2021-03474. Applications for New Awards; National Professional Development Program

AGENCY:

Office of English Language Acquisition, Department of Education.

ACTION:

Notice.

SUMMARY:

The Department of Education (Department) is issuing a notice inviting applications for fiscal year (FY) 2021 for the National Professional Development (NPD) program, Assistance Listing Number 84.365Z. This notice relates to the approved information collection under OMB control number 1894-0006.

DATES:

Applications Available: February 22, 2021.

Deadline for Notice of Intent to Apply: March 15, 2021.

Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: April 23, 2021

Deadline for Intergovernmental Review: June 22, 2021.

ADDRESSES:

For the addresses for obtaining and submitting an application, please refer to our Common Instructions for Applicants to Department of Education Discretionary Grant Programs, published in the Federal Register on February 13, 2019 (84 FR 3768) and available at www.govinfo.gov/​content/​pkg/​FR-2019-02-13/​pdf/​2019-02206.pdf.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Francisco J. López, Jr., U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, room 4w245, Washington, DC 20202. Telephone: [phone]. Email: [e-mail].

If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Full Text of Announcement

I. Funding Opportunity Description

Purpose of Program: The NPD program, authorized by sections 3111(c)(1)(C) and 3131 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA), awards grants on a competitive basis, for a period of not more than five years, to institutions of higher education (IHEs) or public or private entities with relevant experience and capacity, in consortia with State educational agencies (SEAs) or local educational agencies (LEAs). The purpose of these grants is to provide professional development activities that will improve classroom instruction for English learners (ELs) and assist educational personnel working with such children to meet high professional standards, including standards for certification and licensure as teachers who work in language instruction educational programs or serve ELs.

Grants awarded under this program may be used—

(1) For effective pre-service or in-service professional development programs that will improve the qualifications and skills of educational personnel involved in the education of ELs, including personnel who are not certified or licensed and educational paraprofessionals, and for other activities to increase teacher and school leader effectiveness in meeting the needs of ELs;

(2) For the development of program curricula appropriate to the needs of the consortia participants involved;

(3) To support strategies that strengthen and increase parent, family, and community member engagement in the education of ELs;

(4) To develop, share, and disseminate effective practices in the instruction of ELs and in increasing the academic achievement of ELs, including the use of technology-based programs;

(5) In conjunction with other Federal need-based student financial assistance programs, for financial assistance, including costs related to tuition, fees, and books for enrolling in courses required to complete the degree involved, to meet certification or licensing requirements for teachers who work in language instruction educational programs or serve ELs; and

(6) As appropriate, to support strategies that promote school readiness of ELs and their transition from early childhood education programs, such as Head Start or State-run preschool programs, to elementary school programs.

Background: Educator effectiveness is the most important in-school factor affecting student achievement and success.^[1] The NPD program is a Federal grant program that offers professional development specifically for educators of ELs. To improve the academic achievement of ELs, the NPD program supports pre-service and in-service instruction for teachers and other staff, including school leaders, working with ELs.

The NPD program has funded a range of grantees that are currently implementing 92 projects across the country. As the EL population continues to grow, it has become increasingly important to identify and expand the use of evidence-based instructional practices that improve EL learning outcomes.

The body of evidence on effective language, literacy, and content instruction for ELs, including specific instructional practices for English language acquisition, is growing steadily, as documented by the 2014 What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) Practice Guide for teaching ELs, available at: http://ies.ed.gov/​ncee/​wwc/​PracticeGuide.aspx?​sid=​19. To encourage the use of evidence to increase the effectiveness of projects funded by NPD, the Department has included Competitive Preference Priority 1 for projects designed to improve academic outcomes for ELs using strategies supported by moderate evidence (as defined in this notice).

While we are encouraged by the growing body of evidence supporting effective EL instruction, this competition is designed to promote further study of pre- and in-service professional development models for EL educators. We encourage NPD applicants to design rigorous evaluations of their proposed activities that, if well-implemented, would meet the WWC Evidence Standards With Reservations. We believe that such evaluations will help ensure that projects funded under the NPD program help expand the knowledge base on effective EL instructional practice.

The Department is also interested in supporting dual language acquisition approaches that are effective in developing biliteracy skills. Evidence suggests that students who are biliterate have certain cognitive and social benefits compared to their monolingual peers. Further, research suggests that despite initial lags, students in well-implemented dual language programs eventually perform equal to or better than their counterparts in English-only programs.^[2]

In addition, we recognize that linguistic and cultural diversity is an asset and that dual language approaches may also enhance the preservation of heritage languages and cultures. These approaches may be particularly impactful for diverse populations of ELs, such as immigrant children and youth and Native American students. Accordingly, we have included one invitational priority in this competition for applicants proposing to provide EL educators with professional development on effective dual language instruction.

Priorities: This notice includes one absolute priority, two competitive preference priorities, and one invitational priority. The absolute priority is from section 3131 of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 6861). Competitive Preference Priority 1 is from 34 CFR 75.226(d)(2). Competitive Preference Priority 2 is from the Department's notice of final supplemental priorities and definitions (Supplemental Priorities), published in the Federal Register on March 2, 2018 (83 FR 9096).

Absolute Priority: For FY 2021 and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this competition, this priority is an absolute priority. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(3) we consider only applications that meet this priority.

This priority is:

Providing Professional Development To Improve Instruction for English Learners.

Under this priority we provide funding to projects that provide professional development activities that will improve classroom instruction for ELs and assist educational personnel working with ELs to meet high professional standards, including standards for certification and licensure as teachers who work in language instruction educational programs or serve ELs.

Competitive Preference Priorities: For FY 2021 and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this competition, these priorities are competitive preference priorities. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(2), we award an additional five points to an application that meets Competitive Preference Priority 1, and we award up to an additional five points to an application, depending on how well the application meets Competitive Preference Priority 2. An application may be awarded up to a maximum of 10 additional points under these competitive preference priorities. Applicants may address none, one, or both of the competitive preference priorities. An applicant must clearly identify in the project abstract and the project narrative section of its application the competitive preference priority or priorities it wishes the Department to consider for purposes of earning competitive preference priority points.

These priorities are:

Competitive Preference Priority 1—Moderate Evidence (0 or 5 points).

Applications proposing projects supported by evidence that meets the conditions in the definition of “moderate evidence” (as defined in this notice).

Competitive Preference Priority 2—Promoting Literacy (up to 5 points).

Projects that are designed to address one or both of the following priority areas:

(a) Providing families with evidence-based (as defined in this notice) strategies for promoting literacy. This may include providing families with access to books or other physical or digital materials or content about how to support their child's reading development, or providing family literacy activities (as defined in section 203(9) of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act).

(b) Facilitating the accurate and timely use of data by educators to improve reading instruction and make informed decisions about how to help children or students build literacy skills while protecting their student and family privacy.

Invitational Priority: For FY 2021 and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this competition, this priority is an invitational priority. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(1) we do not give an application that meets this invitational priority a competitive or absolute preference over other applications.

This priority is:

Dual Language Approaches.

We encourage applicants to propose projects to improve educator preparation and professional learning for dual language implementation models to support effective instruction for ELs. In particular, we encourage such approaches to take into account the unique needs of recently arrived EL students, immigrant children and youth, and Native American students who are members of Federally recognized Indian Tribes.

Definitions: The following definitions are from 34 CFR 77.1, the Supplemental Priorities, and sections 3201 and 8101 of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 7011 and 7801), and they apply to the priorities and selection criteria in this notice. The source of each definition is noted in parentheses following the text of the definition.

Ambitious means promoting continued, meaningful improvement for program participants or for other individuals or entities affected by the grant or representing a significant advancement in the field of education research, practices, or methodologies. When used to describe a performance target, whether a performance target is ambitious depends upon the context of the relevant performance measure and the baseline for that measure. (34 CFR 77.1)

Baseline means the starting point from which performance is measured and targets are set. (34 CFR 77.1)

Demonstrates a rationale means a key project component included in the project's logic model is informed by research or evaluation findings that suggest the project component is likely to improve relevant outcomes. (34 CFR 77.1)

English learner, when used with respect to an individual, means an individual—

(A) Who is aged 3 through 21;

(B) Who is enrolled or preparing to enroll in an elementary school or secondary school;

(C)(i) Who was not born in the United States or whose native language is a language other than English;

(ii)(I) Who is a Native American or Alaska Native, or a Native resident of the outlying areas; and

(II) Who comes from an environment where a language other than English has had a significant impact on the individual's level of English language proficiency; or

(iii) Who is migratory, whose native language is a language other than English, and who comes from an environment where a language other than English is dominant; and

(D) Whose difficulties in speaking, reading, writing, or understanding the English language may be sufficient to deny the individual—

(i) The ability to meet the challenging State academic standards;

(ii) The ability to successfully achieve in classrooms where the language of instruction is English; or

(iii) The opportunity to participate fully in society. (Section 8101 of the ESEA)

Evidence-based means the proposed project component is supported by moderate evidence. (34 CFR 77.1)

Experimental study means a study that is designed to compare outcomes between two groups of individuals (such as students) that are otherwise equivalent except for their assignment to either a treatment group receiving a project component or a control group that does not. Randomized controlled trials, regression discontinuity design studies, and single-case design studies are the specific types of experimental studies that, depending on their design and implementation (e.g., sample attrition in randomized controlled trials and regression discontinuity design studies), can meet What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) standards without reservations as described in the WWC Handbooks:

(i) A randomized controlled trial employs random assignment of, for example, students, teachers, classrooms, or schools to receive the project component being evaluated (the treatment group) or not to receive the project component (the control group).

(ii) A regression discontinuity design study assigns the project component being evaluated using a measured variable (e.g., assigning students reading below a cutoff score to tutoring or developmental education classes) and controls for that variable in the analysis of outcomes.

(iii) A single-case design study uses observations of a single case (e.g., a student eligible for a behavioral intervention) over time in the absence and presence of a controlled treatment manipulation to determine whether the outcome is systematically related to the treatment. (34 CFR 77.1)

Immigrant children and youth means individuals who—

(A) Are aged 3 through 21;

(B) Were not born in any State; and

(C) Have not been attending one or more schools in any one or more States for more than 3 full academic years. (Section 3201 of the ESEA)

Institution of higher education has the meaning given that term in section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965. (Section 8101(29) of the ESEA)

Language instruction educational program means an instruction course—

(A) In which an English learner is placed for the purpose of developing and attaining English proficiency while meeting challenging State academic standards; and

(B) That may make instructional use of both English and a child's native language to enable the child to develop and attain English proficiency, and may include the participation of English proficient children if such course is designed to enable all participating children to become proficient in English and a second language. (Section 3201 of the ESEA)

Logic model (also referred to as a theory of action) means a framework that identifies key project components of the proposed project (i.e., the active “ingredients” that are hypothesized to be critical to achieving the relevant outcomes) and describes the theoretical and operational relationships among the key project components and relevant outcomes. (34 CFR 77.1.)

Note: Applicants may use resources such as the Pacific Education Laboratory's Education Logic Model Application (http://relpacific.mcrel.org/​resources/​elm-app) to help design their logic models.

Moderate evidence means that there is evidence of effectiveness of a key project component in improving a relevant outcome for a sample that overlaps with the populations or settings proposed to receive that component, based on a relevant finding from one of the following:

(i) A practice guide prepared by the WWC using version 2.1, 3.0, 4.0, or 4.1 of the WWC Handbooks reporting a “strong evidence base” or “moderate evidence base” for the corresponding practice guide recommendation;

(ii) An intervention report prepared by the WWC using version 2.1, 3.0, 4.0, or 4.1 of the WWC Handbooks reporting a “positive effect” or “potentially positive effect” on a relevant outcome based on a “medium to large” extent of evidence, with no reporting of a “negative effect” or “potentially negative effect” on a relevant outcome; or

(iii) A single experimental study or quasi-experimental design study reviewed and reported by the WWC using version 2.1, 3.0, 4.0, or 4.1 of the WWC Handbooks, or otherwise assessed by the Department using version 4.1 of the WWC Handbooks, as appropriate, and that—

(A) Meets WWC standards with or without reservations;

(B) Includes at least one statistically significant and positive (i.e., favorable) effect on a relevant outcome;

(C) Includes no overriding statistically significant and negative effects on relevant outcomes reported in the study or in a corresponding WWC intervention report prepared under version 2.1, 3.0, 4.0, or 4.1 of the WWC Handbooks; and

(D) Is based on a sample from more than one site (e.g., State, county, city, school district, or postsecondary campus) and includes at least 350 students or other individuals across sites. Multiple studies of the same project component that each meet requirements in paragraphs (iii)(A), (B), and (C) of this definition may together satisfy the requirement in this paragraph (iii)(D). (34 CFR 77.1.)

Project component means an activity, strategy, intervention, process, product, practice, or policy included in a project. Evidence may pertain to an individual project component or to a combination of project components (e.g., training teachers on instructional practices for English learners and follow-on coaching for these teachers). (34 CFR 77.1)

Quasi-experimental design study means a study using a design that attempts to approximate an experimental study by identifying a comparison group that is similar to the treatment group in important respects. This type of study, depending on design and implementation (e.g., establishment of baseline equivalence of the groups being compared), can meet WWC standards with reservations, but cannot meet WWC standards without reservations, as described in the WWC Handbooks. (34 CFR 77.1)

Relevant outcome means the student outcome(s) or other outcome(s) the key project component is designed to improve, consistent with the specific goals of the program. (34 CFR 77.1)

Strong evidence means that there is evidence of the effectiveness of a key project component in improving a relevant outcome for a sample that overlaps with the populations and settings proposed to receive that component, based on a relevant finding from one of the following:

(i) A practice guide prepared by the WWC using version 2.1, 3.0, 4.0, or 4.1 of the WWC Handbooks reporting a “strong evidence base” for the corresponding practice guide recommendation;

(ii) An intervention report prepared by the WWC using version 2.1, 3.0, 4.0, or 4.1 of the WWC Handbooks reporting a “positive effect” on a relevant outcome based on a “medium to large” extent of evidence, with no reporting of a “negative effect” or “potentially negative effect” on a relevant outcome; or

(iii) A single experimental study reviewed and reported by the WWC using version 2.1, 3.0, 4.0, or 4.1 of the WWC Handbooks, or otherwise assessed by the Department using version 4.1 of the WWC Handbooks, as appropriate, and that—

(A) Meets WWC standards without reservations;

(B) Includes at least one statistically significant and positive (i.e., favorable) effect on a relevant outcome;

(C) Includes no overriding statistically significant and negative effects on relevant outcomes reported in the study or in a corresponding WWC intervention report prepared under version 2.1, 3.0, 4.0, or 4.1 of the WWC Handbooks; and

(D) Is based on a sample from more than one site (e.g., State, county, city, school district, or postsecondary campus) and includes at least 350 students or other individuals across sites. Multiple studies of the same project component that each meet requirements in paragraphs (iii)(A), (B), and (C) of this definition may together satisfy the requirement in this paragraph (iii)(D). (34 CFR 77.1)

What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) Handbooks (WWC Handbooks) means the standards and procedures set forth in the WWC Standards Handbook, Versions 4.0 or 4.1, and WWC Procedures Handbook, Versions 4.0 or 4.1, or in the WWC Procedures and Standards Handbook, Version 3.0 or Version 2.1 (all incorporated by reference, see § 77.2). Study findings eligible for review under WWC standards can meet WWC standards without reservations, meet WWC standards with reservations, or not meet WWC standards. WWC practice guides and intervention reports include findings from systematic reviews of evidence as described in the WWC Handbooks documentation. (34 CFR 77.1)

Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 6861.

Note: Projects will be awarded and operated in a manner consistent with the 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 Supplemental Priorities.

Note: The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 apply to IHEs only.

II. Award Information

Type of Award: Discretionary grants.

Estimated Available Funds: $25,500,000.

Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of applications, we may make additional awards in FY 2022 or a subsequent fiscal year from the list of unfunded applications from this competition.

Estimated Range of Awards: $350,000-600,000.

Estimated Average Size of Awards: $464,000.

Maximum Award: $600,000 per year.

Estimated Number of Awards: 42.

Note: The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.

Project Period: 60 months.

III. Eligibility Information

1. Eligible Applicants: Entities eligible to apply for NPD grants are IHEs, or public or private entities with relevant experience and capacity, in consortia with LEAs or SEAs.

To maximize student population needs and geographic diversity, the number of awards per single entity will be limited to one per DUNS number.

2. a. Cost Sharing or Matching: This program does not require cost sharing or matching.

b. Indirect Cost Rate Information: This program uses a training indirect cost rate. This limits indirect cost reimbursement to an entity's actual indirect costs, as determined in its negotiated indirect cost rate agreement, or eight percent of a modified total direct cost base, whichever amount is less. For more information regarding training indirect cost rates, see 34 CFR 75.562. 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 Cost Principles described in 2 CFR part 200 subpart E of the Uniform Guidance.

IV. Application and Submission Information

1. Application Submission Instructions: Applicants are required to follow the Common Instructions for Applicants to Department of Education Discretionary Grant Programs, published in the Federal Register on February 13, 2019 (84 FR 3768) and available at www.govinfo.gov/​content/​pkg/​FR-2019-02-13/​pdf/​2019-02206.pdf,, which contain requirements and information on how to submit an application.

2. Submission of Proprietary Information: Given the types of projects that may be proposed in applications for the NPD competition, your application may include business information that you consider proprietary. In 34 CFR 5.11 we define “business information” and describe the process we use in determining whether any of that information is proprietary and, thus, protected from disclosure under Exemption 4 of the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552, as amended).

Consistent with the process followed in the prior NPD competitions, we may post the project narrative section of funded NPD applications on the Department's website so you may wish to request confidentiality of business information. Identifying proprietary information in the submitted application will help facilitate this public disclosure process.

Consistent with Executive Order 12600, please designate in your application any information that you believe is exempt from disclosure under Exemption 4. In the appropriate Appendix section of your application, under “Other Attachments Form,” please list the page number or numbers on which we can find this information. For additional information please see 34 CFR 5.11(c).

3. 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.

4. Funding Restrictions: We reference regulations outlining funding restrictions in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice.

5. 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 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, references, and captions.
• Use a font that is either 12 point or larger or no smaller than 10 pitch (characters per inch).
• Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, Courier New, or Arial.

The recommended page limit for the application does not apply to the cover sheet; the budget section, including the narrative budget justification; the assurances and certifications; or the one-page abstract, the bibliography, or the letters of support of the application. However, the recommended page limit does apply to the entire narrative section of the application. An application will not be disqualified if it exceeds the recommended page limit.

6. Notice of Intent to Apply: The Department will be able to review grant applications more efficiently if we know the approximate number of applicants that intend to apply. Therefore, we strongly encourage each potential applicant to notify us of their intent to submit an application. To do so, please email the program contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT with the subject line “Intent to Apply,” and include the applicant's name and a contact person's name and email address. Applicants that do not submit a notice of intent to apply may still apply for funding; applicants that do submit a notice of intent to apply are not bound to apply or bound by the information provided.

V. Application Review Information

1. Selection Criteria: The selection criteria for this competition are from section 34 CFR 75.210. The maximum score for all of these criteria is 100 points (not including competitive preference priority points). The maximum score for each criterion is indicated in parentheses.

(a) Quality of the project design. (up to 40 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 goals, objectives, and outcomes to be achieved by the proposed project are clearly specified and measurable.

(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 information about the effectiveness of the approach or strategies employed by the project.

(3) The extent to which the proposed project demonstrates a rationale (as defined in this notice).

(b) Quality of project personnel. (up to 10 points)

The Secretary considers the quality of the personnel who will carry out the proposed project. In determining the quality of project personnel, the Secretary considers the following factors:

(1) 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.

(2) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience, of the project director or principal investigator.

(3) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience, of key project personnel.

(c) Quality of the management plan. (up to 25 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 following factors:

(1) 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.

(2) 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.

(d) Adequacy of resources. (up to 5 points)

The Secretary considers the adequacy of resources for the proposed project. In determining the adequacy of resources for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:

(1) The extent to which the costs are reasonable in relation to the objectives, design, and potential significance of the proposed project.

(2) The extent to which the costs are reasonable in relation to the number of persons to be served and to the anticipated results and benefits.

(e) Quality of the project evaluation. (up to 20 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.

(2) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will, if well implemented, produce evidence about the project's effectiveness that would meet the What Works Clearinghouse standards with or without reservations as described in the What Works Clearinghouse Handbook (as defined in this notice).

(3) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will provide performance feedback and permit periodic assessment of progress toward achieving intended outcomes.

(4) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will provide valid and reliable performance data on relevant outcomes.

Note: The following are technical assistance resources on evaluation: (1) WWC Procedures and Standards Handbook: http://ies.ed.gov/​ncee/​wwc/​references/​idocviewer/​doc.aspx?​docid=​19&​tocid=​1;​ and (2) IES/NCEE Technical Methods papers: http://ies.ed.gov/​ncee/​tech_​methods.

In addition, we invite applicants to view two webinar recordings that were hosted by the Institute of Education Sciences. The first webinar addresses strategies for designing and executing well-designed quasi-experimental design studies. This webinar is available at: http://ies.ed.gov/​ncee/​wwc/​Multimedia.aspx?​sid=​23. The second webinar focuses on more rigorous evaluation designees, including strategies for designing and executing randomized controlled trials. This webinar is available at: http://ies.ed.gov/​ncee/​wwc/​Multimedia.aspx?​sid=​18.

2. Review and Selection Process: The Department will screen applications that are submitted for NPD grants in accordance with the requirements in this notice and determine which applications meet the eligibility and other requirements. Peer reviewers will review all eligible applications for NPD grants that are submitted by the established deadline.

Applicants should note, however, that we may screen for eligibility at multiple points during the competition process, including before and after peer review; applicants that are determined to be ineligible will not receive a grant award regardless of peer reviewer scores or comments. If we determine that an application does not meet an NPD requirement, the application will not be considered for funding.

For NPD grant applications, the Department intends to conduct a two-part review process to review and score all eligible applications. Content reviewers will review and score all eligible applications on the following selection criteria: (a) Quality of the project design; (b) Quality of project personnel; (c) Quality of the management plan; and (d) Adequacy of resources. These reviewers will also review and score Competitive Preference Priority 2. Peer reviewers with evaluation expertise will review and score selection criterion (e) Quality of the project evaluation. The Department will review and score the Competitive Preference Priority 1 relying on expertise from the Institute of Education Sciences.

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. Risk Assessment and Specific Conditions: Consistent with 2 CFR 200.205, before awarding grants under this program the Department conducts a review of the risks posed by applicants. Under 2 CFR 3474.10, the Secretary may impose specific conditions and, 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.

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 $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.

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. 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 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. This does not apply if you have an exception under 2 CFR 170.110(b).

(b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary. If you receive a multiyear award, you must submit an annual performance report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, please go to http://www.ed.gov/​fund/​grant/​apply/​appforms.html.

(c) 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: Under the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), Federal departments and agencies must clearly describe the goals and objectives of programs, identify resources and actions needed to accomplish goals and objectives, develop a means of measuring progress made, and regularly report on achievement.

(a) Measures. The Department has developed the following GPRA performance measures for evaluating the overall effectiveness of the NPD program:

Measure 1: The percentage of project-specific annual goals the program met.

Measure 2: The number of pre-service program participants enrolled annually.

Measure 3: The unduplicated number of in-service program participants served annually.

Measure 4: Under measures 2 and 3, the number of participants who are making progress toward becoming State certified, licensed, or endorsed in EL instruction and the number of participants who have become State certified, licensed, or endorsed by the end of the five-year project period.

(b) Baseline data. Applicants must provide baseline (as defined in this notice) data for each of the project performance measures listed in (a) and explain how each proposed baseline data is related to program outcomes; or, if the applicant has determined that there are no established baseline data for a particular performance measure, explain why there is no established baseline and explain how and when, during the project period, the applicant will establish a baseline for the performance measure.

(c) Performance measure targets. In addition, the applicant must propose in its application annual targets for the measures listed in paragraph (a). Applications must also include the following information as directed under 34 CFR 75.110(b):

(1) Why each proposed performance target is ambitious (as defined in this notice) yet achievable compared to the baseline for the performance measure.

(2) The data collection and reporting methods the applicant would use and why those methods are likely to yield reliable, valid, and meaningful performance data; and

(3) The applicant's capacity to collect and report reliable, valid, and meaningful performance data, as evidenced by high-quality data collection, analysis, and reporting in other projects or research.

Note: If the applicant does not have experience with collection and reporting of performance data through other projects or research, the applicant should provide other evidence of capacity to successfully carry out data collection and reporting for its proposed project.

(d) Performance Reports. All grantees must submit an annual performance report and final performance report with information that is responsive to these performance measures. The Department will consider this data in making annual continuation awards.

(e) Department Evaluations. Consistent with 34 CFR 75.591, grantees funded under this program must comply with the requirements of any evaluation of the program conducted by the Department or an evaluator selected by the Department.

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, 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.

Supreet Anand,

Acting Director, Office of English Language Acquisition.

Footnotes

1.  Calderón, M., Slavin, R., and Sánchez, M. (2011). Effective instruction for English learners. Future of Children, 21(1), 103-127.

2.  Valentino, R.A., and Reardon, S.F. (2015). Effectiveness of four instructional programs designed to serve English language learners: Variation by ethnicity and initial English proficiency. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, doi: 10.3102/0162373715573310.