[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 61 (Thursday, March 28, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13996-14003]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-7595]
[[Page 13995]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part VI
Department of Education
_______________________________________________________________________
34 CFR Part 656
Higher Education Programs in Modern Foreign Language Training and Area
Studies--National Resource Centers Program for Foreign Language and
International Studies; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 61 / Thursday, March 28, 1996 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 13996]]
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Part 656
RIN 1840-AC27
Higher Education Programs in Modern Foreign Language Training and
Area Studies--National Resource Centers Program for Foreign Language
and Area Studies or Foreign Language and International Studies
AGENCY: Department of Education.
ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Secretary proposes to amend the regulations governing the
Higher Education Programs in Modern Foreign Language Training and Area
Studies--National Resource Centers Program for Foreign Language and
Area Studies or Foreign Language and International Studies (National
Resource Centers Program). These amendments are needed in order to
improve the application review process and to update the regulations in
light of developments in the field of foreign language, area, and
international studies. In the spirit of reinventing government, the
goal of the proposed changes is to markedly reduce the burden
associated with the application process. These proposed regulations
would (a) reduce the burden on applicants and readers by clarifying and
redesigning selection criteria to remove ambiguity and eliminate
repetition of information presented in applications, (b) facilitate
grantee selection by providing a larger point spread for greater
differentiation of rankings, and (c) improve program quality,
efficiency, and flexibility by adopting changes program management
experience shows to be appropriate.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 29, 1996.
ADDRESSES: All comments concerning these proposed regulations should be
addressed to Sara West, U.S. Department of Education, 600 Independence
Avenue, S.W., Suite 600B, Portals Building, Washington, D.C. 20202-
5331. Comments may also be sent through the Internet to
``National__Resource@ed.gov''.
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 preamble. A copy of those
comments may also be sent to the Department representative named in the
preceding paragraph.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sara West. Telephone: (202) 401-9782.
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:
Background
The National Resource Centers Program is one of several
international education programs authorized under Part A of Title VI of
the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended. The main provisions of
the regulations govern the awarding of grants designed to assist
eligible institutions of higher education in improving and developing
their programs in modern foreign languages and area or international
studies.
In the spirit of reinventing government, it is the Secretary's goal
to simplify the application process and management of the National
Resource Centers Program. The Secretary proposes changes to add clarity
to the review process, to decrease the current burden on applicants and
peer reviewers, to facilitate the application of uniform standards
among peer reviewers, and to increase flexibility in program management
for funded grantees and for the Secretary.
The Secretary proposes to amend the regulations for the National
Resource Centers Program by modifying the selection criteria for
applications and by adding activities to the list of definitions and to
the list of priorities.
Selection Criteria. The selection criteria currently used are very
general, leading to some misinterpretation of questions asked, frequent
repetition of information, and the inclusion of information that is not
pertinent to the purpose of the National Resource Centers Program. The
proposed changes seek to retain much of the sense of the current
criteria while removing ambiguity regarding requested information. The
purpose of the changes is to clarify what information should be
presented so that (a) all applicants will provide more focused
information necessary for evaluation of a proposal under this program,
(b) applicants will be able to present all relevant information within
fewer pages of proposal narrative, and (c) peer reviewers will be able
to more easily and accurately evaluate and rank proposals based on
comparative strengths.
A reorganized, broader point scale and clearly identified point
allocations for individual paragraphs of the selection criteria are
proposed in order to (a) enable peer reviewers to score more carefully
and accurately differentiate between proposals of high caliber, (b)
discourage peer reviewers from overlooking any individual question to
be scored, and (c) clarify for peer reviewers and applicants exactly
what requested information corresponds to each point value.
Expanded Definitions. The Secretary proposes to amend the
regulations in keeping with current standards in the field of area,
language, and international studies by (a) expanding the definition of
a comprehensive center to include curriculum development and community
outreach and (b) expanding the activities that define a comprehensive
center to include ``training'' as well as research. These activities
have long been standard at successful comprehensive National Resource
Centers.
Expanded Possible Priorities. The Secretary proposes to increase
flexibility in program management by expanding the list of possible
funding priorities to include course development. Course development
has long been a standard activity at National Resource Centers because
it is a primary means by which training programs are strengthened.
Including it in the list of possible priorities is, therefore, in
keeping with the purpose of the National Resource Centers Program.
Explanation of Changes
The proposed changes include the following:
Section 656.3. What activities define a comprehensive or undergraduate
National Resource Center?
Section 656.3(e)(2). The Secretary proposes to expand the list of
activities defining a comprehensive center to include training. The
current list does not accurately reflect the fact that National
Resource Centers train specialists in area, language, and international
studies.
Section 656.7. What definitions apply?
Section 656.7(d)(5). The Secretary proposes to expand the list of
activities under the comprehensive center definition to reflect two
activities commonly engaged in by successful grantees: curriculum
development and community outreach. Curriculum development is very
important for strengthening language and area centers and programs,
while community outreach is necessary in order for centers to function
as national resources. These activities are, therefore, integral to the
purpose of the National Resource Centers Program. Including curriculum
development and
[[Page 13997]]
community outreach in the list of activities would further clarify to
the public the purpose of the grants and activities commonly engaged in
by grantees.
Section 656.20. How does the Secretary evaluate an application?
Section 656.20(b). The Secretary proposes to expand the range of
possible points for applications in order to enable peer reviewers to
more carefully and accurately differentiate among proposals of high
caliber in scoring. It has been the Secretary's experience that
competition for grants under the National Resource Centers Program is
strong. Recent winning applicants have scored in the 80's and low 90's
on the current 100-point scale. As a result, there has been narrow
point differentiation between successful applicants and high-ranking
unsuccessful applicants. The Secretary believes that expanding the
possible point range would facilitate funding decisions by providing
peer reviewers with a larger scale on which to rank applications,
allowing for greater differentiation of scores for applications of
similar but different merit. The changed point scale, reflecting
changes in the technical review criteria and their point allocations,
would add 50 possible points for competitions for which there are no
announced competitive priorities and 60 possible points for
competitions for which competitive priorities have been announced.
Section 656.21. What selection criteria does the Secretary use to
evaluate an application for a comprehensive center?
The Secretary proposes extensive changes in the sections dealing
with selection criteria for comprehensive and undergraduate centers in
order to improve the program's application review process and to
reflect current standards in the field of foreign language, area and
international studies. Modifications to the criteria are meant to more
clearly identify the information that is relevant to the competition
and to allow applicants to streamline their applications, thereby
facilitating proposal writing for applicants and evaluation for peer
reviewers. The proposed criteria incorporate most aspects of the
current criteria, and applicants would, therefore, be expected to
provide much of the same information as in the past. By more
specifically identifying information to be provided in an application,
the proposed criteria would allow applicants to exclude less helpful,
generalized, and sometimes repetitious information and provide a
concise justification for proposed activities in light of the purpose
of the National Resource Centers Program.
Section 656.21(a). The Secretary proposes to replace the Plan of
operation criterion with a criterion called Program planning and
budget. The Program planning and budget criterion incorporates related
elements of the current Plan of operation, Budget and cost
effectiveness, and the Need and potential impact criteria. It has been
the Secretary's experience that the language of these current criteria
requires modification in order to avoid confusion among applicants and
peer reviewers regarding the meaning of the questions asked. For
example, one question under the Plan of operation criterion asks to
what extent the objectives of the project relate to the purpose of the
program. Applicants and evaluators are frequently uncertain whether
``program'' refers to the National Resource Centers grant program or to
the applicant's training program. Additionally, the separation of these
related elements under the present criteria frequently causes
applicants to repeat the same information under several criteria. The
Secretary proposes to clarify information to be presented and eliminate
repetition by asking very explicit questions regarding the
administration, cost-effectiveness, quality, and long-term impact of
proposed activities in one criterion.
Section 656.21(b). The Secretary proposes to replace the Quality of
key personnel criterion with a criterion called Quality of staff
resources. The staff resources criterion would ask for the same kind of
information as the current key personnel criterion but would also
require more explicit information to be presented regarding faculty and
staff involvement in center activities and oversight and professional
development opportunities.
Section 656.21(c). The Secretary proposes to eliminate the current
Budget and cost effectiveness criterion due to relocating questions on
this subject matter under the proposed Program planning and budget
criterion. The Secretary proposes a new Impact and evaluation criterion
that would combine related aspects of the current Need and potential
impact, Evaluation plan, and Plan of operation criteria. The
combination of these questions in one criterion is logical due to the
interrelatedness of questions about past performance and evaluating
future performance.
Section 656.21(d). The Secretary proposes to eliminate the current
Evaluation plan criterion due to the inclusion of similar questions
under the proposed Impact and evaluation criterion. The Secretary
proposes to redesignate the criterion Commitment to the subject area on
which the center focuses, with a minor modification of language in
order to identify the information to be presented.
Section 656.21(e). The Secretary proposes to modify and redesignate
the Strength of library criterion. Due to the changes in information
technologies and the rising costs of maintaining traditional
collections, a library's book and periodical holdings are no longer the
only factor that should be considered in evaluating the strength of a
National Resource Center's library. The proposed regulations would
clarify information to be presented and take into account that library
resources can be provided in print and non-print media, through
cooperative collection and access arrangements with other library
collections, and through on-line, electronic data bases.
Section 656.21(f). The Secretary proposes to insert a new criterion
called Quality of the center's non-language instructional program. The
proposed criterion would incorporate related elements of the current
Quality of the center's instructional program and Quality of the
center's relationships within the institution criteria. The Secretary
believes that including all questions related to non-language course
offerings in one section would allow grantees to streamline their
proposals and avoid repetition. It has been the Secretary's experience
that combining questions about non-language and language courses in the
same criterion can lead to applicants' neglecting to provide full
information about both non-language and language training. Further, the
comprehensive nature of a resource center is reflected by the extent to
which it incorporates non-language training in addition to training in
language, literature, and linguistics. For these reasons, the Secretary
proposes to ask parallel questions regarding the quality of language
and non-language training under two separate criteria. It is the
opinion of the Secretary that separate criteria would emphasize the
importance to the National Resource Centers Program of both language
and area or international studies training.
Section 656.21(g). The Secretary proposes to address under this
criterion the Quality of the center's language instructional program.
Questions asked under this criterion are similar to questions currently
asked under Quality of the center's instructional program criterion but
more specifically identify information to be provided.
[[Page 13998]]
Section 656.21(h). The Secretary proposes to eliminate the current
Quality of the center's relationships within the institution criterion
due to the inclusion of similar questions under the proposed Quality of
the center's non-language instructional program criterion. The
Secretary proposes a new Quality of curriculum design criterion that
would combine elements of the current Quality of the center's
relationships within the institution and Overseas activities criteria.
The new criterion would allow applicants to focus on the issue of
training options for students within the context of a single criterion.
Section 656.21(i). The Secretary proposes to eliminate the current
Overseas activities criterion due to the inclusion of related questions
under the proposed Quality of curriculum design, Commitment to the
subject area on which the center focuses, and Quality of staff
resources criteria. It has been the Secretary's experience in this
program that overseas opportunities and activities have been critical
to providing successful training options for students and professional
development opportunities for faculty. Therefore, the Secretary
believes that it is more appropriate and more clearly related to the
purpose of the National Resource Centers Program to ask questions
regarding overseas activities in the context of curriculum design and
staff resources. The Secretary proposes to insert in this section a
modified Outreach activities criterion. Proposed changes to this
criterion reflect the Secretary's experience that outreach to
postsecondary institutions, business, the media, and the general public
is frequently overlooked in favor of elementary and secondary school
outreach. By specifying separate point allocations for different kinds
of outreach, the Secretary hopes to emphasize the importance to the
National Resource Centers Program of outreach to all communities.
Section 656.21(j). The Secretary proposes to eliminate the current
Need and potential impact criterion due to the inclusion of related
questions under the proposed Program planning and budget and Impact and
evaluation criteria. The Secretary proposes to replace this criterion
with the current Degree to which priorities are served criterion,
decreasing the point value from 20 points to 10. It has been the
Secretary's experience that most proposals submitted for competitions
under this program succeed in securing almost all of the points
assigned to the competitive priority. A 20-point allocation to the
competitive priority can result in applications with weaker scores on
the mandatory criteria outscoring more fundamentally sound applications
that do not meet the priority. A 10-point competitive priority
allocation would continue to ensure that quality proposals that meet
the competitive priority are funded before quality proposals that do
not meet the priority. The Secretary proposes to decrease the total
possible points allocated for priorities in order to maintain
proportion in the competition and to ensure that only high quality
proposals are funded.
Section 656.21(k). The Secretary proposes to delete this paragraph
since the Outreach activities criterion would be included as previously
noted.
Section 656.21(l). The Secretary proposes to delete this paragraph
since the Degree to which priorities are served criterion would be
included as previously noted.
Section 656.22. What selection criteria does the Secretary use to
evaluate an application for an undergraduate center?
Like the criteria for comprehensive centers, the proposed
undergraduate center selection criteria incorporate most aspects of the
current criteria but are restructured to enable applicants to present
the appropriate information more succinctly and with less repetition.
The same selection criteria proposed for comprehensive centers are
proposed for undergraduate centers, with small variances in point
values and questions. The primary difference is that, for undergraduate
centers, only questions related to undergraduate training programs are
asked, while the comprehensive center selection criteria encompass
undergraduate, graduate, and professional training programs.
Section 656.22(a). As in the comprehensive centers selection
criteria, the Secretary proposes to replace the Plan of operation
criterion with a criterion called Program planning and budget. The
Program planning and budget criterion incorporates related elements of
the current Plan of operation, Budget and cost effectiveness, and Need
and potential impact criteria. It has been the Secretary's experience
that the language of these current criteria requires modification in
order to avoid confusion among applicants and peer reviewers regarding
the meaning of the questions asked. Additionally, the separation of
these related elements into individual criteria frequently causes
applicants to repeat the same information under several guises. The
Secretary proposes to clarify information to be presented and eliminate
the need for repetition by asking very explicit questions regarding the
administration, cost-effectiveness, quality, and long-term impact of
proposed activities in one criterion.
Section 656.22(b). As in the comprehensive centers selection
criteria, the Secretary proposes to replace the Quality of key
personnel criterion with a criterion called Quality of staff resources.
The staff resources criterion would ask for the same kind of
information as the current key personnel criterion, but would also
require more explicit information to be presented regarding faculty and
staff involvement in center activities and oversight and professional
development opportunities.
Section 656.22(c). As in the comprehensive center selection
criteria, the Secretary proposes to eliminate the current Budget and
cost effectiveness criterion due to relocating similar questions under
the proposed Program planning and budget criterion. The Secretary
proposes a new Impact and evaluation criterion that would combine
related aspects of the current Need and potential impact, Evaluation
plan, and Plan of operation criteria. The combination of these
questions in one criterion is logical due to the interrelatedness of
questions about past performance and evaluating future performance.
Section 656.22(d). The Secretary proposes to eliminate the current
Evaluation plan criterion due to the inclusion of similar questions
under the proposed Impact and evaluation criterion and to redesignate
the current criterion Commitment to the subject area on which the
center focuses, with a minor modification of language in order to
identify the information to be presented.
Section 656.22(e). As in the comprehensive center selection
criteria, the Secretary proposes to modify and redesignate the Strength
of library criterion. Due to the changes in information technology and
the rising costs of maintaining traditional collections, a library's
book and periodical holdings are no longer the only factor that should
be considered in evaluating the strength of a National Resource
Center's library. The proposed regulations would clarify information to
be presented and take into account that library resources can be
provided in print and non-print media, through cooperative collections
and access arrangements with other library collections, and through on-
line, electronic data bases.
Section 656.22(f). As in the comprehensive center selection
criteria,
[[Page 13999]]
the Secretary proposes to add a new criterion called Quality of the
center's non-language instructional program. The proposed criterion
would incorporate related elements of the current Quality of the
center's instructional program and Quality of the center's
relationships within the institution criteria. The Secretary believes
that including all questions related to non-language course offerings
in one section would allow grantees to streamline their proposals and
avoid repetition. It has been the Secretary's experience that combining
questions about non-language and language courses in the same criterion
can lead to applicants neglecting to provide full information about
both non-language and language training. For that reason, the Secretary
proposes to ask parallel questions regarding the quality of language
and non-language training under two separate criteria. It is the
opinion of the Secretary that separate criteria would emphasize the
importance to the National Resource Centers Program of both language
and area or international studies training.
Section 656.22(g). The Secretary proposes to address under this
criterion the Quality of the center's language instructional program.
Questions asked under this criterion are similar to questions currently
asked under Quality of the center's instructional program criterion but
more specifically identify information to be provided.
Section 656.22(h). As in the comprehensive center selection
criteria, the Secretary proposes to eliminate the current Quality of
the center's relationships within the institution criterion due to the
inclusion of similar questions under the proposed Quality of the
center's non-language instructional program criterion. The Secretary
proposes a new Quality of curriculum design criterion that would
combine elements of the current Quality of the center's relationships
within the institution and Overseas activities criteria. The new
criterion would allow applicants to focus on the issue of training
options for undergraduate students within the context of a single
criterion.
Section 656.22(i). The Secretary proposes to eliminate the current
Overseas activities criterion due to the inclusion of related questions
under the proposed Quality of curriculum design, Commitment to the
subject area on which the center focuses, and Quality of staff
resources criteria. It has been the Secretary's experience in this
program that overseas activities have been critical to providing
successful training options for students and professional development
opportunities for faculty. Therefore, the Secretary believes that it is
more appropriate and more clearly related to the purpose of the
National Resource Centers Program to ask questions regarding overseas
activities in the context of curriculum design and staff resources. The
Secretary proposes to add under this section a modified Outreach
activities criterion. Proposed changes to this criterion reflect the
Secretary's experience that outreach to postsecondary institutions,
business, the media, and the general public is frequently overlooked in
favor of elementary and secondary school outreach. By specifying
separate point allocations for different kinds of outreach, the
Secretary hopes to emphasize the importance to the National Resource
Centers Program of outreach to all communities.
Section 656.22(j). As in the comprehensive center selection
criteria, the Secretary proposes to eliminate the current Need and
potential impact criterion due to the inclusion of related questions
under the proposed Program planning and budget and Impact and
evaluation criteria. The Secretary proposes to replace this criterion
with the current Degree to which priorities are served criterion,
decreasing the point value from 20 points to 10. It has been the
Secretary's experience that most proposals submitted for competitions
under this program succeed in securing almost all of the points
assigned to the competitive priority. A 20-point allocation to the
competitive priority can result in applications with weaker scores on
the mandatory criteria outscoring more fundamentally sound applications
that do not meet the priority. A 10-point competitive priority
allocation would continue to ensure that quality proposals that meet
the competitive priority are funded before quality proposals that do
not meet the priority. The Secretary proposes to decrease the total
possible points allocated for priorities in order to maintain
proportion in the competition and to ensure that only high quality
proposals are funded.
Section 656.22(k). The Secretary proposes to delete this paragraph
since the Outreach activities criterion would be included as previously
noted.
Section 656.22(l). The Secretary proposes to delete this paragraph
since the Degree to which priorities are served criterion would be
included as previously noted.
Section 656.23. What priorities may the Secretary establish?
The Secretary proposes two modifications to this section that would
help to clarify and expand possible funding priorities.
Section 656.23(a)(3). The Secretary proposes to clarify that
intensive language instruction is not limited to 10 contact hours per
week by adding the phrase ``or more.'' Ten contact hours of instruction
per week is normally considered the minimum for what constitutes
intensive language training rather than the standard.
Section 656.23(a)(4). The Secretary proposes to expand the list of
types of activities to be carried out by adding ``course development.''
Course development is an important tool for strengthening training
programs and, therefore, is in keeping with the purpose of the National
Resource Centers Program.
Executive Order 12866
Clarity of the Regulations
Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write regulations
that are easy to understand.
The Secretary invites comments on how to make these proposed
regulations easier to understand, including answers to questions such
as the following: (1) Are the requirements in the regulations clearly
stated? (2) Do the regulations contain technical terms or other wording
that interfere with their clarity? (3) Does the format of the
regulations (grouping and order of sections, use of headings,
paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce their clarity? Would the regulations
be easier to understand if they were divided into more (but shorter)
sections? (A ``section'' is preceded by the symbol ``Sec. '' and a
numbered heading; for example, Sec. 656.20 How does the Secretary
evaluate an application?) (4) Is the description of the proposed
regulations in the ``Supplementary Information'' section of this
preamble helpful in understanding the proposed regulations? How could
this description be more helpful in making the proposed regulations
easier to understand? (5) What else could the Department do to make the
regulations easier to understand?
A copy of any comments that concern how the Department could make
these proposed regulations easier to understand should also be sent to
Stanley M. Cohen, Regulations Quality Officer, U.S. Department of
Education, 600 Independence Avenue, SW. (Room 5100 FB-10B), Washington,
DC 20202-2241.
Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification
The Secretary certifies that these proposed regulations would not
have a
[[Page 14000]]
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
These proposed regulations merely correct or simplify and clarify
provisions contained in previous regulations and would impose minimal
requirements to ensure the proper expenditure of program funds. The
small entities that would be affected by these proposed regulations are
small institutions of higher education receiving Federal funds under
this program. However, the regulations would not have a significant
economic impact on the institutions affected because the regulations
would not impose excessive regulatory burdens or require unnecessary
Federal supervision.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
Sections 656.21 and 656.22 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 sections to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for its
review.
Collection of Information: National Resource Centers Program for
Foreign Language and Area Studies or Foreign Language and International
Studies.
Institutions of higher education and consortia of institutions of
higher education are eligible to apply for grants under these
regulations. The information to be collected is specified by the
proposed selection criteria and includes information currently
collected under regulations for this program. This information is
needed and used by the Department to make grants.
The Secretary estimates that this information collection will
decrease the current estimated burden of 155 hours per response to 100
hours per response. The estimated burden includes the time for
reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the
application to be submitted. Competitions for the National Resource
Centers Program are held every three years, with approximately 150
respondents per competition.
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: Wendy Taylor.
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 regulations 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 regulations.
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 regulations.
All comments submitted in response to these proposed regulations
will be available for public inspection, during and after the comment
period, in Suite 600B, Portals Building, 1280 Maryland Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday
through Friday of each week except Federal holidays.
Assessment of Educational Impact
The Secretary particularly requests comments on whether the
proposed regulations in this document would require transmission of
information that is being gathered by or is available from any other
agency or authority of the United States.
List of Subjects in 34 CFR Part 656
Colleges and universities, Education, International education,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 84.015)
Dated: March 25, 1996.
David A. Longanecker,
Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education.
The Secretary proposes to amend Title 34 of the Code of Federal
Regulations by revising Part 656 as follows:
PART 656--NATIONAL RESOURCE CENTERS FOR FOREIGN LANGUAGE AND AREA
STUDIES OR FOREIGN LANGUAGE AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
1. The authority citation for Part 656 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1122, unless otherwise noted.
Sec. 656.3 [Amended]
2. Section 656.3 is amended by adding ``training and'' before
``research'' in paragraph (e)(2).
3. Section 656.7 is amended by removing the word ``and'' at the end
of paragraph (d)(3), removing the period at the end of paragraph (d)(4)
and adding, in its place, ``; and'', and adding paragraph (d)(5) to
read as follows:
Sec. 656.7 What definitions apply?
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(5) Engages in curriculum development and community outreach.
* * * * *
4. Section 656.20 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as
follows:
Sec. 656.20 How does the Secretary evaluate an application?
* * * * *
(b) In general, the Secretary awards up to 150 possible points for
these criteria. However, if the criterion in Secs. 656.21(l) or
656.22(l) is used, the Secretary awards up to 160 possible points. The
maximum possible points for each criterion are shown in parentheses.
5. Section 656.21 is revised to read as follows:
[[Page 14001]]
Sec. 656.21 What selection criteria does the Secretary use to evaluate
an application for a comprehensive center?
The Secretary uses the following criteria in evaluating an
application for a comprehensive center:
(a) Program planning and budget. (20 points) The Secretary reviews
each application to determine--
(1) The extent to which the activities for which the applicant
seeks funding are of high quality and directly related to the purpose
of the National Resource Centers Program (5 points);
(2) The extent to which the applicant provides a development plan
or timeline demonstrating how the proposed activities will contribute
to a strengthened program and whether the applicant uses its resources
and personnel effectively to achieve the proposed objectives (5
points);
(3) The extent to which the costs of the proposed activities are
reasonable in relation to the objectives of the program (5 points); and
(4) The long-term impact of the proposed activities on the
institution's undergraduate, graduate, and professional training
programs (5 points).
(b) Quality of staff resources. (20 points) The Secretary reviews
each application to determine--
(1) The extent to which teaching faculty and other staff are
qualified for the current and proposed center activities and training
programs, are provided professional development opportunities
(including overseas experience), and participate in teaching,
supervising, and advising students (10 points);
(2) The adequacy of center staffing and oversight arrangements,
including outreach and administration and the extent to which faculty
from a variety of departments, professional schools, and the library
are involved (5 points); and
(3) The extent to which the applicant, as part of its
nondiscriminatory employment practices, encourages applications for
employment from persons who are members of groups that have been
traditionally underrepresented, such as members of racial or ethnic
minority groups, women, persons with disabilities, and the elderly (5
points).
(c) Impact and evaluation. (20 points) The Secretary reviews each
application to determine--
(1) The extent to which the center's activities and training
programs have a significant impact on the university, community,
region, and the Nation as shown through indices such as enrollments,
graduate placement data, participation rates for events, and usage of
center resources; and the extent to which the applicant supplies a
clear description of how the applicant will provide equal access and
treatment of eligible project participants who are members of groups
that have been traditionally underrepresented, such as members of
racial or ethnic minority groups, women, persons with disabilities, and
the elderly (10 points); and
(2) The extent to which the applicant provides an evaluation plan
that will be comprehensive and objective and that will produce
quantifiable, outcome-measure-oriented data; and the extent to which
recent evaluations have been used to improve the applicant's program
(10 points).
(d) Commitment to the subject area on which the center focuses. (10
points) The Secretary reviews each application to determine the extent
to which the institution provides financial and other support to the
operation of the center, teaching staff for the center's subject area,
library resources, linkages with institutions abroad, outreach
activities, and qualified students in fields related to the center.
(e) Strength of library. (10 points) The Secretary reviews each
application to determine--
(1) The strength of the institution's library holdings (both print
and non-print, English and foreign language) in the subject area and at
the educational levels (graduate, professional, undergraduate) on which
the center focuses; and the extent to which the institution provides
financial support for the acquisition of library materials and for
library staff in the subject area of the center (5 points); and
(2) The extent to which research materials at other institutions
are available to students through cooperative arrangements with other
libraries or on-line databases and the extent to which teachers,
students, and faculty from other institutions are able to access the
library's holdings (5 points).
(f) Quality of the center's non-language instructional program. (20
points) The Secretary reviews each application to determine--
(1) The quality and extent of the center's course offerings in a
variety of disciplines, including the extent to which courses in the
center's subject matter are available in the institution's professional
schools (5 points);
(2) The extent to which the center offers depth of specialized
course coverage in one or more disciplines of the center's subject area
(5 points);
(3) The extent to which the institution employs a sufficient number
of teaching faculty to enable the center to carry out its purposes and
the extent to which teaching assistants are provided with pedagogy
training (5 points); and
(4) The extent to which interdisciplinary courses are offered for
undergraduate and graduate students (5 points).
(g) Quality of the center's language instructional program. (20
points) The Secretary reviews each application to determine--
(1) The extent to which the center provides instruction in the
languages of the center's subject area and the extent to which students
enroll in those language courses (5 points);
(2) The extent to which the center provides three or more levels of
language training and the extent to which courses in disciplines other
than language, linguistics, and literature are offered in appropriate
foreign languages (5 points);
(3) Whether sufficient numbers of language faculty are available to
teach the languages and levels of instruction described in the
application and the extent to which language teaching staff (including
faculty and teaching assistants) have been exposed to current language
pedagogy training appropriate for performance-based teaching (5
points); and
(4) The quality of the language program as measured by the
performance-based instruction being used or developed, the adequacy of
resources for language teaching and practice, and language proficiency
requirements (5 points).
(h) Quality of curriculum design. (15 points) The Secretary reviews
each application to determine--
(1) The extent to which the center's curriculum has incorporated
undergraduate instruction in the applicant's area or topic of
specialization into baccalaureate degree programs (for example, major,
minor, or certificate programs) and the extent to which these programs
and their requirements (including language requirements) are
appropriate for a center in this subject area and will result in an
undergraduate training program of high quality (5 points);
(2) The extent to which the center's curriculum provides training
options for graduate students from a variety of disciplines and
professional fields and the extent to which these programs and their
requirements (including language requirements) are appropriate for a
center in this subject area and result in graduate training programs of
high quality (5 points); and
(3) The extent to which the center provides academic and career
advising
[[Page 14002]]
services for students; the extent to which the center has established
formal arrangements for students to conduct research or study abroad
and the extent to which these arrangements are used; and the extent to
which the institution facilitates student access to other institutions'
study abroad and summer language programs (5 points).
(i) Outreach activities. (15 points) The Secretary reviews each
application to determine the extent to which the center demonstrates a
significant and measurable regional and national impact of, and faculty
and professional school involvement in, outreach activities that
involve--
(1) Elementary and secondary schools (5 points);
(2) Postsecondary institutions (5 points); and
(3) Business, media, and the general public (5 points).
(j) Degree to which priorities are served. (10 points) If, under
the provisions of Sec. 656.23, the Secretary establishes specific
priorities for Centers, the Secretary considers the degree to which
those priorities are being served.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1122)
6. Section 656.22 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 656.22 What selection criteria does the Secretary use to evaluate
an application for an undergraduate center?
The Secretary uses the following criteria in evaluating an
application for an undergraduate center:
(a) Program planning and budget. (20 points) The Secretary reviews
each application to determine--
(1) The extent to which the activities for which the applicant
seeks funding are of high quality and directly related to the purpose
of the National Resource Centers Program (5 points);
(2) The extent to which the applicant provides a development plan
or timeline demonstrating how the proposed activities will contribute
to a strengthened program and whether the applicant uses its resources
and personnel effectively to achieve the proposed objectives (5
points);
(3) The extent to which the costs of the proposed activities are
reasonable in relation to the objectives of the program (5 points); and
(4) The long-term impact of the proposed activities on the
institution's undergraduate training program (5 points).
(b) Quality of staff resources. (20 points) The Secretary reviews
each application to determine--
(1) The extent to which teaching faculty and other staff are
qualified for the current and proposed center activities and training
programs, are provided professional development opportunities
(including overseas experience), and participate in teaching,
supervising, and advising students (10 points);
(2) The adequacy of center staffing and oversight arrangements,
including outreach and administration and the extent to which faculty
from a variety of departments, professional schools, and the library
are involved (5 points); and
(3) The extent to which the applicant, as part of its
nondiscriminatory employment practices, encourages applications for
employment from persons who are members of groups that have been
traditionally underrepresented, such as members of racial or ethnic
minority groups, women, persons with disabilities, and the elderly (5
points).
(c) Impact and evaluation. (20 points) The Secretary reviews each
application to determine--
(1) The extent to which the center's activities and training
programs have a significant impact on the university, community,
region, and the Nation as shown through indices such as enrollments,
graduate placement data, participation rates for events, and usage of
center resources; the extent to which students matriculate into
advanced language and area or international studies programs or related
professional programs; and the extent to which the applicant supplies a
clear description of how the applicant will provide equal access and
treatment of eligible project participants who are members of groups
that have been traditionally underrepresented, such as members of
racial or ethnic minority groups, women, persons with disabilities, and
the elderly (10 points); and
(2) The extent to which the applicant provides an evaluation plan
that will be comprehensive and objective and produce quantifiable,
outcome-measure-oriented data; and the extent to which recent
evaluations have been used to improve the applicant's program (10
points).
(d) Commitment to the subject area on which the center focuses. (10
points) The Secretary reviews each application to determine the extent
to which the institution provides financial and other support to the
operation of the center, teaching staff for the center's subject area,
library resources, linkages with institutions abroad, outreach
activities, and qualified students in fields related to the center.
(e) Strength of library. (10 points) The Secretary reviews each
application to determine--
(1) The strength of the institution's library holdings (both print
and non-print, English and foreign language) in the subject area and at
the educational levels (graduate, professional, undergraduate) on which
the center focuses; and the extent to which the institution provides
financial support for the acquisition of library materials and for
library staff in the subject area of the center (5 points); and
(2) The extent to which research materials at other institutions
are available to students through cooperative arrangements with other
libraries or on-line databases and the extent to which teachers,
students, and faculty from other institutions are able to access the
library's holdings (5 points).
(f) Quality of the center's non-language instructional program. (20
points) The Secretary reviews each application to determine--
(1) The quality and extent of the center's course offerings in a
variety of disciplines (5 points);
(2) The extent to which the center offers depth of specialized
course coverage in one or more disciplines of the center's subject area
(5 points);
(3) The extent to which the institution employs a sufficient number
of teaching faculty to enable the center to carry out its purposes and
the extent to which teaching assistants are provided with pedagogy
training (5 points); and
(4) The extent to which interdisciplinary courses are offered for
undergraduate students (5 points).
(g) Quality of the center's language instructional program. (20
points) The Secretary reviews each application to determine--
(1) The extent to which the center provides instruction in the
languages of the center's subject area and the extent to which students
enroll in those language courses (5 points);
(2) The extent to which the center provides three or more levels of
language training and the extent to which courses in disciplines other
than language, linguistics, and literature are offered in appropriate
foreign languages (5 points);
(3) Whether sufficient numbers of language faculty are available to
teach the languages and levels of instruction described in the
application and the extent to which language teaching staff (including
faculty and teaching assistants) have been exposed to current language
pedagogy training appropriate for performance-based teaching (5
points); and
(4) The quality of the language program as measured by the
performance-based instruction being
[[Page 14003]]
used or developed, the adequacy of resources for language teaching and
practice, and language proficiency requirements (5 points).
(h) Quality of curriculum design. (15 points) The Secretary reviews
each application to determine--
(1) The extent to which the center's curriculum has incorporated
undergraduate instruction in the applicant's area or topic of
specialization into baccalaureate degree programs (for example, major,
minor, or certificate programs) and the extent to which these programs
and their requirements (including language requirements) are
appropriate for a center in this subject area and will result in an
undergraduate training program of high quality (10 points); and
(2) The extent to which the center provides academic and career
advising services for students; the extent to which the center has
established formal arrangements for students to conduct research or
study abroad and the extent to which these arrangements are used; and
the extent to which the institution facilitates student access to other
institutions' study abroad and summer language programs (5 points).
(i) Outreach activities. (15 points) The Secretary reviews each
application to determine the extent to which the center demonstrates a
significant and measurable regional and national impact of, and faculty
and professional school involvement in, outreach activities that
involve--
(1) Elementary and secondary schools (5 points);
(2) Postsecondary institutions (5 points); and
(3) Business, media and the general public (5 points).
(j) Degree to which priorities are served. (10 points) If, under
the provisions of Sec. 656.23, the Secretary establishes specific
priorities for centers, the Secretary considers the degree to which
those priorities are being served.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1122)
7. Section 656.23 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(3) and
(a)(4) to read as follows:
Sec. 656.23 What priorities may the Secretary establish?
(a) * * *
(3) Level or intensiveness of language instruction, such as
intermediate or advanced language instruction, or instruction at an
intensity of 10 contact hours or more per week.
(4) Types of activities to be carried out, for example, cooperative
summer intensive language programs, course development, or teacher
training activities.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 96-7595 Filed 3-27-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
