Technology Innovation Challenge Grants; Notice of Final Priority and Selection Criteria

[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 43 (Thursday, March 5, 1998)]

[Notices]

[Pages 11078-11081]

From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

[FR Doc No: 98-5736]

[[Page 11077]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part IV

Department of Education

_______________________________________________________________________

Technology Innovation Challenge Grants; Final Priority and Selection

Criteria and Applications for New Awards for Fiscal Year (FY) 1998;

Notices

Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 43 / Thursday, March 5, 1998 /

Notices

[[Page 11078]]

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Technology Innovation Challenge Grants; Notice of Final Priority

and Selection Criteria

SUMMARY: The Secretary announces a final priority for the Technology

Innovation Challenge Grant Program, administered by the Office of

Educational Research and Improvement (OERI). The Secretary also

establishes selection criteria for evaluating and selecting

applications submitted under this priority. The Secretary may use this

priority only in fiscal year 1998. The Secretary takes these actions to

focus Federal assistance on professional development programs that

foster the use and integration of advanced technology into the

curriculum in compelling and effective ways.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This priority takes effect April 6, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Payer or Shirley Steele,

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and

Improvement, 555 New Jersey Avenue, NW., Suite 522, Washington, DC

20208-5544. Telephone: (202) 208-3882. E-mail addresses are:

[email protected] or [email protected]. 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.

Individuals with disabilities may obtain this document in an

alternate format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer

diskette) on request to either contact person listed in the preceding

paragraph.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Technology Innovation Challenge Grant

Program is authorized in Title III, section 3136, of the Elementary and

Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended (20 U.S.C. 6846).

Under this program the Secretary makes grants to consortia. A

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, and other

appropriate entities. In fiscal year 1998, the Technology Innovation

Challenge Grant program will focus on professional development by

providing support to consortia that have developed programs, or are

adapting or expanding existing programs, for technology training for

teachers and other educators to improve instruction.

Access to computers and the use of networked, multimedia computers

in the schools is on the rise. In part, this is the result of support

provided by the Technology Literacy Challenge Fund, the Technology

Innovation Challenge Grant Program, the National Science Foundation,

the Department of Commerce, and other Federal departments and agencies.

In addition, the Universal Service Program, often referred to as the

``E-Rate'', will help to ensure that all eligible schools and libraries

have affordable access to modern telecommunications and information

services.

While the numbers of computers and connections to the Information

Superhighway have increased in the schools, the capacity of the

teaching force to use this technology in instructional practice has not

kept pace. A 1994 survey by the U.S. Department of Education shows that

only 15 percent of the nation's teachers had had at least nine hours of

instruction in educational technology.

It is increasingly apparent that the lack of professional

development in the use of educational technology is a critical factor

that limits the benefits of technology for student learning. A 1995

Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) study, Teachers and Technology:

Making the Connection, concluded that ``helping teachers use technology

effectively may be the most important step to assuring that current and

future investments in technology are realized.'' The 1997 report of the

President's Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) has

also emphasized this point by stressing that ``the substantial

investment in hardware, infrastructure, software, and content that is

recommended by this report will be largely wasted if K-12 teachers are

not provided with the preparation and support they will need to

effectively integrate information technology into their teaching.''

According to the National Center for Education Statistics, only 15-20

percent of teachers are regularly using advanced telecommunications for

curriculum development, professional development, and teaching.

Over the next ten years, two million new teachers will need to be

hired to accommodate expanding enrollment and to replace retiring

teachers. All of these teachers should be prepared to use advanced

technology and to integrate education technology into teaching methods

and content areas to help students learn. And yet, as the OTA report

has pointed out, ``* * * most new teachers graduate from teacher

preparation institutions with limited knowledge of the ways technology

can be used in their professional practice.'' The Secretary believes

that focusing this year's Technology Innovation Challenge Grant Program

competition on professional development will help to provide the

additional support that is needed for preparing teachers to teach

effectively using technology. Therefore, the Secretary is establishing

an absolute preference for those applications submitted by consortia

that have developed or adopted innovative programs to prepare teachers,

administrators, and other educators to integrate education technology

into teaching methods that improve instruction.

Applications under this competition will be evaluated on the extent

to which they address the most pressing professional development needs

as reflected in statewide technology plans. Students from low income

communities and other areas in need of technology must not be left

behind in the acquisition of knowledge and skills for responsible

citizenship and productive work in the 21st century. In awarding

Technology Innovation Challenge Grants, the Secretary will evaluate the

extent to which the proposed project is designed to serve areas with a

high number or percentage of disadvantaged students or the greatest

need for educational technology.

Because the State plays a critical role in the licensure of new

teachers and re-certification of experienced teachers, the Secretary

believes that a strong application under this competition should

propose that the State educational agency (SEA) have a significant role

in the consortium that is applying. Also, the SEA has comprehensive

information about the range of technology programs in school districts

throughout the State and is in a unique position to coordinate a

consortium initiative with other complementary efforts. Therefore, the

Secretary is particularly interested in receiving applications in which

the SEA has a leadership role in the consortium and is committed to the

activities that are proposed. The Secretary believes that consortium

activities should be designed to create new partnerships or strengthen

already existing partnerships among SEAs, schools of education, LEAs,

and the education technology private sector. Cooperation and

collaboration among all of these partners will provide benefits to

teachers, students, and the community through the improved use of

[[Page 11079]]

educational technology in schools and classrooms.

In addition to an SEA, there are other important stakeholders in a

consortium that can influence the ability of teachers to successfully

use technology in the classroom. These stakeholders include school

districts that hire teachers and provide for their on-going

professional development, academic content specialists, those segments

of the private sector that develop and market educational technology

products and services, and colleges and universities with teacher

preparation programs. Institutions of higher education that are

approved by the State to provide both pre-service and in-service

teacher training are particularly important in these collaborative

efforts. Yet, a majority of teacher preparation programs are falling

far short of what needs to be done. As the 1997 National Council for

the Accreditation of Teacher Education Report Technology and the New

Professional Teacher points out, colleges of teacher education treat

``technology'' as a special addition to the teacher education

curriculum rather than a topic that needs to be incorporated across the

entire teacher education program. The Report emphasizes that ``* * *

teachers-in-training are provided instruction in 'computer literacy'

and are shown examples of computer software, but they rarely are

required to apply technology in their courses and are denied role

models of faculty employing technology in their own work.'' It is

critical that schools of education lead the way in preparing tomorrow's

classroom teachers to incorporate technology into their teaching.

In submitting applications under this competition, the Secretary

strongly urges applicants to use the Mission and Principles of

Professional Development prepared by the U. S. Department of Education

in 1995. The Mission and Principles describes those characteristics

that exemplify high-quality professional development programs. A

statement of the mission and principles is published as Appendix A to

this notice.

Priorities

Absolute Priority

The Secretary gives an absolute preference to applications that

meet the absolute priority in the next paragraph. The Secretary funds

under this competition only applications that meet this absolute

priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(3)).

Activities to Strengthen and Enhance Professional Development

The Secretary funds only those applications that are submitted by

LEAs on behalf of consortia that have developed or adopted innovative

professional development programs for teachers, administrators and

other educators to use advanced technology and to integrate innovative

applications of education technology into teaching methods that will

directly benefit students through improved instruction. The Secretary

will fund only those applications that propose to improve, expand, and

disseminate those successful training models.

Invitational Priority

The Secretary is particularly interested in applications that meet

the invitational priority in the next paragraph. However, an

application that meets this invitational priority does not receive

competitive or absolute preference over other applications (34 CFR

75.105(c)(1)).

Applications submitted by an LEA on behalf of a consortium that is

dedicated to teacher training in technology should involve, as members

of the consortium, the SEA, at least one college of education, private

sector education technology firms, non-profit education organizations,

one or more LEAs, and other appropriate entities. In addition, the

Secretary is particularly interested in applications in which: (1) the

SEA has a leadership role in the consortium and promises to give its

full support and commitment to the activities that are being planned,

(2) proposed consortium activities would strengthen or create a

partnership among the SEA, schools of education, LEAs, and the

education technology private sector, and (3) the model technology

training programs for teachers can be adapted and replicated at other

sites. Because of the key role that an SEA will play in a consortium,

the Secretary is particularly interested in receiving a single

application from a State. However, more than one application from

within a State is allowable. Furthermore, applications involving more

than one State or SEA would not be inconsistent with this invitational

priority.

Selection Criteria

The Secretary establishes the following unweighted selection

criteria to evaluate applications:

(a) Significance. The Secretary reviews each proposed project for

its significance by determining the extent to which the project--

(1) Is designed to serve Empowerment Zones, Enterprise Communities,

or other areas with a high number or percentage of disadvantaged

students or the greatest need for educational technology;

(2) Includes strategies and activities that address the most

pressing professional development needs identified in the statewide

educational technology plan submitted under ESEA, section 3133 for the

State or States in which the applying members of the consortium are

located;

(3) Involves approaches for which there is explicit evidence of

innovation and effectiveness;

(4) Establishes and supports high standards for professional

development in education technology and its use in schools consistent

with statewide reform initiatives, including State content and

performance standards;

(5) Includes specific efforts by consortium members to be publicly

accountable for improving education through the use of technology; and

(6) Involves a coherent plan for improving, expanding, and

disseminating a successful professional development model(s).

(b) Feasibility. The Secretary reviews each proposed project for

its feasibility by determining the extent to which--

(1) The project will prepare teachers for successful, effective,

and efficient uses of technologies for improved instruction 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;

(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 strategies; 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; and

(4) The methods of evaluation examine the effectiveness of project

implementation strategies, use objective performance measures related

to the intended outcomes of the project, and produce quantitative and

qualitative data to the extent possible. The evaluation provides

guidance on effective strategies suitable for replication in other

settings.

Note: A list of areas that have been designated as Empowerment

Zones and Enterprise Communities is published as Appendix B to this

notice.

[[Page 11080]]

Note: This notice of final priority and selection criteria does

not solicit applications. A notice inviting applications under this

competition is published in a separate announcement in this issue of

the Federal Register.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required

to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid

OMB control number. The valid OMB control number assigned to the

collection of information in this notice is 1850-0743.

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.

Waiver of Proposed Rulemaking

In accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553),

it is the practice of the Department of Education to offer interested

parties the opportunity to comment on proposed priorities that are not

taken directly from statute. Ordinarily, this practice would have

applied to the priority and selection criteria in this notice. Section

437(d)(1) of the General Education Provisions Act (GEPA), however,

exempts rules that apply to the first competition under a new program

from this requirement. The Conference Report for the Department's

fiscal year 1998 appropriation describes the program covered by this

notice as ``a new competitive grants program.'' The Assistant

Secretary, in accordance with section 437(d)(1) of GEPA, to ensure

timely awards, has decided to forego public comment with respect to the

absolute priority and selection criteria. The absolute priority and

selection criteria will apply only to the fiscal year 1998 grant

competition.

Electronic Access to This Document

Anyone may view this document, as well as all other Department of

Education documents published in the Federal Register, in text or

portable document format (pdf) on the World Wide Web at either of the

following sites:

http://gcs.ed.gov/fedreg.htm

http://www.ed.gov/news.html

To use the pdf you must have the Adobe Acrobat Reader Program with

Search, which is available free at either of the previous sites. If you

have questions about using the pdf, call the U.S. Government Printing

Office toll free at 1-888-293-6498.

Anyone may also view these documents in text copy only on an

electronic bulletin board of the Department. Telephone: (202) 219-1511

or, toll free, 1-800-222-4922. The documents are located under Option

G--Files/Announcements, Bulletins and Press Releases.

Note: The official version of a document is the document

published in the Federal Register.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 84.303A, Technology

Innovation Challenge Grants)

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

Dated: February 27, 1998.

Ricky T. Takai,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Educational Research and Improvement.

Appendix A--Mission and Principles of Professional Development

Professional development plays an essential role in successful

education reform. Professional development serves as the bridge

between where prospective and experienced educators are now and

where they will need to be to meet the new challenges of guiding all

students in achieving to higher standards of learning and

development.

High-quality professional development as envisioned here refers

to rigorous and relevant content, strategies, and organizational

supports that ensure the preparation and career-long development of

teachers and others whose competence, expectations and actions

influence the teaching and learning environment. Both pre-and in-

service professional development require partnerships among schools,

higher education institutions and other appropriate entities to

promote inclusive learning communities of everyone who impacts

students and their learning. Those within and outside schools need

to work together to bring to bear the ideas, commitment and other

resources that will be necessary to address important and complex

educational issues in a variety of settings and for a diverse

student body.

Equitable access for all educators to such professional

development opportunities is imperative. Moreover, professional

development works best when it is part of a systemwide effort to

improve and integrate the recruitment, selection, preparation,

initial licensing, induction, ongoing development and support, and

advanced certification of educators.

High-quality professional development should incorporate all of

the principles stated below. Adequately addressing each of these

principles is necessary for a full realization of the potential of

individuals, school communities and institutions to improve and

excel.

The mission of professional development is to prepare and

support educators to help all students achieve to high standards of

learning and development.

Professional Development:

Focuses on teachers as central to student learning, yet

includes all other members of the school community;

Focuses on individual, collegial, and organizational

improvement;

Respects and nurtures the intellectual and leadership

capacity of teachers, principals, and others in the school

community;

Reflects best available research and practice in

teaching, learning, and leadership;

Enables teachers to develop further expertise in

subject content, teaching strategies, uses of technologies, and

other essential elements in teaching to high standards;

Promotes continuous inquiry and improvement embedded in

the daily life of schools;

Is planned collaboratively by those who will

participate in and facilitate that development;

Requires substantial time and other resources;

Is driven by a coherent long-term plan;

Is evaluated ultimately on the basis of its impact on

teacher effectiveness and student learning; and this assessment

guides subsequent professional development efforts.

The mission statement and principles of professional development

outlined above were published in draft form in the Federal Register

in December, 1994, and disseminated to more than 600 people and

organizations with interests in education. After careful

consideration of the extensive comments the Department received, the

principles were revised and finalized. We share them with you in the

firm belief that high-quality professional development reflecting

these principles, which are grounded in the practical wisdom of

leading educators across the country, will have a positive and

lasting effect on teaching and learning.

Appendix B--Empowerment Zones and Enterprise Communities

Empowerment Zones

California: Los Angeles

California: Oakland

Georgia: Atlanta

Illinois: Chicago

Kentucky: Kentucky Highlands*

Maryland: Baltimore

Massachusetts: Boston

Michigan: Detroit

Mississippi: Mid Delta*

Missouri/Kansas: Kansas City, Kansas City

New York: Harlem, Bronx

Ohio: Cleveland

Pennsylvania/New Jersey: Philadelphia, Camden

Texas: Houston

Texas: Rio Grande Valley*

Enterprise Communities

Alabama: Birmingham

[[Page 11081]]

Alabama: Chambers County*

Alabama: Greene, Sumter Counties*

Arizona: Phoenix

Arizona: Arizona Border*

Arkansas: East Central*

Arkansas: Mississippi County*

Arkansas: Pulaski County

California: Imperial County*

California: L.A., Huntington Park

California: San Diego

California: San Francisco, Bayview, Hunter's Point

California: Watsonville*

Colorado: Denver

Connecticut: Bridgeport

Connecticut: New Haven

Delaware: Wilmington

District of Columbia: Washington

Florida: Jackson County*

Florida: Tampa

Florida: Miami, Dade County

Georgia: Albany

Georgia: Central Savannah*

Georgia: Crisp, Dooley Counties*

Illinois: East St. Louis

Illinois: Springfield

Indiana: Indianapolis

Iowa: Des Moines

Kentucky: Louisville

Louisiana: Northeast Delta*

Louisiana: Macon Ridge*

Louisiana: New Orleans

Louisiana: Ouachita Parish

Massachusetts: Lowell

Massachusetts: Springfield

Michigan: Five Cap*

Michigan: Flint

Michigan: Muskegon

Minnesota: Minneapolis

Minnesota: St. Paul

Mississippi: Jackson

Mississippi: North Delta*

Missouri: East Prairie*

Missouri: St. Louis

Nebraska: Omaha

Nevada: Clarke County, Las Vegas

New Hampshire: Manchester

New Jersey: Newark

New Mexico: Albuquerque

New Mexico: Mora, Rio Arriba, Taos Counties*

New York: Albany, Schenectady, Troy

New York: Buffalo

New York: Newburgh, Kingston

New York: Rochester

North Carolina: Charlotte

North Carolina: Halifax, Edgecombe,

Wilson Counties*

North Carolina: Robeson County*

Ohio: Akron

Ohio: Columbus

Ohio: Greater Portsmouth *

Oklahoma: Choctaw, McCurtain Counties*

Oklahoma: Oklahoma City

Oregon: Josephine*

Oregon: Portland

Pennsylvania: Harrisburg

Pennsylvania: Lock Haven*

Pennsylvania: Pittsburgh

Rhode Island: Providence

South Dakota: Deadle, Spink Counties*

South Carolina: Charleston

South Carolina: Williamsburg County*

Tennessee: Fayette, Haywood Counties*

Tennessee: Memphis

Tennessee: Nashville

Tennessee/Kentucky: Scott, McCreary Counties*

Texas: Dallas

Texas: El Paso

Texas: San Antonio

Texas: Waco

Utah: Ogden

Vermont: Burlington

Virginia: Accomack*

Virginia: Norfolk

Washington: Lower Yakima*

Washington: Seattle

Washington: Tacoma

West Virginia: West Central*

West Virginia: Huntington

West Virginia: McDowell*

Wisconsin: Milwaukee

* Denotes rural designee.

[FR Doc. 98-5736 Filed 3-4-98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4000-01-P