[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 108 (Wednesday, June 5, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26088-26095]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-11641]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Applications for New Awards; Educational Technology, Media, and
Materials for Individuals With Disabilities--Stepping-up Technology
Implementation
AGENCY: Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services,
Department of Education.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The mission of the Office of Special Education and
Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) is to improve early childhood,
educational, and employment outcomes and raise expectations for all
people with disabilities, their families, their communities, and the
Nation. As such, the Department of Education (Department) is issuing a
notice inviting applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2019
for Educational Technology, Media, and Materials for Individuals with
Disabilities--Stepping-up Technology Implementation, Catalog of Federal
Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number 84.327S. This notice relates to the
approved information collection under OMB control number 1820-0028.
DATES: Applications Available: June 5, 2019.
Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: July 22, 2019.
Pre-Application Webinar Information: No later than June 10, 2019,
OSERS will post pre-recorded informational webinars designed to provide
technical assistance to interested applicants. The webinars may be
found at www2.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/osep/new-osep-grants.html.
Pre-Application Q & A Blog: No later than June 10, 2019, OSERS will
open a blog where interested applicants may post questions about the
application requirements for this competition and where OSERS will post
answers to the questions received. OSERS will not respond to questions
unrelated to the application requirements for this competition. The
blog may be found at www2.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/osep/new-osep-grants.html and will remain open until June 24, 2019. After the blog
closes, applicants should direct questions to the person listed under
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Deadline for Intergovernmental Review: September 18, 2019.
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 February 13, 2019 (84 FR 3768), and available at
www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-02-13/pdf/2019-02206.pdf.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Terry Jackson, U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 5162, Potomac Center Plaza,
Washington, DC 20202-5076. Telephone: (202) 245-6039. Email:
[email protected].
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text
telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-
800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Full Text of Announcement
I. Funding Opportunity Description
Purpose of Program: The purposes of the Educational Technology,
Media, and Materials for Individuals with Disabilities Program are to
(1) improve results for children with disabilities by promoting the
development, demonstration, and use of technology; (2) support
educational activities designed to be of educational value in the
classroom for children with disabilities; (3) provide support for
captioning and video description that is appropriate for use in the
classroom; and (4) provide accessible educational materials to children
with disabilities in a timely manner.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Applicants should note that other laws, including the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.; 28
CFR part 35) and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29
U.S.C. 794; 34 CFR part 104), may require that State educational
agencies and local educational agencies provide captioning, video
description, and other accessible educational materials to students
with disabilities when such materials are necessary to provide
students with disabilities with equally integrated and equally
effective access to the benefits of the educational program or
activity, or as part of a ``free appropriate public education'' as
defined in the Department's Section 504 regulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Priorities: This competition includes one absolute priority. In
accordance with 34 CFR 75.105(b)(2)(v), the absolute priority, and the
competitive preference priority within that priority, are from
allowable activities specified in sections 674(c)(1)(D) and 681(d) of
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA); 20 U.S.C.
1474(c)(1)(D) and 1481(d).
Absolute Priority: For FY 2019 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:
Stepping-up Technology Implementation.
[[Page 26089]]
Background:
The purpose of this priority is to fund three cooperative
agreements to identify strategies needed to effectively implement
technology tools \2\ based on promising evidence \3\ that benefit
children with disabilities \4\ and their families, children with high
needs \5\ and their families, and educators; develop and disseminate
products \6\ that will help a broad range of sites to understand, use,
and implement these technology tools; provide ongoing coaching and
professional development supports to educators that will allow them to
integrate the technology into curricula and programs to support high
expectations for children with disabilities, service providers, and
families; and scale-up and disseminate to additional sites.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ For the purposes of this priority, ``technology tools'' may
include, but are not limited to, digital math text readers for
students with visual impairments, reading software to improve
literacy and communication development, and text-to-speech software
to improve reading performance. These tools must assist or otherwise
benefit students with disabilities.
\3\ For the purposes of this priority, ``promising evidence''
has the meaning set forth in 34 CFR 77.1.
\4\ In accordance with 34 CFR 300.8, ``Child with a disability''
means a child evaluated in accordance with the IDEA evaluation and
eligibility procedures who is found to have a specific disability
and, as a result of that disability, needs special education and
related services. See also 20 U.S.C. 1401(3).
\5\ For the purposes of this priority, ``children or students
with high needs'' means children or students at risk of educational
failure or otherwise in need of special assistance or support, such
as children and students who are living in poverty, who are English
Learners, who are academically far below grade level, who have left
school before receiving a regular high school diploma, who are at
risk of not graduating with a regular high school diploma on time,
who are homeless, who are in foster care, who have been
incarcerated, or are children or students with disabilities.
\6\ For the purposes of this priority, ``products'' may include,
but are not limited to, apps, instruction manuals, lesson plans,
demonstration videos, ancillary instructional materials, and
professional development modules such as collaborative groups,
coaching, mentoring, or online supports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congress recognized in the 2004 reauthorization of IDEA that
``almost 30 years of research and experience has demonstrated that the
education of children with disabilities can be made more effective by .
. . supporting the development and use of technology, including
assistive technology devices and assistive technology services, to
maximize accessibility for children with disabilities'' (section
601(c)(5) of IDEA).
Innovative technology tools and programs, including assistive
technology devices and services, are especially helpful as educators
work to engage students who struggle with the general education
curriculum. However, having access to tools alone does not ensure
improved outcomes.
When educators receive the necessary supports to use technology
effectively, technology integration in early childhood settings may
increase social awareness and collaborative behaviors, improve abstract
reasoning and problem-solving abilities, and enhance visual-motor
coordination.
Technologies (e.g., online career-readiness tools, computer-based
writing tools to support literacy, web-based curriculum to support
21st-century learning) can support State educational agencies (SEAs)
and local educational agencies (LEAs) to (a) improve student learning
and engagement; (b) accommodate the special needs of students; (c)
facilitate student, family, and teacher access to digital content and
resources; and (d) improve the quality of instruction through
personalized learning and data. Furthermore, while the implementation
of technology for K-12 students typically occurs in public school
settings, including public charter and magnet schools, there are over
two million students attending parochial schools, another segment of
the student population that could benefit from building 21st-century
skills through innovative technology.
As stated in section 4109 of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act of 1965, as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESEA),
technologies can be used to support LEAs and SEAs to increase student
access to personalized, rigorous learning experiences. The Education
Freedom Scholarships policy proposal would also allow States to design
student scholarship programs that could be tailored to expand access to
innovative technology tools and programs for students with
disabilities.
Notwithstanding the potential benefits of using technology to
improve learning outcomes, implementation can be a significant
challenge. Even as access to coursework online expands, and the number
of students involved in online learning has grown, many of these online
learning technologies are not readily accessible to students with
disabilities. Educators and families need products and resources that
can assist them to readily implement technology tools for children with
disabilities.
In response to this need and to address this issue for children
with disabilities, Stepping-up Technology Implementation projects build
on technology development efforts by identifying, developing, and
disseminating products and resources that promote the effective
implementation \7\ of instructional and assistive technology tools in
early childhood programs or K-12 settings.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ In this context, ``effective implementation'' means ``making
better use of research findings in typical service settings through
the use of processes and activities (such as accountable
implementation teams) that are purposeful and described in
sufficient detail such that independent observers can detect the
presence and strength of these processes and activities.'' (Fixen,
D.L., Naoom, S. F., Blas[eacute], K.A., Friedman, R.M., & Wallace,
F. (2005). Implementation Research: A synthesis of the literature.
Tampa, FL: University of South Florida, Louis de la Parte Florida
Mental Health Institute. The National Implementation Research
Network (FMHI Publication #231)).
\8\ For the purposes of this priority, ``settings'' include
general education classrooms; special education classrooms; high-
quality early childhood programs; private schools, including
parochial schools; home education; after school programs; juvenile
justice facilities; and settings other than those listed above in
which students may receive services under IDEA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Projects must be operated in a manner consistent with
nondiscrimination requirements contained in the U.S. Constitution and
Federal civil rights laws.
Priority:
The Department intends to fund three cooperative agreements to (a)
identify strategies needed to readily implement existing technology
tools based on promising evidence that benefit children with
disabilities and children with high needs; and (b) develop and
disseminate products (see footnote 5; e.g., instruction manuals, lesson
plans, demonstration videos, ancillary instructional materials) that
will assist educators and families in early childhood programs or K-12
settings to readily use, understand, and implement these technology
tools.
To be considered for funding under this priority, applicants must
meet the application requirements. Any project funded under this
absolute priority must also meet the programmatic and administrative
requirements specified in the priority.
Application Requirements
An applicant must include in its application--
(a) A project design that is based on promising evidence;
(b) A logic model \9\ or conceptual framework that depicts, at a
minimum, the goals, activities, project evaluation, methods,
performance measures, outputs, and outcomes of the proposed project.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ ``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 be critical to achieving the relevant outcomes) and
describes the theoretical and operational relationships among the
key project components and relevant outcomes. See 34 CFR 77.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 26090]]
Note: The following websites provide more information on logic
models and conceptual frameworks: www.osepideasthatwork.org/logicModel;
www.osepideasthatwork.org/resources-grantees/program-areas/ta-ta/tad-project-logic-model-and-conceptual-framework; www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/essa/guidanceuseseinvestment.pdf; and http://ies.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=REL2015057.
(c) A plan to implement the activities described in the Project
Activities section of this priority;
(d) A plan, linked to the proposed project's logic model or
conceptual framework, for a formative evaluation of the proposed
project's activities. The plan must describe how the formative
evaluation will use clear performance objectives to ensure continuous
improvement in the operation of the proposed project, including
objective measures of progress in implementing the project and ensuring
the quality of products and services;
(e) Documentation assuring that the final products disseminated to
help sites effectively implement technology tools will be both open
educational resources (OER) \10\ and licensed through an open access
licensing authority;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ OERs are teaching and learning materials that the public
may freely use and reuse at no cost. Unlike fixed, copyrighted
resources, OER have been authored or created by an individual or
organization that chooses to retain few, if any, ownership rights.
Retrieved from www.oercommons.org/about.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(f) Documentation that the technology tool used by the project is
fully developed,\11\ based on promising evidence, and addresses, at a
minimum, the following principles of universal design for learning
(UDL):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ A technology that is ``fully developed'' is a completed,
existing technology that is ready to be implemented. Any
enhancements or additions to the existing technology should be minor
and time-limited and must be completed before the end of year one.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Multiple means of presentation so that students can approach
information in more than one way (e.g., specialized software and
websites, screen readers that include features such as text-to-speech,
changeable color contrast, alterable text size, or selection of
different reading levels);
(2) Multiple means of expression so that all students can
demonstrate knowledge through options such as writing, online concept
mapping, or speech-to-text programs, where appropriate; and
(3) Multiple means of engagement to stimulate interest in and
motivation for learning (e.g., options among several different learning
activities or content for a particular competency or skill and
providing opportunities for increased collaboration consistent with UDL
principles); \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ For more information on UDL principles, see
www.udlcenter.org/aboutudl/whatisudl/3principles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(g) A plan for how the project will sustain project activities
after funding ends;
(h) A plan, for recruiting and selecting sites,\13\ which includes
appropriate consideration of a wide range of settings where children
with disabilities are served, including the following sites:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ For more information on recruiting and selecting sites,
refer to Assessing Sites for Model Demonstration: Lessons Learned
from OSEP Grantees at http://mdcc.sri.com/documents/MDCC_Site_Assessment_Brief_09-30-11.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Three development sites. Development sites are the sites in
which iterative development \14\ of the products and resources intended
to support the implementation of technology tools will occur. The
project must start implementing the technology tool with one
development site in year one of the project period and two additional
development sites in year two;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ For the purposes of this priority, ``iterative
development'' refers to a process of testing, systematically
securing feedback, and then revising the educational intervention to
increase the likelihood that it will be implemented with fidelity.
(Diamond, K.E., & Powell, D.R. (2011). An iterative approach to the
development of a professional development intervention for Head
Start teachers. Journal of Early Intervention, 33(1), 75-93).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) Four pilot sites. Pilot sites are the sites in which try-out,
formative evaluation, and refinement of the products and resources will
occur. The project must work with the four pilot sites during years
three and four of the project period; and
(3) Ten dissemination sites. Dissemination sites will be selected
if the project is extended for a fifth year. Dissemination sites will
be used to (a) refine the products for use by educators, and (b)
evaluate the performance of the tool. Dissemination sites will receive
less TA from the project than development or pilot sites. Also, at this
stage (i.e., the fifth year), dissemination sites will extend the
benefits of the technology tool to additional students. To be selected
as a dissemination site, eligible sites must commit to working with the
project to implement the technology tool.
Note: A site may not serve in more than one category (i.e.,
development, pilot, dissemination).
Note: A minimum of three of the seven development and pilot sites
must be in settings other than traditional public elementary and
secondary schools. A minimum of four of the 10 dissemination sites must
be in settings other than traditional public elementary and secondary
schools. These non-traditional sites must otherwise meet the
requirements of each category listed above.
(i) Information on the development and pilot settings, including
student demographics and other pertinent data (e.g., whether the
settings are schools identified for comprehensive or targeted support
and improvement in accordance with section 1111(c)(4)(C)(iii),
(c)(4)(D), or (d)(2)(C)-(D) of the ESEA); and
(j) A budget for attendance at the following:
(1) A one and one-half day kick-off meeting to be held in
Washington, DC, after receipt of the award, and an annual planning
meeting held in Washington, DC, with the OSEP project officer and other
relevant staff during each subsequent year of the project period.
Note: Within 30 days of receipt of the award, a post-award
teleconference must be held between the OSEP project officer and the
grantee's project director or other authorized representative.
(2) A three-day project directors' conference in Washington, DC,
during each year of the project period.
(3) Two annual two-day trips to attend Department briefings,
Department-sponsored conferences, and other meetings, as requested by
OSEP.
Project Activities
To meet the requirements of this priority, the project, at a
minimum, must conduct the following activities:
(a) Recruit a minimum of three development sites and four pilot
sites in accordance with the plan proposed under paragraphs (h) and (i)
of the Application Requirements section of this notice.
Note: Final dissemination site selection will be determined in
consultation with the OSEP project officer following the kick-off
meeting.
(b) Identify and develop resources and products that, when used to
support the implementation of the technology tool, create accessible
learning opportunities for all children, including children with
disabilities and children with high needs, and support the sustained
implementation of the selected technology tool. Development of the
products must be an iterative process beginning in a single development
school and continuing through repeated cycles of development and
refinement in the other development sites, followed by a formative
evaluation and refinement in the pilot sites. To support implementation
of the technology tool the products and resources must, at a minimum,
include--
(1) An instrument or method for assessing--
[[Page 26091]]
(i) The site staff's current technology uses and needs, current
technology investments, firewall issues, and the knowledge and
availability of dedicated on-site technology personnel;
(ii) The readiness of development and pilot sites to implement the
technology tool. Any instruments and methods for assessing readiness
may include resource inventory checklists, school self-study guides,
and surveys of educators' and families' interests; and
(iii) Whether the technology tool has achieved its intended
outcomes.
(c) Provide ongoing training to educators and families so that they
might implement the technology tool with fidelity and to integrate it
into the curriculum.
(d) Collect and analyze data on whether the technology tool has
achieved its intended outcomes for early childhood development, K-12,
or college- and career-readiness.
(e) Collect formative and summative data from the development and
pilot sites to refine and evaluate the products.
(f) If the project is extended to a fifth year--
(1) Provide the products and the technology tool to no fewer than
10 dissemination sites; and
(2) Collect summative data about the success of the project's
products and services in supporting implementation of the technology
tool in the dissemination sites.
(g) By the end of the project period, provide--
(1) Information on the products and resources, as supported by the
project evaluation, including any accessibility features, that will
enable other sites to implement and sustain implementation of the
technology tool;
(2) Information on the technology implementation report, including
data on how educators and families used the technology, data on how
technology impacted child outcomes, how technology was implemented with
fidelity, and features of universal design for learning;
(3) Information on how the technology tool contributed to changed
practices and improved early childhood outcomes, academic achievement,
or college- and career-readiness for children with disabilities, as
well as children with high needs (i.e., data to assess how well the
project addressed the goals of the project as described in the logic
model); and
(4) A plan for disseminating the technology tool and accompanying
products beyond the sites directly involved in the project and how
dissemination will be sustained after the project ends.
Cohort Collaboration and Support
OSEP project officer(s) will provide coordination support among the
projects. Each project funded under this priority must--
(a) Participate in monthly conference-call discussions to share and
collaborate on implementation and specific project issues; and
(b) Provide information annually using a template that captures
descriptive data on project site selection, processes for installation
of technology, and the use of technology and sustainability (i.e., the
process of technology implementation).
Note: The following website provides more information about
implementation research: http://nirn.fpg.unc.edu/learn-implementation.
Fifth Year of Project
The Secretary may extend a project one year beyond the initial 48
months to work with dissemination sites if the grantee is achieving the
intended outcomes of the project (as demonstrated by data gathered as
part of the project evaluation) and making a positive contribution to
the implementation of a technology tool based on promising evidence
with fidelity in the development and pilot sites. Each applicant must
include in its application a plan for the full 60-month period. In
deciding whether to continue funding the project for the fifth year,
the Secretary will consider the requirements of 34 CFR 75.253(a), and
will consider--
(a) The recommendation of a review team consisting of the OSEP
project officer and other experts selected by the Secretary. This
review will be held during the last half of the third year of the
project period;
(b) The success and timeliness with which the requirements of the
negotiated cooperative agreement have been or are being met by the
project; and
(c) The degree to which the project's activities have contributed
to changed practices and improved early childhood outcomes, academic
achievement, or college- and career-readiness for students with
disabilities.
Competitive Preference Priority: Within this absolute priority, we
give competitive preference to applications that address the following
priority. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i), we award an additional five
points to an application that meets this priority.
This priority is:
Improving Academic Outcomes for Children with Disabilities (0 or 5
points).
Projects that are designed to improve outcomes for children with
disabilities in one of the following areas:
(a) Literacy for children with disabilities in grades 3 through 5;
or
(b) Science, technology, engineering, or mathematics (STEM) for
children with disabilities enrolled in middle school (grades 6 through
8).
Waiver of Proposed Rulemaking: Under the Administrative Procedure
Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553) the Department generally offers interested
parties the opportunity to comment on proposed priorities. Section
681(d) of IDEA, however, makes the public comment requirements of the
APA inapplicable to the priorities in this notice.
Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1474 and 1481.
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) The Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost
Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards 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 79 apply to all applicants
except federally recognized Indian Tribes.
Note: The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 apply to institutions of
higher education (IHEs) only.
II. Award Information
Type of Award: Cooperative agreements.
Estimated Available Funds: $1,500,000.
Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of
applications, we may make additional awards in FY 2020 from the list of
unfunded applications from this competition.
Estimated Range of Awards: $450,000 to $500,000 per year.
Estimated Average Size of Awards: $475,000 per year.
Maximum Award: We will not make an award exceeding $500,000 for a
single budget period of 12 months.
Estimated Number of Awards: 3.
Note: The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.
Project Period: Up to 48 months.
III. Eligibility Information
1. Eligible Applicants: SEAs; LEAs, including public charter
schools that operate as LEAs under State law; IHEs; other public
agencies; private nonprofit organizations; freely associated States and
outlying areas; Indian Tribes or
[[Page 26092]]
Tribal organizations; and for-profit organizations.
2. Cost Sharing or Matching: This program does not require cost
sharing or matching.
3. Subgrantees: A grantee under this competition may not award
subgrants to entities to directly carry out project activities
described in its application. Under 34 CFR 75.708(e), a grantee may
contract for supplies, equipment, and other services in accordance with
2 CFR part 200.
4. Other General Requirements: (a) Recipients of funding under this
competition must make positive efforts to employ and advance in
employment qualified individuals with disabilities (see section 606 of
IDEA).
(b) Each applicant for, and recipient of, funding must, with
respect to the aspects of their proposed project relating to the
absolute priority, involve individuals with disabilities, or parents of
individuals with disabilities ages birth through 26, in planning,
implementing, and evaluating the project (see section 682(a)(1)(A) of
IDEA).
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 February 13, 2019 (84 FR 3768), and available at
www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-02-13/pdf/2019-02206.pdf 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.
Information about Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs under
Executive Order 12372 is in the application package for this
competition.
3. Funding Restrictions: We reference regulations outlining funding
restrictions in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice.
4. Recommended Page Limit: The application narrative (Part III of
the application) is where you, the applicant, address the selection
criteria that reviewers use to evaluate your application. We recommend
that you (1) limit the application narrative to no more than 50 pages
and (2) use the following standards:
A ``page'' is 8.5'' x 11'', on one side only, with 1''
margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.
Double-space (no more than three lines per vertical inch)
all text in the application narrative, including titles, headings,
footnotes, quotations, reference citations, and captions, as well as
all text in charts, tables, figures, graphs, and screen shots.
Use a font that is 12 point or larger.
Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier,
Courier New, or Arial.
The recommended page limit does not apply to Part I, the cover
sheet; Part II, the budget section, including the narrative budget
justification; Part IV, the assurances and certifications; or the
abstract (follow the guidance provided in the application package for
completing the abstract), the table of contents, the list of priority
requirements, the resumes, the reference list, the letters of support,
or the appendices. However, the recommended page limit does apply to
all of the application narrative, including all text in charts, tables,
figures, graphs, and screen shots.
V. Application Review Information
1. Selection Criteria: The selection criteria for this competition
are from 34 CFR 75.210 and are as follows:
(a) Significance (10 points).
(1) The Secretary considers the significance of the proposed
project.
(2) In determining the significance of the proposed project, the
Secretary considers the following factors:
(i) The significance of the problem or issue to be addressed by the
proposed project;
(ii) The magnitude or severity of the problem to be addressed by
the proposed project;
(iii) The extent to which specific gaps or weaknesses in services,
infrastructure, or opportunities have been identified and will be
addressed by the proposed project, including the nature and magnitude
of those gaps or weaknesses;
(iv) The potential contribution of the proposed project to
increased knowledge or understanding of educational problems, issues,
or effective strategies; and
(v) The potential replicability of the proposed project or
strategies, including, as appropriate, the potential for implementation
in a variety of settings.
(b) Quality of project services (25 points).
(1) The Secretary considers the quality of the services to be
provided by the proposed project.
(2) In determining the quality of the services to be provided by
the proposed project, the Secretary considers the quality and
sufficiency of strategies for ensuring equal access and treatment for
eligible project participants who are members of groups that have
traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national
origin, gender, age or disability.
(3) In addition, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(i) The extent to which the services to be provided by the proposed
project reflect up-to-date knowledge from research and effective
practice;
(ii) The extent to which the training or professional development
services to be provided by the proposed project are of sufficient
quality, intensity, and duration to lead to improvements in practice
among the recipients of those services;
(iii) The extent to which the services to be provided by the
proposed project involve the collaboration of appropriate partners for
maximizing the effectiveness of project services;
(iv) The extent to which the services to be provided by the
proposed project are appropriate to the needs of the intended
recipients or beneficiaries of those services; and
(v) The likely impact of the services to be provided by the
proposed project on the intended recipients of those services.
(c) Quality of the project design (20 points).
(1) The Secretary considers the quality of the design of the
proposed project.
(2) In determining the quality of the design of the proposed
project, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(i) The extent to which the goals, objectives, and outcomes to be
achieved by the proposed project are clearly specified and measurable;
(ii) The extent to which the design of the proposed project
includes a thorough, high-quality review of the relevant literature, a
high-quality plan for project implementation, and the use of
appropriate methodological tools to ensure successful achievement of
project objectives;
(iii) The extent to which the design of the proposed project is
appropriate to, and will successfully address, the needs of the target
population or other identified needs;
(iv) 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 information
about the effectiveness of the approach or strategies employed by the
project; and
[[Page 26093]]
(v) The extent to which there is a conceptual framework underlying
the proposed research or demonstration activities and the quality of
that framework.
(d) Quality of the management plan (20 points).
(1) The Secretary considers the quality of the management plan for
the proposed project.
(2) In determining the quality of the management plan for the
proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(i) The adequacy of the management plan to achieve the objectives
of the proposed project on time and within budget, including clearly
defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing
project tasks;
(ii) The extent to which the time commitments of the project
director and principal investigator and other key project personnel are
appropriate and adequate to meet the objectives of the proposed
project;
(iii) The adequacy of mechanisms for ensuring high-quality products
and services from the proposed project;
(iv) How the applicant will ensure that a diversity of perspectives
are brought to bear in the operation of the proposed project, including
those of parents, teachers, the business community, a variety of
disciplinary and professional fields, recipients or beneficiaries of
services, or others, as appropriate; and
(v) The adequacy of procedures for ensuring feedback and continuous
improvement in the operation of the proposed project.
(e) Adequacy of resources (10 points).
(1) The Secretary considers the adequacy of resources for the
proposed project.
(2) In determining the adequacy of resources for the proposed
project, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(i) The adequacy of support, including facilities, equipment,
supplies, and other resources, from the applicant organization or the
lead applicant organization;
(ii) The relevance and demonstrated commitment of each partner in
the proposed project to the implementation and success of the project;
(iii) The extent to which the budget is adequate to support the
proposed project;
(iv) The extent to which the costs are reasonable in relation to
the objectives, design, and potential significance of the proposed
project; and
(v) The extent to which the costs are reasonable in relation to the
number of persons to be served and to the anticipated results and
benefits.
(f) Quality of the project evaluation (15 points).
(1) The Secretary considers the quality of the evaluation to be
conducted of the proposed project.
(2) In determining the quality of the evaluation, the Secretary
considers the following factors:
(i) The extent to which the methods of evaluation are thorough,
feasible, and appropriate to the goals, objectives, and outcomes of the
proposed project;
(ii) The extent to which the methods of evaluation include the use
of objective performance measures that are clearly related to the
intended outcomes of the project and will produce quantitative and
qualitative data to the extent possible;
(iii) The extent to which the methods of evaluation provide for
examining the effectiveness of project implementation strategies;
(iv) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will provide
performance feedback and permit periodic assessment of progress toward
achieving intended outcomes; and
(v) The extent to which the evaluation plan clearly articulates the
key project components, mediators, and outcomes, as well as a
measurable threshold for acceptable implementation.
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(d)(3), the past
performance of the applicant in carrying out a previous award, such as
the applicant's use of funds, achievement of project objectives, and
compliance with grant conditions. The Secretary may also consider
whether the applicant failed to submit a timely performance report or
submitted a report of unacceptable quality.
In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary
requires various assurances, including those applicable to Federal
civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or
activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department
(34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
3. Additional Review and Selection Process Factors: In the past,
the Department has had difficulty finding peer reviewers for certain
competitions because so many individuals who are eligible to serve as
peer reviewers have conflicts of interest. The standing panel
requirements under section 682(b) of IDEA also have placed additional
constraints on the availability of reviewers. Therefore, the Department
has determined that for some discretionary grant competitions,
applications may be separated into two or more groups and ranked and
selected for funding within specific groups. This procedure will make
it easier for the Department to find peer reviewers by ensuring that
greater numbers of individuals who are eligible to serve as reviewers
for any particular group of applicants will not have conflicts of
interest. It also will increase the quality, independence, and fairness
of the review process, while permitting panel members to review
applications under discretionary grant competitions for which they also
have submitted applications.
4. Risk Assessment and Specific Conditions: Consistent with 2 CFR
200.205, before awarding grants under this competition the Department
conducts a review of the risks posed by applicants. Under 2 CFR
3474.10, the Secretary may impose specific conditions and, in
appropriate circumstances, high-risk conditions on a grant if the
applicant or grantee is not financially stable; has a history of
unsatisfactory performance; has a financial or other management system
that does not meet the standards in 2 CFR part 200, subpart D; has not
fulfilled the conditions of a prior grant; or is otherwise not
responsible.
5. Integrity and Performance System: If you are selected under this
competition to receive an award that over the course of the project
period may exceed the simplified acquisition threshold (currently
$250,000), under 2 CFR 200.205(a)(2) we must make a judgment about your
integrity, business ethics, and record of performance under Federal
awards--that is, the risk posed by you as an applicant--before we make
an award. In doing so, we must consider any information about you that
is in the integrity and performance system (currently referred to as
the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System
(FAPIIS)), accessible through the System for Award Management. You may
review and comment on any information about yourself that a Federal
agency previously entered and that is currently in FAPIIS.
Please note that, if the total value of your currently active
grants, cooperative agreements, and procurement contracts from the
Federal Government exceeds $10,000,000, the reporting requirements in 2
CFR part 200, Appendix XII, require you to report certain integrity
information to FAPIIS semiannually. Please review the requirements in 2
CFR part 200, Appendix XII, if this grant
[[Page 26094]]
plus all the other Federal funds you receive exceed $10,000,000.
VI. Award Administration Information
1. Award Notices: If your application is successful, we notify your
U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators and send you a Grant Award
Notification (GAN); or we may send you an email containing a link to
access an electronic version of your GAN. We may notify you informally,
also.
If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding,
we notify you.
2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements: We identify
administrative and national policy requirements in the application
package and reference these and other requirements in the Applicable
Regulations section of this notice.
We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of
an award in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice and
include these and other specific conditions in the GAN. The GAN also
incorporates your approved application as part of your binding
commitments under the grant.
3. 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. When the deliverable consists of
modifications to pre-existing works, the license extends only to those
modifications that can be separately identified and only to the extent
that open licensing is permitted under the terms of any licenses or
other legal restrictions on the use of pre-existing works.
Additionally, a grantee that is awarded competitive grant funds must
have a plan to disseminate these public grant deliverables. This
dissemination plan can be developed and submitted after your
application has been reviewed and selected for funding. For additional
information on the open licensing requirements please refer to 2 CFR
3474.20.
4. Reporting: (a) If you apply for a grant under this competition,
you must ensure that you have in place the necessary processes and
systems to comply with the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 170
should you receive funding under the competition. This does not apply
if you have an exception under 2 CFR 170.110(b).
(b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final
performance report, including financial information, as directed by the
Secretary. If you receive a multiyear award, you must submit an annual
performance report that provides the most current performance and
financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34
CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance
reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting,
please go to www.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/appforms/appforms.html.
(c) Under 34 CFR 75.250(b), the Secretary may provide a grantee
with additional funding for data collection analysis and reporting. In
this case the Secretary establishes a data collection period.
5. Performance Measures: Under the Government Performance and
Results Act of 1993, the Department has established a set of
performance measures, including long-term measures, that are designed
to yield information on various aspects of the effectiveness and
quality of the Educational Technology, Media, and Materials for
Individuals with Disabilities Program. These measures are:
Program Performance Measure #1: The percentage of
Educational Technology, Media, and Materials Program products and
services judged to be of high quality by an independent review panel of
experts qualified to review the substantial content of the products and
services.
Program Performance Measure #2: The percentage of
Educational Technology, Media, and Materials Program products and
services judged to be of high relevance to improving outcomes for
infants, toddlers, children, and youth with disabilities.
Program Performance Measure #3: The percentage of
Educational Technology, Media, and Materials Program products and
services judged to be useful in improving results for infants,
toddlers, children, and youth with disabilities.
Program Performance Measure #4.1: The Federal cost per
unit of accessible educational materials funded by the Educational
Technology, Media, and Materials Program.
Program Performance Measure #4.2: The Federal cost per
unit of accessible educational materials from the National
Instructional Materials Accessibility Center funded by the Educational
Technology, Media, and Materials Program.
Program Performance Measure #4.3: The Federal cost per
unit of video description funded by the Educational Technology, Media,
and Materials Program.
These measures apply to projects funded under this competition, and
grantees are required to submit data on these measures as directed by
OSEP.
Grantees will be required to report information on their project's
performance in annual performance reports and additional performance
data to the Department (34 CFR 75.590 and 75.591).
6. Continuation Awards: In making a continuation award under 34 CFR
75.253, the Secretary considers, among other things: Whether a grantee
has made substantial progress in achieving the goals and objectives of
the project; whether the grantee has expended funds in a manner that is
consistent with its approved application and budget; and, if the
Secretary has established performance measurement requirements, the
performance targets in the grantee's approved application.
In making a continuation award, the Secretary also considers
whether the grantee is operating in compliance with the assurances in
its approved application, including those applicable to Federal civil
rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities
receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR
100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
VII. Other Information
Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this
document and a copy of the application package in an accessible format
(e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) by contacting
the Management Support Services Team, U.S. Department of Education, 400
Maryland Avenue SW, Room 5074A, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC
20202-2500. Telephone: (202) 245-7363. If you use a TDD or a TTY, call
the FRS, toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this
document is the document published in the Federal Register. You may
access the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of
Federal Regulations at www.govinfo.gov. At this site you can view this
document, as well as all other documents of this Department published
in the Federal Register, in text or Portable Document Format (PDF). To
use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at
the site.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Federal Register by using the article search feature at
www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search
feature at this site, you can limit
[[Page 26095]]
your search to documents published by the Department.
Johnny W. Collett,
Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.
[FR Doc. 2019-11641 Filed 6-4-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P