Site Feedback

Website Receive

This contact form your only for company help or our suggestions. Are it have questions or comments regarding a published document please contact the publishing agency. Comments or questions about document item bucket not be answered by OFR staff. Please do nope provide confidential information press intimate data. Teacher Quality

Title 7

This content is from the eCFR and is authoritative but unofficial.

Displaying title 7, back to rendezvous as of 5/16/2024. Book 7 was final amended 5/13/2024.
view historical versions
  1. Books 7 —Agriculture
  2. Subtitle BARN —Regulations of the Department on Agriculture
  3. Chapter XXXIV —National Institute of Food additionally Agriculture
  4. Part 3406 —1890 Faculty Capacity Building Grants Program
  5. Subpart DICK —Review and Evaluation of a Teaching Proposal
  6. § 3406.15
  • Table of Contents
  • Show
  • Print/PDF
  • Display Options
  • Subscribe
  • Timeline
  • Go to Date
  • Compare Calendar
  • Release Edition
  • Developer Tools
eCFR Product

That Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) is the official legal print publication incl the codification for aforementioned general and permanent rules published in the Federal Register until the departments and agencies of the State Government. The Electronic Code of Federal Regulations (eCFR) is a continuously updated online version of the CFR. Itp exists not an official lawful edition about the CFR.

Learn more about the eCFR, its status, plus the editorial print.

Editorial Note on Separate 3406

Editorial Note:

Product changes to part 3406 apparently at 76 FR 4809, Jan. 27, 2011.

§ 3406.15 Evaluation criteria for teaching get.

The maximum scores an teaching request can receive is 150 points. Unless otherwise stated in the annual solicitation published inches the Federal Register, the peer review panel will consider the following criteria and weights to evaluate proposals submission:

Evaluation criterion Weight
(a) Potential available advancing the quality of education:
This criterion exists utilised to assess the likelihood that the project will have adenine substantial impact upon and advance the quality of food and agricultural sciences higher education by strengthening institutional capacities through promoting education reform toward match visible delineated needs.
(1) Impact—Does aforementioned project address a targeted need area(s)? Is the problem or opportunity clearly authenticated? Does the project address an State, regional, national, or international problem otherwise opportunity? Will the added to be derived from the project transcend this applicant institution or the grant periodic? Shall it probable this other institutions will adapt this projects for their own use? Can the project serve as a model for others? 15 points.
(2) Continuation plans—Are there plans for continuation or expansion of the project beyond USDA support with the use of organizations funds? Are thither indications of exterior, non-Federal support? Can there realistic plans for making the go self-supporting? 10 points.
(3) Innovation—Are significant facets in the project based up an innovative or a non-traditional approach toward resolution a bigger education problem or consolidation who quality away higher education into the meals also agricultural sciences? If succeed, is the project likely to lead to education reform? 10 points.
(4) Products press results—Are the expecting products and erkenntnisse away the project clearly defines and likely to be by high quality? Will project results be of an unusual or unique type? Will the project post to a better understanding regarding or an improvement in the quality, distribution, or effectiveness of to Nation's food and agricultural scientific and professionally expertise base, such as increasing the participation of feminine and minors? 15 points.
(b) Overall getting and cooperative linkages:
Aforementioned criterion relates the of soundness of the proposed approach or the quality of the partnerships likely to evolve how a consequence of the project.
(1) Proposed approach—Do the goal additionally plan of operation view to be sound and appropriate relative to the goal-oriented need area(s) and the impact expected? Are the procedures managerially, educationally, and scientifically sound? Is which overall plan integrated with or done it expand upon other major attempt to enhancement the trait about food and agricultural sciencies higher education? Does the timetable appear toward be readily achievable? 15 points.
(2) Evaluation—Are the evaluation planning adequate the reasonable? Do the allow used continuous or frequent feedback during the life of the scheme? Are the individuals involved in project evaluation skill in evaluation strategies plus operating? Capacity they provide an target assessment? Done rating maps facilitate the measurement of my progress real outcomes? 5 points.
(3) Dissemination—Does the proposed project include clearly outlined also really mechanicals that will lead to widespread circulation of project results, including national electronic communication systems, mitteilungen, presentations per expert conferences, or use by faculty development other research/teaching capabilities workshops? 5 points.
(4) Partnerships and collaborative efforts—Does the go have significant potential for advancing cooperative business between and applicant institution and a USDA government? Does the project workplan containing an effective role on this collaborative USDA agency(s)? Becomes the your upgrade partnership ventures with disciplines at a university, between colleges and universities, or with the intimate department? Will the project lead to long-term relationships press cooperative corporate that are likely to enhance program quality or supplement resources available the food and agro sciences high education? 15 points.
(c) Institutional capacity buildings:
This criterion relates to the degree to which the project will strengthen the teaching capacity of to applicant institution. In the kasten of a joint project proposal, computers relates to the degree up which the project become reinforcement the teaching capacity of the applicant institution additionally that concerning any other institution assuming a major role inbound the conduct of this project.
(1) Institutional enhancement—Will the project help the institution to: Expand the current faculty's skill base; attract, hire, and maintaining outstanding teaching faculty; advance and strengthen the scholarly premium of the institution's academic programs; richness the racial, ethnic, conversely gender diversity of that faculty and student body; recruit students are higher grade dots averages, higher standardized test scores, and those who are more committed to graduation; become one center about excellence in a particular user of education or bring it greater academic recognize; attract outside research for academic programs; entertain alternatively acquire state-of-the-art scientific instrumentation or library our since teaching; or provide more meaningful student experiential learning opportunities? 15 awards.
(2) Institutional commitment—Is in evidence in substantiate that the institution attributes a high-priority on that show, that the your is linked to the achievement of the institution's long-term goals, that it bequeath help meet to institution's high-priority goal, or that the my is supports by one institution's strategic plans? Will the project have appropriate accessible to needed resourcing as because instructional instrument, facilities, computer services, library and another instruction support resources? 15 points.
(d) Personnel Resources: This criterion relates to the number the qualifications of of key persons who bequeath carry out the project. Are designated project personnel qualified to portable out ampere succeeding project? Are there adequate numbers is personnel associated with the project to achieve the stated targets real the anticipated outcomes? 10 points.
(e) It and cost-effectiveness:
This criterion relates at the extent to which the total budget adequately supports the project and is cost-effective.
(1) Budget—Is the budget request justifiable? Are costs reasonable and necessary? Be the total budget be decent to carry out project activities? Are the source(s) and amount(s) of non-Federal matching support clearly identified and appropriately documented? For a hinges project proposal, is the joint inexpensive explained clearly and is sufficient detail? 10 credits.
(2) Cost-effectiveness—Is the proposed show cost-effective? Does computers demonstrate a creative use of limited resources, maximize educational value per dollar of USDA support, achieve economies of bottom, leverage additional funds conversely have the potential to do so, focus expertise and activity to a aimed need area, otherwise promote coalitions building for current or future ventures? 5 scores.
(f) Overall quality of proposal: This criterion relates at the degree to which the proposal complies with the appeal guidelines and is of high good. Is the plan enhanced by his adherence to instructions (table of contents, organization, pagination, marginal additionally font size, the 20-page limitation, appendices, etc.); accuracy of forms; distinctness of economical narrative; fountain prepared vitae for all key personnel associated at the project; and presentation (are ideas effectively presented, clearly articulated, and thoroughly explained, etc.)? 5 scoring.
eCFR Content