|
Items in cart [1] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
| Copyright © 2009. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 350
appendix
C
Selection Criteria and Priorities in
Title VI and
Fulbright-Hays Programs
T
he U.S. Department of Education (ED) process for awarding Title
VI and Fulbright-Hays grants begins when ED solicits applications
by publishing a request for applications (RFA). The RFA outlines
the criteria and any priorities ED will use to review and rank applications.
In recent years, ED has used both criteria and priorities to influence grant
applications and direct funding toward perceived national priorities. More
specifically, ED has included three types of priorities in the RFAs soliciting
applications for Title VI grants:
• Absolute priority—applications not meeting the priority will not
be considered for funding.
• Competitive priority—applications meeting this priority are
awarded a small number of extra points in the review process.
• Invitational priority—applicants are invited to meet this priority,
but doing so does not give them a “competitive or absolute priority over
other applications” (although it can lead to a larger grant award).
When soliciting grant applications, ED publicizes the criteria that the
panel of reviewers will use to evaluate and rank each application, determin-
ing which will receive funding. On March 21, 2005, ED issued a regulatory
change designed to increase its flexibility in awarding grants by removing
the mandatory point values associated with selection criteria that had been
established for these programs in previous regulations. The new regulations
affect 9 of the 14 international programs:
0
OCR for page 351
APPENDIX C
1. Business and International Education
2. Foreign Language and Area Studies Fellowships
3. International Research and Studies
4. Language Resource Centers
5. National Resource Centers
6. Undergraduate International Studies and Foreign Language
7. Fulbright-Hays Doctoral Research Abroad
8. Fulbright-Hays Faculty Research Abroad
9. Fulbright-Hays Group Projects Abroad
The purpose of this regulatory change was to “provide the Secretary
with the flexibility to select specific point values from year to year to ad-
dress current priorities for the programs.”1
As shown in the accompanying tables illustrating competitions for the
National Resource Centers, the Language Resource Centers, the Centers for
International Business Education and Research, Business and International
Education, and International Research and Studies, RFAs both before and
after this regulatory change used a variety of priorities to target applications
to specific needs. The tables are drawn directly from multiple RFAs issued
by ED to solicit applications for different competition years. Selection cri-
teria and point values vary by program.
1 Thenew regulations are available at http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/iegps/index.
html under “What’s New.”
OCR for page 352
INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION AND FOREIGN LANGUAGES
NATIONAL RESOURCE CENTERS (NRC)
TABLE C-1 NRC Application Priorities
Competition Year 1996 1999
Absolute priorities Teacher training activities Teacher training activities
Competitive priorities None
Invitational priorities Plans for evaluating and improving
foreign language programs in ways
compatible with developing national
standards.
Summer intensive language programs
in cooperation with other higher
education institutions.
Special library projects in cooperation
with other higher education
institutions.
Initiating or strengthening linkages
between language and area studies
programs and professional disciplines.
Developing new courses or curricula
in disciplines and issues that are
currently underrepresented in the
center’s basic program.
OCR for page 353
APPENDIX C
2002 2005
Teacher training activities Teacher training activities
None Activities designed to demonstrate the quality of
the center’s or program’s language instruction
through the measurement of student proficiency
in the less and least commonly taught
languages (LCTLs)
Activities designed to increase the Activities designed to increase the number of
number of international experts . . . specialists trained in areas that are vital to U.S.
with in-depth knowledge of Islamic national security, such as Islamic societies.
societies. Activities designed to promote undergraduate
Activities designed to strengthen the language learning through two or more
quality of the language program so continuous years in the LCTLs.
that students can attain advanced Linkages with schools of education designed to
proficiency in LCTLs. improve teacher training in foreign languages,
Linkages with schools of education area, and international studies with an
designed to improve teacher emphasis on the LCTLs and areas of the world
training in foreign languages, area, where those languages are spoken.
and international studies with an Collaboration with other Title VI centers with the
emphasis on the LCTLs and areas of objective of increasing the nation’s capacity to
the world where those languages are train and produce Americans with advanced
spoken. proficiency of the LCTLs, along with an
Collaboration with other Title VI understanding of the societies in which those
centers with a focus on LCTLs languages are spoken.
and underrepresented professional Activities that expand and enhance outreach to
disciplines. K-12 constituencies.
Activities that engage the language
resources of local heritage
communities.
OCR for page 354
INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION AND FOREIGN LANGUAGES
TABLE C-2 NRC Criteria and Weights
Competition
Year 2002 2005
Criteria for
Review Criterion Points Criterion Points
Program planning and 20 Program planning and 20
budget budget
Quality of staff resources 20 Quality of staff resources 15
Impact and evaluation 20 Impact and evaluation 25
Commitment to subject area 10 Commitment to the subject 10
area
Strength of library 15 Strength of library 15
Quality of nonlanguage 20 Quality of nonlanguage 20
instructional program instructional program
Quality of language 20 Quality of language 20
instructional program instructional program
Quality of curriculum design 15 Quality of curriculum design 10
Outreach activities 15 Outreach activities 20
Degree to which priorities 10 Degree to which competitive 10
are served priorities are served
TOTAL points possible 165 TOTAL points possible 165
OCR for page 355
APPENDIX C
LANGUAGE RESOURCE CENTERS (LRC)
TABLE C-3 LRC Application Priorities
Competition
2002a
Year 2001 2005
Absolute None Must focus either on None
priorities the languages of the
Middle East or the
languages of South
Asia.
Competitive None None None
priorities
Invitational None None Centers that focus on languages spoken
priorities in the following world regions: Africa,
Inner Asia, the Middle East, South Asia,
or Southeast Asia.
Research conducted on new and improved
methods for teaching foreign languages,
including the use of technology and the
dissemination of the research results.
Collaboration with Title VI National
Resource Centers, Language Resource
Centers, and Centers for International
Business Education, and American
Overseas Research Centers in conducting
development and dissemination activities
with the objective of increasing the
nation’s capacity to produce Americans
with advanced proficiency in the LCTLs
and understanding of the societies in
which those languages are spoken.
OCR for page 356
INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION AND FOREIGN LANGUAGES
TABLE C-4 LRC Criteria and Weights in 2001, 2002, and 2005
Criterion Points Possible
1. Plan of operation 15
2. Quality of key personnel 10
3. Adequacy of resources 5
4. Need and potential impact 20
5. Likelihood of achieving results 10
6. Description of final form results 10
7. Evaluation plan 20
8. Budget and cost-effectiveness 10
TOTAL points possible 100
NOTE: The RFA issued on 8/31/01 identifies two sets of applicable regulations: (1) The Educa-
tion Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) in 34 CFR parts 74, 75, 77,
80, 82, 85, 86, 97, 98, and 99 and (2) The LRC regulations in 34 CFR parts 655 and 669.
The most recent RFA issued on 10/18/05 provides the specific selection criteria established in
34 CFR sections 655.31, 669.20, 669.21, and 669.22. It appears that these criteria were also
used in the previous grant competitions in 2001 and 2002.
CENTERS FOR INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS RESEARCH AND
EDUCATION (CIBER)
TABLE C-5 CIBER Application Priorities
Competition Year 2001 2005
Absolute priorities None None
Competitive priorities None None
Invitational priorities None Applications that propose innovative approaches
to improving the teaching of foreign languages in
a business or professional context, including the
LCTLs.
Applications that propose programs or activities
focused on homeland security and U.S. international
competitiveness.
OCR for page 357
APPENDIX C
TABLE C-6 CIBER Criteria and Weights in 2001 and 2005
Criterion Points Possible
1. Meets the purpose of the authorizing statute 20
2. Significance 18
3. Quality of project design 10
4. Quality of management plan 10
5. Quality of project personnel 10
6. Quality of project services 2
7. Adequacy of resources 10
8. Quality of project evaluation 20
TOTAL points possible 100
NOTE: The RFA issued on 9/28/01 states that the Department of Education has not estab-
lished program-specific regulations outlining the criteria for review of CIBER applications.
Instead, review criteria are determined by the Education Department General Administrative
Regulations (EDGAR) in 34 CFR parts 74, 75, 77, 79, 82, 85, 86, 97, 98, and 99, as appli-
cable. The most recent CIBER RFA issued on 10/12/05 (available at http://www.ed.gov/pro-
grams/iegpscibe/applicant.html) again states that there are no program-specific regulations but
also identifies the specific applicable criteria and weights (from EDGAR). It appears that these
criteria, shown above, were also used in the earlier (2001) grant competition.
BUSINESS AND INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION (BIE) PROGRAM
In soliciting the most recent round of BIE applications, ED announced
only one invitational priority (U.S. Department of Education, 2006a). The
priority was for applications proposing projects integrated into the cur-
ricula of the institution and targeted to the world regions of Central and
South Asia, the Middle East, Russia, the independent states of the former
Soviet Union, and Africa.
TABLE C-7 BIE Criteria and Points in 2006
Criterion Points Possible
1. Need for the project 25
2. Plan of operations 20
3. Qualifications of key personnel 10
4. Budget and cost-effectiveness 15
5. Evaluation plan 25
6. Adequacy of resources 5
TOTAL points possible 100
OCR for page 358
INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION AND FOREIGN LANGUAGES
INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH AND STUDIES (IRS)
TABLE C-8 IRS Application Priorities
Competition
Year 1999 2002 2005
Absolute None Materials development: Projects None
priorities to develop instructional
materials for the languages or
regions of the Near or Middle
East, South Asia, Southeast
Asia, Eastern Europe, Inner
Asia, the Far East, Africa, or
Latin America.
Competitive None None None
priorities
Invitational None Development of specialized Development of instructional
priorities materials for use in teaching materials for use by students,
the languages of the Islamic teachers, and college faculty
nations of the Middle East that focus on Islamic societies
and Central Asia. and the languages of those
Development of specialized societies.
materials for use in teaching Research, surveys, studies, or the
the languages of South Asia. development of instructional
materials that serve to enhance
international understanding
for use at the elementary and
secondary education levels or
for use in teacher education
programs.
OCR for page 359
APPENDIX C
TABLE C-9 Comparing IRS Criteria and Weights for Instructional
Materials and for Research and Studies Grants (2005 RFA for FY 2006
grants)
Type of
Grant Instructional Materials Research and Studies
Criteria Criterion Points Criterion Points
1. Plan of operation 10 1. Plan of operation 10
2. Quality of key personnel 10 2. Quality of key personnel 10
3. Budget and cost 10 3. Budget and cost 10
effectiveness effectiveness
4. Evaluation plan 5 4. Evaluation plan 5
5. Adequacy of resources 5 5. Adequacy of resources 5
6. Need for the project 10 6. Need for the project 10
7. Potential for the use of 10 7. Usefulness of expected 10
materials in programs to results
others
8. Account of related 10 8. Development of new 10
materials knowledge
9. Likelihood of achieving 10 9. Formulation of problems 10
results and knowledge of related
research
10. Expected contribution to 10 10. Specificity of statement 10
other programs of procedures
11. Description of final form 5 11. Adequacy of 10
materials methodology and scope
of project
12. Provisions for pre-testing 5
and revision
TOTAL points possible 100 TOTAL points possible 100
