Call for Peer Reviewers: FY 2026 Comprehensive Centers Program Grant Competition

Purpose

The Comprehensive Centers (CC) Program supports the establishment of Comprehensive Centers to provide capacity-building services to State educational agencies (SEAs), regional educational agencies (REAs), local educational agencies (LEAs), Tribal education agencies (TEAs), and schools that improve educational opportunities and outcomes, close achievement gaps, and improve the quality of instruction for all students, and particularly for groups of students with the greatest need.

The 2026 Comprehensive Center Program grant competition invites applications for the following types of Centers:

A National Center;
Regional Centers;
Content Centers; and
A National Center for Improving Literacy (NCIL).

For complete information about this competition, see the Application Notice and Instructions published on the program website and on Grants.gov for the following 2026 CC grant competitions:

National, Regional, and Content Centers: ED-GRANTS-050826-001
National Center for Improving Literacy for Students with Disabilities: ED-GRANTS-051126-001

Peer Review Information

Competition Name: 2026 Comprehensive Centers Program (Assistance Listing Numbers 84.283B and 84.283D)

Mandatory Dates of Availability: July 16-31, 2026

Deadline to Submit Resume for Consideration: June 19, 2026

How to Apply

Please read the information about the 2026 CC Peer Reviewer Process in its entirety. Please complete both of the following steps to be considered for this peer review:

Register as a peer reviewer in the Department’s grants management system, G5, at G5.gov, and
Complete the requested information and upload an updated resume or curriculum vitae (limit to five pages or fewer) in the Peer Reviewer Survey located at the end of this web page by June 19, 2026.

By submitting your resume, you agree to share this information with Department staff and contractors facilitating the grant review. The Department solicits Peer Reviewers without regard to race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability. In your email, please indicate if you wish to be considered as a Peer Reviewer or non-Federal Panel Monitor, and whether you believe you meet the specialized qualifications to serve as a Peer Reviewer for the NCIL or BIE Center.

Peer Review Process

The Department’s discretionary grants peer review process utilizes qualified individuals to review and evaluate applications for federal funding. The Department relies on its Peer Reviewers to use their professional experience, content knowledge, expertise, and judgment to evaluate, and score submitted applications. The peer review process is designed to identify and fund the highest-quality applications and create opportunities for the general public to participate in government and gain insight into the federal funding process. The process generally consists of:

Panel Assignment. Applications are organized into panels and assigned to Peer Reviewers for evaluation. Reviewers will be assigned to a panel consisting of at least two other non-federal Reviewers and one Alternate Reviewer and facilitated by a non-federal Panel Monitor. Each panel will review all applications for a single grant.
Training. Peer Reviewers will receive training on the competition requirements and selection criteria to prepare for the review.
Reading Period. During a Reading Period, each Reviewer will individually read, evaluate, and score their assigned applications. Alternate Reviewers will read and score all applications and prepare to participate in the panel discussion if needed.
In-Person Panel Discussion. Next, Reviewers will participate in panel meetings to engage in a comprehensive discussion of the applications with other panel members and finalize their scores and written comments. For this competition, panel discussions will be held in-person in the Washington, DC area.
Funding Decisions Final peer reviewer scores are averaged and arranged in rank order to inform the Department’s funding decisions. Final scores and comments are shared with each applicant following award decisions.

Desired Qualifications

The Department seeks Peer Reviewers from a broad range of educational backgrounds and experiences detailed below. Reviewers will be selected to review specific applications based on their experience and qualifications. Qualified reviewers should demonstrate relevant knowledge, understanding, and experience in at least one of the following areas:

Providing technical assistance, capacity-building training, or implementation support to education professionals and organizations, grounded in adult learning principles and focused on improving educational outcomes.
Education policy and program subject matter expertise in literacy, mathematics achievement, strategic staffing, school improvement, or other topics related to improving implementation of Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) programs.
Leading education research or program evaluation or applying evidence-based approaches to improve educational practices.
Operating and administering State and local educational systems.
Addressing unique educational obstacles faced by students from low-income families, students living in rural areas, Tribal students, English learners, students in foster care, migratory children, immigrant children and youth, and other student populations with specific needs defined in the ESEA.

Specialized Expertise

Practitioners: The Department is especially interested in Peer Reviewers who are current school, district, or state administrators and practitioners with specific experience:

Implementing comprehensive support and improvement activities or targeted or additional targeted support and improvement activities in Title I, Part A of the ESEA (ESEA sec. 1111(d));
Accelerating academic achievement in math and literacy (including high-impact tutoring, high-quality summer and after-school learning and enrichment, and effective interventions to reduce chronic absenteeism and increase student engagement);
Improving core academic instruction;
Implementing strategic staffing strategies; or
Developing aligned and integrated agency systems, educational interventions, and practices supporting public and tribally operated schools.

Bureau of Indian Education (BIE): Reviewers for the BIE Regional Center should demonstrate expertise or experience in at least two of the following areas:

Direct instructional and/or administrative experience in schools and/or districts with significant Native American, Alaska Native student populations.
Direct research and evaluation experience of K-12 programming with a specific focus on Native American, Alaska Native students.
Higher education administrators and faculty of teacher education programs who instruct Native American, Alaska Native professionals that will return to schools that serve significant Native American, Alaska Native populations.
Persons who have administrative, project management or other leadership experience which helps their understanding of what happens in the classroom and how it applies to teacher/administrator training for high proportion Native American, Alaska Native educational programs.
Responsible for partnership building between tribes and school districts/BIE funded schools.
Responsible for the retention and persistence of traditional and non-traditional college age Native American students.

Direct cultural, language, and/or educational K-12 program experience serving Native American, Alaska Native students.

National Center for Improving Literacy for Students with Disabilities (NCIL): Reviewers for the NCIL should demonstrate expertise in at least one of the following areas:

Knowledge of the Science of Reading as it relates to the literacy needs of students at risk of not attaining full literacy skills due to a disability, including dyslexia impacting reading or writing, or developmental delay impacting reading, writing, language processing, comprehension, or executive functioning.
Demonstrated experience implementing evidence-based literacy instruction, strategies, accommodations, and assessments for students at risk of not attaining full literacy skills due to a disability.
Demonstrated experience implementing evidence-based assessment tools and resulting data to identify students and improve instruction for students at risk of not attaining full literacy skills due to a disability.
Demonstrated experience providing technical assistance on evidence-based literacy practices to families of students at risk of not attaining full literacy skills due to a disability.

In addition to the specialized knowledge and experience described above, potential reviewers should also possess strong critical analysis skills, evaluative writing skills, and the ability to assess grant applications with objectivity.

Non-Federal Panel Monitors

Non-federal Panel Monitors will be responsible for facilitating the panel review discussion for each application assigned to the panel. They will read reviewer scores and comments, provide feedback, and work with Department staff to ensure fair evaluation of each application. In addition to meeting qualifications above, successful non-federal Panel Monitors will have:

Participated previously in at least one Department of Education or other federal grant peer review;
Strong organizational and time management skills;
Excellent writing and communication skills; and
Experience facilitating groups, leading discussion, and resolving conflicts.

Compensation

Reviewers will be compensated based on the number of applications reviewed on each panel. Generally, the Department estimates that Reviewers will read approximately 4-8 applications per panel; however, the final number of applications will be dependent on the number of applications received.

Reviewers will receive an honorarium of at least $400 per application** reviewed, evaluated and scored.
Alternate Reviewers will receive an honorarium of $250 per application reviewed, evaluated and scored. Alternates should plan to be available for panel discussions in case a Reviewer has to be excused from the panel for any reason. If the Alternate needs to act as a Reviewer, they will be re-designated and will receive an honorarium as a Reviewer.
Non-Federal Panel Monitors will receive an honorarium of at least $400 per application assigned to their panel.

**This is a minimum estimate. The actual honoraria may be higher, dependent on the number of applications received.

Requirements

Availability

This review will take place during the month of July 2026. Reviewers for the competition must make themselves available to participate in all peer review activities between July 16-31, 2026. The Department estimates that Peer Reviewers will dedicate approximately 30-60 hours, and Alternate Reviewers will dedicate approximately 30-45 hours to the entire review process. Approximate estimates for each phase of the review are provided below. The number of hours will vary depending on the number of applications assigned to the panel (estimated 4-8 applications per panel).

An estimated timeframe for the review is provided below:

Training (July 16 and 22). Peer Reviewers will participate in mandatory training sessions, read related program material, and submit required documentation to the Department before starting the independent review of applications. (Estimated time: 4 hours).
Reading Period (July 20-24). Peer Reviewers will independently review their assigned applications prior to the in-person panel discussions. Independent review includes reading, scoring, and writing evaluative comments. (Estimated time: 12-32 hours).
Panel Discussions (July 27-31). Reviewers will participate in in-person panel discussions about each assigned application. Following the discussion, Reviewers will revise and finalize comments and scores for each application. (Estimated time: 14-26 hours).

Please Note: The CC Peer Review in-person panel discussions will be held in the Washington, DC area during the week of July 27-31, 2026. Reviewers must be able to travel to Washington, DC to participate in the in-person panel discussions, arriving by the morning of July 27, 2026, and departing no later than Friday, July 31, 2026. All qualified travel expenses will be paid by the government.

Finalize Comments and Scores (by July 31). Once all evaluations are finalized and approved by the Department, the review will conclude, and Reviewers will receive compensation for the review.

Note: This is an estimated timeframe. The actual timing of the review activities will depend on several factors including, for example, number of applications received, reviewer timeliness in finalizing evaluations, or the need to reconstitute review panels. Once the review schedule is finalized, each Peer Reviewer, Alternate, and Non-Federal Panel Monitor must commit to the schedule in writing.

Technology

Some peer review activities will be conducted remotely, such as trainings and independent reading.

Each peer reviewer must have access to the internet, a phone, and a computer to participate. Peer Reviewers must also be able to interact within the web environment, and be basically proficient in using Microsoft Word, Microsoft SharePoint, and Microsoft Teams applications, or a similar virtual platform such as Zoom for virtual meetings and be familiar with G5 (www.G5.gov) (the Department’s enterprise grants management system).

In addition, Reviewers must be fully available for the virtual and in-person peer review process. Reviewers must be available for virtual meetings from July 16-24, 2026, and the in-person peer review panel discussions from July 27-31, 2026.

Conflict of Interest

Reviewers will be screened for conflict of interest. No individual with a conflict of interest will be permitted to serve as a peer reviewer for applications where a conflict has been identified. If you are affiliated with an organization that intends to apply for a grant, depending on the nature of your affiliation, you may not be eligible to serve as a peer reviewer.

You will have a conflict of interest if, for example:

You helped prepare an application, regardless of financial interest in the success or failure of that application;
You have agreed to serve, or you have been offered a position, as an employee, advisor, or consultant on the project; and/or
Your personal financial interest will be affected by the outcome of the competition, which would include any family members, employees, or associates of the project applying for funding.

These and other potential conflicts of interest will be addressed on a case-by-case basis once identified or disclosed.

Reasonable Accommodations

After a candidate is notified of his or her appointment as a Reviewer, it is the Reviewer’s responsibility to inform the Department in a timely manner of any disability that would require a need for a Reasonable Accommodations (RA) in order to perform the duties of the position. The Department will provide RA for a qualified individual with a disability so that the individual might participate in the peer reviewer application process. If you require a RA to apply to participate in this review, please contact the program office via email at OESE.compcenterspeerreview@ed.gov no later than June 12, 2026, to ensure we can properly facilitate the application process.

Questions? Please contact OESE.compcenterspeerreview@ed.gov.

Instructions to Apply

If you want to be considered for the role of a peer reviewer, an alternate peer reviewer or panel monitor, please complete the following steps. Submissions that do not follow the instructions may not be considered.

Complete the 2026 CC Peer Review Survey
Upload your most recently available resume or curriculum vitae in your Peer Review Survey response and ensure it includes a current phone number, email address, and street address. (Please limit your submission to no more than five pages.) The deadline to complete the survey is June 19, 2026.