Applications for New Awards; Competitive Grants for State Assessments Program, 25422-25428 [2020-09336]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 85 (Friday, May 1, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25422-25428]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-09336]


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

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION


Applications for New Awards; Competitive Grants for State 
Assessments Program

AGENCY: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of 
Education.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Education (Department) is issuing a notice 
inviting applications for fiscal year (FY) 2020 for the Competitive 
Grants for State Assessments program, Catalog of Federal Domestic 
Assistance (CFDA) number 84.368A. This notice relates to the approved 
information collection under OMB control number 1894-0006.

DATES: 
    Applications Available: May 1, 2020.
    Deadline for Notice of Intent to Apply: June 1, 2020.
    Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: June 30, 2020.

ADDRESSES: For the addresses for obtaining and submitting an 
application, please refer to our Common Instructions for Applicants to 
Department of Education Discretionary Grant Programs, published in the 
Federal Register on February 13, 2019 (84 FR 3768) and available at 
www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-02-13/pdf/2019-02206.pdf.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donald Peasley, Office of Elementary 
and Secondary Education, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland 
Avenue SW, Room 3W106, Washington, DC 20202-6132. Telephone: (202) 453-
7982. Email: [email protected].
    If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text 
telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-
800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

[[Page 25423]]

Full Text of Announcement

I. Funding Opportunity Description

    Purpose of Program: The purpose of the Competitive Grants for State 
Assessments (CGSA) 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.
    Background: The purpose of the CGSA program is to support States' 
efforts to improve the technical quality of their assessment systems--
both the quality of individual State assessments and the overall field 
of State assessments. In this competition, the Department is using 
three absolute priorities to encourage State educational agencies 
(SEAs) to consider new approaches to their State assessment systems. 
Two of these priorities, Absolute Priorities 1 and 2, build on the 
flexibility in section 1204 of the Elementary and Secondary Education 
Act of 1965, as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESEA), which 
establishes the Innovative Assessment Demonstration Authority (IADA).
    Given the national emergency related to the coronavirus disease 
2019 (COVID-19), flexible approaches to education, including 
innovative, formative, and competency-based assessments such as those 
that these priorities will support, are essential for students, 
parents, and educators.
    IADA provides an opportunity for an SEA to pilot a new and 
innovative approach to assessments by first implementing it in a subset 
of schools or LEAs. Students in those schools would take the innovative 
assessment in place of the statewide assessment and their results would 
be included in the State's accountability system. Over a period of five 
years, the SEA would scale up the innovative assessment to eventually 
replace the statewide assessment. Absolute Priorities 1 and 2 encourage 
States to use CGSA funds to improve alignment with and support related 
work through the IADA.
    In 2018 and 2019, the Department published notices inviting 
applications (NIAs) for IADA and approved four SEAs through this 
authority. During the initial demonstration period (as defined in ESEA 
section 1204(b)(3) and 34 CFR 200.104(d)), up to seven SEAs may be 
approved for IADA. After the initial demonstration period, and upon 
meeting the requirements in ESEA section 1204(d), the Secretary may 
grant IADA flexibility to additional SEAs. Absolute Priority 2 in this 
CGSA competition aims to support SEAs that are planning to apply for 
the IADA authority and Absolute Priority 1 is for SEAs that are 
currently implementing an approved IADA plan. Approval for a CGSA grant 
for those SEAs planning to apply for IADA does not imply or infer that 
the Department will ultimately approve that SEA to implement its 
subsequent IADA proposal. However, the Department believes that the 
work to plan for IADA will strengthen the State's assessment system, 
even if the SEA is not ultimately granted IADA flexibility.
    The Department is including a third priority in this competition 
for States that are neither planning to apply for nor implementing the 
IADA. Absolute Priority 3 is from the notice of final priorities 
published on August 8, 2016 in the Federal Register (81 FR 52341) (2016 
NFP) and focuses on States that are developing innovative assessment 
item types and design approaches for their assessment systems. The 
Department believes that innovative item types and innovative 
assessment approaches can allow students to gain valuable experience by 
demonstrating complex work and critical thinking skills. Assessments 
can improve student learning by providing data that can support and 
inform instruction, particularly if the data are timely and targeted. 
As such, the Department believes it is important for applicants under 
this priority to focus their proposals on the complex tasks of 
developing, evaluating, and implementing new, innovative item types or 
developing approaches to transforming traditional summative assessment 
forms into more innovative forms.
    The Department intends to fund one or more projects under each of 
the absolute priorities and is also establishing different project 
periods and budget ranges for each absolute priority. In particular, 
the Department will make IADA planning grants under Absolute Priority 2 
available for a project period not to exceed 18 months, with a maximum 
budget request of $500,000 or the minimum amount specified in section 
1203(b)(1)(C) of the ESEA (whichever is greater for an individual 
State) for the total project period. Since a planning grant is intended 
to provide support only during the preparation of an IADA proposal, 
this will give an SEA or consortium of SEAs sufficient time to prepare 
an application for submission. Similarly, the Department anticipates 
that the budget request for a planning grant will be substantially 
lower than for an IADA implementation grant under Absolute Priority 1, 
both because the project period would be shorter and because the work 
would be more targeted, preliminary, and smaller in scope. Grants for 
IADA implementation under Absolute Priority 1 or for developing 
innovative assessment item types and design approaches under Absolute 
Priority 3 are available for up to 48 months with a maximum budget 
request of $3,000,000 for the total project period.
    Section 1203(b)(1)(A) of the ESEA identifies the six allowable uses 
of funds under CGSA. In brief, these uses include developing or 
improving assessments for English learners; developing or improving 
models to measure and assess student progress or student growth on 
assessments; developing or improving assessments for children with 
disabilities; allowing for collaboration with institutions of higher 
education or other organizations to improve the quality, validity, and 
reliability of State academic assessments; measuring student academic 
achievement using multiple measures of student academic achievement 
from multiple sources; and evaluating student academic achievement 
using comprehensive academic assessment instruments (such as 
performance and technology-based academic assessments, computer 
adaptive assessments, projects, or extended performance task 
assessments) that emphasize the mastery of standards and aligned 
competencies in a competency-based education model. An SEA, or 
consortium of SEAs, applying for funds under any of the absolute 
priorities in this CGSA competition must describe in its application 
how it is meeting one or more of these six allowable uses of funds.
    Priorities: This competition includes three absolute priorities. 
Absolute Priorities 1 and 2 are from the Department's notice of final 
priorities published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register. 
Absolute Priority 3 is from the 2016 NFP.
    Absolute Priorities: For FY 2020 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 of these 
priorities. The Secretary intends to create three separate funding 
slates, one for each absolute priority. The Secretary intends to award 
at least one grant under each absolute priority for which applications 
of sufficient quality are submitted. As a result, the Secretary may 
fund applications out of the overall rank order. Eligible applicants 
must specify which absolute priority they are applying under in the 
project abstract.

[[Page 25424]]

    These priorities are:
    Absolute Priority 1: Implementing the Innovative Assessment 
Demonstration Authority (IADA).
    Under this priority, SEAs must--
    (a) Be approved for IADA as of the date of their CGSA application. 
If applying as part of a consortium (or in partnership with other 
SEAs), each SEA must be approved for IADA as of the date of its CGSA 
application; and
    (b) Be implementing IADA, consistent with all requirements of 
section 1204 of the ESEA and applicable regulations as of the date of 
their CGSA application. If applying for CGSA as part of a consortium 
(or in partnership with other SEAs), each SEA must individually meet 
this requirement; and
    (c) Describe how the SEA will use CGSA funds to implement its 
approved IADA plan.
    Absolute Priority 2: Planning to Apply for the Innovative 
Assessment Demonstration Authority (IADA).
    Under this priority, SEAs must--
    (a) Provide an assurance by an authorized representative that the 
SEA intends to apply for flexibility under the IADA, when made 
available by the Department. If applying for CGSA as part of a 
consortium (or in partnership with other SEAs), each SEA must provide 
an assurance that it intends to apply for flexibility under the IADA;
    (b) If applying as a consortium of SEAs during the initial 
demonstration authority for IADA, not include more than four SEAs; and
    (c) Describe their approach to innovative assessments in terms of 
the subjects and grades the SEA anticipates addressing, the proposed 
assessment design, proposed item types (e.g., item prototypes), and 
other relevant features.
    Absolute Priority 3: Developing Innovative Assessment Item Types 
and Design Approaches.
    Under this priority, SEAs must:
    (a) Develop, evaluate, and implement new, innovative item types for 
use in summative assessments in reading/language arts, mathematics, or 
science;
    (1) Development of innovative item types under paragraph (a) may 
include, for example, performance tasks; simulations; or interactive, 
multi-step, technology-rich items that can support competency-based 
assessments or portfolio projects;
    (2) Projects under this priority must be designed to develop new 
methods for collecting evidence about a student's knowledge and 
abilities and ensure the quality, validity, reliability, and fairness 
(such as by incorporating principles of universal design for learning) 
of the assessment and comparability of student data; or
    (b) Develop new approaches to transform traditional, end-of-year 
summative assessment forms with many items into a series of modular 
assessment forms, each with fewer items than the end-of-year summative 
assessment.
    (1) To respond to paragraph (b), applicants must develop modular 
assessment approaches which can be used to provide timely feedback to 
educators and parents as well as be combined to provide a valid, 
reliable, and fair summative assessment of individual students.
    (c) Applicants proposing projects under either paragraph (a) or (b) 
must provide a dissemination plan to share lessons learned and best 
practices such that their projects can serve as models and resources 
that can be shared with other States.
    Application Requirement: For FY 2020, and any subsequent year in 
which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this 
competition, applicants must meet the following application requirement 
from section 1203(b)(1)(B) of the ESEA, which refers to section 
1201(a)(2)(C) and (H)-(K) of the ESEA.
    Uses of Funds: Applicants must demonstrate that their proposed uses 
of funds for CGSA would be to carry out one or more of the following 
activities:
    (a) 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.
    (b) Developing or improving models to measure and assess student 
progress or student growth on State assessments under section 
1111(b)(2) of the ESEA and other assessments not required under section 
1111(b)(2) of the ESEA.
    (c) Developing or improving assessments for children with 
disabilities, including alternate assessments aligned to alternate 
academic achievement standards for students with the most significant 
cognitive disabilities described in section 1111(b)(2)(D) of the ESEA, 
and using the principles of universal design for learning.
    (d) Allowing for collaboration with institutions of higher 
education, other research institutions, or other organizations to 
improve the quality, validity, and reliability of State academic 
assessments beyond the requirements for such assessments described in 
section 1111(b)(2) of the ESEA.
    (e) Measuring student academic achievement using multiple measures 
of student academic achievement from multiple sources.
    (f) Evaluating student academic achievement through the development 
of comprehensive academic assessment instruments (such as performance 
and technology-based academic assessments, computer adaptive 
assessments, projects, or extended performance task assessments) that 
emphasize the mastery of standards and aligned competencies in a 
competency-based education model.
    Definitions: For FY 2020 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 ``Child with a 
disability,'' ``English learner,'' 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.
    Child with a disability, as defined in section 602 of the 
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, means--
    (A) A child--
    (i) With intellectual disabilities, hearing impairments (including 
deafness), speech or language impairments, visual impairments 
(including blindness), serious emotional disturbance (referred to in 
the IDEA as ``emotional disturbance''), orthopedic impairments, autism, 
traumatic brain injury, other health impairments, or specific learning 
disabilities; and
    (ii) Who, by reason thereof, needs special education and related 
services.
    (B) The term ``child with a disability'' for a child aged 3 through 
9 (or any subset of that age range, including ages three through five), 
may, at the discretion of the State and the local educational agency, 
include a child--
    (i) Experiencing developmental delays, as defined by the State and 
as measured by appropriate diagnostic instruments and procedures, in 1 
or more of the following areas: physical development; cognitive 
development; communication development; social or emotional 
development; or adaptive development; and
    (ii) Who, by reason thereof, needs special education and related 
services.
    Demonstrates a rationale means a key project component included in 
the project's logic model is informed by research or evaluation 
findings that suggest the project component is likely to improve 
relevant outcomes.

[[Page 25425]]

    English learner, when used with respect to an individual, means an 
individual--
    (A) Who is aged 3 through 21;
    (B) Who is enrolled or preparing to enroll in an elementary school 
or secondary school;
    (C)(i) Who was not born in the United States or whose native 
language is a language other than English;
    (ii)(I) Who is a Native American or Alaska Native, or a native 
resident of the outlying areas; and
    (II) Who comes from an environment where a language other than 
English has had a significant impact on the individual's level of 
English language proficiency; or
    (iii) Who is migratory, whose native language is a language other 
than English, and who comes from an environment where a language other 
than English is dominant; and
    (D) Whose difficulties in speaking, reading, writing, or 
understanding the English language may be sufficient to deny the 
individual--
    (i) The ability to meet the challenging State academic standards;
    (ii) The ability to successfully achieve in classrooms where the 
language of instruction is English; or
    (iii) The opportunity to participate fully in society.
    Logic model (also referred to as a theory of action) means a 
framework that 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.
    Project component means an activity, strategy, intervention, 
process, product, practice, or policy included in a project. Evidence 
may pertain to an individual project component or to a combination of 
project components (e.g., training teachers on instructional practices 
for English learners and follow-on coaching for these teachers).
    Relevant outcome means the student outcome(s) or other outcome(s) 
the key project component is designed to improve, consistent with the 
specific goals of the program.
    Universal design for learning, as defined under section 103 of the 
Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, means a scientifically valid 
framework for guiding educational practice that--
    (a) Provides flexibility in the ways information is presented, in 
the ways students respond or demonstrate knowledge and skills, and in 
the ways students are engaged; and
    (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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For purposes of this notice, English learner and limited 
English proficient have the same meaning.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 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 2016 NFP. (e) The notice of final priorities 
published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register. (f) The IADA 
regulations in 34 CFR 200.104-200.108.
    Program Authority: Section 1203(b)(1) of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 
6363(b)(1)).

II. Award Information

    Type of Award: Discretionary grants.
    Estimated Available Funds: $12,327,000.
    Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of 
applications, we may make additional awards in FY 2021 (or later) from 
the list of unfunded applications from this competition.
    Estimated Range of Awards for the Project Period:
    (a) Absolute Priority 1: Implementing the IADA: $1,000,000 to 
$3,000,000.
    (b) Absolute Priority 2: Planning to Apply for the IADA: $100,000 
to $500,000.
    (c) Absolute Priority 3: Developing Innovative Item Types and 
Design Approaches: $1,000,000 to $3,000,000.
    Estimated Average Size of Awards for the Project Period:
    (a) Absolute Priority 1: Implementing the IADA: $2,500,000.
    (b) Absolute Priority 2: Planning to Apply for the IADA: $300,000.
    (c) Absolute Priority 3: Developing Innovative Item Types and 
Design Approaches: $2,500,000.
    Maximum Size of Awards for the Project Period: We will not make an 
award exceeding these amounts:
    (a) Absolute Priority 1: Implementing the IADA: $3,000,000.
    (b) Absolute Priority 2: Planning to Apply for the IADA: $500,000 
or the State statutory minimum award amount as specified in section 
1203(b)(1)(C) of the ESEA if greater than $500,000.
    (c) Absolute Priority 3: Developing Innovative Item Types and 
Design Approaches: $3,000,000.

    Note: The Department will not make an award under any of the 
absolute priorities for less than the amount specified in section 
1203(b)(1)(C) of the ESEA.

    Estimated Number of Awards:
    (a) Absolute Priority 1: Implementing the IADA: 1-3.
    (b) Absolute Priority 2: Planning to Apply for the IADA: 1-3.
    (c) Absolute Priority 3: Developing Innovative Item Types and 
Design Approaches: 1-3.

    Note: The Department is not bound by any estimates in this 
notice.

    Project Period:
    (a) Absolute Priority 1: Implementing the IADA: up to 48 months.
    (b) Absolute Priority 2: Planning to Apply for the IADA: up to 18 
months.
    (c) Absolute Priority 3: Developing Innovative Item Types and 
Design Approaches: up to 48 months.

III. Eligibility Information

    1. Eligible Applicants: 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.
    2. Cost Sharing or Matching: This competition does not require cost 
sharing or matching.
    3. Subgrantees: A grantee under this competition may not award 
subgrants to entities to directly carry out project activities 
described in its application.
    4. Other: An application from a consortium of SEAs must designate 
one SEA as the fiscal agent.

IV. 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, published in the Federal 
Register on February 13, 2019 (84 FR 3768) and available at 
www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-02-13/pdf/2019-02206.pdf, which 
contain requirements and information on how to submit an application.
    Grants.gov has relaxed the requirement for applicants to have an 
active registration in the System for Award Management (SAM) in order 
to apply for funding during the COVID-19 pandemic. An applicant that 
does not have an active SAM registration can still register with 
Grants.gov, but must contact the Grants.gov Support Desk, toll-free, at 
1-800-518-4726, in order to take advantage of this flexibility.

[[Page 25426]]

    2. Submission of Proprietary Information: Given the types of 
projects that may be proposed in applications for the CGSA, 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.
    Consistent with Executive Order 12600, please designate in your 
application any information that you believe is exempt from disclosure 
under Exemption 4. In the appropriate Appendix section of your 
application, under ``Other Attachments Form,'' please list the page 
number or numbers on which we can find this information. For additional 
information please see 34 CFR 5.11(c).
    3. Intergovernmental Review: This competition is subject to 
Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. However, 
under 34 CFR 79.8(a), we waive intergovernmental review in order to 
make awards by the end of FY 2020.
    4. Funding Restrictions: We reference regulations outlining funding 
restrictions in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice.
    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:
     A ``page'' is 8.5'' x 11'', on one side only, with 1'' 
margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.
     Double space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) 
all text in the application narrative, including titles, headings, 
footnotes, quotations, references, and captions, as well as all text in 
charts, tables, figures, and graphs.
     Use a font that is either 12 point or larger or no smaller 
than 10 pitch (characters per inch).
     Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, 
Courier New, or Arial.
    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 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 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 
r[eacute]sum[eacute]s for project director(s) and key personnel); and 
Part 7 (standard assurances and certifications). Applicants are 
encouraged to limit each r[eacute]sum[eacute] to no more than five 
pages.
    Please note, hyperlinks should not be used 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 are better 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 and which absolute priority the applicant intends to address. 
This notification should be brief and identify the SEA applicant and, 
in the case of consortia applicants, the SEA that it will designate as 
the fiscal agent for an award. Submit this notification by email to 
[email protected] with ``Intent to Apply'' in the email subject 
line or mail to Donald Peasley, U.S. Department of Education, 400 
Maryland Avenue SW, room 3W106, Washington, DC 20202-6132. Applicants 
that do not provide this notification may still apply for funding.

V. Application Review Information

    1. Selection Criteria: The selection criteria for this competition 
are from 34 CFR 75.210. We will award up to 100 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.
    (c) Quality of the project design (up to 20 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 goals, objectives, and outcomes to be 
achieved by the proposed project are clearly specified and measurable. 
(5 points)
    (2) The extent to which the proposed project will establish 
linkages with other appropriate agencies and organizations providing 
services to the target population. (5 points)
    (3) The extent to which the proposed project is part of a 
comprehensive effort to improve teaching and learning and support 
rigorous academic standards for students. (5 points)
    (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:
    (1) The quality and sufficiency of strategies for ensuring equal 
access and treatment for eligible project participants who are members 
of groups

[[Page 25427]]

that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, 
national origin, gender, age, or disability. (10 points)
    (2) 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)
    (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 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:
    (1) The adequacy of the management plan to achieve the objectives 
of the proposed project on time and within budget, including clearly 
defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing 
project tasks. (10 points)
    (2) 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. (10 points)
    (g) Quality of the project evaluation (up to 5 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 are thorough, feasible, and appropriate to the goals, 
objectives, and outcomes of the proposed project.
    2. Review and Selection Process: We remind potential applicants 
that in reviewing applications in any discretionary grant competition, 
the Secretary may consider, under 34 CFR 75.217(d)(3), 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 
(34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
    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 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.
    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.
    Please note that, 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 FAPIIS semiannually. Please review the requirements in 2 
CFR part 200, Appendix XII, if this grant plus all the other Federal 
funds you receive exceed $10,000,000.

VI. 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. We may notify you informally, 
also.
    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 or subgrantee 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 in 2 CFR part 170 
should you receive funding under the competition. This does not apply 
if you have an exception under 2 CFR 170.110(b).
    (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 under 34 
CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance 
reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, 
please go to www.ed.gov/

[[Page 25428]]

fund/grant/apply/appforms/appforms.html.
    (c) Under 34 CFR 75.250(b), 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. Performance Measures: Under the Government Performance and 
Results Act of 1993, the Department has developed three measures to 
evaluate the overall effectiveness of the CGSA 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 CGSA 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.

VII. Other Information

    Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this 
document and a copy of the application package in an accessible format 
(e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) on request to 
the program contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT.
    Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this 
document is the document published in the Federal Register. You may 
access the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of 
Federal Regulations at www.govinfo.gov. At this site you can view this 
document, as well as all other documents of this Department published 
in the Federal Register, in text or Portable Document Format (PDF). To 
use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at 
the site.
    You may also access documents of the Department published in the 
Federal Register by using the article search feature at: 
www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search 
feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published 
by the Department.

Frank Brogan,
Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education.
[FR Doc. 2020-09336 Filed 4-30-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P