Notice2025-11614
Applications for New Awards; Educational Technology, Media, and Materials for Individuals With Disabilities Program-Stepping-Up Technology Implementation
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
June 25, 2025
Issuing agencies
Education Department
Abstract
The Department of Education (Department) is issuing a notice inviting applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2025 for Stepping-up Technology Implementation.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 90 Issue 120 (Wednesday, June 25, 2025)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 120 (Wednesday, June 25, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26998-27004]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2025-11614]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Education (Department) is issuing a notice
inviting applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2025 for
Stepping-up Technology Implementation.
DATES:
Applications Available: June 25, 2025.
Application Deadline: July 25, 2025.
Deadline for Intergovernmental Review: August 25, 2025.
Pre-Application Webinar Information: The Office of Special
Education Programs and Rehabilitative Services will record a pre-
application webinar for this competition, available at <a href="http://www.ed.gov/about/ed-offices/osers/osep/new-osep-grant-competitions">www.ed.gov/about/ed-offices/osers/osep/new-osep-grant-competitions</a>, within five
days after publication of this notice. In addition, applicants may view
information on this competition at <a href="http://www.ed.gov/about/ed-offices/osers/osep/new-osep-grant-competitions">www.ed.gov/about/ed-offices/osers/osep/new-osep-grant-competitions</a>.
ADDRESSES: For the addresses for obtaining and submitting an
application, please refer to the Application Submission Instructions
section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anita Vermeer, U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 4A208, Washington, DC 20202.
Telephone: (202) 987-0155. Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#690807001d08471f0c1b040c0c1b290c0d470e061f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="31505f5845501f4754435c5454437154551f565e47">[email protected]</span></a>.
If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability and
wish to access telecommunications relay services, please dial 7-1-1.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Full Text of Announcement
Funding Opportunity Description
Purpose of Program:
The purpose of the Educational Technology, Media, and Materials for
Individuals with Disabilities Program (ETechM2 Program) is to improve
results for children with disabilities by (1) promoting the
development, demonstration, and use of technology; (2) supporting
educational activities designed to be of educational value in the
classroom for children with disabilities; (3) providing support for
captioning and video description that is appropriate for use in the
classroom; and (4) providing accessible educational materials to
children with disabilities in a timely manner.
Assistance Listing Number (ALN): 84.327S.
OMB Control Number: 1820-0028.
Eligible Applicants:
State educational agencies (SEAs); local educational agencies
(LEAs), including public charter schools that operate as LEAs under
State law; institutions of higher education (IHEs); other public
agencies; private nonprofit organizations; freely associated States and
outlying areas; Indian Tribes or Tribal organizations; and for-profit
organizations.
Type of Award: Cooperative Agreements.
Estimated Available Funds: $2,000,000.
Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of
applications, we may make additional awards in FY 2026 from the list of
unfunded applications from this competition.
Estimated Range of Awards: $375,000 to $400,000 per year.
Estimated Average Size of Awards: $385,000 per year.
Maximum Award: We will not make an award exceeding $400,000 for a
single budget period of 12 months.
Estimated Number of Awards: 5.
Note: The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.
Project Period: Up to 60 months.
Priority: This competition includes one absolute priority. In
accordance
[[Page 26999]]
with 34 CFR 75.105(b)(2)(v), the absolute priority is from allowable
activities specified in sections 674(b)(2) and 681(d) of the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA); 20 U.S.C.
1474(b)(2) and 1481(d).
Absolute Priority: For FY 2025 this priority is an absolute
priority. The absolute priority is from the allowable activities in, or
otherwise authorized under, the statute.\1\ We consider only
applications that meet this priority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See sections 20 U.S.C. 1474(b)(2) and 1481(d) of the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This priority is:
Use of Evidence-based Technology-based Tools or Approaches that
Improve Reading Outcomes for Children with, or At Risk for,
Disabilities.
Background:
The 2024 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) \2\
indicates that only one in 10 students with disabilities in fourth or
eighth grade reads at NAEP proficient \3\ levels or above. Evidence-
based reading instruction and interventions that utilize technology
provide opportunities to further support the delivery of services to
children with disabilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The National Assessment of Educational Progress (2024).
National Achievement-Level Results. The Nation's Report Card.
<a href="http://www.nationsreportcard.gov/reading/nation/achievement/?grade=4">www.nationsreportcard.gov/reading/nation/achievement/?grade=4</a>.
\3\ ``NAEP Proficient does not signifiy being on grade level,
like State assessments, which align to state grade-level
expectations, and NAEP achievement levels generally are distinct
from those used on State assessments.'' The Nation's Report Card/
NAEP Achievement Levels (nd). <a href="http://www.nagb.gov/naep/NAEP-achievement-levels.html">www.nagb.gov/naep/NAEP-achievement-levels.html</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Priority:
The purpose of this priority is to support the implementation of
evidence-based technology-based tools or approaches that improve
reading outcomes for children with, or at risk for, disabilities
(hereafter referred to as ``children with disabilities'') in pre-
kindergarten (PK), elementary, middle, or high school instructional
settings;
Through this priority, the Department intends to fund five
cooperative agreements to establish and operate projects that achieve,
at a minimum, the following expected outcomes:
(a) Improved reading outcomes for children with disabilities in PK-
12 instructional settings using an evidence-based technology-based tool
or approach; \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ For the purpose of this priority, projects must meet at
least the definition of ``promising evidence,'' which means that
there is evidence of the effectiveness of a key project component in
improving a relevant outcome, based on a relevant finding from one
of the following: (a) A practice guide prepared by the What Works
Clearinghouse (WWC) reporting ``strong evidence'' ``moderate
evidence'', or ``promising evidence'' for the corresponding practice
recommendation; (b) An intervention report prepared by the WWC
reporting ``Tier 1 strong evidence'' of effectiveness, or ``Tier 2
moderate evidence'' of effectiveness, or ``Tier 3 promising
evidence'' of effectiveness, or a ``positive effect,'' or
``potentially positive effect'' on a relevant outcome, with no
reporting of a ``negative effect'' or ``potentially negative
effect'' on a relevant outcome; or (c) A single study assessed by
the Department, as appropriate, that--(1) Is an experimental study,
a quasi-experimental design study, or a well-designed and well-
implemented correlational study with statistical controls for
selection bias (such as a study using regression methods to account
for differences between a treatment group and a comparison group);
(2) Includes at least one statistically significant and positive
(i.e., favorable) effect on a relevant outcome; and (3) Includes no
overriding statistically significant and negative effects on
relevant outcomes reported in the study or in a corresponding WWC
intervention report. See 34 CFR 77.1 for definitions of ``project
component,'' ``promising evidence,'' ``experimental study,''
``moderate evidence,'' ``quasi-experimental design study,''
``relevant outcome,'' and ``strong evidence.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) Improved educator \5\ implementation of an evidence-based
technology-based tool or approach to deliver evidence-based instruction
and interventions to improve reading outcomes for children with
disabilities;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ For the purpose of this priority, ``educators'' include
teachers, early childhood providers, related services providers,
administrators, paraprofessionals, and others providing services to
childen with disabilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(c) Improved educator and family engagement regarding the use of an
evidence-based technology-based tool or approach to improve reading
outcomes for children with disabilities; and
(d) Sustained use of the evidence-based technology-based tool or
approach within the instructional setting.
Application Requirements:
At a minimum, to be considered for funding under this priority in
the application, applicants must describe the--
(a) Evidence-based technology-based tool or approach that improves
reading outcomes and is ready to use at the time of the application;
(b) Reading outcomes of children with disabilities that will be
improved by implementing the technology-based tool or approach;
(c) Approach to increase educators' implementation of the
technology-based tool or approach to improve the reading outcomes of
children with disabilities in an instructional setting; and
(d) Accessible products and resources \6\ that will help educators
and families to effectively use and implement the technology-based tool
or approach.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Applicants should note that other laws, including the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.; 28
CFR part 35) and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as
amended (29 U.S.C. 794; 34 CFR part 104), may require that SEAs and
LEAs provide captioning, video description, and other accessible
educational materials to students with disabilities when these
materials are necessary to provide equally integrated and equally
effective access to the benefits of the educational program or
activity, or as part of a ``free appropriate public education'' as
defined in 34 CFR 104.33. Starting in either April 2026 or April
2027 (depending on the size of the school district), Title II of the
Americans with Disabilities Act will require that public entities,
including public schools, ensure that web content and mobile apps
made available by the public entities are accessible in compliance
with the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1, level AA.
<a href="http://www.ada.gov/resources/2024-03-08-web-rule/#top">www.ada.gov/resources/2024-03-08-web-rule/#top</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to these application requirements, to be considered for
funding under this priority, applicants must meet the following
requirements:
(a) In the narrative section of the application under
``Significance'' describe how the proposed project will address the
need for a technology-based tool or approach to improve reading
outcomes for children with disabilities. To meet this requirement
applicants must--
(1) Describe the developed technology-based tool or approach and
core components that improve reading outcomes that are based on at
least promising evidence;
(2) Describe the educators who will implement the technology-based
tool or approach and the population of children with disabilities who
will benefit from the technology-based tool or approach;
(3) Describe how the technology-based tool or approach is currently
being implemented and has improved reading outcomes for children with
disabilities, if applicable;
(4) Describe any Federal funding, if applicable, within the last
five years related to this technology-based tool or approach, how the
funding has supported development and current implementation, and
demonstrated improved outcomes for children with disabilities;
(5) Describe how the technology-based tool or approach will improve
educators' implementation of evidence-based reading instruction to
improve outcomes for children with disabilities in PK-12 instructional
settings; and
(6) Present applicable national, State, regional, or local data
demonstrating the need for the identified technology-based tool or
approach to enhance the reading outcomes for children with
disabilities.
(b) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under
``Quality of the project design'' how the proposed project will--
(1) Develop and refine products and resources that incorporate
principles of
[[Page 27000]]
universal design for learning \7\ to support full implementation and
use of the technology tool or approach to improve reading outcomes for
children with disabilities;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Multiple means of representation so that information can be
delivered in more than one way (e.g., specialized software and
websites, customizing display for visual or physical modalities);
multiple means of expression that allow knowledge to be exhibited
through options (e.g., writing, online concept mapping, or speech-
to-text programs, where appropriate); and multiple means of
engagement to stimulate interest in and motivation for learning
(e.g., individual or group learning experiences or activities,
learner choice).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) Recruit and engage educators and children with disabilities who
are intended to benefit from the technology-based tool or approach; and
(3) Address barriers or challenges of implementation and utilize
stages of implementation science with a variety of sites, such as
public or private school buildings or early childhood settings, to
support, sustain, and scale the evidence-based technology-based tool or
approach.
To address this requirement, the applicant must include the
following--
(i) Two product and resource development sites. Applicants must
describe at least two proposed product and resource development sites,
where the project would conduct iterative development of the products
and resources intended to support the implementation of the technology-
based tool or approach and produce, by the end of year one, preliminary
feasibility and usability data. Applicants must include a letter in
Appendix A from at least one site that indicates agreement to serve as
a product and resource development site, at a minimum, in year one of
the project.
(ii) Three pilot sites, one of which must be a site that is
eligible for Title I funds under Part A of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act (ESEA). Pilot sites are the sites in which ongoing
refinement of the developed products and resources, and the continued
collection of feasibility and usability data, will occur. Applicants
must describe how they would work with a minimum of three pilot sites
no later than year two of the project, where the project would continue
to refine the developed products and resources; collect feasibility and
usability data; and demonstrate that the educational technology-based
tool or approach is improving reading outcomes for children with
disabilities.
(iii) Ten dissemination study sites, three of which must be sites
that are eligible for Title I funds under Part A of the ESEA.
Applicants must describe and complete work with a minimum of five
dissemination sites by the end of year three and another five by the
end of year four of the project period, to evaluate the performance of
the technology-based tool or approach on educators' implementation and
reading outcomes for children with disabilities. Dissemination sites
would receive less implementation support from the project than
development and pilot sites.
Note: A site may not serve in more than one category (i.e.,
development, pilot, dissemination).
(iv) A plan to systematically disseminate information about the
technology-based tool or approach to varied audiences throughout the
five-year project period that extends beyond conference presentations
and articles to reach intended audiences, support implementation. This
plan must describe--
(A) How the project will utilize the fifth year of the project to
scale the use of the technology-based tool or approach by educators and
children with disabilities to improve reading outcomes; and
(B) How the project will ensure that all digital products and all
external communications are routinely evaluated for and, if necessary,
remediated to meet or exceed government or industry-recognized
standards for accessibility.
(c) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under
``Adequacy of resources,'' how--
(1) The applicant and any key partners or sites have adequate
resources and demonstrated commitment to carry out the proposed
activities; and
(2) Proposed costs are reasonable in relation to the anticipated
results and benefits.
(d) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under
``Quality of the management plan,'' how--
(1) The proposed project personnel, consultants, and subcontractors
have the qualifications and experience to carry out the proposed
activities and achieve the project's intended outcomes and how the
proposed project team will include qualified experts on topics such as
technology, education theory, practice, research methods, and scale-up
or commercialization to support sustainability and dissemination;
(2) The proposed management plan will ensure that the project's
intended outcomes will be achieved on time and within budget. To
address this requirement, the applicant must describe--
(i) Clearly defined responsibilities for key project personnel,
consultants, and subcontractors, as applicable; and
(ii) Timelines and milestones for accomplishing the project tasks;
(3) Key project personnel and any consultants and subcontractors
will be allocated and how these allocations are appropriate and
adequate to achieve the project's intended outcomes;
(4) The proposed management plan will ensure that the products and
resources provided are of high quality, and are relevant and useful to
educators and children with disabilities; and
(5) The proposed project will integrate feedback from a variety of
perspectives, including families, educators and those from the intended
users.
(e) Include a plan in the narrative section of the application
under ``Quality of project evaluation or other evidence-building'' that
describes--
(1) A logic model (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1) or conceptual
framework that depicts, at a minimum, the goals, activities, project
evaluation, methods, performance measures, outputs, and intended
outcomes of the proposed project;
(2) The formative evaluation of the proposed project's activities
and how the formative evaluation will use clear performance objectives
to ensure continuous improvement in the operation of the proposed
project;
(3) A method for assessing--
(i) The formative and summative data from the development sites
that informs the implementation support needs;
(ii) The readiness of pilot sites to pilot the technology-based
tool or approach, including, at a minimum, their current practices,
technology or instructional alignment, available resources, and ability
to build capacity;
(iii) The formative and summative data collected from the pilot
sites to refine and evaluate the products and resources to support full
implementation;
(iv) The training and ongoing professional learning needs of
educators to implement the technology-based tool or approach with
fidelity;
(v) The dissemination and scale up efforts to spread the use of the
technology-based tool or approach by educators to improve reading
outcomes for children with disabilities;
(4) How the project will collect summative data to report on the
quality, relevance, usefulness, and efficacy of the products and
resources developed to support implementation of the technology-based
tool or approach to improve reading outcomes for children with
disabilities; and
[[Page 27001]]
(5) How, by the end of the project period, the project will
provide--
(i) Information supported by the project evaluation on the products
and resources, including accessibility features, that will enable other
sites to implement and sustain implementation of the technology-based
tool or approach;
(ii) Information in the project's final performance report,
including implementation data, on how educators utilized the
technology-based tool or approach; how the technology-based tool or
approach was implemented with fidelity; and the effectiveness of the
technology-based tool or approach in improving reading outcomes for
children with disabilities;
(iii) Data on how the technology-based tool or approach changed
educators' practices to improve reading outcomes for children with
disabilities; and
(iv) A dissemination plan that includes scaling up the technology-
based tool or approach and accompanying products beyond the sites
directly involved in the project.
(f) Address the following application requirements. The applicant
must include--
(1) In Appendix A, personnel-loading charts and timelines, as
applicable, to illustrate the management plan described in the
narrative;
(2) In Appendix A, the logic model by which the proposed project
will develop project plans and activities and achieve its intended
outcomes. The logic model must depict, at a minimum, the goals,
activities, project evaluation, methods, and intended outcomes of the
proposed project; and
Note: The following website provides more information on logic
models: <a href="https://ies.ed.gov/use-work/resource-library/resource/tooltoolkit/program-evaluation-toolkit">https://ies.ed.gov/use-work/resource-library/resource/tooltoolkit/program-evaluation-toolkit</a>.
(3) In the budget, attendance at the following:
(i) A two-day project directors' conference in Washington, DC,
during each year of the project period.
(ii) One annual trip, to attend Department briefings, Department-
sponsored conferences, and other meetings, as requested by OSEP.
Provide an assurance that the project will reallocate unused travel
funds no later than the end of the third quarter if the meetings are
conducted virtually.
Cohort Collaboration and Support:
OSEP project officers will provide coordination support among the
projects. Each project funded under this priority must--
(a) Participate in monthly conference-call discussions to
collaborate on implementation and project issues; and
(b) Provide annual information to OSEP using a template that
captures descriptive data on project site selection and the processes
for implementation and use of the technology-based tool or approach.
Selection Criteria: The selection criteria for this competition are
from 34 CFR 75.210 and are as follows:
(a) Significance (15 points).
The Secretary considers the significance of the proposed project.
In determining the significance of the proposed project, the Secretary
considers the following factors:
(1) The extent to which findings from the project's implementation
will contribute new knowledge to the field by increasing knowledge or
understanding of educational challenges, including the underlying or
related challenges, and effective strategies for addressing educational
challenges and their effective implementation (up to 4 points);
(2) The potential effective replicability of the proposed project
or strategies, including, as appropriate, the potential for
implementation by a variety of populations or settings (up to 5
points).
(3) The extent to which the resources, tools, and implementation
lessons of the proposed project will be disseminated in ways to the
target population and local community that will enable them and others
(including practitioners, researchers, education leaders, and partners)
to implement similar strategies (up to 6 points).
(b) Quality of the project design (30 points).
The Secretary considers the quality of the design of the proposed
project. In determining the quality of the design of the proposed
project, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(1) The extent to which the services to be provided by the proposed
project reflect up-to-date knowledge and an evidence-based project
component (up to 5 points);
(2) The likely benefit to the intended recipients, as indicated by
the logic model or other conceptual framework, of the services to be
provided (up to 7 points);
(3) 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 build recipient and project
capacity in ways that lead to improvements in practice among the
recipients of those services (up to 10 points); and
(4) The extent to which the services to be provided by the proposed
project involve the use of efficient strategies, including the use of
technology, as appropriate, and the leveraging of non-project resources
(up to 8 points).
(c) Adequacy of resources (15 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 following factors:
(1) The adequacy of support for the project, including facilities,
equipment, supplies, and other resources, from the applicant or the
lead applicant organization (up to 5 points);
(2) The relevance and demonstrated commitment of each partner in
the proposed project to the implementation and success of the project
(up to 5 points); and
(3) The extent to which the budget is adequate to support the
proposed project and the costs are reasonable in relation to the
objectives, design, and potential significance of the proposed project
(up to 5 points).
(d) Quality of the management plan (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 the following factors:
(1) The feasibility of the management plan to achieve project
objectives and goals on time and within budget, including clearly
defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing
project tasks (up to 5 points);
(2) The adequacy of mechanisms for ensuring high-quality and
accessible products and services from the proposed project for the
target population (up to 4 points);
(3) 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
(up to 3 points);
(4) The extent to which the key personnel in the project, when
hired, have the qualifications required for the proposed project,
including formal training or work experience in fields related to the
objectives of the project, and represent or have lived experiences of
the target population (up to 6 points); and
(5) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience,
of project consultants or subcontractors (up to 2 points).
(e) Quality of the project evaluation or other evidence-building
(20 points).
[[Page 27002]]
The Secretary considers the quality of the evaluation or other
evidence-building of the proposed project. In determining the quality
of the evaluation or other evidence-building, the Secretary considers
the following factors:
(1) The extent to which the methods of evaluation or other
evidence-building are thorough, feasible, relevant, and appropriate to
the goals, objectives, and outcomes of the proposed project (up to 5
points);
(2) The extent to which the methods of evaluation or other
evidence-based building are designed to measure the fidelity of
implementation of the project (up to 5 points);
(3) The extent to which the methods of evaluation or other
evidence-building will provide performance feedback and provide
formative, diagnostic, or interim data that is a periodic assessment of
progress toward achieving intended outcomes (up to 5 points); and
(4) The extent to which the evaluation will provide guidance about
effective strategies suitable for replication or testing and potential
implementation in other settings (up to 5 points).
Performance Measures:
For the purposes of Department reporting under 34 CFR 75.110, 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 ETechM2 Program. These
measures are:
<bullet> Program Performance Measure 1: The percentage of ETechM2
Program products and services judged to be of high quality by an
independent review panel of experts qualified to review the substantial
content of the products and services.
<bullet> Program Performance Measure 2: The percentage of ETechM2
Program products and services judged to be of high relevance to
improving outcomes for infants, toddlers, children, and youth with
disabilities.
<bullet> Program Performance Measure 3: The percentage of ETechM2
Program products and services judged to be useful in improving results
for infants, toddlers, children, and youth with disabilities.
<bullet> Program Performance Measure 4.1: The Federal cost per unit
of accessible educational materials funded by the ETechM2 Program.
<bullet> Program Performance Measure 4.2: The Federal cost per unit
of accessible educational materials from the National Instructional
Materials Access Center funded by the ETechM2 Program.
<bullet> Program Performance Measure 4.3: The Federal cost per unit
of video description funded by the ETechM2 Program.
Program Performance Measures 1, 2, and 3 apply to projects funded
under this competition, and grantees are required to submit data on
Program Performance Measures 1, 2, and 3 as directed by OSEP.
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).
Waiver of Proposed Rulemaking: Under the Administrative Procedure
Act (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. 1471, 1481, 1482.
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 Guidance for Federal Financial Assistance
in 2 CFR part 200, as adopted and amended as regulations of the
Department in 2 CFR part 3474.
Cost Sharing or Matching: This program does not require cost
sharing or matching.
Indirect Cost Rate Information: This program uses an unrestricted
indirect cost rate. For more information regarding indirect costs, or
to obtain a negotiated indirect cost rate, please see <a href="http://www.ed.gov/about/ed-offices/ofo#Indirect-Cost-Division">www.ed.gov/about/ed-offices/ofo#Indirect-Cost-Division</a>.
Administrative Cost Limitation: This program includes
administrative cost limitations under 20 U.S.C. 1482(b)(3)(B).
Subgrantees: A grantee under this competition may award subgrants--
to directly carry out project activities described in its application--
to the following types of entities: IHEs and private nonprofit
organizations suitable to carry out the activities proposed in the
application.
The grantee may award subgrants to entities it has identified in an
approved application.
Other General Requirements:
1. Recipients of funding under this program must make positive
efforts to employ and advance in employment qualified individuals with
disabilities (see section 606 of IDEA).
2. Each applicant for, and recipient of, funding under this program
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).
Application and Submission Information:
1. Application Submission Instructions: Applicants are required to
follow the Common Instructions for Applicants to Department of
Education Discretionary Grant Programs available at
<a href="http://www.federalregister.gov/d/2024-30488">www.federalregister.gov/d/2024-30488</a> (89 FR 104528, December 23, 2024).
2. Intergovernmental Review: This competition is subject to
intergovernmental review under Executive Order 12372 and the
regulations in 34 CFR part 79. Information about this process is in the
application package. Please note that, under 34 CFR 79.8(a), we have
shortened the standard 60-day intergovernmental review period in order
to make awards by the end of FY 2025.
3. Recommended Page Limit: The application 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 no more than 50 pages and (2) use the
following standards:
<bullet> A ``page'' is 8.5<gr-thn-eq> x 11<gr-thn-eq>, on one side
only, with 1<gr-thn-eq> margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.
<bullet> Double space (no more than three lines per vertical inch)
all text in the application narrative, including titles, headings,
footnotes, quotations, reference citations, and captions, as well as
all text in charts, tables, figures, graphs, and screen shots.
<bullet> Use a font that is 12 point or larger.
<bullet> Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier,
Courier New, or Arial.
The recommended page limit does not apply to the cover sheet; the
budget section, including the narrative budget justification; 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
recommended page limit does apply to all of the application narrative,
including all text in charts, tables, figures, graphs, and screen
shots.
[[Page 27003]]
4. Review and Selection Process: We remind potential applicants
that in reviewing applications in any discretionary grant competition,
the Secretary may consider 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
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.
In the event there are two or more applications with the same final
score, and there are insufficient funds to fully support each of these
applications, the scores under selection criterion (b) Quality of the
project design will be used as a tiebreaker. If the scores remain tied,
then the scores under selection criterion (c) Adequacy of resources
will be used to break the tie.
5. 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.
6. Risk Assessment and Specific Conditions: Before awarding grants
under this competition, the Department conducts a review of the risks
posed by applicants. 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 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.
7. 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
$250,000), 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 System
for Award Management's (SAM) Responsibility/Qualification reports
(formerly referred to as the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity
Information System (FAPIIS)). You may review and comment on any
information about yourself that a Federal agency previously entered and
that is currently in the Responsibility/Qualification reports in SAM.
If the total value of your currently active grants, cooperative
agreements, and procurement contracts from the Federal Government
exceeds $10,000,000, the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 200,
Appendix XII, require you to report certain integrity information to
SAM semiannually. Please review these requirements if this grant plus
all the other Federal funds you receive exceed $10,000,000.
Award Administration Information:
1. Award Notices: If your application is successful, we notify your
U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators and send you a Grant Award
Notification (GAN), or we may send you an email containing a link to
access an electronic version of your GAN.
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. Open Licensing Requirements: Unless an exception applies, if you
are awarded a grant under this competition, you will be required to
openly license to the public grant deliverables created in whole, or in
part, with Department grant funds. When the deliverable consists of
modifications to pre-existing works, the license extends only to those
modifications that can be separately identified and only to the extent
that open licensing is permitted under the terms of any licenses or
other legal restrictions on the use of pre-existing works.
Additionally, a grantee that is awarded competitive grant funds must
have a plan to disseminate these public grant deliverables. This
dissemination plan can be developed and submitted after your
application has been reviewed and selected for funding. For additional
information on the open licensing requirements please refer to 2 CFR
3474.20.
4. Reporting: (a) 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 should you receive
funding under the competition. This does not apply if you have an
exception.
(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 multiyear award, you must submit an annual
performance report that provides the most current performance and
financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary. The
Secretary may also require more frequent performance reports. For
specific requirements on reporting, please go to <a href="http://www.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/appforms/appforms.html">www.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/appforms/appforms.html</a>.
(c) The Secretary may provide a grantee with additional funding for
data collection analysis and reporting. In this case the Secretary
establishes a data collection period.
5. Continuation Awards: In making a continuation award, 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; if the Secretary
has established performance measurement requirements, whether the
grantee has made substantial progress in achieving the performance
targets in the grantee's approved application; and whether the
continuation of the project is in the best interest of the Federal
Government.
In making a continuation award, 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.
[[Page 27004]]
Accessible Format: On request to the program contact person listed
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, individuals with disabilities
can obtain this document and a copy of the application package in an
accessible format. The Department will provide the requestor with an
accessible format that may include Rich Text Format (RTF) or text
format (txt), a thumb drive, an MP3 file, braille, large print,
audiotape, compact disc, or other accessible format.
Diana Diaz,
Deputy Assistant Secretary and Acting Assistant Secretary for Special
Education and Rehabilitative Services.
[FR Doc. 2025-11614 Filed 6-24-25; 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>Indexed from Federal Register on June 25, 2025.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.