U.S. Department of Education
GAINING EARLY AWARENESS AND READINESS FOR
UNDERGRADUATE PROGRAMS
FY 2017
Peer Reviewers’ Guide
Table of Contents
Program Overview…………………………………………………………………...... 3
Technical Review Process………………………………………………………………………..4
Purpose
Review Structure
Roles and Responsibilities
Technical Review………………………………………………………………………………...5
Timeframe of Review
Targets/Expectations
Receipt of Applications
Panel Structure and Discussions
Confidentiality……………………………………………………………………………………7
Conflict of Interest……………………………………………………………………………….7
Honoraria…………………………………………………………………………………………8
Partnership Grants Program Overview…………………………………………………...... 10
State Grants Program Overview…………………………………………………………...... 12
Selection Criteria……………………………………………………………………………….15
Application Assessment and Writing Comments………………………………...... 23
Record of Discussion…………………………………………………………………………...26
GAINING EARLY AWARENESS AND READINESS FOR
UNDERGRADUATE PROGRAMS
FY 2017
PEER REVIEWERS’ GUIDE
Program Overview
The Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs (GEAR UP) is a Federal discretionary grant program created in the 1998 Amendments to the Higher Education Act. The GEAR UP program is designed to significantly increase the number of low-income students who are prepared to enter and succeed in postsecondary education. GEAR UP provides six- or seven-year grants to partnerships to provide services at high-poverty middle and high schools and through the first year of college. The services include: providing information regarding financial aid for postsecondary education to participating students in the cohort, encouraging student enrollment in rigorous and challenging curricula and coursework, and improving the number of participating students who obtain a secondary school diploma and complete applications for and enroll in a program of postsecondary education. GEAR UP funding can also be used to provide scholarships to students.
The basic objectives of the GEAR UP program include:
· Providing benefits to an entire cohort of students for the full length of the grant (rather than pulling out individual students and providing services on a piecemeal basis);
· Providing information to students and their parents regarding college eligibility, cost, and availability of financial aid. Information can be provided as early as middle school and should be reinforced throughout the term of the grant;
· Providing intervention strategies or support activities to accelerate student achievement, including mentoring, counseling, and tutoring;
· Enhancing teacher preparation through staff training and professional development;
· Raising teacher expectations for their students;
· Using research-based practices that include careful, and preferably quantifiable, evaluative procedures and involve a continuous feedback loop for assessing and improving practices;
· Providing access to a more rigorous high school curriculum needed to prepare students for college. This includes creating more high level, college preparatory courses; upgrading teacher qualifications and preparation; and changing organizational structure of curriculum; and
· Building the capacity to sustain the delivery of intervention services and creating partnerships that will persist after the life of the grant. The partnerships will continue to provide support and educational opportunities to all the students in the cohort.
Purpose of the Technical Review Process
The purpose of the Technical Review (Review) process is to provide for an evaluation of each eligible application submitted under the GEAR UP program. We realize applicants invest many resources (i.e., time, money and labor) to develop grant proposals; as a result, we want to give all applicants a fair and equitable chance to acquire a GEAR UP grant. This process ensures that each application is given full consideration and a thorough review by a panel of experts.
Table 1. Review Structure
The chart below represents the structure of the technical review.
Competition Manager
Panel Monitor Panel Monitor Panel Monitor Panel Monitor
Panel Panel Panel Panel
Reviewer 1 Reviewer 1 Reviewer 1 Reviewer 1
Reviewer 2 Reviewer 2 Reviewer 2 Reviewer 2
Reviewer 3 Reviewer 3 Reviewer 3 Reviewer 3
Roles and Responsibilities
Peer Reviewer. As a peer reviewer, your task is to evaluate the quality of applications assigned to your panel and generate a Technical Review Form (TRF) to document your assessment. Assessments should be based on the selection criteria and program requirements. The GEAR UP Program selection criteria and program requirements are detailed in the application package. Please peruse the application package carefully and ask questions if there is any uncertainty. We ask that you evaluate the merits of each application independently and in an unbiased manner.
Your evaluation of each application should be supported by documentation drawn directly from the application. Always be conscious that your evaluation will form the basis of funding recommendations. Because your evaluations and comments will be made available to applicants at the end of the review process (with your identifying information removed), you should focus on constructive criticism that could be benefitial to unsuccessful applicants who may wish to reapply under the next competition.
We strongly encourage you to stay on task and adhere to prescribed targets that are presented below (Table 2). Your diligence is absolutely critical to the success of the Review. While we realize you may allocate time throughout the day to work on various tasks, you are under contract to be available between 8:30 a.m. – 5:00 p.m. Eastern, Monday through Friday. You should notify your panel monitor immediately if extenuating circumstances arise and you are unable to fulfill this obligation. Please note that the Department reserves the right to replace peer reviewers who are not fulfilling their obligations.
Competition Manager. A competition manager is an ED staff person who oversees the entire technical review process, providing guidance to panels and panel monitors.
Panel Monitor. A panel monitor is an ED staff person who is assigned to one or more panels to monitor progress, help panels accomplish tasks and stay on track. The following are duties that are specific to panel monitors:
· Ensure that the TRFs are complete with comments that substantiate scores;
· Monitor the progress of individual reviewers to ensure that reviews are submitted according to prescribed targets;
· Answer procedural questions;
· Facilitate panel discussions (schedule, convene and direct) and provide technical assistance regarding program requirements and selection criteria.
Contractor. The designated contractor provides logistical support during the technical review process.
Technical Review
The GEAR UP technical review will be conducted July 24. 2017 through August 4, 2017 using ED’s G5 e-Reader (G5) system. This system allows peer reviewers to input comments and scores and edit and submit TRFs to panel monitors who are able to review forms on-line.
You will have access to your assigned proposals via the G5 system on July 19, 2017. Please notify your panel monitor immediately if there are any issues with the proposals assigned to you (e.g. no/limited access to the G5 system or conflict of interest issues). Your panel monitor will contact you to briefly go over the setup of the Review, provide updates and establish a schedule for initial and onsite panel discussions.
During the first week of the Review, you will read, score and compose comments for each grant proposal at your location. Comments and scores must be entered into the G5 system according to targets presented below. Please do not “submit” evaluations - leave them in draft status. Initial paneling of at least two proposals must be conducted on Tuesday, July 25, 2017. Please note that the proposals will be numbered and you are expected to read and post comments and scores in a sequential order (from lowest to highest). Throughout the week, your panel monitor will review the comments for clarity and completeness. You may be asked to modify your comments and scores after each application is paneled and discussed. Targets for reading, entering comments and scores in G5 for each day and initial paneling are presented in Table 2.
Table 2. Targets
Date / Read, Enter Commentsand Scores in G5 / Initial Paneling
of Proposals
Monday, 7/24 / 2 proposals
Tuesday, 7/25 / 2 proposals / Panel discussions for the 2 proposals that were entered into G5 on Monday will be conducted.
Wednesday, 7/26 / 3 proposals
Thursday, 7/27 / 3 proposals
All scores and comments must be entered into the G5 system no later than 5:00 p.m. (Washington, DC time) on Thursday, July 27, 2017. Reviewers may be dismissed for not adhering to this deadline.
The second week of the review will take place at the DoubleTree Hotel - Crystal City, 300 Army-Navy Drive, Arlington, VA, 22202. Peer reviewers will participate in panel discussions, modify comments (as necessary/appropriate) and make final submissions once they receive the panel monitor’s approval. Peer reviewers will be required to panel and discuss each application before final submissions. Your panel monitor should be notified once comments on a particular application are in final draft. Again, please do not submit TRFs (leave in draft) until you receive approval from your panel monitor.
Peer Reviewer Orientation. We will conduct an orientation webinar with peer reviewers on Thursday, July 13, 2017 10:30 a.m. (Washington, DC time) to share pertinent information regarding the grant review, such as the purpose of the GEAR UP program, allowable activities and costs, the completion of the technical review form, selection criteria, the importance of independent evaluation, substantiating scores and comments, point variance guidelines, confidentially, conflict of interest, honoraria and other issues. The webinar will last approximately two hours. Only peer reviewers who participate in the orientation will be eligible to be selected to participate in the review.
Panel. You will serve on a panel of three experts who will review approximately ten applications. There will be an ED staff person (panel monitor) assigned to each panel to assist during the peer review process.
Panel Discussions. The purpose of panel discussions is to allow reviewers to collectively assess the quality of an application and finalize comments and scores. Panel monitors will facilitate panel discussions for each assigned application.. We recommend that peer reviewers spend no more than an hour discussing each application. Panels must submit a record of discussion form if reviewers cannot resolve significant disparities in scores or if the score variance among peer reviewers is eleven (11) points or more.
Receipt of Applications. A packet of information will be sent to each peer reviewer electronically. This packet will contain a panel sheet identifying the reviewers on your panel, assigned applications your panel monitor identification and contact information, as well as other pertinent information. Should you need a copy of the GEAR UP application package, it can be downloaded at: http://reviewgrants.com/gearup/reader. Immediately upon receipt of this packet, you should contact your panel monitor if there are any issues that need to be addressed, such as conflict of interest. Also, upon receipt of this packet, please go to http://reviewgrants.com/gearup/reader and download the three required forms necessary to participate in and be compensated for your participation in this review. Instructions on how to submit the forms are included on the Web site.
As a reminder – peer reviewers are not permitted to discuss any application assigned with anyone other than their panel monitor and other panel members. Further you may not contact program applicants at any time before, during or upon completion of the peer review process.
Point Variance. If a panel has a point variance in scores of eleven points or more (or a variance of five points or more for one criterion), the panel will be given the opportunity to resolve the disparity. Panels will be asked to revisit assessments--solely based on the selection criteria. If no consensus is reached, the panel must develop a Record of Discussion (see attached) that will represent the final position of the panel. The record of discussion will become part of the official competition file.
Confidentiality
As a reviewer, you may be privy to proprietary information, such as social security numbers, private addresses, and financial information. Since this information is not available to the general public, you can only share applicant information with persons who are directly involved in the evaluation and outcome of an application, such as the competition manager, panel monitor and your panel members. Also, your evaluation comments and scores must be kept confidential. Applicants will receive comments and scores once the grant review process has ended. In addition, you cannot make copies of the application for the purpose of distribution or future reference.
Conflict of Interest
Reviewers cannot evaluate an application when there are circumstances that may result in a conflict of interest. We want every applicant to have a fair chance to acquire a GEAR UP grant. A reviewer has a conflict of interest if one or more of the following factors exist:
· The reviewer has agreed to serve as an employee or consultant on a project for which funding is being sought in an application under review, or has been offered the opportunity to do so and has not yet accepted or declined;
· The reviewer’s personal financial interests will be affected by the outcome of the competition;
· The reviewer helped prepare an application in the competition, even if the reviewer has no financial interest in the outcome of that application;
· The reviewer has a relationship with an entity or individual that has a financial interest in the outcome of the competition, such as:
a) The reviewer’s spouse, his or her child, a member of his or her household, or any relative with whom he or she has a close relationship;
b) Any employer for which the reviewer has worked in the last 12 months, a business partner, an organization for which the reviewer has served as an officer, director, or trustee within the last 12 months, or an organization for which he or she serves as an active volunteer;
c) Any person or organization with whom the reviewer is negotiating for or has an arrangement concerning future employment;
d) Any professional associate – including any colleague, scientific mentor, or student – with whom the reviewer is currently conducting research or other professional activities or with whom he or she has conducted such activities within the last 12 months; or
e) Any individual with whom the reviewer has, or has had, a personal relationship where the nature, duration, or recency of that relationship would impair his or her ability to impartially review any application in the competition.
Please keep in mind that conflict of interest is not limited to just the aforementioned scenarios. It would be in your best interest to contact your program monitor immediately if there is any uncertainty regarding conflict of interest. If the program monitor verifies that a conflict of interest exists, the application will be assigned to another qualified reviewer for evaluation.