[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 42 (Tuesday, March 3, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12540-12547]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-04316]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Applications for New Awards; Technical Assistance and
Dissemination To Improve Services and Results for Children With
Disabilities--Model Demonstration Projects To Develop Coaching Systems
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
[[Page 12541]]
year (FY) 2020 for Model Demonstration Projects to Develop Coaching
Systems, Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number 84.326M.
These projects will provide support to professionals to collaborate
with early learning and early intervention programs, schools,
districts, and State agencies to establish the infrastructure,
personnel skills, and processes necessary for an effective and
sustainable coaching system. This notice relates to the approved
information collection under OMB control number 1820-0028.
DATES:
Applications Available: March 3, 2020.
Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: May 4, 2020.
Deadline for Intergovernmental Review: July 1, 2020.
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 13, 2019 (84 FR 3768), and available at
www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-02-13/pdf/2019-02206.pdf.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Coffey, U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 5161, Potomac Center Plaza,
Washington, DC 20202-5076. Telephone: (202) 245-6673. Email:
[email protected].
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 purpose of the Technical Assistance and
Dissemination to Improve Services and Results for Children with
Disabilities program is to promote academic achievement and to improve
results for children with disabilities by providing technical
assistance (TA), supporting model demonstration projects, disseminating
useful information, and implementing activities that are supported by
scientifically based research.
Priority: This competition includes one absolute priority, one
competitive preference priority, and one invitational priority. In
accordance with 34 CFR 75.105(b)(2)(v), the absolute priority and
competitive preference priority are from allowable activities specified
in or otherwise authorized in sections 663 and 681(d) of the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (20 U.S.C. 1463,
1481(d)).
Absolute Priority: For FY 2020 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:
Model Demonstration Projects to Develop Coaching Systems.
Background
Model demonstrations to improve early intervention, educational, or
transitional results for children with disabilities and their families
have been authorized under the IDEA since the law's inception. For the
purposes of this priority, a model is a set of existing evidence-based
practices,\1\ including interventions and implementation strategies
(i.e., core model components), that research suggests will improve
outcomes for children, families, personnel,\2\ administrators, or
systems, when implemented with fidelity. Model demonstrations involve
investigating the degree to which a given model can be implemented and
sustained in real-world settings, by staff employed in those settings,
while achieving outcomes similar to those attained under research
conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For purposes of this priority, ``evidence-based'' means the
proposed project component is supported by promising evidence, which
is evidence of the effectiveness of a key project component in
improving a ``relevant outcome'' (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1), based
on a relevant finding from one of the sources identified under
``promising evidence'' in 34 CFR 77.1.
\2\ As defined by section 651(b) of IDEA, the term ``personnel''
means special education teachers, regular education teachers,
principals, administrators, related services personnel,
paraprofessionals, and early intervention personnel serving infants,
toddlers, preschoolers, or children with disabilities, except where
a particular category of personnel, such as related services
personnel, is identified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Researchers have identified practices that improve academic,
functional, developmental, and behavioral outcomes for children with
disabilities, yet such evidence-based practices are not implemented or
scaled up in a systematic manner to maximize their potential to impact
child outcomes (Sanetti & Collier-Meek, 2019). To bridge this research-
to-practice gap, the field has responded by developing improved
professional development models for supporting the implementation of
evidence-based practices.
Coaching has been identified as a key implementation ``driver'' for
implementing evidence-based practices (Metz & Bartley, 2012). Kraft et
al.'s (2018) meta-analysis of the causal effects of coaching suggests
coaching programs hold real promise for improving instructional
practice and, as a result, child outcomes. This meta-analysis also
found that virtual coaching can be as effective as in-person coaching
and that there are many unknowns related to the amount of coaching
needed and strategies that will be most effective.
Various coaching models show promising results for improving
instructional practices and child outcomes. Examples of promising
models include mentoring (Schmidt et al., 2017), data-driven
instructional coaching (Glover et al., 2019), and practice-based
coaching (Snyder et al., 2015), among others.
The field has also begun to articulate the challenges and solutions
to implementing effective coaching models, specifically the
infrastructure needed to support a comprehensive and sustainable
coaching system. For example, Kraft et al. (2018) suggest that a
primary implementation challenge is building a corps of capable coaches
whose expertise is well matched to the diverse needs of the personnel
being supported. In addition, the State Implementation and Scaling up
of Evidence-based Practices Technical Assistance Center (SISEP)
developed a resource that describes research-based components of
coaching (https://nirn.fpg.unc.edu/resources/coaching-practice-profile). These findings provide a basis for investing in efforts to
expand the existing research base and to learn more about what it takes
to scale up and sustain coaching models.
Model demonstration coaching projects could further refine the key
components of effective coaching across various models and provide
needed data on whether particular approaches to coaching are effective,
how to differentiate coaching strategies based on personnel needs, the
amount of coaching individuals need to successfully implement an
evidence-based practice and how to select coaches.
Model demonstration coaching projects can identify the challenges
to implementation and determine system supports to assist in meeting
those challenges. Additionally, these model demonstrations can take the
first steps to systematically scale up the critical features of
effective coaching.
The projects must be awarded and operated in a manner consistent
with
[[Page 12542]]
nondiscrimination requirements contained in the U.S. Constitution and
the Federal civil rights laws.
Priority
The purpose of this priority is to fund three cooperative
agreements to establish and operate evidence-based model demonstration
projects. The models will implement coaching systems in early
intervention, early learning, elementary school, middle school, or high
school settings.
The models will address the infrastructure (e.g., implementation
teams) and ongoing supports needed to foster the development,
implementation, and evaluation of coaches and a coaching system to
support personnel who work with children with disabilities.
The models will demonstrate methods for identifying coaching
strategies and the necessary intensity and frequency of those
strategies to meet the needs of personnel being coached.
The models will capture information about challenges to
implementation and determine what system supports may assist in meeting
those challenges. Additionally, the models will use coaching data to
provide information about how coaching services affect provider
services and, accordingly, child outcomes (i.e., connecting coaching
fidelity data to intervention fidelity data to child outcome data). The
model demonstration projects will assess how models can--
Support implementation of evidence-based practices that
improve outcomes for children with disabilities;
Improve the capacity of local coaches to support personnel
who serve children with disabilities;
Improve the capacity of sites and the central offices or
programs that support them to build infrastructure that supports an
effective coaching system; and
Improve understanding of how State agencies could reduce
barriers to, and support, implementation of coaching systems.
Applicants must propose models that meet the following
requirements:
(a) The model's core intervention components must include--
(1) Coaching services that are supported by evidence;
(2) Ongoing measures of coaching supports and the impact of those
supports, specifically fidelity measures and child outcomes; \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Applicants must ensure the confidentiality of individual
student data, consistent with the Confidentiality of Information
regulations under both part B and part C of IDEA, which incorporate
requirements and exceptions under section 444 of the General
Education Provisions Act (20 U.S.C. 1232g), commonly known as the
``Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act'' (FERPA), but also
include several provisions that are specifically related to children
with disabilities receiving services under IDEA and provide
protections beyond the FERPA regulations. Therefore, examining the
IDEA requirements first is the most effective and efficient way to
meet the requirements of both IDEA and FERPA for children with
disabilities. Applicants should also be aware of State laws or
regulations concerning the confidentiality of individual records.
See www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/ptac/pdf/idea-ferpa.pdf and
studentprivacy.ed.gov/resources/ferpaidea-cross-walk. Final FERPA
regulatory changes became effective January 3, 2012, and include
requirements for data sharing. Applicants are encouraged to review
the final FERPA regulations published on December 2, 2011 (76 FR
75604). Questions can be directed to the Student Privacy Policy
Office (SPPO) (https://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/fpco/index.html)
at 1-800-USA-LEARN (1-800-872-5327) or https://studentprivacy.ed.gov/contact.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) Professional development to support coaches' appropriate and
timely use of data to inform the need for differentiating coaching
strategies, intensity, and frequency dependent on content and personnel
needs;
(3) Procedures to refine the model based on the ongoing measures of
fidelity of coaching services, fidelity of the implementation of
evidence-based practices, and child outcomes;
(4) Procedures for coaches to share data at the site, central
office or program, and State levels so that the data can be used to
make decisions regarding, remove barriers to, and support,
implementation and sustainability of the coaching system; and
(5) Measures of the model's social validity, i.e., measures of
personnel and administrator satisfaction with the model components,
processes, and outcomes.
(b) The model's core implementation components must include--
(1) Criteria and strategies for selecting \4\ and recruiting sites
and coaches at those sites, including approaches to introducing the
model to, and promoting the model among, site participants.\5\
Applicants are encouraged to choose sites from a variety of settings
(e.g., urban, rural, suburban, type of school such as elementary,
charter, or early learning) and populations (e.g., concentration of
students receiving free or reduced-price lunch);
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ For factors to consider when selecting model demonstration
sites, the applicant should refer to Assessing Sites for Model
Demonstration: Lessons Learned for OSEP Grantees at mdcc.sri.com/documents/MDCC_Site_Assessment_Brief_09-30-11.pdf. The document also
contains a site assessment tool.
\5\ For factors to consider when preparing for model
demonstration implementation, the applicant should refer to
Preparing for Model Demonstration Implementation at mdcc.sri.com/documents/MDCC_PreparationStage_Brief_Apr2013.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) A lag site implementation design, which allows for model
development and refinement at the first site in year one of the project
period, with sites two and three implementing a revised model based on
data from the first site beginning in subsequent project years;
(3) A professional development component that includes a strategy
to work with administrators and coaches, to enable site-based personnel
to implement the coaching model with fidelity; and
(4) Measures of the results of the professional development
required by paragraph (b)(3) of this section.
(c) The core strategies for sustaining the model must include--
(1) Documentation that permits current and future site-based staff
to replicate or appropriately tailor and sustain the model at any site;
\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ For a guide on documenting model demonstration sustainment
and replication, the applicant should refer to Planning for
Replication and Dissemination From the Start: Guidelines for Model
Demonstration Projects (Revised) at mdcc.sri.com/documents/MDCC_ReplicationBrief_SEP2015.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) Guidelines and procedures to--
(i) Help administrators support a coaching system;
(ii) Provide professional development to coaches;
(iii) Collect data on fidelity of coaching services and impact of
coaching on intervention fidelity;
(iv) Match coaching strategies and intensity of the strategies
based on content and personnel need;
(v) Determine the amount and frequency of coaching needed to
improve intervention fidelity; and
(vi) Collect data regarding the connection among coaching
strategies used, the frequency and amount of coaching, and the fidelity
of the implementation of the model coaching system and child outcomes
and communicate regularly about the data at the local, regional (as
appropriate), and State levels;
(3) Strategies for the grantee to disseminate or promote the use of
the model, such as developing easily accessible online training
materials, coordinating with TA providers who might serve as future
trainers, or providing technical support (e.g., webinars, training
sessions, or workshops) for users who may want to learn about and
implement the model and its components; and
(4) Strategies for the grantee to assist State agencies (e.g.,
State educational agencies (SEAs) and State lead agencies
[[Page 12543]]
(SLAs) and local early learning or early intervention agencies and
local educational agencies (LEAs)) within the State to scale up a model
and its components.
To be considered for funding under this absolute priority,
applicants must meet the application requirements contained in this
priority. Each project funded under this absolute priority also must
meet the programmatic and administrative requirements specified in the
priority.
Application Requirements
An applicant must include in its application--
(a) A detailed review of the literature addressing the proposed
evidence-based model or its implementation components and the proposed
processes to improve coaching services for personnel who serve children
with disabilities;
(b) A logic model \7\ that depicts, at a minimum, the goals,
activities, outputs, and outcomes (described in paragraph (a) under the
heading Priority) of the proposed model demonstration project.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The following websites provide resources for constructing
logic models: www.osepideasthatwork.org/logicModel and
www.osepideasthatwork.org/resources-grantees/program-areas/ta-ta/tad-project-logic-model-and-conceptual-framework;
(c) A description of the activities and measures to be incorporated
into the proposed model demonstration project (i.e., the project
design) to develop coaching systems, including a timeline of how and
when the components are introduced within the model. A detailed and
complete description must include the following:
(1) Each of the coaching system components.
(2) The existing and proposed measures of fidelity of coaching
services, fidelity of the implementation of evidence-based practices,
and child outcomes, as well as social validity measures. The measures
should be described as completely as possible, referenced as
appropriate, and included, when available, in Appendix A.
(3) Each of the implementation components, including, at a minimum,
those listed under paragraph (b) under the heading Priority. The
existing or proposed implementation fidelity measures, including those
measuring the fidelity of the professional development strategy, should
be described as completely as possible, referenced as appropriate, and
included, when available, in Appendix A. In addition, this description
should include--
(i) Demographics, including, at a minimum, the settings of, and
children participating in, all of the implementation sites that have
been identified and successfully recruited for the purposes of this
application using the selection and recruitment strategies described in
paragraph (b)(1) under the heading Priority;
Note: Applicants are encouraged to identify, to the extent
possible, the sites willing to participate in the applicant's model
demonstration. Final site selection will be determined in consultation
with the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) project officer
following the kick-off meeting described in paragraph (e)(1) of these
application requirements, and if the project is working with
elementary, middle, or high school sites, the final sites will include
at least one school of choice such as a public magnet, public charter,
or private school; and
(ii) The lag site implementation design for implementation
consistent with the requirements in paragraph (b)(2) under the heading
Priority.
(4) Each of the strategies to promote sustaining and replicating
the model, including, at a minimum, those listed under paragraph (c)
under the heading Priority.
(d) A description of the evaluation activities and measures to be
incorporated into the proposed model demonstration project. A detailed
and complete description must include--
(1) A formative evaluation plan, consistent with the project's
logic model, that includes evaluation questions, sources of data, a
timeline for data collection, and analysis plans. The plan must show
how the outcome data (e.g., child, personnel, or systems measures,
social validity) and implementation data (e.g., fidelity, effectiveness
of professional development activities) will be used separately or in
combination to improve the project during the performance period. These
data will be reported in the annual performance report (APR). The plan
also must outline how these data will be reviewed by project staff,
when they will be reviewed, and how they will be used during the course
of the project to adjust the model or its implementation to increase
the model's usefulness, generalizability, and potential for
sustainability; and
(2) A summative evaluation plan, including a timeline, to collect
and analyze data on changes to child, teacher, service provider, or
system outcomes over time or relative to comparison groups that can be
reasonably attributable to project activities. The plan must show how
the child, personnel, or system outcome and implementation data
collected by the project will be used separately or in combination to
demonstrate the promise of the model.
(e) A budget for attendance at the following:
(1) A one and one-half day kick-off meeting to be held in
Washington, DC, after receipt of the award.
(2) A three-day project directors' conference in Washington, DC,
occurring twice during the project performance period.
(3) Four travel days spread across years two through four of the
project period to attend planning meetings, Department briefings,
Department-sponsored conferences, and other meetings, as requested by
OSEP, to be held in Washington, DC.
Other Project Activities
To meet the requirements of this priority, each project, at a
minimum, must--
(a) Communicate and collaborate on an ongoing basis with other
Department-funded projects, including, at a minimum, OSEP-funded TA
centers that might disseminate information on the model or support the
scale-up efforts of a model based on promising evidence;
(b) Maintain ongoing telephone and email communication with the
OSEP project officer and the other model demonstration projects funded
under this priority;
(c) If the project maintains a website, include relevant
information about the model, the intervention, and the demonstration
activities and ensure that the website meets government- or industry-
recognized standards for accessibility; and
(d) Ensure that annual progress toward meeting project goals is
posted on the project website.
Competitive Preference Priority: Within this absolute priority, we
give competitive preference to applications that address the following
competitive preference priority. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i), we award
an additional 5 points to an application that meets the competitive
preference priority. This priority is:
Competitive Preference Priority 1 (0 or 5 points). Projects
proposed by applicants that have not had an active grant award under
the Technical
[[Page 12544]]
Assistance and Dissemination to Improve Services and Results for
Children model demonstration grants (84.326M) at any point in the
preceding five fiscal years (i.e., FY 2015-FY 2019).
Note: If an applicant has previously received a grant under the
84.326M program, the performance period for that grant must have ended
on or before September 30, 2014 in order to receive points under this
priority.
Invitational Priority: For FY 2020 and any subsequent year in which
we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this
competition, this priority is an invitational priority. Under 34 CFR
75.105(c)(1), we do not give an application that meets this
invitational priority a competitive or absolute preference over other
applications. This priority is:
Projects that include a virtual delivery method within their
coaching system.
References
Glover, T. A., Reddy, L. A., Kurz, A., & Elliott, S. N. (2019). Use
of an online platform to facilitate and investigate data-driven
instructional coaching. Assessment for Effective Intervention,
44(2), 95-103.
Kraft, M. A., Blazar, D., & Hogan, D. (2018). The effect of teacher
coaching on instruction and achievement: A meta-analysis of the
causal evidence. Review of Educational Research, 88(4), 547-588.
Metz, A., & Bartley, L. (2012). Active implementation frameworks for
program success. Zero to Three, 32(4), 11-18.
Sanetti, L. M. H., & Collier-Meek, M. A. (2019). Increasing
implementation science literacy to address the research-to-practice
gap in school psychology. Journal of School Psychology, 76, 33-47.
Schmidt, R., Young, V., Cassidy, L., Wang, H., & Laguarda, K.
(2017). Impact of the New Teacher Center's new teacher induction
model on teachers and students. SRI International.
Snyder, P. A., Hemmeter, M. L., & Fox, L. (2015). Supporting
implementation of evidence-based practices through practice-based
coaching. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 35(3), 133-
143.
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 other
requirements. Section 681(d) of IDEA, however, makes the public comment
requirements of the APA inapplicable to the absolute priority and
related definitions in this notice.
Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1463 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
higher education (IHEs) only.
II. Award Information
Type of Award: Cooperative agreements.
Estimated Available Funds: $1,200,000.
Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of
applications, we may make additional awards in FY 2021 from the list of
unfunded applications from this competition.
Estimated Range of Awards: $375,000 to $400,000 per year.
Estimated Average Size of Awards: $400,000 per year.
Maximum Award: We will not make an award exceeding $400,000 for a
single budget period of 12 months.
Estimated Number of Awards: 3.
Note: The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.
Project Period: Up to 48 months.
III. Eligibility Information
1. Eligible Applicants: SEAs; LEAs, including charter schools that
are considered LEAs under State law; IHEs; other public agencies;
private nonprofit organizations; outlying areas; freely associated
States; 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: A grantee under this competition may not award
subgrants to entities to directly carry out project activities
described in its application. Under 34 CFR 75.708(e), a grantee may
contract for supplies, equipment, and other services in accordance with
2 CFR part 200.
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) Applicants for, and recipients 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: Applicants are required to
follow the Common Instructions for Applicants to Department of
Education Discretionary Grant Programs, published in the Federal
Register on February 13, 2019 (84 FR 3768), and available at
www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-02-13/pdf/2019-02206.pdf, which
contain requirements and information on how to submit an application.
2. Intergovernmental Review: This competition is subject to
Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79.
Information about Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs under
Executive Order 12372 is in the application package for this
competition.
3. Funding Restrictions: We reference regulations outlining funding
restrictions in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice.
4. Recommended Page Limit: The application narrative (Part III of
the application) is where you, the applicant, address the selection
criteria that reviewers use to evaluate your application. We recommend
that you (1) limit the application narrative to no more than 50 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
[[Page 12545]]
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 potential contribution of the proposed project to increased
knowledge or understanding of educational problems, issues, or
effective strategies;
(ii) 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;
(iii) The importance or magnitude of the results or outcomes likely
to be attained by the proposed project, especially improvements in
teaching and student achievement; and
(iv) The likely utility of the products (such as information,
materials, processes, or techniques) that will result from the proposed
project, including the potential for their being used effectively in a
variety of other settings.
(b) Quality of the project design (35 points).
(1) The Secretary considers the quality of the design of the
proposed project.
(2) In determining the quality of the design of the proposed
project, 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 quality of the proposed demonstration design and
procedures for documenting project activities and results;
(iv) The extent to which the design for implementing and evaluating
the proposed project will result in information to guide possible
replication of project activities or strategies, including information
about the effectiveness of the approach or strategies employed by the
project; and
(v) The extent to which performance feedback and continuous
improvement are integral to the design of the proposed project.
(c) Adequacy of resources and quality of the management plan (25
points).
(1) The Secretary considers the adequacy of resources and the
quality of the management plan for the proposed project.
(2) In determining the adequacy of resources and the quality of the
management plan for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the
following factors:
(i) The adequacy of support, including facilities, equipment,
supplies, and other resources, from the applicant organization or the
lead applicant organization;
(ii) The relevance and demonstrated commitment of each partner in
the proposed project to the implementation and success of the 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;
(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;
(v) The adequacy of the management plan to achieve the objectives
of the proposed project on time and within budget, including clearly
defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing
project tasks; and
(vi) The adequacy of mechanisms for ensuring high-quality products
and services from the proposed project.
(d) Quality of the project evaluation (25 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 will provide
performance feedback and permit periodic assessment of progress toward
achieving intended outcomes;
(iii) The extent to which the methods of evaluation provide for
examining the effectiveness of project implementation strategies;
(iv) The extent to which the evaluation will provide guidance about
effective strategies suitable for replication or testing in other
settings; and
(v) 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.
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
(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
[[Page 12546]]
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
$250,000), 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 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.
(c) Under 34 CFR 75.250(b), the Secretary may provide a grantee
with additional funding for data collection, analysis, and reporting.
In this case the Secretary establishes a data collection period.
5. Performance Measures: Under the Government Performance Results
Modernization Act of 2010, 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 Model Demonstration Projects to Develop Coaching Systems
under the Technical Assistance and Dissemination to Improve Services
and Results for Children With Disabilities program. These measures
are--
Current Program Performance Measure: The percentage of
effective evidence-based program models developed by model
demonstration projects that are promoted to States and their partners
through the Technical Assistance and Dissemination Network; and
Pilot Program Performance Measure: The percentage of
effective program models developed by model demonstration projects that
are sustained beyond the life of the model demonstration project.
The current program performance measure and the pilot program
performance measure 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) on request to
the program contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.
Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this
document is the document published in the Federal
[[Page 12547]]
Register. You may access the official edition of the Federal Register
and the Code of Federal Regulations at www.govinfo.gov. 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.
Mark Schultz,
Delegated the authority to perform the functions and duties of the
Assistant Secretary for the Office of Special Education and
Rehabilitative Services.
[FR Doc. 2020-04316 Filed 3-2-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P