[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 216 (Wednesday, November 12, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50861-50869]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-19843]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Applications for New Awards; Fund for the Improvement of
Postsecondary Education--Special Projects (FIPSE--SP)
AGENCY: Office of Postsecondary Education, Department of Education.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Education (Department) is issuing a notice
inviting applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2025 for the
Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education Special Projects,
Assistance Listing Number 84.116J. This notice relates to the approved
information collection under OMB control number 1894-0006.
DATES:
Applications Available: November 12, 2025.
Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: December 3, 2025.
Deadline for Intergovernmental Review: December 12, 2025.
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 August 29, 2025 (90 FR 42234), and available at
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/08/29/2025-16571/common-instructions-and-information-for-applicants-to-department-of-education-discretionary-grant.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stacey Slijepcevic, U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW. Telephone: (202) 453-6150. 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 FIPSE Special Projects Program provides
grants to institutions of higher education (IHEs), combinations of such
institutions, and other public and private nonprofit institutions and
agencies, as the Secretary deems necessary, to support innovative
projects concerning one or more areas of national need identified by
the Secretary. This competition focuses on supporting four areas of
national need--(1) advancing the understanding of and use of Artificial
Intelligence (AI) technology in postsecondary education, (2) promoting
civil discourse on college and university campuses, (3) promoting
accreditation reform, and (4) supporting capacity-building for high-
quality short-term programs.
In order to support these four crucial needs, this competition
includes seven absolute priorities under which
[[Page 50862]]
applicants can apply: two priorities dedicated to advancing the
understanding and use of AI in postsecondary education (Absolute
Priorities 1 and 2), one priority dedicated to promoting civil
discourse on college and university campuses (Absolute Priority 3), two
priorities within promoting accreditation reform (Absolute Priorities 4
and 5), and two priorities for capacity-building for high-quality
short-term programs (Absolute Priorities 6 and 7). The Department
intends to award $50 million to advance AI in Education, $60 million to
promote civil discourse on college and university campuses, $7 million
to support accreditation reform, and $50 million for high-quality
short-term programs. The Department may adjust these estimates based on
interest and quality of applications.
Background: Section 744 of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as
amended (HEA), authorizes the Secretary to make grants to institutions
of higher education, or consortia thereof, and such other public
agencies and nonprofit organizations as the Secretary deems necessary
for innovative projects concerning one or more areas of particular
national need identified by the Secretary. Section 744(c) identifies a
list of minimum areas of national need, and this is the first
competition under section 744(c)(2) as revised by Higher Education
Opportunity Act of 2008 (HEOA). In order to ensure timely grant awards,
the Secretary has decided to forgo public comment on the priorities in
accordance with section 437(d)(1) of the General Education Provisions
Act (GEPA).
Advancing the Understanding and Use of AI in Postsecondary
Education: President Trump's Executive Order Removing Barriers to
American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence, Executive Order 14179
(Jan. 23, 2025), says ``[w]ith the right Government policies, we can
solidify our position as the global leader in AI and secure a brighter
future for all Americans.'' In July 2025, the Department took steps to
support American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence by publishing
the Proposed Priority and Definitions on Advancing Artificial
Intelligence in Education (90 FR 34203). As noted in this Notice of
Proposed Priority, ``[AI] is rapidly reshaping the future of education,
work, learning, and daily life. As AI becomes more integrated into the
tools and systems that shape elementary, secondary, and postsecondary
education, it is increasingly important for students to develop AI
literacy. A strong foundation in AI literacy will help ensure students
are prepared to navigate and contribute to a society where these
technologies play a growing role in decision-making, communication,
innovation, and career readiness.'' In alignment with Executive Order
14179 and in recognition of the potential for AI to improve
postsecondary teaching and learning, the Secretary has identified using
artificial intelligence to support opportunities in postsecondary
education as a particular area of national need. Additionally,
President Trump's Executive Order Advancing Artificial Intelligence
Education for American Youth, Executive Order 14277 (Apr. 23, 2025),
highlights the role postsecondary education can play by better
preparing future and current teachers to teach and use AI, noting that
``[b]y establishing a strong framework that integrates early student
exposure with comprehensive teacher training and other resources for
workforce development, we can ensure that every American has the
opportunity to learn about AI from the earliest stages of their
educational journey through postsecondary education, fostering a
culture of innovation and critical thinking that will solidify our
Nation's leadership in the AI-driven future.''
Promoting Civil Discourse on College and University Campuses:
Protesters have increasingly exercised disruptive tactics, including
shouting down speakers (the heckler's veto) and blocking access to
campus events, on our Nation's college and university campuses. Civil
discourse at America's colleges and universities has been undermined by
campus takeovers, violent riots, and even a recent high-profile
political assassination. The core mission of our educational
institutions--the pursuit of truth--requires that individuals be able
to state their views freely and fully, without fear. It requires that
students and faculty accept that people will inevitably disagree on
controversial issues of the utmost importance and complexity. Pursuing
truth requires the recognition that students and faculty benefit from
engaging with those who disagree with us with honesty, dignity, and
respect. This priority supports projects that are designed to promote
civil discourse on college and university campuses through activities
such as seminars, speaker series, conferences, debates, workshop
training events, visiting professorships and other focused learning
opportunities that include and promote a range of views and embrace
dialogue and understanding. For students to have access to the best
learning opportunities, learning environments must welcome and engage
viewpoint diversity in a manner that values thoughtful debate and
freedom of speech. This funding will provide an opportunity to support
the cultivation of such environments on college and university campuses
nationwide. The competitive preference priorities within this Absolute
Priority are based on the Department's position that guidance and
coordination from independent and interdisciplinary academic units
dedicated to promoting civic thought have the potential to increase the
effectiveness of these initiatives.
Promoting Accreditation Reform: Institutions of higher education
must be accredited to receive title IV funding under the HEA, such as
federal student loans and Pell Grants. The current accreditation
process, both institutional and programmatic/specialized, is
unnecessarily costly for colleges and universities, typically requiring
tens of thousands of personnel hours and hundreds of thousands of
dollars each year, expenses that are ultimately borne by students. For
example, two universities classified as having very high research
activity reported FY 2024 accreditation compliance costs of $12 million
and $27 million, respectively.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Vanderbilt University & Washington University in St. Louis,
(2025). ``Easing the Burden: A Framework for Federal Regulatory
Reform in Higher Education.'' White Paper. https://wustl.app.box.com/s/4rdzgs0lecy3tmfdedcx48q1jqd62poh.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to being costly and burdensome, the accreditation
process in many cases does not improve institutional or program
quality. Oftentimes, institutions are required to jump through an
extensive set of bureaucratic hoops that have little to do with
improving student outcomes or educational quality.\2\ Many institutions
and members of the public view the accreditation process as primarily a
compliance exercise, rather than one focused on enhancing student
outcomes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Woolston, P.J., (2012). The costs of institutional
accreditation: A study of direct and indirect costs. Doctoral
Dissertation. https://www.proquest.com/docview/1152182950?fromopenview=true&pq-origsite=gscholar&sourcetype=Dissertations%20&%20Theses.
\2\ Burke, L., Kissel, A. Alacbay, A., & Beltramini, K., (2023).
It's Time for Congress to Dismantle the Higher Education
Accreditation Cartel. Washington, DC: The Heritage Foundation.
https://www.heritage.org/education/report/its-time-congress-dismantle-the-higher-education-accreditation-cartel.
\2\ Senate HELP Committee, (2015). Higher Education
Accreditation Concepts and Proposals. https://www.help.senate.gov/imo/media/Accreditation.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although institutions are permitted to change their accrediting
agency under 34 CFR 600.11, the substantial financial
[[Page 50863]]
burden, logistical hurdles, and heightened scrutiny involved often
discourage them from do so, even when a different accreditor may better
align with the institution's needs.\3\ The cost of accreditation itself
is significant, encompassing staffing costs (administrator and faculty
salaries and benefits), document preparation costs (professional
service fees, printing, and mailing), compliance costs (meeting
accreditation standards), site visits (travel, lodging, and related
expenses), and direct accreditation fees (membership charges). Changing
accrediting agencies often entails maintaining dual accreditation
expenses for a considerable period, as institutions generally cannot
allow accreditation to lapse without risking critical benefits,
including eligibility for Federal financial aid and professional
licensure pathways.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ In May 2025, the Department issued a Dear Colleague Letter
eliminating unnecessary barriers for institutions seeking to change
their accreditor. https://fsapartners.ed.gov/knowledge-center/library/dear-colleague-letters/2025-04-30/changes-approval-process-changing-accrediting-agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
States and nonprofit organizations also incur substantial costs in
launching new, separate and independent accreditors. These burdens
inhibit new accreditors from entering the marketplace efficiently.
Recent reporting suggests that the ongoing work in North Carolina and
Florida to establish a new accrediting agency has been a costly
enterprise, which could deter other entities from launching similar
reform initiatives.\4\ A lack of accreditor options hampers innovation
in the higher education marketplace that could improve student
outcomes, increase return on investment to families and taxpayers, and
improve institutional accountability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Moody, J., (2023). Florida's Accreditation Shuffle Begins.
InsideHigherEd. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/governance/accreditation/2023/08/30/flas-accreditation-shuffle-begins-one-college-gets-us.
\4\ Gretzinger, E., (2025). How UNC Led a First-of-Its-Kind Plan
to Shake Up College Accreditation. The Chronicle of Higher
Education. https://www.chronicle.com/article/how-unc-led-a-first-of-its-kind-plan-to-shake-up-college-accreditation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Collectively, these enumerated challenges make it difficult for
institutions to change accreditors, either because the costs are
prohibitive or there is a lack of alternatives. This funding
opportunity will support institutions seeking to change accreditors, as
well as emerging organizations working to become recognized accrediting
agencies.
Capacity-Building for High-Quality Short-Term Programs: Not all
workers need a traditional college degree to succeed in today's
economy. Rather, many individuals are best served by high-value, short-
term postsecondary programs closely aligned to workforce demand. These
programs--which include micro-credentials, and workforce certificates--
can quickly provide individuals with the skillsets they need to pursue
new and expanded career opportunities or advance through a Registered
Apprenticeship program.
However, short-term programs can be costly for colleges to create
and administer, particularly given the need to codesign short-term
postsecondary programs with employers. These costs may prevent higher
education institutions from offering, creating, or expanding the size
of existing short-term programs. To address these issues, this
competitive grant program will provide funding to institutions of
higher education to expand their capacity to offer high-value, short-
term postsecondary programs.
In July 2025, the President's One Big Beautiful Bill Act, Public
Law 119-21, established Workforce Pell Grants, a new program to help
students pay for high-quality, short-term programs. For the award year
beginning on July 1, 2026, eligible students enrolled in accredited
programs at accredited postsecondary institutions that are a minimum of
8 weeks but less than 15 weeks; that are aligned to high-skill, high-
wage, or in-demand industry sectors or occupations; that are portable
and articulable to credit to support stackability and have strong
completion rates, job placement rates, and earnings outcomes will
receive Federal title IV grant funding. The Workforce Pell Grants
program is designed to help support students gain immediate entry into
the workforce. Yet, despite this new funding stream, some students may
not be able to access high-quality, short-term programs that qualify
for Workforce Pell Grants because of a lack of program supply. Colleges
and universities, especially those with limited resources, may struggle
to offer high-quality, short-term programs at the scale that students
demand, and even when they do, strict class-size caps can restrict
enrollment. Developing and expanding Workforce Pell-eligible high-
quality, short-term programs can be costly for institutions, as it
often requires hiring additional faculty and staff as well and
investing in machinery, technology, production supplies, and equipment.
These costs are especially high in advanced manufacturing, healthcare,
and engineering fields, where programs usually require expensive
equipment that are not easily scalable. Additionally, institutions
often dedicate time and resources to develop and maintain close
partnerships with employers and industry organizations in order to
ensure the programs are aligned with the hiring requirements of
businesses and keep pace with the evolving skill demands of industry.
As a result, many students who want to enroll in a short-term program
may not have a nearby institution offering an eligible option.
To address these challenges, this funding opportunity will allow
institutions to develop and expand high-quality, short-term programs.
These funds can be utilized on activities that are directly related to
developing or modifying high-quality, short-term programs that meet the
requirements for Workforce Pell Grants outlined in the One Big
Beautiful Bill Act, as well as building capacity in existing short-term
programs. Projects must be designed and executed in close collaboration
with employers, to ensure that the resulting programs are responsive to
industry demand.
Priorities: This notice contains seven absolute priorities across
the four areas of national need established by the Secretary within
this notice and two competitive preference priorities, in accordance
with 34 CFR 75.105(b)(2)(vi). We are establishing these priorities for
the fiscal year 2025 grant competition and any subsequent year in which
we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this
competition, in accordance with section 437(d)(1) of GEPA, 20 U.S.C.
1232(d)(1).
Absolute Priorities: For FY 2025 and any subsequent year in which
we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this
competition, these priorities are absolute priorities. Under 34 CFR
75.105(c)(3), we consider only applications that meet one of these
priorities.
These priorities are:
Absolute Priority 1: Advancing Artificial Intelligence to Improve
Educational Outcomes of Postsecondary Students.
Priority: Projects or proposals to improve academic instruction and
student learning, including efforts designed to assess the learning
gains made by postsecondary students (section 744(c)(2)) of the HEA),
through one or more of the following:
(a) Supporting the integration of AI literacy skills and concepts
into teaching and learning practices to improve educational outcomes
for students, including instruction about how to use AI responsibly,
and how to detect AI generated disinformation or misinformation online;
and
(b) Partnering with State Educational Agencies (SEAs) or Local
Educational
[[Page 50864]]
Agencies (LEAs) to do one or more of the following:
(i) use AI technology to provide high-quality instructional
resources, high-impact tutoring, and college and career pathway
exploration, advising, and navigation to improve educational outcomes.
(ii) integrate AI-driven tools into classrooms to personalize
learning, improve student outcomes, and support differentiated
instruction. This integration may include, but is not limited to,
adaptive learning technologies, virtual teaching assistants, tutoring,
and data analytics tools to support student progress.
(iii) utilize AI in the classroom and/or for school operation
efficiency, including but not limited to: improving teacher training
and evaluation, reducing time-intensive administrative tasks, or
improving instruction or services for students with disabilities.
Absolute Priority 2: Ensuring Future Educators and Students Have
Foundational Exposure to AI and Computer Science.
Priority: Projects or proposals to leverage AI to improve teacher
preparation by doing one or more of the following:
(a) Deliver AI and computer science credentials in rural
communities;
(b) Embed AI and computer science into an institution of higher
education's general preservice or in-service teacher professional
development or teacher preparation programs;
(c) Provide additional support for teacher preparation programs
that are preparing future computer science educators in K-12 education;
(d) Expand offerings of AI and computer science courses as part of
an institution of higher education's general education and/or core
curriculum;
(e) Provide resources and support for the use of AI in teacher
preparation programs;
(f) Partner with SEAs and/or LEAs to provide resources to K-12
students in foundational computer science and AI literacy, including
through professional development for educators; and
(g) Partner with SEAs and/or LEAs to encourage the provision of
dual-enrollment course opportunities so that students can earn
postsecondary credentials and industry-recognized credentials in AI
coursework concurrent with their high school education.
Absolute Priority 3: Promoting Civil Discourse on College and
University Campuses.
Priority: Projects that are designed to promote civil discourse on
college and university campuses through activities such as seminars,
speaker series, conferences, debates, workshops training events, and
other focused learning opportunities that include a range of views and
embrace dialogue and understanding. These projects may include visiting
faculty specifically supporting the development and delivery of these
activities and contributing to the viewpoint diversity of the broader
campus intellectual environment.
Competitive Preference Priorities: Within this absolute priority,
we give competitive preference to applications that address the
following priorities. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i), we award an
additional ten points to an application that meets each of these
priorities.
Competitive Preference Priority 1: Civic Institutes at Institutions
of Higher Education. (0 or 10 points).
Priority: Projects implemented by, or in partnership with,
institutions of higher education that have established independent
academic units dedicated to civic thought, constitutional studies,
American history, and economic liberty. These institutes should
demonstrate a sustained commitment to robust civil discourse, the
liberal arts, and the study of American history and politics through
primary documents.
Competitive Preference Priority 2: Non-IHE Nonprofit Organizations
That Educate Students to Promote Freedom and Engage in Civil Discourse.
(0 or 10 points).
Priority: Projects implemented by, or in partnership with, private
nonprofit organizations that do not meet the HEA definition of an
institution of higher education and that educate students to promote
freedom and engage in civil discourse. These entities must demonstrate
experience working with higher education institutions on matters of
civil discourse.
Absolute Priority 4: Supporting Institutions in Changing
Accrediting Agencies.
Priority: Activities that directly support college and university
efforts to change their current accrediting agency. These activities
may include, but are not limited to, staffing costs necessary to
support a change in accreditors, document preparation costs, site-visit
costs, and direct accreditation fees (limited to the initial term of
accreditation up to 5 years).
Absolute Priority 5: Supporting the Creation of New Accrediting
Agencies.
Priority: Projects that support the development and launch of new
accrediting agencies seeking, or intending to seek, recognition from
the Department under 20 U.S.C. 1099b. Eligible activities may include
convenings, development of accreditation standards and review
processes, stakeholder and expert consultations, meeting and travel
costs, technology and data system development, personnel costs,
administrative expenses, and other costs directly related to
establishing and operating a recognized accrediting agency.
Absolute Priority 6: Creation of New High-Quality Short-Term
Programs.
Priority: Activities that directly support the development of new
high-quality, short-term programs at institutions of higher education,
including engaging employers, developing talent marketplaces, and
integrating work-based learning components into short-term
postsecondary programs. High-quality, short-term programs are defined
as programs that meet the eligibility requirements of the Workforce
Pell Grants program in Section 83002(b) of the One Big Beautiful Bill
Act, including program length requirements and alignment with high-
skill, high-wage, or in-demand industry sectors or occupations, as
determined by the Governor in the State in which the institution is
located. This funding opportunity may be used to cover institutional
costs associated with hiring program faculty and staff; purchasing
equipment, machinery, production supplies and technology; coordinating
with employers, State Workforce Development Boards, and other
stakeholders, including convenings, meetings, and travel costs;
improving classrooms, laboratories, and other instructional facilities;
developing or enhancing partnerships with employers to facilitate
industry alignment; improving data collection and reporting
capabilities to support Workforce Pell eligibility determinations; and
meeting administrative expenses related to the design and development
of new programs, including expenses related to data collection and
validation.
Activities must be designed and executed in close collaboration
with employers, to ensure that the resulting programs are responsive to
industry demand.
Absolute Priority 7: Expansion of Existing High-Quality Short-Term
Programs.
Priority: Activities that directly support the expansion of
existing high-quality, short-term programs, including reforms to
existing programs to meet Workforce Pell Grants eligibility
requirements in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Such activities should
also include engaging employers, developing talent marketplaces, and
integrating
[[Page 50865]]
work-based learning components into short-term postsecondary programs.
This funding opportunity may be used to cover institutional costs
associated with hiring additional faculty and staff to increase program
capacity; purchasing additional equipment, machinery, production
supplies, and technology; enhancing partnerships with employers to
facilitate industry alignment; improving data collection and reporting
capabilities to support Workforce Pell eligibility determinations;
expanding the frequency of new student cohorts; or programmatic reforms
needed to meet program requirements under the One Big Beautiful Bill
Act.
Waiver of Proposed Rulemaking: Under the Administrative Procedure
Act (5 U.S.C. 553), the Department generally offers interested parties
the opportunity to comment on proposed priorities. Section 437(d)(1) of
GEPA, however, allows the Secretary to exempt from rulemaking
requirements regulations governing the first grant competition under a
new or substantially revised program authority.
This is the first grant competition for this specific program
(FIPSE Special Projects) under section 744(c)(2) of the Higher
Education Act of 1965, as amended by the HEOA and, therefore, this
competition qualifies for this exemption. In order to ensure timely
grant awards, the Secretary has decided to forgo public comment on the
priorities in accordance with section 437(d)(1) of GEPA. These
priorities will apply to grants awarded under this competition in FY
2025 and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of
unfunded applications from this competition.
Definitions: The terms ``baseline,'' ``continuous improvement,''
``evaluation,'' ``evidence-building,'' ``nonprofit,'' ``performance
measure,'' ``performance target,'' ``quality data,'' ``relevant
outcome'' are defined in 34 CFR 77.1. Institution of higher education
has the meaning as defined in section 101 of the HEA. ``Artificial
intelligence'' or ``AI'' has the meaning set forth in 15 U.S.C.
9401(3). ``Work-based learning'' has the meaning set forth in 20 U.S.C.
2302(55). In accordance with section 437(d)(1) of GEPA, we are
establishing a definition for ``Computer Science'' and ``Talent
Marketplace.''
Artificial intelligence (AI) literacy means the technical
knowledge, durable skills, and future ready attitudes required to
thrive in a world influenced by AI. It enables learners to engage,
create with, manage, and design AI, while critically evaluating its
benefits, risks, and implications.
Baseline means the starting point from which performance is
measured and targets are set.
Computer science means the study of computers and algorithmic
processes, including their principles, their hardware and software
designs, theories, computational thinking, coding, analytics,
applications, machine learning, and Artificial Intelligence (AI).
Computer science often includes computer programming or coding as a
tool to create software, including applications, games, websites, and
tools to manage or manipulate data; or development and management of
computer hardware and the other electronics related to sharing,
securing, and using digital information. In addition to coding, the
expanding field of computer science emphasizes computational thinking
and interdisciplinary problem-solving to equip students with the skills
and abilities necessary to apply computation to the digital world.
Computer science does not involve using computers for everyday tasks,
such as browsing the internet or using tools like word processors,
spreadsheets, or presentation software. Instead, it focuses on creating
and developing technology, not just utilizing it.
Continuous improvement means using plans for collecting and
analyzing data about a project component's implementation and outcomes
(including the pace and extent to which project outcomes are being met)
to inform necessary changes throughout the project. These plans may
include strategies to gather ongoing feedback from participants and
stakeholders on the implementation of the project component.
Evaluation means an assessment using systematic data collection and
analysis of one or more programs, policies, practices, and
organizations intended to assess their implementation, outcomes,
effectiveness, or efficiency.
Evidence-building means a systematic plan for identifying and
answering questions relevant to programs and policies through
performance measurement, exploratory studies, or program evaluation.
In-demand Industry Sector or Occupation, as defined in section
3(23) of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA), means (i)
an industry sector that has a substantial current or potential impact
(including through jobs that lead to economic self-sufficiency and
opportunities for advancement) on the State, regional, or local
economy, as appropriate, and that contributes to the growth or
stability of other supporting businesses, or the growth of other
industry sectors; or (ii) an occupation that currently has or is
projected to have a number of positions (including positions that lead
to economic self-sufficiency and opportunities for advancement) in an
industry sector so as to have a significant impact on the State,
regional, or local economy, as appropriate.
Nonprofit, as applied to an agency, organization, or institution,
means that it is owned and operated by one or more corporations or
associations whose net earnings do not benefit, and cannot lawfully
benefit, any private shareholder or entity.
Performance measure means any quantitative indicator, statistic, or
metric used to gauge program or project performance.
Performance target means a level of performance that an applicant
would seek to meet during the course of a project or as a result of a
project.
Quality data encompasses utility, objectivity, and integrity of the
information. ``Utility'' refers to how the data will be used, either
for its intended use or other uses. ``Objectivity'' refers to data
being accurate, complete, reliable, and unbiased. ``Integrity'' refers
to the protection of data from being manipulated.
Relevant outcome means the student outcome(s) or other outcome(s)
the key project component is designed to improve, consistent with the
specific goals of the program.
Talent marketplace means a digital, interconnected system of
technologies maintained by a State or State Workforce Agency, as
defined at 29 U.S.C. 3225a(a)(8), that
(a) is publicly available;
(b) includes an integrated:
(i) Learning and Employment Record;
(ii) Credential Registry; and
(iii) Skill-Based Job Description generator;
(c) utilizes artificial intelligence to enable students and
jobseekers, employers, and education and training providers to
transform, transcribe, and transact earned learning assertions, job
descriptions, and degree and non-degree credentials into discrete
competency statements; and
(d) may be curated into interoperable individual records of
achievement and learning and employment recommendations.
Work-based learning is used in accordance with 20 U.S.C. 2302(55),
to mean sustained interactions with industry or community professionals
in real workplace settings, to the extent practicable, or simulated
environments
[[Page 50866]]
at an educational institution that foster in-depth, firsthand
engagement with the tasks required in a given career field, that are
aligned to curriculum and instruction.
Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1138; 20 U.S.C. 1138c.
Note: Projects will be awarded and must be operated in a manner
consistent with the nondiscrimination requirements contained in the
Federal civil rights laws.
Applicable Regulations: (a) The Education Department General
Administrative Regulations in 34 CFR parts 75, 77, 79, 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.
II. Award Information
Type of Award: Discretionary grants.
Estimated Available Funds: $167,000,000.
Of this amount, we estimate allocating across the areas of national
need and absolute priorities as follows:
Advancing AI in Education (Absolute Priorities 1 and 2)--
$50,000,000, including $25,000,000 under Absolute Priority 1 and
$25,000,000 under Absolute Priority 2.
Promoting Civil Discourse (Absolute Priority 3)--
$60,000,000.
Promoting Accreditation Reform (Absolute Priorities 4 and
5)--$7,000,000, including $3,500,000 under Absolute Priority 4 and
$3,500,000 under Absolute Priority 5.
Capacity-building for high-quality, short-term programs
(Absolute Priorities 6 and 7)--$50,000,000, including $25,000,000 under
Absolute Priority 6 and $25,000,000 under Absolute Priority 7.
Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of
applications, we may make additional awards in subsequent years from
the list of unfunded applications from this competition.
Estimated Range of Awards (for the 48-month project period):
Absolute Priorities 1 and 2: $1,000,000-$4,000,000
Absolute Priority 3: $1,000,000-$4,000,000
Absolute Priorities 4 and 5: $600,000-$1,000,000
Absolute Priorities 6 and 7: $1,000,000-$4,000,000
Estimated Average Size of Awards (for the 48-month project period):
Absolute Priorities 1 and 2: $2,000,000
Absolute Priority 3: $2,000,000
Absolute Priorities 4 and 5: $800,000
Absolute Priorities 6 and 7: $2,000,000
Maximum Award: We will not make an award exceeding the following
amounts for each of these priorities for the entire project period of
48 months:
Absolute Priorities 1 and 2: $4,000,000
Absolute Priority 3: $4,000,000
Absolute Priorities 4 and 5: $1,000,000
Absolute Priorities 6 and 7: $4,000,000
Estimated Number of Awards:
Absolute Priorities 1 and 2: 25
Absolute Priority 3: 30
Absolute Priorities 4 and 5: 9
Absolute Priorities 6 and 7: 25.
Note: The Department is not bound by any estimates in this
notice.
Project Period: Up to 48 months.
III. Eligibility Information
1. Eligible Applicants: Institutions of higher education (as
defined in section 101 of the HEA), consortia of such institutions, and
other public and private nonprofit institutions and agencies including
State higher education agencies as defined in 20 U.S.C. 1003(22). An
eligible entity may submit only one (1) grant application under an area
of national need as the lead applicant. An entity can be included as a
partner in multiple applications.
Note: The eligible entity may apply to all four (4) areas of
national need as the lead applicant but must submit a separate grant
application for each area of national need.
Note: An applicant that is a nonprofit organization may, under
34 CFR 75.51, demonstrate its nonprofit status by providing: (1)
proof that the Internal Revenue Service currently recognizes the
applicant as an organization to which contributions are tax
deductible under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code; (2)
a statement from a State taxing body or the State attorney general
certifying that the organization is a nonprofit organization
operating within the State and that no part of its net earnings may
lawfully benefit any private shareholder or individual; (3) a
certified copy of the applicant's certificate of incorporation or
similar document if it clearly establishes the nonprofit status of
the applicant; or (4) any item described above if that item applies
to a State or national parent organization, together with a
statement by the State or parent organization that the applicant is
a local nonprofit affiliate.
2. a. Cost Sharing or Matching: This program does not require cost
sharing or matching.
b. Supplement-Not-Supplant: This program does not involve
supplement-not-supplant funding requirements.
c. Indirect Cost Rate Information: This program uses the waiver
authority of section 437(d)(1) of GEPA to limit a grantee's indirect
cost reimbursement to 8 percent of a modified total direct cost base.
We are establishing this indirect cost limit for the FY 2025 grant
competition and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the
list of unfunded applications from this competition in accordance with
section 437(d)(1) of GEPA. 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.
d. Administrative Cost Limitation: This program does not include
any program-specific limitation on administrative expenses. All
administrative expenses must be reasonable and necessary and conform to
Cost Principles described in 2 CFR part 200 subpart E of the Uniform
Guidance.
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 and public and private nonprofit institutions and
agencies including State higher education agencies as defined in 20
U.S.C. 1003(22).
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 August 29, 2025 (90 FR 42234), and available at https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/08/29/2025-16571/common-instructions-and-information-for-applicants-to-department-of-education-discretionary-grant, which contain requirements and information on how
to submit an application.
2. Intergovernmental Review: This program 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 program. Please note that,
under 34 CFR 79.8(a), we have shortened the standard 60-day
intergovernmental review period in order to make awards by the end of
the period of availability of the funds on December 31, 2025.
3. Funding Restrictions: We reference regulations outlining funding
[[Page 50867]]
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 35 pages (2) use the Standards
outlined in the Common Instructions.
Note: The Budget Information-Non-Construction Programs
Form (ED 524) Sections A-C are not the same as the narrative response
to the Budget section of the selection criteria.
5. Program Profile: Applicants must indicate in the abstract which
area of national need the application addresses, how the proposed
project meets the absolute priorities, and, if applicable, the
competitive preference priorities. The abstract narrative should
identify the partner entities the applicant will be working with, the
target population (e.g., faculty, staff, students, etc.), the proposed
activities to be conducted during the 4-year performance period, and
the anticipated results.
V. Application Review Information
1. Selection Criteria: The selection criteria for this competition
are from 34 CFR 75.210. Applicants should address each of the selection
criteria separately for each proposed activity. The selection criteria
are worth a total of 100 points; the maximum score for each criterion
is noted in parentheses.
(a) Significance. (Maximum 30 points)
(1) The Secretary considers the significance of the proposed
project.
(2) In determining the significance of the proposed project, the
Secretary considers the following factors:
(i) The extent to which the proposed project is innovative and
likely to be more effective compared to other efforts to address a
similar problem. (Up to 15 points)
(ii) The importance or magnitude of the results or outcomes likely
to be attained by the proposed project, especially contributions toward
improving teaching practice and student learning and achievement. (Up
to 15 points)
(b) Quality of the project design. (Maximum 45 points)
The Secretary considers the quality of the design of the proposed
project. In determining the quality of the design of the proposed
project, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(1) The extent to which the proposed project will integrate with or
build on similar or related efforts to improve relevant outcomes (as
defined in this notice), using existing funding streams from other
programs or policies supported by community, State, and Federal
resources. (up to 15 points)
(2) The extent to which the design for implementing and evaluating
the proposed project will result in information to guide possible
replication of project activities or strategies, including valid and
reliable information about the effectiveness of the approach or
strategies employed by the project. (up to 15 points)
(3) The extent to which the proposed development efforts include
adequate quality controls, continuous improvement efforts, and as
appropriate, repeated testing of products. (up to 15 points)
(c) Quality of the management plan. (Maximum to 10 points)
The Secretary considers the quality of the management plan for the
proposed project. In determining the quality of the management plan for
the proposed project, the Secretary considers the 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.
(d) Quality of the project evaluation or other evidence building.
(Maximum to 15 points)
The Secretary considers the quality of the evaluation to be
conducted of the proposed project. In determining the quality of the
evaluation, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(1) The extent to which the methods of evaluation are thorough,
feasible, and appropriate to the goals, objectives, and outcomes of the
proposed project. (up to 5 points)
(2) The extent to which the methods of evaluation or other
evidence-building will provide performance feedback and provide
formative, diagnostic, or interim data that is a periodic assessment of
progress toward achieving intended outcomes. (up to 5 points)
(3) The extent to which the evaluation will provide guidance about
effective strategies suitable for replication or testing and potential
implementation in other settings. (up to 5 points).
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, information outside
the rank order of applications, including: the information in each
application; and any other information--
(1) Relevant to a criterion, priority, or other requirement that
applies to the selection of applications for new grants;
(2) Concerning the applicant's performance and use of funds under a
previous award under any Department program; and
(3) Concerning the applicant's failure under any Department program
to submit a performance report or its submission of a performance
report of unacceptable quality.
Before making awards, Department staff will screen applications
submitted in accordance with the requirements in this notice to
determine whether applications have met eligibility and other
requirements, including whether an application may fail to meet the
``General Terms and Conditions'' applicable to awarded funds referenced
elsewhere within this notice. This screening process may occur at
various stages of the review and selection process. Applicants that are
determined to be ineligible will not receive a grant, regardless of the
whether the application was included in the peer review process.
Applications not selected for funding will be informed of the
Secretary's decision in accordance with 34 CFR 75.218.
Peer reviewers will read, prepare a written evaluation of, and
score the assigned applications, using the selection criteria provided
in this notice.
In the event there are two or more applications with the same final
score within the same Absolute Priority, and there are insufficient
funds to fully support each of these applications, the Department will
apply the following procedure to determine which application or
applications will receive an award:
First Tiebreaker: The first tiebreaker will be the highest average
score for the selection criterion ``Quality of the Project Design''. If
a tie remains, the second tiebreaker will be utilized.
Second Tiebreaker: The second tiebreaker will be the highest
average score for the selection criterion ``Significance.'' If a tie
remains, the third tiebreaker will be utilized.
Third Tiebreaker: The third tiebreaker will be the applicant that
promotes equitable geographic distribution of FIPSE-SP grantees.
3. 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;
[[Page 50868]]
has a financial or other management system that does not meet the
standards in 2 CFR part 200, subpart D; has not fulfilled the
conditions of a prior grant; or is otherwise not responsible.
4. Integrity and Performance System: If you are selected under this
competition to receive an award that over the course of the project
period may exceed the simplified acquisition threshold (currently
$350,000), under 2 CFR 200.206(a)(2) we must make a judgment about your
integrity, business ethics, and record of performance under Federal
awards--that is, the risk posed by you as an applicant--before we make
an award. In doing so, we must consider any information about you that
is in the integrity and performance system (currently referred to as
the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System
(FAPIIS)), accessible through the System for Award Management. You may
review and comment on any information about yourself that a Federal
agency previously entered and that is currently in FAPIIS.
Please note that, if the total value of your currently active
grants, cooperative agreements, and procurement contracts from the
Federal Government exceeds $10,000,000, the reporting requirements in 2
CFR part 200, Appendix XII, require you to report certain integrity
information to FAPIIS semiannually. Please review the requirements in 2
CFR part 200, Appendix XII, if this grant plus all the other Federal
funds you receive exceed $10,000,000.
5. In General: In accordance with the Office of Management and
Budget's guidance located at 2 CFR part 200, all applicable Federal
laws, and relevant Executive guidance, the Department will review and
consider applications for funding pursuant to this notice inviting
applications in accordance with:
(a) Selecting recipients most likely to be successful in delivering
results based on the program objectives through an objective process of
evaluating Federal award applications (2 CFR 200.205);
(b) Prohibiting the purchase of certain telecommunication and video
surveillance services or equipment in alignment with section 889 of the
National Defense Authorization Act of 2019 (Pub. L. 115-232) (2 CFR
200.216);
(c) Providing a preference, to the extent permitted by law, to
maximize use of goods, products, and materials produced in the United
States (2 CFR 200.322); and
(d) Terminating agreements in whole or in part to the greatest
extent authorized by law if an award no longer effectuates the program
goals or agency priorities (2 CFR 200.340).
VI. Award Administration Information
1. General terms and conditions: If you are awarded a grant under
this competition, you must ensure and may be required to demonstrate
that Federal funds will not be used under this project in any manner
that violates the United States Constitution, Title VI or Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq. or 42 U.S.C.
2000e et seq.), Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (20 U.S.C.
1681 et seq.), section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C. 794),
the Age Discrimination Act of 1975 (42 U.S.C. 6101 et seq.), Title II
of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12131 et
seq.), the Boy Scouts of America Equal Access Act of 2001 (20 U.S.C.
7905), section 117 of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (20
U.S.C. 1011f), or other applicable Federal law. To the extent that a
grantee uses grant funds for such unallowable activities, the
Department may take appropriate enforcement action including under
section 451 of GEPA, including the potential recovery of funds under
section 452 of GEPA, or may pursue termination under 2 CFR 200.340. The
Grant Award Notification document accompanying your award may contain
further terms and conditions, as necessary to ensure grantee compliance
with applicable laws, regulations, and administrative priorities.
2. 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 also notify you
informally.
If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding,
we notify you.
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 and that constitute new copyrightable
works. When the deliverable consists of modifications to pre-existing
works, the license extends only to those modifications that can be
separately identified and only to the extent that open licensing is
permitted under the terms of any licenses or other legal restrictions
on the use of pre-existing works. Additionally, a grantee or subgrantee
that is awarded competitive grant funds must have a plan to disseminate
these public grant deliverables. This dissemination plan can be
developed and submitted after your application has been reviewed and
selected for funding. For additional information on the open licensing
requirements please refer to 2 CFR 3474.20.
4. Reporting: (a) If you apply for a grant under this competition,
you must ensure that you have in place the necessary processes and
systems to comply with the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 170
should you receive funding under the competition. See the standards in
2 CFR 170.105 to determine whether you are covered by 2 CFR part 170.
(b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final
performance report, including financial information, as directed by the
Secretary. If you receive a multiyear award, you must submit an annual
performance report that provides the most current performance and
financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34
CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance
reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting,
please go to www.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/appforms/appforms.html.
5. Performance Measures: For the purpose of Department reporting
under 34 CFR 75.110, the Department has established a set of
performance measures for this competition:
Project-Specific Performance Measures: Applicants must propose
project-specific performance measures and performance targets (both as
defined in this notice) consistent with the objectives of the proposed
project. Applications must provide the following information as
directed under 34 CFR 75.110(b) and (c):
(1) Project-specific performance measures. How each proposed
project-specific performance measure would: accurately measure the
performance of the project; and be used to inform continuous
improvement of the project.
(2) Baseline (as defined in this notice) data. (i) Why each
proposed baseline is valid and reliable, including an assessment of the
quality data used to establish the baseline; or (ii) if the applicant
has determined that there are no established baseline data for a
particular performance measure, an explanation of why there is no
established baseline and of how and when, during the project period,
the applicant would establish a valid baseline for the performance
measure.
(3) Performance targets. Why each proposed performance target is
ambitious yet achievable compared to
[[Page 50869]]
the baseline for the performance measure and when, during the project
period, the applicant would meet the performance target(s).
All grantees must submit an annual performance report with
information that is responsive to these performance measures.
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, or whether the
continuation of the project is in the best interest of the Federal
Government.
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. You may also access documents
of the Department published in the Federal Register by using the
article search feature at www.federalregister.gov.
David Barker,
Assistant Secretary, Office of Postsecondary Education, Department of
Education.
[FR Doc. 2025-19843 Filed 11-10-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P