[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 38 (Wednesday, February 26, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8687-8690]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-4768]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Technology Innovation Challenge Grants
AGENCY: Department of Education.
ACTION: Notice of proposed selection criteria, selection procedures,
and application procedures.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Secretary proposes selection criteria, procedures for
[[Page 8688]]
evaluating and selecting applications, and procedures for submission of
applications under the Technology Innovation Challenge Grants Program.
The Secretary may use these selection criteria, selection procedures
and application procedures in fiscal year 1997 (FY 1997) and in
subsequent years. The Secretary takes this action to make informed
funding decisions on applications for technology projects having great
promise for improving elementary and secondary education.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 28, 1997.
ADDRESSES: All comments concerning the proposed selection criteria,
selection procedures, and application procedures should be sent to:
Technology Innovation Challenge Grants, Office of Educational Research
and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education, Room 606D, 555 New
Jersey Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20208-5544. Comments may also be sent
through the Internet to ITO__STAFF1@ed.gov or by FAX to (202) 208-4042.
Comments that concern information collection requirements must be
sent to the Office of Management and Budget at the address listed in
the Paperwork Reduction Act section of this notice. A copy of those
comments may also be sent to the address in the preceding paragraph.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Technology Innovation Challenge
Grants, Office Of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department
of Education, Room 606D, 555 New Jersey Avenue, NW, Washington, DC
20208-5544. Telephone: (202) 208-3882. Individuals who use a
telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 8
p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Technology Innovation Challenge Grants
Program is authorized in Title III, section 3136, of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (20 U.S.C. 6846).
Under this program the Secretary makes grants to consortia. Each
consortium must include at least one local educational agency (LEA)
with a high percentage or number of children living below the poverty
line and may include other LEAs, private schools, State educational
agencies, institutions of higher education, businesses, academic
content experts, software designers, museums, libraries, or other
appropriate entities. The Technology Innovation Challenge Grants
Program provides support to consortia that are developing, adapting, or
expanding existing and new applications of technology to improve
schools through activities that include continuous professional
development for teachers and the development of high quality academic
content that helps all children learn to challenging standards.
The Secretary will announce the final selection criteria, selection
procedures, and application procedures in a notice in the Federal
Register. The final selection criteria, selection procedures, and
application procedures will be determined by responses to this notice
and other considerations of the Department.
Note: This notice does not solicit applications. A notice
inviting applications under this competition will be published in
the Federal Register concurrent with or following publication of the
notice of final selection criteria, selection procedures, and
application procedures.
Selection Criteria
The Secretary proposes in this notice selection criteria, selection
procedures, and application procedures for the FY 1997 competition and
subsequent competitions. The program statute (20 U.S.C. 6846(c))
requires the Secretary to give priority in awarding grants to consortia
that demonstrate certain factors in their applications. The Secretary
proposes to carry out this mandate by incorporating the priority
factors into the selection criteria. In addition, the Secretary
believes that substantive selection criteria specifically framed for
this program competition are necessary to enable the Secretary to
evaluate how well the applicants address the purpose of the Technology
Innovation Challenge Grants Program.
Proposed Criteria
The Secretary proposes the following unweighted selection criteria
to evaluate applications:
(a) Significance. The Secretary reviews each proposed project for
its significance by determining the extent to which the project--
(1) Offers a clear vision for the use of technology to help all
students learn to challenging standards;
(2) Will achieve far-reaching impact through results, products, or
benefits that are easily exportable to other settings and communities;
(3) Will directly benefit students by integrating acquired
technologies into the curriculum to improve teaching and student
achievement;
(4) Will ensure continuous professional development for teachers,
administrators, and other individuals to further the use of technology
in the classroom, library, or learning settings in the community;
(5) Is designed to serve areas with a high number or percentage of
disadvantaged students or other areas with the greatest need for
educational technology; and
(6) Is designed to create new learning communities among teachers,
students, parents, and others, which contribute to State or local
education goals for school improvement, and expand markets for high-
quality educational technology or content.
(b) Feasibility. The Secretary reviews each proposed project for
its feasibility by determining the extent to which--
(1) The project will ensure successful, effective, and efficient
uses of technologies for educational reform that will be sustainable
beyond the period of the grant;
(2) The members of the consortium or other appropriate entities
will contribute substantial financial and other resources to achieve
the goals of the project; and
(3) The applicant is capable of carrying out the project, as
evidenced by the extent to which the project will meet the problems
identified; the quality of the project design, including objectives,
approaches, evaluation plan, and dissemination plan; the adequacy of
resources, including money, personnel, facilities, equipment, and
supplies; the qualifications of key personnel who would conduct the
project; and the applicant's prior experience relevant to the
objectives of the project.
Evaluation and Selection of Applications
The Secretary proposes to evaluate applications using unweighted
selection criteria. The Secretary believes that the use of unweighted
criteria is most appropriate because they will allow the reviewers
maximum flexibility to apply their professional judgments in
identifying the particular strengths and weaknesses in individual
applications.
The Secretary also believes that due to the highly technical nature
of the applications, it will be necessary to obtain clarification and
additional information from applicants during the selection process.
For the purposes of the Technology Innovation Challenge Grants Program,
the Secretary proposes to be able to request highly rated applicants to
submit additional information in response to specific questions raised
during the application selection process for the FY 1997 competition
and subsequent competitions. In accordance with 34 CFR 75.231, the
Secretary also may
[[Page 8689]]
request an applicant to submit additional information after the
application has been selected for funding.
Proposed Selection Procedures
In applying the selection criteria, the Secretary proposes to use a
three-tier peer review process for the FY 1997 competition and
subsequent competitions. In view of the large number of applications in
this program, and in consideration of the complexity of each
application, the Secretary believes this process is necessary to ensure
full and thorough consideration of each application.
At each tier of the review process panels of experts will read the
applications under consideration to determine which applications are
most deserving of further consideration in light of the selection
criteria. The Department will, to the extent feasible, use reviewers
that represent three areas of expertise: (1) K-12 school-based
educators who use new technologies for classroom instruction or
curriculum development; (2) K-12 school-based administrators who have
management responsibility for school-wide, system-wide, or state-wide
technology applications; and (3) educational technology experts drawn
from higher education, consulting firms, or technology related firms.
At each tier of the review process, each reviewer assigns a
qualitative rating for Significance and a qualitative rating for
Feasibility to each application he or she reviews. The qualitative
ratings used by individual reviewers are as follows: ``A'' for high
quality; ``B'' for satisfactory quality; and ``C'' for unsatisfactory
quality. The reviewers also assign an overall rating of ``A'', ``B'',
or ``C'' for each application they review.
In Tier I of the review process reviewers are recruited to serve on
panels that meet in several regional sites around the country. Tier I
of the review process has two stages. In Stage 1 of Tier I, all of the
applications received by the published application deadline are
assigned to teams of readers at each site. The applications are read
and rated by all of the individual readers on the team, who then meet
to compare their individual ratings of each application they have read
with each other. Through this process the reviewers identify
applications that have been unanimously awarded high ratings. At the
end of Stage 1 of Tier I each team at a review site forwards its most
highly rated applications for further consideration. The applications
forwarded for further consideration at that site are then read and
individually rated by reviewers who served as team leaders in Stage 1
of Tier I. These team leaders use the same qualitative ratings of
``A'', ``B'', and ``C'' for Significance, Feasibility and the overall
rating for each forwarded application they read. In Stage 2 of Tier I
the team leaders meet to compare the ratings of all the applications
they have read or considered at both stages of Tier I, taking into
account all of the readings and ratings of all of the reviewers for
each application at that site. Those applications that have been
unanimously awarded high ratings by the team leaders at the end of
Stage 2 of Tier I are forwarded for further consideration at Tier II of
the review process.
In Tier II of the review process, team leaders from all of the
regional sites are brought together to serve as reviewers at a single
site. These reviewers read the applications forwarded for further
consideration from Tier I. Taking into account the quality of all of
the applications they have read, the reviewers assign a qualitative
rating for Significance, a qualitative rating for Feasibility, and an
overall rating of ``A'', ``B'', or ``C'' for each application they
review.
Tier II of the review process has two stages. In Stage 1 of Tier
II, the reviewers meet in teams to compare their individual ratings of
each application they have read. Through this process the reviewers
identify applications that have been unanimously awarded high ratings.
At the end of Stage 1 of Tier II each team forwards its most highly
rated applications for further consideration. The applications
forwarded for further consideration are then read and individually
rated ``A'', ``B'', or ``C'' by the team leaders who served in Stage 1
of Tier II. In Stage 2 of Tier II the team leaders meet to compare the
ratings of all the applications they have read or considered at both
stages of Tier II, taking into account all of the readings and ratings
of all of the reviewers for each application at that site. Those
applications that have been unanimously awarded high ratings at the end
of Stage 2 of Tier II are then forwarded for further consideration at
Tier III of the review process. At the end of Tier II, the reviewers
will also identify inconsistencies, points in need of clarification,
and other concerns, if any, pertaining to each application. Each
applicant whose application is forwarded for further consideration at
the end of Tier II will have an opportunity to respond in writing to
these clarification questions and concerns.
At Tier III readers are assembled to serve as reviewers at a single
site. These reviewers have served as team leaders during each of the
previous Tiers of the review, and each of the original Tier I review
sites are represented by one team leader at Tier III. There is only one
stage of review at Tier III. The reviewers read the applications that
are still under consideration and, after reading the responses to the
clarification questions, they assign ratings for Significance and
Feasibility, and an overall rating of ``A'', ``B'', or ``C'' for each
application, taking into account the quality of all of the applications
they have read. The reviewers compare their individual ratings of each
application they have read, and through this process the reviewers
identify applications that have been unanimously awarded high ratings.
Those applications that have unanimously high ratings are recommended
for funding. The reviewers also provide individual recommendations on
an appropriate budget level for each application recommended for
funding. The Secretary awards grants only to those applications the
reviewers have recommended for funding at the end of Tier III. No other
applications are considered for funding. In the final selection of
applications for funding, the Secretary may also consider the extent to
which each application demonstrates an effective response to the
learning technology needs of areas with a high number or percentage of
disadvantaged students or the greatest need for educational technology.
In preparation for a grant award, the Secretary also may request an
applicant to submit additional information after the application has
been selected for funding.
The Secretary believes these procedures lead to the selection of
the best applications for funding under this program.
Application Deadline
The Secretary, in order to ensure timely receipt and processing of
applications, proposes the following application deadline for the FY
1997 competition and subsequent competitions.
Proposed Procedures for Submission of Applications
Applications, in order to be considered for funding under this
program, must be received on or before the deadline date announced in
the application notice published in the Federal Register. The Secretary
will not consider an application for funding if it is not received by
the deadline date
[[Page 8690]]
unless the applicant can show, in accordance with 34 CFR 75.102 (d) and
(e), proof that the application was (1) sent by registered or certified
mail not later than five days before the deadline date; or (2) sent by
commercial carrier not later than two days before the deadline date. An
applicant must show proof of mailing in accordance with 34 CFR
75.102(d) and (e). Applications delivered by hand must be received by
4:00 p.m. (Washington, D.C. time) on the deadline date. For the
purposes of this competition the Secretary proposes not to apply 34 CFR
75.102(b), which requires an application to be mailed, rather than
received, by the deadline date.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
The proposed selection criteria contain information collection
requirements. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3507(d)), the Department of Education has submitted a copy of
these selection criteria to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review.
Collection of Information: Technology Innovation Challenge Grants
Program.
Under this program consortia are eligible to apply. Each consortium
must include at least one LEA with a high percentage or number of
children living below the poverty line and may include other LEAs,
State educational agencies, institutions of higher education,
businesses, academic content experts, software designers, museums,
libraries, or other appropriate entities. The information to be
collected includes a description of each proposed project, including
the professional development that teachers and other educational
support staff will receive in the use of technologies; the integration
of acquired technologies into curriculum to enhance teaching, training,
and student achievement; and a project evaluation including a
dissemination strategy. The Department needs and will use the
information to select, on the basis of project feasibility and
significance, the highest quality applications.
All information is to be collected and reported once, as part of
the application for assistance. Annual reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 40
hours for each response for 500 respondents, including time for
reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the
collection of information. Thus, the total annual reporting and
recordkeeping burden for this collection is estimated to be 20,000
hours. Organizations and individuals desiring to submit comments on the
information collection requirements should direct them to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Room 10235, New Executive
Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; Attention: Desk Officer for U.S.
Department of Education.
The Department considers comments by the public on these proposed
collections of information in--
Evaluating whether the proposed collections of information
are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the
Department, including whether the information will have practical
utility;
Evaluating the accuracy of the Department's estimate of
the burden of the proposed collections of information, including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
Enhancing the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and
Minimizing the burden of the collection of information on
those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate
automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection
techniques or other forms of information technology; e.g., permitting
electronic submission of responses.
OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collections of
information contained in these proposed selection criteria, selection
procedures, and application procedures between 30 and 60 days after
publication of this document in the Federal Register. Therefore, a
comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB
receives it within 30 days of publication. This does not affect the
deadline for the public to comment to the Department on the proposed
selection criteria and procedures.
Intergovernmental Review
This program is subject to the requirements of Executive Order
12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. The objective of the
Executive Order is to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a
strengthened federalism by relying on processes developed by State and
local governments for coordination and review of proposed Federal
financial assistance.
In accordance with the Order, this document is intended to provide
early notification of the Department's specific plans and actions for
this program.
Invitation to Comment
Interested persons are invited to submit comments and
recommendations regarding these proposed selection criteria and
procedures. Comments will be available for public inspection, during
and after the comment period, in Room 606D, 555 New Jersey Avenue, NW,
Washington, DC, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday of each week except Federal holidays.
Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 6846.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 84.303A, Challenge
Grants for Technology in Education)
Dated: February 21, 1997.
Marshall Smith,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Educational Research and Improvement.
[FR Doc. 97-4768 Filed 2-25-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
