[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 112 (Wednesday, June 11, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35126-35129]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-14716]



[[Page 35125]]

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

Part IV





Department of Education





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



Office of Elementary and Secondary Education--Evaluating State 
Education Technology Programs Grant Competition; Notice

  Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 112 / Wednesday, June 11, 2003 / 
Notices  

[[Page 35126]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

[CFDA No. 84.318A]


Office of Elementary and Secondary Education--Evaluating State 
Education Technology Programs Grant Competition--Notice Inviting 
Applications for New Awards for Fiscal Year (FY) 2003

    Purpose of Program: The purpose of this program is to increase the 
capacity of States to design, conduct, and procure high-quality 
evaluations of educational technology. To do so, this competition 
supports grants to States to: (1) Build their capacity to conduct 
scientifically based evaluations of educational technology 
interventions, by planning and conducting an experimental or quasi-
experimental evaluation of a State-selected educational technology 
initiative; and (2) widely disseminate pertinent information, based on 
what is learned about the evaluation methods, practices, analyses, and 
instruments used, that will help other States enhance their ability to 
conduct similar empirical evaluations.
    States receiving awards will:
    (1) Develop a plan to conduct a scientifically based evaluation of 
an educational intervention that uses technology applications as a tool 
to increase student achievement in one or more core academic subjects.
    (2) Conduct the evaluation in a manner that tests the impact of the 
intervention as well as the efficacy of the empirical methods, 
practices, and instruments used to assess the impact of the 
intervention on student achievement.
    (3) Disseminate information about the evaluation plan, its 
implementation, and the results to other States and to school districts 
so they may learn from and replicate the approach.
    For FY 2003, the competition for new awards focuses on projects 
designed to meet the priority we describe in the Priority section of 
this application notice.
    Eligible Applicants: The Secretary seeks to fund applications that 
are submitted by a State educational agency (SEA), or an SEA on behalf 
of a consortium (partnership).
    Eligible partnerships are comprised of an SEA (that must serve as 
the fiscal agent) and at least one entity from among the following 
entities:
    (1) Institutions of higher education.
    (2) Other public institutions.
    (3) Research organizations.
    (4) Not-for-profit organizations.
    (5) For-profit organizations.
    (6) Other State educational agencies (SEAs).
    (7) Local educational agencies (LEAs).
    (8) Regional educational entities.
    Applications Available: June 11, 2003.
    Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: July 28, 2003.
    Estimated Available Funds: $4,200,000.
    Estimated Range of Awards: $300,000 to $650,000 (per annum).
    Estimated Average Size of Awards: $475,000 (per annum).
    Maximum Award: We will reject any application that proposes a 
budget that exceeds $650,000 for any of the three 12-month budget 
periods.
    Estimated Number of Awards: 6-9.

    Note: The Department is not bound by any estimates in this 
notice.

    Project Period: Up to 36 months.
    Applicable Statute and Regulations: (a) Section 2421(c) of part D 
of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as reauthorized 
by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB); (b) The Education 
Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) in 34 CFR parts 
74, 75, 77, 80, 81, 82, 85, 86, 97, 98, and 99.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Section 2421(c) of part D (Enhancing Education Through Technology 
Act) of the ESEA authorizes the Secretary to award competitive grants 
for technical assistance to States to carry out activities to achieve 
the purposes of that part. Section 2402 (a)(7) of part D provides that 
one of the purposes of the Act is ``To support the rigorous evaluation 
of programs funded under this part, particularly regarding the impact 
of such programs on student academic achievement, and ensure that 
timely information on the results of such evaluations is widely 
accessible through electronic means.''
    The intent of this competition is to help States learn to conduct 
and procure high-quality evaluations by making funds available to a 
limited number of States to plan, conduct, and report such evaluations. 
States receiving awards will be expected not only to benefit directly 
from the experience, but actively share their work with other States. 
Therefore, grant awards from this competition are for States, with 
assistance from their grant partners or contractors, to: Plan and 
conduct rigorous, scientifically based evaluations of technology-
enhanced educational interventions; test and refine the methods, 
practices, analyses, and instruments used; document project activities 
and outcomes; and to inform the evaluation efforts of other States by 
making available to those States documented information about the 
evaluation plan, its implementation, and results.
    The Department expects that the projects it funds under this grant 
announcement will yield the following outcomes:
    (1) Increased capacity within recipient States to routinely design 
and conduct scientifically based evaluations, particularly in carrying 
out directed State technology grant competitions under title II, part D 
of the ESEA.
    (2) A body of knowledge that can inform other States about 
effective methods, practices, instruments, and conditions for 
conducting scientifically based evaluations, including:
    a. Replicable methods, practices, analyses, and instruments States 
and districts can use to conduct rigorous scientifically based 
evaluations of educational interventions that use technology as a tool 
to enhance teaching and learning.
    b. Methodological frameworks States and districts can use to 
identify technology-enhanced educational interventions that measurably 
increase student academic achievement, improve instruction, and enhance 
curriculum, including interventions that integrate new and emerging 
technologies into the curriculum.
    In addition, the Department expects the evaluation findings that 
result from this competition will yield empirical evidence about the 
conditions and practices under which educational technology is 
effective in helping students meet challenging academic content 
standards and in increasing student academic achievement.
    The Department expects to have substantial involvement with 
applicants that obtain grants under this competition. Therefore, the 
Department will enter into a cooperative agreement with each grantee. 
Under the agreement, the Department will work with the grantee to 
refine the evaluation and dissemination plans proposed in the 
application and will review plans and other deliverables before further 
work proceeds. (The terms ``cooperative agreement'' and ``grant'' are 
used interchangeably in this solicitation.)
    In applying for awards under this announcement, applicants must 
propose a plan to evaluate the impact of technology-based educational 
interventions on student achievement in the core academic subjects. Of 
particular interest to the Department are elementary and secondary 
school technology interventions that are consistent with the mission 
and goals of

[[Page 35127]]

the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, that is, interventions to help 
students meet challenging State academic content standards and student 
academic achievement standards and to close the achievement gap between 
low-income and minority students and their peers. To identify and 
select an intervention for evaluation applicants might consider, for 
example:
    (a) Innovative distance learning strategies that deliver, 
particularly to high-need student populations, specialized or rigorous 
academic courses and curricula through the use of advanced 
technologies, including video conferencing and virtual instruction 
strategies.
    (b) Professional development programs to enable teachers to 
integrate advanced technologies, including emerging technologies, into 
curricula and instruction in order to prepare students to meet 
challenging State academic content and academic achievement standards.
    (c) Programs that use technology to connect schools and teachers 
with parents and students in order to promote meaningful parental 
involvement; foster increased communication (about curricula, 
assignments, and assessments) between students, parents, and teachers; 
and assist parents to understand the technology being applied in their 
child's education, so that parents are able to reinforce at home the 
instruction that their child receives at school.
    (d) Classroom-based courses and curricula that include integration 
of technology and are designed to help students meet challenging State 
academic content and student academic achievement standards.
    (e) Programs that use technology to help teachers meet the high 
standards of teacher quality defined in ESEA.
    (f) Programs that use technology to meet the educational needs of 
students in rural areas.
    Examples of evaluation activities that may be funded include, but 
are not limited to:
    (a) Studies that compare the achievement of students who take high 
school virtual courses with the achievement of students who take the 
same courses in regular classrooms in order to determine whether the 
virtual courses result in the same or different levels of student 
achievement as courses taught in the regular classroom;
    (b) Studies to determine the relative effectiveness of various 
locally adopted, technology-enhanced instructional programs in 
increasing student achievement. These studies might compare the 
academic achievement of students in classrooms or schools where one 
instructional program or approach is being used with the academic 
achievement of students in classrooms or schools where another 
technology-enhanced instructional program or approach is being used; or
    (c) Studies to determine the impact on student achievement of 
technology-enhanced instruction in specific academic content areas 
versus academic content area instruction without the use of technology.
    Applicants, in developing their proposals, should detail:
    1. The evaluation approach they propose to take, including the 
methods, practices, and analyses for: (a) Selecting the intervention, 
population, and problem for study; (b) choosing the sample; and (c) 
collecting and analyzing data.
    2. Provisions for assessing the efficacy of the evaluation approach 
and making refinements as warranted.
    3. Plans for documenting project activities and disseminating to 
other States and school districts the knowledge gained over the course 
of the grant about how and under what conditions similar evaluations 
can be replicated. Proposed strategies should include, but not be 
limited to, the use of the Internet and other emerging technologies and 
venues. At a minimum, dissemination strategies should include the 
establishment and maintenance of a project Website that will host 
continually updated information about: (a) The technology intervention 
being evaluated; (b) the evaluation methods, practices, and analyses 
carried out, including the data collection plans and instruments used; 
(c) any modifications that occurred during the implementation of the 
project along with the rationale for those modifications; (d) the 
processes and conditions necessary for other States and school 
districts to replicate the approach; and (e) the evaluation results and 
other project findings.

Priority

    This competition focuses on projects designed to meet the following 
priority. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i), applications will receive up to 
20 additional points depending on how well they meet the priority. 
These points are in addition to any points the application earns under 
the selection criteria.

Competitive Preference Priority

    The project is designed to determine whether the program 
implemented produces meaningful effects on student achievement or 
teacher performance through a rigorous evaluation. Evaluations using an 
experimental design are the strongest for determining program 
effectiveness. Thus, the project preferably uses an experimental 
design. An evaluation using an experimental design is one where 
subjects (students, teachers, classrooms, or schools) are randomly 
assigned to receive the program being evaluated or to be in a control 
group that does not receive the program. Evaluations using an 
experimental design will receive up to 20 points.
    If random assignment is not feasible, the project may employ a 
quasi-experimental design with carefully matched comparison conditions. 
This alternative design attempts to approximate a randomly assigned 
control group by matching program participants (students, teachers, 
classrooms or schools) with non-participants possessing similar pre-
program characteristics. Evaluations of this type will receive up to 10 
points.
    Proposed evaluations that use neither experimental designs with 
random assignment or quasi-experimental designs using a matched 
comparison group will receive 0 points under the competitive preference 
priority.
    Data from reliable and valid measures of the intervention that the 
program intends to implement and of the outcomes that the program 
intends to effect should be collected before and after participation in 
the program or the comparison condition.
    Points awarded under this priority will be determined by the 
quality of the proposed evaluation. In determining the quality of the 
evaluation, we will consider the extent to which the applicant presents 
a feasible, credible plan that includes: The type of design to be used 
(random assignment or matched comparison); outcomes to be measured; a 
discussion of how students, teachers, classrooms, or schools will be 
assigned to the program or matched for comparison with other students, 
teachers, classrooms, or schools; and a proposed evaluator, preferably 
independent, with the necessary background and technical expertise to 
carry out the proposed evaluation.

Selection Criteria

    We will use the following selection criteria to evaluate 
applications for new grants under this program.
    The maximum score for all of these criteria is 100 points.
    The maximum score for each criterion is indicated in parentheses.
    (a) Significance (20 points). In determining the significance of 
the

[[Page 35128]]

proposed project, the Secretary will consider the following factors:
    (1) The extent to which the application supports the Department's 
strategic interests embodied in the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001: 
greater accountability for student achievement, increased flexibility 
and local control, more parental choice, and a focus on what works.
    (2) The extent to which the application offers a reasonable and 
sound plan that likely will produce outcomes, products, or publications 
that will inform the field about evaluation practice to determine the 
effectiveness of new and advanced technology tools and applications in 
education, and that are easily exportable to different settings, 
including urban, rural, and suburban communities.
    (3) The extent to which the application proposes to disaggregate 
evaluation results so that the impact of the intervention on the 
academic achievement of sub-groups of students, such as students who 
are ethnic or language minorities, rurally isolated, or from families 
with incomes below the poverty line, can be determined.
    (b) Quality of the project design (35 points). In determining the 
quality of the design of the proposed project, the Secretary will 
consider the following factors:
    (1) The extent to which the methodology proposed is thorough, 
feasible, and employs a methodologically sound experimental or quasi-
experimental design to determine the effectiveness of the educational 
technology intervention under study.
    (2) The extent to which the methodology proposed includes the use 
of valid, reliable, and objective performance measures that are clearly 
related to the intended outcomes of the intervention being evaluated.
    (3) The extent to which the proposed project is designed to build 
evaluation capacity and practice that will extend beyond the period of 
Federal financial assistance.
    (4) The extent to which the design for implementing the proposed 
evaluation, documenting evaluation activities, and disseminating 
knowledge, will result in information to guide replication of project 
activities or strategies, including information about the effectiveness 
of the approach or strategies employed by the project.
    (c) Quality of project personnel (15 points). In determining the 
quality of project personnel, the Secretary will consider:
    (1) The extent to which the applicant encourages applications for 
employment from persons without regard to race, color, national origin, 
gender, age, or disability.
    (2) In addition, the Secretary considers the following factors:
    (i) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience, 
of the project director or principal investigator.
    (ii) The qualifications, including relevant training and 
experience, of project consultants or subcontractors.
    (d) Adequacy of resources (15 points). In determining the adequacy 
of resources for the proposed project, the Secretary will consider the 
following factors:
    (1) The extent to which the partnership members contribute to the 
activities assisted under the grant by providing substantial support in 
the form of non-Federal funds and/or in-kind contributions, including 
staff and facilities.
    (2) The adequacy of support, including facilities, equipment, 
supplies, and other resources, from the applicant organization or the 
lead applicant organization.
    (3) The relevance and demonstrated commitment of each partner in 
the proposed project to the implementation and success of the project.
    (4) The potential for the incorporation of project purposes, 
activities, or benefits into the ongoing program of the agency or 
organization at the end of Federal funding.
    (e) Quality of the management plan (15 points). In determining the 
quality of the management plan for the proposed project, the Secretary 
will consider the following factors:
    (1) 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.
    (2) The adequacy of procedures for ensuring feedback and continuous 
improvement in the operation of the proposed project.

Waiver of Proposed Rulemaking

    Under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553), the 
Department generally offers interested parties the opportunity to 
comment on proposed priorities and other program requirements. 
Ordinarily, this practice would have applied to the competitive 
priority, selection criteria, and requirements in this notice. Section 
437(d)(1) of the General Education Provisions Act (GEPA), however, 
exempts rules that apply to the first competition under a new program 
from this requirement. The competition covered by this notice is a new 
activity under the National Technology Activities authorized by the 
ESEA, as reauthorized by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. The 
Secretary, in accordance with section 437(d)(1) of GEPA, in order to 
ensure timely grant awards, has decided to forego public comment with 
respect to the competitive priority, selection criteria and program 
requirements. The competitive priority, selection criteria, and 
requirements of this grant notice will apply only to the FY 2003 grant 
competition.

Application Procedures

    The Government Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA) of 1998, (Pub. L. 
105-277) and the Federal Financial Assistance Management Improvement 
Act of 1999, (Pub. L. 106-107) encourage us to undertake initiatives to 
improve our grant processes. Enhancing the ability of individuals and 
entities to conduct business with us electronically is a major part of 
our response to these Acts. Therefore, we are taking steps to adopt the 
Internet as our chief means of conducting transactions in order to 
improve services to our customers and to simplify and expedite our 
business processes.
    We are requiring that applications to the FY 2003 Evaluating State 
Education Technology Programs Grant Competition be submitted 
electronically using e-Application available through the Education 
Department's e-GRANTS system. The e-GRANTS system is accessible through 
its portal page at: http://e-grants.ed.gov.
    Applicants who are unable to submit an application through the e-
GRANTS system may apply for a waiver to the electronic submission 
requirement. To apply for a waiver, applicants must explain the 
reason(s) that prevent them from using the Internet to submit their 
applications. The reasons(s) must be outlined in a letter addressed to: 
Enid Simmons, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., 
room 3E215, Washington, DC 20202. We must receive your letter no later 
than two weeks before the closing date.
    Any application that receives a waiver to the electronic submission 
requirement will be given the same consideration in the review process 
as an electronic application.

Pilot Project for Electronic Submission of Applications

    In FY 2003, the U.S. Department of Education is continuing to 
expand its pilot project for electronic submission of applications to 
include additional formula grant programs and additional

[[Page 35129]]

discretionary grant competitions. The Evaluating State Education 
Technology Programs Grant Competition is one of the programs included 
in the pilot project.
    The pilot project involves the use of the Electronic Grant 
Application System (e-Application) portion of the Grant Administration 
and Payment System (GAPS). Users of e-Application will be entering data 
on-line while completing their applications. You may not e-mail a soft 
copy of a grant application to us. The data you enter on-line will be 
saved into a database. We shall continue to evaluate the success of the 
electronic submission of applications and solicit suggestions for 
improvement.
    If you participate in e-Application, please note the following:
    [sbull] When you enter the e-Application system, you will find 
information about its hours of operation.
    [sbull] You must submit all documents electronically, including the 
Application for Federal Education Assistance (ED 424), Budget 
Information--Non-Construction Programs (ED 524), and all necessary 
assurances and certifications.
    [sbull] After you electronically submit your application, you will 
receive an automatic acknowledgement, which will include a PR/Award 
number (an identifying number unique to your application).
    [sbull] Within three working days after submitting your electronic 
application, fax a signed copy of the Application for Federal Education 
Assistance (ED 424) to the Application Control Center after following 
these steps:
    1. Print ED 424 from the e-Application system.
    2. The institution's Authorizing Representative must sign this 
form.
    3. Place the PR/Award number in the upper right hand corner of the 
hard copy signature page of the ED 424.
    4. Fax the signed ED 424 to the Application Control Center at (202) 
260-1349.
    [sbull] We may request that you give us original signatures on all 
other forms at a later date.
    [sbull] Closing Date Extension in Case of System Unavailability: If 
you are prevented from submitting your application on the closing date 
because the e-Application system is unavailable, we will grant you an 
extension of one business day in order to transmit your application 
electronically, by mail, or by hand delivery. For us to grant this 
extension--
    1. You must be a registered user of e-Application, and have 
initiated an e-Application for this competition; and
    2. (a) The e-Application system must be unavailable for 60 minutes 
or more between the hours of 8:30 and 3:30 p.m., Washington, DC time, 
on the deadline date; or
    (b) The e-Application system must be unavailable for any period of 
time during the last hour of operation (that is, for any period of time 
between 3:30 and 4:30 p.m., Washington, DC time) on the deadline date.
    The Department must acknowledge and confirm these periods of 
unavailability before granting you an extension. To request this 
extension you must contact either (1) the person listed elsewhere in 
this notice under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT or (2) the e-GRANTS 
help desk at 1-888-336-8930.
    You may access the electronic grant application for the Evaluating 
State Education Technology Programs at: http://e-grants.ed.gov.
    We have included additional information about the e-Application 
pilot project (see Parity Guidelines Between Paper and Electronic 
Applications) in the application package.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Enid Simmons, U.S. Department of 
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 3E215, Washington, DC 20202. 
Telephone: (202) 708-9499 or via Internet: [email protected].
    If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TODD), you may 
call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.
    Individuals with disabilities may obtain this document in an 
alternative format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer 
diskette) on request to the program contact person listed under FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    Individuals with disabilities may obtain a copy of the application 
package in an alternative format by contacting that person. However, 
the Department is not able to reproduce in an alternative format the 
standard forms included in the application package.

Electronic Access to This Document

    You may view this document, as well as all other Department of 
Education documents published in the Federal Register, in text or Adobe 
Portable Document Format (PDF) on the Internet at the following site: 
www.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister.
    To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available 
free at this site. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S. 
Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1-888-293-6498; or in 
the Washington, DC, area at (202) 512-1530.

    Note: The official version of this document is the document 
published in the Federal Register. Free Internet access to the 
official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal 
Regulations is available on GPO Access at: http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/index.html.


    Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 6771(c).

    Dated: June 5, 2003.
Eugene W. Hickock,
Under Secretary of Education.
[FR Doc. 03-14716 Filed 6-10-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P