[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 33 (Monday, February 22, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10554-10561]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-03474]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION


Applications for New Awards; National Professional Development 
Program

AGENCY: Office of English Language Acquisition, Department of 
Education.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Education (Department) is issuing a notice 
inviting applications for fiscal year (FY) 2021 for the National 
Professional Development (NPD) program, Assistance Listing Number 
84.365Z. This notice relates to the approved information collection 
under OMB control number 1894-0006.

DATES: 
    Applications Available: February 22, 2021.
    Deadline for Notice of Intent to Apply: March 15, 2021.
    Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: April 23, 2021
    Deadline for Intergovernmental Review: June 22, 2021.

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: Francisco J. L[oacute]pez, Jr., U.S. 
Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, room 4w245, 
Washington, DC 20202. Telephone: (202) 401-1433. 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 NPD program, authorized by sections 
3111(c)(1)(C) and 3131 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
1965, as amended (ESEA), awards grants on a competitive basis, for a 
period of not more than five years, to institutions of higher education 
(IHEs) or public or private entities with relevant experience and 
capacity, in consortia with State educational agencies (SEAs) or local 
educational agencies (LEAs). The purpose of these grants is to provide 
professional development activities that will improve classroom 
instruction for English learners (ELs) and assist educational personnel 
working with such children to meet high professional standards, 
including standards for certification and licensure as teachers who 
work in language instruction educational programs or serve ELs.
    Grants awarded under this program may be used--
    (1) For effective pre-service or in-service professional 
development programs that will improve the qualifications and skills of 
educational personnel involved in the education of ELs, including 
personnel who are not certified or licensed and educational 
paraprofessionals, and for other activities to increase teacher and 
school leader effectiveness in meeting the needs of ELs;
    (2) For the development of program curricula appropriate to the 
needs of the consortia participants involved;
    (3) To support strategies that strengthen and increase parent, 
family, and community member engagement in the education of ELs;
    (4) To develop, share, and disseminate effective practices in the 
instruction of ELs and in increasing the academic achievement of ELs, 
including the use of technology-based programs;
    (5) In conjunction with other Federal need-based student financial 
assistance programs, for financial assistance, including costs related 
to tuition, fees, and books for enrolling in courses required to 
complete the degree involved, to meet certification or

[[Page 10555]]

licensing requirements for teachers who work in language instruction 
educational programs or serve ELs; and
    (6) As appropriate, to support strategies that promote school 
readiness of ELs and their transition from early childhood education 
programs, such as Head Start or State-run preschool programs, to 
elementary school programs.
    Background: Educator effectiveness is the most important in-school 
factor affecting student achievement and success.\1\ The NPD program is 
a Federal grant program that offers professional development 
specifically for educators of ELs. To improve the academic achievement 
of ELs, the NPD program supports pre-service and in-service instruction 
for teachers and other staff, including school leaders, working with 
ELs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Calder[oacute]n, M., Slavin, R., and S[aacute]nchez, M. 
(2011). Effective instruction for English learners. Future of 
Children, 21(1), 103-127.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NPD program has funded a range of grantees that are currently 
implementing 92 projects across the country. As the EL population 
continues to grow, it has become increasingly important to identify and 
expand the use of evidence-based instructional practices that improve 
EL learning outcomes.
    The body of evidence on effective language, literacy, and content 
instruction for ELs, including specific instructional practices for 
English language acquisition, is growing steadily, as documented by the 
2014 What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) Practice Guide for teaching ELs, 
available at: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/PracticeGuide.aspx?sid=19. To 
encourage the use of evidence to increase the effectiveness of projects 
funded by NPD, the Department has included Competitive Preference 
Priority 1 for projects designed to improve academic outcomes for ELs 
using strategies supported by moderate evidence (as defined in this 
notice).
    While we are encouraged by the growing body of evidence supporting 
effective EL instruction, this competition is designed to promote 
further study of pre- and in-service professional development models 
for EL educators. We encourage NPD applicants to design rigorous 
evaluations of their proposed activities that, if well-implemented, 
would meet the WWC Evidence Standards With Reservations. We believe 
that such evaluations will help ensure that projects funded under the 
NPD program help expand the knowledge base on effective EL 
instructional practice.
    The Department is also interested in supporting dual language 
acquisition approaches that are effective in developing biliteracy 
skills. Evidence suggests that students who are biliterate have certain 
cognitive and social benefits compared to their monolingual peers. 
Further, research suggests that despite initial lags, students in well-
implemented dual language programs eventually perform equal to or 
better than their counterparts in English-only programs.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Valentino, R.A., and Reardon, S.F. (2015). Effectiveness of 
four instructional programs designed to serve English language 
learners: Variation by ethnicity and initial English proficiency. 
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, doi: 10.3102/
0162373715573310.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, we recognize that linguistic and cultural diversity is 
an asset and that dual language approaches may also enhance the 
preservation of heritage languages and cultures. These approaches may 
be particularly impactful for diverse populations of ELs, such as 
immigrant children and youth and Native American students. Accordingly, 
we have included one invitational priority in this competition for 
applicants proposing to provide EL educators with professional 
development on effective dual language instruction.
    Priorities: This notice includes one absolute priority, two 
competitive preference priorities, and one invitational priority. The 
absolute priority is from section 3131 of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 6861). 
Competitive Preference Priority 1 is from 34 CFR 75.226(d)(2). 
Competitive Preference Priority 2 is from the Department's notice of 
final supplemental priorities and definitions (Supplemental 
Priorities), published in the Federal Register on March 2, 2018 (83 FR 
9096).
    Absolute Priority: For FY 2021 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:
    Providing Professional Development To Improve Instruction for 
English Learners.
    Under this priority we provide funding to projects that provide 
professional development activities that will improve classroom 
instruction for ELs and assist educational personnel working with ELs 
to meet high professional standards, including standards for 
certification and licensure as teachers who work in language 
instruction educational programs or serve ELs.
    Competitive Preference Priorities: For FY 2021 and any subsequent 
year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications 
from this competition, these priorities are competitive preference 
priorities. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(2), we award an additional five 
points to an application that meets Competitive Preference Priority 1, 
and we award up to an additional five points to an application, 
depending on how well the application meets Competitive Preference 
Priority 2. An application may be awarded up to a maximum of 10 
additional points under these competitive preference priorities. 
Applicants may address none, one, or both of the competitive preference 
priorities. An applicant must clearly identify in the project abstract 
and the project narrative section of its application the competitive 
preference priority or priorities it wishes the Department to consider 
for purposes of earning competitive preference priority points.
    These priorities are:
    Competitive Preference Priority 1--Moderate Evidence (0 or 5 
points).
    Applications proposing projects supported by evidence that meets 
the conditions in the definition of ``moderate evidence'' (as defined 
in this notice).
    Competitive Preference Priority 2--Promoting Literacy (up to 5 
points).
    Projects that are designed to address one or both of the following 
priority areas:
    (a) Providing families with evidence-based (as defined in this 
notice) strategies for promoting literacy. This may include providing 
families with access to books or other physical or digital materials or 
content about how to support their child's reading development, or 
providing family literacy activities (as defined in section 203(9) of 
the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act).
    (b) Facilitating the accurate and timely use of data by educators 
to improve reading instruction and make informed decisions about how to 
help children or students build literacy skills while protecting their 
student and family privacy.
    Invitational Priority: For FY 2021 and any subsequent year in which 
we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this 
competition, this priority is an invitational priority. Under 34 CFR 
75.105(c)(1) we do not give an application that meets this invitational 
priority a competitive or absolute preference over other applications.
    This priority is:
    Dual Language Approaches.

[[Page 10556]]

    We encourage applicants to propose projects to improve educator 
preparation and professional learning for dual language implementation 
models to support effective instruction for ELs. In particular, we 
encourage such approaches to take into account the unique needs of 
recently arrived EL students, immigrant children and youth, and Native 
American students who are members of Federally recognized Indian 
Tribes.
    Definitions: The following definitions are from 34 CFR 77.1, the 
Supplemental Priorities, and sections 3201 and 8101 of the ESEA (20 
U.S.C. 7011 and 7801), and they apply to the priorities and selection 
criteria in this notice. The source of each definition is noted in 
parentheses following the text of the definition.
    Ambitious means promoting continued, meaningful improvement for 
program participants or for other individuals or entities affected by 
the grant or representing a significant advancement in the field of 
education research, practices, or methodologies. When used to describe 
a performance target, whether a performance target is ambitious depends 
upon the context of the relevant performance measure and the baseline 
for that measure. (34 CFR 77.1)
    Baseline means the starting point from which performance is 
measured and targets are set. (34 CFR 77.1)
    Demonstrates a rationale means a key project component included in 
the project's logic model is informed by research or evaluation 
findings that suggest the project component is likely to improve 
relevant outcomes. (34 CFR 77.1)
    English learner, when used with respect to an individual, means an 
individual--
    (A) Who is aged 3 through 21;
    (B) Who is enrolled or preparing to enroll in an elementary school 
or secondary school;
    (C)(i) Who was not born in the United States or whose native 
language is a language other than English;
    (ii)(I) Who is a Native American or Alaska Native, or a Native 
resident of the outlying areas; and
    (II) Who comes from an environment where a language other than 
English has had a significant impact on the individual's level of 
English language proficiency; or
    (iii) Who is migratory, whose native language is a language other 
than English, and who comes from an environment where a language other 
than English is dominant; and
    (D) Whose difficulties in speaking, reading, writing, or 
understanding the English language may be sufficient to deny the 
individual--
    (i) The ability to meet the challenging State academic standards;
    (ii) The ability to successfully achieve in classrooms where the 
language of instruction is English; or
    (iii) The opportunity to participate fully in society. (Section 
8101 of the ESEA)
    Evidence-based means the proposed project component is supported by 
moderate evidence. (34 CFR 77.1)
    Experimental study means a study that is designed to compare 
outcomes between two groups of individuals (such as students) that are 
otherwise equivalent except for their assignment to either a treatment 
group receiving a project component or a control group that does not. 
Randomized controlled trials, regression discontinuity design studies, 
and single-case design studies are the specific types of experimental 
studies that, depending on their design and implementation (e.g., 
sample attrition in randomized controlled trials and regression 
discontinuity design studies), can meet What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) 
standards without reservations as described in the WWC Handbooks:
    (i) A randomized controlled trial employs random assignment of, for 
example, students, teachers, classrooms, or schools to receive the 
project component being evaluated (the treatment group) or not to 
receive the project component (the control group).
    (ii) A regression discontinuity design study assigns the project 
component being evaluated using a measured variable (e.g., assigning 
students reading below a cutoff score to tutoring or developmental 
education classes) and controls for that variable in the analysis of 
outcomes.
    (iii) A single-case design study uses observations of a single case 
(e.g., a student eligible for a behavioral intervention) over time in 
the absence and presence of a controlled treatment manipulation to 
determine whether the outcome is systematically related to the 
treatment. (34 CFR 77.1)
    Immigrant children and youth means individuals who--
    (A) Are aged 3 through 21;
    (B) Were not born in any State; and
    (C) Have not been attending one or more schools in any one or more 
States for more than 3 full academic years. (Section 3201 of the ESEA)
    Institution of higher education has the meaning given that term in 
section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965. (Section 8101(29) 
of the ESEA)
    Language instruction educational program means an instruction 
course--
    (A) In which an English learner is placed for the purpose of 
developing and attaining English proficiency while meeting challenging 
State academic standards; and
    (B) That may make instructional use of both English and a child's 
native language to enable the child to develop and attain English 
proficiency, and may include the participation of English proficient 
children if such course is designed to enable all participating 
children to become proficient in English and a second language. 
(Section 3201 of the ESEA)
    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. (34 CFR 77.1.)
    Note: Applicants may use resources such as the Pacific Education 
Laboratory's Education Logic Model Application (http://relpacific.mcrel.org/resources/elm-app) to help design their logic 
models.
    Moderate evidence means that there is evidence of effectiveness of 
a key project component in improving a relevant outcome for a sample 
that overlaps with the populations or settings proposed to receive that 
component, based on a relevant finding from one of the following:
    (i) A practice guide prepared by the WWC using version 2.1, 3.0, 
4.0, or 4.1 of the WWC Handbooks reporting a ``strong evidence base'' 
or ``moderate evidence base'' for the corresponding practice guide 
recommendation;
    (ii) An intervention report prepared by the WWC using version 2.1, 
3.0, 4.0, or 4.1 of the WWC Handbooks reporting a ``positive effect'' 
or ``potentially positive effect'' on a relevant outcome based on a 
``medium to large'' extent of evidence, with no reporting of a 
``negative effect'' or ``potentially negative effect'' on a relevant 
outcome; or
    (iii) A single experimental study or quasi-experimental design 
study reviewed and reported by the WWC using version 2.1, 3.0, 4.0, or 
4.1 of the WWC Handbooks, or otherwise assessed by the Department using 
version 4.1 of the WWC Handbooks, as appropriate, and that--
    (A) Meets WWC standards with or without reservations;
    (B) Includes at least one statistically significant and positive 
(i.e., favorable) effect on a relevant outcome;

[[Page 10557]]

    (C) Includes no overriding statistically significant and negative 
effects on relevant outcomes reported in the study or in a 
corresponding WWC intervention report prepared under version 2.1, 3.0, 
4.0, or 4.1 of the WWC Handbooks; and
    (D) Is based on a sample from more than one site (e.g., State, 
county, city, school district, or postsecondary campus) and includes at 
least 350 students or other individuals across sites. Multiple studies 
of the same project component that each meet requirements in paragraphs 
(iii)(A), (B), and (C) of this definition may together satisfy the 
requirement in this paragraph (iii)(D). (34 CFR 77.1.)
    Project component means an activity, strategy, intervention, 
process, product, practice, or policy included in a project. Evidence 
may pertain to an individual project component or to a combination of 
project components (e.g., training teachers on instructional practices 
for English learners and follow-on coaching for these teachers). (34 
CFR 77.1)
    Quasi-experimental design study means a study using a design that 
attempts to approximate an experimental study by identifying a 
comparison group that is similar to the treatment group in important 
respects. This type of study, depending on design and implementation 
(e.g., establishment of baseline equivalence of the groups being 
compared), can meet WWC standards with reservations, but cannot meet 
WWC standards without reservations, as described in the WWC Handbooks. 
(34 CFR 77.1)
    Relevant outcome means the student outcome(s) or other outcome(s) 
the key project component is designed to improve, consistent with the 
specific goals of the program. (34 CFR 77.1)
    Strong evidence means that there is evidence of the effectiveness 
of a key project component in improving a relevant outcome for a sample 
that overlaps with the populations and settings proposed to receive 
that component, based on a relevant finding from one of the following:
    (i) A practice guide prepared by the WWC using version 2.1, 3.0, 
4.0, or 4.1 of the WWC Handbooks reporting a ``strong evidence base'' 
for the corresponding practice guide recommendation;
    (ii) An intervention report prepared by the WWC using version 2.1, 
3.0, 4.0, or 4.1 of the WWC Handbooks reporting a ``positive effect'' 
on a relevant outcome based on a ``medium to large'' extent of 
evidence, with no reporting of a ``negative effect'' or ``potentially 
negative effect'' on a relevant outcome; or
    (iii) A single experimental study reviewed and reported by the WWC 
using version 2.1, 3.0, 4.0, or 4.1 of the WWC Handbooks, or otherwise 
assessed by the Department using version 4.1 of the WWC Handbooks, as 
appropriate, and that--
    (A) Meets WWC standards without reservations;
    (B) Includes at least one statistically significant and positive 
(i.e., favorable) effect on a relevant outcome;
    (C) Includes no overriding statistically significant and negative 
effects on relevant outcomes reported in the study or in a 
corresponding WWC intervention report prepared under version 2.1, 3.0, 
4.0, or 4.1 of the WWC Handbooks; and
    (D) Is based on a sample from more than one site (e.g., State, 
county, city, school district, or postsecondary campus) and includes at 
least 350 students or other individuals across sites. Multiple studies 
of the same project component that each meet requirements in paragraphs 
(iii)(A), (B), and (C) of this definition may together satisfy the 
requirement in this paragraph (iii)(D). (34 CFR 77.1)
    What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) Handbooks (WWC Handbooks) means the 
standards and procedures set forth in the WWC Standards Handbook, 
Versions 4.0 or 4.1, and WWC Procedures Handbook, Versions 4.0 or 4.1, 
or in the WWC Procedures and Standards Handbook, Version 3.0 or Version 
2.1 (all incorporated by reference, see Sec.  77.2). Study findings 
eligible for review under WWC standards can meet WWC standards without 
reservations, meet WWC standards with reservations, or not meet WWC 
standards. WWC practice guides and intervention reports include 
findings from systematic reviews of evidence as described in the WWC 
Handbooks documentation. (34 CFR 77.1)
    Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 6861.
    Note: Projects will be awarded and operated in a manner consistent 
with the nondiscrimination requirements contained in Federal civil 
rights laws.
    Applicable Regulations: (a) The Education Department General 
Administrative Regulations in 34 CFR parts 75, 77, 79, 81, 82, 84, 86, 
97, 98, and 99. (b) The Office of Management and Budget Guidelines to 
Agencies on Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement) in 
2 CFR part 180, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department 
in 2 CFR part 3485. (c) 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. (d) The Supplemental Priorities.
    Note: The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 apply to IHEs only.

II. Award Information

    Type of Award: Discretionary grants.
    Estimated Available Funds: $25,500,000.
    Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of 
applications, we may make additional awards in FY 2022 or a subsequent 
fiscal year from the list of unfunded applications from this 
competition.
    Estimated Range of Awards: $350,000-600,000.
    Estimated Average Size of Awards: $464,000.
    Maximum Award: $600,000 per year.
    Estimated Number of Awards: 42.
    Note: The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.
    Project Period: 60 months.

III. Eligibility Information

    1. Eligible Applicants: Entities eligible to apply for NPD grants 
are IHEs, or public or private entities with relevant experience and 
capacity, in consortia with LEAs or SEAs.
    To maximize student population needs and geographic diversity, the 
number of awards per single entity will be limited to one per DUNS 
number.
    2. a. Cost Sharing or Matching: This program does not require cost 
sharing or matching.
    b. Indirect Cost Rate Information: This program uses a training 
indirect cost rate. This limits indirect cost reimbursement to an 
entity's actual indirect costs, as determined in its negotiated 
indirect cost rate agreement, or eight percent of a modified total 
direct cost base, whichever amount is less. For more information 
regarding training indirect cost rates, see 34 CFR 75.562. For more 
information regarding indirect costs, or to obtain a negotiated 
indirect cost rate, please see www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocfo/intro.html.
    c. Administrative Cost Limitation: This program does not include 
any program-specific limitation on administrative expenses. All 
administrative expenses must be reasonable and necessary and conform to 
Cost Principles described in 2 CFR part 200 subpart E of the Uniform 
Guidance.

IV. Application and Submission Information

    1. Application Submission Instructions: Applicants are required to 
follow the Common Instructions for

[[Page 10558]]

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. Submission of Proprietary Information: Given the types of 
projects that may be proposed in applications for the NPD competition, 
your application may include business information that you consider 
proprietary. In 34 CFR 5.11 we define ``business information'' and 
describe the process we use in determining whether any of that 
information is proprietary and, thus, protected from disclosure under 
Exemption 4 of the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552, as 
amended).
    Consistent with the process followed in the prior NPD competitions, 
we may post the project narrative section of funded NPD applications on 
the Department's website so you may wish to request confidentiality of 
business information. Identifying proprietary information in the 
submitted application will help facilitate this public disclosure 
process.
    Consistent with Executive Order 12600, please designate in your 
application any information that you believe is exempt from disclosure 
under Exemption 4. In the appropriate Appendix section of your 
application, under ``Other Attachments Form,'' please list the page 
number or numbers on which we can find this information. For additional 
information please see 34 CFR 5.11(c).
    3. 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.
    4. Funding Restrictions: We reference regulations outlining funding 
restrictions in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice.
    5. Recommended Page Limit: The application narrative 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 35 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, references, and captions.
     Use a font that is either 12 point or larger or no smaller 
than 10 pitch (characters per inch).
     Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, 
Courier New, or Arial.
    The recommended page limit for the application does not apply to 
the cover sheet; the budget section, including the narrative budget 
justification; the assurances and certifications; or the one-page 
abstract, the bibliography, or the letters of support of the 
application. However, the recommended page limit does apply to the 
entire narrative section of the application. An application will not be 
disqualified if it exceeds the recommended page limit.
    6. Notice of Intent to Apply: The Department will be able to review 
grant applications more efficiently if we know the approximate number 
of applicants that intend to apply. Therefore, we strongly encourage 
each potential applicant to notify us of their intent to submit an 
application. To do so, please email the program contact person listed 
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT with the subject line ``Intent to 
Apply,'' and include the applicant's name and a contact person's name 
and email address. Applicants that do not submit a notice of intent to 
apply may still apply for funding; applicants that do submit a notice 
of intent to apply are not bound to apply or bound by the information 
provided.

V. Application Review Information

    1. Selection Criteria: The selection criteria for this competition 
are from section 34 CFR 75.210. The maximum score for all of these 
criteria is 100 points (not including competitive preference priority 
points). The maximum score for each criterion is indicated in 
parentheses.
    (a) Quality of the project design. (up to 40 points)
    The Secretary considers the quality of the design of the proposed 
project. In determining the quality of the design of the proposed 
project, the Secretary considers the following factors:
    (1) The extent to which the goals, objectives, and outcomes to be 
achieved by the proposed project are clearly specified and measurable.
    (2) 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.
    (3) The extent to which the proposed project demonstrates a 
rationale (as defined in this notice).
    (b) Quality of project personnel. (up to 10 points)
    The Secretary considers the quality of the personnel who will carry 
out the proposed project. In determining the quality of project 
personnel, the Secretary considers the following factors:
    (1) The extent to which the applicant encourages applications for 
employment from persons who are members of groups that have 
traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national 
origin, gender, age, or disability.
    (2) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience, 
of the project director or principal investigator.
    (3) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience, 
of key project personnel.
    (c) Quality of the management plan. (up to 25 points)
    The Secretary considers the quality of the management plan for the 
proposed project. In determining the quality of the management plan for 
the proposed project, the Secretary considers 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 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.
    (d) Adequacy of resources. (up to 5 points)
    The Secretary considers the adequacy of resources for the proposed 
project. In determining the adequacy of resources for the proposed 
project, the Secretary considers the following factors:
    (1) The extent to which the costs are reasonable in relation to the 
objectives, design, and potential significance of the proposed project.
    (2) 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.
    (e) Quality of the project evaluation. (up to 20 points)
    The Secretary considers the quality of the evaluation to be 
conducted of the proposed project. In determining the quality of the 
evaluation, the Secretary considers the following factors:

[[Page 10559]]

    (1) The extent to which the methods of evaluation are thorough, 
feasible, and appropriate to the goals, objectives, and outcomes of the 
proposed project.
    (2) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will, if well 
implemented, produce evidence about the project's effectiveness that 
would meet the What Works Clearinghouse standards with or without 
reservations as described in the What Works Clearinghouse Handbook (as 
defined in this notice).
    (3) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will provide 
performance feedback and permit periodic assessment of progress toward 
achieving intended outcomes.
    (4) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will provide 
valid and reliable performance data on relevant outcomes.
    Note: The following are technical assistance resources on 
evaluation: (1) WWC Procedures and Standards Handbook: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/references/idocviewer/doc.aspx?docid=19&tocid=1; 
and (2) IES/NCEE Technical Methods papers: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/tech_methods.
    In addition, we invite applicants to view two webinar recordings 
that were hosted by the Institute of Education Sciences. The first 
webinar addresses strategies for designing and executing well-designed 
quasi-experimental design studies. This webinar is available at: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Multimedia.aspx?sid=23. The second webinar focuses 
on more rigorous evaluation designees, including strategies for 
designing and executing randomized controlled trials. This webinar is 
available at: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Multimedia.aspx?sid=18.
    2. Review and Selection Process: The Department will screen 
applications that are submitted for NPD grants in accordance with the 
requirements in this notice and determine which applications meet the 
eligibility and other requirements. Peer reviewers will review all 
eligible applications for NPD grants that are submitted by the 
established deadline.
    Applicants should note, however, that we may screen for eligibility 
at multiple points during the competition process, including before and 
after peer review; applicants that are determined to be ineligible will 
not receive a grant award regardless of peer reviewer scores or 
comments. If we determine that an application does not meet an NPD 
requirement, the application will not be considered for funding.
    For NPD grant applications, the Department intends to conduct a 
two-part review process to review and score all eligible applications. 
Content reviewers will review and score all eligible applications on 
the following selection criteria: (a) Quality of the project design; 
(b) Quality of project personnel; (c) Quality of the management plan; 
and (d) Adequacy of resources. These reviewers will also review and 
score Competitive Preference Priority 2. Peer reviewers with evaluation 
expertise will review and score selection criterion (e) Quality of the 
project evaluation. The Department will review and score the 
Competitive Preference Priority 1 relying on expertise from the 
Institute of Education Sciences.
    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. Risk Assessment and Specific Conditions: Consistent with 2 CFR 
200.205, before awarding grants under this program 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.
    4. 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 200.206(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 plus all the other Federal 
funds you receive exceed $10,000,000.
    5. In General: In accordance with the Office of Management and 
Budget's guidance located at 2 CFR part 200, all applicable Federal 
laws, and relevant Executive guidance, the Department will review and 
consider applications for funding pursuant to this notice inviting 
applications in accordance with--
    (a) Selecting recipients most likely to be successful in delivering 
results based on the program objectives through an objective process of 
evaluating Federal award applications (2 CFR 200.205);
    (b) Prohibiting the purchase of certain telecommunication and video 
surveillance services or equipment in alignment with section 889 of the 
National Defense Authorization Act of 2019 (Pub. L. 115--232) (2 CFR 
200.216);
    (c) Providing a preference, to the extent permitted by law, to 
maximize use of goods, products, and materials produced in the United 
States (2 CFR 200.322); and
    (d) Terminating agreements in whole or in part to the greatest 
extent authorized by law if an award no longer effectuates the program 
goals or agency priorities (2 CFR 200.340).

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

[[Page 10560]]

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 or subgrantee 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 http://www.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/appforms.html.
    (c) 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 (GPRA), Federal departments and agencies must clearly 
describe the goals and objectives of programs, identify resources and 
actions needed to accomplish goals and objectives, develop a means of 
measuring progress made, and regularly report on achievement.
    (a) Measures. The Department has developed the following GPRA 
performance measures for evaluating the overall effectiveness of the 
NPD program:
    Measure 1: The percentage of project-specific annual goals the 
program met.
    Measure 2: The number of pre-service program participants enrolled 
annually.
    Measure 3: The unduplicated number of in-service program 
participants served annually.
    Measure 4: Under measures 2 and 3, the number of participants who 
are making progress toward becoming State certified, licensed, or 
endorsed in EL instruction and the number of participants who have 
become State certified, licensed, or endorsed by the end of the five-
year project period.
    (b) Baseline data. Applicants must provide baseline (as defined in 
this notice) data for each of the project performance measures listed 
in (a) and explain how each proposed baseline data is related to 
program outcomes; or, if the applicant has determined that there are no 
established baseline data for a particular performance measure, explain 
why there is no established baseline and explain how and when, during 
the project period, the applicant will establish a baseline for the 
performance measure.
    (c) Performance measure targets. In addition, the applicant must 
propose in its application annual targets for the measures listed in 
paragraph (a). Applications must also include the following information 
as directed under 34 CFR 75.110(b):
    (1) Why each proposed performance target is ambitious (as defined 
in this notice) yet achievable compared to the baseline for the 
performance measure.
    (2) The data collection and reporting methods the applicant would 
use and why those methods are likely to yield reliable, valid, and 
meaningful performance data; and
    (3) The applicant's capacity to collect and report reliable, valid, 
and meaningful performance data, as evidenced by high-quality data 
collection, analysis, and reporting in other projects or research.
    Note: If the applicant does not have experience with collection and 
reporting of performance data through other projects or research, the 
applicant should provide other evidence of capacity to successfully 
carry out data collection and reporting for its proposed project.
    (d) Performance Reports. All grantees must submit an annual 
performance report and final performance report with information that 
is responsive to these performance measures. The Department will 
consider this data in making annual continuation awards.
    (e) Department Evaluations. Consistent with 34 CFR 75.591, grantees 
funded under this program must comply with the requirements of any 
evaluation of the program conducted by the Department or an evaluator 
selected by the Department.
    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: On request to the program contact person listed 
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, individuals with disabilities 
can obtain this document and a copy of the application package in an 
accessible format. The Department will provide the requestor with an 
accessible format that may include Rich Text Format (RTF) or text 
format (txt), a thumb drive, an MP3 file, braille, large print, 
audiotape, or compact disc, or other accessible format.
    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

[[Page 10561]]

Register by using the article search feature at: 
www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search 
feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published 
by the Department.

Supreet Anand,
Acting Director, Office of English Language Acquisition.
[FR Doc. 2021-03474 Filed 2-19-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P