[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 131 (Tuesday, July 13, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36722-36730]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-14864]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Applications for New Awards; National Comprehensive Center on
Improving Literacy for Students With Disabilities
AGENCY: Offices of Elementary and Secondary Education and Special
Education and Rehabilitative Services, Department of Education.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Education (Department) is issuing a notice
inviting applications for a new award for fiscal year (FY) 2021 for a
National Comprehensive Center on Improving Literacy for Students with
Disabilities (Comprehensive Centers program), Assistance Listing Number
84.283D. This notice relates to the approved information collection
under OMB control number 1894-0006.
DATES:
Applications available: July 13, 2021.
Deadline for transmittal of applications: September 1, 2021.
Pre-Application Webinar Information: No later than July 19, 2021,
the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) will post a pre-
recorded informational webinar designed to provide technical assistance
(TA) to interested applicants.
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.
The webinar may be found at www2.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/osep/new-osep-grants.html.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tina Diamond, U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 5142, Potomac Center Plaza,
Washington, DC 20202-5076. Telephone: (202) 245-6723. 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 purpose of the National Comprehensive
Center on Improving Literacy for Students with Disabilities (Center) is
to identify or develop evidence-based literacy assessment tools and
professional development activities and identify evidence-based
instruction, strategies, and accommodations for students at risk of not
attaining full literacy skills due to a disability, including dyslexia
impacting reading or writing, or developmental delay impacting reading,
writing, language processing, comprehension, or executive functioning.
The Center will also disseminate its products and information on
evidence-based literacy to families, SEAs, LEAs, REAs, and schools.
Priority: This priority is from the notice of final priority,
requirement, and definitions (NFP) for this program published elsewhere
in this issue of the Federal Register.
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:
National Comprehensive Center on Improving Literacy for Students
with Disabilities.
Background:
Section 2244 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as
amended (ESEA) requires the Secretary to establish a comprehensive
center on students at risk of not attaining full literacy skills due to
a disability. Comprehensive centers are typically administered by the
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE). OESE is funding
this Center; however, because of the Center's subject matter, it will
be administered jointly by OESE and OSEP in the Office of Special
Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS).
The project is designed to improve implementation of evidence-based
literacy practices in both teacher classroom and remote learning
environments. With respect to remote learning, the priority is intended
to ensure that teachers have the training and support they need to
implement evidence-based literacy practices during remote instruction
for students with disabilities, including students with dyslexia
impacting reading or writing, or developmental delay impacting reading,
writing, language processing, comprehension, or executive functioning.
Remote learning plays a critical role in regular instruction and can
serve as a crucial link allowing high-quality teaching and learning to
continue when regular instruction is disrupted.
Priority:
The purpose of this priority is to fund a cooperative agreement to
establish and operate a National Comprehensive Center on Improving
Literacy for Students with Disabilities (Center) for children in early
childhood education programs through high school. The Center must--
(a) Identify or develop free or low-cost evidence-based assessment
tools for identifying students at risk of not attaining full literacy
skills due to a disability, including dyslexia impacting reading or
writing, or developmental delay impacting reading, writing, language
processing, comprehension, or executive functioning;
(b) Identify evidence-based literacy instruction, strategies, and
accommodations, including assistive technology, designed to meet the
specific needs of such students;
(c) Provide families of such students with information to assist
such students;
(d) Identify or develop evidence-based professional development for
teachers, paraprofessionals, principals, other school leaders, and
specialized instructional support personnel to--
(1) Understand early indicators of students at risk of not
attaining full literacy skills due to a disability, including dyslexia
impacting reading or writing, or developmental delay impacting reading,
writing, language processing, comprehension, or executive functioning;
(2) Use evidence-based screening assessments for early
identification of
[[Page 36723]]
such students beginning not later than kindergarten; \1\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Applicants are encouraged to identify or develop
professional development for using evidence-based screening
assessments for early identification of children in early childhood
or prekindergarten programs, as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(3) Implement evidence-based instruction designed to meet the
specific needs of such students; and
(e) Disseminate the products of the comprehensive center to
regionally diverse SEAs, REAs, LEAs, and schools, including, as
appropriate, through partnerships with other comprehensive centers
established under section 203 of the Educational Technical Assistance
Act of 2002 (20 U.S.C. 9602), and regional educational laboratories
established under section 174 of the Education Sciences Reform Act of
2002 (20 U.S.C. 9564).
In addition to these programmatic requirements, to be considered
for funding under this priority, applicants must meet the application
and administrative requirements in this priority, which are:
(a) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under
``Significance,'' how the proposed project will--
(1) Address current and emerging training and information needs of
SEAs, REAs, LEAs, TA centers, schools, and practitioners to select and
implement teacher classroom and remote learning environment evidence-
based practices (EBPs) that will improve literacy outcomes for students
with disabilities, including students with dyslexia impacting reading
or writing, or developmental delay impacting reading, writing, language
processing, comprehension, or executive functioning. To meet this
requirement, the applicant must--
(i) Demonstrate knowledge of current and emerging EBPs, which can
be used in reading and literacy-related teacher classroom and remote
learning environment instruction, screening, assessment, and
identification or diagnosis of students at risk for not attaining full
literacy skills due to a disability, including dyslexia impacting
reading or writing, or developmental delay impacting reading, writing,
language processing, comprehension, or executive functioning. This
includes demonstrating knowledge of current and emerging reading and
literacy-related EBPs for students who are English learners; students
from a variety of settings (e.g., rural, suburban, urban); students
from low-income families; and other educationally disadvantaged
students; or
(ii) Demonstrate knowledge of, previous experience with, and
results of using creative approaches and implementing in-person and
virtual TA strategies to provide capacity-building services and
disseminate teacher classroom and remote learning environment EBPs to a
variety of entities, including parents, SEAs, REAs, LEAs, schools, Head
Start, and other early childhood programs;
(2) Demonstrate a record of improving outcomes in literacy
achievement for students at risk for not attaining full literacy skills
due to a disability, including dyslexia impacting reading or writing,
or developmental delay impacting reading, writing, language processing,
comprehension, or executive functioning, in order to better prepare
them to compete in a global economy; and
(3) Demonstrate a record of improving the adoption, implementation,
and sustainment of teacher classroom and remote learning environment
EBPs in literacy instruction for students at risk for not attaining
full literacy skills due to a disability, including dyslexia impacting
reading or writing, or developmental delay impacting reading, writing,
language processing, comprehension, or executive functioning.
(b) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under
``Quality of project services,'' how the proposed project will--
(1) Ensure equal access and treatment for members of groups that
have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national
origin, sex, age, or disability. To meet this requirement, the
applicant must describe how it will--
(i) Identify the needs of the intended recipients for TA and
information; and
(ii) Ensure that products and services meet the needs of the
intended recipients of the grant;
(2) Achieve its goals, objectives, and intended short-term,
intermediate, and long-term outcomes. To meet this requirement, the
applicant must provide--
(i) A five-year plan for the Center to identify current and
emerging training and information needs and to address the priority;
(ii) Measurable intended project outcomes; and
(iii) In Appendix A, the logic model (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1) by
which the proposed project will achieve its intended outcomes that
depicts, at a minimum, the goals, activities, outputs, and intended
short-term, intermediate, and long-term outcomes of the proposed
project;
(3) Use a conceptual framework (and provide a copy in Appendix A)
to develop project plans and activities, and describe any underlying
concepts, assumptions, expectations, or theories, as well as the
presumed relationships or linkages among these variables, and any
empirical support for this framework;
Note: The following websites provide more information on logic
models and conceptual frameworks: www.osepideasthatwork.org/logicModel,
www.osepideasthatwork.org/resources-grantees/program-areas/ta-ta/tad-project-logic-model-and-conceptual-framework, and
www.federalregister.gov/d/2019-06583.
(4) Be based on current research and make use of EBPs in the
development and delivery of its products and services. To meet this
requirement, the applicant must describe--
(i) The current research on teacher classroom and remote learning
environment EBPs for literacy instruction for students at risk for not
attaining full literacy skills due to a disability, including dyslexia
impacting reading or writing, or developmental delay impacting reading,
writing, language processing, comprehension, or executive functioning;
(ii) The current research on teacher classroom and remote learning
environment EBPs for assessing students at risk for not attaining full
literacy skills due to a disability, including dyslexia impacting
reading or writing, or developmental delay impacting reading, writing,
language processing, comprehension, or executive functioning. This
should include the current research on screening assessments for
dyslexia and other literacy-related disabilities that are evidence-
based, psychometrically valid, free or low-cost, efficient to scale,
and readily available for use; and
(iii) The current research about adult learning principles in in-
person and virtual settings and implementation science that will inform
the proposed TA; and
(5) Develop products or refine or update publicly available
existing products and provide in-person and virtual services that are
of high quality and sufficient intensity and duration to achieve the
intended measurable outcomes of the proposed project. To address this
requirement, the applicant must describe--
(i) How it proposes to identify or develop the knowledge base in
teacher classroom and remote learning environment literacy instruction
for students at risk of not attaining full literacy skills due to a
disability;
[[Page 36724]]
(ii) Its proposed approach to universal, general TA, which must
identify the intended recipients, including the type and number of
recipients, that will receive the products and services under this
approach;
(iii) Its proposed approach to targeted, specialized TA, which must
identify--
(A) The intended recipients, including the type and number of
recipients, that will receive the products and services under this
approach, a description of new or existing publicly available products
that may be used and services that the Center proposes to make
available, and the expected impact of those products and services under
this approach; and
(B) Its proposed approach to measure the readiness of potential TA
recipients to work with the project, assessing, at a minimum, their
current infrastructure, available resources, and ability to build
capacity at the local level; and
(iv) Its proposed approach to intensive, sustained TA, which must
identify--
(A) The intended recipients, including the type and number of
recipients, that will receive the products and services, a description
of new or existing publicly available products that may be used and
services that the Center proposes to make available, and the expected
impact of those products and services under this approach;
(B) Its proposed approach to measure the readiness of the target
audiences to work with the project, including their commitment to the
initiative, alignment of the initiative to their needs, current
infrastructure, available resources, and ability to build capacity at
the SEA, REA, LEA, school, and early childhood education program
levels;
(C) Its proposed plan for assisting SEAs, REAs, and LEAs to build
or enhance in-person and virtual training systems that include
capacity-building services and professional development based on adult
learning principles and coaching; and
(D) Its proposed plan for working with appropriate levels of the
education system (e.g., SEAs, regional TA providers, districts,
schools, early childhood education programs, families) to ensure that
there is communication between each level and that there are systems in
place to support the use of teacher classroom and remote learning
environment EBPs for literacy instruction;
(6) Partner with the National Comprehensive Center and at least one
of the other federally funded comprehensive centers, regional
educational laboratories, equity assistance centers, OSEP- and other
related federally funded TA Centers, parent training and information
and community parent resource centers funded by the Department and OSEP
(e.g., Center for Parent Information and Resources and Parent Technical
Assistance Centers), and other related organizations to refine or
develop products and implement services that maximize efficiency. To
address this requirement, the applicant must describe--
(i) How the proposed project will use technology to achieve the
intended project outcomes;
(ii) With whom the proposed project will collaborate and the
intended outcomes of this collaboration; and
(iii) How the proposed project will use non-project resources to
achieve the intended project outcomes; and
(7) Develop a dissemination plan that describes how the applicant
will systematically distribute information, products, and services to
varied intended audiences, using a variety of in-person and virtual
dissemination strategies, to promote awareness and use of the Center's
products and services.
(c) In the narrative section of the application under ``Quality of
the project evaluation,'' include an evaluation plan for the project
developed in consultation with and implemented by a third-party
evaluator. The evaluation plan must--
(1) Articulate formative and summative evaluation questions,
including important process and outcome evaluation questions, that are
linked directly to the project's proposed logic model required in
paragraph (b)(2)(iii) of this notice;
(2) Describe how progress in and fidelity of implementation, as
well as project short-term, intermediate, and long-term outcomes, will
be measured to answer the evaluation questions. Specify the measures
and associated instruments or sources for data appropriate to the
evaluation questions. Include information regarding reliability and
validity of measures where appropriate;
(3) Describe strategies for analyzing data and how data collected
as part of this plan will be used to inform and improve service
delivery over the course of the project and to refine the proposed
logic model and evaluation plan, including subsequent data collection;
(4) Provide a timeline for conducting the evaluation and include
staff assignments for completing the plan. The timeline must indicate
that the data will be available annually for the annual performance
report (APR); and
(5) Dedicate sufficient funds in each budget year to cover the
costs of developing or refining the evaluation plan in collaboration
with a third-party evaluator and the costs associated with the
implementation of the evaluation plan by the third-party evaluator.
(d) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under
``Adequacy of resources and quality of project personnel,'' how--
(1) The proposed project will ensure equal access for employment
for all, including those who are members of groups that have
traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national
origin, sex, age, religion, or disability;
(2) The proposed key project personnel, consultants, and
subcontractors have the qualifications, subject-matter expertise, and
technical experience to carry out the proposed activities, achieve the
project's intended outcomes, and develop ongoing partnerships with
leading experts and organizations nationwide to inform project
activities;
(3) The applicant and any key partners have adequate resources to
carry out the proposed activities; and
(4) The proposed costs are reasonable in relation to the
anticipated results and benefits.
(e) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under
``Quality of the management plan,'' how--
(1) The proposed management plan will ensure that the project's
intended outcomes will be achieved on time and within budget. To
address this requirement, the applicant must describe--
(i) Clearly defined responsibilities for key project personnel,
consultants, and subcontractors, as applicable; and
(ii) Timelines and milestones for accomplishing the project tasks;
(2) Key project personnel and any consultants and subcontractors
will be allocated and how these allocations are appropriate and
adequate to achieve the project's intended outcomes. The identified
project director should be, at minimum, 0.5 full-time equivalency
throughout the project period;
(3) The proposed management plan will ensure that the products and
services provided are of high quality, relevant, and useful to
recipients; and
(4) The proposed project will benefit from a diversity of
perspectives, including those of families, general and special
education teachers, paraprofessionals, principals, other school
leaders, specialized instructional support personnel, TA providers,
researchers, institutions of higher education (IHEs), and policy
makers,
[[Page 36725]]
among others, in its development and operation.
(f) Address the following additional application requirements. The
applicant must--
(1) Include, in Appendix A, personnel-loading charts and timelines,
as applicable, to illustrate the management plan described in the
narrative;
(2) Include, in the budget, attendance at the following:
(i) A one and one-half day kick-off meeting in Washington, DC, or
virtually, after receipt of the award, and an annual planning meeting
in Washington, DC, or virtually, with the OSEP project officer, OESE
staff, and other relevant staff during each subsequent year of the
project period.
Note: Within 30 days of receipt of the award, a post-award
teleconference must be held between the OSEP project officer and the
grantee's project director or other authorized representative;
(ii) A two and one-half day project directors' conference in
Washington, DC, or a virtual conference, during each year of the
project period;
(iii) Two annual two-day trips to attend Department briefings,
Department-sponsored conferences, and other meetings, as requested by
OSEP; and
(iv) At least monthly, communicate and collaborate with other
Department-funded centers to achieve project objectives;
(3) Include, in the budget, a line item for an annual set-aside of
5 percent of the grant amount to support emerging needs that are
consistent with the proposed project's intended outcomes, as those
needs are identified in consultation with, and approved by, the OSEP
project officer. With approval from the OSEP project officer, the
project must reallocate any remaining funds from this annual set-aside
no later than the end of the third quarter of each budget period;
(4) Include a plan for maintaining a high-quality website, with an
easy-to-navigate design, that meets government or industry-recognized
standards for accessibility;
(5) Include a plan for ensuring that annual project progress toward
meeting project goals is posted on the project website;
(6) Include, in Appendix A, a letter of agreement from each
partnering organization or consultant. The letter of agreement should
clearly specify the role of the partnering organization or consultant
and the time needed to fulfill the commitment to the project; and
(7) Include, in Appendix A, an assurance to assist OSEP and OESE
with the transfer of pertinent resources and products and to maintain
the continuity of services to target audiences during the transition to
this new award period and at the end of this award period, as
appropriate.
Definitions:
The following definitions apply to this competition. We provide the
source of the definitions in parentheses.
Capacity-building services means assistance that strengthens an
individual's or organization's ability to engage in continuous
improvement and achieve expected outcomes. (NFP)
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)
Evidence-based means the proposed project component is supported by
one or more of strong evidence, moderate evidence, promising evidence,
or evidence that demonstrates a rationale. (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)
Fidelity means the delivery of instruction in the way in which it
was designed to be delivered. (NFP)
Intensive, sustained TA means TA services often provided on-site
and requiring a stable, ongoing relationship between the TA center
staff and the TA recipient. This category of TA should result in
changes to policy, program, practice, or operations that support
increased recipient capacity or improved outcomes at one or more
systems levels. (NFP)
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)
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;
(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
[[Page 36726]]
(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)
Promising evidence means that there is evidence of the
effectiveness of a key project component in improving a relevant
outcome, based on a relevant finding from one of the following:
(i) A practice guide prepared by WWC reporting a ``strong evidence
base'' or ``moderate evidence base'' for the corresponding practice
guide recommendation;
(ii) An intervention report prepared by the WWC reporting a
``positive effect'' or ``potentially positive effect'' on a relevant
outcome with no reporting of a ``negative effect'' or ``potentially
negative effect'' on a relevant outcome; or
(iii) A single study assessed by the Department, as appropriate,
that--
(A) Is an experimental study, a quasi-experimental design study, or
a well-designed and well-implemented correlational study with
statistical controls for selection bias (e.g., a study using regression
methods to account for differences between a treatment group and a
comparison group); and
(B) Includes at least one statistically significant and positive
(i.e., favorable) effect on a relevant outcome. (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)
Regional educational agency, for the purposes of this program,
means ``Tribal Educational Agency'' as defined in ESEA section
6132(b)(3), as well as other educational agencies that serve regional
areas. (NFP)
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 this
requirement. (34 CFR 77.1)
TA services are defined as negotiated series of activities designed
to reach a valued outcome. (NFP)
Targeted, specialized TA means TA services based on needs common to
multiple recipients and not extensively individualized. A relationship
is established between the TA recipient and one or more TA center
staff. This category of TA includes one-time, labor-intensive events,
such as facilitating strategic planning or hosting regional or national
conferences. It can also include episodic, less labor-intensive events
that extend over a period of time, such as facilitating a series of
conference calls on single or multiple topics that are designed around
the needs of the recipients. Facilitating communities of practice can
also be considered targeted, specialized TA. (NFP)
Third-party evaluator is an independent and impartial program
evaluator who is contracted by the grantee to conduct an objective
evaluation of the project. This evaluator must not have participated in
the development or implementation of any project activities, except for
the evaluation activities, nor have any financial interest in the
outcome of the evaluation. (NFP)
Universal, general TA means TA and information provided to
independent users through their own initiative, resulting in minimal
interaction with TA center staff and including one-time, invited or
offered conference presentations by TA center staff. This category of
TA also includes information or products, such as newsletters,
guidebooks, or research syntheses, downloaded from the TA center's
website by independent users. Brief communications by TA center staff
with recipients, either by telephone or email, are also considered
universal, general TA. (NFP)
What Works Clearinghouse 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: Section 203 of the Educational Technical
Assistance Act of 2002 (ETAA) (20 U.S.C. 9602) and section 2244 of the
ESEA (20 U.S.C. 6674).
Note: The project will be awarded and must be operated in a manner
consistent with the nondiscrimination requirements contained in Federal
civil rights laws.
[[Page 36727]]
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 NFP.
Note: The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 apply to IHEs only.
II. Award Information
Type of Award: Cooperative agreement.
Estimated Available Funds: $1,475,000 in year one; $1,500,000 in
years two through five.
Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of
applications, we may make additional awards in FY 2022 from the list of
unfunded applications from this competition.
Maximum Award: We will not make an award exceeding $1,475,000 for a
single budget period of 12 months in year one and $1,500,000 for a
single budget period of 12 months in years two through five.
Estimated Number of Awards: 1.
Note: The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.
Project Period: Up to 60 months.
III. Eligibility Information
1. Eligible Applicants: Research organizations, institutions,
agencies, IHEs, or partnerships among such entities, or individuals,
with the demonstrated ability or capacity to carry out the activities
described in this notice, including regional entities that carried out
activities under the Educational Research, Development, Dissemination,
and Improvement Act of 1994 (as such Act existed on the day before
November 5, 2002) and title XIII of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (as such title existed on the day before January
8, 2002).
Note: If you are a nonprofit organization, under 34 CFR 75.51, you
may demonstrate your nonprofit status by providing: (1) Proof that the
Internal Revenue Service currently recognizes the applicant as an
organization to which contributions are tax deductible under section
501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code; (2) a statement from a State
taxing body or the State attorney general certifying that the
organization is a nonprofit organization operating within the State and
that no part of its net earnings may lawfully benefit any private
shareholder or individual; (3) a certified copy of the applicant's
certificate of incorporation or similar document if it clearly
establishes the nonprofit status of the applicant; or (4) any item
described above if that item applies to a State or national parent
organization, together with a statement by the State or parent
organization that the applicant is a local nonprofit affiliate.
2. a. Cost Sharing or Matching: This competition does not require
cost sharing or matching.
b. Indirect Cost Rate Information: This program uses an
unrestricted indirect cost rate. For more information regarding
indirect costs, or to obtain a negotiated indirect cost rate, please
see 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
the Cost Principles described in 2 CFR part 200 subpart E of the
Uniform Guidance.
3. Subgrantees: A grantee under this competition may not award
subgrants to entities to directly carry out project activities
described in its application. Under 34 CFR 75.708(e), a grantee may
contract for supplies, equipment, and other services in accordance with
2 CFR part 200.
IV. Application and Submission Information
1. Application Submission Instructions: Applicants are required to
follow the Common Instructions for Applicants to Department of
Education Discretionary Grant Programs, published in the Federal
Register on February 13, 2019 (84 FR 3768), and available at
www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-02-13/pdf/2019-02206.pdf, which
contain requirements and information on how to submit an application.
2. Intergovernmental Review: This competition is subject to
Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. However,
under 34 CFR 79.8(a), we waive intergovernmental review in order to
make an award/awards by the end of FY 2021.
3. Funding Restrictions: We reference regulations outlining funding
restrictions in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice.
4. Recommended Page Limit: The application narrative is where you,
the applicant, address the selection criteria that reviewers use to
evaluate your application. We recommend that you (1) limit the
application narrative to no more than 70 pages and (2) use the
following standards:
A ``page'' is 8.5'' x 11'', on one side only, with 1''
margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.
Double-space (no more than three lines per vertical inch)
all text in the application narrative, including titles, headings,
footnotes, quotations, reference citations, and captions, as well as
all text in charts, tables, figures, graphs, and screen shots.
Use a font that is 12 point or larger.
Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier,
Courier New, or Arial.
The recommended page limit does not apply to the cover sheet; the
budget section, including the narrative budget justification; the
assurances and certifications; or the abstract (follow the guidance
provided in the application package for completing the abstract), the
table of contents, the list of priority requirements, the resumes, the
reference list, the letters of support, or the appendices. However, the
recommended page limit does apply to all of the application narrative,
including all text in charts, tables, figures, graphs, and screen
shots.
V. Application Review Information
1. Selection Criteria: The selection criteria for this competition
are from 34 CFR 75.210 and are as follows:
(a) Significance (10 points).
(1) The Secretary considers the significance of the proposed
project.
(2) In determining the significance of the proposed project, the
Secretary considers the following factors:
(i) The extent to which specific gaps or weaknesses in services,
infrastructure, or opportunities have been identified and will be
addressed by the proposed project, including the nature and magnitude
of those gaps or weaknesses; and
(ii) The importance or magnitude of the results or outcomes likely
to be attained by the proposed project.
(b) Quality of project services (30 points).
(1) The Secretary considers the quality of the services to be
provided by the proposed project.
(2) In determining the quality of the services to be provided by
the proposed project, the Secretary considers the quality and
sufficiency of strategies for ensuring equal access and treatment for
eligible project participants who are
[[Page 36728]]
members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based
on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability.
(3) In addition, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(i) The extent to which the goals, objectives, and outcomes to be
achieved by the proposed project are clearly specified and measurable;
(ii) The extent to which there is a conceptual framework underlying
the proposed research or demonstration activities and the quality of
that framework;
(iii) The extent to which the services to be provided by the
proposed project reflect up-to-date knowledge from research and
effective practice;
(iv) The extent to which the training or professional development
services to be provided by the proposed project are of sufficient
quality, intensity, and duration to lead to improvements in practice
among the recipients of those services; and
(v) The extent to which the TA services to be provided by the
proposed project involve the use of efficient strategies, including the
use of technology, as appropriate, and the leveraging of non-project
resources.
(c) Quality of the project evaluation (20 points).
(1) The Secretary considers the quality of the evaluation to be
conducted of the proposed project.
(2) In determining the quality of the evaluation, the Secretary
considers the following factors:
(i) The extent to which the methods of evaluation are thorough,
feasible, and appropriate to the goals, objectives, and outcomes of the
proposed project;
(ii) The extent to which the methods of evaluation provide for
examining the effectiveness of project implementation strategies;
(iii) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will provide
performance feedback and permit periodic assessment of progress toward
achieving intended outcomes; and
(iv) The extent to which the methods of evaluation include the use
of objective performance measures that are clearly related to the
intended outcomes of the project and will produce quantitative and
qualitative data to the extent possible.
(d) Adequacy of resources and quality of project personnel (20
points).
(1) The Secretary considers the adequacy of resources for the
proposed project and the quality of the personnel who will carry out
the proposed project.
(2) In determining the quality of project personnel, the Secretary
considers 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.
(3) 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 key project personnel;
(iii) The qualifications, including relevant training and
experience, of project consultants or subcontractors;
(iv) The qualifications, including relevant training, experience,
and independence, of the evaluator;
(v) The adequacy of support, including facilities, equipment,
supplies, and other resources, from the applicant organization or the
lead applicant organization;
(vi) The relevance and demonstrated commitment of each partner in
the proposed project to the implementation and success of the project;
(vii) The extent to which the budget is adequate to support the
proposed project; and
(viii) The extent to which the costs are reasonable in relation to
the objectives, design, and potential significance of the proposed
project.
(e) Quality of the management plan (20 points).
(1) The Secretary considers the quality of the management plan for
the proposed project.
(2) In determining the quality of the management plan for the
proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(i) The adequacy of the management plan to achieve the objectives
of the proposed project on time and within budget, including clearly
defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing
project tasks;
(ii) The extent to which the time commitments of the project
director and principal investigator and other key project personnel are
appropriate and adequate to meet the objectives of the proposed
project;
(iii) The adequacy of mechanisms for ensuring high-quality products
and services from the proposed project; and
(iv) How the applicant will ensure that a diversity of perspectives
are brought to bear in the operation of the proposed project, including
those of parents, teachers, the business community, a variety of
disciplinary and professional fields, recipients or beneficiaries of
services, or others, as appropriate.
2. Review and Selection Process: We remind potential applicants
that in reviewing applications in any discretionary grant competition,
the Secretary may consider, under 34 CFR 75.217(d)(3), the past
performance of the applicant in carrying out a previous award, such as
the applicant's use of funds, achievement of project objectives, and
compliance with grant conditions. The Secretary may also consider
whether the applicant failed to submit a timely performance report or
submitted a report of unacceptable quality.
In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary
requires various assurances, including those applicable to Federal
civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or
activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department
(34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
3. Additional Review and Selection Process Factors: In the past,
the Department has had difficulty finding peer reviewers for certain
competitions because so many individuals who are eligible to serve as
peer reviewers have conflicts of interest. Therefore, the Department
has determined that for some discretionary grant competitions,
applications may be separated into two or more groups and ranked and
selected for funding within specific groups. This procedure will make
it easier for the Department to find peer reviewers by ensuring that
greater numbers of individuals who are eligible to serve as reviewers
for any particular group of applicants will not have conflicts of
interest. It also will increase the quality, independence, and fairness
of the review process, while permitting panel members to review
applications under discretionary grant competitions for which they also
have submitted applications.
4. Risk Assessment and Specific Conditions: Consistent with 2 CFR
200.206, before awarding grants under this competition the Department
conducts a review of the risks posed by applicants. Under 2 CFR
200.208, the Secretary may impose specific conditions, and under 2 CFR
3474.10, in appropriate circumstances, high-risk conditions on a grant
if the applicant or grantee is not financially stable; has a history of
unsatisfactory performance; has a financial or other management system
that does not meet the standards in 2 CFR part 200, subpart D; has not
fulfilled the conditions of a prior grant; or is otherwise not
responsible.
5. Integrity and Performance System: If you are selected under this
[[Page 36729]]
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.
6. 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 requirements in the Applicable
Regulations section of this notice.
We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of
an award in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice and
include these and other specific conditions in the GAN. The GAN also
incorporates your approved application as part of your binding
commitments under the grant.
3. Open Licensing Requirements: Unless an exception applies, if you
are awarded a grant under this competition, you will be required to
openly license to the public grant deliverables created in whole, or in
part, with Department grant funds. When the deliverable consists of
modifications to pre-existing works, the license extends only to those
modifications that can be separately identified and only to the extent
that open licensing is permitted under the terms of any licenses or
other legal restrictions on the use of pre-existing works.
Additionally, a grantee that is awarded competitive grant funds must
have a plan to disseminate these public grant deliverables. This
dissemination plan can be developed and submitted after your
application has been reviewed and selected for funding. For additional
information on the open licensing requirements please refer to 2 CFR
3474.20.
4. Reporting: (a) If you apply for a grant under this competition,
you must ensure that you have in place the necessary processes and
systems to comply with the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 170
should you receive funding under the competition. This does not apply
if you have an exception under 2 CFR 170.110(b).
(b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final
performance report, including financial information, as directed by the
Secretary. If you receive a multiyear award, you must submit an annual
performance report that provides the most current performance and
financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34
CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance
reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting,
please go to www.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/appforms/appforms.html.
5. Performance Measures: For the purposes of the Government
Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) and reporting under 34 CFR
75.110, the Department will use the following measures to evaluate the
effectiveness of the Center, as well as the Comprehensive Centers
program as a whole:
Program Performance Measure 1: The extent to which
Comprehensive Center clients are satisfied with the quality,
usefulness, and relevance of services provided.
Program Performance Measure 2: The extent to which
Comprehensive Centers provide services and products to a wide range of
recipients.
Program Performance Measure 3: The extent to which
Comprehensive Centers demonstrate that capacity-building services were
implemented as intended.
Program Performance Measure 4: The extent to which
Comprehensive Centers demonstrate recipient outcomes were met.
The measures apply to projects funded under this competition, and
grantees are required to submit data on these measures as directed by
OSEP and OESE.
Grantees will be required to report information on their project's
performance in annual and final performance reports to the Department
(34 CFR 75.590).
The Department will also closely monitor the extent to which the
products and services provided by the Center meet needs identified by
stakeholders and may require the Center to report on such alignment in
their annual and final performance reports.
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, whether
the grantee has made substantial progress in achieving 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
[[Page 36730]]
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 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.
David Cantrell,
Deputy Director, Office of Special Education Programs. Delegated the
authority to perform the functions and duties of the Assistant
Secretary for the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative
Services.
Ian Rosenblum,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Programs. Delegated the
authority to perform the functions and duties of the Assistant
Secretary, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education.
[FR Doc. 2021-14864 Filed 7-9-21; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P