[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 152 (Wednesday, August 7, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38606-38613]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-16809]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Applications for New Awards; Technical Assistance and
Dissemination To Improve Services and Results for Children With
Disabilities--Technical Assistance and Dissemination Center for the
Development and Implementation of High-Quality Instruction,
Interventions, and Services for Children With Disabilities
AGENCY: Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services,
Department of Education.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: 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. As such, the Department of Education (Department) is issuing a
notice inviting applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2019
for a Technical Assistance and Dissemination Center for the Development
and Implementation of High-Quality Instruction, Interventions, and
Services for Children with Disabilities, Catalog of Federal Domestic
Assistance (CFDA) number 84.326C. This Center will develop knowledge,
curate resources, and disseminate information related to (1) enabling
children with disabilities to make progress toward meeting challenging
goals and objectives in light of each child's circumstances, and (2)
supporting local educational agencies (LEAs), charter management
organizations (CMOs), private school associations, and schools in
developing and implementing high-quality individualized educational
programming. This notice relates to the approved information collection
under OMB control number 1820-0028.
DATES:
Applications Available: August 7, 2019.
Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: September 6, 2019.
Pre-Application Webinar Information: No later than August 12, 2019,
OSERS will post pre-recorded informational webinars designed to provide
technical assistance to interested applicants. The webinars may be
found at www2.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/osep/new-osep-grants.html.
Pre-Application Q & A Blog: No later than August 12, 2019, OSERS
will open a blog where interested applicants may post questions about
the application requirements for this competition and where OSERS will
post answers to the questions received. OSERS will not respond to
questions unrelated to the application requirements for this
competition. The blog may be found at www2.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/osep/new-osep-grants.html and will remain open until August 26, 2019.
After the blog closes, applicants should direct questions to the person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
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: David E. Emenheiser, U.S. Department
of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 5134, Potomac Center Plaza,
Washington, DC 20202-5076. Telephone: (202) 245-7556. 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 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. In
accordance with 34 CFR 75.105(b)(2)(v), this priority is from allowable
activities specified in the statute (see sections 663 and 681(d) of the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA); 20 U.S.C. 1463 and
1481(d)).
Absolute Priority: For FY 2019 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:
Technical Assistance and Dissemination Center for the Development
and Implementation of High-Quality Instruction, Interventions, and
Services for Children with Disabilities (Center).
Background:
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) entitles all
eligible children with disabilities to a free appropriate public
education (FAPE) that emphasizes special education and related services
designed to meet their unique needs and prepare them for further
education, employment, and independent living. (20 U.S.C.
1400(d)(1)(A)). The individualized education program (IEP) is the
primary vehicle through which FAPE is delivered to those eligible
children and is the foundation for each
[[Page 38607]]
eligible child's special education programming.
The 2017 U.S. Supreme Court's unanimous decision in Endrew F. v.
Douglas County School District Re-1, 137 S. Ct. 988, stated that ``a
school must offer an IEP reasonably calculated to enable a child to
make progress appropriate in light of the child's circumstances,'' id.
at 999, and that ``every child should have the chance to meet
challenging objectives,'' id. at 1000. As the Supreme Court noted,
``The adequacy of a given IEP turns on the unique circumstances of the
child for whom it was created.'' Id. at 1001. The Court's opinion
reiterated that an adequate special education program includes
development of challenging objectives in the IEP designed to enable the
child with disabilities to make progress. School personnel must ``be
able to offer a cogent and responsive explanation for their decisions
that shows the IEP is reasonably calculated to enable the child to make
progress appropriate in light of his circumstances.'' \1\ Id. at 1002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ On December 7, 2017, the Department issued questions and
answers (Q&A) that provided useful background on the Endrew F.
decision and set out the Department's views on how schools may meet
the standards the Court articulated. The Q&A are available at
https://sites.ed.gov/idea/questions-and-answers-qa-on-u-s-supreme-court-case-decision-endrew-f-v-douglas-county-school-district-re-1/#.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After the Court's ruling, some LEAs and schools requested TA for
setting and meeting these high standards. This Center will disseminate
to the field knowledge and best practices developed through research
and provide intensive TA to a group of LEAs, CMOs, and schools that are
examining and testing the features, activities, and relationships that
ensure that the broadest set of children with disabilities have access
to high-quality IEPs and the provision of a FAPE consistent with the
Endrew F. decision as articulated by the Court.\2\ This Center must be
operated in a manner consistent with nondiscrimination requirements
contained in the U.S. Constitution and Federal civil rights laws.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ It is the Court, of course, and not this Center that
established the standard in the Endrew F. decision, and working with
the Center does not mean that the TA recipient is in compliance with
that standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Priority:
The purpose of this priority is to fund a cooperative agreement to
establish and operate a Technical Assistance and Dissemination Center
for the Development and Implementation of High-Quality Instruction,
Interventions, and Services for Children with Disabilities (Center).
This Center will develop knowledge, disseminate strategies and
products, and provide TA for LEAs, CMOs, private school associations,
and schools to develop and implement high-quality special education
programs that enable children with disabilities to make progress toward
meeting challenging objectives in light of each child's circumstances.
The Center must achieve, at a minimum, the following expected
outcomes:
(a) Design and refinement of a framework that incorporates
theories, knowledge base, and effective policies, procedures,
practices, and tools that can be used in a variety of settings \3\ to
develop and implement high-quality IEPs and the provision of a FAPE
consistent with the Endrew F. decision by showing positive impact on
the achievement of challenging objectives by children with
disabilities;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ For the purposes of this priority, ``settings'' include
general education classrooms; special education classrooms;
elementary, middle, and secondary schools; private schools,
including faith-based schools; home education; after school
programs; juvenile justice facilities; and settings other than those
listed above in which students may receive services under IDEA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) Increased knowledge of the practices that support high
expectations and the achievement of challenging goals and objectives
tailored to children's individual circumstances;
(c) Increased knowledge of how to improve students' access to
appropriate, effective, and individualized instruction and services
that enable appropriate developmental, social, academic, and functional
progress and achievement; and
(d) Increased use of evidence-based \4\ knowledge, tools, and
products demonstrated to increase the capacity of LEAs, CMOs, and
schools to develop and implement high-quality IEPs and the provision of
a FAPE consistent with the Endrew F. decision and to have a positive
impact on the progress toward meeting and the achievement of
challenging objectives by children with disabilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ For the purposes of this priority, ``evidence-based'' means
the proposed project component is supported, at a minimum, by
evidence that demonstrates a rationale (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1),
where 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to meeting the programmatic requirements in 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 proposed project will--
(1) Identify and address the current and emerging needs of LEAs,
CMOs, and school personnel to develop and implement high-quality IEPs
reasonably calculated to enable children to make progress based on
challenging goals and objectives and high expectations in light of each
child's circumstances. To meet this requirement, the applicant must--
(i) Present applicable national, State, regional, or local research
demonstrating significant features, components, and practices of IEP
development and implementation on student progress and achievement of
challenging objectives;
(ii) Demonstrate knowledge of current educational issues and policy
initiatives, including disability policy initiatives, that identify and
address the particular and ongoing capacity needs of LEA, CMO, and
school personnel, and school personnel in a variety of settings, and
how they are likely to change, translate, and expand the general and
special education approach to programming and implementing instruction
and related services for students with disabilities;
(iii) Present information about how school leaders and
practitioners access and utilize knowledge, tools, and products, which
are developed based on evidence of their ability to impact progress and
achievement of students with disabilities; and
(2) Improve the knowledge and use of the features of IEP
development and implementation that have been shown to be positively
related to progress and achievement of challenging goals and objectives
by children with disabilities in rural, suburban, and urban
communities, as well as those living in poverty or attending a high-
need school,\5\ and indicate the likely
[[Page 38608]]
magnitude or importance of the improvements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ For the purposes of this priority, ``high-need school''
refers to a public elementary or secondary school that is: (1) An
LEA (a) that serves not fewer than 10,000 children from families
with incomes below the poverty line; or (b) for which not less than
20 percent of the children are from families with incomes below the
poverty line; (2) a school in which at least 50 percent of students
are from low-income families as determined using one of the measures
of poverty specified under section 1113(a)(5) of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA); (3) a school
identified for comprehensive support and improvement by a State
under section 1111(c)(4)(D) of the ESEA that includes (a) not less
than the lowest performing 5 percent of all schools in the State
receiving funds under Title I, Part A of the ESEA; (b) all public
high schools in the State failing to graduate one third or more of
their students; and (c) public schools in the State described under
section 1111(d)(3)(A)(i)(II) of the ESEA; or (4) a school identified
for targeted support and improvement by a State that has developed
and is implementing a school-level targeted support and improvement
plan to improve student outcomes based on the indicators in the
statewide accountability system as defined in section 1111(d)(2) of
the ESEA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(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 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 \6\ by which the proposed
project will achieve its intended outcomes that depicts, at a minimum,
the goals and how they will be measured, activities, outputs, and
intended outcomes of the proposed project;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Logic model (34 CFR 77.1) (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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(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 evidence-based
practices (EBPs). To meet this requirement, the applicant must
describe--
(i) The research methods for determining the salient IEP
development and implementation of EBPs that are most closely related to
ensuring children with disabilities are offered IEPs that are
reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in
light of the child's circumstances, as outlined in the IDEA, the Endrew
F. decision, and current practices in rural, suburban, and urban
communities, as well as those living in poverty or attending a high-
need school;
(ii) The current research about adult learning principles and
implementation science that will inform the proposed TA; and
(iii) How the proposed project will incorporate current research
and practices in the development and delivery of its products and
services;
(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 of:
(A) The relationships among IEP development, service delivery,
parent engagement, and individual student outcomes; and
(B) The ways in which improved implementation of instructional
practices and related services guided by the IEPs lead to improved
student outcomes;
(ii) Its proposed approach to intensive, sustained TA,\7\ which
must identify--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ ``Intensive, sustained TA'' means TA services often provided
on-site and requiring a stable, ongoing relationship between the TA
center staff and the TA recipient. ``TA services'' are defined as
negotiated series of activities designed to reach a valued outcome.
This category of TA should result in changes to policy, program,
practice, or operations that support increased recipient capacity or
improved outcomes at one or more systems levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A) The intended recipients, including the type and number of
recipients from a variety of settings and geographic distribution, that
will receive the products and services designed to impact student
progress and achievement based on the improved development and
implementation of IEPs;
(B) The proposed measures and instruments used to show fidelity of
implementation of the identified salient IEP development and
implementation features as well as the impact on student progress and
achievement;
(C) Its proposed approach to the selection of TA recipients,
including how it will measure the readiness of potential TA recipients
to work with the project, assessing, at a minimum, their need and
interest, current infrastructure, available resources, and feasibility
and likelihood of increasing capacity at the LEA, CMO, private school
association, and school levels;
(D) Its proposed plan for collaborating with the State educational
agencies (SEAs) to work with and assist LEAs, CMOs, and schools in
developing and enhancing sustainable systems, consistent with the
Endrew F. decision, that include professional development based on
adult learning principles and coaching;
(E) Its proposed plan for working with appropriate levels of the
education system (e.g., SEAs, LEAs, CMOs, schools, families) to ensure
there is communication between each level and there are systems in
place to support the use of EBPs; and
(F) Its proposed plan for disseminating lessons learned from LEAs,
CMOs, and schools receiving the intensive TA for universal TA
recipients;
(iii) Its proposed approach to universal, general TA,\8\ which must
identify the intended recipients, including the educators,
administrators, parents, and service providers, and how they will
access and utilize:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ ``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) The knowledge developed through the research methods described
in paragraph (b)(4)(i) of these application and administrative
requirements;
(B) The tools and products developed through the activities
described in paragraph (b)(5)(i) of these application and
administrative requirements; and
(C) The lessons learned from the delivery of intensive TA on IEP
development and implementation.
(6) Develop products and implement services that are impartial and
maximize efficiency. To address this requirement, the applicant must
describe--
(i) How the proposed project will ensure that its products and
services are not designed to influence the enrollment or placement
decisions of parents of children with disabilities and are designed to
support services for children with disabilities equally, regardless of
placement;
(ii) How the proposed project will use technology to achieve the
intended project outcomes;
(iii) How the proposed project will collaborate with other
organizations and Department-funded TA centers, including parent
centers, and the intended outcomes of this collaboration; and
[[Page 38609]]
(iv) 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 as
described in the following paragraphs. The evaluation plan must
describe: Measures of progress in implementation, including the
criteria for determining the extent to which the project's products and
services have met the goals for reaching its target population;
measures of intended outcomes or results of the project's activities in
order to evaluate those activities; and how well the goals or
objectives of the proposed project, as described in its logic model,
have been met. Applicants must also include a proposed plan for
collecting baseline, targeted, and outcome data for each intensive TA
site.
The applicant must provide an assurance that, in designing the
evaluation plan, it will--
(1) Designate, with the approval of the Office of Special Education
Programs (OSEP) project officer, a project liaison staff person with
sufficient dedicated time, experience in evaluation, and knowledge of
the project to work in collaboration with the Center to Improve Program
and Project Performance (CIP3),\9\ the project director, and the OSEP
project officer on the following tasks:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ The major tasks of CIP3 are to guide, coordinate, and
oversee the design of formative evaluations for every large
discretionary investment (i.e., those awarded $500,000 or more per
year and required to participate in the 3+2 process) in OSEP's
Technical Assistance and Dissemination; Personnel Development;
Parent Training and Information Centers; and Educational Technology,
Media, and Materials programs. The efforts of CIP3 are expected to
enhance individual project evaluation plans by providing expert and
unbiased TA in designing the evaluations with due consideration of
the project's budget. CIP3 does not function as a third-party
evaluator.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) Revise, as needed, the logic model submitted in the application
to provide for a more comprehensive measurement of implementation and
outcomes and to reflect any changes or clarifications to the model
discussed at the kick-off meeting;
(ii) Refine the evaluation design and instrumentation proposed in
the application consistent with the logic model (e.g., prepare
evaluation questions about significant program processes and outcomes;
develop quantitative or qualitative data collections that permit both
the collection of progress data, including fidelity of implementation,
as appropriate, and the assessment of project outcomes; and identify
analytic strategies); and
(iii) Revise, as needed, the evaluation plan submitted in the
application such that it clearly--
(A) Specifies the measures and associated instruments or sources
for data appropriate to the evaluation questions, suggests analytic
strategies for those data, provides a timeline for conducting the
evaluation, and includes staff assignments for completing the plan;
(B) Delineates the data expected to be available by the end of the
second project year for use during the project's evaluation (3+2
review) for continued funding described under the heading Fourth and
Fifth Years of the Project; and
(C) Can be used to assist the project director and the OSEP project
officer, with the assistance of CIP3, as needed, to specify the
performance measures to be addressed in the project's annual
performance report;
(2) Cooperate with CIP3 staff in order to accomplish the tasks
described in paragraph (c)(1) of this section; and
(3) Dedicate sufficient funds in each budget year to cover the
costs of carrying out the tasks described in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2)
of this section and implementing the evaluation plan.
(d) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under
``Adequacy of resources and quality of project personnel,'' 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) How 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) How the proposed management plan will ensure that the products
and services provided are of high quality, relevant, and useful to
recipients; and
(4) How 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 two-day kick-off meeting in Washington, DC, after receipt of
the award, and an annual planning meeting, with the 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) Three annual two-day trips to attend Department briefings,
Department-sponsored conferences, and other meetings, as requested by
OSEP; and
(iv) A two-day intensive 3+2 review meeting during the second year
of the project period;
(3) Include, in the budget, a line item for an annual set-aside of
10 percent of the grant amount to support emerging needs and future
Department policy initiatives that are consistent with the proposed
project's intended outcomes, as those needs and initiatives 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; and
(4) Maintain a high-quality website, with an easy-to-navigate
design, that
[[Page 38610]]
meets government or industry-recognized standards for accessibility;
(5) Ensure that annual project progress toward meeting project
goals is posted on the project website; and
(6) Include, in Appendix A, an assurance to assist OSEP with the
transfer of pertinent resources and products and to maintain the
continuity of services to States during the transition to a new award
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 likely to
result in the project achieving its intended outcomes.
Under 34 CFR 75.253, the Secretary may reduce continuation awards
or discontinue awards in any year of the project period for excessive
carryover balances or a failure to make substantial progress. The
Department intends to closely monitor unobligated balances and
substantial progress under this program and may reduce or discontinue
funding accordingly.
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. 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. 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 agreement.
Estimated Available Funds: $2,000,000.
Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of
applications, we may make additional awards in FY 2020 from the list of
unfunded applications from this competition.
Maximum Award: We will not make an award exceeding $2,000,000 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: SEAs; State lead agencies under Part C of
the IDEA; LEAs, including public charter schools that are considered
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: 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. However,
under 34 CFR 79.8(a), we waive intergovernmental review in order to
make an award by the end of FY 2019.
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 70 pages
and (2) use the following standards:
A ``page'' is 8.5'' x 11'', on one side only, with 1Prime;
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 listed below:
[[Page 38611]]
(a) Significance (10 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 importance or magnitude of the results or outcomes likely
to be attained by the proposed project.
(b) Quality of project services (35 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 there is a conceptual framework underlying
the proposed research or demonstration activities and the quality of
that framework.
(iii) The extent to which the services to be provided by the
proposed project reflect up-to-date knowledge from research and
effective practice.
(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 TA 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 will provide
performance feedback and permit periodic assessment of progress toward
achieving intended outcomes.
(iv) 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.
(d) Adequacy of resources and quality of project personnel (15
points).
(1) The Secretary considers the adequacy of resources for the
proposed project and the quality of the personnel who will carry out
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 addition, 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 qualifications, including relevant training, experience,
and independence, of the evaluator.
(v) The adequacy of support, including facilities, equipment,
supplies, and other resources, from the applicant organization or the
lead applicant organization.
(vi) The relevance and demonstrated commitment of each partner in
the proposed project to the implementation and success of the project.
(vii) The extent to which the budget is adequate to support the
proposed project.
(viii) 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 responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing
project tasks.
(ii) 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.
(iii) The adequacy of mechanisms for ensuring high-quality products
and services from the proposed project.
(iv) How the applicant will ensure that a diversity of perspectives
is 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
(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
[[Page 38612]]
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
$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.
5. Performance Measures: Under the Government Performance and
Results 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 Technical Assistance and Dissemination to Improve
Services and Results for Children With Disabilities program. These
measures are:
Program Performance Measure #1: The percentage of
Technical Assistance and Dissemination products and services deemed to
be of high quality by an independent review panel of experts qualified
to review the substantive content of the products and services.
Program Performance Measure #2: The percentage of Special
Education Technical Assistance and Dissemination products and services
deemed by an independent review panel of qualified experts to be of
high relevance to educational and early intervention policy or
practice.
Program Performance Measure #3: The percentage of all
Special Education Technical Assistance and Dissemination products and
services deemed by an independent review panel of qualified experts to
be useful in improving educational or early intervention policy or
practice.
Program Performance Measure #4: The cost efficiency of the
Technical Assistance and Dissemination Program includes the percentage
of milestones achieved in the current annual performance report period
and the percentage of funds spent during the current fiscal year.
Long-term Program Performance Measure: The percentage of
States receiving Special Education Technical Assistance and
Dissemination services regarding scientifically or evidence-based
practices for infants, toddlers, children, and youth with disabilities
that successfully promote the implementation of those practices in
school districts and service agencies.
The 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).
The Department will also closely monitor the extent to which the
products and services provided by the Center meet needs identified by
stakeholders and may require the Center
[[Page 38613]]
to report on such alignment in their annual and final performance
reports.
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 5081A, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC
20202-5076. 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 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.
Johnny W. Collett,
Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.
[FR Doc. 2019-16809 Filed 8-6-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P