[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 38 (Wednesday, February 26, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8687-8690]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-4768]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION


Technology Innovation Challenge Grants

AGENCY: Department of Education.

ACTION: Notice of proposed selection criteria, selection procedures, 
and application procedures.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Secretary proposes selection criteria, procedures for

[[Page 8688]]

evaluating and selecting applications, and procedures for submission of 
applications under the Technology Innovation Challenge Grants Program. 
The Secretary may use these selection criteria, selection procedures 
and application procedures in fiscal year 1997 (FY 1997) and in 
subsequent years. The Secretary takes this action to make informed 
funding decisions on applications for technology projects having great 
promise for improving elementary and secondary education.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 28, 1997.

ADDRESSES: All comments concerning the proposed selection criteria, 
selection procedures, and application procedures should be sent to: 
Technology Innovation Challenge Grants, Office of Educational Research 
and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education, Room 606D, 555 New 
Jersey Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20208-5544. Comments may also be sent 
through the Internet to ITO__STAFF<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#5869183d3c763f372e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="063746636228616970">[email protected]</span></a> or by FAX to (202) 208-4042.
    Comments that concern information collection requirements must be 
sent to the Office of Management and Budget at the address listed in 
the Paperwork Reduction Act section of this notice. A copy of those 
comments may also be sent to the address in the preceding paragraph.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Technology Innovation Challenge 
Grants, Office Of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department 
of Education, Room 606D, 555 New Jersey Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 
20208-5544. Telephone: (202) 208-3882. Individuals who use a 
telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal 
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 8 
p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Technology Innovation Challenge Grants 
Program is authorized in Title III, section 3136, of the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (20 U.S.C. 6846).
    Under this program the Secretary makes grants to consortia. Each 
consortium must include at least one local educational agency (LEA) 
with a high percentage or number of children living below the poverty 
line and may include other LEAs, private schools, State educational 
agencies, institutions of higher education, businesses, academic 
content experts, software designers, museums, libraries, or other 
appropriate entities. The Technology Innovation Challenge Grants 
Program provides support to consortia that are developing, adapting, or 
expanding existing and new applications of technology to improve 
schools through activities that include continuous professional 
development for teachers and the development of high quality academic 
content that helps all children learn to challenging standards.
    The Secretary will announce the final selection criteria, selection 
procedures, and application procedures in a notice in the Federal 
Register. The final selection criteria, selection procedures, and 
application procedures will be determined by responses to this notice 
and other considerations of the Department.

    Note: This notice does not solicit applications. A notice 
inviting applications under this competition will be published in 
the Federal Register concurrent with or following publication of the 
notice of final selection criteria, selection procedures, and 
application procedures.

Selection Criteria

    The Secretary proposes in this notice selection criteria, selection 
procedures, and application procedures for the FY 1997 competition and 
subsequent competitions. The program statute (20 U.S.C. 6846(c)) 
requires the Secretary to give priority in awarding grants to consortia 
that demonstrate certain factors in their applications. The Secretary 
proposes to carry out this mandate by incorporating the priority 
factors into the selection criteria. In addition, the Secretary 
believes that substantive selection criteria specifically framed for 
this program competition are necessary to enable the Secretary to 
evaluate how well the applicants address the purpose of the Technology 
Innovation Challenge Grants Program.

Proposed Criteria

    The Secretary proposes the following unweighted selection criteria 
to evaluate applications:
    (a) Significance. The Secretary reviews each proposed project for 
its significance by determining the extent to which the project--
    (1) Offers a clear vision for the use of technology to help all 
students learn to challenging standards;
    (2) Will achieve far-reaching impact through results, products, or 
benefits that are easily exportable to other settings and communities;
    (3) Will directly benefit students by integrating acquired 
technologies into the curriculum to improve teaching and student 
achievement;
    (4) Will ensure continuous professional development for teachers, 
administrators, and other individuals to further the use of technology 
in the classroom, library, or learning settings in the community;
    (5) Is designed to serve areas with a high number or percentage of 
disadvantaged students or other areas with the greatest need for 
educational technology; and
    (6) Is designed to create new learning communities among teachers, 
students, parents, and others, which contribute to State or local 
education goals for school improvement, and expand markets for high-
quality educational technology or content.
    (b) Feasibility. The Secretary reviews each proposed project for 
its feasibility by determining the extent to which--
    (1) The project will ensure successful, effective, and efficient 
uses of technologies for educational reform that will be sustainable 
beyond the period of the grant;
    (2) The members of the consortium or other appropriate entities 
will contribute substantial financial and other resources to achieve 
the goals of the project; and
    (3) The applicant is capable of carrying out the project, as 
evidenced by the extent to which the project will meet the problems 
identified; the quality of the project design, including objectives, 
approaches, evaluation plan, and dissemination plan; the adequacy of 
resources, including money, personnel, facilities, equipment, and 
supplies; the qualifications of key personnel who would conduct the 
project; and the applicant's prior experience relevant to the 
objectives of the project.

Evaluation and Selection of Applications

    The Secretary proposes to evaluate applications using unweighted 
selection criteria. The Secretary believes that the use of unweighted 
criteria is most appropriate because they will allow the reviewers 
maximum flexibility to apply their professional judgments in 
identifying the particular strengths and weaknesses in individual 
applications.
    The Secretary also believes that due to the highly technical nature 
of the applications, it will be necessary to obtain clarification and 
additional information from applicants during the selection process. 
For the purposes of the Technology Innovation Challenge Grants Program, 
the Secretary proposes to be able to request highly rated applicants to 
submit additional information in response to specific questions raised 
during the application selection process for the FY 1997 competition 
and subsequent competitions. In accordance with 34 CFR 75.231, the 
Secretary also may

[[Page 8689]]

request an applicant to submit additional information after the 
application has been selected for funding.

Proposed Selection Procedures

    In applying the selection criteria, the Secretary proposes to use a 
three-tier peer review process for the FY 1997 competition and 
subsequent competitions. In view of the large number of applications in 
this program, and in consideration of the complexity of each 
application, the Secretary believes this process is necessary to ensure 
full and thorough consideration of each application.
    At each tier of the review process panels of experts will read the 
applications under consideration to determine which applications are 
most deserving of further consideration in light of the selection 
criteria. The Department will, to the extent feasible, use reviewers 
that represent three areas of expertise: (1) K-12 school-based 
educators who use new technologies for classroom instruction or 
curriculum development; (2) K-12 school-based administrators who have 
management responsibility for school-wide, system-wide, or state-wide 
technology applications; and (3) educational technology experts drawn 
from higher education, consulting firms, or technology related firms.
    At each tier of the review process, each reviewer assigns a 
qualitative rating for Significance and a qualitative rating for 
Feasibility to each application he or she reviews. The qualitative 
ratings used by individual reviewers are as follows: ``A'' for high 
quality; ``B'' for satisfactory quality; and ``C'' for unsatisfactory 
quality. The reviewers also assign an overall rating of ``A'', ``B'', 
or ``C'' for each application they review.
    In Tier I of the review process reviewers are recruited to serve on 
panels that meet in several regional sites around the country. Tier I 
of the review process has two stages. In Stage 1 of Tier I, all of the 
applications received by the published application deadline are 
assigned to teams of readers at each site. The applications are read 
and rated by all of the individual readers on the team, who then meet 
to compare their individual ratings of each application they have read 
with each other. Through this process the reviewers identify 
applications that have been unanimously awarded high ratings. At the 
end of Stage 1 of Tier I each team at a review site forwards its most 
highly rated applications for further consideration. The applications 
forwarded for further consideration at that site are then read and 
individually rated by reviewers who served as team leaders in Stage 1 
of Tier I. These team leaders use the same qualitative ratings of 
``A'', ``B'', and ``C'' for Significance, Feasibility and the overall 
rating for each forwarded application they read. In Stage 2 of Tier I 
the team leaders meet to compare the ratings of all the applications 
they have read or considered at both stages of Tier I, taking into 
account all of the readings and ratings of all of the reviewers for 
each application at that site. Those applications that have been 
unanimously awarded high ratings by the team leaders at the end of 
Stage 2 of Tier I are forwarded for further consideration at Tier II of 
the review process.
    In Tier II of the review process, team leaders from all of the 
regional sites are brought together to serve as reviewers at a single 
site. These reviewers read the applications forwarded for further 
consideration from Tier I. Taking into account the quality of all of 
the applications they have read, the reviewers assign a qualitative 
rating for Significance, a qualitative rating for Feasibility, and an 
overall rating of ``A'', ``B'', or ``C'' for each application they 
review.
    Tier II of the review process has two stages. In Stage 1 of Tier 
II, the reviewers meet in teams to compare their individual ratings of 
each application they have read. Through this process the reviewers 
identify applications that have been unanimously awarded high ratings. 
At the end of Stage 1 of Tier II each team forwards its most highly 
rated applications for further consideration. The applications 
forwarded for further consideration are then read and individually 
rated ``A'', ``B'', or ``C'' by the team leaders who served in Stage 1 
of Tier II. In Stage 2 of Tier II the team leaders meet to compare the 
ratings of all the applications they have read or considered at both 
stages of Tier II, taking into account all of the readings and ratings 
of all of the reviewers for each application at that site. Those 
applications that have been unanimously awarded high ratings at the end 
of Stage 2 of Tier II are then forwarded for further consideration at 
Tier III of the review process. At the end of Tier II, the reviewers 
will also identify inconsistencies, points in need of clarification, 
and other concerns, if any, pertaining to each application. Each 
applicant whose application is forwarded for further consideration at 
the end of Tier II will have an opportunity to respond in writing to 
these clarification questions and concerns.
    At Tier III readers are assembled to serve as reviewers at a single 
site. These reviewers have served as team leaders during each of the 
previous Tiers of the review, and each of the original Tier I review 
sites are represented by one team leader at Tier III. There is only one 
stage of review at Tier III. The reviewers read the applications that 
are still under consideration and, after reading the responses to the 
clarification questions, they assign ratings for Significance and 
Feasibility, and an overall rating of ``A'', ``B'', or ``C'' for each 
application, taking into account the quality of all of the applications 
they have read. The reviewers compare their individual ratings of each 
application they have read, and through this process the reviewers 
identify applications that have been unanimously awarded high ratings. 
Those applications that have unanimously high ratings are recommended 
for funding. The reviewers also provide individual recommendations on 
an appropriate budget level for each application recommended for 
funding. The Secretary awards grants only to those applications the 
reviewers have recommended for funding at the end of Tier III. No other 
applications are considered for funding. In the final selection of 
applications for funding, the Secretary may also consider the extent to 
which each application demonstrates an effective response to the 
learning technology needs of areas with a high number or percentage of 
disadvantaged students or the greatest need for educational technology. 
In preparation for a grant award, the Secretary also may request an 
applicant to submit additional information after the application has 
been selected for funding.
    The Secretary believes these procedures lead to the selection of 
the best applications for funding under this program.

Application Deadline

    The Secretary, in order to ensure timely receipt and processing of 
applications, proposes the following application deadline for the FY 
1997 competition and subsequent competitions.

Proposed Procedures for Submission of Applications

    Applications, in order to be considered for funding under this 
program, must be received on or before the deadline date announced in 
the application notice published in the Federal Register. The Secretary 
will not consider an application for funding if it is not received by 
the deadline date

[[Page 8690]]

unless the applicant can show, in accordance with 34 CFR 75.102 (d) and 
(e), proof that the application was (1) sent by registered or certified 
mail not later than five days before the deadline date; or (2) sent by 
commercial carrier not later than two days before the deadline date. An 
applicant must show proof of mailing in accordance with 34 CFR 
75.102(d) and (e). Applications delivered by hand must be received by 
4:00 p.m. (Washington, D.C. time) on the deadline date. For the 
purposes of this competition the Secretary proposes not to apply 34 CFR 
75.102(b), which requires an application to be mailed, rather than 
received, by the deadline date.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    The proposed selection criteria contain information collection 
requirements. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 
U.S.C. 3507(d)), the Department of Education has submitted a copy of 
these selection criteria to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
for review.
    Collection of Information: Technology Innovation Challenge Grants 
Program.
    Under this program consortia are eligible to apply. Each consortium 
must include at least one LEA with a high percentage or number of 
children living below the poverty line and may include other LEAs, 
State educational agencies, institutions of higher education, 
businesses, academic content experts, software designers, museums, 
libraries, or other appropriate entities. The information to be 
collected includes a description of each proposed project, including 
the professional development that teachers and other educational 
support staff will receive in the use of technologies; the integration 
of acquired technologies into curriculum to enhance teaching, training, 
and student achievement; and a project evaluation including a 
dissemination strategy. The Department needs and will use the 
information to select, on the basis of project feasibility and 
significance, the highest quality applications.
    All information is to be collected and reported once, as part of 
the application for assistance. Annual reporting and recordkeeping 
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 40 
hours for each response for 500 respondents, including time for 
reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and 
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the 
collection of information. Thus, the total annual reporting and 
recordkeeping burden for this collection is estimated to be 20,000 
hours. Organizations and individuals desiring to submit comments on the 
information collection requirements should direct them to the Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Room 10235, New Executive 
Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; Attention: Desk Officer for U.S. 
Department of Education.
    The Department considers comments by the public on these proposed 
collections of information in--
    <bullet> Evaluating whether the proposed collections of information 
are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the 
Department, including whether the information will have practical 
utility;
    <bullet> Evaluating the accuracy of the Department's estimate of 
the burden of the proposed collections of information, including the 
validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
    <bullet> Enhancing the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the 
information to be collected; and
    <bullet> Minimizing the burden of the collection of information on 
those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate 
automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection 
techniques or other forms of information technology; e.g., permitting 
electronic submission of responses.
    OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collections of 
information contained in these proposed selection criteria, selection 
procedures, and application procedures between 30 and 60 days after 
publication of this document in the Federal Register. Therefore, a 
comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB 
receives it within 30 days of publication. This does not affect the 
deadline for the public to comment to the Department on the proposed 
selection criteria and procedures.

Intergovernmental Review

    This program is subject to the requirements of Executive Order 
12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. The objective of the 
Executive Order is to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a 
strengthened federalism by relying on processes developed by State and 
local governments for coordination and review of proposed Federal 
financial assistance.
    In accordance with the Order, this document is intended to provide 
early notification of the Department's specific plans and actions for 
this program.

Invitation to Comment

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments and 
recommendations regarding these proposed selection criteria and 
procedures. Comments will be available for public inspection, during 
and after the comment period, in Room 606D, 555 New Jersey Avenue, NW, 
Washington, DC, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday 
through Friday of each week except Federal holidays.

    Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 6846.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 84.303A, Challenge 
Grants for Technology in Education)

    Dated: February 21, 1997.
Marshall Smith,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Educational Research and Improvement.
[FR Doc. 97-4768 Filed 2-25-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>