U.S. Department of Education
Office of Special Education & Rehabilitative Services
Office of Special Education Programs
FISCAL
YEAR 2016
APPLICATION FOR NEW GRANTS UNDER THE
INDIVIDUALS
WITH DISABILITIES EDUCATION ACT
(IDEA)
EDUCATIONAL
TECHNOLOGY, MEDIA, AND MATERIALS FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES
PROGRAM
(CFDA 84.327)
APPLICATIONS
FOR NEW AWARDS;
STEPPING-UP
TECHNOLOGY IMPLEMENTATION
(CFDA
84.327S)
DATED MATERIAL: OPEN IMMEDIATELY
CLOSING DATE: April 14, 2016
FORM APPROVED —OMB No. 1820-0028, EXP. DATE: 07/31/2016
Contents
Grants.gov Submission Procedures and Tips for Applicants A38
Priority Description and Selection Criteria B1
Stepping-up Technology Implementation B2
General Information on Completing an Application C1
Application Transmittal Instructions and Requirements for Intergovernmental Review D1
Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs D7
State Single Points of Contact (SPOCs) D8
Notice to All Applicants Ensuring Equitable Access and Application Forms and Instructions E1
Part I: Application for Federal Assistance (SF-424) E6
Part II: Budget Information (Form 524) E19
Part III: Application Narrative E24
Part IV: Assurances and Certifications E25
Assurances—Non-Construction Programs E26
Certification Regarding Lobbying E28
Disclosure of Lobbying Activities E29
According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless such collection displays a valid OMB control number. The valid OMB control number for this information collection is 1820-0028. The time required to complete this information collection is estimated to average 45 hours and 40 minutes per response, including the time to review instructions, search existing data resources, gather the data needed, and complete and review the information collection. If you have any comments concerning the accuracy of the time estimate(s) or suggestions for improving this form, please write to:
U.S. Department of Education
Washington, DC 20202-4651
If you have comments or concerns regarding the status of your individual submission of this form, write directly to:
Office of Special Education Programs
U.S. Department of Education
400 Maryland Ave. SW, PCP 4106
Washington, DC 20202-2600
Dear Applicant:
This application packet contains information and the required forms for you to use in submitting a new application for funding under one program authorized by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). This packet covers one competition under the Educational Technology, Media, and Materials for Individuals with Disabilities (CFDA 84.327) program—Applications for New Awards; Educational Technology, Media, and Materials for Individuals with Disabilities—Stepping-up Technology Implementation (CFDA No. 84.327S).
Please take the time to review all of the the applicable requirements, definitions, selection criteria, and application instructions thoroughly. An application will not be evaluated for funding if the applicant does not comply with all of the procedural rules that govern the submission of the application or if the application does not contain the information required. (EDGAR §75.216 (b) and (c)).
Please note the following:
GRANTS.GOV APPLICATION SUBMISSION AND SAM REGISTRATION.
Applications for grants under this competition must be submitted electronically using the Grants.gov Apply site (www.Grants.gov). Please read carefully the Grants.gov Submission Procedures and Tips for Applicants document included on page A-43, which includes helpful tips about submitting electronically using the Grants.gov Apply site. Grants.gov registration involves many steps including registration on SAM (www.sam.gov) which may take approximately one week to complete, but could take as many as several weeks to complete. You may begin working on your application while completing the registration process, but you cannot submit an application until all of the Registration steps are complete. Please note that once your SAM registration is active, it will take 24-48 hours for the information to be available in Grants.gov. You cannot submit an application through Grants.gov until Grants.gov has received your SAM registration information. We strongly encourage you to familiarize yourself with SAM and Grants.gov and strongly recommend that you register and submit early.
Applicants are required to upload their attachments in PDF format only. Please be aware that applications submitted to Grants.gov for the Department of Education will now be posted using Adobe forms. Information on computer and operating system compatibility with Adobe and links to download the latest version of Adobe are available on Grants.gov. Please note that you must follow the Application Procedures as described in the Federal Register notice announcing this grant competition. Information (including dates and times) about how to submit your application electronically can also be found in section D-1 of this application package, Application Transmittal Instructions and Requirements for Intergovernmental Review. Additional instructions for sending applications electronically are provided on page E-4, Application Forms and Instructions for Grants.gov Applications.
MAXIMUM AWARD AMOUNT.
The competitions included in this package have maximum award amounts. Please refer to the specific information for the priority/competition to which you are submitting an application (i.e., Section B of this package) for detailed budget information for the total grant period requested. Please be advised that for the priority in this package, the maximum award amount covers all project costs including indirect costs. An application that exceeds the maximum allowable amount for ANY budget year will not be reviewed.
STRICT PAGE LIMITS AND LINE SPACING OF APPLICATION NARRATIVE.
The competitions included in this package limit the Part III Application Narrative to a specified number of double-spaced pages. This page limitation and double-line spacing requirement applies to all material presented in the application narrative. This double-line spacing requirement also applies to all text in charts, tables, figures, graphs, and screen shots included in the application narrative. (Please refer to the specific requirements on page limits for the priority/competition to which you are submitting an application, Section B of this package). The Department will reject, and will NOT consider an application that does not adhere to the narrative’s double-line spacing and page limit requirements for the competition.
FORMAT FOR OTHER SECTIONS OF THE APPLICATION.
Additional information regarding formatting applications has been included on Pages C-3 and C-4 of the “General Information on Completing an Application” section of this package.
Appendix A: Reviewers will be instructed to review the content of Appendix A as they do the application narrative. Reviewers will not be required to review any other appendices. Charts, tables, figures, graphs, screen shots and logic models that provide information directly relating to the application requirements for the narrative should be the only items included in Appendix A. Appendix Ashould not be used for supplementary information. Please note that charts, tables, figures, graphs, screen shots, and logic models can be single spaced when placed in an Appendix A.
Abstract: For the application Abstract, applicants should use the template located at: http://www2.ed.gov/programs/oseptms/applicant.html#84327s.
PROTECTION OF HUMAN SUBJECTS IN RESEARCH.
The discretionary grant Application Form SF-424 requires applicants to indicate whether they plan to conduct research involving human subjects at any time during the proposed project period. The Protection of Human Subjects in Research Attachment is an integral part of the SF-424 form. It includes information that applicants need to complete the protection of human subjects item and, as appropriate, to provide additional information to the Department regarding human subjects research projects. Additional information on completing the protection of human subjects item is also available and can be accessed on the INTERNET at:
www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocfo/gcsindex.html
www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocfo/humansub.html
RESPONSE TO GPRA.
As required by the Government Performance and Results Modernization Act (GPRA) of 2010 the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) has developed a strategic plan for measuring GPRA performance. The program included in this announcement is authorized under Part D - National Activities to Improve Education of Children with Disabilities of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Projects funded under this competition are required to submit data on GPRA performance measures as directed by OSEP. See Performance Measures included in the Priority Description section of this application package. Applicants are encouraged to consider this information when preparing their applications.
COPIES OF THE APPLICATION.
Unless you qualify for an exception in accordance with the instructions found in the Notice inviting applications, you must submit your application electronically. Therefore, you do not need to submit paper copies of the application. If you are granted an exception, current Government-wide policy requires that an original and two paper copies need to be submitted. Please note: If an application is recommended for funding and a grant award is issued, we will contact the applicant to request an electronic copy of the application in MS Word or a PDF file. The Department is moving toward an electronic grant filing system and an electronic copy of all applications that are being funded will facilitate this effort.ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
OSEP will conduct an informational teleconference to explain the programmatic, application, and administrative requirements. There will be an opportunity for interested applicants to ask questions about the requirements and the application submission process. The teleconference will be one hour.
The informational teleconference will be Tuesday, March 22, 2016 at 3:00 p.m. EDT. The Dial-In number is 1-866-836-9467 and the Passcode is 5422678#. Please contact Terry Jackson, 202‑245‑6039 or Terry.Jackson@ed.gov after Monday, March 14, 2016 to request a copy of the power point presentation that will be used during the call.
OSEP also provides information on developing performance measures and logic models at https://www.osepideasthatwork.org/logicModel to assist you in preparing a quality application. For information about other U.S. Department of Education grant and contract opportunities, we encourage you to use the Department's grant information web page which can be accessed on the internet at:
http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocfo/grants/grants.html
We appreciate your efforts to improve the provision of services for individuals with disabilities.
Sincerely,
/s/
Lawrence J. Wexler, Ed.D.
Director
Research to Practice Division
Office of Special Education Programs
4000-01-U
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Applications for New Awards; Educational Technology, Media, and Materials for Individuals with Disabilities Program—Stepping-up Technology Implementation
AGENCY: Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Department of Education.
ACTION: Notice.
Overview Information:
Educational Technology, Media, and Materials for Individuals with Disabilities Program—Stepping-up Technology Implementation
Notice inviting applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2015.
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 84.327S.
Dates:
Applications Available: February 29, 2016.
Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: April 14, 2016.
Deadline for Intergovernmental Review: June 13, 2016
Full Text of Announcement
I. Funding Opportunity Description
Purpose of Program:
The purposes of the Educational Technology, Media, and Materials for Individuals with Disabilities Program are to:
improve results for students with disabilities by promoting the development, demonstration, and use of technology;
support educational activities designed to be of educational value in the classroom for students with disabilities;
provide support for captioning and video description that is appropriate for use in the classroom; and
provide accessible educational materials to children with disabilities in a timely manner.
Priorities:
This competition has one absolute priority and one competitive preference priority. In accordance with 34 CFR 75.105(b)(2)(v), the absolute priority is from allowable activities specified in the statute (see sections 674 and 681(d) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq.)). In accordance with 34 CFR 75.105(b)(2)(ii), the competitive preference priority is from 34 CFR 75.226.
Absolute Priority:
For FY 2016 and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applicants from this competition, this priority is an absolute priority. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(3), we consider only applications that meet this priority.
This priority is:
Educational Technology, Media, and Materials for Individuals with Disabilities—Stepping-up Technology Implementation.
Background:
The purpose of this priority is to fund cooperative agreements to:
identify strategies needed to effectively implement evidence-based technology tools1 that benefit students with disabilities; and
develop and disseminate products2 that will help a broad range of schools to effectively implement these technology tools.
As Congress recognized in IDEA, “almost 30 years of research and experience has demonstrated that the education of children with disabilities can be made more effective by ... supporting the development and use of technology, including assistive technology devices and assistive technology services, to maximize accessibility for children with disabilities” (section 601(c)(5)(H) of IDEA).
The use of technology, including assistive technology devices and assistive technology services, enhances instruction and access to the general education curriculum. Technology can be the great equalizer in a classroom for students with disabilities. Educators often face major obstacles when it comes to engaging and motivating students who struggle with the general education curriculum. Innovative technology tools, programs, and software can be used to promote engagement and enhance the learning experience (Brunvand & Byrd, 2011). Additionally, the development of newer technologies for, and their presence in, early childhood education settings is rapidly increasing. When media-rich content is integrated into the curriculum and supported with adult guidance, technology experiences for young children are associated with better language, literacy, and mathematics outcomes. Additionally, technology integration in early childhood settings has been linked to increased social awareness and collaborative behaviors, improved abstract reasoning and problem solving abilities, and enhanced visual-motor coordination (McManis & Gunnewig, 2012).
Technologies can also offer opportunities to support State educational agency (SEA) and local educational agency (LEA) Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) flexibility plans by:
improving student learning and engagement;
accommodating the special needs of students;
facilitating student and teacher access to digital content and resources;3 and
improving the quality of instruction through personalized learning and data (Duffey & Fox, 2012; Fletcher, Schaffhauser, & Levi, 2012; U.S. Department of Education, 2010).
Notwithstanding the potential benefits in using technology to improve learning outcomes, research suggests that implementation can be a significant challenge. For example, data from a survey of more than 1,000 kindergarten through grade 12 (K-12) teachers, principals, and assistant principals indicated that simply providing teachers with technology does not ensure that it will be used (Grunwald & Associates, 2010). Additionally, Perlman and Redding (2011) found that in order to be used most effectively, technology must be implemented in ways that align with curricular and teacher goals and must offer students opportunities to use these tools in their learning. Even as schools have started to deliver coursework online, and the number of students involved in online learning has grown, many of these online learning technologies have not been designed to be accessible to students with disabilities (Center on Online Learning and Students with Disabilities, 2012). These findings demonstrate a need for products and resources that can ensure technology tools for students with disabilities are implemented effectively.
Since 1998, the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) has supported technology and media service projects through the Steppingstones of Technology Innovation for Children with Disabilities (Steppingstones) program. The projects funded under the Steppingstones program developed and evaluated numerous innovative technology tools designed to improve results for children with disabilities in areas such as Web-based learning and assessment materials, instructional software, assistive technology devices, methods for using off-the-shelf hardware and software to improve learning, and methods for integrating technology into instruction. The Stepping-up Technology Implementation program is building on these technology development efforts under the Steppingstones program by identifying, developing, and disseminating products and resources that promote the effective implementation4 of evidence-based instructional and assistive technology tools in early childhood or K-12 settings.5
Priority:
The purpose of this priority is to fund cooperative agreements to:
identify strategies needed to effectively implement evidence-based technology tools that benefit students with disabilities; and
develop and disseminate products (e.g., instruction manuals, lesson plans, demonstration videos, ancillary instructional materials) that will help early childhood or K-12 settings to effectively implement these technology tools.
To be considered for funding under this absolute priority, applicants must meet the application requirements. Any project funded under this absolute priority must also meet the programmatic and administrative requirements specified in the priority.
Application Requirements:
An applicant must include in its application—
A project design supported by strong theory (as defined in this notice);
A logic model (as defined in this notice) or conceptual framework that depicts at a minimum, the goals, activities, outputs, and outcomes of the proposed project.
Note: The following Web sites provide more information on logic models: www.researchutilization.org/matrix/logicmodel_resource3c.html and www.osepideasthatwork.org/logicModel/index.asp.
A plan to implement the activities described in the Project Activities section of this priority;
A plan, linked to the proposed project’s logic model, for a formative evaluation of the proposed project’s activities. The plan must describe how the formative evaluation will use clear performance objectives to ensure continuous improvement in the operation of the proposed project, including objective measures of progress in implementing the project and ensuring the quality of products and services;
Documentation that technology tool is evidence-based (as defined in this notice) and that it can be implemented to improve early childhood outcomes, academic achievement, and college- and career-readiness.
A plan for recruiting and selecting6 the following:
Three development schools. Development schools are the sites in which iterative development7 of the implementation of technology tools and products will occur. The project must start implementing the technology tool with one development school in year one of the project period and two additional development schools in year two.
Four pilot schools. Pilot schools are the sites in which try-out, formative evaluation, and refinement of technology tools and products will occur. The project must work with the four pilot schools during years three and four of the project period.
Ten dissemination schools. Dissemination schools will be selected if the project is extended for a fifth year. Dissemination schools will be used to conduct the final test of the effectiveness of the products and the final opportunity for the project to refine the products for use by teachers, but will receive less technical assistance (TA) from the project than the development or pilot schools. Also, at this stage, dissemination schools will extend the benefits of the technology tool to additional students. To be selected as a dissemination school, eligible schools and LEAs must commit to working with the project to implement the evidence-based technology tool. A school may not serve in more than one category (i.e., development, pilot, dissemination).
School site information (e.g., early childhood setting; elementary, middle, or high school; persistently lowest-achieving school (as defined in this notice); high-needs school (as defined in this notice)) about the diversity of the development, pilot, and dissemination schools; student demographics (e.g., race or ethnicity, percentage of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch); and other pertinent data.
A budget for attendance at the following:
A one and one-half day kick-off meeting to be held in Washington, DC, after receipt of the award, and an annual planning meeting held in Washington, DC, with the OSEP project officer and other relevant staff during each subsequent year of the project period.
Note: Within 30 days of receipt of the award, a post-award teleconference must be held between the OSEP project officer and the grantee’s project director or other authorized representative.
A three-day project directors’ conference in Washington, DC, during each year of the project period.
Two two-day trips annually to attend Department briefings, Department-sponsored conferences, and other meetings, as requested by OSEP.
Project Activities.
To meet the requirements of this priority, the project, at a minimum, must conduct the following activities:
Recruit a minimum of three development schools in one LEA and four pilot schools across at least two LEAs in accordance with the plan proposed under paragraph (f) of the Application Requirements section of this notice.
Note: Final site selection will be determined in consultation with the OSEP project officer following the kick-off meeting.
Identify resources and develop products to support sustained implementation of the selected technology tool. Development of the products must be an interactive process beginning in a single development school and continuing through repeated cycles of development and refinement in the other development schools, followed by a formative evaluation and refinement in the pilot schools. The products must include, at a minimum, the following components to support implementation of the technology tool:
An instrument or method for assessing
the need for the technology tool, and
readiness to implement it. Instruments and methods may include resource inventory checklists, school self-study guides, surveys of teacher interest, detailed descriptions of the technology tool for review by school staff, and similar approaches used singly or in combination.
Methods and manuals to support the implementation of the technology tool.
Professional development activities necessary for teachers to implement the technology tool with fidelity and integrate it into the curriculum.
Collect and analyze data on the effect of the technology tool on early childhood development, academic achievement, or college- and career-readiness.
Collect formative and summative evaluation data from the development schools and pilot schools to refine and evaluate the products.
If the project is extended to a fifth year, provide the products and the technology tool to no fewer than 10 dissemination schools that are not the same schools used as development and pilot schools.
Collect summative data about the success of the products in supporting implementation of the technology tool in the dissemination schools; and
By the end of the project period, projects must provide information on:
The products and resources that will enable other schools to implement and sustain implementation of the technology tool.
How the technology tool has improved early childhood, academic achievement, or college- and career-readiness for children with disabilities.
A strategy for disseminating the technology tool and accompanying products beyond the schools directly involved in the project.
Cohort Collaboration and Support.
OSEP Project Officer(s) will provide coordination support among the projects. Each project funded under this priority must:
Participate in bi-monthly conference call discussions to share and collaborate around implementation and specific project issues,
Provide information bi-annually using a template that captures descriptive data on project site selection, processes for installation of technology, and the use of technology and sustainability (i.e., the process of technology implementation).
Note: The following website provides more information about implementation research: http://nirn.fpg.unc.edu/learn-implementation.
Fifth Year of the Project:
The Secretary may extend a project one year beyond 48 months to work with dissemination schools if the grantee is achieving the intended outcomes and making a positive contribution to the implementation of an evidence-based technology tool in the development and pilot schools. Each applicant must include in its application a plan for the full 60-month award. In deciding whether to continue funding the project for the fifth year, the Secretary will consider the requirements of 34 CFR 75.253(a), and in addition:
The recommendation of a review team consisting of the OSEP project officer and other experts selected by the Secretary. This review will be held during the last half of the third year of the project period;
The timeliness and effectiveness with which all requirements of the negotiated cooperative agreement have been or are being met by the project; and
Evidence of the degree to which the project’s activities have contributed to changed practices and improved early childhood outcomes, academic achievement, or college- and career-readiness for students with disabilities.
Competitive Preference Priority—Evidence of Promise (2 Points)
Projects based upon supporting evidence of effectiveness that meets the conditions set out in the definition of “evidence of promise” (as defined in this notice).
Note: An applicant addressing this competitive preference priority must identify no more than two study citations that meet this standard
References:
Brunvand, S., & Byrd, S. (2011). Using VoiceThread to promote learning engagement and success for all students. Teaching Exceptional Children, 43(4), 28-37.
Center for Online Learning and Students with Disabilities (COLSD). (2012). The foundation of online learning for students with disabilities (COLSD White Paper). Lawrence, KS: Author. Retrieved from http://centerononlinelearning.org/wp-content/uploads/Foundation_7_2012.pdf.
Diamond, K. E., & Powell, D. R. (2011). An iterative approach to the development of a professional development intervention for head start teachers. Journal of Early Intervention, 33(1), 75-93.
Duffey, D., & Fox, C. (2012). National Educational Technology Trends 2012: State Leadership Empower Educators, Transforming Teaching and Learning. Washington, DC: State Educational Technology Directors Association (SEDTA). Retrieved from www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED536746.pdf.
Fixsen, D. L., Naoom, S. F., Blase, K. A., Friedman, R. M., & Wallace, F. (2005). Implementation research: A synthesis of the literature. Tampa, FL: University of South Florida, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute, The National Implementation Research Network.
Fletcher, G., Schaffhauser, D. & Levi, D. (2012). Out of print: Reimaging the K-12 textbook in a digital age. Washington, DC: State Educational Technology Directors Association (SEDTA). Retrieved from www.setda.org/c/document_library/get_file?folderId=321&name=DLFE-1587.pdf.
Grunwald & Associates. (2010). Educators, technology, and 21st century skills: Dispelling five myths. Retrieved from Walden University, Richard W. Riley College of Education website: www.WaldenU.edu/fivemyths.
McManis, L. D., & Gunnewig, S. B. (2012). Finding the education in educational technology with early learners. Young Children, 67(3), 14-24.
Perlman, C. L., & Redding, S. (Eds.). (2011). Choosing and implementing technology wisely. Handbook on Effective Implementation of School Improvement Grants. Lincoln, IL: Academic Development Institute. Retrieved from www.centerii.org/handbook.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology. (2010). Transforming American Education: Learning Powered by Technology. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from www.ed.gov/sites/default/files/netp2010.pdf.
Definitions:
These definitions are from 34 CFR 77.1 and the Department’s notice of final supplemental priorities and definitions for discretionary grant programs (Supplemental Priorities), published in the Federal Register on December 10, 2014 (79 FR 73425), as marked.
The following definitions are from 34 CFR 77.1:
Evidence of promise means there is empirical evidence to support the theoretical linkage(s) between at least one critical component and at least one relevant outcome presented in the logic model for the proposed process, product, strategy, or practice. Specifically, evidence of promise means the conditions in both paragraphs (i) and (ii) of this definition are met:
(i) There is at least one study that is a--
(A) Correlational study with statistical controls for selection bias;
(B) Quasi-experimental design study that meets the What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards with reservations; or
(C) Randomized controlled trial that meets the What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards with or without reservations.
(ii) The study referenced in paragraph (i) of this definition found a statistically significant or substantively important (defined as a difference of 0.25 standard deviations or larger) favorable association between at least one critical component and one relevant outcome presented in the logic model for the proposed process, product, strategy, or practice.
High-needs school means a Title I school that has a subgroup or subgroups with low achievement or, at the high school level, low graduation rates (“low-achieving subgroup” high-needs school).
Logic model (also referred to as theory of action) means a well-specified conceptual framework that identifies key components of the proposed process, product, strategy, or practice (i.e., the active “ingredients” that are hypothesized to be critical to achieving the relevant outcomes) and describes the relationships among the key components and outcomes, theoretically and operationally.
Quasi-experimental design study means a study using a design that attempts to approximate an experimental design by identifying a comparison group that is similar to the treatment group in important respects. These studies, depending on design and implementation, can meet What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards with reservations (but not What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards without reservations).
Randomized controlled trial means a study that employs random assignment of, for example, students, teachers, classrooms, schools, or districts to receive the intervention being evaluated (the treatment group) or not to receive the intervention (the control group). The estimated effectiveness of the intervention is the difference between the average outcomes for the treatment group and for the control group. These studies, depending on design and implementation, can meet What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards without reservations.
Relevant outcome means the student outcome(s) (or the ultimate outcome if not related to students) that the proposed process, product, strategy, or practice is designed to improve; consistent with the specific goals of a program.
Strong theory means a rationale for the proposed process, product, strategy, or practice that includes a logic model.
What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards means the standards set forth in the What Works Clearinghouse Procedures and Standards Handbook (Version 3.0, March 2014), which can be found at the following link: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/DocumentSum.aspx?sid=19.
The following definitions are from the Supplemental Priorities:
Persistently lowest-achieving school means, as determined by the State--
(a)(1) Any Title I school that has been identified for improvement, corrective action, or restructuring under section 1116 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA) and that--
(i) Is among the lowest-achieving five percent of Title I schools in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring or the lowest-achieving five Title I schools in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring in the State, whichever number of schools is greater; or
(ii) Is a high school that has had a graduation rate, as defined in 34 CFR 200.19(b), that is less than 60 percent over a number of years; and
(2) Any secondary school that is eligible for, but does not receive, Title I funds that--
(i) Is among the lowest-achieving five percent of secondary schools or the lowest-achieving five secondary schools in the State that are eligible for, but do not receive, Title I funds, whichever number of schools is greater; or
(ii) Is a high school that has had a graduation rate, as defined in 34 CFR 200.19(b), that is less than 60 percent over a number of years.
(b) To identify the lowest-achieving schools, a State must take into account both--
(i) The academic achievement of the “all students” group in a school in terms of proficiency on the State’s assessments under section 1111(b)(3) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA), in reading/language arts and mathematics combined; and
(ii) The school’s lack of progress on those assessments over a number of years in the “all students” group.
Priority schools means schools that, based on the most recent data available, have been identified as among the lowest-performing schools in the State. The total number of priority schools in a State must be at least five percent of the Title I schools in the State. A priority school is--
(a) A school among the lowest five percent of Title I schools in the State based on the achievement of the “all students” group in terms of proficiency on the statewide assessments that are part of the SEA’s differentiated recognition, accountability, and support system, combined, and has demonstrated a lack of progress on those assessments over a number of years in the “all students” group;
(b) A Title I-participating or Title I-eligible high school with a graduation rate that is less than 60 percent over a number of years; or
(c) A Tier I or Tier II school under the School Improvement Grant (SIG) program that is using SIG funds to implement a school intervention model.
Waiver of Proposed Rulemaking:
Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553) the Department generally offers interested parties the opportunity to comment on proposed priorities and requirements. Section 681(d) of IDEA, however, makes the public comment requirements of the APA inapplicable to the priority in this notice.
Program Authority:
20 U.S.C. 1474 and 1481.
Applicable Regulations:
(a) The Education Department General Administrative Regulations in 34 CFR parts 75, 77, 79, 81, 82, 84, 86, 97, 98, and 99. (b) The Office of Management and Budget Guidelines to Agencies on Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement) in 2 CFR part 180, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department in 2 CFR part 3485. (c) The Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards in 2 CFR part 200, as adopted and amended in 2 CFR part 3474.
Note: The regulations in 34 CFR part 79 apply to all applicants except federally recognized Indian tribes.
Note: The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 apply to institutions of higher education (IHEs) only.
II. Award Information
Type of Award:
Cooperative agreements.
Estimated Available Funds:
$1,414,056.
Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of applications, we may make additional awards in FY 2017 from the list of unfunded applications from this competition.
Estimated Range of Awards:
$450,000 to $500,000 per year
Estimated Average Size of Award:
$471,352 per year
Maximum Award:
We will reject any application that proposes a budget exceeding $500,000 for a single budget period of 12 months. The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services may change the maximum amount through a notice published in the Federal Register.
Estimated Number of Awards:
3.
Note: The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.
Project Period:
Up to 48 months with an optional additional 12 months based on performance. Applications must include plans for both the 48 month award and the 12 month extension.
III. Eligibility Information
1. Eligible Applicants:
State educational agencies (SEAs); LEAs, including public charter schools that are considered LEAs under State law; IHEs; other public agencies; private nonprofit organizations; outlying areas; freely associated States; Indian tribes or tribal organizations; and for-profit organizations.
2. Cost Sharing or Matching:
This competition does not require cost sharing or matching.
3. Other: General Requirements:
The projects funded under this competition must make positive efforts to employ, and advance in employment, qualified individuals with disabilities (see section 606 of IDEA).
The applicant and grant recipient funded under this competition must involve individuals with disabilities or parents of individuals with disabilities ages birth through 26 in planning, implementing, and evaluating the project (see section 682(a)(1)(A) of IDEA).
IV. Application and Submission Information
1. Address to Request Application Package:
Education Publications Center (ED Pubs)
U.S. Department of Education
P.O. Box 22207
Alexandria, VA 22304
Telephone, toll free: 1-877-433-7827.
FAX: (703) 605-6794.
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call, toll free: 1-877-576-7734.
You can contact ED Pubs at its Web site, also: www.EDPubs.gov or at its address: edpubs@inet.ed.gov.
If you request an application package from ED Pubs, be sure to identify this competition as follows: CFDA number 84.327S.
Individuals with disabilities can obtain a copy of the application package in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) by contacting the person or team listed under Accessible Format in section VIII of this notice.
2. Content and Form of Application Submission:
Requirements concerning the content of an application, together with the forms you must submit, are in the application package for this competition.
Page Limit:
The application narrative (Part III of the application) is where you, the applicant, address the selection criteria that reviewers use to evaluate your application. You must limit Part III to no more than 50 pages, using the following standards:
A “page” is 8.5" x 11", on one side only, with 1" margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.
Double space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative section, including titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, reference citations, and captions, as well as all text in charts, tables, figures, graphs, screen shots, and logic models.
Use a font that is 12 point or larger.
Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, Courier New, or Arial. An application submitted in any other font (including Times Roman or Arial Narrow) will not be accepted.
The page limit and double-spacing requirements do not apply to Part I, the cover sheet; Part II, the budget section, including the narrative budget justification; Part IV, the assurances and certifications; or the abstract (follow the guidance provided in the application package for completing the abstract), the table of contents, the list of priority requirements, the resumes, the reference list, the letters of support, or the appendices. However, the page limit and double-spacing requirements do apply to all of Part III, the application narrative, including all text in charts, tables, figures, graphs, screen shots, and logic models.
We will reject your application if you exceed the page limit in the application narrative section; or if you apply standards other than those specified in this notice and the application package.
3. Submission Dates and Times:
Applications Available: February 29, 2016
Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: April 14, 2016.
Applications for grants under this competition must be submitted electronically using the Grants.gov Apply site (Grants.gov). For information (including dates and times) about how to submit your application electronically, or in paper format by mail or hand delivery if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, please refer to Other Submission Requirements in section IV of this notice.
We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements.
Individuals with disabilities who need an accommodation or auxiliary aid in connection with the application process should contact the person listed under For Further Information Contact in section VII of this notice. If the Department provides an accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability in connection with the application process, the individual’s application remains subject to all other requirements and limitations in this notice.
Deadline for Intergovernmental Review: June 13, 2016
4. Intergovernmental Review:
This competition is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. Information about Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs under Executive Order 12372 is in the application package for this competition.
5. Funding Restrictions:
We reference regulations outlining funding restrictions in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice.
6. Data Universal Numbering System Number, Taxpayer Identification Number, and System for Award Management:
To do business with the Department of Education, you must—
Have a Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number and a Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN);
Register both your DUNS number and TIN with the System for Award Management (SAM) (formerly the Central Contractor Registry (CCR)), the Government’s primary registrant database;
Provide your DUNS number and TIN on your application; and
Maintain an active SAM registration with current information while your application is under review by the Department and, if you are awarded a grant, during the project period.
You can obtain a DUNS number from Dun and Bradstreet at the following Web site: http://fedgov.dnb.com/webform. A DUNS number can be created within one-to-two business days.
If you are a corporate entity, agency, institution, or organization, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service. If you are an individual, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service or the Social Security Administration. If you need a new TIN, please allow two to five weeks for your TIN to become active.
The SAM registration process can take approximately seven business days, but may take upwards of several weeks, depending on the completeness and accuracy of the data you enter into the SAM database. Thus, if you think you might want to apply for Federal financial assistance under a program administered by the Department, please allow sufficient time to obtain and register your DUNS number and TIN. We strongly recommend that you register early.
Note: Once your SAM registration is active, it may take be 24 to 48 hours before you can access the information in, and submit an application through, Grants.gov.
If you are currently registered with SAM, you may not need to make any changes. However, please make certain that the TIN associated with your DUNS number is correct. Also note that you will need to update your registration annually. This may take three or more business days.
Information about SAM is available at www.SAM.gov. To further assist you with obtaining and registering your DUNS number and TIN in SAM or updating your existing SAM account, we have prepared a SAM.gov Tip Sheet, which you can find at: http://www2.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/sam-faqs.html.
In addition, if you are submitting your application via Grants.gov, you must:
be designated by your organization as an Authorized Organization Representative (AOR); and
register yourself with Grants.gov as an AOR. Details on these steps are outlined at the following Grants.gov Web page: http://www.grants.gov/web/grants/register.html.
7. Other Submission Requirements:
Applications for grants under this competition must be submitted electronically unless you qualify for an exception to this requirement in accordance with the instructions in this section.
a. Electronic Submission of Applications.
Applications for grants under the Stepping-up Technology Implementation competition, CFDA number 84.327S, must be submitted electronically using the Governmentwide Grants.gov Apply site at www.Grants.gov. Through this site, you will be able to download a copy of the application package, complete it offline, and then upload and submit your application. You may not email an electronic copy of a grant application to us.
We will reject your application if you submit it in paper format unless, as described elsewhere in this section, you qualify for one of the exceptions to the electronic submission requirement and submit, no later than two weeks before the application deadline date, a written statement to the Department that you qualify for one of these exceptions. Further information regarding calculation of the date that is two weeks before the application deadline date is provided later in this section under Exception to Electronic Submission Requirement.
You may access the electronic grant application for the Stepping-up Technology Implementation competition at www.Grants.gov. You must search for the downloadable application package for this competition by the CFDA number. Do not include the CFDA number’s alpha suffix in your search (e.g., search for 84.327, not 84.327S).
Please note the following:
When you enter the Grants.gov site, you will find information about submitting an application electronically through the site, as well as the hours of operation.
Applications received by Grants.gov are date and time stamped. Your application must be fully uploaded and submitted and must be date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system no later than 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, D.C. time, on the application deadline date. Except as otherwise noted in this section, we will not accept your application if it is received—that is, date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system—after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, D.C. time, on the application deadline date. We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements. When we retrieve your application from Grants.gov, we will notify you if we are rejecting your application because it was date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, D.C. time, on the application deadline date.
The amount of time it can take to upload an application will vary depending on a variety of factors, including the size of the application and the speed of your Internet connection. Therefore, we strongly recommend that you do not wait until the application deadline date to begin the submission process through Grants.gov.
You should review and follow the Education Submission Procedures for submitting an application through Grants.gov that are included in the application package for this competition to ensure that you submit your application in a timely manner to the Grants.gov system. You can also find the Education Submission Procedures pertaining to Grants.gov under News and Events on the Department’s G5 system home page at www.G5.gov. In addition, for specific guidance and procedures for submitting an application through Grants.gov, please refer to the Grants.gov Web site at: www.grants.gov/web/grants/applicants/apply-for-grants.html.
You will not receive additional point value because you submit your application in electronic format, nor will we penalize you if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, as described elsewhere in this section, and submit your application in paper format.
You must submit all documents electronically, including all information you typically provide on the following forms: the Application for Federal Assistance (SF 424), the Department of Education Supplemental Information for SF 424, Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs (ED 524), and all necessary assurances and certifications.
You must upload any narrative sections and all other attachments to your application as files in a read-only, non-modifiable Portable Document Format (PDF). Do not upload an interactive or fillable PDF file. If you upload a file type other than a read-only, non-modifiable PDF (e.g., Word, Excel, WordPerfect, etc.) or submit a password-protected file, we will not review that material. Please note that this could result in your application not being considered for funding because the material in question—for example, the project narrative—is critical to a meaningful review of your proposal. For that reason it is important to allow yourself adequate time to upload all material as PDF files. The Department will not convert material from other formats to PDF. Additional, detailed information on how to attach files is in the application instructions.
Your electronic application must comply with any page-limit requirements described in this notice.
After you electronically submit your application, you will receive from Grants.gov an automatic notification of receipt that contains a Grants.gov tracking number. This notification indicates receipt by Grants.gov only, not receipt by the Department. Grants.gov will also notify you automatically by email if your application met all of the Grants.gov validation requirements or there were any errors (such as submission of your application by someone other than a registered Authorized Organization Representative or inclusion of an attachment with a file name that contains special characters). You will be given an opportunity to correct any errors and resubmit, but you must still meet the deadline for submission of applications.
Once your application is successfully validated by Grants.gov, the Department will retrieve your application from Grants.gov and send you a unique PR/Award number for your application.
These emails do not mean that your application is without any disqualifying errors. While your application may have been successfully validated by Grants.gov, it must also meet the Department’s application requirements as specified in this notice and in the application instructions. Disqualifying errors could include, for instance, failure to upload attachments in a read-only, non-modifiable PDF; failure to submit a required part of the application; or failure to meet applicant eligibility requirements. It is your responsibility to ensure that your submitted application has met all of the Department’s requirements.
We may request that you provide us original signatures on forms at a later date.
Application Deadline Date Extension in Case of Technical Issues with the Grants.gov System:
If you are experiencing problems submitting your application through Grants.gov, please contact the Grants.gov Support Desk, toll free, at 1-800-518-4726. You must obtain a Grants.gov Support Desk Case Number and must keep a record of it.
If you are prevented from electronically submitting your application on the application deadline date because of technical problems with the Grants.gov system, we will grant you an extension until 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, D.C. time, the following business day to enable you to transmit your application electronically or by hand delivery. You also may mail your application by following the mailing instructions described elsewhere in this notice.
If you submit an application after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, D.C. time, on the application deadline date, please contact the person listed under For Further Information Contact in section VII of this notice and provide an explanation of the technical problem you experienced with Grants.gov, along with the Grants.gov Support Desk Case Number. We will accept your application if we can confirm that a technical problem occurred with the Grants.gov system and that that problem affected your ability to submit your application by 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, D.C. time, on the application deadline date. We will contact you after a determination is made on whether your application will be accepted.
Note: The extensions to which we refer in this section apply only to the unavailability of, or technical problems with, the Grants.gov system. We will not grant you an extension if you failed to fully register to submit your application to Grants.gov before the application deadline date and time or if the technical problem you experienced is unrelated to the Grants.gov system.
Exception to Electronic Submission Requirement:
You qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, and may submit your application in paper format, if you are unable to submit an application through the Grants.gov system because––
You do not have access to the Internet; or
You do not have the capacity to upload large documents to the Grants.gov system;
and
No later than two weeks before the application deadline date (14 calendar days or, if the fourteenth calendar day before the application deadline date falls on a Federal holiday, the next business day following the Federal holiday), you mail or fax a written statement to the Department, explaining which of the two grounds for an exception prevents you from using the Internet to submit your application.
If you mail your written statement to the Department, it must be postmarked no later than two weeks before the application deadline date. If you fax your written statement to the Department, we must receive the faxed statement no later than two weeks before the application deadline date.
Address and mail or fax your statement to:
Terry Jackson
U.S. Department of Education
400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 5158, Potomac Center Plaza (PCP)
Washington, DC 20202-5076
FAX: (202) 245-7590.
Your paper application must be submitted in accordance with the mail or hand delivery instructions described in this notice.
b. Submission of Paper Applications by Mail.
If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you may mail (through the U.S. Postal Service or a commercial carrier) your application to the Department. You must mail the original and two copies of your application, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address:
U.S. Department of Education
Application Control Center
Attention: (CFDA Number 84.327S)
LBJ Basement Level 1
400 Maryland Avenue, SW.
Washington, DC 20202-4260
You must show proof of mailing consisting of one of the following:
A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark.
A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the U.S. Postal Service.
A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial carrier.
Any other proof of mailing acceptable to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education.
If you mail your application through the U.S. Postal Service, we do not accept either of the following as proof of mailing:
A private metered postmark.
A mail receipt that is not dated by the U.S. Postal Service.
If your application is postmarked after the application deadline date, we will not consider your application.
Note: The U.S. Postal Service does not uniformly provide a dated postmark. Before relying on this method, you should check with your local post office.
c. Submission of Paper Applications by Hand Delivery.
If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you (or a courier service) may deliver your paper application to the Department by hand. You must deliver the original and two copies of your application by hand, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address:
U.S. Department of Education
Application Control Center
Attention: (CFDA Number 84.327S)
550 12th Street, SW.
Room 7039, Potomac Center Plaza
Washington, DC 20202-4260
The Application Control Center accepts hand deliveries daily between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, D.C. time, except on Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays.
Note for Mail or Hand Delivery of Paper Applications:
If you mail or hand deliver your application to the Department—
You must indicate on the envelope and—if not provided by the Department—in Item 11 of the SF 424 the CFDA number, including suffix letter, if any, of the competition under which you are submitting your application; and
The Application Control Center will mail to you a notification of receipt of your grant application. If you do not receive this notification within 15 business days from the application deadline date, you should call the U.S. Department of Education Application Control Center at (202) 245-6288.
V. Application Review Information
1. Selection Criteria:
The selection criteria for this program are from 34 CFR 75.210 and are listed in the application package.
2. Review and Selection Process:
We remind potential applicants that in reviewing applications in any discretionary grant competition, the Secretary may consider, under 34 CFR 75.217(d)(3), the past performance of the applicant in carrying out a previous award, such as the applicant’s use of funds, achievement of project objectives, and compliance with grant conditions. The Secretary may also consider whether the applicant failed to submit a timely performance report or submitted a report of unacceptable quality.
In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary also requires various assurances including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department of Education (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
3. Additional Review and Selection Process Factors:
In the past, the Department has had difficulty finding peer reviewers for certain competitions because so many individuals who are eligible to serve as peer reviewers have conflicts of interest. The standing panel requirements under section 682(b) of IDEA also have placed additional constraints on the availability of reviewers. Therefore, the Department has determined that, for some discretionary grant competitions, applications may be separated into two or more groups and ranked and selected for funding within specific groups. This procedure will make it easier for the Department to find peer reviewers, by ensuring that greater numbers of individuals who are eligible to serve as reviewers for any particular group of applicants will not have conflicts of interest. It also will increase the quality, independence, and fairness of the review process, while permitting panel members to review applications under discretionary grant competitions for which they also have submitted applications. However, if the Department decides to select an equal number of applications in each group for funding, this may result in different cut-off points for fundable applications in each group.
4. Risk Assessment and Special Conditions:
Consistent with 2 CFR 200.205, before awarding grants under this competition the Department conducts a review of the risks posed by applicants. Under 2 CFR 3474.10, the Secretary may impose special conditions and, in appropriate circumstances, high-risk conditions on a grant if the applicant or grantee is not financially stable, has a history of unsatisfactory performance, has a financial or other management system that does not meet the standards in 2 CFR part 200, subpart D, has not fulfilled the conditions of a prior grant, or is otherwise not responsible.
VI. Award Administration Information
1. Award Notices:
If your application is successful, we will notify your U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators. We will also send you a Grant Award Notification (GAN)or an email containing a link to access an electronic version of your GAN. We also may notify you informally.
If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you.
2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements:
We identify administrative and national policy requirements in the application package and reference these and other requirements in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice.
We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice and include these and other specific conditions in the GAN. The GAN also incorporates your approved application as part of your binding commitments under the grant.
3. Reporting:
If you apply for a grant under this competition, you must ensure that you have in place the necessary processes and systems to comply with the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 170 should you receive funding under the competition. This does not apply if you have an exception under 2 CFR 170.110(b).
At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary. If you receive a multi-year award, you must submit an annual performance report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, please go to www.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/appforms/appforms.html.
4. Performance Measures:
Under the Government Performance and Results Modernization Act of 2010 (GPRA), the Department has established a set of performance measures, including long-term measures, that are designed to yield information on various aspects of the effectiveness and quality of the Educational Technology, Media, and Materials for Individuals with Disabilities program. These measures are included in the application package and focus on the extent to which projects are of high quality, are relevant to improving outcomes of children with disabilities, contribute to improving outcomes for children with disabilities, and generate evidence of validity and availability to appropriate populations. Projects funded under this competition are required to submit data on these measures as directed by OSEP:
Program Performance Measure #1:
The percentage of educational technology, media, and materials projects judged to be of high quality.
Program Performance Measure #2:
The percentage of educational technology, media, and materials projects judged to be of high relevance to improving outcomes of infants, toddlers, children, and youth with disabilities.
Program Performance Measure #3:
The percentage of educational technology, media, and materials projects that produce findings, products, and other services that contribute to improving results for infants, toddlers, children, and youth with disabilities.
Program Performance Measure #4:
The percentage of educational technology, media, and materials projects that validate their products and services.
Program Performance Measure #5:
The percentage of educational technology, media, and materials projects that make validated technologies available for widespread use.
Grantees will be required to report information on their project’s performance in annual performance reports and additional performance data to the Department (34 CFR 75.590 and 75.591).
5. Continuation Awards:
In making a continuation award under 34 CFR 75.253, the Secretary considers, among other things: whether a grantee has made substantial progress in achieving the goals and objectives of the project; whether the grantee has expended funds in a manner that is consistent with its approved application and budget; and, if the Secretary has established performance measurement requirements, the performance targets in the grantees approved application.
In making a continuation grant, the Secretary also considers whether the grantee is operating in compliance with the assurances in its approved application, including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
VII. Agency Contact
For Further Information Contact:
Terry Jackson
U.S. Department of Education
400 Maryland Avenue SW., room 5158, Potomac Center Plaza (PCP)
Washington, DC 20202-5076
Telephone: (202) 245-6039.
If you use a TDD or a TTY, call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1‑800‑877‑8339.
VIII. Other Information
Accessible Format:
Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document and a copy of the application package in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) by contacting the:
Grants and Contracts Services Team
U.S. Department of Education
400 Maryland Avenue SW., room 5075, PCP
Washington, DC 20202-2550
Telephone: (202) 245-7363.
If you use a TDD or a TTY, call the FRS, toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
Electronic Access to This Document:
The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register. Free Internet access to the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations is available via the Federal Digital System at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site you can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal Register, in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the Federal Register by using the article search feature at: www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department.
Dated:
/s/
Michael Yudin,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.
IMPORTANT—PLEASE READ FIRST
U.S. Department of Education
To facilitate your use of Grants.gov, this document includes important submission procedures you need to be aware of to ensure your application is received in a timely manner and accepted by the Department of Education.
Grants.gov is a Custom Java Application that uses standard web-browsers as the client. Grants.gov leverages the latest web technologies such as Ajax which relies extensively on JavaScript, HTML, and CSS. Grants.gov recommends you use the most up-to-date web browser possible for the best User Experience. If you are unsure about which version of the browser you are using, please check the following places:
Microsoft IE The About Internet Explorer setting under Help on your toolbar
Firefox The About Firefox setting under Help on your toolbar
Chrome The About Google Chrome setting under the Customize and Control Google Chrome option (located on the far right ) in your toolbar options for your browsers.
The table below lists supported Web Browsers:
Web Browser |
Support |
Comments |
Microsoft IE 9/10/11 |
Supported |
|
Mozilla Firefox |
Supported |
Versions change frequently; we recommend you have the latest version. Legacy versions are functional but may experience some issues. It is recommended to upgrade to the latest version. |
Google Chrome |
Supported |
Versions change frequently; we recommend you have the latest version. Legacy versions are functional but may experience some issues. It is recommended to upgrade to the latest version. |
Apple Safari |
Supported |
Versions change frequently; we recommend you have the latest version. Legacy versions are functional but may experience some issues. It is recommended to upgrade to the latest version. |
For additional information of updates, please see the Grants.gov Browser Support Page. http://www.grants.gov/web/grants/support/technical-support/software/browser-support.html
Applications submitted to Grants.gov for the Department of Education will be posted using Adobe forms. Therefore, applicants will need to download the latest version of Adobe reader (at least Adobe Reader 10.1.14). (Please note that in early 2013, Grants.gov discovered an issue with the newest version of Adobe Reader XI but it was subsequently resolved.) Information on computer and operating system compatibility with Adobe and links to download the latest version is available on Grants.gov at this link: compatibility table. We strongly recommend that you review these details on www.Grants.gov before completing and submitting your application. In addition, applicants should submit their application a day or two in advance of the closing date as detailed below. Also, applicants are required to upload their attachments in .pdf format only. (See details below under “Attaching Files – Additional Tips.”) If you have any questions regarding this matter please email the Grants.gov Contact Center at support@grants.gov or call 1-800-518-4726.
REGISTER EARLY
Grants.gov registration involves many
steps including registration on SAM (www.sam.gov)
which may take approximately one week to
complete, but could take as many as several weeks to complete,
depending upon the completeness and accuracy of the data entered by
an applicant into the SAM database. You may begin working on
your application while completing the registration process, but you
cannot submit an application until all of the Registration steps are
complete. Please note that once your SAM
registration is active, it will take 24-48 hours for the information
to be available in Grants.gov. You
cannot submit an application through Grants.gov until Grants.gov has
received your SAM registration information.
For detailed information on the Registration Steps, please
go to: http://www.grants.gov/web/grants/register.html
[Note: Your organization will need to update its SAM registration
annually (formerly Central Contractor Registry (CCR).]
Primary information about SAM is available at www.sam.gov . However, to further assist you with obtaining and registering your DUNS number and TIN in SAM or updating your existing SAM account, the Department of Education has prepared a SAM.gov Tip Sheet which you can find at: http://www2.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/sam-faqs.html
SUBMIT EARLY
We strongly recommend that you do not
wait until the last day to submit your application. Grants.gov
will put a date/time stamp on your application and then process it
after it is fully uploaded. The time it takes to upload an
application will vary depending on a number of factors including the
size of the application and the speed of your Internet connection.
The time it takes Grants.gov to process the application will vary as
well. If Grants.gov rejects your application (see step three below),
you will need to resubmit successfully to Grants.gov before 4:30:00
p.m. Washington, DC time on the deadline date.
Note: To submit successfully, you must provide the DUNS number on your application that was used when you registered as an Authorized Organization Representative (AOR) on Grants.gov. This DUNS number is typically the same number used when your organization registered with the SAM (formerly CCR -Central Contractor Registry). If you do not enter the same DUNS number on your application as the DUNS you registered with, Grants.gov will reject your application.
VERIFY SUBMISSION IS OK
You will want to verify that
Grants.gov received your application submission on time and that it
was validated successfully. To see the date/time your application
was received, login to Grants.gov and click on the Track My
Application link. For a successful submission, the date/time
received should be earlier than 4:30:00 p.m. Washington, DC time, on
the deadline date, AND the application status should be: Validated,
Received by Agency, or Agency Tracking Number Assigned. Once the
Department of Education receives your application from Grants.gov,
an Agency Tracking Number (PR/award number) will be assigned to your
application and will be available for viewing on Grants.gov’s
Track My Application link.
If the date/time received is later than 4:30:00 p.m. Washington, D.C. time, on the deadline date, your application is late. If your application has a status of “Received” it is still awaiting validation by Grants.gov. Once validation is complete, the status will either change to “Validated” or “Rejected with Errors.” If the status is “Rejected with Errors,” your application has not been received successfully. Some of the reasons Grants.gov may reject an application can be found on the Grants.gov site: http://www.grants.gov/web/grants/applicants/grant-application-process/application-statuses.html. For more detailed information on troubleshooting Adobe errors, you can review the Adobe Reader Error Messages document at http://www.grants.gov/web/grants/support/technical-support/troubleshooting/encountering-error-messages.html. If you discover your application is late or has been rejected, please see the instructions below. Note: You will receive a series of confirmations both online and via email about the status of your application. Please do not rely solely on email to confirm whether your application has been received timely and validated successfully.
If you have problems submitting to Grants.gov before the closing date, please contact Grants.gov Customer Support at 1-800-518-4726 or http://www.grants.gov/web/grants/about/contact-us.html, or access the Grants.gov Self-Service web portal at: https://grants-portal.psc.gov/Welcome.aspx?pt=Grants
If electronic submission is optional and you have problems that you are unable to resolve before the deadline date and time for electronic applications, please follow the transmittal instructions for hard copy applications in the Federal Register notice and get a hard copy application postmarked by midnight on the deadline date.
If electronic submission is required, you must submit an electronic application before 4:30:00 p.m., unless you follow the procedures in the Federal Register notice and qualify for one of the exceptions to the electronic submission requirement and submit, no later than two weeks before the application deadline date, a written statement to the Department that you qualify for one of these exceptions. (See the Federal Register notice for detailed instructions.)
Please note, once you download an application from Grants.gov, you will be working offline and saving data on your computer. Please be sure to note where you are saving the Grants.gov file on your computer. You will need to logon to Grants.gov to upload and submit the application. You must provide the DUNS number on your application that was used when you registered as an Authorized Organization Representative (AOR) on Grants.gov.
Please go to http://www.grants.gov/web/grants/about/contact-us.html for help with Grants.gov. For additional tips related to submitting grant applications, please refer to the Grants.gov Submit Application FAQs found on the Grants.gov http://www.grants.gov/web/grants/support/general-support/faqs.html.
When using a dial up connection to upload and submit your application, it can take significantly longer than when you are connected to the Internet with a high-speed connection, e.g. cable modem/DSL/T1. While submission times will vary depending upon the size of your application, it can take a few minutes to a few hours to complete your grant submission using a dial up connection. If you do not have access to a high-speed connection and electronic submission is required, you may want to consider following the instructions in the Federal Register notice to obtain an exception to the electronic submission requirement no later than two weeks before the application deadline date. (See the Federal Register notice for detailed instructions.)
For MAC compatibility information, review the Operating System Platform Compatibility Table at the following Grants.gov link: http://www.grants.gov/web/grants/support/technical-support/recommended-software.html. If electronic submission is required and you are concerned about your ability to submit electronically as a non-Windows user, please follow instructions in the Federal Register notice to obtain an exception to the electronic submission requirement no later than two weeks before the application deadline date. (See the Federal Register notice for detailed instructions.)
Please note the following tips related to attaching files to your application, especially the requirement that applicants only include read-only, non-modifiable .PDF files in their application:
Ensure that you attach .PDF files only for any attachments to your application. ,PDF files must be in a read-only, non-modifiable format. PDF files are the only Education approved file type accepted as detailed in the Federal Register application notice. Applicants must submit individual .PDF files only when attaching files to their application. Specifically, the Department will not accept any attachments that contain files within a file, such as PDF Portfolio files, or an interactive or fillable .PDF file. Any attachments uploaded that are not .PDF files or are password protected files will not be read.
Grants.gov cannot process an application that includes two or more files that have the same name within a grant submission. Therefore, each file uploaded to your application package should have a unique file name.
When attaching files, applicants should follow the guidelines established by Grants.gov on the size and content of file names. Uploaded files must be less than 50 characters, contain no spaces, no special characters (example: -, &, *, %, /, #, \) including periods (.), blank spaces and accent marks. Submitted applications that do not comply with the Grants.gov guidelines will be rejected at Grants.gov and not forwarded to the Department.
Applicants should limit the size of their file attachments. Documents submitted that contain graphics and/or scanned material often greatly increase the size of the file attachments and can result in difficulties opening the files. For reference, the average discretionary grant application package totals 1 to 2 MB. Therefore, you may want to check the total size of your package before submission.
3/2014
04/14/2016
The purpose of this priority is to fund cooperative agreements to:
identify strategies needed to effectively implement evidence-based technology tools8 that benefit students with disabilities; and
develop and disseminate products9 that will help a broad range of schools to effectively implement these technology tools.
As Congress recognized in IDEA, “almost 30 years of research and experience has demonstrated that the education of children with disabilities can be made more effective by ... supporting the development and use of technology, including assistive technology devices and assistive technology services, to maximize accessibility for children with disabilities” (section 601(c)(5)(H) of IDEA).
The use of technology, including assistive technology devices and assistive technology services, enhances instruction and access to the general education curriculum. Technology can be the great equalizer in a classroom for students with disabilities. Educators often face major obstacles when it comes to engaging and motivating students who struggle with the general education curriculum. Innovative technology tools, programs, and software can be used to promote engagement and enhance the learning experience (Brunvand & Byrd, 2011). Additionally, the development of newer technologies for, and their presence in, early childhood education settings is rapidly increasing. When media-rich content is integrated into the curriculum and supported with adult guidance, technology experiences for young children are associated with better language, literacy, and mathematics outcomes. Additionally, technology integration in early childhood settings has been linked to increased social awareness and collaborative behaviors, improved abstract reasoning and problem solving abilities, and enhanced visual-motor coordination (McManis & Gunnewig, 2012).
Technologies can also offer opportunities to support State educational agency (SEA) and local educational agency (LEA) Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) flexibility plans by:
improving student learning and engagement;
accommodating the special needs of students;
facilitating student and teacher access to digital content and resources;10 and
improving the quality of instruction through personalized learning and data (Duffey & Fox, 2012; Fletcher, Schaffhauser, & Levi, 2012; U.S. Department of Education, 2010).
Notwithstanding the potential benefits in using technology to improve learning outcomes, research suggests that implementation can be a significant challenge. For example, data from a survey of more than 1,000 kindergarten through grade 12 (K-12) teachers, principals, and assistant principals indicated that simply providing teachers with technology does not ensure that it will be used (Grunwald & Associates, 2010). Additionally, Perlman and Redding (2011) found that in order to be used most effectively, technology must be implemented in ways that align with curricular and teacher goals and must offer students opportunities to use these tools in their learning. Even as schools have started to deliver coursework online, and the number of students involved in online learning has grown, many of these online learning technologies have not been designed to be accessible to students with disabilities (Center on Online Learning and Students with Disabilities, 2012). These findings demonstrate a need for products and resources that can ensure technology tools for students with disabilities are implemented effectively.
Since 1998, the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) has supported technology and media service projects through the Steppingstones of Technology Innovation for Children with Disabilities (Steppingstones) program. The projects funded under the Steppingstones program developed and evaluated numerous innovative technology tools designed to improve results for children with disabilities in areas such as Web-based learning and assessment materials, instructional software, assistive technology devices, methods for using off-the-shelf hardware and software to improve learning, and methods for integrating technology into instruction. The Stepping-up Technology Implementation program is building on these technology development efforts under the Steppingstones program by identifying, developing, and disseminating products and resources that promote the effective implementation11 of evidence-based instructional and assistive technology tools in early childhood or K-12 settings.12
Priority:
The purpose of this priority is to fund cooperative agreements to:
identify strategies needed to effectively implement evidence-based technology tools that benefit students with disabilities; and
develop and disseminate products (e.g., instruction manuals, lesson plans, demonstration videos, ancillary instructional materials) that will help early childhood or K-12 settings to effectively implement these technology tools.
To be considered for funding under this absolute priority, applicants must meet the application requirements. Any project funded under this absolute priority must also meet the programmatic and administrative requirements specified in the priority.
Application Requirements:
An applicant must include in its application—
A project design supported by strong theory (as defined in this notice);
A logic model (as defined in this notice) or conceptual framework that depicts at a minimum, the goals, activities, outputs, and outcomes of the proposed project.
Note: The following Web sites provide more information on logic models: www.researchutilization.org/matrix/logicmodel_resource3c.html and www.osepideasthatwork.org/logicModel/index.asp.
A plan to implement the activities described in the Project Activities section of this priority;
A plan, linked to the proposed project’s logic model, for a formative evaluation of the proposed project’s activities. The plan must describe how the formative evaluation will use clear performance objectives to ensure continuous improvement in the operation of the proposed project, including objective measures of progress in implementing the project and ensuring the quality of products and services;
Documentation that technology tool is evidence-based (as defined in this notice) and that it can be implemented to improve early childhood outcomes, academic achievement, and college- and career-readiness.
A plan for recruiting and selecting13 the following:
Three development schools. Development schools are the sites in which iterative development14 of the implementation of technology tools and products will occur. The project must start implementing the technology tool with one development school in year one of the project period and two additional development schools in year two.
Four pilot schools. Pilot schools are the sites in which try-out, formative evaluation, and refinement of technology tools and products will occur. The project must work with the four pilot schools during years three and four of the project period.
Ten dissemination schools. Dissemination schools will be selected if the project is extended for a fifth year. Dissemination schools will be used to conduct the final test of the effectiveness of the products and the final opportunity for the project to refine the products for use by teachers, but will receive less technical assistance (TA) from the project than the development or pilot schools. Also, at this stage, dissemination schools will extend the benefits of the technology tool to additional students. To be selected as a dissemination school, eligible schools and LEAs must commit to working with the project to implement the evidence-based technology tool. A school may not serve in more than one category (i.e., development, pilot, dissemination).
School site information (e.g., early childhood setting; elementary, middle, or high school; persistently lowest-achieving school (as defined in this notice); high-needs school (as defined in this notice)) about the diversity of the development, pilot, and dissemination schools; student demographics (e.g., race or ethnicity, percentage of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch); and other pertinent data.
A budget for attendance at the following:
A one and one-half day kick-off meeting to be held in Washington, DC, after receipt of the award, and an annual planning meeting held in Washington, DC, with the OSEP project officer and other relevant staff during each subsequent year of the project period.
Note: Within 30 days of receipt of the award, a post-award teleconference must be held between the OSEP project officer and the grantee’s project director or other authorized representative.
A three-day project directors’ conference in Washington, DC, during each year of the project period.
Two two-day trips annually to attend Department briefings, Department-sponsored conferences, and other meetings, as requested by OSEP.
Project Activities.
To meet the requirements of this priority, the project, at a minimum, must conduct the following activities:
Recruit a minimum of three development schools in one LEA and four pilot schools across at least two LEAs in accordance with the plan proposed under paragraph (f) of the Application Requirements section of this notice.
Note: Final site selection will be determined in consultation with the OSEP project officer following the kick-off meeting.
Identify resources and develop products to support sustained implementation of the selected technology tool. Development of the products must be an interactive process beginning in a single development school and continuing through repeated cycles of development and refinement in the other development schools, followed by a formative evaluation and refinement in the pilot schools. The products must include, at a minimum, the following components to support implementation of the technology tool:
An instrument or method for assessing
the need for the technology tool, and
readiness to implement it. Instruments and methods may include resource inventory checklists, school self-study guides, surveys of teacher interest, detailed descriptions of the technology tool for review by school staff, and similar approaches used singly or in combination.
Methods and manuals to support the implementation of the technology tool.
Professional development activities necessary for teachers to implement the technology tool with fidelity and integrate it into the curriculum.
Collect and analyze data on the effect of the technology tool on early childhood development, academic achievement, or college- and career-readiness.
Collect formative and summative evaluation data from the development schools and pilot schools to refine and evaluate the products.
If the project is extended to a fifth year, provide the products and the technology tool to no fewer than 10 dissemination schools that are not the same schools used as development and pilot schools.
Collect summative data about the success of the products in supporting implementation of the technology tool in the dissemination schools; and
By the end of the project period, projects must provide information on:
The products and resources that will enable other schools to implement and sustain implementation of the technology tool.
How the technology tool has improved early childhood, academic achievement, or college- and career-readiness for children with disabilities.
A strategy for disseminating the technology tool and accompanying products beyond the schools directly involved in the project.
Cohort Collaboration and Support.
OSEP Project Officer(s) will provide coordination support among the projects. Each project funded under this priority must:
Participate in bi-monthly conference call discussions to share and collaborate around implementation and specific project issues,
Provide information bi-annually using a template that captures descriptive data on project site selection, processes for installation of technology, and the use of technology and sustainability (i.e., the process of technology implementation).
Note: The following website provides more information about implementation research: http://nirn.fpg.unc.edu/learn-implementation.
Fifth Year of the Project:
The Secretary may extend a project one year beyond 48 months to work with dissemination schools if the grantee is achieving the intended outcomes and making a positive contribution to the implementation of an evidence-based technology tool in the development and pilot schools. Each applicant must include in its application a plan for the full 60-month award. In deciding whether to continue funding the project for the fifth year, the Secretary will consider the requirements of 34 CFR 75.253(a), and in addition:
The recommendation of a review team consisting of the OSEP project officer and other experts selected by the Secretary. This review will be held during the last half of the third year of the project period;
The timeliness and effectiveness with which all requirements of the negotiated cooperative agreement have been or are being met by the project; and
Evidence of the degree to which the project’s activities have contributed to changed practices and improved early childhood outcomes, academic achievement, or college- and career-readiness for students with disabilities.
Competitive Preference Priority—Evidence of Promise (2 Points)
Projects based upon supporting evidence of effectiveness that meets the conditions set out in the definition of “evidence of promise” (as defined in this notice).
Note: An applicant addressing this competitive preference priority must identify no more than two study citations that meet this standard
References:
Brunvand, S., & Byrd, S. (2011). Using VoiceThread to promote learning engagement and success for all students. Teaching Exceptional Children, 43(4), 28-37.
Center for Online Learning and Students with Disabilities (COLSD). (2012). The foundation of online learning for students with disabilities (COLSD White Paper). Lawrence, KS: Author. Retrieved from http://centerononlinelearning.org/wp-content/uploads/Foundation_7_2012.pdf.
Diamond, K. E., & Powell, D. R. (2011). An iterative approach to the development of a professional development intervention for head start teachers. Journal of Early Intervention, 33(1), 75-93.
Duffey, D., & Fox, C. (2012). National Educational Technology Trends 2012: State Leadership Empower Educators, Transforming Teaching and Learning. Washington, DC: State Educational Technology Directors Association (SEDTA). Retrieved from www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED536746.pdf.
Fixsen, D. L., Naoom, S. F., Blase, K. A., Friedman, R. M., & Wallace, F. (2005). Implementation research: A synthesis of the literature. Tampa, FL: University of South Florida, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute, The National Implementation Research Network.
Fletcher, G., Schaffhauser, D. & Levi, D. (2012). Out of print: Reimaging the K-12 textbook in a digital age. Washington, DC: State Educational Technology Directors Association (SEDTA). Retrieved from www.setda.org/c/document_library/get_file?folderId=321&name=DLFE-1587.pdf.
Grunwald & Associates. (2010). Educators, technology, and 21st century skills: Dispelling five myths. Retrieved from Walden University, Richard W. Riley College of Education website: www.WaldenU.edu/fivemyths.
McManis, L. D., & Gunnewig, S. B. (2012). Finding the education in educational technology with early learners. Young Children, 67(3), 14-24.
Perlman, C. L., & Redding, S. (Eds.). (2011). Choosing and implementing technology wisely. Handbook on Effective Implementation of School Improvement Grants. Lincoln, IL: Academic Development Institute. Retrieved from www.centerii.org/handbook.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology. (2010). Transforming American Education: Learning Powered by Technology. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from www.ed.gov/sites/default/files/netp2010.pdf.
Definitions:
These definitions are from 34 CFR 77.1 and the Department’s notice of final supplemental priorities and definitions for discretionary grant programs (Supplemental Priorities), published in the Federal Register on December 10, 2014 (79 FR 73425), as marked.
The following definitions are from 34 CFR 77.1:
Evidence of promise means there is empirical evidence to support the theoretical linkage(s) between at least one critical component and at least one relevant outcome presented in the logic model for the proposed process, product, strategy, or practice. Specifically, evidence of promise means the conditions in both paragraphs (i) and (ii) of this definition are met:
(i) There is at least one study that is a--
(A) Correlational study with statistical controls for selection bias;
(B) Quasi-experimental design study that meets the What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards with reservations; or
(C) Randomized controlled trial that meets the What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards with or without reservations.
(ii) The study referenced in paragraph (i) of this definition found a statistically significant or substantively important (defined as a difference of 0.25 standard deviations or larger) favorable association between at least one critical component and one relevant outcome presented in the logic model for the proposed process, product, strategy, or practice.
High-needs school means a Title I school that has a subgroup or subgroups with low achievement or, at the high school level, low graduation rates (“low-achieving subgroup” high-needs school).
Logic model (also referred to as theory of action) means a well-specified conceptual framework that identifies key components of the proposed process, product, strategy, or practice (i.e., the active “ingredients” that are hypothesized to be critical to achieving the relevant outcomes) and describes the relationships among the key components and outcomes, theoretically and operationally.
Quasi-experimental design study means a study using a design that attempts to approximate an experimental design by identifying a comparison group that is similar to the treatment group in important respects. These studies, depending on design and implementation, can meet What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards with reservations (but not What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards without reservations).
Randomized controlled trial means a study that employs random assignment of, for example, students, teachers, classrooms, schools, or districts to receive the intervention being evaluated (the treatment group) or not to receive the intervention (the control group). The estimated effectiveness of the intervention is the difference between the average outcomes for the treatment group and for the control group. These studies, depending on design and implementation, can meet What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards without reservations.
Relevant outcome means the student outcome(s) (or the ultimate outcome if not related to students) that the proposed process, product, strategy, or practice is designed to improve; consistent with the specific goals of a program.
Strong theory means a rationale for the proposed process, product, strategy, or practice that includes a logic model.
What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards means the standards set forth in the What Works Clearinghouse Procedures and Standards Handbook (Version 3.0, March 2014), which can be found at the following link: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/DocumentSum.aspx?sid=19.
The following definitions are from the Supplemental Priorities:
Persistently lowest-achieving school means, as determined by the State--
(a)(1) Any Title I school that has been identified for improvement, corrective action, or restructuring under section 1116 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA) and that--
(i) Is among the lowest-achieving five percent of Title I schools in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring or the lowest-achieving five Title I schools in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring in the State, whichever number of schools is greater; or
(ii) Is a high school that has had a graduation rate, as defined in 34 CFR 200.19(b), that is less than 60 percent over a number of years; and
(2) Any secondary school that is eligible for, but does not receive, Title I funds that--
(i) Is among the lowest-achieving five percent of secondary schools or the lowest-achieving five secondary schools in the State that are eligible for, but do not receive, Title I funds, whichever number of schools is greater; or
(ii) Is a high school that has had a graduation rate, as defined in 34 CFR 200.19(b), that is less than 60 percent over a number of years.
(b) To identify the lowest-achieving schools, a State must take into account both--
(i) The academic achievement of the “all students” group in a school in terms of proficiency on the State’s assessments under section 1111(b)(3) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA), in reading/language arts and mathematics combined; and
(ii) The school’s lack of progress on those assessments over a number of years in the “all students” group.
Priority schools means schools that, based on the most recent data available, have been identified as among the lowest-performing schools in the State. The total number of priority schools in a State must be at least five percent of the Title I schools in the State. A priority school is--
(a) A school among the lowest five percent of Title I schools in the State based on the achievement of the “all students” group in terms of proficiency on the statewide assessments that are part of the SEA’s differentiated recognition, accountability, and support system, combined, and has demonstrated a lack of progress on those assessments over a number of years in the “all students” group;
(b) A Title I-participating or Title I-eligible high school with a graduation rate that is less than 60 percent over a number of years; or
(c) A Tier I or Tier II school under the School Improvement Grant (SIG) program that is using SIG funds to implement a school intervention model.
20 U.S.C. 1474 and 1481.
Under the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA), the Department has established a set of performance measures, including long-term measures, that are designed to yield information on various aspects of the effectiveness and quality of the Educational Technology, Media, and Materials for Individuals with Disabilities program. These measures are included in the application package and focus on the extent to which projects are of high quality, are relevant to improving outcomes of children with disabilities, contribute to improving outcomes for children with disabilities, and generate evidence of validity and availability to appropriate populations. Projects funded under this competition are required to submit data on these measures as directed by OSEP.
The percentage of educational technology, media, and materials projects judged to be of high quality.
The percentage of educational technology, media, and materials projects judged to be of high relevance to improving outcomes of infants, toddlers, children and youth with disabilities.
The percentage of educational technology, media, and materials projects that produce findings, products and/or other services that contributes to improving results for infants, toddler, children and youth with disabilities.
The percentage of educational technology, media, and materials projects that validate their products and services.
The percentage of educational technology, media, and materials projects that make validated technologies available for widespread use.
Grantees also will be required to report information on their projects’ performance in annual and final performance reports to the Department (34 CFR 75.590).
February 29, 2016.
April 14, 2016.
June 13, 2016
$1,414,056.
Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of applications, we may make additional awards in FY 2017 from the list of unfunded applicants from this competition.
450,000 to $500,000 per year
$471,352 per year
3.
Note: The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.
We will reject any application that proposes a budget exceeding $500,000 for a single budget period of 12 months. The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services may change the maximum amount through a notice published in the Federal Register.
Up to 48 months with an optional additional 12 months based on performance. Applications must include plans for both the 48-month award and the 12-month extension.
The application narrative (Part III of the application) is where you, the applicant, address the selection criteria that reviewers use to evaluate your application. You must limit the application narrative to no more than 50 pages, using the following standards:
A "page" is 8.5" x 11" (on one side only) with 1” margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.
Double-space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative, including titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, reference citations, captions, as well as all text in charts, tables, figures, graphs, screen shots, and logic models.
Use a font that is 12 point or larger.
Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, Courier New, or Arial. An application submitted in any other font (including Times Roman or Arial Narrow) will not be accepted.
The page limit and double-line spacing requirement does not apply to Part I, the cover sheet; Part II, the budget section, including the narrative budget justification; Part IV, the assurances and certifications; or the two-page abstract (follow the guidance provided elsewhere in the application package for completing the abstract template), the table of contents, the list priority requirements, the resumes, the reference list, or the letters of support, or the appendices. However, the page limit and the double-spacing requirements do apply to all of Part III, the application narrative, including all text in charts, tables, figures, graphs, screen shots, and logic models.
We will reject your application if you exceed the page limit in the application narrative section, or if you apply standards other than those specified in this notice and the application package.
(a) Projects funded under this notice must make positive efforts to employ and advance in employment qualified individuals with disabilities in project activities (see section 606 of IDEA); and
(b) Applicants and grant recipients funded under this notice must involve individuals with disabilities or parents of individuals with disabilities ages birth through 26 in planning, implementing, and evaluating the projects (see section 682(a)(1)(A) of IDEA).
(a) The Education Department General Administrative Regulations in 34 CFR parts 75, 77, 79, 81, 82, 84, 86, 97, 98, and 99. (b) The Office of Management and Budget Guidelines to Agencies on Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement) in 2 CFR part 180, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department in 2 CFR part 3485. (c) The Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards in 2 CFR part 200, as adopted and amended in 2 CFR part 3474.
Note: The regulations in 34 CFR part 79 apply to all applicants except federally recognized Indian tribes.
Note: The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 apply to institutions of higher education (IHEs) only.
Note: The regulations in 34 CFR part 79 apply to all applicants except federally recognized Indian tribes.
Note: The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 apply to institutions of higher education (IHEs) only.
State educational agencies (SEAs); LEAs, including public charter schools that are considered LEAs under State law; IHEs; other public agencies; private nonprofit organizations; outlying areas; freely associated States; Indian tribes or tribal organizations; and for-profit organizations.
The competition in this notice is subject to the requirements of Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of the objectives of the Executive Order is to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a strengthened federalism. The Executive order relies on processes developed by State and local governments for coordination and review of proposed Federal financial assistance.
This document provides early notification of our specific plans and actions for this competition
Terry Jackson, Project Officer
Research to Practice Division
Office of Special Education Programs
Telephone: (202) 245-6039
FAX: (202) 245-7590
Internet: Terry.Jackson@ed.gov
TTD: 1-800-877-8339
Part III of the application form requires a narrative that addresses the selection criteria that will be used by reviewers in evaluating individual proposals. Applications are more likely to receive favorable reviews by panels when they are organized according to the format suggested below. This format was published in the FEDERAL REGISTER as an appendix to the program regulations, and it addresses all the selection criteria used to evaluate applications required by regulations. If you prefer to use a different format, you may wish to cross-reference the sections of your application to the selection criteria to be sure that reviewers are able to find all relevant information.
The selection criteria that will be used to evaluate applications submitted to the Applications for New Awards; Educational Technology, Media, and Materials for Individuals with Disabilities—Stepping-up Technology Implementation (CFDA 84.327S) competition are the selection criteria for new grants required by the EDGAR general selection criteria menu. The maximum score for all of the criteria is 100 points.
The application narrative should include the following sections in this order:
(a) Significance (10 points)
(1) The Secretary considers the significance of the proposed project.
(2) In determining the significance of the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(i) The significance of the problem or issue to be addressed by the proposed project;
(ii) The magnitude of the need for the services to be provided or the activities to be carried out by the proposed project;
(iii) The extent to which the proposed project will focus on serving or otherwise addressing the needs of disadvantaged individuals;
(iv) The extent to which specific gaps or weaknesses in services, infrastructure, or opportunities have been identified and will be addressed by the proposed project;
(v) The potential contribution of the proposed project to increase knowledge or understanding of educational problems, issues, or effective strategies;
(vi) The potential contribution of the proposed project to the development and advancement of theory, knowledge, and practices in the field of study; and
(vii) The extent to which the results of the proposed project are to be disseminated in ways that will enable others to use the information or strategies.
(b) Quality of project services (15 points)
(1) The Secretary considers the quality of the products and/or services to be provided by the proposed project.
(2) In determining the quality of the products and/or services to be provided by the proposed project, the Secretary considers the quality and sufficiency of strategies for ensuring equal access and treatment for eligible project participants who are members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age or disability.
(3) In addition, the Secretary considers one or more of the following factors:
(i) The extent to which the products and/or services to be provided by the proposed project reflect up-to-date knowledge from research and effective practice;
(ii) The extent to which the products and/or services are of sufficient quality, intensity, and duration to lead to outcomes to be achieved by the proposed project;
(iii) The extent to which the products and/or services to be provided by the proposed, project, involve the collaboration of appropriate partners for maximizing the effectiveness of project services; and
(iv) The likely utility of the products and/or services that will result from the proposed project, including the potential for their being used effectively in a variety of other settings.
(c) Quality of the project design (20 points)
(1) The Secretary considers the quality of the design of the proposed project.
(2) In determining the quality of the design of the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(i) The extent to which the goals, objectives, and outcomes to be achieved by the proposed project are clearly specified and measurable;
(ii) The extent to which the design of the proposed project reflects up-to-date knowledge from research and effective practice;
(iii) The extent to which the design of the proposed project includes a thorough, high-quality review of the relevant literature, a high-quality plan for project implementation, and the use of appropriate methodological tools to ensure successful achievement of project objectives.
(iv) The extent to which the proposed technology tool is fully-developed, evidence-based (as defined in this notice) and that can be implemented to improve early childhood outcomes, academic achievement, or college and career readiness; and
(v) The extent to which the proposed logic model or conceptual framework depicts at a minimum, the goals, activities, outputs, and outcomes of the proposed project.
(d) Quality of the management plan (20 points)
(1) The Secretary considers the quality of the management plan for the proposed project.
(2) In determining the quality of the management plan for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(i) The adequacy of the management plan to achieve the objectives of the proposed project on time and within budget, including clearly defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing project tasks;
(ii) The adequacy of procedures for ensuring feedback and continuous improvement in the operation of the proposed project;
(iii) The extent to which the time commitments of the project director and principal investigator and other key project personnel are appropriate and adequate to meet the objectives of the proposed project;
(iv) The adequacy of the plan is linked to the proposed project’s logic model, for a formative evaluation of the proposed project’s activities;
(v) The adequacy of the plan to implement the activities described in the Project Activities section of this priority;
(vi) The adequacy of the plan for recruiting and selecting the following;
Three development schools. Development schools are the sites in which iterative development of the implementation of technology tools and products will occur. The project must start implementing the technology tool with one development school in year one of the project period and two additional development schools in year two.
Four pilot schools. Pilot schools are the sites in which try-out, formative evaluation, and refinement of technology tools and products will occur. The project must work with the four pilot schools during years three and four of the project period.
Ten dissemination schools. Dissemination schools will be selected if the project is extended for a fifth year. Dissemination schools will be used to conduct the final test of the effectiveness of the products and the final opportunity for the project to refine the products for use by teachers, but will receive less technical assistance (TA) from the project than the development and pilot schools; and
(vii) The adequacy of the information (e.g., early childhood setting; elementary, middle, or high school; persistently lowest-achieving school; priority school) about the development, pilot, and students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch); and other pertinent data.
(e) Adequacy of resources (15 points)
(1) The Secretary considers the adequacy of resources for the proposed project.
(2) In determining the quality of project personnel, the Secretary considers the extent to which the applicant encourages applications for employment from persons who are members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability.
(3) In determining the adequacy of resources for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(i) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience, of key project personnel;
(ii) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience, of project consultants or subcontractors;
(iii) The adequacy of support, including facilities, equipment, supplies, and other resources, from the applicant organization or the lead applicant organization;
(iv) The relevance and demonstrated commitment of each partner in the proposed project to the implementation and success of the project;
(v) The extent to which the budget is adequate to support the proposed project; and
(vi) The extent to which the costs are reasonable in relation to the objectives, design, and potential significance of the proposed project.
(f) Quality of the project evaluation (20 points)
(1) The Secretary considers the quality of the evaluation to be conducted of the proposed project.
(2) In determining the quality of the evaluation, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(i) The extent to which the methods of evaluation are thorough, feasible, and appropriate to the goals, objectives, and outcomes of the proposed project;
(ii) The extent to which the methods of evaluation are appropriate to the context within which the project operates;
(iii) The extent to which the methods of evaluation provide for examining the effectiveness of project implementation strategies;
(iv) The extent to which the methods of evaluation include the use of objective performance measures that are clearly related to the intended outcomes of the project and will produce quantitative and qualitative data;
(v) The extent to which the evaluation will provide performance feedback and permit periodic assessment of progress toward achieving intended outcomes; and
(vi) The extent to which the plan linked to the proposed project’s logic model is appropriate for the formative evaluation of the proposed project’s activities.
Competitive Preference Priority (0 or 2 Points)
Under 34 CFR 75.105(b)(2)(ii) we will award an additional two points to an application that meets this priority.
This priority is:
Evidence of Promise
There is empirical evidence to support the theoretical linkage(s) between at least one critical component and at least one relevant outcome presented in the logic model for the proposed process, product, strategy, or practice. Applicants must specify on the Abstract and Information page the findings within the studies that are cited as evidence of promise for the proposed project and ensure that the citations and links are from publicly or readily available sources.
In order to receive the full two points, applicant must meet all three of the following conditions:
Applicant must identify up to two study citations that meet this standard. Relevant studies will be reviewed to determine if they meet the What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards.
The study meets at least one of the following three conditions (see definitions at bottom of page):
A correlational study15 with statistical controls for selection bias;
A quasi-experimental design study16 (as defined in this notice) that meets the What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards with reservations; or
A randomized controlled trial17 (as defined in this notice) that meets the What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards with or without reservations.
The study referenced in (a) found a statistically significant or substantively important (defined as a difference of 0.25 standard deviations or larger), favorable association between at least one critical component and one relevant outcome presented in the logic model for the proposed process, product, strategy, or practice.
Potential applicants frequently direct questions to officials of the Department regarding application notices and programmatic and administrative regulations governing various direct grant programs. To assist potential applicants, the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) staff have assembled the following most commonly raised issues. In general, this information applies to the grant competitions covered by this application package.
Waivers for individual applications are not granted, regardless of the circumstances. Under very extraordinary circumstances a closing date may be changed. Such changes are announced in the Federal Register.
Unless you qualify for an exception in accordance with the instructions found in the Notice inviting applications, you must submit your application electronically. Therefore, you do not need to submit paper copies of the application. If you are granted an exception, current Government-wide policy requires that an original and two paper copies need to be submitted.
The Department will accept one copy of the application in an accessible format (i.e., IBM PC compatible WordPerfect or ASCII code diskette) along with the original and two print copies of the application. The accessible format copy can be used with available software to convert the text of the application into Braille, or with text to voice applications. If there are any differences in the print original provided on the disk and in print, the print original is assumed to be the correct version. Please note that it is not a requirement that one copy of the application be in an accessible format.
Should an application miss the deadline for a particular competition, it may be submitted for another competition. However, if an application is properly prepared to meet the specifications of one competition, it is extremely unlikely that it would be favorably evaluated under a different competition.
Applications may be submitted to more than one Federal program if you are unsure of the most appropriate program. Each application should be prepared following the instructions for that particular program as closely as possible (which may require some reformulation). It is very helpful if each program is notified that an identical or similar application is being submitted to another program.
We are happy to provide general program information. Clearly it would not be appropriate for staff to participate in the actual writing of an application, but we can respond to specific questions about application requirements and evaluation criteria, or about the announced priorities. Applicants should understand that such contact is not required, nor does it in anyway guarantee the success of an application.
The time required to complete the evaluation of applications is variable. Once applications have been received staff must determine the areas of expertise needed to appropriately evaluate the applications, identify and contact potential reviewers, convene peer review panels, and summarize and review the recommendations of the review panels. You can expect to receive notification within 3 to 6 months of the application closing date, depending on the number of applications received and the number of competitions with closing dates at about the same time.
Every year we are called by a number of applicants who have legitimate reasons for needing to know the outcome of the review prior to official notification. Some applicants need to make job decisions, some need to notify a local school district, etc. Regardless of the reason, we cannot share information about the review with anyone until the Assistant Secretary has approved a slate of projects recommended for funding and Congressional notification is completed. You will be notified as quickly as possible either by telephone (if your application is recommended for funding), or by email (if your application is not successful).
The application narrative (Part III of the application form) should be organized to follow the exact sequence of the components in the selection criteria used to evaluate applications. (The selection criteria for the competitions covered by this packet are listed following the specific competition information in section “B” of this packet. The abstract, should precede the table of contents, and application narrative. In submitting your application through Grants.gov, the abstract template should be uploaded and attached to the Abstract File. The abstract template, located at
http://www2.ed.gov/programs/oseptms/applicant.html#84327s should be completed to provide a comprehensive description of the proposed project. For the table of contents, list of priority requirements, and application narrative, you will have to upload these documents as one .PDF file, and attach to the Mandatory Project Narrative File. If you prefer to use a different format, you may wish to cross-reference the sections of your application to the selection criteria to be sure that reviewers are able to find all relevant information.
To aid in screening and reviewing the application, applicants should list after the table of contents, all general, special, and other requirements for the priority and corresponding page number (s) where requirements are addressed within the application. (All requirements are found in each priority description included in this application package.) Page limits do not apply to this list of priority requirements (see Application Forms and Instructions for Grants.gov Submission document for upload instructions). The format included below is an example of how you might provide this information in your application.
Page # Requirements
(a) Projects funded under this notice must make positive efforts to employ and advance in employment qualified individuals with disabilities in project activities. (See Section 606 of IDEA)
(b) Applicants and grant recipients funded under this notice must involve individuals with disabilities or parents of individuals with disabilities ages birth through 26 in planning, implementing, and evaluating the projects. (See Section 682(a)(1)(A) of IDEA)
(c) Applicant must describe steps to ensure equitable access to, and participation in, its program for students, teachers, and other program beneficiaries with special needs. (See Section 427, GEPA)
(d) Projects funded under these priorities must budget for a three-day Project’s Directors’ meeting in Washington, D.C. during each year of the project.
Please note that all applications submitted under the competition in this application package must adhere to the Part III—Application Narrative page limit requirements that are specified under each priority/competition description. Your application should provide enough information to allow the review panel to evaluate the importance and impact of the project as well as to make knowledgeable judgments about the methods you propose to use (design, participants, sampling procedures, measures, instruments, data analysis strategies, etc.). It is often helpful to have:
Staff Vitae: They should include each person's title and role in the proposed project and contain only information that is relevant to this proposed project's activities and/or publications. Vitae/Resumes for consultants and Advisory Council members should be similarly brief.
Instruments: Except in the case of generally available and well known instruments.
Agreements: When the participation of an agency other than the applicant is critical to the project. This is particularly critical when an intervention will be implemented within an agency, or when participants will be drawn from particular agencies. Letters of cooperation should be specific, indicating agreement to implement a particular intervention or to provide access to a particular group of students.
The items listed above are not included under page limits.
Applicants should clearly indicate in Item 11 on the application (SF Form 424) the CFDA number of the program priority (e.g., 84.327S, etc.) representing the competition in which the application should be considered. If this information is not provided, your application may inadvertently be assigned and reviewed under a different competition from the one you intended.
We do not return original copies of applications. Thus, applicants should retain at least one copy of the application. Copies of reviewer comments will be emailed to all applicants.
For each staff person named in the application, please provide documentation of all internal and external time commitments. In instances where a staff person is committed on a federally supported project, please provide the project name, Federal office, program title, the project federal award number, and the amount of committed time by each project year. This information (e.g., Staff: Jane Doe; Project Name: Succeeding in the General Curriculum; Federal office: Office of Special Education Programs; Program title: Educational Technology, Media, and Materials for Individuals with Disabilities; Award number: H326A030002; Time commitments: Year 1—30%; Year 2—25% and Year 3—40%) can be provided as an Appendix to the application.
In general, we will not reduce time commitments on currently funded grants from the time proposed in the original application. Therefore, we will not consider for funding any application where key staff are bid above a time commitment level that staff have available to bid. Further, the time commitments stated in newly submitted applications will not be negotiated down to permit the applicant to receive a new grant award.
It is important for applicants to include proposed time commitments for all project personnel. Also, program officials and applicants often find person loading charts useful formats for showing project personnel and their time commitments to individual activities. A person loading chart is a tabular representation of major evaluation activities by number of days spent by each key person involved in each activity, as shown in the following example.
Table: Person Loading Chart—Time in Day(s) by Person*
Activity |
Time in Day(s) by Person: Person A |
Time in Day(s) by Person: Person B |
Time in Day(s) by Person: Person C |
Time in Day(s) by Person: Person D |
Library Research |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Hire Staff |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Prepare Materials |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Train Raters |
0 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
Data Collection |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Data Analysis |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Dissemination (manuscripts, etc.) |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
*Note: All figures represent FTE for the grant year.
If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, applications can be mailed or hand delivered, or submitted electronically but in either case must go to the Application Control Center at the address listed in the Application Transmittal Instructions. Delivering or sending the application to the competition manager in the program office may prevent it from being logged in on time to the appropriate competition and may result in the application not being reviewed.
Travel is allowed if the travel specifically relates to the expressed goals of the project. Travel by students to further their education under the project's goals is also allowed. Travel to conferences is the travel item that is most likely to be questioned during negotiations. Such travel is sometimes allowed when it is for purposes of dissemination project information and findings, , and when it is clear that a conference presentation or workshop is an effective way of reaching a particular target group.
It is often the case that the number of applications recommended for approval by the reviewers exceeds the dollars available for funding projects under a particular competition. When the panel reviews are completed for a particular competition, the individual reviewer scores and applications are ranked. The higher ranked, approved applications are funded first, and there are often lower ranked, approved applications that do not receive funding. Sometimes, we place on hold one or two applications that are approved and fall next in rank order (after those projects selected for funding). If dollars become available as a result of negotiations, or if a higher ranked applicant declines the award, the projects on hold may receive funding. If you receive a letter stating that you will not receive funding, then your project has neither been selected for funding nor placed on hold.
There is no maximum indirect cost for the competitions in this application package. An organization’s current effective indirect cost rate is the rate that should be reflected in your proposed budget. The Department of Education (ED) reimburses grantees for its portion of indirect costs that a grantee incurs in projects funded by the Applications for New Awards; Educational Technology, Media, and Materials for Individuals with Disabilities—Stepping-up Technology Implementation (CFDA 84.327S) competition. Any grantee charging indirect costs to a grant from this program must use the indirect cost rate (ICR), negotiated with its cognizant agency, i.e., either the Federal agency from which it has received the most direct funding, subject to indirect cost support, the particular agency specifically assigned cognizance by the Office of Management and Budget or the State agency that provides the most subgrant funds to the grantee.
Note: Applicants should pay special attention to specific questions on the application budget form (ED 524) about their cognizant agency and the ICR they are using in their budget.
If an applicant selected for funding under this program has not already established a current ICR with its cognizant agency as a result of current or previous funding, ED will require it to do so within 90 days after the date the grant was issued by ED. Applicants should be aware that ED is very often not the cognizant agency for its own grantees. Rather, ED accepts, for the purpose of funding its awards, the current ICR established by the appropriate cognizant agency.
An applicant that has not previously established an indirect cost rate with the Federal government or a State agency under a Federal program and that is selected for funding will not be allowed to charge its grant for indirect costs until it has negotiated a current indirect cost rate agreement with its cognizant agency.
Applicants are encouraged to use their accountant (or CPA) to calculate an indirect cost rate using information in the IRS Form 990, audited financial statements, actual cost data or a cost policy statement that such applicants are urged to prepare (but NOT submit to ED) during the application process.
Applicants should use this proposed rate in their application materials and indicate which of the above methods was used to calculate the rate. Guidance for creating a cost policy statement can be obtained by sending an Email to:
Applicants with questions about using indirect cost rates under this program should contact the program contact person shown elsewhere in this application package.
If your application is recommended for funding, discussions may be held prior to award to clarify technical or budget issues. These are issues that have been identified during panel and staff review. Generally, technical issues are minor issues that require clarification. Alternative approaches may be presented for your consideration, or you may be asked to provide additional information or rationale for something you have proposed to do. Sometimes, concerns are stated as "conditions". These are concerns that have been identified as so critical that the award cannot be made unless those conditions are met. Questions are also raised about the proposed budget during the discussion phase. Generally, budget issues are raised because there is inadequate justification or explanation of the particular budget item, or because the budget item does not seem critical to the successful completion of the project. A Federal project officer will present the issues to you and ask you to respond. If you do not understand the question, you should ask for clarification. In responding to discussion items you should provide any additional information or clarification requested. You may feel that an issue was addressed in the application. It may not, however, have been explained in enough detail to make it understood by reviewers, and more information should be provided. If you are asked to make changes that you feel could seriously affect the project's success, you may provide reasons for not making the changes, or provide alternative suggestions. Similarly, if proposed budget reductions will, in your opinion, seriously affect the proposed activities, you may want to explain why and provide additional justification for the proposed expenses. Your changes, explanations and alternative suggestions will be carefully evaluated by staff. In some instances, an applicant may again be contacted for additional information. An award cannot be made until all issues have been resolved and conditions met.
In the past, there have been problems in finding peer reviewers without conflicts of interest where applications are made by many entities throughout the country. The Standing Panel requirements also place additional constraints on the availability of reviewers. Therefore, the Department has determined that, for some discretionary priorities, applications may be ranked and selected for funding in two or more groups, which will ensure the availability of a much larger group of reviewers without conflicts of interest. This procedure will increase the quality, independence and fairness of the review process and will permit panel members to review applications under discretionary priorities to which they have also submitted applications.
There is a maximum award amount specified for the priority/competitions included in this package. The Department rejects and does not consider an application that proposes a budget exceeding the maximum amount for any single budget period of 12 months for the priorities included in this package. Please refer to the priority description to determine the maximum award for any one particular competition. Since the yearly budgets for multi-year projects will be negotiated at the time of the initial award, applicants must include detailed budgets for each year of their proposed project. Generally, out-year funding levels most likely will not exceed 1st year budgets. However, budget modifications during the negotiation process, the findings from the previous year, or needed changes in the project design can affect your budget requirements in subsequent years, but in no case will out-year budgets exceed the maximum award amount.
The Department shall, where appropriate, require recipients of all grants, contracts and cooperative agreements under Part D of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act to prepare reports describing their procedures, findings, and other relevant information. The Department shall require their delivery to the Department of Education and other networks as the Department may determine appropriate. (20 U.S.C. 1482)
A cooperative agreement is similar to a grant in that its principal purpose is to accomplish a public purpose of support or stimulation as authorized by a Federal statute. It differs from a grant in the sense that in a cooperative agreement substantial involvement is anticipated between the executive agency (in this case the Department of Education) and the recipient during the performance of project activities.
An absolute priority is a priority that an applicant must address in order to receive an award. If an applicant does not address an absolute priority, their application will be returned as being non-responsive to the priority.
An invitational priority is a priority that reflects a particular interest of the Department, and an applicant is encouraged to address the invitational priority along with the required absolute priority. However, an applicant choosing to address an invitational priority will not receive any competitive preference over other applications.
A competitive priority is like an invitational priority in that it reflects a particular interest of the Department, and an applicant is encouraged to address the competitive priority along with the required absolute priority. A competitive priority may be handled in one of two ways:
an application may be awarded additional points depending on how effectively it addresses the competitive priority; or
an application that meets a competitive priority may be selected over an application of comparable merit that does not address the competitive priority. The type of competitive priority for a particular competition is always included in the Federal Register announcement.
Copies of these materials can usually be found at your local library. If not, they can be obtained by writing to:
Superintendent of Documents
U.S. Government Printing Office
Washington, DC 20402
Telephone: 202-512-1800
Information about the Department's funding opportunities, including copies of application notices for discretionary grant competitions, can be viewed on the Department's grant information web page which can be accessed on the Internet at: www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocfo/gcsindex.html
However, the official application notice for a discretionary grant competition is the notice published in the Federal Register.
ATTENTION ELECTRONIC APPLICANTS: Please note that you must follow the Application Procedures as described in the Federal Register notice announcing the grant competition. This program requires electronic submission of applications, and specific requirements and waiver instructions can be found in the Federal Register notice.
We will reject your application if you submit it in paper format unless, as described in the Federal Register notice for this competition, you qualify for one of the exceptions to the electronic submission requirement and submit, no later than two weeks before the application deadline date, a written statement to the Department that you qualify for one of these exceptions.
If you want to apply for a grant and be considered for funding, you must meet the following deadline requirements.
Applications for grants under this program must be submitted electronically using the Government-wide Grants.gov Apply site at http://www.Grants.gov. Through this site, you will be able to download a copy of the application package, complete it offline, and then upload and submit your application. You may not an electronic copy of a grant application to us.
Your application must be fully uploaded and submitted and must be date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system no later than 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, D.C. time, on the application deadline date. Except as otherwise noted in Federal Register notice for this competition, we will not consider your application if it is date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system later than 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, D.C. time, on the application deadline date.
You should review and follow the Grants.gov Submission Procedures and Tips for Applicants for submitting an application through Grants.gov that are included in this application package to ensure that you submit your application in a timely manner to the Grants.gov system.
Please note the following:
You must attach any narrative sections of your application as files in a .pdf (Portable Document) format. If you upload a file type other than a .pdf file, or submit a password-protected file, we will not review that material.
Grants.gov cannot process an application that includes two or more files that have the same name within a grant submission.
When attaching files, applicants should limit the size of their file names. Lengthy file names could result in difficulties with opening and processing your application. We recommend your file names be less than 50 characters. The amount of time it can take to upload an application will vary depending on a variety of factors, including the size of the application and the speed of your Internet connection. Therefore, we strongly recommend that you do not wait until the application deadline date to begin the submission process through Grants.gov.
Your electronic application must comply with any page-limit requirements described in this application package.
If you are experiencing problems submitting your application through Grants.gov, please contact the Grants.gov Support Desk, toll free, at 1-800-518-4726. You must obtain a Grants.gov Support Desk Case Number and must keep a record of it.
According to the instructions found in the Federal Register notice, only those requesting and qualifying for an Exception to the electronic submission requirement may submit an application via mail, commercial carrier or by hand delivery.
If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you may mail (through the U.S. Postal Service or a commercial carrier) your application to the Department. You must mail the original and two copies of your application, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address:
U.S. Department of Education
Application Control Center
Attention: (CFDA Number 84.327S)
LBJ Basement Level 1
400 Maryland Avenue, SW.
Washington, DC 20202-4260
You must show proof of mailing consisting of one of the following:
A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark.
A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the U.S. Postal Service.
A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial carrier.
Any other proof of mailing acceptable to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education.
If you mail your application through the U.S. Postal Service, we do not accept either of the following as proof of mailing:
A private metered postmark.
A mail receipt that is not dated by the U.S. Postal Service.
If your application is postmarked after the application deadline date, we will not consider your application.
Note: The U.S. Postal Service does not uniformly provide a dated postmark. Before relying on this method, you should check with your local post office.
If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you (or a courier service) may deliver your paper application to the Department by hand. You must deliver the original and two copies of your application by hand, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address:
U.S. Department of Education
Application Control Center
Attention: (CFDA Number 84.327S)
550 12th Street, SW.
Washington, DC 20202-4260
The Application Control Center accepts hand deliveries daily between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, D.C. time, except on Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays.
If you mail or hand deliver your application to the Department—
You must indicate on the envelope and—if not provided by the Department—in Item 11 of the SF 424 the CFDA number, including suffix letter, if any, of the competition under which you are submitting your application; and
The Application Control Center will mail to you a notification of receipt of your grant application. If you do not receive this notification within 15 business days from the application deadline date, you should call the U.S. Department of Education Application Control Center at (202) 245-6288.
The compatible version of Adobe Reader is required for viewing, editing and submitting a complete grant application package for the Department of Education through Grants.gov. Applicants should confirm the compatibility of their Adobe Reader version before downloading the application. To ensure applicants have a version of Adobe Reader on their computer that is compatible with Grants.gov, applicants are encouraged to use the test package provided by Grants.gov that can be accessed at http://www.grants.gov/applicants/AdobeVersioningTestOnly.jsp.
If the applicant opened or edited the application package with any software other than the compatible version of Adobe Reader, the application package may contain errors that will be transferred to the new package even if you later download the compatible Adobe Reader version.
Applicants cannot copy and paste data from a package initially opened or edited with an incompatible version of Adobe Reader and will need to download an entirely new package using the compatible version of Adobe Reader.
Some applicants using an incompatible version of Adobe Reader may have trouble opening and viewing the application package while others may find they can open, view and complete the application package but may not be able to submit the application package through Grants.gov.
Grants.gov does not guarantee to support versions of Adobe Reader that are not compatible with Grants.gov.
Any and all edits made to the Adobe Reader application package must be made with the compatible version of Adobe Reader.
For your convenience, the latest version of Adobe Reader is available for free download at http://grantsgov.tmp.com/static2007/help/download_software.jsp#adobe811.
We strongly recommend that you review the information on computer and operating system compatibility with Adobe available at http://www.grants.gov/applicants/applicant_faqs.jsp#software before downloading, completing or submitting your application.
Applicants are reminded that they should submit their application a day or two in advance of the closing date as detailed in the Federal Register Notice. If you have any questions regarding this matter please email the Grants.gov Contact Center at support@grants.gov or call 1‑800‑518‑4726.
This appendix applies to each program that is subject to the requirements of Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs) and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79.
The objective of the executive order is to foster an intergovernmental partnership and to strengthen federalism by relying on state and local processes for state and local government coordination and review of proposed federal financial assistance.
Applicants must contact the appropriate State Single Point of Contact to find out about, and to comply with, the state's process under Executive Order 12372. Applicants proposing to perform activities in more than one state should immediately contact the Single Point of Contact for each of those states and follow the procedure established in each of those states under the Executive order. A listing containing the Single Point of Contact for each state is included in this appendix.
In states that have not established a process or chosen a program for review, state, areawide, regional, and local entities may submit comments directly to the Department.
Any State Process Recommendation and other comments submitted by a State Single Point of Contact and any comments from state, areawide, regional and local entities must be mailed or hand-delivered by the date indicated in the actual application notice to the following address:
The Secretary
EO 12372—CFDA 84.327S [commenter must insert number—including suffix letter, if any]
U.S. Department of Education, Room 7W301
400 Maryland Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20202
Proof of mailing will be determined on the same basis as applications (see 34 CFR 75.102). Recommendations or comments may be hand-delivered until 4:30 p.m. (Washington, D.C. time) on the date indicated in the actual application notice.
PLEASE NOTE THAT THE ABOVE ADDRESS IS NOT THE SAME ADDRESS AS THE ONE TO WHICH THE APPLICANT SUBMITS ITS COMPLETED APPLICATION. DO NOT SEND APPLICATIONS TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS.
It is estimated that in 2009 the federal government will outlay $500 billion in grants to state and local governments. Executive Order 12372, "Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs," was issued with the desire to foster the intergovernmental partnership and strengthen federalism by relying on state and local processes for the coordination and review of proposed federal financial assistance and direct federal development. The order allows each state to designate an entity to perform this function. Below is the official list of those entities. For those states that have a home page for their designated entity, a direct link has been provided below by clicking on the state name.
States that are not listed on this page have chosen not to participate in the intergovernmental review process, and therefore do not have a SPOC. If you are located within a state that does not have a SPOC, you may send application materials directly to a federal awarding agency
Contact information for federal agencies that award grants can be found in Appendix IV of the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance.
http://12.46.245.173/CFDA/appx4_web.pdf
or by state:
http://12.46.245.173/CFDA/appx4_web_state.pdf
State Single Points of Contact |
|
ARIZONA Matthew Hanson, GPC Statewide Grant Administrator ADOA, Office of Grants and Federal Resources 100 N. 15th Avenue, 4th Floor Phoenix, AZ 85007 602-542-7567 Email: Matthew.Hanson@azdoa.gov
|
ARKANSAS Tracy L. Copeland Manager, State Clearinghouse Office of Intergovernmental Services Department of Finance and Administration 1515 W. 7th Street, Room 412 Little Rock, AR 72203 TEL: (501) 682-1074 FAX: (501) 682-5206 |
CALIFORNIA Grants Coordination State Clearinghouse Office of Planning and Research P.O. Box 3044, Room 222 Sacramento, CA 95812-3044 TEL: (916) 445-0613 FAX: (916) 327-3018 |
DELAWARE Jennifer L. Carlson Assoc. Fiscal & Policy Analyst Office of Management and Budget Budget Development, Planning & Administration Haslet Armory, Third Floor 122 William Penn Street Dover, DE 19901 SLC D570E TEL: (302) 739-4206 FAX: (302) 739-5661 Email: jennifer.carlson@state.de.us |
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Donna Bexley DC Government Office of Partnerships and Grants Development 441 4th Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 TEL: (202) 727-6437 FAX: (202) 727-1652 Email: Donna.bexley@dc.gov |
FLORIDA Lauren P. Milligan Florida State Clearinghouse Florida Dept. of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mall Station 47 Tallahassee, FL 32799-3000 TEL: (850) 245-2161 FAX: (850) 245-2190 |
GEORGIA Barbara Jackson Georgia State Clearinghouse 270 Washington Street, SW, 8th Floor Atlanta, GA 30334 TEL: (404) 656-3855 FAX: (404) 656-7901 Email: gach@mail.opb.state.ga.us |
IOWA Kathy Mable Iowa Department of Management State Capitol Building Room G12 1007 E. Grand Avenue Des Moines, IA 50319 TEL: (515) 281-8834 FAX: (515) 242-5897 Email: Kathy.Mable@iowa.gov |
KENTUCKY Lee Nalley The Governor’s Office for Local Development 1024 Capital Center Drive, Suite 340 Frankfort, Kentucky 40601 TEL: (502) 573-2382 Ext. 274 Fax: (502) 573-1519 Email: Lee.Nalley@ky.gov |
LOUISIANA Terry Thomas Louisiana SPOC for EPA Grant Office of Management and Finance LA Department of Environmental Quality P.O. Box 4303 Baton Rouge, LA 70821-4303 TEL: (225) 219-3840 FAX: (225) 219-3846 Email: Terry.Thomas@la.gov |
MARYLAND Linda C. Janey, J.D. Director, Capital Planning and Development Review Maryland Department of Planning 301 West Preston Street, Room 1104 Baltimore, MD 21201-2305 TEL: (410) 767-4490 FAX: (410) 767-4480 Email: linda@mail.op.state.md.us |
MICHIGAN William Parkus Southeast Michigan Council of Governments 535 Griswold, Suite 300 Detroit, MI 48226 TEL: (313) 961-4266 FAX: (313) 961-4869 Email: parkus@semcog.org |
MISSOURI Sara VanderFeltz Federal Assistance Clearinghouse Office of Administration Commissioner’s Office Capitol Building, Room 125 Jefferson City, MO 65102 TEL: (573) 751-0337 FAX: (573) 751-1212 Email: sara.vanderfeltz@oa.mo.gov |
NEVADA Gosia Sylwesprzak Department of Administration Nevada State Clearinghouse Coordinator/SPOC 209 E. Musser Street, Room 200 Carson City, Nevada 89701 TEL: (775) 684-0209 FAX: (775) 684-0260 Email: clearinghouse@budget.state.nv.us |
NEW HAMPSHIRE Amy Ignatius Acting Director, New Hampshire Office of Energy and Planning Attn: Intergovernmental Review Process, Mark Toussiant 57 Regional Drive Concord, New Hampshire 03301-8519 TEL: (603) 271-2155 FAX: (603) 271-2615 Email: irp@nh.gov |
NORTH DAKOTA Jim Boyd ND Department of Commerce 1600 East Century Avenue, Suite 2 P.O. Box 2057 Bismarck, ND 58502-2057 TEL: (701) 328-2676 FAX: (701) 328-2308 Email: jboyd@state.nd.us |
RHODE ISLAND Bill McKenna Division of Planning One Capitol Hill Providence, Rhode Island 02908-5870 TEL: (401) 222-6185 FAX: (401) 222-2083 Email: billm@doa.ri.gov |
SOUTH CAROLINA Jean Ricard Office of State Budget 1201 Main Street, Suite 870 Columbia, SC 29201 TEL: (803) 734-1314 FAX: (803) 734-0645 Email: jricard@budget.sc.us |
UTAH Tenielle Young Utah State Clearinghouse Governor's Office of Planning and Budget Utah State Capitol Complex Suite E210, PO Box 142210 Salt Lake City, UT 84114-2210 TEL: (801) 538-1570 FAX: (801) 538-1547 Email: Tenielleyoung@utah.gov |
WEST VIRGINIA Bobby Lewis, Director Community Development Division West Virginia Development Office Building #6, Room 553 Charleston, WV 25305 TEL: (304) 558-4010 FAX: (304) 558-3248 Email: rlewis@wvdo.org |
AMERICAN SAMOA Pat M. Galea'i Federal Grants/Programs Coordinator Office of Federal Programs Office of the Governor Department of Commerce American Samoa Government Pago Pago, AS 96799 TEL: (684) 633-5155 FAX: (684) 633-4195 Email: pmgaleai@samoatelco.com |
GUAM Roland C.P. Villaverde Administrator Guam State Clearinghouse Office of I Segundo na Maga’lahen Guåhan Office of the Governor P.O. Box 2950 Hågatña, Guam 96932 TEL: (671) 475-9380 ext. 901 FAX: (671) 477-2007 Email: administrator@guamclearinghouse.com |
NORTH MARIANA ISLANDS Mr. Antonio S. Muna Special Assistant for Management Office of Management and Budget Office of the Governor Saipan, MP 96950 TEL: (670) 664-2289 FAX: (670) 327-2272 Email: macaranas@yahoo.com |
PUERTO RICO Ing. David Rodríguez / Luz H. Olmeda Puerto Rico Planning Board Federal Proposals Review Office PO Box 41119 San Juan, Puerto Rico 00940-1119 TEL: 787-723-6190 FAX: 787-722-6783 Email: Olmeda_L@jp.gobierno.pr |
VIRGIN ISLANDS Debra Gottlieb (Acting Director) Director, Office of Management and Budget #41 Norre Gade Emancipation Garden Station, Second Floor Saint Thomas, Virgin Islands 00802 TEL: (340) 774-0750 FAX: (340) 776-0069 Email: dbgottlieb@omb.gov.vi |
|
Changes to this list can be made only after OMB is notified by a state’s officially designated representative. Email messages can be sent to Hai_M._Tran@omb.eop.gov. If you prefer, you may send correspondence to the following postal address:
Attn: Grants Management
Office of Management and Budget
New Executive Office Building, Suite 6025
725 17th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20503
Please note: Inquiries about obtaining a federal grant should not be sent to the OMB email or postal address shown above. The best source for this information is the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance or CFDA (www.cfda.gov) and the Grants.gov Web site (www.grants.gov).
The purpose of this enclosure is to inform you about a new provision in the Department of Education's General Education Provisions Act (GEPA) that applies to applicants for new grant awards under Department programs. This provision is Section 427 of GEPA, enacted as part of the Improving America's Schools Act of 1994 (Public Law (P.L.) 103-382).
To Whom Does This Provision Apply?
Section 427 of GEPA affects applicants for new grant awards under this program. ALL APPLICANTS FOR NEW AWARDS MUST INCLUDE INFORMATION IN THEIR APPLICATIONS TO ADDRESS THIS NEW PROVISION IN ORDER TO RECEIVE FUNDING UNDER THIS PROGRAM.
(If this program is a State-formula grant program, a State needs to provide this description only for projects or activities that it carries out with funds reserved for State-level uses. In addition, local school districts or other eligible applicants that apply to the State for funding need to provide this description in their applications to the State for funding. The State would be responsible for ensuring that the school district or other local entity has submitted a sufficient section 427 statement as described below.)
What Does This Provision Require?
Section 427 requires each applicant for funds (other than an individual person) to include in its application a description of the steps the applicant proposes to take to ensure equitable access to, and participation in, its Federally-assisted program for students, teachers, and other program beneficiaries with special needs. This provision allows applicants discretion in developing the required description. The statute highlights six types of barriers that can impede equitable access or participation: gender, race, national origin, color, disability, or age. Based on local circumstances, you should determine whether these or other barriers may prevent your students, teachers, etc. from such access or participation in, the Federally-funded project or activity. The description in your application of steps to be taken to overcome these barriers need not be lengthy; you may provide a clear and succinct description of how you plan to address those barriers that are applicable to your circumstances. In addition, the information may be provided in a single narrative, or, if appropriate, may be discussed in connection with related topics in the application.
Section 427 is not intended to duplicate the requirements of civil rights statutes, but rather to ensure that, in designing their projects, applicants for Federal funds address equity concerns that may affect the ability of certain potential beneficiaries to fully participate in the project and to achieve to high standards. Consistent with program requirements and its approved application, an applicant may use the Federal funds awarded to it to eliminate barriers it identifies.
What are Examples of How an Applicant Might Satisfy the Requirement of This Provision?
The following examples may help illustrate how an applicant may comply with Section 427.
An applicant that proposes to carry out an adult literacy project serving, among others, adults with limited English proficiency, might describe in its application how it intends to distribute a brochure about the proposed project to such potential participants in their native language.
An applicant that proposes to develop instructional materials for classroom use might describe how it will make the materials available on audio tape or in braille for students who are blind.
An applicant that proposes to carry out a model science program for secondary students and is concerned that girls may be less likely than boys to enroll in the course, might indicate how it intends to conduct "outreach" efforts to girls, to encourage their enrollment.
An applicant that proposes a project to increase school safety might describe the special efforts it will take to address concern of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender students, and efforts to reach out to and involve the families of LGBT students
We recognize that many applicants may already be implementing effective steps to ensure equity of access and participation in their grant programs, and we appreciate your cooperation in responding to the requirements of this provision.
1 For the purposes of this priority, “technology tools” may include, but are not limited to, digital math text readers for students with visual impairment, reading software to improve literacy and communication development, and text-to-speech software to improve reading performance. These tools must assist or otherwise benefit students with disabilities.
2 For the purposes of this priority, “products” may include, but are not limited to, instruction manuals, lesson plans, demonstration videos, ancillary instructional materials, and professional development modules such as collaborative groups, coaching, mentoring, or online supports.
3 For the purposes of this priority, “resources” include, but are not limited to, school leadership support, professional development support to school staff, and a plan for integrating technology into the classroom curriculum.
4 In this context, “effective implementation” means “making better use of research findings in typical service settings through the use of processes and activities (such as accountable implementation teams) that are purposeful and described in sufficient detail such that independent observers can detect the presence and strength of these processes and activities” (Fixsen, Naoom, Blase, Friedman, & Wallace, 2005).
5 For the purposes of this priority, “settings” include general education classrooms, special education classrooms or any place where school-based instruction occurs.
6 For more information on recruiting and selecting sites, refer to Assessing Sites for Model Demonstration: Lessons Learned from OSEP Grantees at http://mdcc.sri.com/documents/reports/MDCC_Site_Assessment_Brief_09-30-11.pdf.
7 For the purposes of this priority, “iterative development” refers to a process of testing, systematically securing feedback, and then revising the educational intervention that leads to revisions in the intervention to increase the likelihood that it will be implemented with fidelity (Diamond & Powell, 2011).
8 For the purposes of this priority, “technology tools” may include, but are not limited to, digital math text readers for students with visual impairment, reading software to improve literacy and communication development, and text-to-speech software to improve reading performance. These tools must assist or otherwise benefit students with disabilities.
9 For the purposes of this priority, “products” may include, but are not limited to, instruction manuals, lesson plans, demonstration videos, ancillary instructional materials, and professional development modules such as collaborative groups, coaching, mentoring, or online supports.
10 For the purposes of this priority, “resources” include, but are not limited to, school leadership support, professional development support to school staff, and a plan for integrating technology into the classroom curriculum.
11 In this context, “effective implementation” means “making better use of research findings in typical service settings through the use of processes and activities (such as accountable implementation teams) that are purposeful and described in sufficient detail such that independent observers can detect the presence and strength of these processes and activities” (Fixsen, Naoom, Blase, Friedman, & Wallace, 2005).
12 For the purposes of this priority, “settings” include general education classrooms, special education classrooms or any place where school-based instruction occurs.
13 For more information on recruiting and selecting sites, refer to Assessing Sites for Model Demonstration: Lessons Learned from OSEP Grantees at http://mdcc.sri.com/documents/reports/MDCC_Site_Assessment_Brief_09-30-11.pdf.
14 For the purposes of this priority, “iterative development” refers to a process of testing, systematically securing feedback, and then revising the educational intervention that leads to revisions in the intervention to increase the likelihood that it will be implemented with fidelity (Diamond & Powell, 2011).
15 Correlational Study means whether or not two variables are correlated. This is to study whether an increase or decrease in one variable corresponds to an increase or decrease in the other variable. Positive correlations indicate that an increase in one variable is associated with an increase in the other. Negative correlations indicate that an increase in one variable is associated with a decrease in the other.
16 Quasi-experimental Design Study means a study using a design that attempts to approximate an experimental design by identifying a comparison group that is similar to the treatment group in important respects. These studies, depending on design and implementation, can meet What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards with reservations (they cannot meet the What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards without reservations). The link for the What Works Clearinghouse Procedures and Standards Handbook (Version 2.1, September 2011), can be found at: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/references/idocviewer/doc.aspx?docid=19&tocid=1.
17 Randomized Controlled Trial means a study that employs random assignment of, for example, students, teachers, classrooms, schools, or districts to receive the intervention being evaluated (the treatment group) or not to receive the treatment (the control group). The estimated effectiveness of the intervention is the difference between the average outcome for the treatment group and for the control group. These studies, depending on design and implementation, can meet the What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards without reservation. The link for the What Works Clearinghouse Procedures and Standards Handbook (Version 2.1, September 2011), can be found at: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/references/idocviewer.
File Type | application/msword |
File Title | Fiscal Year 2015 Application for New Grants under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Technology and Media S |
Author | EHDSTURDIVANT |
Last Modified By | Tomakie Washington |
File Modified | 2016-06-14 |
File Created | 2016-06-14 |