[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 42 (Friday, March 1, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15187-15195]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-04316]


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

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) 2024 for 
Stepping-up Technology Implementation, Assistance Listing Number 
84.327S. This notice relates to the approved information collection 
under OMB control number 1820-0028.

[[Page 15188]]


DATES: 
    Applications Available: March 1, 2024.
    Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: April 30, 2024.
    Deadline for Intergovernmental Review: July 1, 2024.
    Pre-Application Webinar Information: No later than March 6, 2024, 
the Office of Special Education Programs and Rehabilitative Services 
will post details on pre-recorded informational webinars designed to 
provide technical assistance to interested applicants. Links to the 
webinars may be found at https://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 
www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/12/07/2022-26554/common-instructions-for-applicants-to-department-of-education-discretionary-grant-programs.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anita Vermeer, U.S. Department of 
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 4A10, Washington, DC 20202. 
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 2024 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:
    Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) \2\ to Meet Individual Needs of 
Students with Disabilities Through Learning and Assessment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The term ``artificial intelligence'' or ``AI'' has the 
meaning set forth in 15 U.S.C. 9401(3): a machine-based system that 
can, for a given set of human-defined objectives, make predictions, 
recommendations, or decisions influencing real or virtual 
environments. Artificial intelligence systems use machine- and 
human-based inputs to perceive real and virtual environments; 
abstract such perceptions into models through analysis in an 
automated manner; and use model inference to formulate options for 
information or action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background

    The evolution and recent developments in educational technology 
tools integrating AI have generated increased interest in the potential 
of AI to transform and support innovations in learning across 
educational settings for all learners, including learners with 
disabilities. As part of the Administration's comprehensive strategy 
related to responsible innovation afforded by AI, the Department (2023) 
released a report that summarizes the opportunities and risks for AI in 
teaching and learning. Such opportunities for using AI in educational 
technologies include promising innovations to improve student-educator 
interactions, address individual learner needs and leverage learner 
strengths, refine feedback loops that improve learner outcomes, and 
support educators by reducing administrative task burden and improving 
practices.
    Opportunities to leverage educational technology tools integrating 
AI to improve learning outcomes and advance equity have been noted for 
all learners (e.g., Chen et al., 2022; Huang et al., 2021; Zafari et 
al., 2022; U.S. Department of Education, 2023). Research indicates that 
these technologies hold promise in supporting individualized 
instruction and intervention and improving access in multiple areas, 
including communication, social, literacy, and mathematical skills 
(e.g., Barua et al., 2022; U.S. Department of Education, 2023). 
Therefore, it is critical that children with disabilities are provided 
appropriate levels of support in using existing and developing 
educational technologies integrating AI (e.g., Barua et al., 2022; 
Marino et al., 2023) to enhance learner outcomes.
    As educational technology tools that integrate AI continue to be 
developed and made available, factors that support their successful 
implementation in educational settings need to be considered. For 
example, evidence-based intelligent tutoring systems have demonstrated 
positive outcomes for learners, but additional research is needed on 
how to effectively implement such systems in different settings (e.g., 
Phillips et al., 2020), including how best to support children with 
disabilities.
    The role of the educator in implementing these technologies to 
complement ongoing instruction and intervention is critical in 
supporting children with disabilities (e.g., U.S. Department of 
Education, 2023). Several key factors that facilitate or limit 
successful implementation of educational technology tools in 
educational settings have been noted, including buy-in by and 
sustainability with users, alignment with existing priorities, 
development of materials to support fidelity of implementation, how the 
data are used, technology infrastructure, and data security (e.g., 
Evmenova et al., 2023; U.S. Department of Education, 2023).

Priority

    The purpose of this priority is to fund four cooperative agreements 
to establish and operate projects that achieve, at a minimum, the 
following expected outcomes:
    (a) Improved student outcomes using an evidence-based technology-
based tool or approach \3\ that integrates AI;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ For the purposes of this priority, projects must meet at 
least the definition of ``promising evidence,'' which 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 ``project component,'' 
``promising evidence,'' ``experimental study,'' ``moderate 
evidence,'' ``quasi-experimental design study,'' ``relevant 
outcome,'' and ``strong evidence.''

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

[[Page 15189]]

    (b) Improved educator \4\ use and knowledge of an evidence-based 
technology-based tool or approach using AI to deliver effective 
instruction to students with disabilities;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ For the purpose of this priority, ``educators'' include 
teachers, early childhood providers, administrators, 
paraprofessionals, and other providers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (c) Improved educator collaboration and professional learning 
opportunities focusing on improving outcomes for student with 
disabilities using an evidence-based technology-based tool or approach 
using AI;
    (d) Improved educator and family engagement regarding the use of an 
evidence-based technology-based tool or approach using AI to support 
student learning; and
    (e) Sustained use of the evidence-based technology-based tool or 
approach using AI by aligning its use with existing instructional 
priorities and initiatives.
    To be considered for funding under this priority, in the 
application, applicants must describe the--
    (a) Evidence-based technology-based tool or approach that is ready 
to use at the time of the application submission. If the AI component 
is not yet completed, describe how this will be integrated within the 
first year and how it will enhance the current developed technology-
based tool or approach;
    (b) Outcomes of students with disabilities that will be improved by 
implementing the technology-based tool or approach using AI;
    (c) Approach to increase educators' use and knowledge of the 
technology-based tool or approach using AI to improve the outcomes of 
students with disabilities in an instructional setting; \5\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ For the purposes of this priority, an instructional setting 
can be an environment that is regulated by the public school or an 
``early childhood education program,'' as defined under the Higher 
Education Act of 1965, as amended, within the local educational 
agency (LEA) (Pub. L. 110-315, title VIII, section 801, Aug. 14, 
2008, 122 Stat. 3398).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (d) Fully accessible products and resources that will help 
educators and families to effectively use and implement the technology-
based tool or approach using AI (See for example, NIST AI Risk 
Management Framework--https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/ai/NIST.AI.100-1.pdf-for information on managing risks across the AI lifecycle).
    Note: Grantees may, but are not required to, use up to the first 12 
months of the performance period and up to $200,000 of funds awarded in 
the first budget period for project development activities, including 
technology enhancement, prior to implementing the tool or approach in 
instructional settings. If an applicant proposes to use the first year 
for project development activities, then the applicant must provide 
sufficient justification, including the goals, objectives, and intended 
outcomes at the end of year one.
    In addition to these programmatic requirements and application 
requirements, to be considered for funding under this priority, 
applicants must also meet the following application and administrative 
requirements:
    (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 that integrates AI. To meet this 
requirement applicants must--
    (1) Verify that the developed technology-based tool or approach and 
core components of the intervention are based on at least promising 
evidence;
    (2) Describe how AI will be used with the identified technology-
based tool or approach and describe the potential to improve student 
outcomes;
    (3) Describe the current impact and reach of the technology-based 
tool or approach that is currently developed and include the population 
of users and, if the applicant has received any Federal funding within 
the last three years related to this technology-based tool or approach, 
describe how the funding impacted the reach and current use;
    (4) Identify how the technology-based tool or approach using AI 
will improve educators' pedagogy and their capacity to deliver 
effective instruction for students with disabilities in PK-12 
instructional settings;
    (5) Identify how the technology-based tool or approach using AI 
will improve parent/family engagement/partnership to support student 
learning;
    (6) Present applicable national, State, regional, or local data 
demonstrating the need for the identified technology-based tool or 
approach using AI to enhance the outcomes for students with 
disabilities;
    (7) Identify how the proposed technology-based tool or approach 
using AI aligns with current policies, procedures, and practices used 
by educators to enhance the outcomes for students with disabilities; 
and
    (8) Identify systemic barriers, gaps, or challenges, including 
challenges to using the identified technology-based tool or approach 
using AI.
    (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 target population, including students with 
disabilities and their educators, that the applicant will service, the 
need that population has for the technology-based tool or approach, and 
the intended recipients for ongoing professional learning and coaching 
support; and
    (ii) Ensure that the products and resources meet the needs of the 
intended recipients of this grant;
    (2) Utilize a design process for the implementation approach that 
promotes sustainability of the technology-based tool or approach using 
AI beyond the life of the project;
    (3) Achieve its goals, objectives, and intended outcomes. To meet 
this requirement, the applicant must provide measurable intended 
project outcomes;
    (4) 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, including research and practices 
relating to accessibility and usability, to guide the development and 
delivery of its products and resources; and
    (iii) Document that the technology-based tool or approach to be 
used by the proposed project is developed, has been tested and shown to 
have promising evidence, and addresses, at a minimum,

[[Page 15190]]

the following principles of universal design for learning:
    (A) Multiple means of representation so that information can be 
delivered in more than one way (e.g., specialized software and 
websites, customizing display for visual or physical modalities);
    (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
    (5) Develop and implement 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 from a 
variety of instructional settings that include the targeted population 
including students with disabilities, which must include the following:
    (A) Two product and resource development sites.\6\ Applicants must 
describe at least two proposed product and resource development sites, 
where the project would conduct iterative development of the products 
and resources intended to support the implementation of the technology-
based tool or approach and produce, by the end of year two, preliminary 
feasibility and useability data. Applicants must include a letter in 
Appendix A from at least one site that indicates agreement to serve as 
a product and resource development site, at a minimum, in year one of 
the project.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 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) Three pilot sites. Pilot sites are the sites in which ongoing 
refinement of the developed products and resources, and the continued 
collection of feasibility and usability data, will occur. Applicants 
must describe how they would work with a minimum of three pilot sites 
no later than year three of the project, where the project would 
continue to refine the developed products and resources; collect 
feasibility and usability data; and demonstrate that the educational 
technology-based tool or approach using AI is producing the intended 
outcome(s) for students with disabilities.
    (C) Five dissemination sites. Applicants must describe how they 
would work with a minimum of five dissemination sites, where the 
project would complete its activities, by year four of the project 
period, to (1) refine the products for use by educators and students, 
and (2) evaluate the performance of the technology-based tool or 
approach using AI on educators' pedagogy and students' outcomes. 
Dissemination sites would receive less implementation support from the 
project than development and pilot sites.
    Note: A site may not serve in more than one category (i.e., 
development, pilot, dissemination);
    (ii) Describe how the project will incorporate components from 
implementation science \7\ to select sites for continued use of the 
technology-based tool or approach using AI and support and sustain such 
continued use at the selected site;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The following website provides more information about 
implementation research: https://nirn.fpg.unc.edu/national-implementation-research-network.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (iii) Provide a plan to systematically disseminate information 
about the technology-based tool or approach using AI to varied 
audiences throughout the project period. To address this requirement 
the applicant must describe--
    (A) The variety of dissemination strategies the project will use 
throughout the five years of the project to promote awareness and use 
of its technology-based tool or approach using AI;
    (B) How the project will tailor dissemination strategies across all 
years of technology refinements and to ensure that, by the end of year 
two, the technology-based tool or approach can be accessed by, is 
reaching, and is used by intended recipients;
    (C) Dissemination efforts that will go beyond conference 
presentations and articles and reach intended audiences to support 
implementation and scale up and increase the use of the technology-
based tool or approach using AI by intended users;
    (D) How the project's dissemination plan is connected to the 
proposed outcomes of the project; and
    (E) How the project will ensure that all digital products and all 
external communications are routinely evaluated for and, if necessary, 
remediated to meet or exceed government or industry-recognized 
standards for accessibility; and
    (iv) Provide assurances that all products or tools developed with 
project funds will be open educational resources.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ For additional information on the open licensing 
requirements please refer to 2 CFR 3474.20 and this resource https://oese.ed.gov/files/2022/06/Open-Licensing-Requirement-Quick-Guide.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (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. In designing the evaluation 
plan, the applicant must--
    (1) Provide a logic model (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1) or conceptual 
framework that depicts, at a minimum, the goals, activities, project 
evaluation, methods, performance measures, outputs, and intended 
outcomes of the proposed project;
    (2) 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;
    (3) Describe a plan or method for assessing--
    (i) The development and pilot sites' educator training use and 
needs and the knowledge and availability of dedicated on-site 
technology training personnel;
    (ii) The readiness of pilot sites to pilot or try-out the 
technology-based tool or approach using AI, including, at a minimum, 
their current infrastructure, technology or instructional alignment, 
available resources, and ability to build capacity;
    (iii) Whether the technology-based tool or approach using AI has 
achieved its intended outcomes; and
    (iv) The ongoing professional learning needs of educators to 
implement with fidelity;
    (4) Describe a plan to collect formative and summative data from 
the professional learning to refine and evaluate the products and 
resources;
    (5) Describe a plan or method for assessing whether dissemination 
efforts are increasing the knowledge and use by the intended users of 
the technology-based tool or approach using AI and the developed 
products and resources;
    (6) Describe a plan to collect summative data to report on the 
quality, relevance, usefulness, and efficacy of the technology-based 
tool or approach using AI and its products and resources; and

[[Page 15191]]

    (7) Provide an assurance that, by the end of the project period, 
the project will provide--
    (i) Information supported by the project evaluation on the products 
and resources, including accessibility features, that will enable other 
sites to implement and sustain implementation of the technology-based 
tool or approach using AI;
    (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 
using AI; how the technology-based tool or approach was implemented 
with fidelity; and the effectiveness of the technology-based tool or 
approach using AI in improving outcomes for students with disabilities;
    (iii) Data on how the technology-based tool or approach using AI 
changed educators' practices; and
    (iv) A plan for continuing to disseminate or scale up the 
technology-based tool or approach using AI 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 the--
    (1) Proposed project will encourage applications for employment and 
project activity opportunities 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) 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 and how the 
proposed project team will include qualified experts on topics such as 
technology, education theory, practice, research methods, and scale-up 
or commercialization to support sustainability and dissemination;
    (3) Applicant and any key partners have adequate resources to carry 
out the proposed activities; and
    (4) 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; and
    Note: The following websites provide more information on logic 
models and conceptual frameworks: https://osepideasthatwork.org/sites/default/files/2021-12/ConceptualFramework_Updated.pdf;www.osepideasthatwork.org/resources-grantees/program-areas/ta-ta/tad-project-logic-model-and-conceptual-framework; https://www2.ed.gov/fund/grant/about/discretionary/2023-non-regulatory-guidance-evidence.pdf; and http://ies.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=REL2015057.
    (3) In the budget, attendance at the following:
    (i) A one-day kick-off meeting in Washington, DC, after receipt of 
the award, and an annual planning meeting in Washington, DC, 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 three-day project directors' conference in Washington, DC, 
during each year of the project period.
    (iii) One annual trip, to attend Department briefings, Department-
sponsored conferences, and other meetings, as requested by OSEP.

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.
    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 2024, 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
Barua, P. D., Vicnesh, J., Gururajan, R., Oh,

[[Page 15192]]

S. L., Palmer, E., Azizan, M. M., Kadri, N. A., & Acharya, U. R. 
(2022). Artificial intelligence enabled personalised assistive tools 
to enhance education of children with neurodevelopmental disorders--
A review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public 
Health, 19(3), 1192-1217. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19031192.
Chen, X., Zou, D., Xie, H., Cheng, G., & Liu, C. (2022). Two decades 
of artificial intelligence in education: Contributors, 
collaborations, research topics, challenges, and future directions. 
Educational Technology & Society, 25(1), 28-47. www.jstor.org/stable/48647028.
Evmenova, A. S., Regan, K. S., Schladant, M., Hall, T. E., Buzhardt, 
J., Erickson, K. A., Ai, J., Sudduth, C., & Jackson, T. (2023). 
Stepping-up technology implementation--How does it happen? Journal 
of Special Education Technology, 38(1), 61-74. https://doi.org/10.1177/01626434221074357.
Huang, J., Salah, S., & Liu, Y. (2021). A review on artificial 
intelligence in education. Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary 
Studies, 10(3), 206-217. https://doi.org/10.36941/ajis-2021-0077.
Marino, M. T., Vasquez, E., Dieker, L., Basham, J., & Blackorby, J. 
(2023). The future of artificial intelligence in special education 
technology. Journal of Special Education Technology, 38(3), 404-416. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/01626434231165977.
Phillips, A., Pane, J. F., Reumann-Moore, R., & Shenbanjo, O. 
(2020). Implementing an adaptive intelligent tutoring system as an 
instructional supplement. Educational Technology Research and 
Development, 68, 1409-1437. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09745-w.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology. 
(2023). Artificial intelligence and future of teaching and learning: 
Insights and recommendations. https://tech.ed.gov/ai-future-of-teaching-and-learning.
Zafari, M., Bazargani, J. S., Sadeghi-Niaraki, A. & Choi, S. M. 
(2022). Artificial intelligence applications in K-12 education: A 
systematic literature review. IEEE Access, 10, 61905-61921. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3179356.

    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 
$41,433,000 for the ETechM2 Program for FY 2024, 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 2025 from the list of 
unfunded applications from this competition.
    Estimated Range of Awards: $350,000 to $375,000 per year.
    Estimated Average Size of Awards: $375,000 per year.
    Maximum Award: We will not make an award exceeding $375,000 for a 
single budget period of 12 months.
    Estimated Number of Awards: 4.
    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; 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: Under 34 CFR 75.708(b) and (c), a grantee under 
this competition may award subgrants--to directly carry out project 
activities described in its application--to the following types of 
entities: IHEs, nonprofit organizations suitable to carry out the 
activities proposed in the application, and other public agencies. The 
grantee may award subgrants to entities it has identified in an 
approved application or that it selects through a competition under 
procedures established by the grantee, consistent with 34 CFR 
75.708(b)(2).
    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 
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.
    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.

[[Page 15193]]

    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 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

[[Page 15194]]

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);
    (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. 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

[[Page 15195]]

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. Specifically, through the advanced search 
feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published 
by the Department.

Glenna Wright-Gallo,
Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.
[FR Doc. 2024-04316 Filed 2-29-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P