Source: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/08/08/2016-18532/applications-for-new-awards-enhanced-assessment-instruments-grant-program-enhanced-assessment
Timestamp: 2019-10-24 02:07:10
Document Index: 497791860

Matched Legal Cases: ['arts 75', 'art 180', 'art 3485', 'art 200', 'art 3474', 'art 6', 'art 6', 'art 6', 'art 1', 'art 2', 'art 3', 'art 5', 'art 6', 'art 7']

Federal Register :: Applications for New Awards; Enhanced Assessment Instruments Grant Program-Enhanced Assessment Instruments
Applications Available: August 8, 2016.
81 FR 52424
52424-52432 (9 pages)
https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2016-18532 https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2016-18532
Enhanced Assessment Instruments Grant Program—Enhanced Assessment Instruments.
Deadline for Notice of Intent to Apply: August 29, 2016.
Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: September 22, 2016.
Deadline for Intergovernmental Review: November 21, 2016.
Purpose of Program: The purpose of the Enhanced Assessment Instruments Grant program, also called the Enhanced Assessment Grants (EAG) program, is to enhance the quality of assessment instruments and assessment systems used by States for measuring the academic achievement of elementary and secondary school students.
Priorities: This competition includes four absolute priorities and three competitive preference priorities. In accordance with 34 CFR 75.105(b)(2)(iv), the absolute priorities are from section 6112 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA), as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), 20 U.S.C. 7301a. The competitive preference priorities are from the Department's notice of final priorities published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.
Absolute Priorities: For FY 2016 and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this competition, these priorities are absolute priorities. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(3) we consider only applications that meet one or more of the absolute priorities.
Evaluate student academic achievement through the development of comprehensive academic assessment instruments, such as performance- and Start Printed Page 52425technology-based academic assessments.
Competitive Preference Priorities: For FY 2016 and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this competition, these priorities are competitive preference priorities. For Competitive Preference Priority 1, under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i), the Department awards up to an additional 15 points to an application, depending on how well the application meets the priority. Specifically, the Department awards up to an additional 10 points to an application depending on how well the application meets parts (a) and (c), and up to an additional five points to an application depending on how well the application meets parts (b) and (c). For Competitive Preference Priority 2, under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i), the Department awards up to an additional 10 points, depending on how well the application meets the priority. Specifically, the Department awards up to an additional five points to an application depending on how well the application meets parts (a) and (c), and up to an additional five points to an application depending on how well the application meets parts (b) and (c). An applicant may choose to respond to either or both parts (a) and (b) of either of these priorities. For Competitive Preference Priority 3, under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i), the Department awards up to an additional five points to an application, depending on how well the application meets this priority. An applicant may choose to respond to and earn points for how well the application meets multiple competitive preference priorities.
Competitive Preference Priority 1—Developing Innovative Assessment Item Types and Design Approaches. (Up to 15 points.)
Competitive Preference Priority 2—Improving Assessment Scoring and Score Reporting. (Up to 10 points.)
(b) Propose projects, in consultation with organizations representing parents (including parents of English learners and parents of students with disabilities), students, teachers, counselors, and school administrators to address needs related to score reporting and improve the utility of information about student performance included in reports of assessment results and provide better and more timely information to educators and parents;
Competitive Preference Priority 3—Inventory of State and Local Assessment Systems. (Up to 5 points.)
(4) Fair for all students and used to support equity in educational opportunity by ensuring that accessibility features and accommodations level the playing field so tests accurately reflect what all students, including students with disabilities and English learners, know and can do;Start Printed Page 52426
Requirements: The following requirements are from the notice of final priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria for this program published in the Federal Register on April 19, 2011 (76 FR 21985) (2011 NFP). With respect to requirement (b), the Department notes that the Race to the Top Assessment program ended in 2015. As a result, while the grantees will be expected to meet this requirement broadly, they will not need to coordinate with the Race to the Top Assessment program.
(b) Actively participate in any applicable technical assistance activities conducted or facilitated by the Department or its designees, coordinate with the Race To The Top Assessment program in the development of assessments under this program, and participate in other activities as determined by the Department;
(1) Developing all assessment items in accordance with an industry-recognized, open-licensed, interoperability standard that is approved by the Department during the grant period, without non-standard extensions or additions; and
Definitions: The following definitions are from the 2011 NFP and the notice of final priorities, requirement, definitions, and selection criteria for this program published in the Federal Register on May 23, 2013 (78 FR 31343) (2013 NFP).
English learner means a child, including a child aged three and younger, who is an English learner consistent with the definition of a child who is “limited English proficient,” as applicable, in section 9101(25) of the ESEA, as amended by NCLB. (2013 NFP)
Student with a disability means a student who has been identified as a child with a disability under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, as amended. (2011 NFP)
Program Authority: Section 6112 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended by NCLB, and section 1203(b)(1) of the ESEA, as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act (Pub. L. 114-95) (ESSA).
Applicable Regulations: (a) The Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) 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 as regulations of the Department in 2 CFR part 3474. (d) The notice of final priorities published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register. (e) The 2011 NFP and the 2013 NFP.
Type of Award: Discretionary grants.Start Printed Page 52427
Estimated Available Funds: $8,860,000.
Estimated Range of Awards: $100,000 to $4,000,000.
For Competitive Preference Priority 1 and Competitive Preference Priority 2, applicants should submit a single budget and propose a project period of up to 48 months. Applicants should propose a project period that is up to 48 months, based on a timeline that takes into account the urgency of the need of the final project findings and products to be accessible to the field. Subject to the availability of future years' funds, the Department may make supplemental grant awards to grants awarded in this competition. Applicants that address Competitive Preference Priority 3 may not propose a project period of greater than 12 months or a budget of greater than $200,000. If an applicant addresses Competitive Preference Priority 3, as well as one of the other competitive preference priorities, then that portion of the proposed project period attributable to the project activities under Competitive Preference Priority 3 may not exceed 12 months; and that portion of the proposed budget attributable to the project activities under Competitive Preference Priority 3 may not exceed $200,000.
1. Eligible Applicants: State educational agencies (SEAs) as defined in section 9101(41) of the ESEA, as amended by NCLB, and consortia of such SEAs.
1. Address to Request Application Package: Donald Peasley, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 3E124, Washington, DC 20202-6132. Telephone: (202) 453-7982 or by email: Donald.Peasley@ed.gov.
2. Content and Form of Application Submission: Requirements concerning the content and form of an application, together with the forms you must submit, are in the application package for this competition. Page Limit: The project narrative is where you, the applicant, address the selection criteria that reviewers use to evaluate your application. You must limit the application narrative to the equivalent of no more than 65 pages, using the following standards:
The page limit applies to the project narrative, including the table of contents, which must include a discussion of how the application meets one or more of the absolute priorities; if applicable, how the application meets one or more of the competitive preference priorities; and how well the application addresses each of the selection criteria. The page limit also applies to any attachments to the project narrative other than the items mentioned in Part 6 of the application package, including the references/bibliography. In other words, the entirety of the project narrative, including the aforementioned discussion and any attachments to the project narrative, must be limited to the equivalent of no more than 65 pages. The only allowable attachments other than those included in the project narrative are outlined in Part 6, “Other Attachments Forms,” in the application package. Any attachments other than those included within the page limit of the project narrative and those outlined in Part 6 will not be reviewed.
The 65-page limit, or its equivalent, does not apply to the following sections of an application: Part 1 (including the response regarding research activities involving human subjects); Part 2 (budget information); Part 3 (two-page project abstract); Part 5 (the budget narrative); Part 6 (memoranda of understanding or other binding agreement, if applicable; copy of applicant's indirect cost rate agreement; letters of commitment and support from collaborating SEAs and organizations; other attachments forms, including, if applicable, references/bibliography for the project narrative and individual résumés for project director(s) and key personnel); and Part 7 (standard assurances and certifications). Applicants are encouraged to limit each résumé to no more than five pages.
We will be able to develop a more efficient process for reviewing grant applications if we have a better understanding of the number of applicants that intend to apply for funding under this competition. Therefore, we strongly encourage each potential applicant to notify us of the applicant's intent to submit an application for funding. This notification should be brief, and identify the SEA applicant and, if applicable, the SEA that it will designate as the fiscal agent for an award (e.g., in the case of consortia applicants). Submit this notification by email to Donald.Peasley@ed.gov with “Intent to Apply” in the email subject line or mail to Donald Peasley, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 3E124, Washington, DC 20202-6132. Applicants that do not provide this email notification may still apply for funding.
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 Start Printed Page 52428 Other Submission Requirements in section IV of this notice.
You may access the electronic grant application for the EAG 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 84.326, not 84.326A).
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: Start Printed Page 52429 www.grants.gov/​web/​grants/​applicants/​apply-for-grants.html.
Address and mail or fax your statement to: Donald Peasley, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 3E124, Washington, DC 20202-6132. FAX: (202) 401-1557.
(3) A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial carrier.Start Printed Page 52430
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 84.368A), 550 12th Street SW., Room 7039, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-4260.
1. Selection Criteria: The selection criteria for this competition are from 34 CFR 75.210. We will award up to 120 points to an application under the selection criteria; the total possible points for each selection criterion are noted in parentheses.
1. The magnitude of severity of the problem to be addressed by the proposed project.
2. The magnitude of the need for the services to be provided or the activities to be carried out by the proposed project.
(b) Significance. (25 points)
1. The significance of the problem or issue to be addressed by the proposed project.
2. The potential contribution of the proposed project to the development and advancement of theory, knowledge, and practices in the field of study.
3. The potential for generalizing from the findings or results of the proposed project.
4. The extent to which the proposed project involves the development or demonstration of promising new strategies that build on, or are alternatives to, existing strategies.
5. The likely utility of the products (such as information, materials, processes, or techniques) 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. (35 points)
2. The extent to which there is a conceptual framework underlying the proposed research or demonstration activities and the quality of that framework.
3. The extent to which the proposed activities constitute a coherent, sustained, program of research and development in the field, including, as appropriate, a substantial addition to an ongoing line of inquiry.
4. The extent to which the proposed project is based upon a specific research design, and the quality and appropriateness of that design, including the scientific rigor of the studies involved.
5. The extent to which the proposed development efforts include adequate quality controls and, as appropriate, repeated testing of products.
6. The extent to which the design of the proposed project reflects up-to-date knowledge from research and effective practice.
7. The quality of the methodology to be employed in the proposed project.
8. The potential and planning for the incorporation of project purposes, activities, or benefits into the ongoing work of the applicant beyond the end of the grant.
(d) Quality of project services. (5 points)
1. The extent to which the training or professional development services to be provided by the proposed project are of sufficient quality, intensity, and duration to lead to improvements in practice among the recipients of those services.
2. The likelihood that the services to be provided by the proposed project will lead to improvements in the achievement of students as measured against rigorous academic standards.
(e) Quality of project personnel. (8 points)
(f) Adequacy of resources. (12 points)Start Printed Page 52431
1. The adequacy of support, including facilities, equipment, supplies, and other resources, from the application organization or the lead applicant organization.
3. The extent to which the budget is adequate to support the proposed project.
4. The extent to which the costs are reasonable in relation to the objectives, design, and potential significance of the proposed project.
(g) Quality of the management plan. (12 points)
3. The adequacy of mechanisms for ensuring high-quality products and services from the proposed project.
4. 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.
2. The extent to which the methods of evaluation are thorough, feasible, and appropriate to the goals, objectives, and outcomes of the proposed project.
3. 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 to the extent possible.
4. The extent to which the methods of evaluation will provide performance feedback and permit periodic assessment of progress toward achieving intended outcomes.
5. The extent to which the evaluation will provide guidance about effective strategies suitable for replication or testing in other settings.
(i) Strategy to scale. (8 points)
1. The applicant's capacity (e.g., in terms of qualified personnel, financial resources, or management capacity) to further develop and bring to scale the proposed process, product, strategy, or practice, or to work with others to ensure that the proposed process, product, strategy, or practice can be further developed and brought to scale, based on the findings of the proposed project.
2. The mechanisms the applicant will use to broadly disseminate information on its project so as to support further development or replication.
3. The extent to which the applicant demonstrates there is unmet demand for the process, product, strategy, or practice that will enable the applicant to reach the level of scale that is proposed in the application.
4. Integrity and Performance System: If you are selected under this competition to receive an award that over the course of the project period may exceed the simplified acquisition threshold (currently $150,000), under 2 CFR 200.205(a)(2), we must make a judgment about your integrity, business ethics, and record of performance under Federal awards—that is, the risk posed by you as an applicant—before we make an award. In doing so, we must consider any information about you that is in the integrity and performance system (currently referred to as the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS)), accessible through SAM. You may review and comment on any information about yourself that a Federal agency previously entered and that is currently in FAPIIS.
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 Start Printed Page 52432GAN also incorporates your approved application as part of your binding commitments under the grant.
4. Performance Measures: Under the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, the Department has developed four measures to evaluate the overall effectiveness of the EAG program: (1) The number of States that participate in EAG projects funded by this competition; (2) the percentage of grantees that, at least twice during the period of their grants, make available to SEA staff in non-participating States and to assessment researchers information on findings resulting from the EAG through presentations at national conferences, publications in refereed journals, or other products disseminated to the assessment community; (3) for each grant cycle and as determined by an expert panel, the percentage of EAG that yield significant research, methodologies, products, or tools regarding assessment systems or assessments; and (4) for each grant cycle and as determined by an expert panel, the percentage of EAG that yield significant research, methodologies, products, or tools specifically regarding accommodations and alternate assessments for students with disabilities and limited English proficient students. Grantees will be expected to include in their interim and final performance reports information about the accomplishments of their projects because the Department will need data on these measures.
Donald Peasley, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 3e124, Washington, DC 20202-6132. Telephone: (202) 453-7982 or by email: Donald.Peasley@ed.gov.
[FR Doc. 2016-18532 Filed 8-5-16; 8:45 am]