Source: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/01/28/2019-00217/applications-for-new-awards-competitive-grants-for-state-assessments-program
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 22:36:41
Document Index: 50884096

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 6', 'art 6', 'art 1', 'art 2', 'art 3', 'art 5', 'art 6', 'art 7', 'art 200']

Federal Register :: Applications for New Awards; Competitive Grants for State Assessments Program
Applications Available: January 28, 2019.
420-424 (5 pages)
https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2019-00217 https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2019-00217
Deadline for Notice of Intent To Apply: February 27, 2019.
Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: March 29, 2019.
Deadline for Intergovernmental Review: May 28, 2019.
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. Email: Donald.Peasley@ed.gov.
Purpose of Program: The purpose of the Competitive Grants for State Assessments 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 six absolute priorities and two invitational priorities. The absolute priorities are from section 1203(b)(1) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESEA). The invitational priorities are from the Secretary's Final Supplemental Priorities and Definitions for Discretionary Grant Programs (Supplemental Priorities), published in the Federal Register on March 2, 2018 (83 FR 9096).
Absolute Priorities: For FY 2019 and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded Start Printed Page 421applications 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 these priorities. Eligible applicants must specify which absolute priority(ies) they are applying under.
Absolute Priority 1: Developing or improving assessments for English learners, including assessments of English language proficiency as required under section 1111(b)(2)(G) of the ESEA and academic assessments in languages other than English to meet the State's obligations under section 1111(b)(2)(F) of the ESEA.
For FY 2019 and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this competition, these priorities are invitational priorities. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(1) we do not give an application that meets an invitational priority any preference over other applications.
Promoting Science, Technology, Engineering, or Math (STEM) Education, With a Particular Focus on Computer Science. Projects designed to improve student achievement or other educational outcomes in one or more of the following areas: Science, technology, engineering, math, or computer science (as defined in this notice).
Definitions: For FY 2019 and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this competition, the following definitions apply. The definitions of “English Learner”, “Child with a Disability” and “Universal Design for Learning” are from section 8101 of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 7801). The definitions of “Demonstrates a rationale,” “Logic model,” “Project component,” and “Relevant outcome” are from 34 CFR 77.1. The definition of “computer science” is from the Supplemental Priorities.
Child with a disability, as defined in section 602 of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, means—
Logic model (also referred to as a theory of action) means a framework Start Printed Page 422that identifies key project components of the proposed project (i.e., the active “ingredients” that are hypothesized to be critical to achieving the relevant outcomes) and describes the theoretical and operational relationships among the key project components and relevant outcomes.
(b) Reduces barriers in instruction, provides appropriate accommodations, supports, and challenges, and maintains high achievement expectations for all students, including students with disabilities and students who are limited English proficient.[1]
Program Authority: Section 1203(b)(1) of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 6363(b)(1)).
Estimated Available Funds: $17,622,000.
Estimated Range of Awards: $1,000,000 to $4,000,000 total over a 48-month project period.
The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice. The Department will not make an award for less than the amount specified in section 1203(b)(1)(C) of the ESEA.
1. Eligible Applicants: State educational agencies (SEAs), as defined in section 8101(49) of the ESEA, of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and consortia of such SEAs.
4. Other: An application from a consortium of SEAs must designate one SEA as the fiscal agent.
2. Submission of Proprietary Information: Given the types of projects that may be proposed in applications for the Competitive Grants for State Assessment, your application may include business information that you consider proprietary. In 34 CFR 5.11 we define “business information” and describe the process we use in determining whether any of that information is proprietary and, thus, protected from disclosure under Exemption 4 of the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552, as amended). Because we plan to make all application materials public, you may wish to request confidentiality of business information.
5. Recommended Page Limit: The project narrative is where you, the applicant, address the selection criteria that reviewers use to evaluate your application. We recommend that you (1) limit the application narrative to the equivalent of no more than 65 pages and (2) use the following standards:
The recommended 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; and how well the application addresses each of the selection criteria. The recommended 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, we recommend that the entirety of the project narrative, including the aforementioned discussion and any attachments to the project narrative, 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.
The recommended 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 Start Printed Page 423subjects); 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.
In addition, you must not use hyperlinks in an application. Reviewers will be instructed not to follow hyperlinks if included. Applicants are encouraged to submit applications that meet the page limit following the standards outlined in this section rather than submitting applications that are the equivalent of the page limit applying other standards.
6. Notice of Intent to Apply: 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 their 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 (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 notification may still apply for funding.
1. Selection Criteria: The selection criteria for this competition are from 34 CFR 75.210. We will award up to 105 points to an application under the selection criteria; the total possible points for each selection criterion are noted in parentheses.
(a) Need for project (up to 10 points). The Secretary considers the need for the proposed project. In determining the need for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the extent to which specific gaps or weaknesses in services, infrastructure, or opportunities have been identified and will be addressed by the proposed project, including the nature and magnitude of those gaps or weaknesses.
(b) Significance (up to 10 points). The Secretary considers the significance of the proposed project. In determining the significance of the proposed project, the Secretary considers the extent to which the proposed project is likely to build local capacity to provide, improve, or expand services that address the needs of the target population.
(4) The extent to which the proposed project demonstrates a rationale (as defined in this notice). (5 points)
(d) Quality of project services (up to 25 points). The Secretary considers the quality of the services to be provided by the proposed project. In determining the quality of the 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. (10 points)
(1) The extent to which the services to be provided by the proposed project are appropriate to the needs of the intended recipients or beneficiaries of those services. (10 points)
(2) 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. (5 points)
(e) Adequacy of resources (up to 10 points). The Secretary considers the adequacy of resources for the proposed project. In determining the adequacy of resources for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the extent to which the costs are reasonable in relation to the number of persons to be served and to the anticipated results and benefits.
(f) Quality of the management plan (up to 20 points). The Secretary considers the quality of the management plan for the proposed project. In determining the quality of the management plan for the proposed project, the Secretary considers:
(g) Quality of the project evaluation (up to 10 points). The Secretary considers the quality of the evaluation to be conducted of the proposed project. In determining the quality of the evaluation, the Secretary considers the extent to which the methods of evaluation will provide performance feedback and permit periodic assessment of progress toward achieving intended outcomes.
3. Risk Assessment and Specific 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 specific 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 Start Printed Page 424financial 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.
5. Performance Measures: Under the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, the Department has developed three measures to evaluate the overall effectiveness of the Competitive Assessment Grant program:
(1) The percentage of grantees, for each grant cycle, that demonstrate significant progress towards improving, developing, or implementing a new model for measuring the achievement of students.
(2) The percentage of grantees, for each grant cycle, that demonstrate collaboration with institutions of higher education, other research institutions, or other organizations to develop or improve state assessments.
(3) The percentage of grantees that, at least three times 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 Competitive Grants for State Assessments program through presentations at national conferences, publications in refereed journals, or other products disseminated to the assessment community.
Grantees will be expected to include in their interim and final performance reports information about the accomplishments of their projects.
1. For purposes of this notice, English learner and limited English proficient have the same meaning.
[FR Doc. 2019-00217 Filed 1-25-19; 8:45 am]