[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