[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 91 (Monday, May 12, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26176-26178]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-12354]



[[Page 26175]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part VI





Department of Education





_______________________________________________________________________



Technology Innovation Challenge Grants; Notice

  Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 91 / Monday, May 12, 1997 / Notices  

[[Page 26176]]



DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION


Technology Innovation Challenge Grants

AGENCY: Department of Education.

ACTION: Notice of final selection criteria, selection procedures, and 
application procedures.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Secretary establishes final selection criteria, procedures 
for evaluating and selecting applications, and procedures for 
submission of applications under the Technology Innovation Challenge 
Grant Program. The Secretary will use these selection criteria, 
selection procedures and application procedures in fiscal year 1997 (FY 
1997) and in subsequent years. The Secretary takes this action to make 
informed funding decisions on applications for technology projects 
having great promise for improving elementary and secondary education.

EFFECTIVE DATE: These selection criteria, selection procedures, and 
application procedures take effect on June 11, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Technology Innovation Challenge Grant 
Program, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. 
Department of Education, Room 606D, 555 New Jersey Avenue, NW, 
Washington, DC 20208-5544. Telephone: (202) 208-3882. Individuals who 
use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal 
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 8 
p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Technology Innovation Challenge Grant 
Program is authorized in Title III, section 3136, of the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (20 U.S.C. 6846).
    Under this program the Secretary makes grants to consortia. Each 
consortium must include at least one local educational agency (LEA) 
with a high percentage or number of children living below the poverty 
line and may include other LEAs, private schools, State educational 
agencies, institutions of higher education, businesses, academic 
content experts, software designers, museums, libraries, or other 
appropriate entities. The Technology Innovation Challenge Grant Program 
provides support to consortia that are developing, adapting, or 
expanding existing and new applications of technology to improve 
schools through activities that include continuous professional 
development for teachers and the development of high quality academic 
content that helps all children learn to challenging standards.
    The Secretary published a notice of proposed selection criteria, 
selection procedures, and application procedures for the Technology 
Innovation Challenge Grant Program in the Federal Register on February 
26, 1997 (62 FR 8687). Written public comments were due to the 
Secretary by March 28, 1997. Written comments were received from four 
parties. The Secretary has reviewed these comments and has determined 
that no modifications in the proposed selection criteria, selection 
procedures, and application procedures are warranted, except for 
editorial and technical revisions. An analysis of the comments and the 
Secretary's responses are contained in the Appendix to this notice.

Selection Criteria

    The Secretary establishes selection criteria, selection procedures, 
and application procedures for the FY 1997 competition and subsequent 
competitions. The program statute (20 U.S.C. 6846(c)) requires the 
Secretary to give priority in awarding grants to consortia that 
demonstrate certain factors in their applications. The Secretary has 
addressed this mandate by incorporating these priority factors into the 
selection criteria.
    The Secretary establishes the following unweighted selection 
criteria to evaluate applications:
    (a) Significance. The Secretary reviews each proposed project for 
its significance by determining the extent to which the project--
    (1) Offers a clear vision for the use of technology to help all 
students learn to challenging standards;
    (2) Will achieve far-reaching impact through results, products, or 
benefits that are easily exportable to other settings and communities;
    (3) Will directly benefit students by integrating acquired 
technologies into the curriculum to improve teaching and student 
achievement;
    (4) Will ensure continuous professional development for teachers, 
administrators, and other individuals to further the use of technology 
in the classroom, library, or learning settings in the community;
    (5) Is designed to serve areas with a high number or percentage of 
disadvantaged students or other areas with the greatest need for 
educational technology; and
    (6) Is designed to create new learning communities among teachers, 
students, parents, and others, which contribute to State or local 
education goals for school improvement, and expand markets for high-
quality educational technology or content.
    (b) Feasibility. The Secretary reviews each proposed project for 
its feasibility by determining the extent to which--
    (1) The project will ensure successful, effective, and efficient 
uses of technologies for educational reform that will be sustainable 
beyond the period of the grant;
    (2) The members of the consortium or other appropriate entities 
will contribute substantial financial and other resources to achieve 
the goals of the project; and
    (3) The applicant is capable of carrying out the project, as 
evidenced by the extent to which the project will meet the problems 
identified; the quality of the project design, including objectives, 
approaches, evaluation plan, and dissemination plan; the adequacy of 
resources, including money, personnel, facilities, equipment, and 
supplies; the qualifications of key personnel who would conduct the 
project; and the applicant's prior experience relevant to the 
objectives of the project.

Evalation and Selection of Applications

Evaluation

    The Secretary evaluates applications using unweighted selection 
criteria. The Secretary believes that the use of unweighted criteria is 
most appropriate because they will allow the reviewers maximum 
flexibility to apply their professional judgments in identifying the 
particular strengths and weaknesses in individual applications.
    The Secretary also believes that due to the highly technical nature 
of the applications, it will be necessary to obtain clarification and 
additional information from applicants during the selection process. 
For the purposes of the Technology Innovation Challenge Grant Program, 
the Secretary may request highly rated applicants to submit additional 
information in response to specific questions raised during the 
application selection process for the FY 1997 competition and 
subsequent competitions. In accordance with 34 CFR 75.231, the 
Secretary also may request an applicant to submit additional 
information after the application has been selected for funding.

Selection Procedures

    In applying the selection criteria, the Secretary will use a three-
tier peer review process for the FY 1997 competition and subsequent 
competitions.
    At each tier of the review process, panels of experts will read the 
applications under consideration to determine which applications are 
most

[[Page 26177]]

deserving of further consideration in light of the selection criteria. 
The Department will, to the extent feasible, use reviewers that 
represent three areas of expertise: (1) K-12 school-based educators who 
use new technologies for classroom instruction or curriculum 
development; (2) K-12 school-based administrators who have management 
responsibility for school-wide, system-wide, or state-wide technology 
applications; and (3) educational technology experts drawn from higher 
education, consulting firms, or technology-related firms.
    At each tier of the review process, each reviewer assigns a 
qualitative rating for Significance and a qualitative rating for 
Feasibility to each application he or she reviews. The qualitative 
ratings used by individual reviewers are as follows: ``A'' for high 
quality; ``B'' for satisfactory quality; and ``C'' for unsatisfactory 
quality. The reviewers also assign an overall rating of ``A'', ``B'', 
or ``C'' for each application they review.
    In Tier I of the review process, reviewers are recruited to serve 
on panels that meet in several regional sites around the country. Tier 
I of the review process has two stages. In Stage 1 of Tier I, the 
applications received by the published application deadline are 
assigned to teams of readers at the regional sites. The applications 
are read and rated by all of the individual readers on the team, who 
then meet to compare their individual ratings of each application they 
have read. Through this process, the reviewers identify applications 
that have been unanimously awarded high ratings. At the end of Stage 1 
of Tier I, each team at a review site forwards its most highly rated 
applications for further consideration. In Stage 2 of Tier I, the 
applications forwarded for further consideration at that site are then 
read and individually rated by reviewers who served as team leaders in 
Stage 1 of Tier I. These team leaders use the same qualitative ratings 
of ``A'', ``B'', and ``C'' for Significance, Feasibility and the 
overall rating for each forwarded application they read. At the end of 
Stage 2 of Tier I, the team leaders meet to compare the ratings of all 
the applications they have read or considered at both stages of Tier I, 
taking into account all of the readings and ratings of all of the 
reviewers for each application at that site. Those applications that 
have been unanimously awarded high ratings by the team leaders at the 
end of Stage 2 of Tier I are forwarded for further consideration at 
Tier II of the review process.
    In Tier II of the review process, team leaders from all of the 
regional sites are brought together to serve as reviewers at a single 
site. These reviewers read the applications forwarded for further 
consideration from Tier I. Taking into account the quality of all of 
the applications they have read, the reviewers assign a qualitative 
rating for Significance, a qualitative rating for Feasibility, and an 
overall rating of ``A'', ``B'', or ``C'' for each application they 
review.
    Tier II of the review process has two stages. In Stage 1 of Tier 
II, the reviewers meet in teams to compare their individual ratings of 
each application they have read. Through this process the reviewers 
identify applications that have been unanimously awarded high ratings. 
At the end of Stage 1 of Tier II, each team forwards its most highly 
rated applications for further consideration. The applications 
forwarded for further consideration are then read and individually 
rated ``A'', ``B'', or ``C'' by the persons who served as team leaders 
in Stage 1 of Tier II. At the end of Stage 2 of Tier II, the team 
leaders meet to compare the ratings of all the applications they have 
read or considered at both stages of Tier II, taking into account all 
of the readings and ratings of all of the reviewers for each 
application. Those applications that have been unanimously awarded high 
ratings at the end of Stage 2 of Tier II are then forwarded for further 
consideration at Tier III of the review process. At the end of Tier II, 
the reviewers will also identify inconsistencies, points in need of 
clarification, and other concerns, if any, pertaining to each 
application being forwarded. Each applicant whose application is 
forwarded for further consideration at the end of Tier II will have an 
opportunity to respond in writing to these clarification questions and 
concerns.
    At Tier III, readers are assembled to serve as reviewers at a 
single site. These reviewers have served as team leaders during both of 
the previous tiers of the review, and each of the original Tier I 
review sites is represented by one team leader at Tier III. There is 
only one stage of review at Tier III. The reviewers read the 
applications that are still under consideration and, after reading the 
responses to the clarification questions, they assign ratings for 
Significance and Feasibility, and an overall rating of ``A'', ``B'', or 
``C'' for each application, taking into account the quality of all of 
the applications they have read. The reviewers compare their individual 
ratings of each application they have read, and through this process 
the reviewers identify applications that have been unanimously awarded 
high ratings. Those applications that have unanimously high ratings are 
recommended for funding. The reviewers also provide individual 
recommendations on an appropriate budget level for each application 
recommended for funding. The Secretary awards grants only to those 
applications the reviewers have recommended for funding at the end of 
Tier III. No other applications are considered for funding. In the 
final selection of applications for funding, the Secretary may also 
consider the extent to which each application demonstrates an effective 
response to the learning technology needs of areas with a high number 
or percentage of disadvantaged students or the greatest need for 
educational technology. In preparation for a grant award, the Secretary 
also may request an applicant to submit additional information after 
the application has been selected for funding.

Application Deadline

    The Secretary, in order to ensure timely receipt and processing of 
applications, establishes the following application deadline for the FY 
1997 competition and subsequent competitions.

Procedures for Submission of Applications

    Applications, in order to be considered for funding under this 
program, must be received on or before the deadline date announced in 
the application notice published in the Federal Register. (For the FY 
1997 competition, applications must be received on or before May 30, 
1997, as announced in the Federal Register on March 28, 1997 (62 FR 
15052)). The Secretary does not consider an application for funding if 
it is not received by the deadline date unless the applicant can show, 
in accordance with 34 CFR 75.102 (d) and (e), proof that the 
application was (1) sent by registered or certified mail not later than 
five days before the deadline date; or (2) sent by commercial carrier 
not later than two days before the deadline date. An applicant must 
show proof of mailing in accordance with 34 CFR 75.102 (d) and (e). 
Applications delivered by hand must be received by 4:00 p.m. 
(Washington, D.C. time) on the deadline date. For the purposes of this 
competition the Secretary will not apply 34 CFR 75.102(b), which 
requires an application to be mailed, rather than received, by the 
deadline date.

[[Page 26178]]

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required 
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid 
OMB control number. The valid OMB control number assigned to the 
collection of information in this notice of selection criteria, 
selection procedures, and application procedures is 1810-0569.

Intergovernmental Review

    This program is subject to the requirements of Executive Order 
12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR Part 79. The objective of the 
Executive Order is to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a 
strengthened federalism by relying on processes developed by State and 
local governments for coordination and review of proposed Federal 
financial assistance.
    In accordance with the Order, this document is intended to provide 
early notification of the Department's specific plans and actions for 
this program.

    Note: This notice does not solicit applications. A notice 
inviting applications under this competition was published in the 
Federal Register on March 28, 1997 (62 FR 15052).

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 84.303A, Technology 
Innovation Challenge Grants)

    Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 6846.

    Dated: May 6, 1997.
Ramon C. Cortines,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Educational Research and Improvement.

Appendix

Analysis of Comments and Changes

    Summarized below are comments that referred to the proposed 
selection criteria, selection procedures, and application 
procedures.

Geographic Equity

    Comments: Two commenters noted that over the last two years, the 
distribution of awards under the Technology Innovation Challenge 
Grant Program appeared to have been skewed in favor of a few 
geographic regions of the United States. The two commenters 
advocated that provisions ensuring some measure of equitable 
geographic distribution of awards be added to the selection 
criteria.
    Discussion: The statute authorizing the Technology Innovation 
Challenge Grant Program does not address the issue of geographic 
distribution of awards. The Secretary understands the importance of 
participation by all areas of the country in this program and is 
engaged in intensive dissemination activities to heighten public 
awareness about the funding that is available. However, the 
Secretary believes that the three-tier review process that will be 
used to make selection decisions based on the priority factors 
outlined in the statute will result in the highest quality awards 
and that these awards must be based on ``merit,'' irrespective of 
geographic considerations.
    Changes: None.

Serving Disadvantaged Students

    Comment: One commenter suggested that the Secretary consider 
stronger, quantitative measures to ensure that the legislative 
intent of serving disadvantaged students with the greatest need for 
educational technology be fulfilled. The commenter suggested that 
additional points be added to applications emanating from LEAs 
serving primarily disadvantaged populations and that a sliding scale 
of extra points be put in place to strengthen the applications 
coming from jurisdictions with high percentages of disadvantaged 
students.
    Discussion: The statute authorizing the Technology Innovation 
Challenge Grant Program specifies that a consortia, in order to be 
eligible for support under this program, must include at least one 
local educational agency with a high percentage or number of 
children living below the poverty line. Further, the selection 
criteria for this program incorporate the statutory priority by 
specifying that each proposed project be reviewed for its 
significance by determining the extent to which the project ``is 
designed to serve areas with a high number or percentage of 
disadvantaged students or other areas with the greatest need for 
educational technology * * *.'' Applicants will have to address this 
selection criterion by demonstrating that the projects they propose 
will in fact serve areas with a high number or percentage of 
disadvantaged students or other areas with the greatest need. The 
Secretary does not believe that further elaboration of the selection 
criteria, by adding a sliding scale of extra points, is needed to 
ensure that the needs of disadvantaged students will be addressed.
    Changes: None.

Funding New Applicants

    Comment: One commenter advocated that those institutions that 
have not applied under past competitions or been successful in these 
competitions, be given the same opportunity to receive grants as 
those who have been successful in previous competitions. The 
commenter was concerned that funding appears to go to institutions 
that have been previously funded and that seldom are there 
successful new applicants.
    Discussion: The Secretary agrees that the widest possible pool 
of applicants must be able to compete for support under the 
Technology Innovation Challenge Grant Program. Therefore, the 
program encourages applications from all eligible sources and 
engages in an intensive dissemination program to ensure broad 
participation. To date the program has supported two competitions, 
one in fiscal year 1995 and one in fiscal year 1996, that have 
resulted in 43 grants. None of these current grantees holds more 
than one award under this program. There are some grantees that are 
also members of consortia in partnership with other grantees, but 
there are no current grantees that have won grants in both 
competitions that have been held to date.
    Changes: None.

Allowing a State Educational Agency to Assist Consortia

    Comment: One commenter suggested that for the next Technology 
Innovation Challenge Grant Program competition State educational 
agencies be allowed to assist consortia in putting together 
meaningful grant applications to support improving elementary and 
secondary education.
    Discussion: The statute authorizing the Technology Innovation 
Challenge Grant Program currently does allow State educational 
agencies to participate in consortia seeking funding under the 
program. The statute is clear that the application for funding must 
be submitted by a local educational agency, but a single local 
educational agency is not eligible to apply unless it is part of a 
consortium that may include other local educational agencies, State 
educational agencies, institutions of higher education, businesses, 
academic content experts, software designers, museums, libraries or 
other appropriate organizations. The Secretary agrees that State 
educational agencies can be important members of these consortia, 
can fulfill a critical role in assisting the consortia to develop a 
meaningful grant application, can provide leadership to bring 
together appropriate partners to build the consortia, and should use 
every opportunity to do so.
    Changes: None.

[FR Doc. 97-12354 Filed 5-9-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P