FY 2026 Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange (MECE) Program Competition (84.021C)

Application period: 6/15/2026 to 7/15/2026 Application Notice & Instructions (ANI) Contact: MECE@ed.gov

Pre-Application Technical Assistance Webinar

Please visit the MECE website to access the recording for this webinar, as well as additional competition resources.

https://www.ed.gov/media/document/fy-2026-mece-84021c-application-notice-and-instructions-june-15-2026-114231.pdf mailto:MECE@ed.gov https://www.ed.gov/grants-and-programs/grants-higher-education/international-and-foreign-language-education/mutual-education-and-cultural-exchange-mece-program-84021c#overview

Disclaimer The complete funding opportunity announcement and all information needed to apply, including the priorities and program requirements, are available on ED's website at https://www.ed.gov/grants-and-programs/grants-higher-education/international-and-foreign-language-education, and on Grants.gov at https://grants.gov/ search-results-detail/ 362705. The Application Notice and Instructions (ANI) on Grants.gov is the official document governing the grant competition.

https://www.ed.gov/grants-and-programs/grants-higher-education/international-and-foreign-language-education https://www.ed.gov/grants-and-programs/grants-higher-education/international-and-foreign-language-education https://www.ed.gov/grants-and-programs/grants-higher-education/international-and-foreign-language-education https://www.ed.gov/grants-and-programs/grants-higher-education/international-and-foreign-language-education https://www.ed.gov/grants-and-programs/grants-higher-education/international-and-foreign-language-education https://www.ed.gov/grants-and-programs/grants-higher-education/international-and-foreign-language-education https://www.ed.gov/grants-and-programs/grants-higher-education/international-and-foreign-language-education https://www.ed.gov/grants-and-programs/grants-higher-education/international-and-foreign-language-education https://www.ed.gov/grants-and-programs/grants-higher-education/international-and-foreign-language-education https://www.ed.gov/grants-and-programs/grants-higher-education/international-and-foreign-language-education https://www.ed.gov/grants-and-programs/grants-higher-education/international-and-foreign-language-education https://www.ed.gov/grants-and-programs/grants-higher-education/international-and-foreign-language-education https://www.ed.gov/grants-and-programs/grants-higher-education/international-and-foreign-language-education https://www.ed.gov/grants-and-programs/grants-higher-education/international-and-foreign-language-education https://www.ed.gov/grants-and-programs/grants-higher-education/international-and-foreign-language-education https://www.ed.gov/grants-and-programs/grants-higher-education/international-and-foreign-language-education https://www.ed.gov/grants-and-programs/grants-higher-education/international-and-foreign-language-education https://www.ed.gov/media/document/fy-2026-mece-84021c-application-notice-and-instructions-june-15-2026-114231.pdf

AGENDA

Program Information

FY 2026 Competition Overview

Applicant Eligibility

Priorities

Selection Criteria and Evaluation Plan Guidance

Application Checklist

Application Submission Information

Application Review Information

FAQs

Applicant Resources

COMMON

ACRONYMS

2 CFR 200/Uniform Guidance (The Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards in 2 CFR part 200)

AP (Absolute Priority) ALN (Assistance Listing Number) ANI (Application Notice & Instructions) CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) CO/AR (Certifying Official/Authorized

Representative) CPP (Competitive Preference Priority) ED (U.S. Department of Education) EDGAR (Education Department General

Administrative Regulations) IFLE (International and Foreign Language

Education) FR (Federal Register) or FRN (Federal

Register Notice) FY (Fiscal Year) HEP (Higher Education Programs)

IHE (Institution of Higher Education) IS (Institutional Services Division) LEA (Local Education Agency) MECE (Mutual Educational and

Cultural Exchange) OMB (Office of Management and

Budget) OPE (Office of Postsecondary

Education) PD (Project Director) or PI (Principal

Investigator) Pub. L. (Public Law) State (U.S. Department of State) SEA (State Education Agency) SHEA (State Higher Education

Agency) UEI (Unique Entity Identifier) U.S.C. (US Code)

ED/State Partnership

• In coordination with the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs at the U.S. Department of State (State), the U.S. Department of Education (ED) is soliciting applications in support of the administration of the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange (MECE) program.

• The partnership, formalized through an interagency agreement, leverages the State Department’s global reach and international education and public diplomacy expertise to advance U.S. national security and America First foreign policy priorities.

• To learn more, please view the interagency agreement and partnership fact sheet below.

Interagency Agreement Partnership Fact Sheet https://www.state.gov/bureaus-offices/under-secretary-for-public-diplomacy/bureau-of-educational-and-cultural-affairs/ https://www.ed.gov/grants-and-programs/grants-higher-education/international-and-foreign-language-education/mutual-education-and-cultural-exchange-mece-program-84021c#overview https://www.ed.gov/media/document/ed-and-state-department-interagency-agreement-ifle-partnership-september-30-2025-113005.pdf https://www.ed.gov/media/document/fact-sheet-department-of-education-and-department-of-state-international-education-and-foreign-language-studies-partnership-112461.pdf

Program Information

Program Purpose

• The purpose of the program is to promote, improve, and develop the study of modern foreign language training and area studies in U.S. schools, colleges, and universities by supporting visits and study in foreign countries by teachers and prospective teachers. The program provides opportunities for teachers and prospective teachers to improve their skill in languages, their knowledge of the culture of the people of other countries, and finances visits by teachers from those other countries to the United States for the purpose of participating in foreign language training and area studies in U.S.

schools, colleges, and universities.

APPLICABLE LAWS & REGULATIONS

Program Authority

• Section 102(b)(6) of the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961 [22 U.S.C. 2451 et seq.] (“Fulbright- Hays Act”).

• Explanatory Statement accompanying Division B of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2026 (Pub. L. 119-75)

• Note: Projects will be awarded and must be operated in a manner consistent with the nondiscrimination requirements contained in the Federal civil rights laws.

Applicable Regulations

•34 CFR parts 75, 77, 79, 82, 84, 86, 97, 98, and 99 (EDGAR)

•OMB 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.

•Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR part 200, as adopted and amended in 2 CFR part 3474.

•The Secretary’s Supplemental Priorities https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/22/2451 https://www.ed.gov/grants-and-programs/apply-grant/secretarys-supplemental-priorities-discretionary-grant-competitions https://www.ed.gov/grants-and-programs/apply-grant/secretarys-supplemental-priorities-discretionary-grant-competitions

FY 2026 Competition Overview

FY 2026 Competition: General Information

The ANI was published in Grants.gov June 15, 2026, with a deadline of July 15, 2026.

Download application package in Grants.gov by searching for the ALN 84.021C or Funding Opportunity Number ED-

GRANTS-061526-001.

More information and Application Guidance will be posted to the MECE program webpage.

Applicants are reminded that the Application Notice and Instructions (ANI) is the official document. You should not rely upon any information that is inconsistent with the guidance contained within the official document.

https://grants.gov/ https://grants.gov/search-results-detail/362799 https://grants.gov/search-results-detail/362799 https://grants.gov/search-results-detail/362799 https://grants.gov/search-results-detail/362799 https://grants.gov/search-results-detail/362799 https://grants.gov/search-results-detail/362799 https://grants.gov/search-results-detail/362799 https://www.ed.gov/media/document/application-guidance-fy-2026-mece-competition-84021c-june-26-2026-114284.pdf https://www.ed.gov/grants-and-programs/grants-higher-education/international-and-foreign-language-education/mutual-education-and-cultural-exchange-mece-program-84021c#overview https://www.ed.gov/grants-and-programs/grants-higher-education/international-and-foreign-language-education/mutual-education-and-cultural-exchange-mece-program-84021c#overview https://www.ed.gov/media/document/fy-2026-mece-84021c-application-notice-and-instructions-june-15-2026-114231.pdf https://www.ed.gov/media/document/fy-2026-mece-84021c-application-notice-and-instructions-june-15-2026-114231.pdf

FY 2026 COMPETITION OVERVIEW

• Application Notice & Instructions (ANI)

• Deadline/Closing Date: July 15, 2026

• Grants.gov Funding Opportunity Number: ED-GRANTS-061526-001

• FY 2026 Appropriations

• Estimated Available Funds: $10,193,170.

• Estimated Range of Awards: $2,550,000-$5,100,000 for the 36-month project period.

• Estimated number of awards: 2-4.

• Project Period: Up to 36 months https://www.ed.gov/media/document/fy-2026-mece-84021c-application-notice-and-instructions-june-15-2026-114231.pdf https://www.ed.gov/media/document/fy-2026-mece-84021c-application-notice-and-instructions-june-15-2026-114231.pdf http://www.grants.gov/ http://www.grants.gov/ https://grants.gov/search-results-detail/362799 https://grants.gov/search-results-detail/362799 https://grants.gov/search-results-detail/362799 https://grants.gov/search-results-detail/362799 https://grants.gov/search-results-detail/362799 https://grants.gov/search-results-detail/362799 https://grants.gov/search-results-detail/362799

FY 2026 COMPETITION OVERVIEW

• Cost Sharing: There are no cost sharing or matching requirements.

• Indirect Costs: This program does not allow indirect costs.

• Subgrantees: Under 34 CFR 75.708(b) and (c) a grantee under this competition may award subgrants—to directly carry out project activities described in its application—to entities listed in the grant application.

https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-34/section-75.708#p-75.708(b) https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-34/section-75.708#p-75.708(c)

PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS

Armed Forces Participant Preference

• In the selection of American citizens for participation in MECE grants, grantees must give preference to those who have served in the Armed Forces of the United States.

PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS

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.

https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-2/section-3474.20 https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-2/section-3474.20

Applicant Eligibility

APPLICANT ELIGIBILITY

• Consistent with Sec. 104(e)(1) of the Fulbright-Hays Act, eligible applicants are public or private nonprofit foundations, educational or other institutions.

• Note: “Public or private nonprofit foundations, educational or other institutions” include the following:

• Public or private nonprofit institutions of higher education (IHEs);

• State departments of education (including State Education Agencies and State Higher Education

Agencies);

• Public or private nonprofit educational organizations; and

• Consortia of such public or private nonprofit IHEs, State departments of education, and public or private nonprofit educational organizations.

• Please refer to the ANI for all eligible applicant definitions. If applying as a consortium, a group agreement (consortium agreement) that addresses the required elements of 34 CFR 75.128 and describes a rationale for the formation of the consortium.

https://www.ed.gov/media/document/rural-postsecondary-and-economic-development-rped-program-86116w-application-notice-and-instructions-fy-2026-114144.pdf https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-34/subtitle-A/part-75/subpart-C/subject-group-ECFR62b47a3afdf9b5d/section-75.128

DEMONSTRATING APPLICANT ELIGIBILITY

• Applicants should provide ample documentation regarding their entity type.

• Public or private nonprofit institutions of higher education (IHEs) should provide the applicable entity identification numbers for the institution(s), LEA(s), and/or school(s) that will be served by the proposed project e.g., (1) Office of Postsecondary Education Identification number (OPEID), (2) National Center for Education Statistics Schools Identification (NCES School ID(s)); (3) National Center for Education Statistics Local Education Agency/School District Identification (NCES LEA/School District ID(s)), (4) College Navigator.

• An entity may also provide copies of their articles of incorporation, license to operate from their State higher education agency, Federal program participation agreement, and/or accreditation certificates from regional or national accrediting commissions.

• Note: Applications submitted will be screened in accordance with the requirements in this notice to determine whether applications have met eligibility and other requirements. If it is not clear that an applicant meets the eligibility criteria, the application may be flagged as ineligible.

https://ope.ed.gov/dapip/#/home https://ope.ed.gov/dapip/#/home https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/schoolsearch/ https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/schoolsearch/ https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/schoolsearch/ https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/districtsearch/ https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/districtsearch/ https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/districtsearch/ https://nces.ed.gov/collegenavigator/ https://nces.ed.gov/collegenavigator/

DEMONSTRATING APPLICANT ELIGIBILITY

An applicant that is a nonprofit organization may, under 34 CFR 75.51, demonstrate its nonprofit status by providing:

1. Proof that the Internal Revenue Service currently recognizes the applicant as an organization to which contributions are tax deductible under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.

2. A statement from a state taxing body or the State attorney general certifying that the organization is a nonprofit organization operating within the State and that no part of its net earnings may lawfully benefit any private shareholder or individual.

3. A certified copy of the applicant's certificate of incorporation or similar document if it clearly establishes the nonprofit status of the applicant; or

4. Any item described above if that item applies to a State or national parent organization, together with a statement by the State or parent organization that the applicant is a local nonprofit affiliate.

Note: Documents related to entity type should be included in the “Other Attachments” section. In addition, applicants should reference their entity type in the abstract.

https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-34/section-75.51

APPLICATION SUBMISSIONS

• Multiple submissions from a single entity are permitted provided each application proposes a substantially different project and project directors (such as serving distinct populations, campuses, or project activities).

• An applicant may participate in more than one proposal. However, if both were to be awarded, the expectation is that the applicant has the capacity to meet the obligations for all relevant projects, as noted in the ANI and specified in the letters of support.

https://www.ed.gov/media/document/rural-postsecondary-and-economic-development-rped-program-86116w-application-notice-and-instructions-fy-2026-114144.pdf

Competition Priorities

Competition Priorities

This competition includes 2 Absolute Priorities (AP) and 1 Competitive Preference Priority (CPP).

The APs are required. Each application must clearly promote modern foreign language training and area studies and the principles of a Patriotic Education.

The CPP is optional. An applicant may receive 0 or 10 points for the CPP.

All priorities that are being addressed must be identified in the Abstract Form, the Project Narrative, and the Other Attachments Forms sections of the application.

ABSOLUTE PRIORITY 1 – FOREIGN LANGUAGE

TRAINING AND STUDIES FOR PROSPECTIVE

TEACHERS (REQUIRED)

From Section 102(b)(6) of the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961(Fulbright Hays Act)

• Projects that promote modern foreign language training and area studies in U.S.

schools, colleges, and universities by supporting visits and study in foreign countries by teachers and prospective teachers in such schools, colleges, and universities for the purpose of improving their skill in languages and their knowledge of the culture of the people of those countries, and by financing visits by teachers from those countries to the United States for the purpose of participating in foreign language training and area studies in U.S. schools, colleges, and universities.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/22/2451 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/22/2451

ABSOLUTE PRIORITY 1 – FOREIGN LANGUAGE

TRAINING AND STUDIES FOR PROSPECTIVE

TEACHERS (REQUIRED)

• A project may include one or more modern foreign languages.

• The Department has not compiled an official formal list of priority modern foreign languages and area studies for this MECE competition. It is the responsibility of the applicant to clarify in the application how the proposed project promotes modern foreign language training and area studies in U.S. schools, colleges, and universities by supporting visits and study in foreign countries by teachers and prospective teachers in such schools, colleges, and universities for the purpose of improving their skill in languages and their knowledge of the culture of the people of those countries, and by financing visits by teachers from those countries to the United States for the purpose of participating in foreign language training and area studies in U.S. schools, colleges, and universities.

• Congress did not define “foreign language” within the Fulbright-Hays Act, and this ANI does not establish a definition for this term. However, consistent with the analysis in Lujan v. United States Dep't of Educ., 664 F. Supp.

3d 701 (W.D. Tex. 2023), legislative history confirms that Congress unambiguously intended “foreign language” training “in United States schools, colleges, and universities” to mean any language other than English.

Conversely, projects seeking to finance “visits by teachers from [foreign] countries to the United States” could appropriately include English language training for those foreign participants.

https://www.ed.gov/media/document/fy-2026-mece-84021c-application-notice-and-instructions-june-15-2026-114231.pdf

ABSOLUTE PRIORITY 2 – PATRIOTIC EDUCATION

(REQUIRED)

From the Secretary’s Supplemental Priority and Definitions on Promoting Patriotic Education published in the Federal Register on May 22, 2026 (91 FR 30291)

Projects that are designed to provide an introduction to and understanding of the founding documents and primary sources of the American political tradition, in a manner consistent with the principles of a patriotic education.

• Projects may address one or more of the following topics:

• (a) United States Constitution, government, and civics.

• (b) United States history and geography.

• (c) United States military and diplomatic history.

• (d) United States literature and rhetoric.

• (e) United States art (architecture, painting, music, photography, theater, cinema, and sculpture, etc.).

• (f) The founding documents and primary sources of Western Civilization and the American founding and their influence on the American political tradition.

• (g) The influence of Western Europe upon the American political tradition.

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/05/22/2026-10347/final-priority-and-definitions-secretarys-supplemental-priority-and-definitions-on-promoting

• American political tradition includes the founding documents, essential principles of republican government, and historical development of America's government; key works of history, literature, humanities, and art; the influence of Western Civilization, such as ancient Greece, Rome, and Judeo-Christianity, on the founders' values; the history of Western Europe linked to the history and development of the United States; the influence of the founders' religious beliefs on their conceptions of liberty and government; and the founding documents and primary sources of the American founding (ideas, traditions, institutions, and texts essential to American constitutional government) with a focus on the first principles of the founding (natural law and natural rights), their inclusion in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and their development over time that has shaped America's culture.

• Patriotic education means an accurate and honest presentation of the history of America grounded in an analysis of the primary sources of America's founding, the principles that shaped America's founding, and how those ideals continue to influence the nation's aspirations today.

• Note: Nothing in these definitions should be construed as implicating a particular curriculum, program of instruction, or specific academic content.

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/05/22/2026-10347/final-priority-and-definitions-secretarys-supplemental-priority-and-definitions-on-promoting https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/05/22/2026-10347/final-priority-and-definitions-secretarys-supplemental-priority-and-definitions-on-promoting

• Patriotic Education is not limited to any single audience, nor is it intended solely for incoming international visitors. Instead, the priority focuses on supporting projects that strengthen understanding of American civics, history, government, and cultural foundations for the populations applicants propose to serve. Applicants have flexibility in defining their target audience, provided their project clearly aligns with the purpose and requirements outlined in the MECE solicitation.

COMPETITIVE PREFERENCE PRIORITY 1 –

RETURNING EDUCATION TO THE STATES (OPTIONAL)

Projects or proposals that will be carried out by entities identified, designated, or endorsed by a Governor or Chief State education official for purposes of implementing the project or proposal.

• Application Instructions: To adequately respond to this CPP, applicants should include a letter of designation or endorsement by the Governor or Chief State education official in response to Competitive Preference Priority 1.

• The letter may be submitted on the state entity’s official letterhead and signed by the appropriate official.

• Note: The Chief state education official varies by state, based on each State's education governance structure. Each applicant should refer to the state-level reporting structures in their state to determine who would be considered the chief state education official.

• Applicants should upload this document to the “Other Attachments” form.

• Note: Applications that successfully address the CPP may receive an additional ten (10) points.

• For additional guidance, please refer to the Frequently Asked Questions: The Returning Education to the States Priority.

https://www.ed.gov/grants-and-programs/apply-grant/secretarys-supplemental-priorities-discretionary-grant-competitions https://www.ed.gov/grants-and-programs/apply-grant/secretarys-supplemental-priorities-discretionary-grant-competitions

Selection Criteria

SELECTION CRITERIA

• The selection criteria for this competition are from 34 CFR 75.210. The maximum score for all of the selection criteria is 100 points.

• The maximum score for each criterion is included in parenthesis following the title of the specific selection criterion. Each criterion also includes the factors that reviewers will consider in determining the extent to which an applicant meets the criterion.

• Points awarded under the competitive preference priority are in addition to any points an applicant earns for all of the selection criteria in this notice. The maximum score that an application may receive under the competitive preference priorities and the selection criteria is 110.

• Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i), an application may be awarded 0 or 10 points under competitive preference priority 1. ED will not review or award points where an applicant fails to clearly identify the competitive preference priority that it wishes ED to consider for purposes of awarding competitive preference priority points.

• The Project Narrative is where the applicant provides detailed responses to each selection criterion, as the project pertains to each Absolute Priority, and if applicable, the response to the Competitive Preference Priority.

• Applicants should respond to the selection criteria in the same order as presented in the ANI. Applicants should clearly label each selection criterion and separately address each of the criterion for each proposed activity.

https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-34/section-75.210 https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-34/section-75.105#p-75.105(c)(2)(i)

SELECTION CRITERIA

SELECTION CRITERIA POINT VALUES

(a) Need Maximum 10 points

(b) Significance Maximum 15 points

(c) Quality of Project Design Maximum 40 points

(d) Adequacy of Resources Maximum 10 points

(e) Quality of the Management Plan Maximum 10 points

(f) Quality of the Evaluation Plan Maximum 15 points

Total Maximum Score Maximum 100 Points

Competitive Preference Priority #1 0 or 10 points

TOTAL POSSIBLE SCORE PER APPLICATION Maximum 110 Points

SELECTION CRITERIA – NEED FOR PROJECT

(UP TO 10 POINTS)

(a) The Secretary considers the need for the proposed project. In determining the need for the proposed project, the Secretary considers one or more of the following factors:

1. The data presented (including a comparison to local, State, regional, national, or international data) that demonstrates the issue, challenge, or opportunity to be addressed by the proposed project. (Up to 5 points)

2. The extent to which the proposed project demonstrates the magnitude of the need for the services to be provided or the activities to be carried out by the proposed project.

(Up to 5 points)

Project Narrative Tips

Need for Project

1. Present specific, quantitative data—not general statements.

2. Use current, credible, and clearly cited data sources.

3. Show comparisons that highlight the gap.

• Applicants should not simply provide numbers—they should explain how their target population differs from, lags behind, or faces challenges beyond appropriate benchmarks.

4. Choose data that directly ties to the core problem the project will address.

• Every data point should clearly answer the question: “What problem or opportunity is this project responding to, and why does the data prove as such?

5. Use visuals strategically.

• Charts or tables can illustrate disparities more effectively than paragraphs of text.

6. Connect the data to the story.

• What is driving the trend?

• Who is most affected?

• Why does it matter now?

7. Demonstrate severity, scale, and urgency. Applicants should clearly explain:

• How many people are affected?

• How significantly they are affected?

• What the consequences are if the need is not addressed?

Need for Project

1. Connect the need directly to the proposed services. The reviewer must easily see:

• Why these particular services?

• Why now?

• Why in this location or population?

2. Show demand or unmet need. Examples include:

• Long waitlists

• Insufficient staffing

• Lack of existing services

• Prior programs that were oversubscribed

• Community or institutional data showing unmet need

3. Use stakeholder feedback to reinforce need.

• Applicants can reference surveys, consultations, or community engagement activities showing that intended beneficiaries see the project as needed.

4. Be explicit and concise. Reviewers score dozens of applications—clarity helps.

5. Make the narrative “reviewer-friendly.”

• Use headings like “Local Need,” “State Comparison,”

“Magnitude of Need,” etc.

SELECTION CRITERIA – SIGNIFICANCE

(UP TO 15 POINTS)

(b) In determining the significance of the proposed project, the Secretary considers one or more of the following factors:

i. The extent to which findings from the project's implementation will contribute new knowledge to the field by increasing knowledge or understanding of educational challenges, including the underlying or related challenges, and effective strategies for addressing educational challenges and their effective implementation. (up to 5 points)

ii. The extent to which the resources, tools, and implementation lessons of the proposed project will be disseminated in ways to the target population and local community that will enable them and others (including practitioners, researchers, education leaders, and partners) to implement similar strategies. (up to 5 points)

iii. The importance or magnitude of the results or outcomes likely to be attained by the proposed project, especially contributions toward improving teaching practice and student learning and achievement. (up to 5 points)

Significance

1. Clearly identify what new knowledge your project will generate.

• Applicants should explain how their project will uncover new insights about educational challenges, underlying causes, or effective strategies, as well as advance theory, knowledge, and practice in the field.

2. Describe the learning agenda or research questions.

• What do you expect to learn?

• How does it build on or fill gaps in existing literature or practice?

3. Show how implementation experiences will produce generalizable lessons.

• Applicants should connect evaluation activities to actionable findings that can inform practice in a variety of contexts, consistent with expectations around replicability and theoretical contribution.

4. Provide a clear, intentional dissemination plan. In what ways will this enable others to implement similar strategies? Applicants should describe:

• Who the target audiences are (practitioners, researchers, education leaders, community partners)

• How information will be shared (webinars, toolkits, guides, workshops, publications, open-access materials)

5. Describe how materials will be user-friendly, replicable, and adaptable across settings.

Significance

1. Consider showing evidence of existing dissemination capacity.

• Applicants can reference past dissemination efforts or communication infrastructure if applicable.

2. Include feedback loops, such as plans for engaging communities and incorporating input from stakeholders.

3. Highlight outcomes that are meaningful, measurable, and aligned to real educational impact.

• Discuss contributions to improved teaching practice and student learning and achievement.

4. Use strong baseline and projected performance indicators. Applicants should describe:

• What will change?

• How much change is expected?

• How outcomes will be measured (e.g., instructional quality, student performance indicators)?

5. Explain the magnitude or importance of expected results.

• Connect outcomes to broader needs. How does the project advance broader program goals or fills a critical gap?

• Discuss why these results matter for the target population.

6. Show a clear causal chain.

• Applicants should create a clear logic between activities → outputs → outcomes, showing why the proposed activities will produce meaningful improvements.

SELECTION CRITERIA – QUALITY OF THE PROJECT DESIGN

(UP TO 40 POINTS)

(c) 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 one or more of the following factors:

i. The extent to which the goals, objectives, and outcomes to be achieved by the proposed project are clearly specified, measurable, and ambitious yet achievable within the project period, and aligned with the purposes of the grant program. (up to 12 points)

ii. The extent to which the design of the proposed project reflects the most recent and relevant knowledge and practices from research and effective practice. (up to 5 points)

iii. The extent to which the training or professional development services to be provided by the proposed project are of sufficient quality, intensity, and duration to build recipient and project capacity in ways that lead to improvements in practice among the recipients of those services. (up to 5 points)

SELECTION CRITERIA – QUALITY OF THE PROJECT DESIGN

(UP TO 40 POINTS)

(c) 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 one or more of the following factors:

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

v. The applicant's capacity (such as qualified personnel, financial resources, or management capacity), together with any project partners, to further develop and bring the proposed project effectively to scale on a national level during the grant period, based on the findings of the proposed project. (up to 8 points)

vi. The extent to which fellowship recipients or other project participants are to be selected on the basis of academic excellence (up to 5 points)

Quality of Project Design

1. State goals, objectives, and outcomes in a clear, structured format.

• Use headings such as Goal 1 → Objective → Outcome →

Performance Measure.

• Ensure objectives are measurable. Use quantifiable indicators

(e.g., number of participants, proficiency gains, number of lessons produced). Use the evaluation plan to reinforce measurement.

Refer to performance indicators and baseline/target values.

• Demonstrate ambition grounded in feasibility.

• Show how the objectives stretch the organization, but also show capacity to achieve them within the project period.

2. Cite high-quality, current research that supports the proposed approach (e.g., studies on language instruction, experiential learning, teacher professional development).

• Briefly summarize what the research reveals about the problem and how the project responds.

• If the program builds on past work, describe lessons learned and how they inform the current design.

3. Describe PD/training structure in detail—frequency, length, delivery format, content, and follow-up coaching.

• Provide a rationale for why the proposed dosage leads to meaningful change (supported by research where applicable).

• Explain how training builds long-term recipient capacity. (e.g., teachers return with new competencies, curricula, and classroom implementation plans.)

• Connect PD activities to project outcomes (e.g., improved teaching practices or increased integration of foreign language and area studies).

• Show that training content is aligned with the needs identified in the Need for Project section.

Quality of Project Design

1. Create a clear logic chain (e.g., how project activities → strengthen teacher practice → improve student learning).

• Describe rigorous, relevant standards guiding learning outcomes and how the project aligns with them.

• Explain explicitly why your services are likely to improve student results. Use relevant research or prior evaluation data if available.

• Show how progress will be measured using valid, reliable tools or assessments.

• Include specific expected student outcomes (e.g., increased proficiency levels, improved cultural understanding, enhanced course engagement).

2. Demonstrate strong organizational infrastructure— financial systems, prior grant management experience, and data capacity.

• Highlight the qualifications of key personnel (degrees, experience, accomplishments). Provide CVs or bios as the competition allows.

• Show ability to scale. Describe partnerships, networks, or dissemination systems that enable national reach.

• Reference past successful projects and what the organization learned about scaling or replication.

• Explain management structures clearly—roles, responsibilities, timelines, and monitoring systems.

• If partners are involved, describe their capacity as well and how they contribute to national scalability.

Quality of Project Design

1. Define the project participants selection criteria clearly.

• Use academic excellence measures such as GPA thresholds, academic achievements, recommendations, or relevant coursework.

• Explain the selection process. Include who reviews applications, how decisions are made, and what evidence of excellence is required.

• Demonstrate fairness and rigor. Describe how criteria will be applied consistently.

• Connect academic excellence to program goals.

Explain why selecting strong candidates increases the project’s impact.

• Include sample indicators (e.g., academic record, demonstrated commitment to teaching, language proficiency, prior scholarly work).

SELECTION CRITERIA – ADEQUACY OF RESOURCES

(d) The Secretary considers the adequacy of resources for the proposed project. In determining the adequacy of resources for the proposed project, the Secretary considers one or more of the following factors:

i. The relevance and demonstrated commitment of each partner in the proposed project to the implementation and success of the project. (Up to 4 points)

ii. The extent to which the costs are reasonable in relation to the number of persons to be served, the depth and intensity of services, and the anticipated results and benefits. (up to 3 points)

iii. The potential for the purposes, activities, or benefits of the proposed project to be institutionalized into the ongoing practices and programs of the applicant, agency, or organization and continue after Federal funding ends. (Up to 3 points)

Adequacy of Resources

1. Clearly identify all partners, contractors, and sub awardees in the Project Narrative and the Budget Narrative.

2. Be specific about the lead applicant and each partners contribution to the project (e.g., services, facilities, equipment, supplies, and other resources).

3. We encourage you to provide formal, signed support or commitment letters from each partner institution/organization.

• Commitment letters should briefly describe what services and resources partners will be contributing to the project.

• Tie partner expertise directly to project success. Explain why these partners are uniquely suited to support implementation—for example, specialized knowledge, access to participants, or relevant experience.

• Note: Applicants should list each partner entity in the abstracts and include the letters of support in the “Other Attachments” form. All attachments must be uploaded as a PDF.

4. Work towards sustainability of the project beyond the federal funding period.

Adequacy of Resources

1. Provide a clear cost rationale.

• Narratives should explain why each cost is necessary and proportional to the number of individuals served and the depth/quality of services offered.

2. Connect costs to impact.

• Applicants should articulate how investments translate into meaningful, measurable results (e.g., direct training hours, materials created, travel necessary for language immersion).

3. Emphasize efficiency.

• Applicants can highlight cost-saving strategies such as leveraging partner resources, shared staffing, or pre-existing institutional infrastructure.

4. Ensure consistency with the Budget Narrative.

• Costs mentioned in the narrative should align with allowable, allocable, and reasonable expenditures, as required in federal guidance.

Adequacy of Resources

1. Explain how project activities will become embedded in ongoing institutional practices.

• Sustainability plans could include curriculum integration, ongoing training cycles, resource repositories, or policy changes that persist after funding ends.

2. Identify which components the institution can maintain without federal funds.

• Applicants should outline specific activities (e.g., continued use of instructional materials, permanent adoption of new teaching methods, staff roles that become institutionalized).

3. Demonstrate institutional readiness (e.g., existing structures (centers, committees, offices, accreditation processes) that can sustain the work long-term).

4. Show partner contributions to sustainability.

• Partners may commit to maintaining programming, co-funding activities, or embedding practices in their own organizations. (This links back to the partner commitment criterion.)

5. Identify any long-term benefits that reduce future costs.

• For example, once curricula, materials, or training modules are developed, they have ongoing use without requiring significant future investment.

SELECTION CRITERIA – QUALITY OF THE MANAGEMENT PLAN

(e) 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 feasibility of the management plan to achieve project objectives and goals on time and within budget, including clearly defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing project tasks. (Up to 10 points)

Quality of the Management Plan

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

2. Dedicate adequate resources and time to the project components, including clearly defining the roles and responsibilities of the project’s key personnel, as well as pertinent project personnel at subaward/partners.

3. Carefully estimate the budget and ensure that all costs are allowable, allocable, and reasonable.

4. We do not determine the time and effort of key personnel. You should set the percentage based on what you deem appropriate and explain why. This should be well explained in your management plan and budget.

5. Provide CVs for all project personnel at the lead applicant institution/organization, as well as any pertinent project personnel at subaward/partner entities.

• If an individual has not yet been hired, it may be helpful to upload a job description.

SELECTION CRITERIA – QUALITY OF THE EVALUATION PLAN

(UP TO 15 POINTS)

(f) The Secretary considers the quality of the evaluation or other evidence-building of the proposed project. In determining the quality of the evaluation or other evidence-building, the Secretary considers one or more of the following factors:

i. The extent to which the methods of evaluation or other evidence-building are appropriate to the context within which the project operates and the target population of the proposed project. (up to 10 points)

ii. The extent to which the methods of evaluation or other evidence-building include the use of objective performance measures that are clearly related to the intended outcomes of the project and will produce quality data that are quantitative and qualitative. (up to 3 points)

iii. The extent to which the evaluation will access and link high-quality administrative data from authoritative sources to improve evaluation quality and comprehensiveness. (up to 2 points)

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE MEASURES

Program Performance Measure 1 The number and percentage of MECE participants in foreign language and area studies who increased their reading, writing, listening, and/or speaking foreign language scores by one level.

Program Performance Measure 2 The number and percentage of MECE participants who integrate foreign language and area studies content into their teaching or curriculum within six months of program completion.

Program Performance Measure 3 The number and percentage of MECE participants who develop or implement new instructional materials or lessons on patriotic education topics in their home institutions.

Program Performance Measure 4 The frequency and quality of outreach activities (e.g., workshops, presentations, publications) related to patriotic education conducted by MECE participants within six months of program completion.

Quality of the Evaluation Plan

1. A strong evaluation plan should be included in the application narrative and should be used, as appropriate, to shape the development and implementation of the project from the beginning of the grant period to the end. The plan should include benchmarks to monitor progress toward specific project objectives and outcome measures to assess the impact of the grant-funded activities. More specifically, the plan should respond to the factors listed in the evaluation plan section of the selection criteria.

2. Identify project-specific measures to build the project evaluation assessments.

3. Choose metrics and evaluation methods that align to the goals, objectives, and outcomes of the project, and that will produce evidence about the project’s effectiveness.

4. Discuss the potential for replication of the project and implementation in other settings.

5. You may work with an internal or external evaluator. You should select an evaluator that works best based on your project's needs and evaluation design.

Evaluation Plan

Working with an Independent

Project Evaluator

• The independent project evaluator should be involved in the project throughout the entire grant cycle from the proposal development phase through the project’s funding and implementation to ensure that a well-designed evaluation plan is developed and implemented.

• The independent project evaluator works with key project personnel to draft measurable objectives, identify appropriate progress indicators and benchmarks, and to formalize the data collection, calculation, and analytical methodologies.

• The primary role of the independent project evaluator is to provide technical support and expertise to the project in order to best demonstrate its progress toward achieving stated goals and objectives. The independent project evaluator may also provide support and guidance for the development of a dissemination plan to publicize the project results to internal and external entities.

• To ensure both the quality and the credibility of the evaluation, it should be conducted by a qualified evaluator with appropriate expertise and training.

• The applicant should provide a plan to ensure that the evaluator maintains sufficient independence from the project team, thus avoiding any potential or perceived conflict of interest.

Developing Clear Goals and Objectives

The evaluation plan should be limited to a few clear and specific objectives that are linked directly to the proposed goals of the project and that can be measured. The applicant/grantee should consider the following when developing measurable objectives and planning for data collection:

1. What will indicate or demonstrate that the project is meeting its goals? Describe the expected measurable outcomes.

2. What types and sources of data will best demonstrate that the project is achieving, or will achieve, its objectives?

Identify the data and its sources that can serve as indicators or benchmarks that the project is meeting, or will meet, the intended outcomes.

3. How will the data be collected? Describe access and frequency.

4. How will the data be analyzed and reported? Describe the methodology and key personnel responsible.

5. Will the results demonstrate the project’s proposed outcome and impact (e.g., an increase in qualified language instructors, higher graduation rate in international studies, better employment rate of program graduates, etc.)? Describe how the results may demonstrate short-term and long-term outcomes and impact.

Developing Evaluation Questions

An applicant should formulate evaluation questions that interest all stakeholders and audiences related to the proposed project and align the questions with appropriate information gathering techniques.

1. Who/what will change?

2. When will the change(s) take place?

3. How much change is expected?

4. How will change be measured, recorded, or documented?

Data Collection and Analysis

• In order to show change, baseline data should be included in the final evaluation plan. Applicants should determine if baseline data already exist and where to find them.

• Data collection instruments that are not readily available need to be developed. Data collection instruments may include surveys, standardized tests, exams, focus groups, and topic guides.

Institutions may have additional instruments that are specific to the proposed project.

• The final evaluation plan must specify the types and sources of data that will be collected and describe how the data will be collected, including access and frequency.

• The plan must also describe how the data will be compiled, analyzed, and reported, as well as the methodology that will be used and key personnel responsible for these tasks.

• The institutions should work with evaluation specialists to develop a detailed analysis plan to analyze the data and interpret results.

• In addition, the evaluation plan should include a timeline to delineate tasks and specify when and how progress benchmarks or indicators will be met. The timeline will help projects to stay on track toward achieving their goals.

Dissemination and Continuous

Improvement

• ED seeks information from the applicant on whether and how it has used project evaluation results and findings to inform its strategic and operational decision-making.

• The applicant should provide examples of the types of evaluations and studies that it has carried out in similar grant projects, and of…