[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 153 (Thursday, August 8, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38950-38958]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-17059]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Applications for New Awards; Technical Assistance and
Dissemination To Improve Services and Results for Children With
Disabilities--National Technical Assistance Center for Systemic
Improvement
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 National Technical Assistance Center for Systemic Improvement,
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number 84.326R. This
Center will provide differentiated support to States to help them best
use their general supervision and professional development (PD) systems
to establish and meet high expectations for each child with a
disability. This notice relates to the approved information collection
under OMB control number 1820-0028.
DATES:
Applications Available: August 8, 2019.
Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: September 9, 2019.
Pre-Application Webinar Information: No later than August 13, 2019,
OSERS will post pre-recorded informational webinars designed to provide
technical assistance (TA) 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 13, 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 27, 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: Perry Williams, U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 5131, Potomac Center Plaza,
Washington, DC 20202-5076. Telephone: (202) 245-7575. 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:
National Technical Assistance and Dissemination Center for Systemic
Improvement (Center).
Background:
The Department has worked extensively with States to ensure
meaningful access to special education and related services for
children with disabilities (CWD) and has noted significant improvements
in compliance with the IDEA requirements over the last decade. However,
educational outcomes in reading and math, as well
[[Page 38951]]
as graduation rates, for CWD continue to lag those of children without
disabilities. Results of the 2017 National Assessment of Educational
Progress (NAEP) in reading and mathematics show the performance of
students with disabilities, excluding those with a 504 plan, to be
significantly lower than the performance of students without
disabilities. In fact, since 2009, performance of students with
disabilities, excluding those with a 504 plan, has decreased in 4th and
8th grade mathematics and 4th grade reading. Even where performance
improved on the 8th grade reading assessment, the gap between students
with disabilities, excluding those with a 504 plan, and those without
disabilities increased from 2009 to 2017. Recent data from 2016 to 2017
show that high school graduation rates for all children was 85 percent
while the graduation rate for CWD was 66 percent (National Center for
Education Statistics, 2019).
States have an important role to play in increasing equal
opportunity and improving educational outcomes for CWD, and in reducing
the persistent gaps in performance between children with and without
disabilities (Tomasello & Brand, 2018). The Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended by the Every Student Succeeds
Act of 2015 (ESSA), and the IDEA, reauthorized in 2004, provide States
the opportunity to align State plans, priorities, support to local
educational agencies (LEAs), and multiple existing efforts across
general and special education programs to help close achievement gaps
and improve educational outcomes for all children, including CWD.
ESSA contains several key provisions that align with IDEA. States
can align ESSA and IDEA implementation efforts to ensure that they--
(1) Effectively support children with the most significant
cognitive disabilities to increase access to the general education
curriculum;
(2) Maintain inclusion of all CWD in accountability systems;
(3) Promote the use of evidence-based \1\ practices (EBPs) to
provide intervention and support to LEAs in need of improvement; and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For the purposes of this priority, ``evidence-based'' means,
at a minimum, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(4) Include meaningful and authentic stakeholder engagement in all
aspects of the planning and implementation process (National Council on
Disability, 2018).
Additionally, ESSA and IDEA underscore the importance of a shared,
integrated, and systemic approach to supporting LEAs and schools, and
they provide States with a framework to design their accountability
systems to improve outcomes for all children. In 2012, OSEP shifted its
accountability framework from a predominant focus on compliance with
Federal regulations toward an approach of monitoring and supporting
States' implementation of both the results and compliance provisions of
IDEA, termed Results-Driven Accountability (RDA).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Results-Driven Accountability includes three components: (1)
The State Performance Plan (SPP)/Annual Performance Report (APR);
(2) annual State determinations; and (3) differentiated monitoring
and support.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
RDA has provided States with an increased opportunity to rethink,
reshape, and refocus the components of their general supervision system
\3\ by incorporating and using child-level results data to inform
decisions related to monitoring, local determinations, and other
accountability efforts. One of the major components of RDA within the
State Performance Plan (SPP)/Annual Performance Report (APR) that has
garnered support and interest from States is the State Systemic
Improvement Plan (SSIP). Each State was required to submit an SSIP as
part of its SPP/APR beginning in Federal Fiscal Year 2013. Each State
identified a State Identified Measurable Result (SIMR) under Part B of
IDEA. The SSIP contains three phases: (1) Analysis of data and other
information to provide a foundation for the SSIP; (2) development of
the plan to improve results; and (3) implementation and evaluation of
the plan. States are using the SSIP, a comprehensive, multiyear plan
that is focused on improving a SIMR, to leverage resources and enhance
their infrastructure and better implement IDEA with an emphasis on
improving outcomes for CWD in State-selected areas such as reading,
mathematics, or graduation. Each phase of the SSIP requires stakeholder
engagement for decision-making and prioritizing outcomes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ ``General supervision system'' refers to a State's system
for ensuring compliance and improving results and includes the SPP;
policies, procedures, and effective implementation; integrated
monitoring activities; fiscal management; data on processes and
results; improvement, correction, incentives, and sanctions;
effective dispute resolution; and targeted TA and professional
development.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
All States have developed their SSIPs and are now heavily engaged
in capacity-building efforts to implement and evaluate improvement
efforts and report progress under four main elements of the SSIP Phase
III report, which are: (1) Data collection, analysis, and use to inform
decision-making; (2) development of infrastructure improvement
strategies necessary to support, sustain, and scale-up system
improvement efforts; (3) selection and use of EBPs that are implemented
with fidelity; and (4) engagement of diverse stakeholders to implement
key improvement strategies and inform decision-making within the State
system. These elements also align with key capacity-building components
of ESSA implementation.
OSEP's review of States' submitted SSIPs in 2018 and a National
Center for Learning Disabilities (NCLD) report, Assessing ESSA: Missed
Opportunities for Children with Disabilities, indicate there are still
multiple challenges that affect States' abilities to successfully align
and implement their ESSA State plans and establish strong comprehensive
accountability systems to support schools that struggle to improve
results for CWD (NCLD, 2018).
Specifically, those challenges include tracking implementation of
EBPs and determining whether they have been implemented with fidelity,
high turnover rates of staff at various levels across the State
educational agency (SEA) and in LEAs, effective systems alignment with
general education efforts, supporting LEAs in selecting and
implementing EBPs to meet the needs of children with increasingly high
intensity and complex needs (e.g., exposure to opioids), establishing
multi-tiered systems of support (MTSS) to provide differentiated TA to
LEAs, evaluation of their SSIPs' infrastructure improvement strategies,
leveraging fiscal systems to achieve desired outcomes, designing and
implementing professional development that meets the individual needs
of teachers, and revising general supervision systems to include
results as an integral component.
The Center will engage in collaborative TA activities with other
Department-funded TA centers, and it will broaden, deepen, and
facilitate systems alignment within State programs and engagement with
existing State TA and PD systems. In addition, the Center will assist
SEAs with ensuring stakeholder engagement and support to meet shared
goals and identify and remove barriers for improving results for CWD.
The Center must be operated in a manner consistent with
nondiscrimination requirements contained in the U.S. Constitution and
Federal civil rights laws.
[[Page 38952]]
Further, we acknowledge that States are in the best position to
determine implementation of their programs, and as such, the Center
will be required to customize its TA to meet each State's specific
identified needs and leverage their resources to meet those needs.
Priority:
The purpose of this priority is to fund a cooperative agreement to
establish and operate a National Technical Assistance Center for
Systemic Improvement (Center). The Center must achieve, at a minimum,
the following expected outcomes:
(a) Increased capacity of SEAs to align with broader general
education initiatives to ensure ESSA and IDEA implementation best
supports the needs of CWD;
(b) Increased capacity of SEAs to effectively implement their
general supervision systems that serve to improve results for CWD,
while maintaining compliance with the IDEA;
(c) Increased capacity of SEAs to effectively implement, evaluate,
and revise (as necessary) their SSIPs and ensure progress toward
meeting their SIMR;
(d) Increased effectiveness of SEAs in meaningfully and
authentically engaging diverse State (including State-level
partnerships) \4\ and local stakeholders in ways that will support the
effective implementation of ESSA and IDEA;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ For the purposes of this priority, ``State-level
partnerships'' refers to State affiliates of nationally recognized
professional and family networks that form an infrastructure for
policy development, dissemination of information, interaction, and
learning.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(e) Increased capacity of SEAs to support LEAs in selecting and
implementing EBPs within frameworks (e.g., MTSS such as positive
behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS), response to intervention
(RTI), and others);
(f) Increased capacity of SEAs to fully engage families, including
partnerships with OSEP-funded parent centers and the Office of
Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE) Statewide Family Engagement
Centers in the implementation of systemic improvement efforts;
(g) Increased capacity of SEAs to deliver effective TA to LEAs
using an aligned TA model grounded in implementation and improvement
sciences through collaboration with OSEP-funded TA centers; and
(h) Improved access to objective information for families and youth
with disabilities on the range of quality educational options \5\ and
supports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ For the purpose of this priority, ``educational options''
means the opportunity for a child or student (or a family member on
their behalf) to create a high-quality personalized path for
learning that is consistent with applicable Federal, State, and
local laws; is in an educational setting that best meets the child's
or student's needs; and, where possible, incorporates evidence-based
activities, strategies, or interventions. Opportunities made
available to a child or student through a grant program are those
that supplement what is provided by a child's or student's
geographically assigned school or the institution in which he or she
is currently enrolled and may include one or more of the following
options: (1) Public educational programs or courses, including those
offered by traditional public schools, public charter schools,
public magnet schools, public online education providers, or other
public education providers; (2) Private or home-based educational
programs or courses, including those offered by private schools,
private online providers, private tutoring providers, community or
faith-based organizations, or other private education providers; (3)
Part-time coursework or career preparation, offered by a public or
private provider in person or through the internet or another form
of distance learning, that serves as a supplement to full-time
enrollment at an educational institution, as a stand-alone program
leading to a credential, or as a supplement to education received in
a homeschool setting; and (4) Other educational services, including
credit-recovery, accelerated learning, or tutoring.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The OSEP-funded TA related to young children (ages birth
through five) with disabilities, and the IDEA Part C and Part B section
619 programs, will primarily be provided by the centers funded under
CFDA numbers 84.325B, 84.326B, 84.326P, and 84.373Z. This Center will
focus on providing TA to SEAs to implement Part B of the IDEA, which
serves children ages 3 through 21, and will develop products or provide
TA to SEAs on issues that impact the entire Part B system, such as
general supervision or SSIP implementation. Consequently, this Center
generally will respond to a State request for products or TA on issues
solely associated with CWD ages birth through 5, such as preschool
least restrictive environments, early childhood outcomes, and early
childhood transition, by referring the State to one or more other OSEP-
funded centers that focus on such issues.
In addition to these programmatic requirements, to be considered
for funding under this priority, applicants must meet the application
and administrative requirements in this priority, which are:
(a) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under
``Significance,'' how the proposed project will--
(1) Address the current and emerging needs of SEAs to meet ESSA and
IDEA requirements by aligning structures and improving processes within
and across levels of the system to support the implementation and
evaluation of their State plans; appropriately apply coherent
improvement strategies, based on thorough data analyses, that are
aligned to current efforts to improve outcomes for all CWD; provide
effective TA on how to implement EBPs with fidelity; meaningfully and
authentically engage diverse stakeholders (including State-level
partnerships); assist States in evaluating their implementation efforts
and their impact; and ensure the effective implementation of their
results-based general supervision systems to support effective
implementation of the IDEA.
To meet this requirement the applicant must--
(i) Demonstrate knowledge of current educational issues and policy
initiatives relating to ongoing challenges with implementing ESSA and
IDEA alignment efforts by SEAs to target and support LEA improvement
efforts;
(ii) Present information and data about the current capacity of
SEAs to support systemic change, and how the Center will address this
challenge to enhance SEA capacity to support LEAs to implement, scale-
up, and sustain EBPs with fidelity;
(iii) Demonstrate knowledge of current educational issues and
policy initiatives and the range of quality educational options that
may be available in States to families of CWD and how the Center will
provide TA and information dissemination to SEAs that increase
opportunities and outcomes for CWD and their families;
(iv) Describe how the Center will engage diverse stakeholders
(including State-level partnerships), local stakeholders, and
Department-funded parent and statewide family engagement centers in the
SEAs' decision-making processes to ensure effective implementation and
evaluation of the SSIP and other State initiatives that establish high
expectations and improved outcomes for CWD; and
(v) Identify and engage with existing State TA and dissemination
systems to assist the Center with supporting statewide systemic
improvement efforts.
(2) Improve SEA infrastructure (e.g., governance, fiscal systems,
quality standards, PD, data sharing and analysis, TA, and
accountability/monitoring) so SEAs can effectively implement the IDEA
and their SSIPs. Applicants must indicate the likely magnitude or
importance of the improvements.
(3) Collaborate and engage with other Department and OSEP-funded TA
Centers (e.g., PBIS Center; Collaboration for Effective Educator
Development, Accountability, and Reform (CEEDAR) Center; and the State
Implementation and Scaling-up of Evidence-based Practices (SISEP)
Center) to incorporate
[[Page 38953]]
a problem-solving logic and multi-tiered approach in the TA provided to
SEAs to address equity issues and effectively and efficiently support
the implementation of SSIPs and improve States' general supervision
systems.
(b) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under
``Quality of the 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, activities, outputs, and intended outcomes of the proposed
project;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Logic model (as defined in 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 EBPs. To meet this
requirement, the applicant must describe--
(i) The current research on the assessment of infrastructure
development that builds capacity in SEAs and LEAs to implement, scale-
up, and sustain the use of EBPs;
(ii) The current research about adult learning principles, as well
as implementation and improvement science, that will inform the
proposed TA; and
(iii) How the proposed project will incorporate current research
and EBPs 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 on
how to implement components of a comprehensive SSIP and effective
general supervision and PD systems;
(ii) Its proposed approach to universal, general TA,\7\ which must
identify the intended recipients, including the type and number of
recipients, that will receive the products and services, a description
of the products and services that the Center proposes to make
available, and the expected impact of those products and services under
this approach;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ ``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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(iii) Its proposed approach to targeted, specialized TA,\8\ which
must identify--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ ``Targeted, specialized TA'' means TA services based on
needs common to multiple recipients and not extensively
individualized. A relationship is established between the TA
recipient and one or more TA center staff. This category of TA
includes one-time, labor-intensive events, such as facilitating
strategic planning or hosting regional or national conferences. It
can also include episodic, less labor-intensive events that extend
over a period of time, such as facilitating a series of conference
calls on single or multiple topics that are designed around the
needs of the recipients. Facilitating communities of practice can
also be considered targeted, specialized TA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A) The intended recipients, including the type and number of
recipients, that will receive the products and services, a description
of the products and services that the Center proposes to make
available, and the expected impact of those products and services under
this approach; and
(B) Its proposed approach to measure the readiness of potential TA
recipients to work with the project, assessing, at a minimum, their
current infrastructure, available resources, and ability to build
capacity at the local level; and
(iv) Its proposed approach to intensive, sustained TA,\9\ which
must identify--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ ``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, that will receive the products and services, a description
of the products and services that the Center proposes to make
available, and the expected impact of those products and services under
this approach;
(B) Its proposed approach to measure the readiness of SEAs to work
with the project, including their commitment to the initiative,
alignment of the initiative to their needs, current infrastructure,
available resources, and ability of the SEAs to build capacity at the
local level;
(C) Its proposed plan to prioritize TA recipients whose most recent
annual determination by the Secretary was that the State needs
intervention under section 616(d)(2)(A)(iii) of IDEA or needs
substantial intervention under section 616(d)(2)(A)(iv) of IDEA in
implementing the requirements of Part B of IDEA.
(C) Its proposed plan for assisting SEAs to build or enhance PD
systems based on adult learning principles and that include sustained
coaching; and
(D) Its proposed plan for working with appropriate levels of the
education system (e.g., SEAs, educational service agencies (ESAs),
LEAs, other TA providers, parents and families) to ensure that there is
communication between each level and that there are systems in place to
support implementation of EBPs;
(6) Develop products and implement services that maximize
efficiency. To address this requirement, the applicant must describe--
(i) How the proposed project will use technology to achieve the
intended project outcomes;
(ii) With whom the proposed project will collaborate and the
intended outcomes of this collaboration, which must include--
(A) How the proposed project will collaborate with other Department
and OSEP-funded TA centers working with SEAs to effectively support the
implementation of SSIPs and improve States' general supervision; and
(B) How the proposed project will collaborate with OSEP-funded TA
centers working in early childhood
[[Page 38954]]
systems to align TA on infrastructure development and system
improvement efforts between early childhood agencies and the SEA; and
(iii) How the proposed project will use non-project resources to
achieve the intended project outcomes.
In the narrative section of the application under ``Quality of the
evaluation plan,'' 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.
The applicant must provide an assurance that, in designing the
evaluation plan, it will--
(1) Designate, with the approval of the 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),\10\
the project director, and the OSEP project officer on the following
tasks:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ 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 (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 (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) Key project personnel and any consultants and subcontractors
will be allocated and how these allocations are appropriate and
adequate to achieve the project's intended outcomes;
(3) The proposed management plan will ensure that the products and
services provided are of high quality, relevant, and useful to
recipients; and
(4) The proposed project will benefit from a diversity of
perspectives, including those of families, educators, TA providers,
researchers, and policy makers, among others, in its development and
operation.
(f) Address the following application requirements. The applicant
must--
(1) Include, in Appendix A, personnel-loading charts and timelines,
as applicable, to illustrate the management plan described in the
narrative;
(2) Include, in the budget, attendance at the following:
(i) A one and one-half day kick-off meeting in Washington, DC,
after receipt of the award, and an annual planning meeting, 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) Two annual trips to attend Department briefings, Department-
sponsored conferences, and other meetings, as requested by OSEP; and
(iv) A one-day intensive 3+2 review meeting during the last half of
the second year of the project period;
(3) Include, in the budget, a line item for an annual set-aside of
five percent of the grant amount to support emerging needs that are
consistent with the proposed project's intended outcomes, as those
needs are identified in consultation with, and approved by, the OSEP
project officer. With approval from the OSEP project officer, the
project must reallocate any remaining funds from this annual set-aside
no later than the end of the third quarter of each budget period;
(4) Maintain a high-quality website, with an easy-to-navigate
design, that meets government or industry-recognized standards for
accessibility;
[[Page 38955]]
(5) Ensure that annual 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 TA recipients during the transition to this
new award period and at the end of this award period, as appropriate.
Fourth and Fifth Years of the Project:
In deciding whether to continue funding the project for the fourth
and fifth years, the Secretary will consider the requirements of 34 CFR
75.253(a), as well as--
(a) The recommendation of a 3+2 review team consisting of experts
selected by the Secretary. This review will be conducted during a one-
day intensive meeting that will be held during the last half of the
second year of the project period;
(b) The timeliness with which, and how well, the requirements of
the negotiated cooperative agreement have been or are being met by the
project; and
(c) The quality, relevance, and usefulness of the project's
products and services and the extent to which the project's products
and services are aligned with the project's objectives and 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.
References:
National Center for Learning Disabilities (NCLD). (2018). Accessing
ESSA: Missed opportunities for children with disabilities. Retrieved
from www.ncld.org/archives/action-center/what-we-ve-done/new-report-assessing-essa-missed-opportunities-for-children-with-disabilities.
National Council on Disabilities (NCD). (2018). (IDEA series) Every
Student Succeeds Act and students with disabilities. Retrieved from
https://ncd.gov/sites/default/files/NCD_ESSA-SWD_Accessible.pdf.
Snyder, T.D., de Brey, C., & Dillow, S.A. (2019). Digest of Education
Statistics 2017 (NCES 2018-070). National Center for Education
Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of
Education. Washington, DC. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2018/2018070.pdf.
Tomasello, J., & Brand, B. (2018). American Youth Policy Forum (AYPF).
How ESSA and IDEA can support college and career readiness for children
with disabilities: Considerations for States. Retrieved from
www.aypf.org/resource/publication-essa-idea-ccr-2018/. U.S. Department
of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for
Education Statistics. (2017). National Assessment of Educational
Progress (NAEP) reading assessments. Accessed through the NAEP Data
Explorer at http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/naepdata/.
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: $6,250,000.
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 $31,250,000 for
a project period of 60 months.
Note: Applicants must describe, in their applications, the amount
of funding being requested for each 12-month budget period.
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; LEAs, including public charter
schools that operate as LEAs under State law; IHEs; other public
agencies; private nonprofit organizations; freely associated States and
outlying areas; Indian Tribes or Tribal organizations; and for-profit
organizations.
2. Cost Sharing or Matching: This program does not require cost
sharing or matching.
3. Subgrantees: 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: (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.
[[Page 38956]]
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 1 margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.
Double space (no more than three lines per vertical inch)
all text in the application narrative, including titles, headings,
footnotes, quotations, reference citations, and captions, as well as
all text in charts, tables, figures, graphs, and screen shots.
Use a font that is 12 point or larger.
Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier,
Courier New, or Arial.
The recommended page limit does not apply to Part I, the cover
sheet; Part II, the budget section, including the narrative budget
justification; Part IV, the assurances and certifications; or the
abstract (follow the guidance provided in the application package for
completing the abstract), the table of contents, the list of priority
requirements, the resumes, the reference list, the letters of support,
or the appendices. However, the recommended page limit does apply to
all of the application narrative, including all text in charts, tables,
figures, graphs, and screen shots.
V. Application Review Information
1. Selection Criteria: The selection criteria for this competition
are from 34 CFR 75.210 and are as follows:
(a) Significance (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.
(iii) The extent to which the proposed project is supported by
promising evidence (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1(c)).
(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.
(vi) The adequacy of mechanisms for ensuring high-quality products
and services from the proposed project.
(c) Quality of the project evaluation (15 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 (25 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.
[[Page 38957]]
(iv) How the applicant will ensure that a diversity of perspectives
are brought to bear in the operation of the proposed project, including
those of parents, teachers, the business community, a variety of
disciplinary and professional fields, recipients or beneficiaries of
services, or others, as appropriate.
2. Review and Selection Process: We remind potential applicants
that in reviewing applications in any discretionary grant competition,
the Secretary may consider, under 34 CFR 75.217(d)(3), the past
performance of the applicant in carrying out a previous award, such as
the applicant's use of funds, achievement of project objectives, and
compliance with grant conditions. The Secretary may also consider
whether the applicant failed to submit a timely performance report or
submitted a report of unacceptable quality.
In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary
requires various assurances, including those applicable to Federal
civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or
activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department
(34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
3. Additional Review and Selection Process Factors: In the past,
the Department has had difficulty finding peer reviewers for certain
competitions because so many individuals who are eligible to serve as
peer reviewers have conflicts of interest. The standing panel
requirements under section 682(b) of IDEA also have placed additional
constraints on the availability of reviewers. Therefore, the Department
has determined that for some discretionary grant competitions,
applications may be separated into two or more groups and ranked and
selected for funding within specific groups. This procedure will make
it easier for the Department to find peer reviewers by ensuring that
greater numbers of individuals who are eligible to serve as reviewers
for any particular group of applicants will not have conflicts of
interest. It also will increase the quality, independence, and fairness
of the review process, while permitting panel members to review
applications under discretionary grant competitions for which they also
have submitted applications.
4. Risk Assessment and Specific Conditions: Consistent with 2 CFR
200.205, before awarding grants under this competition the Department
conducts a review of the risks posed by applicants. Under 2 CFR
3474.10, the Secretary may impose specific conditions and, in
appropriate circumstances, high-risk conditions on a grant if the
applicant or grantee is not financially stable; has a history of
unsatisfactory performance; has a financial or other management system
that does not meet the standards in 2 CFR part 200, subpart D; has not
fulfilled the conditions of a prior grant; or is otherwise not
responsible.
5. Integrity and Performance System: If you are selected under this
competition to receive an award that over the course of the project
period may exceed the simplified acquisition threshold (currently
$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
[[Page 38958]]
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 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.
Dated: August 6, 2019.
Laurie VanderPloeg,
Director, Office of Special Education Programs.
[FR Doc. 2019-17059 Filed 8-6-19; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P