[Federal Register: May 12, 1997 (Volume 62, Number 91)]
[Notices]
[Page 26175-26178]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr12my97-159]
[[Page 26175]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part VI
Department of Education
_______________________________________________________________________
Technology Innovation Challenge Grants; Notice
[[Page 26176]]
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Technology Innovation Challenge Grants
AGENCY: Department of Education.
ACTION: Notice of final selection criteria, selection procedures, and
application procedures.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Secretary establishes final selection criteria, procedures
for evaluating and selecting applications, and procedures for
submission of applications under the Technology Innovation Challenge
Grant Program. The Secretary will 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.
EFFECTIVE DATE: These selection criteria, selection procedures, and
application procedures take effect on June 11, 1997.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Technology Innovation Challenge Grant
Program, 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 Grant
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 Grant 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 published a notice of proposed selection criteria,
selection procedures, and application procedures for the Technology
Innovation Challenge Grant Program in the Federal Register on February
26, 1997 (62 FR 8687). Written public comments were due to the
Secretary by March 28, 1997. Written comments were received from four
parties. The Secretary has reviewed these comments and has determined
that no modifications in the proposed selection criteria, selection
procedures, and application procedures are warranted, except for
editorial and technical revisions. An analysis of the comments and the
Secretary's responses are contained in the Appendix to this notice.
Selection Criteria
The Secretary establishes 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 has
addressed this mandate by incorporating these priority factors into the
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) 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.
Evalation and Selection of Applications
Evaluation
The Secretary evaluates 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 Grant Program,
the Secretary may 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 request an applicant to submit additional
information after the application has been selected for funding.
Selection Procedures
In applying the selection criteria, the Secretary will use a three-
tier peer review process for the FY 1997 competition and subsequent
competitions.
At each tier of the review process, panels of experts will read the
applications under consideration to determine which applications are
most
[[Page 26177]]
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, the
applications received by the published application deadline are
assigned to teams of readers at the regional sites. 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. 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. In Stage 2 of Tier I, 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. At the end of
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 persons who served as team leaders
in Stage 1 of Tier II. At the end of 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. 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 being forwarded. 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 both of
the previous tiers of the review, and each of the original Tier I
review sites is 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.
Application Deadline
The Secretary, in order to ensure timely receipt and processing of
applications, establishes the following application deadline for the FY
1997 competition and subsequent competitions.
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. (For the FY
1997 competition, applications must be received on or before May 30,
1997, as announced in the Federal Register on March 28, 1997 (62 FR
15052)). The Secretary does not consider an application for funding if
it is not received by the deadline date 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 will not apply 34 CFR 75.102(b), which
requires an application to be mailed, rather than received, by the
deadline date.
[[Page 26178]]
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 of selection criteria,
selection procedures, and application procedures is 1810-0569.
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.
Note: This notice does not solicit applications. A notice
inviting applications under this competition was published in the
Federal Register on March 28, 1997 (62 FR 15052).
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 84.303A, Technology
Innovation Challenge Grants)
Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 6846.
Dated: May 6, 1997.
Ramon C. Cortines,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Educational Research and Improvement.
Appendix
Analysis of Comments and Changes
Summarized below are comments that referred to the proposed
selection criteria, selection procedures, and application
procedures.
Geographic Equity
Comments: Two commenters noted that over the last two years, the
distribution of awards under the Technology Innovation Challenge
Grant Program appeared to have been skewed in favor of a few
geographic regions of the United States. The two commenters
advocated that provisions ensuring some measure of equitable
geographic distribution of awards be added to the selection
criteria.
Discussion: The statute authorizing the Technology Innovation
Challenge Grant Program does not address the issue of geographic
distribution of awards. The Secretary understands the importance of
participation by all areas of the country in this program and is
engaged in intensive dissemination activities to heighten public
awareness about the funding that is available. However, the
Secretary believes that the three-tier review process that will be
used to make selection decisions based on the priority factors
outlined in the statute will result in the highest quality awards
and that these awards must be based on ``merit,'' irrespective of
geographic considerations.
Changes: None.
Serving Disadvantaged Students
Comment: One commenter suggested that the Secretary consider
stronger, quantitative measures to ensure that the legislative
intent of serving disadvantaged students with the greatest need for
educational technology be fulfilled. The commenter suggested that
additional points be added to applications emanating from LEAs
serving primarily disadvantaged populations and that a sliding scale
of extra points be put in place to strengthen the applications
coming from jurisdictions with high percentages of disadvantaged
students.
Discussion: The statute authorizing the Technology Innovation
Challenge Grant Program specifies that a consortia, in order to be
eligible for support under this program, must include at least one
local educational agency with a high percentage or number of
children living below the poverty line. Further, the selection
criteria for this program incorporate the statutory priority by
specifying that each proposed project be reviewed for its
significance by determining the extent to which the project ``is
designed to serve areas with a high number or percentage of
disadvantaged students or other areas with the greatest need for
educational technology * * *.'' Applicants will have to address this
selection criterion by demonstrating that the projects they propose
will in fact serve areas with a high number or percentage of
disadvantaged students or other areas with the greatest need. The
Secretary does not believe that further elaboration of the selection
criteria, by adding a sliding scale of extra points, is needed to
ensure that the needs of disadvantaged students will be addressed.
Changes: None.
Funding New Applicants
Comment: One commenter advocated that those institutions that
have not applied under past competitions or been successful in these
competitions, be given the same opportunity to receive grants as
those who have been successful in previous competitions. The
commenter was concerned that funding appears to go to institutions
that have been previously funded and that seldom are there
successful new applicants.
Discussion: The Secretary agrees that the widest possible pool
of applicants must be able to compete for support under the
Technology Innovation Challenge Grant Program. Therefore, the
program encourages applications from all eligible sources and
engages in an intensive dissemination program to ensure broad
participation. To date the program has supported two competitions,
one in fiscal year 1995 and one in fiscal year 1996, that have
resulted in 43 grants. None of these current grantees holds more
than one award under this program. There are some grantees that are
also members of consortia in partnership with other grantees, but
there are no current grantees that have won grants in both
competitions that have been held to date.
Changes: None.
Allowing a State Educational Agency to Assist Consortia
Comment: One commenter suggested that for the next Technology
Innovation Challenge Grant Program competition State educational
agencies be allowed to assist consortia in putting together
meaningful grant applications to support improving elementary and
secondary education.
Discussion: The statute authorizing the Technology Innovation
Challenge Grant Program currently does allow State educational
agencies to participate in consortia seeking funding under the
program. The statute is clear that the application for funding must
be submitted by a local educational agency, but a single local
educational agency is not eligible to apply unless it is part of a
consortium that may include other local educational agencies, State
educational agencies, institutions of higher education, businesses,
academic content experts, software designers, museums, libraries or
other appropriate organizations. The Secretary agrees that State
educational agencies can be important members of these consortia,
can fulfill a critical role in assisting the consortia to develop a
meaningful grant application, can provide leadership to bring
together appropriate partners to build the consortia, and should use
every opportunity to do so.
Changes: None.
[FR Doc. 97-12354 Filed 5-9-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P