Click for next page ( 351


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © 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 350
 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 350
 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 350
 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 350
 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 350
 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 350
 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 350
 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 350
 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 350
 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