Comprh Centers Program 26 Grant Comp Nat Comprh Car on Imprv Ltrcy for Stdnts with Disab Pre Wbinr

This webinar focuses solely on information specific to the 2026 Comprehensive Centers Grant Competition for the National Center on Improving Literacy for Students with Disabilities. For pre-application webinars for other 2026 grant competitions on this program, please visit the Comprehensive Centers Program website at vet.gov. My name is Dr. Michelle Daly. I serve as the group leader for the Comprehensive Centers Program in the Office of Program and Grantee Support Services at the U.S. Department of Education. The Department is accepting applications through June 30, 2026 for proposals to establish a Comprehensive Center under separate application notices and instruction through this competition. The Department may make awards for a National Comprehensive Center, Regional Comprehensive Centers, and three types of Content Centers. One Emerging Needs Center is focusing on projects that are designed to strengthen core instruction through creating and supporting principles and other leaders in implementing strategic staff and models. At least two Field Initiative Centers with preference given to applicants submitting proposals to establish centers focused on evidence-based literacy instruction or strengthening core instruction through improving mathematic instruction. And one National Center on Improving Literacy for Students with Disabilities. Each center type has its own absolute priority and competitive preference priority and application requirements. Because these are distinct priorities, applicants must review the relevant application notice and instruction for each center type they are interested in. If an applicant intends to compete for more than one Comprehensive Center for their national, regional content, they must submit a standalone application for each center they wish to operate. Applicants can review recorded webinars reviewing the specific requirements for each center type on the U.S. Department of Education YouTube channel. This webinar will provide information for prospective applicants for the National Center on Improving Literacy for Students with Disabilities grant award. As a result of viewing this webinar, applicants should be able to identify the application requirements and expectations outlined in the application notice and instruction, or A&I, including, for example, priorities, application requirements, due dates, and review process of the 2026 National Center on Improving Literacy for Students with Disabilities grant competition. The funding opportunity number associated with this competition is ED-ED Grants-05-1126-001. The assistant listing number, or ALN, for this program is 84.283D. The funding opportunity listed on Grants.gov contains the full application notice and instruction for this competition. The application notice and instruction serves as the official announcement for this competition. Applicants should not rely solely on this webinar for information and guidance, should only use this presentation as a resource in conjunction with the official instruction in the A&I. Before applying for this grant, interested applicants should thoroughly review the A&I, which includes the application package instruction available on Grants.gov. Applicants may also review resources available on the Applicant Information page on the Comprehensive Center website at ed.gov. To support clarity through the presentation, we have listed several commonly used acronyms used in this grant competition. Eligibility for this program is established in Section 203B of the Education Technical Assistance Act, or ETAA. Applicants eligible for this grant include research organizations, institutions, agencies, institutions of higher education, or partnerships among such entities, or individuals with a demonstrated ability or capacity to carry out the activities described in the A&I. A group of eligible entities may also apply as a consortium in accordance with the requirements in 34 CFR Part 75, Subpart C. The Comprehensive Center Network, or CC Network, is comprised of three types of Comprehensive Centers, including a National Comprehensive Center, or National Center, Regional Comprehensive Centers, or Regional Centers, and Content Centers. Each Regional Center provides intensive, client-driven technical assistance aligned to state and local priorities and needs. These services help states select, implement, and sustain evidence-based program practices and interventions in support of improved educator practice and student outcomes, especially in math and literacy. The National Center coordinates client-driven technical assistance to address SEA, REA, TEA, and LEA priorities related to evidence use and implementation of evidence-based practices to improve student outcomes nationally. Each Content Center provides technical assistance on a specific topic of national and regional importance reflected across state and local needs and priorities. The National Center on Improving Literacy for Students with Disabilities, or NSEL, is a content center authorized under Section 2244 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as reauthorized by the Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015, All centers are expected to coordinate services, consult each other, and provide services to clients. The National Center helps facilitate collaboration across centers and support the dissemination of products and resources, information from the CC Network through the CC Network website, newsletters, and media. Funded by the Institute of Education Sciences, the nation's 10 regional education laboratories, or RELs, partner with educators and policymakers nationwide. REL work is change-oriented, supporting meaningful local, regional, and state decisions about education policies, programs, and practices designed to improve learner outcomes. RELs collaborate with state departments of education, school district leaders, and classroom educators and other education stakeholders to address their most pressing problems of education policy and practice. Their work includes high-quality, applied research, training, coaching, and technical support to educators and policymakers, and sharing information about what works to improve learner outcomes. Content centers, including the NSEL, importantly partner with RELs to disseminate the products of the centers to regionally diverse SEAs, LEAs, REAs, and schools. This partnership provides the opportunity to expand the reach of evidence-based literacy, resources and information for students with disabilities, and support the broader awareness and use of literacy tools, resources, and practice across regions. We will now review the funding opportunity description for this competition, starting with the priorities for the application for the National Comprehensive Centers on Improving Literacy for Students with Disabilities. This competition features one absolute priority and one competitive preference priority. The absolute priority used in this competition is for projects that propose to establish and operate a National Comprehensive Center on Improving Literacy for Students with Disabilities. It is from the Notice of Final Priorities, Requirements, and Definition, published in the Federal Register on May 8, 2026. The competitive preference priority, or CPP, is returning education to the states. An applicant may receive up to 10 points for the CPP. It is from the Final Priorities and Definition, Secretary's Supplemental Priorities and Definition, published in the Federal Register on September 9, 2025. Applicants should review the ANI for specific information and how to meet the absolute priority and competitive preference priority for the National Comprehensive Center on Improving Literacy for Students with Disabilities. For this competition, the absolute priority is National Comprehensive Center on Improving Literacy for Students with Disabilities. Applicants must directly address this priority to be considered for funding. Let's review the details for the absolute priority for the National Comprehensive Center for Students with Disabilities. As a reminder, the full text for this absolute priority is included in the ANI. I will highlight several aspects of this priority. This priority is for projects that propose to establish a content center to provide technical assistance on a specific topic of national or regional importance, reflected across state and local needs and priorities. Content centers must provide high-quality, useful and relevant, client-driven, targeted, and universal capacity-building services to SEA, REA, TEA, LEA, and for the ENSIL family clients. These services must be designed to build state and local capacity and improve educational opportunities, educator practice, and student outcomes related to their specific topic area. To meet this priority, an applicant must propose to establish and operate a National Comprehensive Center on Improving Literacy for Students with Disabilities This priority further elaborates several core responsibilities that must be accomplished by the Center. One of the core responsibilities of the ENSIL is to identify or develop free or low-cost literacy assessment tools. These tools must help educators accurately identify students who are at risk for not attaining full literacy skills due to a disability. The focus is on assessments that are evidence-based, accessible, and appropriate for early detection. The Center must also identify evidence-based instructional approaches and strategies tailored to students with disabilities. This includes accommodations and assistive technology designed to meet the specific literacy needs of these learners. The goal is to ensure that educators have practical, research-supported tools to improve literacy outcomes. A critical component of the Center's work is providing clear, accessible information to families. Families must be equipped with resources to help them understand their child's literacy needs and support learning at home. This ensures that support for students extends beyond the classroom. The Center must also develop or identify evidence-based professional development for teachers, paraprofessionals, principals, school leaders, and specialized instructional staff. Training must enable educators to recognize early indicators of students at risk of literacy challenges due to a disability, use evidence-based screening assessments for early identification beginning in elementary and kindergarten, implement evidence-based instruction tailored for the specific literacy needs of these students, and finally, the Center must disseminate its products and resources nationally to SEAs, REAs, and schools across the diverse region. Dissemination should leverage partnership with other comprehensive centers and regional educational laboratories to maximize reach and impact. There is one competitive preference priority for this competition for the National Comprehensive Center on Improving Literacy for Students with Disabilities. To ensure the proposals for comprehensive centers meet the needs of the states they are intended to serve, the Department has included Competitive Preference Priority 1, Returning Education to the States. This is not a requirement. It is in addition to the points an advocate earns through selection criteria. In this competition, the Department will award 10 additional competitive preference points to projects or proposals that will be carried out by state educational agencies, tribal educational agencies, entities identified, designated, or endorsed by a governor or chief state educational official, or a consortium of such entities. This means the advocate for the award must meet one of these criteria to qualify for the 10 competitive preference points. Any application that the Department determines meets one or more of these four criteria will be awarded the competitive preference points. Advocates will not be awarded more points for meeting more of the criteria. To meet the criterion for the entity identified, designated, or endorsed by a governor or chief state educational official, advocates must include specific evidence that a governor or chief state official has identified, designated, or endorsed its project. Specific evidence should include a letter of endorsement, an official letterhead signed by the governor or chief state educational official, and should be included with the application at the time of submission. The letters should clearly indicate the state's support for the proposal. States may choose to endorse more than one proposal for a given competition that they believe would meet their need. Advocates need at least one state endorsement to qualify under this criterion. Please note, if the Department is unable to clearly identify an identification, designation, or endorsement by a governor or chief state educational official, the Department may determine that the application does not meet the CCP under this criterion and the points would not be awarded. Advocates should clearly review the ANI for detailed guidance on meeting all absolute and competitive preference priority requirements. Next, we will review the program requirements that apply to the National Comprehensive Center on Improving Literacy for Students with Disability during competition. The program requirements are established in the Comprehensive Centers Program Final Priority Requirements and Definition published in the Federal Register on May 8, 2026. Program requirements are generally described requirements of grantees under this program. They are addressed after grant award and are further detailed in a cooperative agreement between the grantee and the Department. There are five general program requirements that apply to all centers and four program requirements that only apply to content centers. Advocates should be aware of the program requirements and should consider how they would meet these requirements if they receive the award to operate an NSEL. Centers must design and deliver capacity-building services that are streamlined, responsive, and tailored to specific state and local needs. Services must be developed in partnership with beneficiaries and aligned to the desired outcome. This ensures that clients drive the priorities and work of the centers and that center work is responsive to client needs. Centers must demonstrate that clients were actively engaged in defining proposed services. Centers must secure and document client and partnership commitments to annual service plans. Centers must implement a performance management and evaluation system that integrates continuous improvement to promote achievement of client outcomes. Systems must track progress towards agreed-upon short-, mid-, and long-term outcomes, outputs, and milestones, reach, use, and impact of services, client satisfaction, and changes in client context that may influence project success. Clients must also measure and report on defined program performance measures, which are listed in the ANI. And finally, centers are required to participate in the Department's National Evaluation of the Comprehensive Centers Program, which is required in the ETAA. In addition to the program requirements for all centers, there are four additional program requirements for the National Center on Improving Literacy for Students with Disabilities. The next slide provides an abbreviated overview of these program requirements. In developing its annual service plan, NSEL must consult and integrate feedback from states, CC clients, families, the department, national and regional centers, and other department-funded centers that support improving literacy instructions. This feedback must meaningfully form the tools, resources, and technical systems to ensure services reflect priority needs across stakeholders. Centers must partner with the national and regional centers as needed to support state-improving literacy instruction for students with disabilities. This may include developing and implementing state learning agendas, addressing state requests for assistance within each region, strengthening regional center staff capacity regarding evidence-based practices aligned to content centers' focus area. Centers must establish formal partnership agreements with the national centers, regional centers, and relevant department-funded TA providers. Agreements must outline processes for meeting Comprehensive Centers Program requirements and must be submitted to the department after the award. Finally, based on the complex relationship-driven nature of the work of the Comprehensive Centers, grantees are required to demonstrate dedicated leadership with the capacity to effectively manage all aspects of the center's operation. The project director must be able to manage all aspects of the center at a minimum of 0.5 FTE, ensuring a sufficient time and capacity to oversee program implementation, coordination, and results. Otherwise, centers may appoint two co-project directors or a director and deputy who together must serve at a minimum of 0.75 FTE collectively. Advocates should describe the proposed leadership structure for the center in their application and explain how the organizational leadership would effectively manage the project according to the needs of the program. As a reminder, these are requirements that grantees must meet post-award. Advocates should consider how they will meet these requirements if awarded a National Comprehensive Center on Literacy for Students with Disabilities grant. Please refer to the A&I for a comprehensive text of the program requirements for the center. We will now review the application requirements, which are requirements that advocates must address in their application for a National Center on Improving Literacy for Students with Disabilities grant award. The application requirements are established in the Comprehensive Centers Program Final Priority Requirements and Definition on Grants.gov that was published on May 8, 2026. Application requirements describe the requirements of applicants on the program. They must be addressed in the grant application. There are seven general application requirements that apply to all centers and three application requirements only for content centers. Advocates should clearly review the application requirements in A&I and make sure the application narrative addresses each application requirement. The application requirements correspond to the selection criteria that will be used to evaluate your proposal. There are seven general application requirements for all centers. Please refer to the A&I for the comprehensive description of each application requirements. Advocates must clearly describe their approach to capacity building services supported by a logic model, evidence-based, and well-defined strategies. The application must demonstrate expertise in past success delivering effective capacity building services, qualifications of key personnel, expected impact on the SEAs, REAs, TEAs, and LEAs in schools, and how impact will be measured and how services will be addressed, the needs of students with the greatest needs as defined in Section 203E of the ETAA. Advocates must outline a process for working in partnership with CC clients to identify the most urgent educational challenges. This process must ensure challenges are supported by data and evidence and reflect state and local priorities. Advocates must describe how they will measure and monitor client progress in addressing identified challenges. This includes using data and evidence to assess outcomes across universal, targeted, and intensive capacity building services. Advocates must show strong expertise in delivering high-quality technical assistance, including knowledge of adult learning principles, culture models, and implementation science. Advocates must provide a budget narrative explaining the estimated cost for intensive, targeted, and universal capacity building services. The narrative must address cost effectiveness, show an alignment between proposed costs, and market expectations for similar services. Please refer to the ANI for the full description of the application requirements for all centers. Advocates must also describe the proposed leadership structure for the center and how the organizational leadership will effectively manage the project according to the needs of the program. The structure must demonstrate the organization's ability to effectively manage all aspects of the project, including strategic oversight, coordination, and compliance with program requirements. As a reminder, this is the applicant's opportunity to discuss how they will meet the full-time equivalency requirements for the project leadership. Advocates must include in the budget a line item for an annual set-aside for 5% of the grant amount to support emerging needs that align to the project's intended outcome. Advocates can incorporate this 5% set-aside in any way they choose and should describe their approach in the budget narrative. There are three additional application requirements for content centers. Advocates for ENSIL must propose a clear approach for delivering capacity building services that respond to clients' identified needs and priorities. The approach must show how the center will amplify the use of evidence-based practice, products and tools across practitioners and education system leaders, elementary and secondary schools, and LEAs, REAs, TEAs, and LEAs. The emphasis is on ensuring that evidence-based tools are adopted, used effectively, and aligned to the needs of diverse educational contexts. Advocates must describe how the center will provide universal capacity building services that are accessible to all states and stakeholders. This includes developing high-quality evidence-based products and tools, expanding the dissemination of these materials to practitioners, leaders, and policymakers, ensuring that resources are high-quality, accessible, understandable, and actionable, identifying intended beneficiaries for each product, and demonstrating that services are driven by client needs and co-developed with client input. Please see the definition in the ANI for the complete definition of universal capacity building services. Note, universal services should align with the broader CC network goal, making evidence-based resources publicly available and easily usable across regions. Advocates must clearly identify the specific educational challenges that projects intend to address. Challenges must be aligned with the priorities outlined in Section 203F.1 of the DTAA, which focuses on improving educational opportunities and outcomes for students with the greatest needs. The description must be supported by national, regional, and state local educational data and reflect state and local needs and priorities on the topic and how those needs are addressed through the Center's capacity building strategies proposed. Now that we've reviewed what each application should include, let's review the criteria peer reviewers will use to evaluate and score each application. The selection criteria for this competition are described in the ANI. There are three overall selection criteria within each sub-criteria that are scored individually. The selection criteria are Significance, Quality of Project Design, and Quality of Management Plan. As a reminder, the application narrative responds to the priorities in the selection criteria found in the ANI and should follow the order of the selection criteria. The maximum possible score for addressing all selection criteria is 100 points for ANSL. The maximum score for each criteria is included in parentheses following the title of the specific selection criterion. Each criterion also includes the factor that reviewers will consider in determining the extent to which an applicant meets the criterion. The criteria are defined for each Center. We will provide an abbreviated overview of the criteria for ANSL here. Please refer to the ANI for the complete text of each criterion. The first selection criterion is Significance in determining the overall quality of the significance of the proposed project for the National Center on Improving Literacy for Students with Disabilities. The Secretary considers the following factors. First, the data presented, including a comparison of local, state, regional, national, or international data that demonstrates the issue, challenge, or opportunities to be addressed by the proposed project. The maximum score for this sub-criterion is 5 points. Next, the extent to which the proposed project is likely to build local, state, regional, and national capacity to provide, improve, sustain, or expand training or services that address the needs of underserved populations. The maximum score for this sub-criterion is 10 points. Note, in responding to the selection criteria factor, under Significance, applicants are encouraged to define underserved populations in the context of students identified for participation under the ETAA, namely those from low-income families and students attending schools implementing comprehensive supports and improvement or targeted or additional targeted support and improvement activities under ESEA Section 111D. The maximum score for the Significance criterion is 15 points. The second selection criteria is the quality of the project design. There are six sub-criteria. The secondary considers the following factors. 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 purpose of the program. The maximum score for this sub-criterion is 10 points. The adequacy of plans for ensuring the use of quantitative and qualitative data, including meaningful community members and partner input to inform continuous improvement in the operation of the proposed project. The maximum score for this sub-criterion is 10 points. The extent to which the training or professional development services to be provided by the proposed project are in sufficient quality, intensity, and duration to build recipient project capacity in ways that lead to improvements in practice among the recipient of these services. The maximum score for this sub-criterion is 20 points. The extent to which proposed projects would include coordination with other federal investments as well as appropriate agencies and organizations providing similar services to the target population. The maximum score for this sub-criterion is 5 points. The final sub-criterion for quality of the project design are the extent to which the proposed project is supported by the target population it is intended to serve. The maximum score for this sub-criterion is 5 points. And the quality of the logic model or other conceptual framework underlying the proposed project, including how inputs are related to outcomes. The maximum score for this sub-criterion is 5 points. The maximum score for the quality of project design criterion is 55 points. The third and final selection criterion is the quality of management plan. There are four sub-criteria. The first is the feasibility of the management plan to achieve project objectives and goals on time and within budget, including clearly defined responsibilities, timeline, and milestone for accomplishing project tasks. The maximum score for this sub-criterion is 10 points. The second is the extent to which key personnel in the project, when hired, have the qualification required for the proposed project, including formal training or work experience in fields related to the objectives of the project, and represent or have lived experience of the target population. In responding to the selection criteria factor on the quality of the management plan, advocates are encouraged to define target population in the context of the universe of CC clients. For example, SEAs, REAs, LEAs, and schools identified for support under ETAA to be served by the advocate. The maximum score for this sub-criterion is 10 points. Next, the third factor is a qualification including relevant training and experience of project consultants or subcontractors. The maximum score for this sub-criterion is 5 points. The extent to which the budget is adequate to support the proposed project and the costs are reasonable in relation to the objectives, design, and potential significance of the proposed project. The maximum score for this sub-criterion is 5 points. The maximum score for the quality of the management plan is 30 points. This concludes our overview of the application notes and instruction for the National Comprehensive Center on Improving Literacy for Students with Disabilities. Congress has appropriated approximately $50 million to the Comprehensive Center's program in fiscal year 2026, approximately $1.5 million of which will be used for a new ENSO award. The Department estimates funding for ENSO ranging from $1.485 million and $1.5 million for the first budget period of the project, which is the first 12 months of up to 60 months or up to 5-year project period. Funding for the subsequent budget period is contingent on appropriation level. Specific estimates of funding levels as well as the estimated range of the award for each center are in each center's application notice and instruction. Applicants should not request funding above the estimated maximums in the application notice for any project period. Please note that the Department is not bound to any estimates in the ANI. On behalf of the U.S. Department of Education, thank you for participating in today's pre-application webinar for prospective applicants to the 2026 Comprehensive Center's grant competition. For information about the application instruction and submission procedures for all of the 2026 Comprehensive Center's grant competition, please view the application resource webinar on the Comprehensive Center's program website at ed.gov. In addition, for pre-application webinars for other 2026 grant competition under this program, please visit the Comprehensive Center's website at ed.gov.