[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 43 (Thursday, March 5, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11078-11081]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-5736]
[[Page 11077]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part IV
Department of Education
_______________________________________________________________________
Technology Innovation Challenge Grants; Final Priority and Selection
Criteria and Applications for New Awards for Fiscal Year (FY) 1998;
Notices
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 43 / Thursday, March 5, 1998 /
Notices
[[Page 11078]]
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Technology Innovation Challenge Grants; Notice of Final Priority
and Selection Criteria
SUMMARY: The Secretary announces a final priority for the Technology
Innovation Challenge Grant Program, administered by the Office of
Educational Research and Improvement (OERI). The Secretary also
establishes selection criteria for evaluating and selecting
applications submitted under this priority. The Secretary may use this
priority only in fiscal year 1998. The Secretary takes these actions to
focus Federal assistance on professional development programs that
foster the use and integration of advanced technology into the
curriculum in compelling and effective ways.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This priority takes effect April 6, 1998.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Payer or Shirley Steele,
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and
Improvement, 555 New Jersey Avenue, NW., Suite 522, Washington, DC
20208-5544. Telephone: (202) 208-3882. E-mail addresses are:
elizabeth__payer@ed.gov or shirley__steele@ed.gov. 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.
Individuals with disabilities may obtain this document in an
alternate format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer
diskette) on request to either contact person listed in the preceding
paragraph.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Technology Innovation Challenge Grant
Program is authorized in Title III, section 3136, of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended (20 U.S.C. 6846).
Under this program the Secretary makes grants to consortia. A
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, and other
appropriate entities. In fiscal year 1998, the Technology Innovation
Challenge Grant program will focus on professional development by
providing support to consortia that have developed programs, or are
adapting or expanding existing programs, for technology training for
teachers and other educators to improve instruction.
Access to computers and the use of networked, multimedia computers
in the schools is on the rise. In part, this is the result of support
provided by the Technology Literacy Challenge Fund, the Technology
Innovation Challenge Grant Program, the National Science Foundation,
the Department of Commerce, and other Federal departments and agencies.
In addition, the Universal Service Program, often referred to as the
``E-Rate'', will help to ensure that all eligible schools and libraries
have affordable access to modern telecommunications and information
services.
While the numbers of computers and connections to the Information
Superhighway have increased in the schools, the capacity of the
teaching force to use this technology in instructional practice has not
kept pace. A 1994 survey by the U.S. Department of Education shows that
only 15 percent of the nation's teachers had had at least nine hours of
instruction in educational technology.
It is increasingly apparent that the lack of professional
development in the use of educational technology is a critical factor
that limits the benefits of technology for student learning. A 1995
Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) study, Teachers and Technology:
Making the Connection, concluded that ``helping teachers use technology
effectively may be the most important step to assuring that current and
future investments in technology are realized.'' The 1997 report of the
President's Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) has
also emphasized this point by stressing that ``the substantial
investment in hardware, infrastructure, software, and content that is
recommended by this report will be largely wasted if K-12 teachers are
not provided with the preparation and support they will need to
effectively integrate information technology into their teaching.''
According to the National Center for Education Statistics, only 15-20
percent of teachers are regularly using advanced telecommunications for
curriculum development, professional development, and teaching.
Over the next ten years, two million new teachers will need to be
hired to accommodate expanding enrollment and to replace retiring
teachers. All of these teachers should be prepared to use advanced
technology and to integrate education technology into teaching methods
and content areas to help students learn. And yet, as the OTA report
has pointed out, ``* * * most new teachers graduate from teacher
preparation institutions with limited knowledge of the ways technology
can be used in their professional practice.'' The Secretary believes
that focusing this year's Technology Innovation Challenge Grant Program
competition on professional development will help to provide the
additional support that is needed for preparing teachers to teach
effectively using technology. Therefore, the Secretary is establishing
an absolute preference for those applications submitted by consortia
that have developed or adopted innovative programs to prepare teachers,
administrators, and other educators to integrate education technology
into teaching methods that improve instruction.
Applications under this competition will be evaluated on the extent
to which they address the most pressing professional development needs
as reflected in statewide technology plans. Students from low income
communities and other areas in need of technology must not be left
behind in the acquisition of knowledge and skills for responsible
citizenship and productive work in the 21st century. In awarding
Technology Innovation Challenge Grants, the Secretary will evaluate the
extent to which the proposed project is designed to serve areas with a
high number or percentage of disadvantaged students or the greatest
need for educational technology.
Because the State plays a critical role in the licensure of new
teachers and re-certification of experienced teachers, the Secretary
believes that a strong application under this competition should
propose that the State educational agency (SEA) have a significant role
in the consortium that is applying. Also, the SEA has comprehensive
information about the range of technology programs in school districts
throughout the State and is in a unique position to coordinate a
consortium initiative with other complementary efforts. Therefore, the
Secretary is particularly interested in receiving applications in which
the SEA has a leadership role in the consortium and is committed to the
activities that are proposed. The Secretary believes that consortium
activities should be designed to create new partnerships or strengthen
already existing partnerships among SEAs, schools of education, LEAs,
and the education technology private sector. Cooperation and
collaboration among all of these partners will provide benefits to
teachers, students, and the community through the improved use of
[[Page 11079]]
educational technology in schools and classrooms.
In addition to an SEA, there are other important stakeholders in a
consortium that can influence the ability of teachers to successfully
use technology in the classroom. These stakeholders include school
districts that hire teachers and provide for their on-going
professional development, academic content specialists, those segments
of the private sector that develop and market educational technology
products and services, and colleges and universities with teacher
preparation programs. Institutions of higher education that are
approved by the State to provide both pre-service and in-service
teacher training are particularly important in these collaborative
efforts. Yet, a majority of teacher preparation programs are falling
far short of what needs to be done. As the 1997 National Council for
the Accreditation of Teacher Education Report Technology and the New
Professional Teacher points out, colleges of teacher education treat
``technology'' as a special addition to the teacher education
curriculum rather than a topic that needs to be incorporated across the
entire teacher education program. The Report emphasizes that ``* * *
teachers-in-training are provided instruction in 'computer literacy'
and are shown examples of computer software, but they rarely are
required to apply technology in their courses and are denied role
models of faculty employing technology in their own work.'' It is
critical that schools of education lead the way in preparing tomorrow's
classroom teachers to incorporate technology into their teaching.
In submitting applications under this competition, the Secretary
strongly urges applicants to use the Mission and Principles of
Professional Development prepared by the U. S. Department of Education
in 1995. The Mission and Principles describes those characteristics
that exemplify high-quality professional development programs. A
statement of the mission and principles is published as Appendix A to
this notice.
Priorities
Absolute Priority
The Secretary gives an absolute preference to applications that
meet the absolute priority in the next paragraph. The Secretary funds
under this competition only applications that meet this absolute
priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(3)).
Activities to Strengthen and Enhance Professional Development
The Secretary funds only those applications that are submitted by
LEAs on behalf of consortia that have developed or adopted innovative
professional development programs for teachers, administrators and
other educators to use advanced technology and to integrate innovative
applications of education technology into teaching methods that will
directly benefit students through improved instruction. The Secretary
will fund only those applications that propose to improve, expand, and
disseminate those successful training models.
Invitational Priority
The Secretary is particularly interested in applications that meet
the invitational priority in the next paragraph. However, an
application that meets this invitational priority does not receive
competitive or absolute preference over other applications (34 CFR
75.105(c)(1)).
Applications submitted by an LEA on behalf of a consortium that is
dedicated to teacher training in technology should involve, as members
of the consortium, the SEA, at least one college of education, private
sector education technology firms, non-profit education organizations,
one or more LEAs, and other appropriate entities. In addition, the
Secretary is particularly interested in applications in which: (1) the
SEA has a leadership role in the consortium and promises to give its
full support and commitment to the activities that are being planned,
(2) proposed consortium activities would strengthen or create a
partnership among the SEA, schools of education, LEAs, and the
education technology private sector, and (3) the model technology
training programs for teachers can be adapted and replicated at other
sites. Because of the key role that an SEA will play in a consortium,
the Secretary is particularly interested in receiving a single
application from a State. However, more than one application from
within a State is allowable. Furthermore, applications involving more
than one State or SEA would not be inconsistent with this invitational
priority.
Selection Criteria
The Secretary establishes 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) Is designed to serve Empowerment Zones, Enterprise Communities,
or other areas with a high number or percentage of disadvantaged
students or the greatest need for educational technology;
(2) Includes strategies and activities that address the most
pressing professional development needs identified in the statewide
educational technology plan submitted under ESEA, section 3133 for the
State or States in which the applying members of the consortium are
located;
(3) Involves approaches for which there is explicit evidence of
innovation and effectiveness;
(4) Establishes and supports high standards for professional
development in education technology and its use in schools consistent
with statewide reform initiatives, including State content and
performance standards;
(5) Includes specific efforts by consortium members to be publicly
accountable for improving education through the use of technology; and
(6) Involves a coherent plan for improving, expanding, and
disseminating a successful professional development model(s).
(b) Feasibility. The Secretary reviews each proposed project for
its feasibility by determining the extent to which--
(1) The project will prepare teachers for successful, effective,
and efficient uses of technologies for improved instruction 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;
(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 strategies; 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; and
(4) The methods of evaluation examine the effectiveness of project
implementation strategies, use objective performance measures related
to the intended outcomes of the project, and produce quantitative and
qualitative data to the extent possible. The evaluation provides
guidance on effective strategies suitable for replication in other
settings.
Note: A list of areas that have been designated as Empowerment
Zones and Enterprise Communities is published as Appendix B to this
notice.
[[Page 11080]]
Note: This notice of final priority and selection criteria does
not solicit applications. A notice inviting applications under this
competition is published in a separate announcement in this issue of
the Federal Register.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid
OMB control number. The valid OMB control number assigned to the
collection of information in this notice is 1850-0743.
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.
Waiver of Proposed Rulemaking
In accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553),
it is the practice of the Department of Education to offer interested
parties the opportunity to comment on proposed priorities that are not
taken directly from statute. Ordinarily, this practice would have
applied to the priority and selection criteria in this notice. Section
437(d)(1) of the General Education Provisions Act (GEPA), however,
exempts rules that apply to the first competition under a new program
from this requirement. The Conference Report for the Department's
fiscal year 1998 appropriation describes the program covered by this
notice as ``a new competitive grants program.'' The Assistant
Secretary, in accordance with section 437(d)(1) of GEPA, to ensure
timely awards, has decided to forego public comment with respect to the
absolute priority and selection criteria. The absolute priority and
selection criteria will apply only to the fiscal year 1998 grant
competition.
Electronic Access to This Document
Anyone may view this document, as well as all other Department of
Education documents published in the Federal Register, in text or
portable document format (pdf) on the World Wide Web at either of the
following sites:
http://gcs.ed.gov/fedreg.htm
http://www.ed.gov/news.html
To use the pdf you must have the Adobe Acrobat Reader Program with
Search, which is available free at either of the previous sites. If you
have questions about using the pdf, call the U.S. Government Printing
Office toll free at 1-888-293-6498.
Anyone may also view these documents in text copy only on an
electronic bulletin board of the Department. Telephone: (202) 219-1511
or, toll free, 1-800-222-4922. The documents are located under Option
G--Files/Announcements, Bulletins and Press Releases.
Note: The official version of a document is the document
published in the Federal Register.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 84.303A, Technology
Innovation Challenge Grants)
Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 6846.
Dated: February 27, 1998.
Ricky T. Takai,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Educational Research and Improvement.
Appendix A--Mission and Principles of Professional Development
Professional development plays an essential role in successful
education reform. Professional development serves as the bridge
between where prospective and experienced educators are now and
where they will need to be to meet the new challenges of guiding all
students in achieving to higher standards of learning and
development.
High-quality professional development as envisioned here refers
to rigorous and relevant content, strategies, and organizational
supports that ensure the preparation and career-long development of
teachers and others whose competence, expectations and actions
influence the teaching and learning environment. Both pre-and in-
service professional development require partnerships among schools,
higher education institutions and other appropriate entities to
promote inclusive learning communities of everyone who impacts
students and their learning. Those within and outside schools need
to work together to bring to bear the ideas, commitment and other
resources that will be necessary to address important and complex
educational issues in a variety of settings and for a diverse
student body.
Equitable access for all educators to such professional
development opportunities is imperative. Moreover, professional
development works best when it is part of a systemwide effort to
improve and integrate the recruitment, selection, preparation,
initial licensing, induction, ongoing development and support, and
advanced certification of educators.
High-quality professional development should incorporate all of
the principles stated below. Adequately addressing each of these
principles is necessary for a full realization of the potential of
individuals, school communities and institutions to improve and
excel.
The mission of professional development is to prepare and
support educators to help all students achieve to high standards of
learning and development.
Professional Development:
Focuses on teachers as central to student learning, yet
includes all other members of the school community;
Focuses on individual, collegial, and organizational
improvement;
Respects and nurtures the intellectual and leadership
capacity of teachers, principals, and others in the school
community;
Reflects best available research and practice in
teaching, learning, and leadership;
Enables teachers to develop further expertise in
subject content, teaching strategies, uses of technologies, and
other essential elements in teaching to high standards;
Promotes continuous inquiry and improvement embedded in
the daily life of schools;
Is planned collaboratively by those who will
participate in and facilitate that development;
Requires substantial time and other resources;
Is driven by a coherent long-term plan;
Is evaluated ultimately on the basis of its impact on
teacher effectiveness and student learning; and this assessment
guides subsequent professional development efforts.
The mission statement and principles of professional development
outlined above were published in draft form in the Federal Register
in December, 1994, and disseminated to more than 600 people and
organizations with interests in education. After careful
consideration of the extensive comments the Department received, the
principles were revised and finalized. We share them with you in the
firm belief that high-quality professional development reflecting
these principles, which are grounded in the practical wisdom of
leading educators across the country, will have a positive and
lasting effect on teaching and learning.
Appendix B--Empowerment Zones and Enterprise Communities
Empowerment Zones
California: Los Angeles
California: Oakland
Georgia: Atlanta
Illinois: Chicago
Kentucky: Kentucky Highlands*
Maryland: Baltimore
Massachusetts: Boston
Michigan: Detroit
Mississippi: Mid Delta*
Missouri/Kansas: Kansas City, Kansas City
New York: Harlem, Bronx
Ohio: Cleveland
Pennsylvania/New Jersey: Philadelphia, Camden
Texas: Houston
Texas: Rio Grande Valley*
Enterprise Communities
Alabama: Birmingham
[[Page 11081]]
Alabama: Chambers County*
Alabama: Greene, Sumter Counties*
Arizona: Phoenix
Arizona: Arizona Border*
Arkansas: East Central*
Arkansas: Mississippi County*
Arkansas: Pulaski County
California: Imperial County*
California: L.A., Huntington Park
California: San Diego
California: San Francisco, Bayview, Hunter's Point
California: Watsonville*
Colorado: Denver
Connecticut: Bridgeport
Connecticut: New Haven
Delaware: Wilmington
District of Columbia: Washington
Florida: Jackson County*
Florida: Tampa
Florida: Miami, Dade County
Georgia: Albany
Georgia: Central Savannah*
Georgia: Crisp, Dooley Counties*
Illinois: East St. Louis
Illinois: Springfield
Indiana: Indianapolis
Iowa: Des Moines
Kentucky: Louisville
Louisiana: Northeast Delta*
Louisiana: Macon Ridge*
Louisiana: New Orleans
Louisiana: Ouachita Parish
Massachusetts: Lowell
Massachusetts: Springfield
Michigan: Five Cap*
Michigan: Flint
Michigan: Muskegon
Minnesota: Minneapolis
Minnesota: St. Paul
Mississippi: Jackson
Mississippi: North Delta*
Missouri: East Prairie*
Missouri: St. Louis
Nebraska: Omaha
Nevada: Clarke County, Las Vegas
New Hampshire: Manchester
New Jersey: Newark
New Mexico: Albuquerque
New Mexico: Mora, Rio Arriba, Taos Counties*
New York: Albany, Schenectady, Troy
New York: Buffalo
New York: Newburgh, Kingston
New York: Rochester
North Carolina: Charlotte
North Carolina: Halifax, Edgecombe,
Wilson Counties*
North Carolina: Robeson County*
Ohio: Akron
Ohio: Columbus
Ohio: Greater Portsmouth *
Oklahoma: Choctaw, McCurtain Counties*
Oklahoma: Oklahoma City
Oregon: Josephine*
Oregon: Portland
Pennsylvania: Harrisburg
Pennsylvania: Lock Haven*
Pennsylvania: Pittsburgh
Rhode Island: Providence
South Dakota: Deadle, Spink Counties*
South Carolina: Charleston
South Carolina: Williamsburg County*
Tennessee: Fayette, Haywood Counties*
Tennessee: Memphis
Tennessee: Nashville
Tennessee/Kentucky: Scott, McCreary Counties*
Texas: Dallas
Texas: El Paso
Texas: San Antonio
Texas: Waco
Utah: Ogden
Vermont: Burlington
Virginia: Accomack*
Virginia: Norfolk
Washington: Lower Yakima*
Washington: Seattle
Washington: Tacoma
West Virginia: West Central*
West Virginia: Huntington
West Virginia: McDowell*
Wisconsin: Milwaukee
* Denotes rural designee.
[FR Doc. 98-5736 Filed 3-4-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
