2023 OTP Preapplication Webinar 3.28.23_clean copy.pdf

FY 2023 OPEN TEXTBOOKS PILOT (OTP)

PROGRAM

PRE- APPLICATION WEBINAR*

Kurrinn Abrams, OTP Program Lead & Competition Manager

Dr. Stacey Slijepcevic, HSI Division Director

*Please visit our website or grants.gov to view our pre-application webinar slide deck and FAQ document.

https://www2.ed.gov/programs/otp/applicant.html https://www.grants.gov/web/grants/view-opportunity.html?oppId=346807

DISCLAIMER

NOTE: THE FEDERAL REGISTER IS THE OFFICIAL

APPLICATION SUBMISSION GUIDE. THIS WEBINAR

PROVIDES TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE ONLY

AGENDA

General Information/FY 2022 Competition at a Glance

Purpose

Eligibility Information

Requirements

Priorities

Selection Criteria

Understanding Indirect Costs

Budget Tips

Performance Measures

Planning Your Grant Application

Application Review and Selection Process

Submission Information

Call for Peer Reviewers

Questions from the Field

Resources and Program Contacts

GENERAL INFORMATION

• Notice Inviting Applications (NIA) published in the Federal Register on March 17, 2023, with a deadline of May 16, 2023.

• Download application package in Grants.gov by searching for the ALN 84.116T or Funding Opportunity Number ED-GRANTS-031723-001

• Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) posted on the Open Textbooks Pilot website

The Federal Register is the official application submission guide. This webinar only provides technical assistance.

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/03/17/2023-05456/applications-for-new-awards-fund-for-the-improvement-of-postsecondary-education-open-textbooks-pilot https://www.grants.gov/web/grants/view-opportunity.html?oppId=346807 https://www2.ed.gov/programs/otp/faq.html

FY 2023 COMPETITION AT A GLANCE

• APPLICATIONAVAILABLE: March 17, 2023

• APPLICATION DEADLINE: May 16, 2023, at 11:59pm ET

• ESTIMATED AVAILABLE FUNDS: $10,626,704

• ESTIMATED RANGE OF AWARDS: $1,773,000 to $2,125,000 (FOR 3

YEARS)*

• MAXIMUM AWARD: We will not make an award exceeding $2,125,000 for the entire project period of 36 months.

• PROJECT PERIOD: 36 MONTHS

• ESTIMATED NUMBER OF AWARDS: 5

* ALL AWARDEE FUNDS WILL BE FRONTLOADED.

• PRIORITIES

• 3 Absolute Priorities

• 1 Competitive Preference Priority

• 1 Invitational Priority

• This program uses an unrestricted indirect cost rate. For more information regarding indirect costs, or to obtain a negotiated indirect cost rate, please see https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocfo/intro.html

• Budgets may not exceed range cap but may be below the estimated range.

The Federal Register is the official application submission guide. This webinar only provides technical assistance.

https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocfo/intro.html

PROGRAM PURPOSE

The OTP program supports projects at eligible institutions of higher education that create new open textbooks and expand the use of open textbooks in courses that are part of a degree-granting program, particularly those with high enrollments. This pilot program emphasizes the development of projects that demonstrate the greatest potential to achieve the highest level of savings for students through sustainable, expanded use of open textbooks in high-enrollment courses or in programs that prepare individuals for in-demand fields.

The Federal Register is the official application submission guide. This webinar only provides technical assistance.

ELIGIBILITY

Eligible applicants are IHEs as defined in section 101 of the Higher Education Act (HEA) (20 U.S.C. 1001), or State higher education agencies that:

a) Lead the activities of a consortium that is comprised of at least:

(i) Three IHEs as defined in section 101 of the HEA;

(ii) An educational technology or electronic curriculum design expert (which may include such experts that are employed by one or more of the consortium institutions); and

(iii) An advisory group of at least three employers, workforce organizations, or sector partners; and

b) Have demonstrated experience in the development and implementation of open educational resources.

The Federal Register is the official application submission guide. This webinar only provides technical assistance.

REQUIREMENTS

Accessibility: All digital content developed under this grant program must incorporate the principles of universal design to ensure that they are accessible to individuals with disabilities. The content and courses must be in full compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, and the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0, Level AA.

Technical Standards for Interoperability: All digital assets developed under this grant program must be produced to maximize interoperability, exchange, and reuse and must conform to industry-recognized open standards and specifications. Applicants must identify the industry standard they will use. All digital assets created in whole or in part under this grant program must be licensed for free, attributed public use and distribution as required under 2 CFR 3474.20.

Applicants should identify the industry standard they will use for “Technical Standards for Interoperability” in the narrative section “Quality of the Project Design” within the Project Narrative Attachment Form.

The Federal Register is the official application submission guide. This webinar only provides technical assistance.

COMPETITION PRIORITIES

Three (3) Absolute Priorities (Required)

1. Absolute Priority 1 -- Improving Collaboration and Dissemination.

2. Absolute Priority 2 -- Addressing Gaps in the Open Textbook Marketplace and Bringing Solutions to Scale.

3. Absolute Priority 3 -- Promoting Student Success.

One (1) Competitive Preference Priority (Optional for up to 5 additional points)

1. Competitive Preference Priority -- Using Technology-Based Strategies for Personalized Learning and Continuous Improvement.

One (1) Invitational Priority (Optional – no points awarded for addressing this priority)

1. Invitational Priority -- Participation by Minority-Serving Institutions and Community College -- we do not give an application that meets this invitational priority a competitive or absolute preference over other applications.

The Federal Register is the official application submission guide. This webinar only provides technical assistance.

ABSOLUTE PRIORITY #1 (REQUIRED)

ABSOLUTE PRIORITY 1: IMPROVING COLLABORATION AND DISSEMINATION

To meet this priority, an eligible applicant must propose to lead and carry out projects that involve a consortia of institutions, instructors, and subject matter experts, including no less than three IHEs, along with relevant employers, workforce stakeholders (as defined in the NIA), and/or trade or professional associations (as defined in the NIA). Applicants must explain how the members of the consortium will work together to develop and implement open textbooks that:

(a) Reduce the cost of college for large numbers of students through a variety of cost saving measures; and

(b) Contain instructional content and ancillary instructional materials that align student learning objectives with the skills or knowledge required by large numbers of students (at a given institution or nationally), or in the case of a career and technical postsecondary program, meet industry standards in in-demand industry sectors or in-demand occupations (as defined in the NIA).

The Federal Register is the official application submission guide. This webinar only provides technical assistance.

QUESTIONS TO

CONSIDER -

Absolute Priority #1

What’s the basis of selection for the consortium member?

What expertise and/or resources does the consortium member provide?

What’s their responsibility?

How will the consortium work together to develop/implement content aligned with the objectives of the grant?

In what way does the Advisory group augment the knowledge and skills of the other members of the consortium?

ABSOLUTE PRIORITY #2 (REQUIRED)

ABSOLUTE PRIORITY 2: ADDRESSING GAPS IN THE OPEN TEXTBOOK MARKETPLACE AND BRINGING SOLUTIONS TO SCALE

To meet this priority, an applicant must identify the gaps in the open textbook marketplace in courses that are part of a degree-granting program that it seeks to address and propose how to close such gaps. An applicant must propose a comprehensive plan to:

a) Identify and assess existing open educational resources in the proposed subject area before creating new ones, such as by identifying any existing open textbooks that could potentially be used as models for the design of the project or ancillary learning resources that would support the development of courses that use open textbooks;

b) Focus on the creation and expansion of education and training materials that can be scaled, within and beyond the participating consortium members, to reach a broad range of students participating in high-enrollment courses or preparing for in-demand industry sectors or in-demand occupations;

c) Create and disseminate protocols to review any open textbooks created or adapted through the project for accuracy, rigor, and accessibility for students with disabilities;

The Federal Register is the official application submission guide. This webinar only provides technical assistance.

ABSOLUTE PRIORITY #2 (REQUIRED)

ABSOLUTE PRIORITY 2: ADDRESSING GAPS IN THE OPEN TEXTBOOK MARKETPLACE AND BRINGING SOLUTIONS TO SCALE

To meet this priority, an applicant must identify the gaps in the open textbook marketplace in courses that are part of a degree-granting program that it seeks to address and propose how to close such gaps. An applicant must propose a comprehensive plan to:

d) Disseminate information about the results of the project to other IHEs, including promoting the adoption of any open textbooks created or adapted through the project, or adopting open standard protocols and processes that support the interoperability for any digital assets created;

e) Include professional development to build capacity of faculty, instructors, and other staff to adapt and use open textbooks; and

f) Describe the courses for which open textbooks and ancillary materials are being developed.

The Federal Register is the official application submission guide. This webinar only provides technical assistance.

Absolute Priority #2

What open textbook materials are already out there?

What gaps exist? And how do the materials you propose to develop fit into this picture?

What activities will you undertake to support system-level OER initiatives? This can include training, professional development, technology, learning design and faculty support.

What’s the review process and criteria that establish standards for the open textbooks?

How will you share, collaborate, and disseminate open textbooks materials?

ABSOLUTE PRIORITY #3 (REQUIRED)

ABSOLUTE PRIORITY 3: PROMOTING STUDENT SUCCESS

To meet this priority, an applicant must propose to build upon existing open textbook materials and/or develop new open textbooks for high-enrollment courses or high-enrollment programs in order to achieve the highest level of savings for students.

Additionally, this priority requires the applicant to include plans for:

(a) Promoting and tracking the use of open textbooks in postsecondary courses across participating members of the consortium, including an estimate of the projected direct cost savings for students that will be reported during the annual performance review;

(b) Monitoring the impact of open textbooks on instruction, learning outcomes, course outcomes, and educational costs;

(c) Investigating and disseminating evidence-based practices associated with using open textbooks that improve student outcomes; and

(d) Updating the open textbooks beyond the funded period.

The Federal Register is the official application submission guide. This webinar only provides technical assistance.

Absolute Priority #3

How do the selected courses, program or degree pathway promote student success and degree completion?

How will you promote awareness and adoption of the open textbooks? How do you track the use of the materials?

How will you assess the impact of open textbooks on instruction, learning outcomes, course outcomes, and educational costs?

Is there a sustainable workflow to maintain and disseminate the open textbooks when funding ceases?

COMPETITIVE PREFERENCE PRIORITY (OPTIONAL)

COMPETITIVE PREFERENCE PRIORITY -- Using Technology-Based Strategies for Personalized Learning and Continuous Improvement (up to 5 points).

To meet this priority, an applicant must propose a project that focuses on improving instruction and student learning outcomes by integrating technology-based strategies, such as personalized learning, and providing support to faculty, instructors, and other staff who are delivering courses using these techniques. The project must enable students to tailor and monitor their own learning and/or allow instructors to monitor the individual performance of each student in the classes or courses for which the applicant proposes to develop open textbooks. In addition, online and technology-enabled content and courses developed under this project must incorporate the principles of universal design in order to ensure that they are readily accessible by all students, including students with disabilities. The openly licensed resources that are developed should support traditional, text-based materials, including through such tools as adaptive learning modules, digital simulations, and tools to assist student engagement.

The Federal Register is the official application submission guide. This webinar only provides technical assistance.

CONSIDER –

Competitive

Preference Priority

How will the open textbooks promote active learning?

How does the technology pair with the content to help improve instruction and student learning outcomes?

Questions related to the open licensing requirements should be submitted to kurrinn.abrams2@ed.gov with a copy to tech@ed.gov.

The Federal Register is the official application submission guide. This webinar only provides technical assistance.

mailto:kurrinn.abrams2@ed.gov mailto:tech@ed.gov

INVITATIONAL PRIORITY (OPTIONAL)

INVITATIONAL PRIORITY -- Participation by Minority-Serving Institutions and Community Colleges*

An application from a Minority-Serving Institution (MSI) (as defined in this notice) or community college (as defined in the NIA) that leads the activities of the consortium and serves as the fiscal agent; or an application from a consortium in which an MSI or community college is a member of the consortium but not the lead applicant.

Note: Please reference the NIA for the definition of a MSI and community college. A full list of institutions designated as eligible is available at: https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/idues/eligibility.html

*For FY 2023, and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this competition, this priority is an invitational priority. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(1), we do not give an application that meets this invitational priority a competitive or absolute preference over other applications.

The Federal Register is the official application submission guide. This webinar only provides technical assistance.

https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/idues/eligibility.html https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-34/section-75.105p-75.105(c)(1)

SELECTION

CRITERIA

The selection criteria are the criteria against which the peer reviewers evaluate and score each application.

The Department selects grantees based on peer reviewer scores, so clearly addressing the selection criteria is critical.

Respond to the selection criteria and each factor in the appropriate section.

The project narrative should be organized in seven labeled sections that correspond to and follow the order of the seven selection criteria.

a. Significance

b. Quality of the Project Design

c. Quality of the Project Services

d. Quality of the Project Personnel

e. Adequacy of Resources

f. Quality of the Management Plan

g. Quality of the Project Evaluation

The maximum total score that any applicant may receive on the seven selection criteria is 100 points.

Selection Criteria Maximum Points Selection Criteria Maximum Points

Significance 20

Quality of Project Design 16

Quality of Project Services 15

Quality of Project Personnel 9

Adequacy of Resources 20

Quality of Management Plan 10

Quality of Project Evaluation 10

Total Maximum Score for Selection Criteria

Competitive Preference Priority 5

Total Possible Score Per Application 105 The Federal Register is the official application submission guide. This webinar only provides technical assistance.

Significance (maximum 20 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 the proposed project is likely to build local capacity to provide, improve, or expand services that address the needs of the target population (up to 10 points).

2) The potential replicability of the proposed project or strategies, including, as appropriate, the potential for implementation in a variety of settings (up to 10 points).

Significance

• How does the proposed project expand or strengthen the institution’s capacity and ability to address the needs of the target population?

• How does the project support new or substantially improved strategies to address widely shared challenges to instruction and student learning?

• Does the project or proposed strategies have potential to be replicated in a variety of settings?

• If the project is successful, what improvements or systemic changes are expected?

Quality of Project Design (maximum 16 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 (up to 4 points).

(2) The extent to which the design of the proposed project is appropriate to, and will successfully address, the needs of the target population or other identified needs (up to 4 points).

(3) The extent to which the proposed project is designed to build capacity and yield results that will extend beyond the period of Federal financial assistance (up to 4 points).

(4) The extent to which the proposed project represents an exceptional approach to the priority or priorities established for the competition (up to 4 points).

Project Design

• Is there evidence that supports your approach to the design of the project?

• How do the objectives relate to the project goals and what are the anticipated outcomes?

Are they measurable?

• Have you identified the target population?

Their challenges? Needs?

• What are the capacity building initiatives and how will they be parlayed into sustainable, reproducible initiatives elsewhere?

• How will the project continue after the grant period?

Quality of Project Services (maximum 15 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 the quality and sufficiency of strategies for ensuring equal access and treatment for eligible project participants who are members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability. In addition, the Secretary considers the following factors:

(1) The likelihood that the services to be provided by the proposed project will lead to improvements in the achievement of students as measured against rigorous academic standards (up to 5 points).

(2) The extent to which the services to be provided by the proposed project involve the collaboration of appropriate partners for maximizing the effectiveness of project services (up to 5 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 (up to 5 points).The Federal Register is the official application submission

Project Services

• Are the proposed services appropriate for the targeted outcome/impact?

• To what extent are the expertise and resources of the consortium leveraged to maximize effectiveness of the services?

• Are the training and professional development services sufficient to achieve the objectives and goals of the project?

• Did the letters of support or MOU’s outline each partners responsibilities to the project?

Quality of Project Personnel (maximum 9 points)

The Secretary considers the quality of the personnel who will carry out the proposed project. In determining the quality of project personnel, the Secretary considers the extent to which the applicant encourages applications for employment from persons who are members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability. In addition, the Secretary considers the following factors:

(1) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience, of the project director or principal investigator (up to 5 points).

(2) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience, of key project personnel (up to 4 points).

Project Personnel

• Is the experience and training of the Project Director and key personnel directly related to the activity objectives?

Adequacy of Resources (maximum 20 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 relevance and demonstrated commitment of each partner in the proposed project to the implementation and success of the project (up to 10 points).

(2) The extent to which the costs are reasonable in relation to the objectives, design, and potential significance of the proposed project (up to 10 points).

Adequacy of

Resources

• How are the resources related to the successful implementation of the project?

• Describe if these resources are available at your institution (or in partner institutions); or if you plan to acquire them.

• Letters of commitment and support should be submitted to demonstrate level of commitment to the project.

• Are the requested funds reasonable in relation to the complexity and scale of the project?

Quality of Management Plan (maximum 10 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 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 (up to 5 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 (up to 5 points).

Management Plan

• What is the plan to ensure proper and efficient management of the project, including methods of coordination across organizational units, partners, stakeholders, etc.? Who is responsible for what?

• How will you ensure that the project is on schedule and within budget to meet the identified goals and objectives of the project?

• Have sufficient staff and time been committed to ensure that the identified goals and objectives are met?

Quality of Project Evaluation (maximum 10 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 following factors:

(1) The extent to which the methods of evaluation are thorough, feasible, 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 include the use of objective performance measures that are clearly related to the intended outcomes of the project and will produce quantitative and qualitative data to the extent possible (up to 5 points).

Evaluation Plan

• Describe the methods for data collection and evaluation.

• How will you assess student learning outcomes and impact on instruction?

• Are the proposed activities/strategies appropriate to yielding the intended data?

• How will the evaluation be used to inform continuous improvement?

APPLICATION

TIEBREAKERS

1. First Tiebreaker: The first tiebreaker will be the highest average score for the selection criterion “Quality of the Project Design.” If a tie remains, the second tiebreaker will be utilized.

2. Second Tiebreaker: The second tiebreaker will be the highest average score for the selection criterion “Significance.” If a tie remains, the third tiebreaker will be utilized.

3. Third Tiebreaker: The third tiebreaker will be the highest average score for the competitive preference priority. If a tie remains, the fourth tiebreaker will be utilized.

4. Fourth Tiebreaker: The fourth tiebreaker will be the applicant that proposes the highest level of savings for students in response to Absolute Priority 3 and the Annual Performance Reporting requirements. Applicants must indicate the projected direct cost savings for students in the one-page abstract. If a tie remains, the fifth tiebreaker will be utilized.

5. Fifth Tiebreaker: The fifth tiebreaker will be the applicant that promotes equitable geographic distribution of OTP grantees.

UNDERSTANDING

INDIRECT COST

The Federal Register is the official application submission guide. This webinar only provides technical assistance.

INDIRECT COST

APPLICABLE INDIRECT COST RATE TYPE

• This program uses an unrestricted indirect cost rate.

• For more information regarding indirect costs, please see https://www2.ed.gov/about/office s/list/ocfo/intro.html or contact indirectcostdivision@ed.gov

REGULATIONS & GUIDANCE

UNIFORM GUIDANCE

• 2 CFR 200 SUBPART E

• FAQS: https://www.cfo.gov/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/2014-

11-26-Frequently-Asked-Questions.pdf

DEPARTMENTAL REGULATIONS

• EDUCATION DEPARTMENT GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE

REGULATIONS

• 34CFR 75.560 - 75.580

• 34 CFR 76.560 - 76.580

The Federal Register is the official application submission guide. This webinar only provides technical assistance.

https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocfo/intro.html mailto:indirectcostdivision@ed.gov https://www.cfo.gov/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/2014-11-26-Frequently-Asked-Questions.pdf

Budget Tips

a. Budgets should reflect the scale and scope of the project.

b. Budgets may not exceed the estimated range of $1,773,000-$2,125,000 but they may be below the estimated range.

c. Complete the ED standard form 524 and prepare a detailed budget narrative that includes the costs and justification of costs.

d. No cost share or matching requirements.

e. Scholarships and student financial assistance are not an allowable cost.

Please see the Uniform Guidance for all allowable costs/activities.

f. Unrestricted indirect cost rate.

g. Budgets will be evaluated by peer reviewers for relevance and appropriateness. Program staff will also review budgets to ensure that proposed costs are justifiable, reasonable and allowable.

The Federal Register is the official application submission guide. This webinar only provides technical assistance.

https://www2.ed.gov/policy/fund/guid/uniform-guidance/index.html

Performance Measures

The Federal Register is the official application submission guide. This webinar only provides technical assistance.

PERFORMANCE

MEASURES

• As required by GPRA, the Department of Education has prepared a strategic plan for 2022-

2026. This plan reflects the Department’s priorities and integrates them with its mission and program authorities and describes how the Department will work to improve education for all children and adults in the U.S. The Department’s goals, as listed in the plan.

• The performance measures for the Open Textbooks Pilot Program are part of the

Department’s plan for meeting Goal 4. Goal 4: Increase postsecondary value by focusing on equity-conscious strategies to address access to high-quality institutions, affordability, completion, post-enrollment success, and support for inclusive institutions.

• Within every program in the Department, we identify measures that when aggregated help inform us and the public of progress and performance toward reaching the purpose of the program.

• The applicant should also propose performance measures that produce data about the desired outcomes.

• As a grantee, you will submit an annual performance report each year to ED that will provide information to track and evaluate your progress towards your goals and objectives;

the performance-specific measures, and performance targets in your approved application.The Federal Register is the official application submission guide. This webinar only provides

THE PERFORMANCE INDICATORS FOR THE OTP PROGRAM ARE:

a. The number of students who enrolled in courses that use open textbooks and/or ancillary materials developed through the grant;

b. The number of students who completed courses that used open textbooks and/or ancillary materials developed through the grant;

c. The failure rate or withdrawal rate in courses that use open textbooks and/or ancillary materials compared with equivalent courses that used commercial textbooks;

d. The average grade of students who completed a course that used open textbooks and/or ancillary materials developed through the grant compared with the equivalent average grade of students who used commercial textbooks;

e. The number of faculty/instructors that use open textbooks and/or ancillary materials developed through the grant;

The Federal Register is the official application

THE PERFORMANCE INDICATORS FOR THE OTP PROGRAM ARE:

f. The number of institutions within the consortium, and the number of institutions outside of the consortium, that adopted the open textbooks and/or ancillary materials developed through the grant;

g. The number of courses among consortium members that adopted the open textbooks and/or ancillary materials developed through the grant, compared to those that continued to use commercial textbooks;

h. The number of faculty/instructors or institutions that use tools for revising and remixing open educational resources content to facilitate adoption of open textbooks and/or ancillary materials developed through the grant;

i. The average cost savings per student; and

j. The total cost savings for students who used open textbooks and/or ancillary materials developed through the grant compared to students in the same course of study who used traditional textbooks.

The Federal Register is the official application

Planning Your Grant Application

The Federal Register is the official application submission guide. This webinar only provides technical assistance.

PLANNING

YOUR GRANT

APPLICATION

• Think about the OER gaps that already exist.

• Identify goals and activities for your proposed project, especially how they will focus on creating or expanding open educational resources for students, making OER materials accessible and customizable, how to maximize interoperability, exchange, and reuse, and how your OER materials will conform to industry-recognized open standards and specifications.

• Analyze every proposed activity to ensure that it is attainable, meaningful, and measurable.

• Choose metrics and evaluation methods that will produce evidence about the impact of open textbooks on instruction, learning, course outcomes, and education costs and use the identified performance measures to build your project assessments.The Federal Register is the official application

APPLICATION

• Work towards sustainability of your project and materials. Consider how you will continue to address those gaps or update OER materials.

regardless of funding.

• Consider how you will promote awareness and adoption of the open textbooks, as well as how you will share, collaborate, and disseminate these materials.

• Dedicate adequate personnel, resources and time to developing open educational resources, including clearly outlining the roles and responsibilities of your consortium members.The Federal Register is the official application

APPLICATION

• Be realistic and straightforward about every aspect of your project design.

• Design activities and services that are manageable and directly addressyour identified challenges and issues.

• Knowyour budget and ensure that all costs are allowable, allocable, and reasonable.

• Forecast and create an implementation and management plan that is realistic.

The Federal Register is the official application

APPLICATION

• We recommend a limit to no more than 60 pages. This only applies to the application narrative and does not apply to the cover sheet, budget section and budget justification, assurances and certifications, one-page abstract, resumes/CVs, bibliography, or letters of support.

• We recommend that if you are addressing the CPP, include no more than 3 additional pages.

• Double space all text in the narrative, including titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, references, and captions.

• Use a readable 12-point font (e.g., Time New Roman, Courier, or Arial).

The Federal Register is the official application

STRUCTURING

APPLICATION

• We strongly recommend organizing your application according to the selection criteria, so that the information is easily found by the reviewers.

• Remember reviewers will determine the extent to which the applicant meets the criterion, so it is important to be clear and concise in your responses, and that reviewers don’t have to search through your application to find the information.

• Ensure reviewers know exactly which criteria you are responding to.

The Federal Register is the official application

Review and Selection Process

The Federal Register is the official application submission guide. This webinar only provides technical assistance.

Review and Selection Process

• Applications are screened to ensure that they meet all the requirements of the program.

• Peer reviewers have expertise in areas pertinent to the grant program.

• All reviewers are screened for conflicts of interest to ensure a fair and competitive review process.

• Reviewers will read and score applications for each selection criterion, the competitive preference priority, and invitational priority, if applicable.

• A rank order of all applications is developed based on the peer review score.

The Federal Register is the official application submission guide. This webinar only provides technical assistance.

Submission Information

The Federal Register is the official application submission guide. This webinar only provides technical assistance.

Logistical Advice

• Register early: Grants.gov registration involves many steps including registration on SAM (www.sam.gov).

• Write clearly: Peer reviewers have only your writing to evaluate.

• Ensure that your IHE’s UEI number is up-to-date and active in SAM https://www.Sam.Gov/sam/.

• Submit Early: We strongly recommend that you do not wait until the last day to submit your application.

READ THE NIA. UNDERSTAND THE REQUIREMENTS. PLAN AHEAD.

The Federal Register is the official application submission guide. This webinar only provides technical assistance.

https://www.sam.gov/SAM/

SUBMITTING

YOUR

APPLICATION

IN

GRANTS.GOV

HTTPS://WWW.GRANTS.GOV/

• SEACH GRANTS FOR

• ALN 84.116T or

• LOOK FOR THE OPPORTUNITY NUMBER: ED-

GRANTS-031723-001

• You will then see all of the application information and instructions, including the NIA and application booklet, which outlines the checklist and formsyou need to fill out.

The Federal Register is the official application submission guide. This webinar only provides technical assistance.

https://www.grants.gov/ https://www.grants.gov/web/grants/search-grants.html?keywords=open%20textbooks

SUBMITTING

YOUR

APPLICATION

IN

GRANTS.GOV

• Electronic submission required through grants.gov unless you have a waiver. The application uploading process is time consuming.

Please submit your application early.

• Grants.gov applicants can apply online using Workspace.

Workspace is a shared, online environment where members of a grant team may simultaneously access and edit different web forms within an application.

• Workspace, Adobe Forms and PDF Files Required

• For access to complete instructions on how to apply for opportunities, refer to:

https://www.grants.gov/web/grants/applicants/workspace-overview.html

• If you have problems submitting to Grants.gov, please contact Grants.gov Customer Support at 1-800-518-4726 or email at:

support@grants.gov or access the Grants.gov Self-Service Knowledge Base web portal at: https://grants-portal.psc.gov/Welcome.aspx?pt=Grants

The Federal Register is the official application submission guide. This webinar only provides technical assistance.

https://www.grants.gov/web/grants/applicants/workspace-overview.html mailto:support@grants.gov https://grants-portal.psc.gov/Welcome.aspx?pt=Grants

The Federal Register is the official application submission guide. This webinar only provides technical assistance.

The Federal Register is the official application submission guide. This webinar only provides technical assistance.

The Federal Register is the official application submission guide. This webinar only provides technical assistance.

NOTE: THE FEDERAL REGISTER IS THE OFFICIAL APPLICATION SUBMISSION

GUIDE. THIS WEBINAR PROVIDES TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE ONLY

Application Checklist

Part I Application for Federal Assistance

(SF 424)

Department of Education Supplemental

Information for SF 424

Part III ED Abstract Form

Overview of how project meets priorities

Project Narrative Form Optional “Table of Contents” Responses to selection criteria

Other Attachments Form Curriculum Vitae (CV) Letters of commitment and support from all members of the consortium Bibliography

Part II Budget Summary (ED Form 524)

Sections A & B Section C “Budget Narrative

Attachment Form”

Part IV Assurances/Certifications

GEPA Section 427 Disclosure of Lobbying

Activities (SF- LLL) Grants.gov Lobbying

Form (ED-80- 0013)

The Federal Register is the official application submission guide. This webinar only provides technical assistance.

The Federal Register is the official application submission guide. This webinar only provides technical assistance.

Application Checklist: Part 1

The Federal Register is the official application submission guide. This webinar only provides technical assistance.

Application Checklist: Part 2

The Federal Register is the official application submission guide. This webinar only provides technical assistance.

Application Checklist: Part 2

Required Abstract - Clearly indicate:

• Each of your responses to the 3 Absolute

Priorities.

• Your response to the Competitive Preference

Priority (if applicable).

• Your response to the Invitational Priority (if applicable).

• The institutions that you are proposing to partner with for the purpose of meeting the absolute priority.

• Target population (e.g., faculty, staff, students).

• The services you are providing and the proposed activities to be conducted during the 3-year performance period.

• Anticipated results.

• Projected direct cost savings.

The Federal Register is the official application submission guide. This webinar only provides technical assistance.

Application Checklist: Part 3

The Federal Register is the official application submission guide. This webinar only provides technical assistance.

Application Checklist: Part 3

Curriculum Vitae (CV) Letters of commitment and support from all members of the consortium

Bibliography

Application Checklist: Part 4 Assurances/Certifications

GEPA Section 427 Disclosure of Lobbying Activities (SF- LLL) Grants.gov Lobbying Form (ED-80- 0013)

CALL FOR PEER REVIEWERS

• Those interested in reading for this program must register or (if already registered) update their information in G5 at www.G5.Gov

• Please contact OTP@ed.gov to sign up and for more information.

The Federal Register is the official application submission guide. This webinar only provides technical assistance.

http://www.g5.gov/ mailto:otp@ed.gov

Eligibility Questions

The Federal Register is the official application submission guide. This webinar only provides technical assistance.

QUESTIONS FROM THE FIELD

What do you mean by a consortium (as referred to on page 4)?

Please refer to the eligibility requirements in the NIA, but a consortium is comprised of:

• Three IHEs as defined in section 101 of the HEA (with one of the IHE’s or a State Higher Education Agency listed as the lead applicant/fiscal agent)

• An educational technology or electronic curriculum design expert (which may include such experts that are employed by one or more of the consortium institutions); and

• An advisory group of at least three employers, workforce organizations, or sector partners

What is meant by a State higher education agency?

• A State higher education agency means the officer or agency primarily responsible for the State supervision of higher education.

Can an institution that is the lead on a current OTP grant submit a new proposal as lead for this round as well?

• A current or prior OTP grantee is not prohibited from applying to this grant opportunity.

Can an IHE be the lead applicant for more than one proposal?

• No. Please note that if the Department receives more than one application from an IHE that serves as the lead applicant, then we will accept and process the application with the latest “date/time received” validation.

Can an IHE be included as a subrecipient or partnering entity of the consortium – not the lead applicant – in more than one proposal?

• Yes.

Can an applicant be part of a proposal where they serve as the “lead” for one consortium while supporting/advising as a part of another?

• Yes. You may be a part of two different applications, as such, if both were to be awarded. The expectation is that you have the capacity to meet the obligations as noted in the Notice Inviting Applications (NIA).

Does this program accept applications from IHE’s outside the U.S.A.?

• No. Eligible applicants are IHEs as defined in section 101 of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA)

(20 U.S.C. 1001). This does not include foreign institutions.

• However, you can make a subaward to a foreign non-profit. The foreign entity would need to be able to demonstrate to the grantee that it has a non-profit status under the laws of the nation in which it is domiciled.

This is necessary to establish eligibility for the subgrant.

• There are also no restrictions on who applicants can use as contractors as long as they have the capacity to provide services.

Is a state government agency for Higher Education eligible to apply for this grant?

• A State higher education agency is an eligible applicant. As established in the NIA, eligible IHEs (as defined under section 101 of the HEA) and State higher education agencies may serve as the lead fiscal agent of the consortia.

Can system offices apply on behalf of their institutions? For example, could the “State Board of Community and Technical Colleges,” an administrative body representing 20 community and technical colleges be eligible to lead a project?

• If the system is a State higher education agency, then they could serve at the lead applicant. If the system is not a

State higher education agency, then one of their eligible IHEs should be designated as the lead applicant.

Can a university or college system (and all the affiliated colleges in the system) be considered a single IHE?

• No. We do not provide the definition for a system within this NIA. An IHE is defined in section 101 of the Higher

Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA) (20 U.S.C. 1001).

Can 3 colleges in the same university system (but with separate tax IDs) collaborate to meet the requirement for 3 IHEs in the consortium?

• Yes. The eligible IHEs may be a part of the same system. Please note that if your system is not a State higher education agency, then one of your eligible IHEs should be designated as the lead applicant.

Can a state system of higher education incorporating 20 colleges and 10 universities establish a grants.gov account for submitting a proposal, and can the system office act as the fiscal agent?

• No. An eligible IHE from the system should be designated as the lead applicant. The lead applicant that will serve as the fiscal agent over the grant should submit the application on behalf of the system through grants.gov.

If an IHE partners with a “College Board” that is comprised of 20 community colleges, then is it necessary to identify 2 or more members of the community college system as “IHE partners” to meet the requirement of 3 IHEs in the consortium?

• Yes. All participating members of the consortium should be clearly identified, even those that make up a “College

Board.”

We have three community colleges in under our District, with the district being our legal entity. Would an application for our district that includes all three campuses meet the consortium requirements? Or would we need to include two other IHE’s outside of our district since our three campuses are part of one larger legal entity?

• All 3 campuses can be included as part of the consortium to meet the requirements, but one of the IHE’s must be designated as the lead applicant and fiscal agent in the application. Unfortunately, the district cannot be the lead entity/fiscal agent.

We are not an established consortia but are almost all members of one (Public and Academic Libraries together). Is that OK? We are all in the same area of our State. Is there a minimum number of libraries required? Do we need a formal agreement between interested libraries before applying? Can we add academic members after the grant deadline?

• There is not a minimum number of libraries to be involved in the project, but your consortium must at least include 3 IHE’s, an educational technology or electronic curriculum design expert (which may include such experts that are employed by one or more of the consortium institutions); and an advisory group of at least three employers, workforce organizations, or sector partners. The lead applicant must be one of those IHE’s or a State Higher Education Agency.

• You cannot add members after the May 16th deadline, but if awarded, you can add other academic members and partners to your grant. You need to consult with your Program Specialist when adding additional partners.

• Please clearly identify and document the member’s role, responsibilities and willingness to participate on the grant, as well as their qualifications/experience.

Application Questions

The Federal Register is the official application submission guide. This webinar only provides technical assistance.

Is it possible for the Project Director role to be split among two different individuals? (each at 0.5 FTE)

• Yes, but please remember to clearly outline their qualifications/experience, and their roles and responsibilities to the project.

Will this be an annual program? Will the timeline be the same next year?

• Unfortunately, competitions for this grant program are dependent on congressional funding each fiscal year. It is therefore not guaranteed that a competition will be held annually for this program. Furthermore, the timeline for each competition depends on when we are able to get the NIA approved and published in the Federal Register, so the timeline may be different the next time this competition is announced.

Is a third-party or external evaluator required for the project?

• No.

What is meant by an "educational technology or electronic curriculum design expert?"

• The individual(s) fulfilling this role in the consortium should be able to provide expertise in the design, development and delivery of the open textbooks and instructional resources. Ideally, the individual(s) possess the skills needed to create content for learning and have qualifications that facilitate designing, developing, implementing, and assessing instruction and learning.

Can the educational technologist or electronic curriculum design expert involved in the project be provided from a system level if the IHEs do not employ such a role?

• Yes.

Is a separate letter of commitment needed for the educational technology or electronic curriculum design expert that’s part of the eligibility requirements if that person(s) is within one of the institutions of higher education consortium partners?

• No. However, in your application this individual should be clearly identified and information regarding their qualifications and responsibilities on the grant should be provided.

If applying on behalf of a system that represents a very large number of IHEs, then is it a requirement to get letters of commitment and support from every single member of the system?

• No. For the purpose of this grant, the consortium does not have to include all of the institutions in the system in its application. As reflected in the NIA, there must be at least three IHEs in the consortium along with the other required participants. It is also acceptable to provide documentation that supports your large system arrangement and describes the system/consortium member’s willingness to participate on the grant. For example, a signed letter of commitment from an Advisory board that represents the system arrangement would be appropriate documentation.

Is a separate letter of commitment needed for each member of the advisory group?

• No. However, in your application the members that make up the advisory group should be clearly identified and documentation that describes the member’s role, responsibilities and willingness to participate on the grant should be provided.

For the “Technical Standards for Interoperability,” where in the application should an applicant identify the industry standard they will use?

• Applicants should identify the industry standard they will use for “Technical Standards for Interoperability” in the narrative section “Quality of the Project Design” within the Project Narrative Attachment Form.