[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 243 (Tuesday, December 20, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 77815-77823]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-27486]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Applications for New Awards; Educational Technology, Media, and
Materials for Individuals with Disabilities Program--Stepping-up
Technology Implementation
AGENCY: Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services,
Department of Education.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Education (Department) is issuing a notice
inviting applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2023 for
Stepping-up Technology Implementation, Assistance Listing Number
84.327S. This notice relates to the approved information collection
under OMB control number 1820-0028.
DATES:
Applications Available: December 20, 2022.
Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: March 6, 2023.
Deadline for Intergovernmental Review: May 4, 2023.
Pre-Application Webinar Information: No later than December 27,
2022, the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) will post details
on pre-recorded informational webinars designed to provide technical
assistance (TA) to interested applicants. Links to the webinars may be
found at www2.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/osep/new-osep-grants.html.
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 December 7, 2022 (87 FR 75045) and available at
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/12/07/2022-26554/common-instructions-for-applicants-to-department-of-education-discretionary-grant-programs. Please note that these Common Instructions supersede
the version published on December 27, 2021.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anita Vermeer, U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 5076, Potomac Center Plaza,
Washington, DC 20202-5076. Telephone: (202) 987-0155. Email:
[email protected].
If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability and
wish to access telecommunications relay services, please dial 7-1-1.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Full Text of Announcement
I. Funding Opportunity Description
Purpose of Program: The purpose of the Educational Technology,
Media, and Materials for Individuals with Disabilities Program (ETechM2
Program) is to improve results for children with disabilities by (1)
promoting the development, demonstration, and use of technology; (2)
supporting educational activities designed to be of educational value
in the classroom for children with disabilities; (3) providing support
for captioning and video description that is appropriate for use in the
classroom; and (4) providing accessible educational materials to
children with disabilities in a timely manner.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Applicants should note that other laws, including the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.; 28
CFR part 35) and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as
amended (29 U.S.C. 794; 34 CFR part 104), may require that State
educational agencies (SEAs) and local educational agencies (LEAs)
provide captioning, video description, and other accessible
educational materials to students with disabilities when these
materials are necessary to provide equally integrated and equally
effective access to the benefits of the educational program or
activity, or as part of a ``free appropriate public education'' as
defined in 34 CFR 104.33.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Priorities: This competition includes one absolute priority and one
competitive preference priority. In accordance with 34 CFR
75.105(b)(2)(v), the absolute priority is from allowable activities
specified in sections 674(b)(2) and 681(d) of the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA); 20 U.S.C. 1474(b)(2) and 1481(d).
The competitive preference priority is from the Secretary's
Administrative Priorities for Discretionary Grant Programs published in
the Federal Register on March 9, 2020 (85 FR 13640) (Administrative
Priorities).
Absolute Priority: For FY 2023 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:
Supporting Early Childhood or K-12 Educators to Deliver Literacy
Instruction Based on the Science of Reading to English Learners (ELs)
with, and At Risk for, Disabilities.
Background: Between 2012 and 2020, the number of school-age
students with disabilities that were ELs in the U.S. grew by close to
30 percent.\2\ In the fall of 2019, there were 792,000 ELs identified
as students with disabilities, representing 15.5 percent of the total
national EL enrollment (U.S. Department of Education, 2020). Data has
consistently shown gaps in academic outcomes for ELs when compared to
their non-EL peers, particularly in reading (Mancilla-Martinez, 2020).
These gaps in reading outcomes are even more apparent for ELs with
disabilities. For example, a greater proportion of ELs with
disabilities (4th grade: 89 percent; 8th grade: 88 percent) scored
below the basic level on the 2022 National
[[Page 77816]]
Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) in reading, compared to all
students with disabilities who scored below the basic level (4th grade:
67 percent; 8th grade: 61 percent) or ELs without disabilities who
scored below the basic level (4th grade: 63 percent; 8th grade: 64
percent) (U.S. Department of Education, 2022). This reading achievement
gap for ELs has remained static for over a decade. Given EL reading
outcomes, providing supports to improve literacy skills is a pressing
educational necessity that will increase equity in educational
opportunity (Mancilla-Martinez, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Please see https://sites.ed.gov/idea/osep-fast-facts-students-with-disabilities-english-learners.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many educators report using some type of digital learning resource
or technologies to provide instruction on a daily or weekly basis to
ELs (U.S. Department of Education, 2019). Improving the capacity of
educators to use the most appropriate and effective technologies in
their delivery of literacy instruction that meet their students' needs
is important for improving literacy outcomes. Technology that provides
a range of support features (e.g., visual, auditory), in multiple
languages, is viewed by educators as critical for supporting ELs'
learning of content and building language and literacy skills.
Educators are also interested in how technologies can be used to
individualize and adapt literacy instruction based on the student's
individual needs while considering a student's level of English
language proficiency.
Technology alone cannot be effective without the necessary
professional learning and coaching to support educators on how to use
the technology appropriately and with fidelity. Professional learning
should focus on (1) how technology can improve literacy instruction;
(2) how to effectively use the technology; (3) supporting meaningful
collaborative learning opportunities with educators (e.g., EL teachers,
special education teachers, reading teachers, general education
teachers) and students; (4) aligning the technology enhanced
instruction with existing curricula, State standards, and school
initiatives; (5) promoting student motivation and engagement in
language learning; and (6) using effective engagement strategies to
improve parent/family-teacher partnerships in the use of technology to
improve literacy outcomes for ELs (e.g., recognizing multilingualism
and multiculturalism as an asset) (Grant et al., 2017).
Priority: The purpose of this priority is to fund three cooperative
agreements to establish and operate projects that achieve, at a
minimum, the following expected outcomes:
(a) Improved literacy instruction based on the science of reading
for ELs with, and at risk for, disabilities through proven strategies
that effectively integrate an existing accessible technology-based tool
or approach, that is based on at least promising evidence; \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 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: (a)
a practice guide prepared by the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC)
reporting a ``strong evidence base'' or ``moderate evidence base''
for the corresponding practice recommendation; (b) 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 (c) a single study assessed by
the Department, as appropriate, that 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 includes at least one statistically significant and positive
(i.e., favorable) effect on a relevant outcome. See 34 CFR 77.1 for
definitions of ``promising evidence,'' ``experimental study,''
``moderate evidence,'' ``quasi-experimental design study,''
``relevant outcome,'' and ``strong evidence.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) Increased educators' \4\ use and knowledge of technology to
deliver effective literacy instruction based on the science of reading
for ELs with, or at risk for, disabilities through professional
learning and coaching;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ For the purpose of this priority, ``educators'' include
teachers, early childhood providers, administrators,
paraprofessionals, and speech-language pathologists.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(c) Increased educator collaboration and professional learning
opportunities to use technology to improve literacy outcomes of ELs
with, and at risk for, disabilities and to engage families to support
their child's learning in the classroom and at home;
(d) Improved engagement in literacy instruction and self-regulated
learning opportunities leading to improved reading achievement for ELs
with, and at risk for, disabilities;
(e) Improved alignment of technology-enhanced instruction with
existing curricula, State standards, and school initiatives; and
(f) Improved parent/family-teacher partnerships to use technology
in improving literacy outcomes for ELs by using effective engagement
strategies (e.g., recognizing multilingualism and multiculturalism as
an asset).
To be considered for funding under this priority, in the
application, applicants must describe how they will--
(a) Build partnerships with early childhood programs or local
educational agencies (LEAs) to support educators in the understanding,
use, and delivery of a technology-based tool or approach \5\ to deliver
literacy instruction based on the science of reading for ELs with, and
at risk for, disabilities in pre-kindergarten (PK), elementary, middle,
or high school instructional settings;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ ``Technology-based tool or approach'' refers to the
technology the applicant is proposing that is supported, at a
minimum, by ``promising evidence'' with the population intended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Applicants may propose to support educators who serve ELs in
a single grade or in a specific range of ages or grades (e.g., PK-
kindergarten, grades 1-3, grades 4-6, middle, or high School).
(b) Increase the capacity of educators to effectively use and
deliver a technology-based tool or approach that supports literacy
development for ELs with, and at risk for, disabilities in PK,
elementary, middle, or high school instructional settings for
instruction and professional growth;
(c) Develop an implementation package of accessible products and
resources that will help educators and families to effectively use a
technology-based tool or approach to improve literacy outcomes; and
(d) Evaluate whether the technology-based tool or approach meets
the project goals and targeted outcomes.
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 address the need for a
technology-based tool or approach and identify specific gaps and
challenges, infrastructure, or opportunities to support educators'
development. To meet this requirement the applicant must--
(1) Identify a fully developed technology-based tool or approach
that is based on at least promising evidence;
(2) Identify how the technology-based tool or approach will improve
educators' pedagogy and their capacity to deliver literacy instruction
based on the science of reading for ELs with, and at risk for,
disabilities in PK, elementary, middle, or high school instructional
settings, including classrooms or remote learning environments;
(3) Present applicable national, State, regional, or local data
demonstrating the need for the identified technology-based tool or
approach to support ELs with,
[[Page 77817]]
and at risk for, disabilities in PK, elementary, middle, or high school
instructional settings, including classrooms or remote learning
environments;
(4) Identify current policies, procedures, and practices used by
educators that effectively incorporate technology-based tools or
approaches to support literacy outcomes for ELs with, and at risk for,
disabilities;
(5) Identify systemic barriers, gaps, or challenges, including
challenges to using the identified technology-based tool or approach;
and
(6) Describe the potential impact of the identified technology-
based tool or approach on educators, families, and ELs with, and at
risk for, disabilities.
(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, gender, age, or disability. To meet this requirement, the
applicant must describe how it will--
(i) Identify the needs of the intended recipients for ongoing
professional learning and coaching supports; and
(ii) Ensure that products and resources meet the needs of the
intended recipients of the grant;
(2) Achieve its goals, objectives, and intended outcomes. To meet
this requirement, the applicant must provide measurable intended
project outcomes;
(3) Be based on current research. To meet this requirement, the
applicant must--
(i) Describe how the proposed project will align with current
research, policies, and practices related to the benefits, services, or
opportunities that are available using the technology-based tool or
approach;
(ii) Describe how the proposed project will incorporate current and
evidence-based research and practices to guide the development and
delivery of its products and resources, including accessibility and
usability; and
(iii) Document that the technology tool used by the project is
fully developed, has been tested and shown to have promising evidence,
and addresses, at a minimum, the following principles of universal
design for learning (UDL):
(A) Multiple means of presentation so that information can be
delivered in more than one way (e.g., specialized software and
websites, screen readers that include features such as text-to-speech,
changeable color contrast, alterable text size, or selection of
different reading levels);
(B) Multiple means of expression that allow knowledge to be
exhibited through options (e.g., writing, online concept mapping, or
speech-to-text programs, where appropriate); and
(C) Multiple means of engagement to stimulate interest in and
motivation for learning (e.g., individual or group learning experiences
or activities, learner choice); and
(4) Develop new products and resources that are of high quality and
sufficient intensity and duration to achieve the intended outcomes of
the proposed project. To address this requirement, the applicant must--
(i) Provide a plan for recruiting and selecting sites with at least
10 percent concentration of ELs and where ELs with, and at risk for,
disabilities are served, which must include the following:
(A) Three development sites.\6\ Development sites are the sites in
which iterative development of the products and resources intended to
support the implementation of the technology-based tool or approach
will occur. The project must start implementing the technology tool
with one development site in year one of the project period and two
additional development sites in year two.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ For this priority, a ``site'' is a public school building or
an ``early childhood education program,'' as defined under the
Higher Education Act, within the local educational agency (LEA)
(Pub. L. 110-315, title VIII, section 801, Aug. 14, 2008, 122 Stat.
3398).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(B) Four pilot sites. Pilot sites are the sites in which try-out,
formative evaluation, and refinement of the products and resources will
occur. The project must work with the four pilot sites during years
three and four of the project period.
(C) Ten dissemination sites. Dissemination/scale-up sites will be
selected if the project is extended for a fifth year. Dissemination/
scale-up sites will be used to (1) refine the products for use by
educators and students, and (2) evaluate the performance of the
technology tool on educators' pedagogy and students' reading outcomes.
Dissemination/scale-up sites will receive less implementation support
from the project than development and pilot sites. Also, dissemination/
scale-up sites will extend the benefits of the technology tool to
additional students. To be selected as a dissemination/scale-up site,
eligible sites must commit to working with the project to implement the
technology tool or approach.
Note: The following website provides more information about
implementation research: https://nirn.fpg.unc.edu/national-implementation-research-network.
(D) A site may not serve in more than one category (i.e.,
development, pilot, dissemination/scale-up).
(E) Two of the seven development and pilot sites must have medium
concentrations of ELs (10-19 percent of total site enrollment), five of
the seven development and pilot sites must include high concentrations
of ELs (20 percent or more of total site enrollment). A minimum of
seven of the 10 dissemination/scale-up sites must be in districts with
a high concentration of ELs.
(ii) Provide a description of the expected student demographics and
other pertinent data (e.g., whether the settings are schools identified
for comprehensive or targeted support and improvement in accordance
with section 1111(c)(4)(C)(iii), (c)(4)(D), or (d)(2)(C)-(D) of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended) on the
sites the project proposes to target;
(iii) Provide a plan for dissemination, which must address how the
project will systematically distribute information, products, and
services to varied intended audiences, using a variety of dissemination
strategies, to promote awareness and use of the project's products and
resources that goes beyond conference presentations and research
articles;
(iv) Provide its plan for how the project will sustain project
activities that go beyond conference presentations and research
articles after funding ends; and
(v) Provide assurances that the final products disseminated to help
sites effectively implement the technology-based tool or approach will
be both open educational resources (OER) and licensed through an open
access licensing authority.
(c) In the narrative section of the application under ``Quality of
the project evaluation,'' include an evaluation plan for the project as
described in the following paragraphs. The evaluation plan must
describe measures of progress in implementation, including the criteria
for determining the extent to which the project's products and
resources have met the goals for reaching the project's target
population; measures of intended outcomes or results of the project's
activities to evaluate those activities; and how the project will
assess whether the goals or objectives of the proposed project, as
described in its logic model (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1), have been
met.
[[Page 77818]]
In designing the evaluation plan, the applicant must--
(1) Provide a logic model or conceptual framework that depicts, at
a minimum, the goals, activities, project evaluation, methods,
performance measures, outputs, and outcomes of the proposed project;
(2) Provide a plan to implement the activities described in this
priority;
(3) Provide a plan, linked to the proposed project's logic model or
conceptual framework, for a formative evaluation of the proposed
project's activities. The plan must describe how the formative
evaluation will use clear performance objectives to ensure continuous
improvement in the operation of the proposed project, including
objective measures of progress in implementing the project and ensuring
the quality of products and resources;
(4) Describe a plan or method for assessing--
(i) The development and pilot sites' current educator training use
and needs, any current technology investments, and the knowledge and
availability of dedicated on-site technology training personnel;
(ii) The readiness of development and pilot sites to pilot or try-
out the technology-based tool or approach, including, at a minimum,
their current infrastructure, available resources, and ability to build
capacity;
(iii) Whether the technology-based tool or approach has achieved
its intended outcomes for PK, elementary, middle, or high school
educators, families, and EL students with, and at risk for,
disabilities; and
(iv) The ongoing professional learning needs of educators to
implement with fidelity;
(5) Collect formative and summative data from the professional
learning to refine and evaluate the products;
(6) If the project is extended to a fifth year--
(i) Provide the implementation package of products and resources
developed for the technology-based tool or approach to no fewer than 10
additional school sites in year five; and
(ii) Collect summative data about the success of the project's
products and resources in supporting implementation of the technology-
based tool or approach for educators and families of ELs with, and at
risk for, disabilities; and
(7) By the end of the project period, provide--
(i) Information on the products and resources, as supported by the
project evaluation, including accessibility features, that will enable
other sites to implement and sustain implementation of the technology-
based tool or approach;
(ii) Information in the project's final performance report,
including implementation data on how intended users (e.g., educators,
families, and students) utilized the technology-based tool or approach,
how the technology-based tool or approach was implemented with
fidelity, and how effective the technology-based tool or approach was
in improving reading outcomes for ELs with, and at risk for,
disabilities;
(iii) Data on how the technology-based tool or approach changed
educators' practices; and
(iv) A plan for disseminating or scaling up the technology-based
tool or approach and accompanying products beyond the sites directly
involved in the project.
(d) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under
``Adequacy of resources and quality of project personnel,'' how--
(1) The proposed project will encourage 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, as appropriate;
(2) The proposed key project personnel, consultants, and
subcontractors have the qualifications and experience to carry out the
proposed activities and achieve the project's intended outcomes;
(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;
(3) The proposed management plan will ensure that the products and
resources 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, educators, researchers, and
policy makers, among others, in its development and operation.
(f) Address the following application requirements. The applicant
must include--
(1) In appendix A, personnel-loading charts and timelines, as
applicable, to illustrate the management plan described in the
narrative;
(2) In appendix A, the logic model or conceptual framework by which
the proposed project will develop project plans and activities and
achieve its intended outcomes. The logic model or conceptual framework
must include a description of any underlying concepts, assumptions,
expectations, beliefs, or theories, as well as the presumed
relationships or linkages among these variables, and any empirical
support for this framework and depict, at a minimum, the goals,
activities, outputs, and intended outcomes of the proposed project.
Note: The following websites provide more information on logic
models and conceptual frameworks: https://osepideasthatwork.org/sites/default/files/2021-12/ConceptualFramework_Updated.pdf and
www.osepideasthatwork.org/resources-grantees/program-areas/ta-ta/tad-project-logic-model-and-conceptual-framework; and
(3) 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 Office of Special Education
Programs (OSEP) project officer and other relevant staff during each
subsequent year of the project period.
Note: Within 30 days of receipt of the award, a post-award
teleconference must be held between the OSEP project officer and the
grantee's project director or other authorized representative.
(ii) A two and one-half-day project directors' conference in
Washington, DC, or virtually, during each year of the project period.
(iii) Two annual two-day trips, or virtually, to attend Department
briefings, Department-sponsored conferences, and other meetings, as
requested by OSEP.
(iv) A one-day intensive, virtual OSEP review meeting during the
last half of the second year of the project period.
[[Page 77819]]
Cohort Collaboration and Support
OSEP project officers will provide coordination support among the
projects. Each project funded under this priority must--
(a) Participate in monthly conference-call discussions to
collaborate on implementation and project issues; and
(b) Provide annual information to OSEP using a template that
captures descriptive data on project site selection and the processes
for implementation and use of the technology-based tool or approach.
Fifth Year of Project
The Secretary may extend a project one year beyond the initial 48
months to work with dissemination/scale-up sites if the grantee is
substantially achieving the intended outcomes of the project (as
demonstrated by data gathered as part of the project evaluation) and
making a positive contribution to the implementation of a technology-
based tool or approach based on at least promising evidence in the
development and pilot sites. Each applicant must include in its
application a plan for the full 60-month period. In deciding whether to
continue funding the project for the fifth year, the Secretary will
consider the requirements of 34 CFR 75.253(a), including--
(a) The recommendations of a review team consisting of the OSEP
project officer and other experts who have experience and knowledge in
technology implementation for personnel serving children with
disabilities. This review will be held during the last half of the
second year of the project period;
(b) The timeliness with which, and how well, the requirements of
the negotiated cooperative agreement have been or are being met by the
project; and
(c) The degree to which the project's activities have changed
practices and improved literacy outcomes for educators, and ELs with,
and at risk for, disabilities.
Under 34 CFR 75.253, the Secretary may reduce continuation awards
or discontinue awards in any year of the project period for excessive
carryover balances or a failure to make substantial progress. The
Department intends to closely monitor unobligated balances and
substantial progress under this program and may reduce or discontinue
funding accordingly.
Competitive Preference Priority: For FY 2023, this priority is a
competitive preference priority. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i), we award
an additional three points to an application that meets the competitive
preference priority. Applicants should indicate in the abstract if the
competitive preference priority is addressed and must address the
competitive preference priority in the narrative section.
This priority is:
Applications from New Potential Grantees (0 or 3 points).
(a) Under this priority, an applicant must demonstrate that the
applicant has not had an active discretionary grant under the 84.327S
program from which it seeks funds, including through membership in a
group application submitted in accordance with 34 CFR 75.127-75.129, in
the five years before the deadline date for submission of applications
under the program.
(b) For the purpose of this priority, a grant or contract is active
until the end of the grant's or contract's project or funding period,
including any extensions of those periods that extend the grantee's or
contractor's authority to obligate funds.
References
Grant, L., Bell, A.B., Yoo, M., Jimenez, C., & Frye, B. (2017).
Professional development for educators to promote literacy
development of English learners: Valuing home connections. Reading
Horizons: A Journal of Literacy and Language Arts, 56(4). https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/reading_horizons/vol56/iss4/2.
Mancilla-Martinez, J. (2020). Understanding and supporting literacy
development among English learners: A deep dive into the role of
language comprehension. AERA Open. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858420912198.
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education
Statistics. (2020). Condition of Education: English Language
Learners in Public Schools [Annual report]. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/cgf.
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education
Statistics. (2022). National assessment of educational progress
[Data file]. www.nationsreportcard.gov/ndecore/xplore/nde.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and
Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies Service. (2019).
Supporting English learners through technology: What districts and
teachers say about digital learning resources for English learners.
Volume I: Final Report. National Study of English Learners and
Digital Learning Resources. https://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/title-iii/180414.pdf.
Waiver of Proposed Rulemaking: Under the Administrative Procedure
Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553) the Department generally offers interested
parties the opportunity to comment on proposed priorities. Section
681(d) of IDEA, however, makes the public comment requirements of the
APA inapplicable to the absolute priority in this notice.
Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1474 and 1481.
Note: Projects will be awarded and must be operated in a manner
consistent with 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 Administrative Priorities.
Note: The regulations in 34 CFR part 79 apply to all applicants
except Federally recognized Indian Tribes.
Note: The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 apply to institutions of
higher education (IHEs) only.
II. Award Information
Type of Award: Cooperative agreements.
Estimated Available Funds: The Administration has requested
$29,547,000 for the ETechM2 Program for FY 2023, of which we intend to
use an estimated $1,500,000 for this competition. The actual level of
funding, if any, depends on final congressional action. However, we are
inviting applications to allow enough time to complete the grant
process if Congress appropriates funds for this program.
Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of
applications, we may make additional awards in FY 2023 from the list of
unfunded applications from this competition.
Estimated Range of Awards: $450,000 to $500,000 per year.
Estimated Average Size of Awards: $475,000 per year.
Maximum Award: We will not make an award exceeding $2,500,000 for
the 60-month project period.
Estimated Number of Awards: 3.
Note: The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.
Project Period: Up to 60 months.
III. Eligibility Information
1. Eligible Applicants: SEAs; LEAs, including public charter
schools that operate as LEAs under State law; IHEs;
[[Page 77820]]
other public agencies; private nonprofit organizations; freely
associated States and outlying areas; Indian Tribes or Tribal
organizations; and for-profit organizations.
2. a. Cost Sharing or Matching: This program 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.
4. Other General Requirements:
a. Recipients of funding under this competition must make positive
efforts to employ and advance in employment qualified individuals with
disabilities (see section 606 of IDEA).
b. Applicants for, and recipients of, funding must, with respect to
the aspects of their proposed project relating to the absolute
priority, involve individuals with disabilities, or parents of
individuals with disabilities ages birth through 26, in planning,
implementing, and evaluating the project (see section 682(a)(1)(A) of
IDEA).
IV. Application and Submission Information
1. Application Submission Instructions: Applicants are required to
follow the Common Instructions for Applicants to Department of
Education Discretionary Grant Programs, published in the Federal
Register on December 7, 2022 (87 FR 75045) and available at https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/12/07/2022-26554/common-instructions-for-applicants-to-department-of-education-discretionary-grant-programs, which contain requirements and information on how to
submit an application. Please note that these Common Instructions
supersede the version published on December 27, 2021.
2. Intergovernmental Review: This competition is subject to
Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79.
Information about Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs under
Executive Order 12372 is in the application package for this
competition.
3. Funding Restrictions: We reference regulations outlining funding
restrictions in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice.
4. Recommended Page Limit: The application narrative is where you,
the applicant, address the selection criteria that reviewers use to
evaluate your application. We recommend that you (1) limit the
application narrative to no more than 50 pages and (2) use the
following standards:
A ``page'' is 8.5'' x 11'', on one side only, with 1''
margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.
Double-space (no more than three lines per vertical inch)
all text in the application narrative, including titles, headings,
footnotes, quotations, reference citations, and captions, as well as
all text in charts, tables, figures, graphs, and screen shots.
Use a font that is 12 point or larger.
Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier,
Courier New, or Arial.
The recommended page limit does not apply to 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 (15 points).
(1) The Secretary considers the significance of the proposed
project.
(2) In determining the significance of the proposed project, the
Secretary considers the following factors:
(i) The significance of the problem or issue to be addressed by the
proposed project;
(ii) The 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;
(iii) The potential contribution of the proposed project to
increased knowledge or understanding of educational problems, issues,
or effective strategies; and
(iv) The potential replicability of the proposed project or
strategies, including, as appropriate, the potential for implementation
in a variety of settings.
(b) Quality of project services (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 members of groups that have
traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national
origin, gender, age, or disability.
(3) In addition, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(i) The extent to which the services to be provided by the proposed
project reflect up-to-date knowledge from research and effective
practice;
(ii) The extent to which the training or professional development
services to be provided by the proposed project are of sufficient
quality, intensity, and duration to lead to improvements in practice
among the recipients of those services;
(iii) The extent to which the services to be provided by the
proposed project involve the collaboration of appropriate partners for
maximizing the effectiveness of project services;
(iv) The extent to which the services to be provided by the
proposed project are appropriate to the needs of the intended
recipients or beneficiaries of those services; and
(v) The likely impact of the services to be provided by the
proposed project on the intended recipients of those services.
(c) Quality of the project 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 include the use
of objective performance measures that are
[[Page 77821]]
clearly related to the intended outcomes of the project and will
produce quantitative and qualitative data to the extent possible;
(iii) The extent to which the methods of evaluation provide for
examining the effectiveness of project implementation strategies;
(iv) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will provide
performance feedback and permit periodic assessment of progress toward
achieving intended outcomes; and
(v) The extent to which the evaluation plan clearly articulates the
key project components, mediators, and outcomes, as well as a
measurable threshold for acceptable implementation.
(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 key project personnel;
(ii) The qualifications, including relevant training and
experience, of project consultants or subcontractors;
(iii) The adequacy of support, including facilities, equipment,
supplies, and other resources, from the applicant organization or the
lead applicant organization;
(iv) The relevance and demonstrated commitment of each partner in
the proposed project to the implementation and success of the project;
and
(v) 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 (15 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) How the applicant will ensure that a diversity of
perspectives are brought to bear in the operation of the proposed
project, including those of parents, teachers, the business community,
a variety of disciplinary and professional fields, recipients or
beneficiaries of services, or others, as appropriate; and
(iv) The adequacy of procedures for ensuring feedback and
continuous improvement in the operation of the proposed project.
2. Review and Selection Process: We remind potential applicants
that in reviewing applications in any discretionary grant competition,
the Secretary may consider, under 34 CFR 75.217(d)(3), the past
performance of the applicant in carrying out a previous award, such as
the applicant's use of funds, achievement of project objectives, and
compliance with grant conditions. The Secretary may also consider
whether the applicant failed to submit a timely performance report or
submitted a report of unacceptable quality.
In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary
requires various assurances, including those applicable to Federal
civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or
activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department
(34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
3. Additional Review and Selection Process Factors: In the past,
the Department has had difficulty finding peer reviewers for certain
competitions because so many individuals who are eligible to serve as
peer reviewers have conflicts of interest. The standing panel
requirements under section 682(b) of IDEA also have placed additional
constraints on the availability of reviewers. Therefore, the Department
has determined that for some discretionary grant competitions,
applications may be separated into two or more groups and ranked and
selected for funding within specific groups. This procedure will make
it easier for the Department to find peer reviewers by ensuring that
greater numbers of individuals who are eligible to serve as reviewers
for any particular group of applicants will not have conflicts of
interest. It also will increase the quality, independence, and fairness
of the review process, while permitting panel members to review
applications under discretionary grant competitions for which they also
have submitted applications.
4. Risk Assessment and Specific Conditions: Consistent with 2 CFR
200.206, 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
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);
[[Page 77822]]
(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.
(c) Under 34 CFR 75.250(b), the Secretary may provide a grantee
with additional funding for data collection analysis and reporting. In
this case the Secretary establishes a data collection period.
5. Performance Measures: For the purposes of Department reporting
under 34 CFR 75.110, we have established a set of performance measures,
including long-term measures, that are designed to yield information on
various aspects of the effectiveness and quality of the ETechM2
Program. These measures are:
Program Performance Measure 1: The percentage of ETechM2
Program products and services judged to be of high quality by an
independent review panel of experts qualified to review the substantial
content of the products and services.
Program Performance Measure 2: The percentage of ETechM2
Program products and services judged to be of high relevance to
improving outcomes for infants, toddlers, children, and youth with
disabilities.
Program Performance Measure 3: The percentage of ETechM2
Program products and services judged to be useful in improving results
for infants, toddlers, children, and youth with disabilities.
Program Performance Measure 4.1: The Federal cost per unit
of accessible educational materials funded by the ETechM2 Program.
Program Performance Measure 4.2: The Federal cost per unit
of accessible educational materials from the National Instructional
Materials Access Center funded by the ETechM2 Program.
Program Performance Measure 4.3: The Federal cost per unit
of video description funded by the ETechM2 Program.
Program Performance Measures 1, 2, and 3 apply to projects funded
under this competition, and grantees are required to submit data on
Program Performance Measures 1, 2, and 3 as directed by OSEP.
Grantees will be required to report information on their project's
performance in annual performance reports and additional performance
data to the Department (34 CFR 75.590 and 75.591).
6. Continuation Awards: In making a continuation award under 34 CFR
75.253, the Secretary considers, among other things: whether a grantee
has made substantial progress in achieving the goals and objectives of
the project; whether the grantee has expended funds in a manner that is
consistent with its approved application and budget; and, if the
Secretary has established performance measurement requirements, 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 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.
[[Page 77823]]
Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can
limit your search to documents published by the Department.
Katherine Neas,
Deputy Assistant Secretary. Delegated the authority to perform the
functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for the Office of
Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.
[FR Doc. 2022-27486 Filed 12-19-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P