[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 132 (Tuesday, July 10, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31955-31963]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-14692]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Applications for New Awards; Educational Technology, Media, and
Materials for Individuals With Disabilities--Center on Technology
Systems in Local Educational Agencies
AGENCY: Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services,
Department of Education.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Education (Department) is issuing a notice
inviting applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2018 for
Educational Technology, Media, and Materials for
[[Page 31956]]
Individuals with Disabilities--Center on Technology Systems in Local
Educational Agencies, Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA)
number 84.327T.
DATES:
Applications Available: July 10, 2018.
Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: August 9, 2018.
ADDRESSES: For the addresses for obtaining and submitting an
application, please refer to our Common Instructions for Applicants to
Department of Education Discretionary Grant Programs, published in the
Federal Register on February 12, 2018 (83 FR 6003) and available at
www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2018-02-12/pdf/2018-02558.pdf.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carmen Sanchez, U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 5175, Potomac Center Plaza,
Washington, DC 20202-5076. Telephone: (202) 245-6595.
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text
telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-
800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Full Text of Announcement
I. Funding Opportunity Description
Purpose of Program: The purposes of the Educational Technology,
Media, and Materials for Individuals with Disabilities Program are to:
(1) Improve results for students with disabilities by promoting the
development, demonstration, and use of technology; (2) support
educational activities designed to be of educational value in the
classroom for students with disabilities; (3) provide support for
captioning and video description that is appropriate for use in the
classroom; and (4) provide accessible educational materials to students
with disabilities in a timely manner.
Priority: In accordance with 34 CFR 75.105(b)(2)(v), this priority
is from allowable activities specified in the statute (see sections
674(b)(2) and 681(d) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA); 20 U.S.C. 1474(b) and 1481(d)).
Absolute Priority: For FY 2018 and any subsequent year in which we
make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this
competition, this priority is an absolute priority. Under 34 CFR
75.105(c)(3), we consider only applications that meet this priority.
This priority is:
Center on Technology Systems in Local Educational Agencies.
Background: The mission of the Office of Special Education and
Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) is to improve early childhood,
educational, and employment outcomes and raise expectations for all
people with disabilities, their families, their communities, and the
Nation.
Over 40 years of research and experience have demonstrated the
benefits of assistive technology (AT) \1\ and instructional technology
(IT) \2\ for the education and development of children with
disabilities (see section 601(c)(5)(H) of IDEA). With the increased use
of appropriate AT and IT, more children with disabilities will have
access to the general education curriculum and be prepared to meet
standards for academic success (Ahmad, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Section 602 of IDEA defines an ``assistive technology
device'' as ``any item, piece of equipment, or product system,
whether acquired commercially off the shelf, modified or customized,
that is used to increase, maintain, or improve functional
capabilities of a child with a disability.''
\2\ IDEA does not provide a definition for IT, but for the
purposes of this priority, ``IT'' is defined as technology processes
and resources that facilitate learning and improve student
performance for all students.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite these known benefits, teachers, related services personnel,
and other professionals (collectively, ``providers'') vary greatly in
their knowledge of evidence-based (as defined in this notice) practices
(EBPs) for effective use \3\ of AT and IT (Bausch, Ault, Evmenova, &
Behrmann, 2008; Lee & Vega, 2005; Smith & Robinson, 2003; U.S.
Department of Education, 2010; Zhou, Parker, Smith, & Griffin-Shirley,
2011). At the same time, local educational agencies (LEAs) vary greatly
in their ability to implement systems \4\ that support the effective
use of AT and IT by children with disabilities and their families. Some
LEAs have robust systems in place that ensure the acquisition and
effective use of AT and IT by children with disabilities while others
struggle to meet the AT and IT needs of children with disabilities.
Moreover, the rapid evolution of technology often outstrips providers'
efforts to effectively support the use of technology (Bausch, Ault, &
Hasselbring, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ For purposes of this priority, ``effective use'' refers to
active use of technology to enable learning through creation,
production, and problem-solving (U.S. Department of Education,
2017).
\4\ For purposes of this priority, ``systems'' refers to
interrelated components (e.g., funding, professional development,
data collection, accountability, and quality improvement) that need
to be in place to support the identification, procurement,
deployment, and effective use of AT and IT by children with
disabilities and their families.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technology planning to develop comprehensive and sustainable
systems for effective use of AT and IT should focus on sound frameworks
\5\ that provide a process for providers to understand and meet the AT
and IT needs of children with disabilities and their families (Hartmann
& Weismer, 2016). Comprehensive and sustainable systems in LEAs for the
effective use of AT and IT must include: (1) A vision of how AT and IT
can increase access to educational opportunities, improve outcomes, and
lead to greater equity for children with disabilities; (2) practices
rooted in strong knowledge of how children with disabilities can
effectively use AT and IT even as the technology itself changes; (3)
ongoing opportunities for professional development for providers,
educators, administrators, and families in children's use of AT and IT;
(4) funding sources for appropriate low- and high-tech AT and IT
devices and services; and (5) coordinated programs to acquire,
maintain, and reuse AT and IT devices (U.S. Department of Education,
2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ For purposes of this priority, ``frameworks'' refers to the
theories, knowledge base, policies, and practices that form the
basic conceptual structure of effective systems. A framework is a
guide to increase the capacity of LEAs to understand, improve, and
implement effective systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This priority will fund a cooperative agreement to establish and
operate a Center on Technology Systems in Local Educational Agencies
(Center). The Center will increase the effective use of AT and IT by
children with disabilities and their families by building the capacity
of LEAs to implement comprehensive and sustainable systems for the
effective use of AT and IT. This priority is consistent with the
following Secretary's Supplemental Priorities: Priority 2--Promoting
Innovation and Efficiency, Streamlining Education with an Increased
Focus on Improving Student Outcomes, and Providing Increased Value to
Students and Taxpayers; Priority 5--Meeting the Unique Needs of
Students and Children With Disabilities and/or Those With Unique Gifts
and Talents; Priority 7--Promoting Literacy; and Priority 8--Promoting
Effective Instruction in Classrooms and Schools, published in the
Federal Register on March 2, 2018 (83 FR 9096).
Priority: The purpose of this priority is to fund a cooperative
agreement to establish and operate a Center on Technology Systems in
Local Educational Agencies to achieve, at a minimum, the following
expected outcomes:
(a) Development and refinement of a framework that incorporates
theories, knowledge base, and effective practices, policies, and tools
that LEAs can use to
[[Page 31957]]
develop or enhance comprehensive and sustainable systems for the
effective use of AT and IT;
(b) Increased knowledge of providers about evidence-based AT and IT
practices for children with disabilities and their families;
(c) Increased capacity of LEAs to develop comprehensive and
sustainable systems for the effective use of AT and IT; and
(d) Increased effective use of AT and IT by children with
disabilities and their families in the LEAs that have comprehensive and
sustainable systems for the effective use of AT and IT.
In addition to these programmatic requirements, to be considered
for funding under this priority, applicants must meet the application
and administrative requirements in this priority, which are:
(a) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under
``Significance,'' how the project will--
(1) Address LEAs' needs regarding useful, relevant, and current
information and training to build their capacity to develop and sustain
systems for the effective use of AT and IT by children with
disabilities and their families. To meet this requirement the applicant
must--
(i) Present applicable national data demonstrating the extent to
which LEAs have comprehensive and sustainable systems for the effective
use of AT and IT by children with disabilities and their families,
including gaps in the resources available to support LEAs in the
development of these systems;
(ii) Demonstrate knowledge of current educational issues and policy
initiatives relating to the effective use of AT and IT by children with
disabilities and their families;
(iii) Present information about the current capacity of--
(A) Providers to implement EBPs to improve the effective use of AT
and IT by children with disabilities and their families; and
(B) LEAs to implement components of comprehensive and sustainable
systems for the effective use of AT and IT by children with
disabilities and their families;
(2) Improve the effective use of AT and IT by children with
disabilities and their families, and indicate the likely magnitude or
importance of the improvements.
(b) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under
``Quality of project services,'' how the proposed project will--
(1) Ensure equal access and treatment for members of groups that
have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national
origin, gender, age, or disability. To meet this requirement, the
applicant must describe how it will--
(i) Identify the needs of the intended recipients for technical
assistance (TA) and information; and
(ii) Ensure that services and products meet the needs of the
intended recipients of the grant;
(2) Achieve its goals, objectives, and intended outcomes. To meet
this requirement, the applicant must provide--
(i) Measurable intended project outcomes; and
(ii) In Appendix A, the logic model (as defined in this notice) by
which the proposed project will achieve its intended outcomes that
depicts, at a minimum, the goals, activities, outputs, and intended
outcomes of the proposed project;
(3) Use a conceptual framework (and provide a copy in Appendix A)
to develop project plans and activities, describing any underlying
concepts, assumptions, expectations, beliefs, or theories, as well as
the presumed relationships or linkages among these variables, and any
empirical support for this framework;
Note: The following websites provide more information on logic
models and conceptual frameworks: www.osepideasthatwork.org/logicModel
and www.osepideasthatwork.org/resources-grantees/program-areas/ta-ta/tad-project-logic-model-and-conceptual-framework.
(4) Be based on current research and make use of EBPs. To meet this
requirement, the applicant must describe--
(i) The current research on practices to support the effective use
of AT and IT by children with disabilities;
(ii) The current research on components of LEA systems, including
policies and practices, necessary to increase the effective use of AT
and IT by children with disabilities and their families;
(iii) The current research about adult learning principles and
implementation science that will inform the proposed TA;
(iv) How the proposed project will incorporate current research and
EBPs in the development and dissemination of a framework of LEA
policies and practices that are necessary for creating comprehensive
and sustainable systems for the effective use of AT and IT by children
with disabilities and their families; and
(v) How the proposed project will identify LEAs that have promising
systems or policies and practices for supporting children's and
families' effective use of AT and IT and incorporate that information
into the development of the framework;
(5) Develop products and provide services that are of high quality
and sufficient intensity and duration to achieve the intended outcomes
of the proposed project. To address this requirement, the applicant
must describe--
(i) How it proposes to identify or develop the knowledge base
related to children's and families' effective use of AT and IT and the
development of comprehensive and sustainable systems in LEAs to support
that use;
(ii) Its proposed approach to universal, general TA,\6\ which must
identify the intended recipients, including the type and number of
recipients, that will receive the products and services under this
approach and should include, at minimum--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ ``Universal, general TA'' means TA and information provided
to independent users through their own initiative, resulting in
minimal interaction with TA center staff and including one-time,
invited or offered conference presentations by TA center staff. This
category of TA also includes information or products, such as
newsletters, guidebooks, or research syntheses, downloaded from the
TA center's website by independent users. Brief communications by TA
center staff with recipients, either by telephone or email, are also
considered universal, general TA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A) A plan to disseminate the framework and develop professional
learning activities for LEAs to enhance their understanding and
implementation of the framework; and
(B) A plan to identify and disseminate other relevant
resources, including those currently housed by the Center on
Technology and Disability, on evidence-based AT and IT practices for
children with disabilities and their families;
(iii) Its proposed approach to targeted, specialized TA \7\ to
support LEAs in implementing the framework, which must identify--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ ``Targeted, specialized TA'' means TA services based on
needs common to multiple recipients and not extensively
individualized. A relationship is established between the TA
recipient and one or more TA center staff. This category of TA
includes one-time, labor-intensive events, such as facilitating
strategic planning or hosting regional or national conferences. It
can also include episodic, less labor-intensive events that extend
over a period of time, such as facilitating a series of conference
calls on single or multiple topics that are designed around the
needs of the recipients. Facilitating communities of practice can
also be considered targeted, specialized TA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A) The intended recipients, including the type and number of
recipients, that will receive the products and services under this
approach; and
(B) Its proposed approach to measure the readiness of potential TA
recipients to work with the project, assessing, at a
[[Page 31958]]
minimum, their current infrastructure, available resources, and ability
to build capacity at the local level; and
(6) Develop products and implement services that maximize
efficiency. To address this requirement, the applicant must describe--
(i) How the proposed project will use technology to achieve the
intended project outcomes;
(ii) With whom the proposed project will collaborate and the
intended outcomes of this collaboration; and
(iii) How the proposed project will use non-project resources to
achieve the intended project outcomes.
(c) In the narrative section of the application under ``Quality of
the project evaluation,'' include an evaluation plan for the project
developed in consultation with and implemented by a third-party
evaluator.\8\ The evaluation plan must--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ A ``third-party'' evaluator is an independent and impartial
program evaluator who is contracted by the grantee to conduct an
objective evaluation of the project. This evaluator must not have
participated in the development or implementation of any project
activities, except for the evaluation activities, nor have any
financial interest in the outcome of the evaluation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Articulate formative and summative evaluation questions,
including important process and outcome evaluation questions. These
questions should be related to the project's proposed logic model
required in paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this notice;
(2) Describe how progress in and fidelity of implementation, as
well as project outcomes will be measured to answer the evaluation
questions. Specify the measures and associated instruments or sources
for data appropriate to the evaluation questions. Include information
regarding reliability and validity of measures where appropriate;
(3) Describe strategies for analyzing data and how data collected
as part of this plan will be used to inform and improve service
delivery over the course of the project and to refine the proposed
logic model and evaluation plan, including subsequent data collection;
(4) Provide a timeline for conducting the evaluation, and include
staff assignments for completing the plan. The timeline must indicate
that the data will be available annually for the Annual Performance
Report (APR) and at the end of Year 2 for the review process described
under the heading, Fourth and Fifth Years of the Project;
(5) Dedicate sufficient funds in each budget year to cover the
costs of developing or refining the evaluation plan in consultation
with a ``third-party'' evaluator, as well as the costs associated with
the implementation of the evaluation plan by the third-party evaluator.
(d) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under
``Adequacy of resources,'' how--
(1) The proposed project will encourage applications for employment
from persons who are members of groups that have traditionally been
underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or
disability, as appropriate;
(2) The proposed key project personnel, consultants, and
subcontractors have the qualifications and experience to carry out the
proposed activities and achieve the project's intended outcomes;
(3) The applicant and any key partners have adequate resources to
carry out the proposed activities; and
(4) The proposed costs are reasonable in relation to the
anticipated results and benefits.
(e) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under
``Quality of the management plan,'' how--
(1) The proposed management plan will ensure that the project's
intended outcomes will be achieved on time and within budget. To
address this requirement, the applicant must describe--
(i) Clearly defined responsibilities for key project personnel,
consultants, and subcontractors, as applicable; and
(ii) Timelines and milestones for accomplishing the project tasks;
(2) Key project personnel and any consultants and subcontractors
will be allocated and how these allocations are appropriate and
adequate to achieve the project's intended outcomes;
(3) The proposed management plan will ensure that the products and
services provided are of high quality, relevant, and useful to
recipients; and
(4) The proposed project will benefit from a diversity of
perspectives, including those of families, educators, TA providers,
researchers, and policy makers, among others, in its development and
operation.
(f) Address the following application requirements. The applicant
must--
(1) Include, in Appendix A, personnel-loading charts and timelines,
as applicable, to illustrate the management plan described in the
narrative;
(2) Include, in the budget, attendance at the following:
(i) A one and one-half day kick-off meeting in Washington, DC,
after receipt of the award, and an annual planning meeting in
Washington, DC, with the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP)
project officer and other relevant staff during each subsequent year of
the project period.
Note: Within 30 days of receipt of the award, a post-award
teleconference must be held between the OSEP project officer and the
grantee's project director or other authorized representative;
(ii) A two and one-half day project directors' conference in
Washington, DC, during each year of the project period;
(iii) One annual two-day trip to attend Department briefings,
Department-sponsored conferences, and other meetings, as requested by
OSEP; and
(iv) A one-day intensive 3+2 review meeting in Washington, DC,
during the last half of the second year of the project period;
(5) Include, in the budget, a line item for an annual set-aside of
five percent of the grant amount to support emerging needs that are
consistent with the proposed project's intended outcomes, as those
needs are identified in consultation with, and approved by, the OSEP
project officer. With approval from the OSEP project officer, the
project must reallocate any remaining funds from this annual set-aside
no later than the end of the third quarter of each budget period;
(6) Maintain a high-quality website, with an easy-to-navigate
design, that meets government or industry-recognized standards for
accessibility; and
(7) Include, in Appendix A, an assurance to assist OSEP with the
transfer of pertinent resources and products from the current Center
for Technology and Disability and to maintain the continuity of
services during the transition to this new Center and at the end of
this award period, as appropriate.
Fourth and Fifth Years of the Project: In deciding whether to
continue funding the project for the fourth and fifth years, the
Secretary will consider the requirements of 34 CFR 75.253(a), as well
as--
(a) The recommendation of a 3+2 review team consisting of experts
selected by the Secretary. This review will be conducted during a one-
day intensive meeting that will be held during the last half of the
second year of the project period;
(b) The timeliness with which, and how well, the requirements of
the negotiated cooperative agreement have been or are being met by the
project; and
(c) The quality, relevance, and usefulness of the project's
products and services and the extent to which the project's products
and services are aligned with the project's objectives and
[[Page 31959]]
likely to result in the project achieving its intended outcomes.
References
Ahmad, F. K. (2015). Use of assistive technology in inclusive
education: Making room for diverse learning needs. Transcience,
6(2), 62-77.
Bausch, M. E., Ault, M. J., Evmenova, A. S., & Behrmann, M. M.
(2008). Going beyond AT devices: Are AT services being considered?
Journal of Special Education Technology, 23(2), 1-16.
Bausch, M. E., Ault, M. J., & Hasselbring, T. S. (2015). Assistive
technology in schools: Lessons learned from the National Assistive
Technology Research Institute. Efficacy of Assistive Technology
Interventions Advances in Special Education Technology, 1, 13-15.
Hartmann, E., & Weismer, P. (2016). Technology and curriculum
engagement for children and youth who are deafblind. American Annals
of the Deaf, 161(4), 462-473.
Lee, Y., & Vega, L. A. (2005). Perceived knowledge, attitudes, and
challenges of AT use in special education. Journal of Special
Education Technology, 20(2), 60-62.
Smith, S. J., & Robinson, S. (2003). Technology integration through
collaborative cohorts. Remedial & Special Education, 24(3), 154-159.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology.
(2010). Transforming American education: Learning powered by
technology. Retrieved from www.ed.gov/sites/default/files/netp2010.pdf.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology.
(2017). Reimagining the role of technology in education: 2017
National Education Technology Plan update. Retrieved from https://tech.ed.gov/files/2017/01/NETP17.pdf.
Zhou, L., Parker, A. T., Smith, D. W., & Griffin-Shirley, N. (2011).
Assistive technology for students with visual impairments:
Challenges and needs in teachers' preparation programs and practice.
Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 105(4), 197-210.
Definitions: The following definitions are from 34 CFR 77.1:
Demonstrates a rationale means a key project component included in
the project's logic model is informed by research or evaluation
findings that suggest the project component is likely to improve
relevant outcomes.
Evidence-based means the proposed project component is supported by
one or more of strong evidence, moderate evidence, promising evidence,
or evidence that demonstrates a rationale.
Experimental study means a study that is designed to compare
outcomes between two groups of individuals (such as students) that are
otherwise equivalent except for their assignment to either a treatment
group receiving a project component or a control group that does not.
Randomized controlled trials, regression discontinuity design studies,
and single-case design studies are the specific types of experimental
studies that, depending on their design and implementation (e.g.,
sample attrition in randomized controlled trials and regression
discontinuity design studies), can meet What Works Clearinghouse (WWC)
standards without reservations as described in the WWC Handbook:
(i) A randomized controlled trial employs random assignment of, for
example, students, teachers, classrooms, or schools to receive the
project component being evaluated (the treatment group) or not to
receive the project component (the control group).
(ii) A regression discontinuity design study assigns the project
component being evaluated using a measured variable (e.g., assigning
students reading below a cutoff score to tutoring or developmental
education classes) and controls for that variable in the analysis of
outcomes.
(iii) A single-case design study uses observations of a single case
(e.g., a student eligible for a behavioral intervention) over time in
the absence and presence of a controlled treatment manipulation to
determine whether the outcome is systematically related to the
treatment.
Logic model (also referred to as a theory of action) means a
framework that identifies key project components of the proposed
project (i.e., the active ``ingredients'' that are hypothesized to be
critical to achieving the relevant outcomes) and describes the
theoretical and operational relationships among the key project
components and relevant outcomes.
Moderate evidence means that there is evidence of effectiveness of
a key project component in improving a relevant outcome for a sample
that overlaps with the populations or settings proposed to receive that
component, based on a relevant finding from one of the following:
(i) A practice guide prepared by the WWC using version 2.1 or 3.0
of the WWC Handbook reporting a ``strong evidence base'' or ``moderate
evidence base'' for the corresponding practice guide recommendation;
(ii) An intervention report prepared by the WWC using version 2.1
or 3.0 of the WWC Handbook reporting a ``positive effect'' or
``potentially positive effect'' on a relevant outcome based on a
``medium to large'' extent of evidence, with no reporting of a
``negative effect'' or ``potentially negative effect'' on a relevant
outcome; or
(iii) A single experimental study or quasi-experimental design
study reviewed and reported by the WWC using version 2.1 or 3.0 of the
WWC Handbook, or otherwise assessed by the Department using version 3.0
of the WWC Handbook, as appropriate, and that--
(A) Meets WWC standards with or without reservations;
(B) Includes at least one statistically significant and positive
(i.e., favorable) effect on a relevant outcome;
(C) Includes no overriding statistically significant and negative
effects on relevant outcomes reported in the study or in a
corresponding WWC intervention report prepared under version 2.1 or 3.0
of the WWC Handbook; and
(D) Is based on a sample from more than one site (e.g., State,
county, city, school district, or postsecondary campus) and includes at
least 350 students or other individuals across sites. Multiple studies
of the same project component that each meet requirements in paragraphs
(iii)(A), (B), and (C) of this definition may together satisfy this
requirement.
Project component means an activity, strategy, intervention,
process, product, practice, or policy included in a project. Evidence
may pertain to an individual project component or to a combination of
project components (e.g., training teachers on instructional practices
for English learners and follow-on coaching for these teachers).
Promising evidence means that there is evidence of the
effectiveness of a key project component in improving a relevant
outcome, based on a relevant finding from one of the following:
(i) A practice guide prepared by WWC reporting a ``strong evidence
base'' or ``moderate evidence base'' for the corresponding practice
guide recommendation;
(ii) An intervention report prepared by the WWC reporting a
``positive effect'' or ``potentially positive effect'' on a relevant
outcome with no reporting of a ``negative effect'' or ``potentially
negative effect'' on a relevant outcome; or
(iii) A single study assessed by the Department, as appropriate,
that--
(A) Is an experimental study, a quasi-experimental design study, or
a well-designed and well-implemented correlational study with
statistical controls for selection bias (e.g., a study using regression
methods to account for differences between a treatment group and a
comparison group); and
(B) Includes at least one statistically significant and positive
(i.e., favorable) effect on a relevant outcome.
[[Page 31960]]
Quasi-experimental design study means a study using a design that
attempts to approximate an experimental study by identifying a
comparison group that is similar to the treatment group in important
respects. This type of study, depending on design and implementation
(e.g., establishment of baseline equivalence of the groups being
compared), can meet WWC standards with reservations, but cannot meet
WWC standards without reservations, as described in the WWC Handbook.
Relevant outcome means the student outcome(s) or other outcome(s)
the key project component is designed to improve, consistent with the
specific goals of the program.
Strong evidence means that there is evidence of the effectiveness
of a key project component in improving a relevant outcome for a sample
that overlaps with the populations and settings proposed to receive
that component, based on a relevant finding from one of the following:
(i) A practice guide prepared by the WWC using version 2.1 or 3.0
of the WWC Handbook reporting a ``strong evidence base'' for the
corresponding practice guide recommendation;
(ii) An intervention report prepared by the WWC using version 2.1
or 3.0 of the WWC Handbook reporting a ``positive effect'' on a
relevant outcome based on a ``medium to large'' extent of evidence,
with no reporting of a ``negative effect'' or ``potentially negative
effect'' on a relevant outcome; or
(iii) A single experimental study reviewed and reported by the WWC
using version 2.1 or 3.0 of the WWC Handbook, or otherwise assessed by
the Department using version 3.0 of the WWC Handbook, as appropriate,
and that--
(A) Meets WWC standards without reservations;
(B) Includes at least one statistically significant and positive
(i.e., favorable) effect on a relevant outcome;
(C) Includes no overriding statistically significant and negative
effects on relevant outcomes reported in the study or in a
corresponding WWC intervention report prepared under version 2.1 or 3.0
of the WWC Handbook; and
(D) Is based on a sample from more than one site (e.g., State,
county, city, school district, or postsecondary campus) and includes at
least 350 students or other individuals across sites. Multiple studies
of the same project component that each meet requirements in paragraphs
(iii)(A), (B), and (C) of this definition may together satisfy this
requirement.
What Works Clearinghouse Handbook (WWC Handbook) means the
standards and procedures set forth in the WWC Procedures and Standards
Handbook, Version 3.0 or Version 2.1 (incorporated by reference, see 34
CFR 77.2). Study findings eligible for review under WWC standards can
meet WWC standards without reservations, meet WWC standards with
reservations, or not meet WWC standards. WWC practice guides and
intervention reports include findings from systematic reviews of
evidence as described in the Handbook documentation.
Waiver of Proposed Rulemaking: Under the Administrative Procedure
Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553) the Department generally offers interested
parties the opportunity to comment on proposed priorities and
requirements. Section 681(d) of IDEA, however, makes the public comment
requirements of the APA inapplicable to the priority in this notice.
Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1474 and 1481.
Applicable Regulations: (a) The Education Department General
Administrative Regulations in 34 CFR parts 75, 77, 79, 81, 82, 84, 86,
97, 98, and 99. (b) The Office of Management and Budget 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. (c) The Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost
Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards in 2 CFR part
200, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department in 2 CFR
part 3474.
Note: The regulations in 34 CFR part 79 apply to all applicants
except federally recognized Indian Tribes.
Note: The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 apply to institutions of
education (IHEs) only.
II. Award Information
Type of Award: Cooperative agreement.
Estimated Available Funds: $700,000.
Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of
applications, we may make additional awards in FY 2019 from the list of
unfunded applications from this competition.
Maximum Award: We will not make an award exceeding $700,000 for a
single budget period of 12 months.
Estimated Number of Awards: 1.
Note: The Department is not bound by any estimates in this
notice.
Project Period: Up to 60 months.
III. Eligibility Information
1. Eligible Applicants: State educational agencies; LEAs, including
public charter schools that operate as LEAs under State law; IHEs;
other public agencies; private nonprofit organizations; freely
associated States and outlying areas; Indian Tribes or Tribal
organizations; and for-profit organizations.
2. Cost Sharing or Matching: This program does not require cost
sharing or matching.
3. 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 the following types of
entities: IHEs and private nonprofit organizations suitable to carry
out the activities proposed in the application. The grantee may award
subgrants to entities it has identified in an approved application.
4. Other General Requirements: (a) Recipients of funding under this
competition must make positive efforts to employ and advance in
employment qualified individuals with disabilities (see section 606 of
IDEA).
(b) Each applicant for, and recipient of, funding must, with
respect to the aspects of their proposed project relating to the
absolute priority, involve individuals with disabilities, or parents of
individuals with disabilities ages birth through 26, in planning,
implementing, and evaluating the project (see section 682(a)(1)(A) of
IDEA).
IV. Application and Submission Information
1. Application Submission Instructions: For information on how to
submit an application please refer to our Common Instructions for
Applicants to Department of Education Discretionary Grant Programs,
published in the Federal Register on February 12, 2018 (83 FR 6003) and
available at www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2018-02-12/pdf/2018-02558.pdf.
2. Intergovernmental Review: This competition is subject to
Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. However,
under 34 CFR 79.8(a), we waive intergovernmental review in order to
make an award by the end of FY 2018.
3. Funding Restrictions: We reference regulations outlining funding
restrictions in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice.
4. Recommended Page Limit: The application narrative is where you,
the applicant, address the selection criteria that reviewers use to
evaluate your
[[Page 31961]]
application. We recommend that you (1) limit the application narrative
to no more than 70 pages, and (2) use the following standards:
A ``page'' is 8.5'' x 11'', on one side only, with 1''
margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.
Double-space (no more than three lines per vertical inch)
all text in the application narrative, including titles, headings,
footnotes, quotations, reference citations, and captions, as well as
all text in charts, tables, figures, graphs, and screen shots.
Use a font that is 12 point or larger.
Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier,
Courier New, or Arial.
The recommended page limit does not apply to Part I, the cover
sheet; Part II, the budget section, including the narrative budget
justification; Part IV, the assurances and certifications; or the
abstract (follow the guidance provided in the application package for
completing the abstract), the table of contents, the list of priority
requirements, the resumes, the reference list, the letters of support,
or the appendices. However, the recommended page limit does apply to
all of the application narrative, including all text in charts, tables,
figures, graphs, and screen shots.
V. Application Review Information
1. Selection Criteria: The selection criteria for this competition
are from 34 CFR 75.210 and are as follows:
(a) Significance (15 points).
(1) The Secretary considers the significance of the proposed
project.
(2) In determining the significance of the proposed project, the
Secretary considers the following factors:
(i) The extent to which specific gaps or weaknesses in services,
infrastructure, or opportunities have been identified and will be
addressed by the proposed project, including the nature and magnitude
of those gaps or weaknesses;
(ii) The potential contribution of the proposed project to
increased knowledge or understanding of educational problems, issues,
or effective strategies;
(iii) The extent to which the proposed project is likely to build
local capacity to provide, improve, or expand services that address the
needs of the target population; and
(iv) The potential replicability of the proposed project or
strategies, including, as appropriate, the potential for implementation
in a variety of settings.
(b) Quality of project services (30 points).
(1) The Secretary considers the quality of the services to be
provided by the proposed project.
(2) In determining the quality of the services to be provided by
the proposed project, the Secretary considers the quality and
sufficiency of strategies for ensuring equal access and treatment for
eligible project participants who are members of groups that have
traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national
origin, gender, age, or disability.
(3) In addition, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(i) The extent to which the goals, objectives, and outcomes to be
achieved by the proposed project are clearly specified and measurable;
(ii) The extent to which the design of the proposed project
includes a thorough, high-quality review of the relevant literature, a
high-quality plan for project implementation, and the use of
appropriate methodological tools to ensure successful achievement of
project objectives;
(iii) The extent to which the design of the proposed project is
appropriate to, and will successfully address, the needs of the target
population or other identified needs;
(iv) 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 lead to improvements in practice
among the recipients of those services;
(v) The extent to which the services to be provided by the proposed
project involve the collaboration of appropriate partners for
maximizing the effectiveness of project services; and
(vi) The extent to which the technical assistance services to be
provided by the proposed project involve the use of efficient
strategies, including the use of technology, as appropriate, and the
leveraging of non-project resources.
(c) Quality of the project evaluation (20 points).
(1) The Secretary considers the quality of the evaluation to be
conducted of the proposed project.
(2) In determining the quality of the evaluation, the Secretary
considers the following factors:
(i) The extent to which the methods of evaluation are thorough,
feasible, and appropriate to the goals, objectives, and outcomes of the
proposed project;
(ii) The extent to which the methods of evaluation provide for
examining the effectiveness of project implementation strategies;
(iii) The extent to which the methods of evaluation include the use
of objective performance measures that are clearly related to the
intended outcomes of the project and will produce quantitative and
qualitative data to the extent possible;
(iv) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will provide
performance feedback and permit periodic assessment of progress toward
achieving intended outcomes; and
(v) The extent to which the evaluation will provide guidance about
effective strategies suitable for replication or testing in other
settings.
(d) Adequacy of project resources and quality of project personnel
(15 points).
(1) The Secretary considers the adequacy of resources and quality
of project personnel for the proposed project.
(2) In determining the quality of project personnel, the Secretary
considers the extent to which the applicant encourages applications for
employment from persons who are members of groups that have
traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national
origin, gender, age, or disability.
(3) In determining the adequacy of resources and quality of the
project personnel for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the
following factors:
(i) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience,
of the project director or principal investigator;
(ii) The qualifications, including relevant training and
experience, of key project personnel;
(iii) The qualifications, including relevant training and
experience, of project consultants or subcontractors;
(iv) The adequacy of support, including facilities, equipment,
supplies, and other resources, from the applicant organization or the
lead applicant organization;
(v) The relevance and demonstrated commitment of each partner in
the proposed project to the implementation and success of the project;
and
(vi) The extent to which the costs are reasonable in relation to
the objectives, design, and potential significance of the proposed
project.
(e) Quality of the management plan (20 points).
(1) The Secretary considers the quality of the management plan for
the proposed project.
(2) In determining the quality of the management plan for the
proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(i) The adequacy of the management plan to achieve the objectives
of the proposed project on time and within budget, including clearly
defined
[[Page 31962]]
responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing project
tasks;
(ii) The adequacy of procedures for ensuring feedback and
continuous improvement in the operation of the proposed project;
(iii) The extent to which the time commitments of the project
director and principal investigator and other key project personnel are
appropriate and adequate to meet the objectives of the proposed
project; and
(iv) How the applicant will ensure that a diversity of perspectives
are brought to bear in the operation of the proposed project, including
those of parents, teachers, the business community, a variety of
disciplinary and professional fields, recipients or beneficiaries of
services, or others, as appropriate.
2. Review and Selection Process: We remind potential applicants
that in reviewing applications in any discretionary grant competition,
the Secretary may consider, under 34 CFR 75.217(d)(3), the past
performance of the applicant in carrying out a previous award, such as
the applicant's use of funds, achievement of project objectives, and
compliance with grant conditions. The Secretary may also consider
whether the applicant failed to submit a timely performance report or
submitted a report of unacceptable quality.
In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary
requires various assurances, including those applicable to Federal
civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or
activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department
of Education (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
3. Additional Review and Selection Process Factors: In the past,
the Department has had difficulty finding peer reviewers for certain
competitions because so many individuals who are eligible to serve as
peer reviewers have conflicts of interest. The standing panel
requirements under section 682(b) of IDEA also have placed additional
constraints on the availability of reviewers. Therefore, the Department
has determined that for some discretionary grant competitions,
applications may be separated into two or more groups and ranked and
selected for funding within specific groups. This procedure will make
it easier for the Department to find peer reviewers by ensuring that
greater numbers of individuals who are eligible to serve as reviewers
for any particular group of applicants will not have conflicts of
interest. It also will increase the quality, independence, and fairness
of the review process, while permitting panel members to review
applications under discretionary grant competitions for which they also
have submitted applications.
4. Risk Assessment and Specific Conditions: Consistent with 2 CFR
200.205, before awarding grants under this competition the Department
conducts a review of the risks posed by applicants. Under 2 CFR
3474.10, the Secretary may impose specific conditions and, in
appropriate circumstances, high-risk conditions on a grant if the
applicant or grantee is not financially stable; has a history of
unsatisfactory performance; has a financial or other management system
that does not meet the standards in 2 CFR part 200, subpart D; has not
fulfilled the conditions of a prior grant; or is otherwise not
responsible.
5. Integrity and Performance System: If you are selected under this
competition to receive an award that over the course of the project
period may exceed the simplified acquisition threshold (currently
$150,000), under 2 CFR 200.205(a)(2) we must make a judgment about your
integrity, business ethics, and record of performance under Federal
awards--that is, the risk posed by you as an applicant--before we make
an award. In doing so, we must consider any information about you that
is in the integrity and performance system (currently referred to as
the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System
(FAPIIS)), accessible through the System for Award Management. You may
review and comment on any information about yourself that a Federal
agency previously entered and that is currently in FAPIIS.
Please note that, if the total value of your currently active
grants, cooperative agreements, and procurement contracts from the
Federal Government exceeds $10,000,000, the reporting requirements in 2
CFR part 200, Appendix XII, require you to report certain integrity
information to FAPIIS semiannually. Please review the requirements in 2
CFR part 200, Appendix XII, if this grant plus all the other Federal
funds you receive exceed $10,000,000.
VI. Award Administration Information
1. Award Notices: If your application is successful, we notify your
U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators and send you a Grant Award
Notification (GAN); or we may send you an email containing a link to
access an electronic version of your GAN. We may notify you informally,
also.
If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding,
we notify you.
2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements: We identify
administrative and national policy requirements in the application
package and reference these and other requirements in the Applicable
Regulations section of this notice.
We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of
an award in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice and
include these and other specific conditions in the GAN. The GAN also
incorporates your approved application as part of your binding
commitments under the grant.
3. 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.
4. Reporting: (a) If you apply for a grant under this competition,
you must ensure that you have in place the necessary processes and
systems to comply with the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 170
should you receive funding under the competition. This does not apply
if you have an exception under 2 CFR 170.110(b).
(b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final
performance report, including financial information, as directed by the
Secretary. If you receive a multiyear award, you must submit an annual
performance report that provides the most current performance and
financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34
CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance
reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting,
please go to www.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/appforms/appforms.html.
5. Performance Measures: Under the Government Performance and
Results
[[Page 31963]]
Act of 1993, the Department has established a set of performance
measures, including long-term measures, that are designed to yield
information on various aspects of the effectiveness and quality of the
Educational Technology, Media, and Materials for Individuals with
Disabilities program. These measures are:
Program Performance Measure #1: The percentage of
Educational Technology, Media, and Materials Program products and
services judged to be of high quality by an independent review panel of
experts qualified to review the substantial content of the products and
services.
Program Performance Measure #2: The percentage of
Educational Technology, Media, and Materials Program products and
services judged to be of high relevance to improving outcomes for
infants, toddlers, children, and youth with disabilities.
Program Performance Measure #3: The percentage of
Educational Technology, Media, and Materials Program products and
services judged to be useful in improving results for infants,
toddlers, children, and youth with disabilities.
Program Performance Measure #4.1: The Federal cost per
unit of accessible educational materials funded by the Educational
Technology, Media, and Materials Program.
Program Performance Measure #4.2: The Federal cost per
unit of accessible educational materials from the National
Instructional Materials Accessibility Center funded by the Educational
Technology, Media, and Materials Program.
Program Performance Measure #4.3: The Federal cost per
unit of video description funded by the Educational Technology, Media,
and Materials Program.
These measures apply to projects funded under this competition, and
grantees are required to submit data on these measures as directed by
OSEP.
Grantees will be required to report information on their project's
performance in annual and final performance reports to the Department
(34 CFR 75.590).
6. Continuation Awards: In making a continuation award under 34 CFR
75.253, the Secretary considers, among other things: Whether a grantee
has made substantial progress in achieving the goals and objectives of
the project; whether the grantee has expended funds in a manner that is
consistent with its approved application and budget; and, if the
Secretary has established performance measurement requirements, the
performance targets in the grantee's approved application.
In making a continuation award, the Secretary also considers
whether the grantee is operating in compliance with the assurances in
its approved application, including those applicable to Federal civil
rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities
receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR
100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
VII. Other Information
Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this
document and a copy of the application package in an accessible format
(e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) by contacting
the Management Support Services Team, U.S. Department of Education, 400
Maryland Avenue SW, Room 5113, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC
20202-2500. Telephone: (202) 245-7363. If you use a TDD or a TTY, call
the FRS, toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this
document is the document published in the Federal Register. You may
access the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of
Federal Regulations via the Federal Digital System at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site you can view this document, as well as all other
documents of this Department published in the Federal Register, in text
or Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF you must have Adobe
Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Federal Register by using the article search feature at:
www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search
feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published
by the Department.
Dated: July 3, 2018.
Johnny W. Collett,
Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.
[FR Doc. 2018-14692 Filed 7-9-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P