the mechanisms the applicant will use to broadly
disseminate information and resources on its project to support further
development, adaptation, or replication by other entities to implement
project components in additional settings or with other populations.
(up to 5 points)
C. Quality of the Project Design (up to 20 points).
The Secretary considers the quality of the design of the proposed
project. In determining the quality of the design of the proposed
project, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(1) The quality of the logic model or other conceptual framework
underlying the proposed project, including how inputs are related to
outcomes. (up to 15 points)
(2) The extent to which the goals, objectives, and outcomes to be
achieved by the proposed project are clearly specified, measurable, and
ambitious yet achievable within the project period, and aligned with
the purposes of the grant program. (up to 5 points)
D. Quality of the Project Evaluation or Other Evidence-Building (up
to 30 points).
The Secretary considers the quality of the evaluation or other
evidence-building of the proposed project. In determining the quality
of the evaluation or other evidence-building, the Secretary considers
the following factors:
(1) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will, if well
implemented, produce evidence about the effectiveness of the project on
relevant outcomes that would meet the What Works Clearinghouse
standards without reservations, as described in the What Works
Clearinghouse Handbooks. (up to 15 points)
(2) The extent to which the evaluation will provide guidance about
effective strategies suitable for replication or testing and potential
implementation in other settings. (up to 5 points)
(3) The quality of the evaluation plan for measuring fidelity of
implementation, including thresholds for acceptable implementation, to
inform how implementation is associated with outcomes. (up to 5 points)
(4) The extent to which the design for implementing and evaluating
the proposed project will result in information to guide possible
replication of project activities or strategies, including valid and
reliable information about the effectiveness of the approach or
strategies employed by the project. (up to 5 points)
Note: Applicants may wish to review the following technical
assistance resources on evaluation: (1) WWC Procedures and Standards
Handbooks: <a href="https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Handbooks">https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Handbooks</a>; (2) ``Technical
Assistance Materials for Conducting Rigorous Impact Evaluations'':
<a href="http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluationTA.asp">http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluationTA.asp</a>; and (3) Institute of
Education Sciences/National Center for Education Evaluation and
Regional Assistance Technical Methods papers: <a href="http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/tech_methods/">http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/tech_methods/</a>. In addition, applicants may view an optional webinar
recording that was hosted by the Institute of Education Sciences. The
webinar focused on more rigorous evaluation designs, discussing
strategies for designing and executing experimental studies that meet
WWC evidence standards without reservations. This webinar is available
at: <a href="https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Multimedia/18">https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Multimedia/18</a>.
2. Review and Selection Process: We remind potential applicants
that in reviewing applications in any discretionary grant competition,
the Secretary may consider, under 34 CFR 75.217, information outside
the rank order of applications, including: the information in each
application; and any other information--
(1) Relevant to a criterion, priority, or other requirement that
applies to the selection of applications for new grants;
(2) Concerning the applicant's performance and use of funds under a
previous award under any Department program; and
(3) Concerning the applicant's failure under any Department program
to submit a performance report or its submission of a performance
report of unacceptable quality.
Before making awards, Department staff will screen applications
submitted in accordance with the requirements in this notice to
determine whether applications have met eligibility and other
requirements, including whether an application may fail to meet the
``General Terms and Conditions'' applicable to awarded funds referenced
elsewhere within this notice. This screening process may occur at
various stages of the review and selection process. Applicants that are
determined to be ineligible will not receive a grant, regardless of the
whether the application was included in the peer review process.
Applications not selected for funding will be informed of the
Secretary's decision in accordance with 34 CFR 75.218.
Peer reviewers will read, prepare a written evaluation of, and
score the assigned applications, using the selection criteria provided
in this notice.
3. In General: In accordance with the Office of Management and
Budget's guidance located at 2 CFR part 200, all applicable Federal
laws and regulations, and relevant Executive guidance, the Department
will review and consider applications for funding pursuant to this
notice inviting applications in accordance with:
(a) Selecting recipients most likely to be successful in delivering
results based on the program objectives through an objective process of
evaluating Federal award applications (2 CFR 200.205);
(b) Prohibiting the purchase of certain telecommunication and video
surveillance services or equipment in alignment with section 889 of the
National Defense Authorization Act of 2019 (Pub. L. 115-232) (2 CFR
200.216);
(c) Providing a preference, to the extent permitted by law, to
maximize use of goods, products, and materials produced in the United
States (2 CFR 200.322); and
(d) Terminating agreements in whole or in part pursuant to the
terms and conditions of the Federal award, including, to the extent
authorized by law, if an award no longer effectuates the program goals
and agency priorities (2 CFR 200.340).
VI. Award Administration Information
1. General terms and conditions: If you are awarded a grant under
this competition, you must ensure and may be required to demonstrate
that federal funds will not be used under this project in any manner
that violates the United States Constitution, Title VI or Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq. or 42 U.S.C.
2000e et seq.), Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (20 U.S.C.
1681 et seq.), section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C. 794),
the Age Discrimination Act of 1975 (42 U.S.C. 6101 et seq.), Title II
of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12131 et
seq.), the Boy Scouts of America Equal Access Act of 2001 (20 U.S.C.
7905), section 117 of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (20
U.S.C. 1011f), or other applicable federal law. To the extent that a
grantee uses grant funds for such unallowable activities, the
Department may take appropriate enforcement action including under
section 451 of the General Education Provisions Act
[[Page 44179]]
(GEPA), including the potential recovery of funds under section 452 of
GEPA, or may pursue termination under 2 CFR 200.340. The Grant Award
Notification document accompanying your award may contain further terms
and conditions, as necessary to ensure grantee compliance with
applicable laws, regulations, and administrative priorities.
2. Open Licensing Requirements: Unless an exception applies, if you
are awarded a grant under this competition, you will be required to
openly license to the public grant deliverables created in whole, or in
part, with Department grant funds. See the Common Instructions for
additional information.
3. Performance Measures: For the purpose of Department reporting
under 34 CFR 75.110, the Department has established a set of
performance measures (as defined in this notice) for the Mid-phase
grants.
Annual performance measures: (1) The percentage of grantees that
reach their annual target number of students as specified in the
application; (2) the percentage of grantees that reach their annual
target number of high-need students as specified in the application;
(3) the percentage of grantees with ongoing well-designed and
independent evaluations that will provide evidence of their
effectiveness at improving student outcomes in multiple contexts; (4)
the percentage of grantees that implement an evaluation that provides
information about the key practices and the approach of the project so
as to facilitate replication; (5) the percentage of grantees that
implement an evaluation that provides information on the cost-
effectiveness of the key practices to identify potential obstacles and
success factors to scaling; and (6) the cost per student served by the
grant.
Cumulative performance measures: (1) The percentage of grantees
that reach the targeted number of students specified in the
application; (2) the percentage of grantees that reach the targeted
number of high-need students specified in the application; (3) the
percentage of grantees that complete a well-designed, well-implemented,
and independent evaluation that provides evidence of their
effectiveness at improving student outcomes at scale; (4) the
percentage of grantees that complete a well-designed, well-implemented,
and independent evaluation that provides information about the key
elements and the approach of the project so as to facilitate
replication or testing in other settings; (5) the percentage of
grantees with a completed evaluation that provides information on the
cost-effectiveness of the key practices to identify potential obstacles
and success factors to scaling; and (6) the cost per student served by
the grant.
Data collection and reporting: (1) The data collection and
reporting methods the applicant would use and why those methods are
likely to yield reliable, valid, and meaningful performance data; and
(2) the applicant's capacity to collect and report the quality of the
performance data, as evidenced by quality data collection, analysis,
and reporting in other projects or research.
Project-Specific Performance Measures: Applicants must propose
project-specific performance measures and performance targets (both as
defined in this notice) consistent with the objectives of the proposed
project. Applications must provide the following information as
directed under 34 CFR 75.110(b) and (c):
(1) Project-specific performance measures. How each proposed
project-specific performance measure would: accurately measure the
performance of the project; be consistent with the program performance
measures established under this notice; and be used to inform
continuous improvement of the project.
(2) Baseline (as defined in this notice) data. (i) Why each
proposed baseline is valid and reliable, including an assessment of the
quality data used to establish the baseline; or (ii) if the applicant
has determined that there are no established baseline data for a
particular performance measure, an explanation of why there is no
established baseline and of how and when, during the project period,
the applicant would establish a valid baseline for the performance
measure.
(3) Performance targets. Why each proposed performance target is
ambitious yet achievable compared to the baseline for the performance
measure and when, during the project period, the applicant would meet
the performance target(s).
All grantees must submit an annual performance report with
information that is responsive to these performance measures.
Hayley B. Sanon,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary and Acting Assistant Secretary,
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education.
[FR Doc. 2025-17670 Filed 9-11-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on September 12, 2025.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.