Applications for New Awards; Educational Technology, Media, and Materials for Individuals With Disabilities-Stepping-Up Technology Implementation, 18747-18758 [2017-08119]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 76 / Friday, April 21, 2017 / Notices sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES sustainability of the coastal ecosystem and surrounding communities due to sea level rise, local subsidence and storms, and to reduce the economic costs and risks associated with largescale flood and storm events in the area known as the Atlantic Coast of New York, the Nassau County Back Bays. ADDRESSES: Send written comments and suggestions concerning the scope of issues to be evaluated within the EIS to Robert Smith, Project Biologist/NEPA Coordinator, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New York District, Planning Division, Environmental, 26 Federal Plaza, New York, NY 10279–0090; Phone: (917) 790–8729; email: robert.j.smith@usace.army.mil. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions about the overall Nassau County Back Bays Coastal Storm Risk Management Feasibility Study should be directed to Mark Lulka, Project Manager, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New York District, Programs and Project Management Division, Civil Works Programs Branch, 26 Federal Plaza, Room 2145, New York, NY 10279–0090; Phone: (917) 790–8205; email: mark.f.lulka@usace.army.mil. DATES: Scoping meetings will be held on May 2 and 3, 2017. For further information on these scoping meetings, please read the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Bays. Along the Atlantic Ocean, surge and waves inundated low lying areas, and contributed to the flooding along the shoreline of the interior of the Bays. Hurricane Sandy illustrated the need to re-evaluate the entire back-bay area as a system, when considering riskmanagement measures. Acknowledging the amount of analyses required to comprehensively reevaluate the study area considering the influence of the Atlantic Ocean shorefront conditions on the back-bay system, an EIS will be prepared. The EIS will build upon the extensive Atlantic shoreline alternatives analysis and environmental and technical studies and outreach conducted to date. The scope of analysis will be appropriate to the level of detail necessary for an EIS and will receive input from the public and reviewing agencies. The analysis will provide the basis for the alternatives to problems associated with storm surge and wave damage along the back-bays. 1. Background As a result of Hurricane Sandy in October 2012, Congress passed Public Law 113–2, which authorized supplemental appropriations to Federal agencies for expenses related to the consequences of Hurricane Sandy. The Corps is investigating measures to reduce future flood risk in ways that support the long-term resilience and sustainability of the coastal ecosystem and surrounding communities, and reduce the economic costs and risks associated with flood and storm events. In support of this goal, the Corps completed the North Atlantic Coast Comprehensive Study (NAACS), which identified nine high risk areas on the Atlantic Coast for further analysis based on preliminary findings. The Nassau County Back Bays area was identified as one of the nine areas of high risk, or Focus Areas, that warrants an in-depth investigation into potential coastal storm risk management measures. During Hurricane Sandy, the study area communities were severely affected with large areas subjected to erosion, storm surge, and wave damage along the Atlantic Ocean shoreline, and flooding of communities within and surrounding As required by Council on Environmental Quality’s Principles, Requirements and Guidelines for Water and Land Related Resources Implementation Studies all reasonable alternatives to the proposed Federal action that meet the purpose and need will be considered in the EIS. These alternatives will include no action and a range of reasonable alternatives for managing flood risk within the Nassau County Back Bays Area. The measures to be evaluated will be the subject of additional public stakeholders and agency coordination. The result of this coordination early on in the process will identify any concerns, potential impacts, relevant effects of past actions and possible alternative actions which will aid in the Corps developing an EIS for the entire study area. This decision making approach will allow time to address agency policy issues and build consensus among cooperating agencies and the public. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:30 Apr 20, 2017 Jkt 241001 2. Study Area The study area includes all of the tidally influenced bays and estuaries located in and hydraulically connected to the south shore of Nassau County, New York, located on Long Island, NY, directly east of Queens County and west of Suffolk County for approximately 98 square miles. 3. Corps Decision Making 4. Scoping/Public Participation The Corps has scheduled meeting to invite the public to come and comment on the scope of the issues and alternatives to be addressed in the draft PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 18747 EIS. The Nassau County Back Bay, NEPA Scoping Meeting will be held: When: Tuesday, May 02, 2017 6:00 p.m.–9:00 p.m. Where: Seaford High School Auditorium, Seaford, NY When: Wednesday, May 03, 2017 6:00 p.m.–9:00 p.m. Where: Freeport Village Hall, Freeport, NY Each of the public meetings will begin with an informal open house followed by the formal presentation. Input will also be received through written comments, comments may be submitted during the scoping meetings, or via mail or email at any time. 5. Lead and Cooperating Agencies The Corps is the lead federal agency and the New York Department of Environmental Conservation will be the nonfederal sponsor for the study and the preparation of the EIS and meeting the requirements of the NEPA and its Implementing Regulations of the President’s Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR 1500–1508). Federal agencies interested in participating as a Cooperating Agency are requested to submit a letter of intent to Colonel David A. Caldwell, District Engineer (see ADDRESSES). The preparation of the EIS will be coordinated with New York State and Nassau County offices with discretionary authority relative to the proposed actions. The Draft Integrated Feasibility Report/EIS is currently scheduled for distribution to the public in 2019. Dated: April 12, 2017. Peter M. Weppler, Chief, Environmental Analysis Branch, Planning Division, New York District. [FR Doc. 2017–08095 Filed 4–20–17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3720–58–P DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Applications for New Awards; Educational Technology, Media, and Materials for Individuals With Disabilities—Stepping-Up Technology Implementation Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Department of Education. ACTION: Notice. AGENCY: The Department of Education is issuing a notice inviting applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2017 for Educational Technology, Media, and Materials for Individuals with Disabilities—Stepping-up Technology Implementation, Catalog of Federal SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\21APN1.SGM 21APN1 18748 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 76 / Friday, April 21, 2017 / Notices Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number 84.327S. DATES: Applications Available: April 21, 2017. Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: June 5, 2017. Deadline for Intergovernmental Review: August 4, 2017. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Terry Jackson, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 5158, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202–5076. Telephone: (202) 245–6039. 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 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES Purpose of Program: The purposes of the Educational Technology, Media, and Materials for Individuals with Disabilities Program are to: (1) Improve results for students with disabilities by promoting the development, demonstration, and use of technology; (2) support educational activities designed to be of educational value in the classroom for students with disabilities; (3) provide support for captioning and video description that is appropriate for use in the classroom; and (4) provide accessible educational materials to students with disabilities in a timely manner.1 Priority: In accordance with 34 CFR 75.105(b)(2)(v), this priority and the competitive preference priorities within this priority are from allowable activities specified in the statute (see sections 674(c)(1)(D) and 681(d) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (20 U.S.C. 1474(c)(1)(D) and 1481(d))). Absolute Priority: For FY 2017 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 1 Applicants should note that other laws, including the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.; 28 CFR part 35) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794; 34 CFR part 104), may require that State educational agencies (SEAs) and local educational agencies (LEAs) provide captioning, video description, and other accessible educational materials to students with disabilities when such materials are necessary to provide students with disabilities with equally integrated and equally effective access to the benefits of the educational program or activity, or as part of a ‘‘free appropriate public education’’ as defined in the Department of Education’s Section 504 regulation. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:30 Apr 20, 2017 Jkt 241001 CFR 75.105(c)(3), we consider only applications that meet this priority. This priority is: Stepping-up Technology Implementation. Background The purpose of this priority is to fund cooperative agreements to: identify strategies needed to effectively implement research-based technology tools 2 that benefit students with disabilities, and develop and disseminate products 3 that will help a broad range of schools to effectively implement these technology tools. Congress recognized in IDEA that ‘‘almost 30 years of research and experience has demonstrated that the education of children with disabilities can be made more effective by . . . supporting the development and use of technology, including assistive technology devices and assistive technology services, to maximize accessibility for children with disabilities’’ (section 601(c)(5)(H) of IDEA). Technology can be the great equalizer in a classroom for students with disabilities. The use of technology, including assistive technology devices and assistive technology services, enhances instruction and access to the general education curriculum. Innovative technology tools, programs, and software can be used to promote engagement and enhance the learning experience (Brunvand & Byrd, 2011). Innovative technology tools and programs are especially helpful as educators work to engage and motivate students who struggle with the general education curriculum. Additionally, the development of newer technologies for, and their presence in, early childhood education is rapidly increasing. When media-rich content is integrated into the curriculum and supported with adult guidance, technology experiences for young children are associated with better language, literacy, and mathematics outcomes. Additionally, technology integration in early childhood settings has been linked to increased social awareness and 2 For the purposes of this priority, ‘‘technology tools’’ may include, but are not limited to, digital math text readers for students with visual impairments, reading software to improve literacy and communication development, and text-tospeech software to improve reading performance. These tools must assist or otherwise benefit students with disabilities. 3 For the purposes of this priority, ‘‘products’’ may include, but are not limited to, instruction manuals, lesson plans, demonstration videos, ancillary instructional materials, and professional development modules such as collaborative groups, coaching, mentoring, or online supports. PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 collaborative behaviors, improved abstract reasoning and problem solving abilities, and enhanced visual-motor coordination (McManis & Gunnewig, 2012). Technologies can support State educational agencies (SEAs) and local educational agencies (LEAs) by: (a) Improving student learning and engagement; (b) accommodating the special needs of students; (c) facilitating student and teacher access to digital content and resources; and (d) improving the quality of instruction through personalized learning and data (Duffey & Fox, 2012; Fletcher, Schaffhauser, & Levi, 2012; U.S. Department of Education, 2010). As stipulated in section 4109 of the Every Student Succeeds Act, technologies can be used to support LEAs and SEAs to increase student access to personalized, rigorous learning experiences. Notwithstanding the potential benefits of using technology to improve learning outcomes, research suggests that implementation can be a significant challenge. For example, data from a survey of more than 1,000 kindergarten through grade 12 (K–12) teachers, principals, and assistant principals indicated that simply providing teachers with technology does not ensure that it will be used (Grunwald & Associates, 2010). Additionally, Perlman and Redding (2011) found that in order to be used most effectively, technology must be implemented in ways that align with curricular and teacher goals and offer students opportunities to use these tools in their learning. Even as schools have started to deliver coursework online, and the number of students involved in online learning has grown, many of these online learning technologies have not been designed to be accessible to students with disabilities (Center on Online Learning and Students with Disabilities, 2012). These findings demonstrate a need for products and resources that can assist educators to readily implement technology tools for students with disabilities. In response to this need, Stepping-up Technology Implementation projects have built on technology development efforts by identifying, developing, and disseminating products and resources that promote the effective implementation 4 of instructional and 4 In this context, ‘‘effective implementation’’ means ‘‘making better use of research findings in typical service settings through the use of processes and activities (such as accountable implementation teams) that are purposeful and described in sufficient detail such that independent observers can detect the presence and strength of these processes and activities’’ (Fixsen, Naoom, Blase, Friedman, & Wallace, 2005). E:\FR\FM\21APN1.SGM 21APN1 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 76 / Friday, April 21, 2017 / Notices assistive technology tools in early childhood or K–12 settings.5 Priority The purpose of this priority is to fund five cooperative agreements to: (a) Identify strategies needed to readily implement existing technology tools based on evidence that benefit students with disabilities; and (b) develop and disseminate products (See footnote 3; e.g., instruction manuals, lesson plans, demonstration videos, ancillary instructional materials) that will assist personnel in early childhood or K–12 settings to readily use, understand, and implement these technology tools. To be considered for funding under this priority, applicants must meet the application requirements. Any project funded under this absolute priority must also meet the programmatic and administrative requirements specified in the priority. Application Requirements An applicant must include in its application— (a) A project design supported by strong theory (as defined in this notice); (b) A logic model (as defined in this notice) or conceptual framework that depicts at a minimum, the goals, activities, project evaluation, methods, performance measures, outputs, and outcomes of the proposed project. sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES Note: The following Web sites provide more information on logic models: www.osepideasthatwork.org/logicModel and www.osepideasthatwork.org/resourcesgrantees/program-areas/ta-ta/tad-projectlogic-model-and-conceptual-framework; (c) A plan to implement the activities described in the Project Activities section of this priority; (d) A plan, linked to the proposed project’s logic model, for a formative evaluation of the proposed project’s activities. The plan must describe how the formative evaluation will use clear performance objectives to ensure continuous improvement in the operation of the proposed project, including objective measures of progress in implementing the project and ensuring the quality of products and services; (e) Documentation that the technology tool is fully developed, is based on evidence, and addresses, at a minimum, the following principles of universal design: (1) Multiple means of presentation so that students can approach information 5 For the purposes of this priority, ‘‘settings’’ include general education classrooms, special education classrooms, high-quality early childhood programs, or any place where school-based instruction occurs. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:30 Apr 20, 2017 Jkt 241001 in more than one way (e.g., specialized software and Web sites, screen readers that include features such as text-tospeech, changeable color contrast, alterable text size, or selection of different reading levels); (2) Multiple means of expression so that all students can demonstrate knowledge through options such as writing, online concept mapping, or speech-to-text programs, where appropriate; and (3) Multiple means of engagement to stimulate interest in and motivation for learning (e.g., options among several different learning activities or content for a particular competency or skill and providing opportunities for increased collaboration or scaffolding); 6 (f) A plan for how the project will sustain the proposed technology tool or strategy, supported by evidence, after funding ends; (g) A plan for recruiting and selecting 7 the following: (1) Three development schools. Development schools are the sites in which iterative development 8 of the products and resources intended to support the implementation of technology tools will occur. The project must start implementing the technology tool with one development school in year one of the project period and two additional development schools in year two; (2) Four pilot schools. Pilot schools are the sites in which try-out, formative evaluation, and refinement of the products and resources will occur. The project must work with the four pilot schools during years three and four of the project period; and (3) Ten dissemination schools. Dissemination schools will be selected if the project is extended for a fifth year. Dissemination schools will be used to (a) refine the products for use by teachers and (b) evaluate the performance of the tool. Dissemination schools will receive less technical assistance (TA) from the project than development or pilot schools. Also, at this stage (i.e., the fifth year), dissemination schools will extend the 6 For more information on the principles of universal design, see www.udlcenter.org/aboutudl/ whatisudl/3principles. 7 For more information on recruiting and selecting sites, refer to Assessing Sites for Model Demonstration: Lessons Learned from OSEP Grantees at http://mdcc.sri.com/documents/reports/ MDCC_Site_Assessment_Brief_09-30-11.pdf. 8 For the purposes of this priority, ‘‘iterative development’’ refers to a process of testing, systematically securing feedback, and then revising the educational intervention that leads to revisions in the intervention to increase the likelihood that it will be implemented with fidelity (Diamond & Powell, 2011). PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 18749 benefits of the technology tool to additional students. To be selected as a dissemination school, eligible schools and LEAs must commit to working with the project to implement the researchbased technology tool. A school may not serve in more than one category (i.e., development, pilot, dissemination); (h) School site information (e.g., elementary, middle, high school or early childhood setting; persistently lowestachieving school or high-needs school (as defined in this notice)) about the development, pilot, and dissemination schools; student demographics (e.g., race or ethnicity, percentage of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch); and other pertinent data; and (i) A budget for attendance at the following: (1) A one and one-half day kick-off meeting to be held in Washington, DC, after receipt of the award, and an annual planning meeting held in Washington, DC, 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. (2) A three-day project directors’ conference in Washington, DC, during each year of the project period. (3) Two two-day trips annually to attend Department briefings, Department-sponsored conferences, and other meetings, as requested by OSEP. Project Activities To meet the requirements of this priority, the project, at a minimum, must conduct the following activities: (a) Recruit a minimum of three development schools in one LEA and four pilot schools across at least two LEAs in accordance with the plan proposed under paragraph (g) of the Application Requirements section of this notice. Note: Final site selection will be determined in consultation with the OSEP project officer following the kick-off meeting. (b) Identify and develop resources and products that, when used to support technology tool implementation, create accessible learning opportunities for all children, including children with disabilities, and will support the sustained implementation of the selected technology tool. Development of the products must be an iterative process beginning in a single development school and continuing through repeated cycles of development and refinement in the other development schools, followed by a E:\FR\FM\21APN1.SGM 21APN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES 18750 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 76 / Friday, April 21, 2017 / Notices formative evaluation and refinement in the pilot schools. To support implementation of the technology tool the products and resources must, at a minimum, include: (1) An instrument or method for assessing— (i) Whether the technology tool has achieved its intended outcomes; (ii) The school staff’s current technology uses and needs, current technology investments, firewall issues, and the knowledge and availability of dedicated on-site technology personnel; and (iii) The readiness of development and pilot sites to implement the technology tool. Any instruments and methods for assessing readiness may include resource inventory checklists, school self-study guides, and survey of teachers’ interests. (c) Provide ongoing professional development activities necessary for teachers to implement the technology tool with fidelity and to integrate it into the curriculum. (d) Collect and analyze data on whether the technology tool has achieved its intended outcomes for early childhood development, academic achievement, or college- and careerreadiness. (e) Collect formative and summative data from the development and pilot schools to refine and evaluate the products. (f) If the project is extended to a fifth year, provide the products and the technology tool to no fewer than 10 dissemination schools that are not the same schools used as development or pilot schools. (g) Collect summative data about the success of the products in supporting implementation of the technology tool in the dissemination schools; and (h) By the end of the project period, provide— (1) Information on the products and resources, as supported by the project evaluation, including any accessibility features, that will enable other schools to implement and sustain implementation of the technology tool; (2) A plan for implementing the technology that includes relevant information (e.g., data on how teachers used the technology, data on how technology impacted student outcomes, how technology was implemented with fidelity, features of universal design); (3) Information on how the technology tool achieved its intended outcomes related to early childhood (e.g., data to assess how well the project addressed the goals of the project as described in the logic model), academic achievement, or college- and career- VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:30 Apr 20, 2017 Jkt 241001 readiness for children with disabilities; and (4) A plan for disseminating the technology tool and accompanying products beyond the schools directly involved in the project. Cohort Collaboration and Support OSEP project officer(s) will provide coordination support among the projects. Each project funded under this priority must: (a) Participate in monthly conferencecall discussions to share and collaborate around implementation and specific project issues; and (b) Provide information annually using a template that captures descriptive data on project site selection, processes for installation of technology, and the use of technology and sustainability (i.e., the process of technology implementation). Note: The following Web site provides more information about implementation research: http://nirn.fpg.unc.edu/learnimplementation. Fifth Year of Project The Secretary may extend a project one year beyond 48 months to work with dissemination schools if the grantee is achieving the intended outcomes (e.g., provides data that demonstrate the project addressed the goals of the project as described in the logic model) and making a positive contribution to the implementation of a research-based technology tool in the development and pilot schools. Each applicant must include in its application a plan for the full 60-month award. In deciding whether to continue funding the project for the fifth year, the Secretary will consider the requirements of 34 CFR 75.253(a), and will consider: (a) The recommendation of a review team consisting of the OSEP project officer and other experts selected by the Secretary. This review will be held during the last half of the third year of the project period; (b) The success and timeliness with which the requirements of the negotiated cooperative agreement have been or are being met by the project; and (c) Evidence of the degree to which the project’s activities have contributed to changed practices and improved early childhood outcomes, academic achievement, or college- and careerreadiness for students with disabilities. Competitive Preference Priorities: Within this absolute priority, we give competitive preference to applications that address the following priorities. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i), we award an additional two points to an PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 application that meets one of the competitive preference priorities. Applicants may address only one competitive preference priority. Applications will only be awarded two or zero points and must identify which competitive preference priority they are addressing. Note: Under each competitive preference priority, no more than one application will be funded based solely on competitive preference points (i.e., exceeded the funding cut-off score as a result of receiving the two points). The priorities are: Competitive Preference Priority 1— Students with the Most Significant Cognitive Disabilities. (Two Points). To meet this competitive preference priority, projects must be designed to support teachers in providing access through technology to the general education curriculum aligned with State grade-level content standards or alternate academic achievement standards in mathematics and English language arts (K–12) for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities. Teachers of students with the most significant cognitive disabilities will be able to use the technology to differentiate grade-level instruction effectively and will be able to better track student progress toward grade-level proficiency. Applicants responding to the competitive preference priority must— (a) Identify technology tools based on evidence needed to implement an English language arts or mathematics curriculum aligned with State gradelevel content standards or alternate academic achievement standards for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities; (b) Identify a curriculum and performance tracking tool for use by teachers for the purpose of assessing the outcomes of the technology’s intended use on individualized instruction aligned to K–12 grade—level content standards, or alternate academic achievement standards, in English language arts and mathematics appropriate to students with the most significant cognitive disabilities; and (c) Develop and disseminate accessible products and resources (e.g., instruction manuals, lesson plans, demonstration videos, ancillary instructional materials) that will assist teachers in K–12 settings to implement the technology. Competitive Preference Priority 2— Projects Supported by Evidence of Promise (Two Points). To meet this competitive preference priority, applicants must include in the E:\FR\FM\21APN1.SGM 21APN1 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 76 / Friday, April 21, 2017 / Notices literature review required under the absolute priority (paragraph (a) under the heading Application Requirements) research that meets at least the evidence of promise standard and that supports the promise (i.e., evidence base) of the proposed model under the absolute priority and its components and processes. Note: An applicant addressing this competitive preference priority must identify no more than two study citations that meet this standard. Competitive Preference Priority 3— Technology to Support Instructors and Students in Juvenile Correctional Facilities (Two Points). To meet this competitive preference priority, projects must provide technology to support instructors and students in juvenile correctional facilities that— (a) Allows instructors to immediately assess a student’s current grade-level ability when the student moves into a juvenile correctional facility without having the appropriate educational information (e.g., individualized education program, section 504 plans, behavior intervention plans). Technology can also allow instructors to develop education plans in addition to individualized education programs required for students with disabilities under IDEA and plans that describe services required for students with disabilities under section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; (b) Equips instructors with tools and resources to enhance the classroom experience, such as flipped classrooms, blended learning, and other models and methods that would allow students to make educational gains in and outside of the classroom; and (c) Expands the reach of correctional education services to provide more incarcerated individuals with the knowledge and skills needed to graduate. sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES References Brunvand, S., & Byrd, S. (2011). Using VoiceThread to promote learning engagement and success for all students. Teaching Exceptional Children, 43(4), 28–37. Center on Online Learning and Students with Disabilities (COLSD). (2012). The foundation of online learning for students with disabilities (COLSD White Paper). Lawrence, KS: Author. Retrieved from http://centerononlinelearning.org/ wp-content/uploads/Foundation_7_ 2012.pdf. Diamond, K.E., & Powell, D.R. (2011). An iterative approach to the development of a professional development intervention for Head Start teachers. Journal of Early Intervention, 33(1), 75–93. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:30 Apr 20, 2017 Jkt 241001 Duffey, D., & Fox, C. (2012). National Educational Technology Trends 2012: State Leadership Empowers Educators, Transforms Teaching and Learning. Washington, DC: State Educational Technology Directors Association. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ ED536746.pdf. Fixsen, D.L., Naoom, S.F., Blase, K.A., Friedman, R.M., & Wallace, F. (2005). Implementation research: A synthesis of the literature. Tampa, FL: University of South Florida, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute, The National Implementation Research Network. Fletcher, G., Schaffhauser, D. & Levi, D. (2012). Out of print: Reimagining the K– 12 textbook in a digital age. Washington, DC: State Educational Technology Directors Association. Retrieved from www.setda.org/c/document_library/get_ file?folderId=321&name=DLFE-1587.pdf. Grunwald & Associates. (2010). Educators, technology, and 21st century skills: Dispelling five myths. Retrieved from Walden University, Richard W. Riley College of Education Web site: www.WaldenU.edu/fivemyths. McManis, L.D., & Gunnewig, S.B. (2012). Finding the education in educational technology with early learners. Young Children, 67(3), 14–24. Perlman, C.L., & Redding, S. (Eds.). (2011). Choosing and implementing technology wisely. Handbook on Effective Implementation of School Improvement Grants. Lincoln, IL: Academic Development Institute. Retrieved from www.centerii.org/handbook. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology. (2010). Transforming American Education: Learning Powered by Technology. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from www.ed.gov/sites/default/files/ netp2010.pdf. Definitions These definitions are from 34 CFR 77.1 and the Department’s notice of final supplemental priorities and definitions for discretionary grant programs (Supplemental Priorities), published in the Federal Register on December 10, 2014 (79 FR 73425), as marked. The following definitions are from 34 CFR 77.1: Evidence of promise means there is empirical evidence to support the theoretical linkage(s) between at least one critical component and at least one relevant outcome presented in the logic model for the proposed process, product, strategy, or practice. Specifically, evidence of promise means the conditions in both paragraphs (i) and (ii) of this definition are met: (i) There is at least one study that is a— (A) Correlational study with statistical controls for selection bias; (B) Quasi-experimental design study that meets the What Works PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 18751 Clearinghouse Evidence Standards with reservations; or (C) Randomized controlled trial that meets the What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards with or without reservations. (ii) The study referenced in paragraph (i) of this definition found a statistically significant or substantively important (defined as a difference of 0.25 standard deviations or larger) favorable association between at least one critical component and one relevant outcome presented in the logic model for the proposed process, product, strategy, or practice. Logic model (also referred to as theory of action) means a well-specified conceptual framework that identifies key components of the proposed process, product, strategy, or practice (i.e., the active ‘‘ingredients’’ that are hypothesized to be critical to achieving the relevant outcomes) and describes the relationships among the key components and outcomes, theoretically and operationally. Quasi-experimental design study means a study using a design that attempts to approximate an experimental design by identifying a comparison group that is similar to the treatment group in important respects. These studies, depending on design and implementation, can meet What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards with reservations (but not What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards without reservations). Randomized controlled trial means a study that employs random assignment of, for example, students, teachers, classrooms, schools, or districts to receive the intervention being evaluated (the treatment group) or not to receive the intervention (the control group). The estimated effectiveness of the intervention is the difference between the average outcomes for the treatment group and for the control group. These studies, depending on design and implementation, can meet What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards without reservations. Relevant outcome means the student outcome(s) (or the ultimate outcome if not related to students) the proposed process, product, strategy, or practice is designed to improve; consistent with the specific goals of a program. Strong theory means a rationale for the proposed process, product, strategy, or practice that includes a logic model. What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards means the standards set forth in the What Works Clearinghouse Procedures and Standards Handbook (Version 3.0, March 2014), which can be found at the following link: http:// E:\FR\FM\21APN1.SGM 21APN1 18752 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 76 / Friday, April 21, 2017 / Notices ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/ DocumentSum.aspx?sid=19. The following definitions are from the Supplemental Priorities: Persistently lowest-achieving school means, as determined by the State— (a)(1) Any Title I school that has been identified for improvement, corrective action, or restructuring under section 1116 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA) and that— (i) Is among the lowest-achieving five percent of Title I schools in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring or the lowest-achieving five Title I schools in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring in the State, whichever number of schools is greater; or (ii) Is a high school that has had a graduation rate, as defined in 34 CFR 200.19(b), that is less than 60 percent over a number of years; and (2) Any secondary school that is eligible for, but does not receive, Title I funds that— (i) Is among the lowest-achieving five percent of secondary schools or the lowest-achieving five secondary schools in the State that are eligible for, but do not receive, Title I funds, whichever number of schools is greater; or (ii) Is a high school that has had a graduation rate, as defined in 34 CFR 200.19(b), that is less than 60 percent over a number of years. (b) To identify the lowest-achieving schools, a State must take into account both— (i) The academic achievement of the ‘‘all students’’ group in a school in terms of proficiency on the State’s assessments under section 1111(b)(3) of the ESEA, in reading/language arts and mathematics combined; and (ii) The school’s lack of progress on those assessments over a number of years in the ‘‘all students’’ group. 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. sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1474 and 1481. Applicable Regulations: (a) The Education Department General Administrative Regulations in 34 CFR parts 75, 77, 79, 81, 82, 84, 86, 97, 98, and 99. (b) The Office of Management and Budget Guidelines to Agencies on Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement) in 2 CFR VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:30 Apr 20, 2017 Jkt 241001 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. (d) The Supplemental Priorities. 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: The Administration has requested $30,047,000 for the Educational Technology, Media, and Materials for Individuals with Disabilities program for FY 2017, of which we intend to use an estimated $2,500,000 for this competition. The actual level of funding, if any, depends on final congressional action. However, we are inviting applications to allow enough time to complete the grant process if Congress appropriates funds for this program. Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of applications, we may make additional awards in FY 2018 from the list of unfunded applications from this competition. Estimated Range of Awards: $450,000 to $500,000 per year. Estimated Average Size of Awards: $471,352 per year. Maximum Award: We will reject any application that proposes a budget exceeding $500,000 for a single budget period of 12 months. Estimated Number of Awards: 5. Note: The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice. Project Period: Up to 48 months. III. Eligibility Information 1. Eligible Applicants: SEAs; LEAs, including 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. Eligible Subgrantees: (a) Under 34 CFR 75.708(b) and (c) a grantee may award subgrants—to directly carry out project activities described in its PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 application—to the following types of entities: SEAs; LEAs, including public charter schools that are considered LEAs under State law; IHEs; other public agencies; private nonprofit organizations; outlying areas; freely associated States; Indian tribes or tribal organizations; and for-profit organizations. (b) The grantee may award subgrants to entities it has identified in an approved application. 4. Other General Requirements: (a) Recipients of funding under this competition must make positive efforts to employ and advance in employment qualified individuals with disabilities (see section 606 of IDEA). (b) Each applicant for, and recipient of, funding must, with respect to the aspects of the 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. Address to Request Application Package: You can obtain an application package via the internet or from the Education Publications Center (ED Pubs). To obtain a copy via the internet, use the following address: www.ed.gov/ fund/grant/apply/grantapps/index.html. To obtain a copy from ED Pubs, write, fax, or call: ED Pubs, U.S. Department of Education, P.O. Box 22207, Alexandria, VA 22304. Telephone, toll free: 1–877–433–7827. FAX: (703) 605– 6794. If you use a TDD or a TTY, call, toll free: 1–877–576–7734. You can contact ED Pubs at its Web site, also: www.EDPubs.gov or at its email address: edpubs@inet.ed.gov. If you request an application package from ED Pubs, be sure to identify this competition as follows: CFDA number 84.327S. Individuals with disabilities can obtain a copy of the application package in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) by contacting the person or team listed under Accessible Format in section VII of this notice. 2. Content and Form of Application Submission: Requirements concerning the content and form of an application, together with the forms you must submit, are in the application package for this competition. Page Limit: The application narrative (Part III of the application) is where you, the applicant, address the selection criteria that reviewers use to evaluate E:\FR\FM\21APN1.SGM 21APN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 76 / Friday, April 21, 2017 / Notices your application. You must limit Part III to no more than 50 pages, using 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. An application submitted in any other font (including Times Roman or Arial Narrow) will not be accepted. The page limit and double-spacing requirements do 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 page limit and double-spacing requirements do apply to all of Part III, the application narrative, including all text in charts, tables, figures, graphs, and screen shots. We will reject your application if you exceed the page limit in the application narrative section, or if you apply standards other than those specified in this notice and the application package. 3. Submission Dates and Times: Applications Available: April 21, 2017. Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: June 5, 2017. Applications for grants under this competition must be submitted electronically using the Grants.gov Apply site (Grants.gov). For information (including dates and times) about how to submit your application electronically, or in paper format by mail or hand delivery if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, please refer to Other Submission Requirements in section IV of this notice. We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements. Individuals with disabilities who need an accommodation or auxiliary aid in connection with the application process should contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. If the Department provides an accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability in VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:30 Apr 20, 2017 Jkt 241001 connection with the application process, the individual’s application remains subject to all other requirements and limitations in this notice. Deadline for Intergovernmental Review: August 4, 2017. 4. Intergovernmental Review: This competition is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. Information about Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs under Executive Order 12372 is in the application package for this competition. 5. Funding Restrictions: We reference regulations outlining funding restrictions in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice. 6. Data Universal Numbering System Number, Taxpayer Identification Number, and System for Award Management: To do business with the Department of Education, you must— a. Have a Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number and a Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN); b. Register both your DUNS number and TIN with the System for Award Management (SAM), the Government’s primary registrant database; c. Provide your DUNS number and TIN on your application; and d. Maintain an active SAM registration with current information while your application is under review by the Department and, if you are awarded a grant, during the project period. You can obtain a DUNS number from Dun and Bradstreet at the following Web site: http://fedgov.dnb.com/webform. A DUNS number can be created within one to two business days. If you are a corporate entity, agency, institution, or organization, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service. If you are an individual, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service or the Social Security Administration. If you need a new TIN, please allow two to five weeks for your TIN to become active. The SAM registration process can take approximately seven business days, but may take upwards of several weeks, depending on the completeness and accuracy of the data you enter into the SAM database. Thus, if you think you might want to apply for Federal financial assistance under a program administered by the Department, please allow sufficient time to obtain and register your DUNS number and TIN. We strongly recommend that you register early. Note: Once your SAM registration is active, it may be 24 to 48 hours before you can PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 18753 access the information in, and submit an application through, Grants.gov. If you are currently registered with SAM, you may not need to make any changes. However, please make certain that the TIN associated with your DUNS number is correct. Also note that you will need to update your registration annually. This may take three or more business days. Information about SAM is available at www.SAM.gov. To further assist you with obtaining and registering your DUNS number and TIN in SAM or updating your existing SAM account, we have prepared a SAM.gov Tip Sheet, which you can find at: www2.ed.gov/ fund/grant/apply/sam-faqs.html. In addition, if you are submitting your application via Grants.gov, you must (1) be designated by your organization as an Authorized Organization Representative (AOR); and (2) register yourself with Grants.gov as an AOR. Details on these steps are outlined at the following Grants.gov Web page: www.grants.gov/ web/grants/register.html. 7. Other Submission Requirements: Applications for grants under this competition must be submitted electronically unless you qualify for an exception to this requirement in accordance with the instructions in this section. a. Electronic Submission of Applications. Applications for grants under the Educational Technology, Media, and Materials for Individuals with Disabilities—Stepping-up Technology Implementation competition, CFDA number 84.327S, must be submitted electronically using the Governmentwide Grants.gov Apply site at www.Grants.gov. Through this site, you will be able to download a copy of the application package, complete it offline, and then upload and submit your application. You may not email an electronic copy of a grant application to us. We will reject your application if you submit it in paper format unless, as described elsewhere in this section, you qualify for one of the exceptions to the electronic submission requirement and submit, no later than two weeks before the application deadline date, a written statement to the Department that you qualify for one of these exceptions. Further information regarding calculation of the date that is two weeks before the application deadline date is provided later in this section under Exception to Electronic Submission Requirement. You may access the electronic grant application for the Educational E:\FR\FM\21APN1.SGM 21APN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES 18754 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 76 / Friday, April 21, 2017 / Notices Technology, Media, and Materials for Individuals with Disabilities—Steppingup Technology Implementation competition at www.Grants.gov. You must search for the downloadable application package for this competition by the CFDA number. Do not include the CFDA number’s alpha suffix in your search (e.g., search for 84.327, not 84.327S). Please note the following: • When you enter the Grants.gov site, you will find information about submitting an application electronically through the site, as well as the hours of operation. • Applications received by Grants.gov are date and time stamped. Your application must be fully uploaded and submitted and must be date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system no later than 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. Except as otherwise noted in this section, we will not accept your application if it is received—that is, date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system—after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements. When we retrieve your application from Grants.gov, we will notify you if we are rejecting your application because it was date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. • The amount of time it can take to upload an application will vary depending on a variety of factors, including the size of the application and the speed of your internet connection. Therefore, we strongly recommend that you do not wait until the application deadline date to begin the submission process through Grants.gov. • You should review and follow the Education Submission Procedures for submitting an application through Grants.gov that are included in the application package for this competition to ensure that you submit your application in a timely manner to the Grants.gov system. You can also find the Education Submission Procedures pertaining to Grants.gov under News and Events on the Department’s G5 system home page at www.G5.gov. In addition, for specific guidance and procedures for submitting an application through Grants.gov, please refer to the Grants.gov Web site at: www.grants.gov/web/grants/applicants/ apply-for-grants.html. • You will not receive additional point value because you submit your application in electronic format, nor VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:30 Apr 20, 2017 Jkt 241001 will we penalize you if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, as described elsewhere in this section, and submit your application in paper format. • You must submit all documents electronically, including all information you typically provide on the following forms: the Application for Federal Assistance (SF 424), the Department of Education Supplemental Information for SF 424, Budget Information—NonConstruction Programs (ED 524), and all necessary assurances and certifications. • You must upload any narrative sections and all other attachments to your application as files in a read-only Portable Document Format (PDF). Do not upload an interactive or fillable PDF file. If you upload a file type other than a read-only PDF (e.g., Word, Excel, WordPerfect, etc.) or submit a passwordprotected file, we will not review that material. Please note that this could result in your application not being considered for funding because the material in question—for example, the application narrative—is critical to a meaningful review of your proposal. For that reason it is important to allow yourself adequate time to upload all material as PDF files. The Department will not convert material from other formats to PDF. Additional, detailed information on how to attach files is in the application instructions. • Your electronic application must comply with any page-limit requirements described in this notice. • After you electronically submit your application, you will receive from Grants.gov an automatic notification of receipt that contains a Grants.gov tracking number. This notification indicates receipt by Grants.gov only, not receipt by the Department. Grants.gov will also notify you automatically by email if your application met all the Grants.gov validation requirements or if there were any errors (such as submission of your application by someone other than a registered Authorized Organization Representative, or inclusion of an attachment with a file name that contains special characters). You will be given an opportunity to correct any errors and resubmit, but you must still meet the deadline for submission of applications. Once your application is successfully validated by Grants.gov, the Department will retrieve your application from Grants.gov and send you an email with a unique PR/Award number for your application. These emails do not mean that your application is without any disqualifying errors. While your application may have PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 been successfully validated by Grants.gov, it must also meet the Department’s application requirements as specified in this notice and in the application instructions. Disqualifying errors could include, for instance, failure to upload attachments in a readonly PDF; failure to submit a required part of the application; or failure to meet applicant eligibility requirements. It is your responsibility to ensure that your submitted application has met all of the Department’s requirements. • We may request that you provide us original signatures on forms at a later date. Application Deadline Date Extension in Case of Technical Issues with the Grants.gov System: If you are experiencing problems submitting your application through Grants.gov, please contact the Grants.gov Support Desk, toll free, at 1–800–518–4726. You must obtain a Grants.gov Support Desk Case Number and must keep a record of it. If you are prevented from electronically submitting your application on the application deadline date because of technical problems with the Grants.gov system, we will grant you an extension until 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, the following business day to enable you to transmit your application electronically or by hand delivery. You also may mail your application by following the mailing instructions described elsewhere in this notice. If you submit an application after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT and provide an explanation of the technical problem you experienced with Grants.gov, along with the Grants.gov Support Desk Case Number. We will accept your application if we can confirm that a technical problem occurred with the Grants.gov system and that the problem affected your ability to submit your application by 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. We will contact you after we determine whether your application will be accepted. Note: The extensions to which we refer in this section apply only to the unavailability of, or technical problems with, the Grants.gov system. We will not grant you an extension if you failed to fully register to submit your application to Grants.gov before the application deadline date and time or if the technical problem you experienced is unrelated to the Grants.gov system. Exception to Electronic Submission Requirement: You qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, and may submit your E:\FR\FM\21APN1.SGM 21APN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 76 / Friday, April 21, 2017 / Notices application in paper format, if you are unable to submit an application through the Grants.gov system because— • You do not have access to the internet; or • You do not have the capacity to upload large documents to the Grants.gov system; and • No later than two weeks before the application deadline date (14 calendar days or, if the fourteenth calendar day before the application deadline date falls on a Federal holiday, the next business day following the Federal holiday), you mail or fax a written statement to the Department, explaining which of the two grounds for an exception prevents you from using the internet to submit your application. If you mail your written statement to the Department, it must be postmarked no later than two weeks before the application deadline date. If you fax your written statement to the Department, we must receive the faxed statement no later than two weeks before the application deadline date. Address and mail or fax your statement to: Terry Jackson, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 5158, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202– 5076. FAX: (202) 245–7590. Your paper application must be submitted in accordance with the mail or hand-delivery instructions described in this notice. b. Submission of Paper Applications by Mail. If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you may mail (through the U.S. Postal Service or a commercial carrier) your application to the Department. You must mail the original and two copies of your application, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.327S), LBJ Basement Level 1, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20202–4260. You must show proof of mailing consisting of one of the following: (1) A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark. (2) A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the U.S. Postal Service. (3) A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial carrier. (4) Any other proof of mailing acceptable to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education. If you mail your application through the U.S. Postal Service, we do not VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:30 Apr 20, 2017 Jkt 241001 accept either of the following as proof of mailing: (1) A private metered postmark. (2) A mail receipt that is not dated by the U.S. Postal Service. Note: The U.S. Postal Service does not uniformly provide a dated postmark. Before relying on this method, you should check with your local post office. We will not consider applications postmarked after the application deadline date. c. Submission of Paper Applications by Hand Delivery. If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you (or a courier service) may deliver your paper application to the Department by hand. You must deliver the original and two copies of your application by hand, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.327S), 550 12th Street SW., Room 7039, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202–4260. The Application Control Center accepts hand deliveries daily between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, except Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays. Note for Mail or Hand Delivery of Paper Applications: If you mail or hand deliver your application to the Department— (1) You must indicate on the envelope and—if not provided by the Department—in Item 11 of the SF 424 the CFDA number, including suffix letter, if any, of the competition under which you are submitting your application; and (2) The Application Control Center will mail to you a notification of receipt of your grant application. If you do not receive this notification within 15 business days from the application deadline date, you should call the U.S. Department of Education Application Control Center at (202) 245–6288. V. Application Review Information 1. Selection Criteria: The maximum score for all of the selection criteria is 100 points. The application narrative should include the following sections in this order: (a) Significance (10 points). The Secretary considers the significance of the proposed project. (1) In determining the significance of the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors: (i) The significance of the problem or issue to be addressed, and the magnitude of the need for the services to be provided or carried out by the proposed project; PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 18755 (ii) The extent to which specific gaps or weaknesses in services, infrastructure, or opportunities have been identified and how the specific gaps or weaknesses will be addressed by the proposed project; (iii) The potential contribution of the proposed project to increase knowledge or understanding of educational problems, issues, or effective strategies and the development and advancement of theory, knowledge, and practices in the field of study; and (iv) The extent to which the proposed project will focus on serving or otherwise addressing the needs of children with disabilities. (b) Quality of project services (20 points). The Secretary considers the quality of the products and/or services to be provided by the proposed project. (1) In determining the quality of the products and/or 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. (2) In addition, the Secretary considers the following factors: (i) The extent to which the products and/or services to be provided by the proposed project reflect current knowledge from research and effective practice; (ii) The extent to which the products and/or services are of sufficient quality, intensity, and duration to lead to outcomes as intended by the proposed project; (iii) The extent to which the products and/or services to be provided by the proposed, project, involve the collaboration of appropriate partners for maximizing the effectiveness of project services; (iv) The likely utility of the products and/or services that will result from the proposed project, including the potential for their being used effectively in a variety of other settings; and (v) The extent to which the products and resources developed by the proposed project include accessible accessibility features, supporting the sustained implementation of the technology tool or strategy. (c) Quality of the project design (20 points). The Secretary considers the quality of the design of the proposed project. (1) In determining the quality of the design of the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors: E:\FR\FM\21APN1.SGM 21APN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES 18756 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 76 / Friday, April 21, 2017 / Notices (i) The extent to which the goals, objectives, and outcomes to be achieved by the proposed project are clearly specified and measurable; (ii) The extent to which the proposed logic model or conceptual framework depicts at a minimum, the goals, activities, outputs, and outcomes of the proposed project. (iii) The extent to which the design of the proposed project includes a thorough, high-quality review of the relevant literature, reflects current knowledge from research and effective practice; supported by strong theory; a high-quality plan for project implementation, and the use of appropriate methodological tools to ensure successful achievement of project objectives. (iv) The extent to which the proposed technology tool or strategy is fullydeveloped, evidence-based (as defined in this notice) and that can be implemented to improve early childhood outcomes, academic achievement, or college and career readiness; and (v) The extent to which the proposed technology tool or strategy addresses the following principles of universal design: (a) Multiple means of representation so students can approach information in more than one way; (b) multiple means of expression so that all students can demonstrate and express what they know; and (c) multiple means of engagement to stimulate interest in and motivation for learning. (d) Quality of the management plan (25 points). The Secretary considers the quality of the management plan for the proposed project. (1) 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 implement the activities described in the Project Activities section and 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 and qualifications of the project director and principal investigator, including relevant training and experience of key project personnel, project consultants or subcontractors are appropriate and adequate to meet the objectives of the proposed project. (iii) The adequacy of the plan for recruiting and selecting: (a) The three development schools (the sites in which iterative VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:30 Apr 20, 2017 Jkt 241001 development of the implementation of technology tools and products will occur. The project must start implementing the technology tool with at least one development school in year one of the project period and two additional development schools in year two; (b) Four pilot schools (the sites in which try-out, formative evaluation, and refinement of technology tools and products will occur. The project must work with the four pilot schools during years three and four of the project period; and (c) Ten dissemination schools. The dissemination schools will be selected if the project is extended for a fifth year. Dissemination schools will be used to conduct the final test of the effectiveness of the products and the final opportunity for the project to refine the products for use by teachers, but will receive less technical assistance (TA) from the project than the development and pilot schools; (iv) The adequacy of the information (e.g., early childhood setting; elementary, middle, or high school; persistently lowest-achieving school; priority school) about the development, pilot, and students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch); and other pertinent data; (v) The adequacy of the plan to which the results and accompanying products of the proposed project will be disseminated in ways that will enable others to use the information or strategies; and (vi) The adequacy of the plan to sustain the technology after funding ends. (e) Adequacy of resources (10 points). The Secretary considers the adequacy of resources for the proposed project. (1) 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. (2) In determining the adequacy of resources for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors: (i) The adequacy of support, including facilities, equipment, supplies, and other resources, from the applicant organization or the lead applicant organization; (ii) The relevance and demonstrated commitment of each partner in the proposed project to the implementation and success of the project; and PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 (iii) The extent to which the budget is adequate to support the proposed project; and the costs are reasonable in relation to the objectives, design, and potential significance of the proposed project. (f) Quality of the project evaluation (15 points). The Secretary considers the quality of the evaluation to be conducted of the proposed project. (1) 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 context within which the project operates, and 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; (ii) The extent to which the methods of evaluation provide for the examination of the effectiveness of project implementation strategies; (iii) The extent to which the methods of evaluation is linked to the proposed project’s logic model is appropriate for the formative evaluation, describing how performance objectives in plan will ensure continuous performance feedback and improvement and assessment of progress toward achieving intended outcomes in the operation of the proposed project’s activities. 2. Review and Selection Process: We remind potential applicants that in reviewing applications in any discretionary grant competition, the Secretary may consider, under 34 CFR 75.217(d)(3), the past performance of the applicant in carrying out a previous award, such as the applicant’s use of funds, achievement of project objectives, and compliance with grant conditions. The Secretary may also consider whether the applicant failed to submit a timely performance report or submitted a report of unacceptable quality. In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary requires various assurances, including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department of Education (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23). 3. Additional Review and Selection Process Factors: In the past, the Department has had difficulty finding peer reviewers for certain competitions because so many individuals who are eligible to serve as peer reviewers have conflicts of interest. The standing panel requirements under section 682(b) of E:\FR\FM\21APN1.SGM 21APN1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 76 / Friday, April 21, 2017 / Notices 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 Special 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 special conditions and, in appropriate circumstances, high-risk conditions on a grant if the applicant or grantee is not financially stable; has a history of unsatisfactory performance; has a financial or other management system that does not meet the standards in 2 CFR part 200, subpart D; has not fulfilled the conditions of a prior grant; or is otherwise not responsible. 5. Integrity and Performance System: If you are selected under this competition to receive an award that over the course of the project period may exceed the simplified acquisition threshold (currently $150,000), under 2 CFR 200.205(a)(2), we must make a judgment about your integrity, business ethics, and record of performance under Federal awards—that is, the risk posed by you as an applicant—before we make an award. In doing so, we must consider any information about you that is in the integrity and performance system (currently referred to as the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS)), accessible through SAM. 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 VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:30 Apr 20, 2017 Jkt 241001 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. Reporting: (a) If you apply for a grant under this competition, you must ensure that you have in place the necessary processes and systems to comply with the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 170 should you receive funding under the competition. This does not apply if you have an exception under 2 CFR 170.110(b). (b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary. If you receive a multiyear award, you must submit an annual performance report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, please go to www.ed.gov/ fund/grant/apply/appforms/ appforms.html. (c) Under 34 CFR 75.250(b), the Secretary may provide a grantee with additional funding for data collection analysis and reporting. In this case the Secretary establishes a data collection period. 4. 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 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 18757 Educational Technology, Media, and Materials for Individuals with Disabilities Program. These measures are included in the application package and focus on the extent to which projects are of high quality, are relevant to improving outcomes of children with disabilities, contribute to improving outcomes for children with disabilities, and generate evidence of validity and availability to appropriate populations. Projects funded under this competition 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 performance reports and additional performance data to the Department (34 CFR 75.590 and 75.591). 5. Continuation Awards: In making a continuation award under 34 CFR 75.253, the Secretary considers, among other things: Whether a grantee has made substantial progress in achieving the goals and objectives of the project; whether the grantee has expended funds in a manner that is consistent with its approved application and budget; and, if the Secretary has established performance measurement requirements, the performance targets in the grantee’s approved application. In making a continuation award, the Secretary also considers whether the grantee is operating in compliance with the assurances in its approved application, including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23). VII. Other Information Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document and a copy of the application package in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) by contacting the Management Support Services Team, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 5113, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202–2500. Telephone: (202) 245–7363. If you use a TDD or a TTY, call the FRS, toll free, at 1–800–877–8339. Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register. Free internet access to the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations is available via the Federal Digital System at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site you can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal Register, in E:\FR\FM\21APN1.SGM 21APN1 18758 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 76 / Friday, April 21, 2017 / Notices text or 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: April 18, 2017. Ruth E. Ryder, Deputy Director, Office of Special Education Programs, delegated the duties of the Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services. [FR Doc. 2017–08119 Filed 4–20–17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000–01–P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. EL17–61–000] sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES DATC Path 15, LLC; Notice of Institution of Section 206 Proceeding and Refund Effective Date On April 17, 2017, a letter order was issued in Docket No. EL17–61–000 by the Director, Division of Electric Power—West, Office of Energy Market Regulation, pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. 824e (2012), instituting an investigation into whether the proposed rate decrease of DATC Path 15, LLC may be unjust, unreasonable, unduly discriminatory or preferential. DATC Path 15, LLC, 159 FERC ¶ 62,062 (2017). The refund effective date in Docket No. EL17–61–000, established pursuant to section 206(b) of the FPA, will be the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. Any interested person desiring to be heard in Docket No. EL17–61–000 must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate, with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rule 214 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.214, within 21 days of the date of issuance of the order. Dated: April 17, 2017. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. 2017–08085 Filed 4–20–17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717–01–P VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:30 Apr 20, 2017 Jkt 241001 DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. EL17–65–000] Renewable Energy Systems Americas and Invenergy Storage Development LLC v. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.; Notice of Complaint Take notice that on April 14, 2017, pursuant to Rules 206 and 212 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.206 and 385.212 and sections 205 and 206 of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 824d and 824e, Renewable Energy Systems Americas and Invenergy Storage Development LLC (Complainant) filed a formal complaint against PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (Respondent or PJM) alleging that PJM’s unilateral change to its frequency regulation market was a discriminatory action taken against existing energy storage resources that participate in the market and resulted in financial harm to the Complainants, all as more fully explained in the complaint. The Complainant states that a copy of the complaint has been served on the Respondent. Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent’s answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. The Respondent’s answer, motions to intervene, and protests must be served on the Complainants. The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ‘‘eFiling’’ link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the ‘‘eLibrary’’ link and is available for electronic review in the Commission’s Public Reference Room in Washington, DC There is an ‘‘eSubscription’’ link on the Web site that enables subscribers to PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov, or call (866) 208–3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502–8659. Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on May 4, 2017. Dated: April 17, 2017. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary. [FR Doc. 2017–08086 Filed 4–20–17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717–01–P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1 Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings: Docket Numbers: ER17–883–000. Applicants: Duke Energy Florida, LLC. Description: Report Filing: Refund Report Mulberry Energy and Orange Cogen to be effective N/A. Filed Date: 4/17/17. Accession Number: 20170417–5129. Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/8/17. Docket Numbers: ER17–1424–000. Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc., Central Power Electric Cooperative, Inc. Description: Southwest Power Pool, Inc. on behalf of Central Power Electric Cooperative, Inc. submits Depreciation Study and Change in Depreciation Rates. Filed Date: 4/14/17. Accession Number: 20170414–5218. Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/5/17. Docket Numbers: ER17–1426–000. Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Queue Position AA2–059, Original Service Agreement No. 4670 to be effective 3/16/2017. Filed Date: 4/17/17. Accession Number: 20170417–5195. Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/8/17. Docket Numbers: ER17–1427–000. Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Original ISA, Service Agreement No. 4668, Queue No. AA1–038 to be effective 3/16/2017. Filed Date: 4/17/17. Accession Number: 20170417–5196. Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/8/17. Docket Numbers: ER17–1428–000. E:\FR\FM\21APN1.SGM 21APN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 76 (Friday, April 21, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18747-18758]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-08119]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION


Applications for New Awards; Educational Technology, Media, and 
Materials for Individuals With Disabilities--Stepping-Up Technology 
Implementation

AGENCY: Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, 
Department of Education.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Department of Education is issuing a notice inviting 
applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2017 for Educational 
Technology, Media, and Materials for Individuals with Disabilities--
Stepping-up Technology Implementation, Catalog of Federal

[[Page 18748]]

Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number 84.327S.

DATES: 
    Applications Available: April 21, 2017.
    Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: June 5, 2017.
    Deadline for Intergovernmental Review: August 4, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Terry Jackson, U.S. Department of 
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 5158, Potomac Center Plaza, 
Washington, DC 20202-5076. Telephone: (202) 245-6039.
    If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text 
telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-
800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Full Text of Announcement

I. Funding Opportunity Description

    Purpose of Program: The purposes of the Educational Technology, 
Media, and Materials for Individuals with Disabilities Program are to: 
(1) Improve results for students with disabilities by promoting the 
development, demonstration, and use of technology; (2) support 
educational activities designed to be of educational value in the 
classroom for students with disabilities; (3) provide support for 
captioning and video description that is appropriate for use in the 
classroom; and (4) provide accessible educational materials to students 
with disabilities in a timely manner.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Applicants should note that other laws, including the 
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.; 28 
CFR part 35) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 
U.S.C. 794; 34 CFR part 104), may require that State educational 
agencies (SEAs) and local educational agencies (LEAs) provide 
captioning, video description, and other accessible educational 
materials to students with disabilities when such materials are 
necessary to provide students with disabilities with equally 
integrated and equally effective access to the benefits of the 
educational program or activity, or as part of a ``free appropriate 
public education'' as defined in the Department of Education's 
Section 504 regulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Priority: In accordance with 34 CFR 75.105(b)(2)(v), this priority 
and the competitive preference priorities within this priority are from 
allowable activities specified in the statute (see sections 
674(c)(1)(D) and 681(d) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education 
Act (IDEA) (20 U.S.C. 1474(c)(1)(D) and 1481(d))).
    Absolute Priority: For FY 2017 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:
    Stepping-up Technology Implementation.

Background

    The purpose of this priority is to fund cooperative agreements to: 
identify strategies needed to effectively implement research-based 
technology tools \2\ that benefit students with disabilities, and 
develop and disseminate products \3\ that will help a broad range of 
schools to effectively implement these technology tools.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ For the purposes of this priority, ``technology tools'' may 
include, but are not limited to, digital math text readers for 
students with visual impairments, reading software to improve 
literacy and communication development, and text-to-speech software 
to improve reading performance. These tools must assist or otherwise 
benefit students with disabilities.
    \3\ For the purposes of this priority, ``products'' may include, 
but are not limited to, instruction manuals, lesson plans, 
demonstration videos, ancillary instructional materials, and 
professional development modules such as collaborative groups, 
coaching, mentoring, or online supports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Congress recognized in IDEA that ``almost 30 years of research and 
experience has demonstrated that the education of children with 
disabilities can be made more effective by . . . supporting the 
development and use of technology, including assistive technology 
devices and assistive technology services, to maximize accessibility 
for children with disabilities'' (section 601(c)(5)(H) of IDEA).
    Technology can be the great equalizer in a classroom for students 
with disabilities. The use of technology, including assistive 
technology devices and assistive technology services, enhances 
instruction and access to the general education curriculum. Innovative 
technology tools, programs, and software can be used to promote 
engagement and enhance the learning experience (Brunvand & Byrd, 2011). 
Innovative technology tools and programs are especially helpful as 
educators work to engage and motivate students who struggle with the 
general education curriculum. Additionally, the development of newer 
technologies for, and their presence in, early childhood education is 
rapidly increasing. When media-rich content is integrated into the 
curriculum and supported with adult guidance, technology experiences 
for young children are associated with better language, literacy, and 
mathematics outcomes. Additionally, technology integration in early 
childhood settings has been linked to increased social awareness and 
collaborative behaviors, improved abstract reasoning and problem 
solving abilities, and enhanced visual-motor coordination (McManis & 
Gunnewig, 2012).
    Technologies can support State educational agencies (SEAs) and 
local educational agencies (LEAs) by: (a) Improving student learning 
and engagement; (b) accommodating the special needs of students; (c) 
facilitating student and teacher access to digital content and 
resources; and (d) improving the quality of instruction through 
personalized learning and data (Duffey & Fox, 2012; Fletcher, 
Schaffhauser, & Levi, 2012; U.S. Department of Education, 2010). As 
stipulated in section 4109 of the Every Student Succeeds Act, 
technologies can be used to support LEAs and SEAs to increase student 
access to personalized, rigorous learning experiences.
    Notwithstanding the potential benefits of using technology to 
improve learning outcomes, research suggests that implementation can be 
a significant challenge. For example, data from a survey of more than 
1,000 kindergarten through grade 12 (K-12) teachers, principals, and 
assistant principals indicated that simply providing teachers with 
technology does not ensure that it will be used (Grunwald & Associates, 
2010). Additionally, Perlman and Redding (2011) found that in order to 
be used most effectively, technology must be implemented in ways that 
align with curricular and teacher goals and offer students 
opportunities to use these tools in their learning. Even as schools 
have started to deliver coursework online, and the number of students 
involved in online learning has grown, many of these online learning 
technologies have not been designed to be accessible to students with 
disabilities (Center on Online Learning and Students with Disabilities, 
2012). These findings demonstrate a need for products and resources 
that can assist educators to readily implement technology tools for 
students with disabilities.
    In response to this need, Stepping-up Technology Implementation 
projects have built on technology development efforts by identifying, 
developing, and disseminating products and resources that promote the 
effective implementation \4\ of instructional and

[[Page 18749]]

assistive technology tools in early childhood or K-12 settings.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ In this context, ``effective implementation'' means ``making 
better use of research findings in typical service settings through 
the use of processes and activities (such as accountable 
implementation teams) that are purposeful and described in 
sufficient detail such that independent observers can detect the 
presence and strength of these processes and activities'' (Fixsen, 
Naoom, Blase, Friedman, & Wallace, 2005).
    \5\ For the purposes of this priority, ``settings'' include 
general education classrooms, special education classrooms, high-
quality early childhood programs, or any place where school-based 
instruction occurs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Priority

    The purpose of this priority is to fund five cooperative agreements 
to: (a) Identify strategies needed to readily implement existing 
technology tools based on evidence that benefit students with 
disabilities; and (b) develop and disseminate products (See footnote 3; 
e.g., instruction manuals, lesson plans, demonstration videos, 
ancillary instructional materials) that will assist personnel in early 
childhood or K-12 settings to readily use, understand, and implement 
these technology tools.
    To be considered for funding under this priority, applicants must 
meet the application requirements. Any project funded under this 
absolute priority must also meet the programmatic and administrative 
requirements specified in the priority.

Application Requirements

    An applicant must include in its application--
    (a) A project design supported by strong theory (as defined in this 
notice);
    (b) A logic model (as defined in this notice) or conceptual 
framework that depicts at a minimum, the goals, activities, project 
evaluation, methods, performance measures, outputs, and outcomes of the 
proposed project.

    Note:  The following Web sites provide more information on logic 
models: www.osepideasthatwork.org/logicModel and 
www.osepideasthatwork.org/resources-grantees/program-areas/ta-ta/tad-project-logic-model-and-conceptual-framework;

    (c) A plan to implement the activities described in the Project 
Activities section of this priority;
    (d) A plan, linked to the proposed project's logic model, for a 
formative evaluation of the proposed project's activities. The plan 
must describe how the formative evaluation will use clear performance 
objectives to ensure continuous improvement in the operation of the 
proposed project, including objective measures of progress in 
implementing the project and ensuring the quality of products and 
services;
    (e) Documentation that the technology tool is fully developed, is 
based on evidence, and addresses, at a minimum, the following 
principles of universal design:
    (1) Multiple means of presentation so that students can approach 
information in more than one way (e.g., specialized software and Web 
sites, screen readers that include features such as text-to-speech, 
changeable color contrast, alterable text size, or selection of 
different reading levels);
    (2) Multiple means of expression so that all students can 
demonstrate knowledge through options such as writing, online concept 
mapping, or speech-to-text programs, where appropriate; and
    (3) Multiple means of engagement to stimulate interest in and 
motivation for learning (e.g., options among several different learning 
activities or content for a particular competency or skill and 
providing opportunities for increased collaboration or scaffolding); 
\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ For more information on the principles of universal design, 
see www.udlcenter.org/aboutudl/whatisudl/3principles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (f) A plan for how the project will sustain the proposed technology 
tool or strategy, supported by evidence, after funding ends;
    (g) A plan for recruiting and selecting \7\ the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ For more information on recruiting and selecting sites, 
refer to Assessing Sites for Model Demonstration: Lessons Learned 
from OSEP Grantees at http://mdcc.sri.com/documents/reports/MDCC_Site_Assessment_Brief_09-30-11.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (1) Three development schools. Development schools are the sites in 
which iterative development \8\ of the products and resources intended 
to support the implementation of technology tools will occur. The 
project must start implementing the technology tool with one 
development school in year one of the project period and two additional 
development schools in year two;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ For the purposes of this priority, ``iterative development'' 
refers to a process of testing, systematically securing feedback, 
and then revising the educational intervention that leads to 
revisions in the intervention to increase the likelihood that it 
will be implemented with fidelity (Diamond & Powell, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) Four pilot schools. Pilot schools are the sites in which try-
out, formative evaluation, and refinement of the products and resources 
will occur. The project must work with the four pilot schools during 
years three and four of the project period; and
    (3) Ten dissemination schools. Dissemination schools will be 
selected if the project is extended for a fifth year. Dissemination 
schools will be used to (a) refine the products for use by teachers and 
(b) evaluate the performance of the tool. Dissemination schools will 
receive less technical assistance (TA) from the project than 
development or pilot schools. Also, at this stage (i.e., the fifth 
year), dissemination schools will extend the benefits of the technology 
tool to additional students. To be selected as a dissemination school, 
eligible schools and LEAs must commit to working with the project to 
implement the research-based technology tool. A school may not serve in 
more than one category (i.e., development, pilot, dissemination);
    (h) School site information (e.g., elementary, middle, high school 
or early childhood setting; persistently lowest-achieving school or 
high-needs school (as defined in this notice)) about the development, 
pilot, and dissemination schools; student demographics (e.g., race or 
ethnicity, percentage of students eligible for free or reduced-price 
lunch); and other pertinent data; and
    (i) A budget for attendance at the following:
    (1) A one and one-half day kick-off meeting to be held in 
Washington, DC, after receipt of the award, and an annual planning 
meeting held in Washington, DC, 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.

    (2) A three-day project directors' conference in Washington, DC, 
during each year of the project period.
    (3) Two two-day trips annually to attend Department briefings, 
Department-sponsored conferences, and other meetings, as requested by 
OSEP.

Project Activities

    To meet the requirements of this priority, the project, at a 
minimum, must conduct the following activities:
    (a) Recruit a minimum of three development schools in one LEA and 
four pilot schools across at least two LEAs in accordance with the plan 
proposed under paragraph (g) of the Application Requirements section of 
this notice.

    Note:  Final site selection will be determined in consultation 
with the OSEP project officer following the kick-off meeting.

    (b) Identify and develop resources and products that, when used to 
support technology tool implementation, create accessible learning 
opportunities for all children, including children with disabilities, 
and will support the sustained implementation of the selected 
technology tool. Development of the products must be an iterative 
process beginning in a single development school and continuing through 
repeated cycles of development and refinement in the other development 
schools, followed by a

[[Page 18750]]

formative evaluation and refinement in the pilot schools. To support 
implementation of the technology tool the products and resources must, 
at a minimum, include:
    (1) An instrument or method for assessing--
    (i) Whether the technology tool has achieved its intended outcomes;
    (ii) The school staff's current technology uses and needs, current 
technology investments, firewall issues, and the knowledge and 
availability of dedicated on-site technology personnel; and
    (iii) The readiness of development and pilot sites to implement the 
technology tool. Any instruments and methods for assessing readiness 
may include resource inventory checklists, school self-study guides, 
and survey of teachers' interests.
    (c) Provide ongoing professional development activities necessary 
for teachers to implement the technology tool with fidelity and to 
integrate it into the curriculum.
    (d) Collect and analyze data on whether the technology tool has 
achieved its intended outcomes for early childhood development, 
academic achievement, or college- and career-readiness.
    (e) Collect formative and summative data from the development and 
pilot schools to refine and evaluate the products.
    (f) If the project is extended to a fifth year, provide the 
products and the technology tool to no fewer than 10 dissemination 
schools that are not the same schools used as development or pilot 
schools.
    (g) Collect summative data about the success of the products in 
supporting implementation of the technology tool in the dissemination 
schools; and
    (h) By the end of the project period, provide--
    (1) Information on the products and resources, as supported by the 
project evaluation, including any accessibility features, that will 
enable other schools to implement and sustain implementation of the 
technology tool;
    (2) A plan for implementing the technology that includes relevant 
information (e.g., data on how teachers used the technology, data on 
how technology impacted student outcomes, how technology was 
implemented with fidelity, features of universal design);
    (3) Information on how the technology tool achieved its intended 
outcomes related to early childhood (e.g., data to assess how well the 
project addressed the goals of the project as described in the logic 
model), academic achievement, or college- and career-readiness for 
children with disabilities; and
    (4) A plan for disseminating the technology tool and accompanying 
products beyond the schools directly involved in the project.

Cohort Collaboration and Support

    OSEP project officer(s) will provide coordination support among the 
projects. Each project funded under this priority must:
    (a) Participate in monthly conference-call discussions to share and 
collaborate around implementation and specific project issues; and
    (b) Provide information annually using a template that captures 
descriptive data on project site selection, processes for installation 
of technology, and the use of technology and sustainability (i.e., the 
process of technology implementation).

    Note:  The following Web site provides more information about 
implementation research: http://nirn.fpg.unc.edu/learn-implementation.

Fifth Year of Project

    The Secretary may extend a project one year beyond 48 months to 
work with dissemination schools if the grantee is achieving the 
intended outcomes (e.g., provides data that demonstrate the project 
addressed the goals of the project as described in the logic model) and 
making a positive contribution to the implementation of a research-
based technology tool in the development and pilot schools. Each 
applicant must include in its application a plan for the full 60-month 
award. In deciding whether to continue funding the project for the 
fifth year, the Secretary will consider the requirements of 34 CFR 
75.253(a), and will consider:
    (a) The recommendation of a review team consisting of the OSEP 
project officer and other experts selected by the Secretary. This 
review will be held during the last half of the third year of the 
project period;
    (b) The success and timeliness with which the requirements of the 
negotiated cooperative agreement have been or are being met by the 
project; and
    (c) Evidence of the degree to which the project's activities have 
contributed to changed practices and improved early childhood outcomes, 
academic achievement, or college- and career-readiness for students 
with disabilities.
    Competitive Preference Priorities: Within this absolute priority, 
we give competitive preference to applications that address the 
following priorities. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i), we award an 
additional two points to an application that meets one of the 
competitive preference priorities. Applicants may address only one 
competitive preference priority. Applications will only be awarded two 
or zero points and must identify which competitive preference priority 
they are addressing.

    Note:  Under each competitive preference priority, no more than 
one application will be funded based solely on competitive 
preference points (i.e., exceeded the funding cut-off score as a 
result of receiving the two points).

    The priorities are:
    Competitive Preference Priority 1--Students with the Most 
Significant Cognitive Disabilities. (Two Points).
    To meet this competitive preference priority, projects must be 
designed to support teachers in providing access through technology to 
the general education curriculum aligned with State grade-level content 
standards or alternate academic achievement standards in mathematics 
and English language arts (K-12) for students with the most significant 
cognitive disabilities. Teachers of students with the most significant 
cognitive disabilities will be able to use the technology to 
differentiate grade-level instruction effectively and will be able to 
better track student progress toward grade-level proficiency. 
Applicants responding to the competitive preference priority must--
    (a) Identify technology tools based on evidence needed to implement 
an English language arts or mathematics curriculum aligned with State 
grade-level content standards or alternate academic achievement 
standards for students with the most significant cognitive 
disabilities;
    (b) Identify a curriculum and performance tracking tool for use by 
teachers for the purpose of assessing the outcomes of the technology's 
intended use on individualized instruction aligned to K-12 grade--level 
content standards, or alternate academic achievement standards, in 
English language arts and mathematics appropriate to students with the 
most significant cognitive disabilities; and
    (c) Develop and disseminate accessible products and resources 
(e.g., instruction manuals, lesson plans, demonstration videos, 
ancillary instructional materials) that will assist teachers in K-12 
settings to implement the technology.
    Competitive Preference Priority 2--Projects Supported by Evidence 
of Promise (Two Points).
    To meet this competitive preference priority, applicants must 
include in the

[[Page 18751]]

literature review required under the absolute priority (paragraph (a) 
under the heading Application Requirements) research that meets at 
least the evidence of promise standard and that supports the promise 
(i.e., evidence base) of the proposed model under the absolute priority 
and its components and processes.

    Note:  An applicant addressing this competitive preference 
priority must identify no more than two study citations that meet 
this standard.

    Competitive Preference Priority 3--Technology to Support 
Instructors and Students in Juvenile Correctional Facilities (Two 
Points).
    To meet this competitive preference priority, projects must provide 
technology to support instructors and students in juvenile correctional 
facilities that--
    (a) Allows instructors to immediately assess a student's current 
grade-level ability when the student moves into a juvenile correctional 
facility without having the appropriate educational information (e.g., 
individualized education program, section 504 plans, behavior 
intervention plans). Technology can also allow instructors to develop 
education plans in addition to individualized education programs 
required for students with disabilities under IDEA and plans that 
describe services required for students with disabilities under section 
504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973;
    (b) Equips instructors with tools and resources to enhance the 
classroom experience, such as flipped classrooms, blended learning, and 
other models and methods that would allow students to make educational 
gains in and outside of the classroom; and
    (c) Expands the reach of correctional education services to provide 
more incarcerated individuals with the knowledge and skills needed to 
graduate.

References

Brunvand, S., & Byrd, S. (2011). Using VoiceThread to promote 
learning engagement and success for all students. Teaching 
Exceptional Children, 43(4), 28-37.
Center on Online Learning and Students with Disabilities (COLSD). 
(2012). The foundation of online learning for students with 
disabilities (COLSD White Paper). Lawrence, KS: Author. Retrieved 
from http://centerononlinelearning.org/wp-content/uploads/Foundation_7_2012.pdf.
Diamond, K.E., & Powell, D.R. (2011). An iterative approach to the 
development of a professional development intervention for Head 
Start teachers. Journal of Early Intervention, 33(1), 75-93.
Duffey, D., & Fox, C. (2012). National Educational Technology Trends 
2012: State Leadership Empowers Educators, Transforms Teaching and 
Learning. Washington, DC: State Educational Technology Directors 
Association. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED536746.pdf.
Fixsen, D.L., Naoom, S.F., Blase, K.A., Friedman, R.M., & Wallace, 
F. (2005). Implementation research: A synthesis of the literature. 
Tampa, FL: University of South Florida, Louis de la Parte Florida 
Mental Health Institute, The National Implementation Research 
Network.
Fletcher, G., Schaffhauser, D. & Levi, D. (2012). Out of print: 
Reimagining the K-12 textbook in a digital age. Washington, DC: 
State Educational Technology Directors Association. Retrieved from 
www.setda.org/c/document_library/get_file?folderId=321&name=DLFE-1587.pdf.
Grunwald & Associates. (2010). Educators, technology, and 21st 
century skills: Dispelling five myths. Retrieved from Walden 
University, Richard W. Riley College of Education Web site: 
www.WaldenU.edu/fivemyths.
McManis, L.D., & Gunnewig, S.B. (2012). Finding the education in 
educational technology with early learners. Young Children, 67(3), 
14-24.
Perlman, C.L., & Redding, S. (Eds.). (2011). Choosing and 
implementing technology wisely. Handbook on Effective Implementation 
of School Improvement Grants. Lincoln, IL: Academic Development 
Institute. Retrieved from www.centerii.org/handbook.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology. 
(2010). Transforming American Education: Learning Powered by 
Technology. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from www.ed.gov/sites/default/files/netp2010.pdf.

Definitions

    These definitions are from 34 CFR 77.1 and the Department's notice 
of final supplemental priorities and definitions for discretionary 
grant programs (Supplemental Priorities), published in the Federal 
Register on December 10, 2014 (79 FR 73425), as marked.
    The following definitions are from 34 CFR 77.1:
    Evidence of promise means there is empirical evidence to support 
the theoretical linkage(s) between at least one critical component and 
at least one relevant outcome presented in the logic model for the 
proposed process, product, strategy, or practice. Specifically, 
evidence of promise means the conditions in both paragraphs (i) and 
(ii) of this definition are met:
    (i) There is at least one study that is a--
    (A) Correlational study with statistical controls for selection 
bias;
    (B) Quasi-experimental design study that meets the What Works 
Clearinghouse Evidence Standards with reservations; or
    (C) Randomized controlled trial that meets the What Works 
Clearinghouse Evidence Standards with or without reservations.
    (ii) The study referenced in paragraph (i) of this definition found 
a statistically significant or substantively important (defined as a 
difference of 0.25 standard deviations or larger) favorable association 
between at least one critical component and one relevant outcome 
presented in the logic model for the proposed process, product, 
strategy, or practice.
    Logic model (also referred to as theory of action) means a well-
specified conceptual framework that identifies key components of the 
proposed process, product, strategy, or practice (i.e., the active 
``ingredients'' that are hypothesized to be critical to achieving the 
relevant outcomes) and describes the relationships among the key 
components and outcomes, theoretically and operationally.
    Quasi-experimental design study means a study using a design that 
attempts to approximate an experimental design by identifying a 
comparison group that is similar to the treatment group in important 
respects. These studies, depending on design and implementation, can 
meet What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards with reservations (but 
not What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards without reservations).
    Randomized controlled trial means a study that employs random 
assignment of, for example, students, teachers, classrooms, schools, or 
districts to receive the intervention being evaluated (the treatment 
group) or not to receive the intervention (the control group). The 
estimated effectiveness of the intervention is the difference between 
the average outcomes for the treatment group and for the control group. 
These studies, depending on design and implementation, can meet What 
Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards without reservations.
    Relevant outcome means the student outcome(s) (or the ultimate 
outcome if not related to students) the proposed process, product, 
strategy, or practice is designed to improve; consistent with the 
specific goals of a program.
    Strong theory means a rationale for the proposed process, product, 
strategy, or practice that includes a logic model.
    What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards means the standards set 
forth in the What Works Clearinghouse Procedures and Standards Handbook 
(Version 3.0, March 2014), which can be found at the following link: 
http://

[[Page 18752]]

ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/DocumentSum.aspx?sid=19.
    The following definitions are from the Supplemental Priorities:
    Persistently lowest-achieving school means, as determined by the 
State--
    (a)(1) Any Title I school that has been identified for improvement, 
corrective action, or restructuring under section 1116 of the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA) and 
that--
    (i) Is among the lowest-achieving five percent of Title I schools 
in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring or the lowest-
achieving five Title I schools in improvement, corrective action, or 
restructuring in the State, whichever number of schools is greater; or
    (ii) Is a high school that has had a graduation rate, as defined in 
34 CFR 200.19(b), that is less than 60 percent over a number of years; 
and
    (2) Any secondary school that is eligible for, but does not 
receive, Title I funds that--
    (i) Is among the lowest-achieving five percent of secondary schools 
or the lowest-achieving five secondary schools in the State that are 
eligible for, but do not receive, Title I funds, whichever number of 
schools is greater; or
    (ii) Is a high school that has had a graduation rate, as defined in 
34 CFR 200.19(b), that is less than 60 percent over a number of years.
    (b) To identify the lowest-achieving schools, a State must take 
into account both--
    (i) The academic achievement of the ``all students'' group in a 
school in terms of proficiency on the State's assessments under section 
1111(b)(3) of the ESEA, in reading/language arts and mathematics 
combined; and
    (ii) The school's lack of progress on those assessments over a 
number of years in the ``all students'' group.
    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. 1474 and 1481.
    Applicable Regulations: (a) The Education Department General 
Administrative Regulations in 34 CFR parts 75, 77, 79, 81, 82, 84, 86, 
97, 98, and 99. (b) The Office of Management and Budget Guidelines to 
Agencies on Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement) in 
2 CFR part 180, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department 
in 2 CFR part 3485. (c) The Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost 
Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards in 2 CFR part 
200, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department in 2 CFR 
part 3474. (d) The Supplemental Priorities.

    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: The Administration has requested 
$30,047,000 for the Educational Technology, Media, and Materials for 
Individuals with Disabilities program for FY 2017, of which we intend 
to use an estimated $2,500,000 for this competition. The actual level 
of funding, if any, depends on final congressional action. However, we 
are inviting applications to allow enough time to complete the grant 
process if Congress appropriates funds for this program.
    Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of 
applications, we may make additional awards in FY 2018 from the list of 
unfunded applications from this competition.
    Estimated Range of Awards: $450,000 to $500,000 per year.
    Estimated Average Size of Awards: $471,352 per year.
    Maximum Award: We will reject any application that proposes a 
budget exceeding $500,000 for a single budget period of 12 months.
    Estimated Number of Awards: 5.

    Note:  The Department is not bound by any estimates in this 
notice.

    Project Period: Up to 48 months.

III. Eligibility Information

    1. Eligible Applicants: SEAs; LEAs, including 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. Eligible Subgrantees: (a) Under 34 CFR 75.708(b) and (c) a 
grantee may award subgrants--to directly carry out project activities 
described in its application--to the following types of entities: SEAs; 
LEAs, including public charter schools that are considered LEAs under 
State law; IHEs; other public agencies; private nonprofit 
organizations; outlying areas; freely associated States; Indian tribes 
or tribal organizations; and for-profit organizations.
    (b) The grantee may award subgrants to entities it has identified 
in an approved application.
    4. Other General Requirements:
    (a) Recipients of funding under this competition must make positive 
efforts to employ and advance in employment qualified individuals with 
disabilities (see section 606 of IDEA).
    (b) Each applicant for, and recipient of, funding must, with 
respect to the aspects of the 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. Address to Request Application Package: You can obtain an 
application package via the internet or from the Education Publications 
Center (ED Pubs). To obtain a copy via the internet, use the following 
address: www.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/grantapps/index.html. To obtain a 
copy from ED Pubs, write, fax, or call: ED Pubs, U.S. Department of 
Education, P.O. Box 22207, Alexandria, VA 22304. Telephone, toll free: 
1-877-433-7827. FAX: (703) 605-6794. If you use a TDD or a TTY, call, 
toll free: 1-877-576-7734.
    You can contact ED Pubs at its Web site, also: www.EDPubs.gov or at 
its email address: edpubs@inet.ed.gov.
    If you request an application package from ED Pubs, be sure to 
identify this competition as follows: CFDA number 84.327S.
    Individuals with disabilities can obtain a copy of the application 
package in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, 
or compact disc) by contacting the person or team listed under 
Accessible Format in section VII of this notice.
    2. Content and Form of Application Submission: Requirements 
concerning the content and form of an application, together with the 
forms you must submit, are in the application package for this 
competition.
    Page Limit: The application narrative (Part III of the application) 
is where you, the applicant, address the selection criteria that 
reviewers use to evaluate

[[Page 18753]]

your application. You must limit Part III to no more than 50 pages, 
using 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. An application submitted in any other font 
(including Times Roman or Arial Narrow) will not be accepted.
    The page limit and double-spacing requirements do 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 page 
limit and double-spacing requirements do apply to all of Part III, the 
application narrative, including all text in charts, tables, figures, 
graphs, and screen shots.
    We will reject your application if you exceed the page limit in the 
application narrative section, or if you apply standards other than 
those specified in this notice and the application package.
    3. Submission Dates and Times:
    Applications Available: April 21, 2017.
    Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: June 5, 2017.
    Applications for grants under this competition must be submitted 
electronically using the Grants.gov Apply site (Grants.gov). For 
information (including dates and times) about how to submit your 
application electronically, or in paper format by mail or hand delivery 
if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission 
requirement, please refer to Other Submission Requirements in section 
IV of this notice.
    We do not consider an application that does not comply with the 
deadline requirements.
    Individuals with disabilities who need an accommodation or 
auxiliary aid in connection with the application process should contact 
the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. If the 
Department provides an accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual 
with a disability in connection with the application process, the 
individual's application remains subject to all other requirements and 
limitations in this notice.
    Deadline for Intergovernmental Review: August 4, 2017.
    4. Intergovernmental Review: This competition is subject to 
Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. 
Information about Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs under 
Executive Order 12372 is in the application package for this 
competition.
    5. Funding Restrictions: We reference regulations outlining funding 
restrictions in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice.
    6. Data Universal Numbering System Number, Taxpayer Identification 
Number, and System for Award Management: To do business with the 
Department of Education, you must--
    a. Have a Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number and a 
Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN);
    b. Register both your DUNS number and TIN with the System for Award 
Management (SAM), the Government's primary registrant database;
    c. Provide your DUNS number and TIN on your application; and
    d. Maintain an active SAM registration with current information 
while your application is under review by the Department and, if you 
are awarded a grant, during the project period.
    You can obtain a DUNS number from Dun and Bradstreet at the 
following Web site: http://fedgov.dnb.com/webform. A DUNS number can be 
created within one to two business days.
    If you are a corporate entity, agency, institution, or 
organization, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service. 
If you are an individual, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal 
Revenue Service or the Social Security Administration. If you need a 
new TIN, please allow two to five weeks for your TIN to become active.
    The SAM registration process can take approximately seven business 
days, but may take upwards of several weeks, depending on the 
completeness and accuracy of the data you enter into the SAM database. 
Thus, if you think you might want to apply for Federal financial 
assistance under a program administered by the Department, please allow 
sufficient time to obtain and register your DUNS number and TIN. We 
strongly recommend that you register early.

    Note:  Once your SAM registration is active, it may be 24 to 48 
hours before you can access the information in, and submit an 
application through, Grants.gov.

    If you are currently registered with SAM, you may not need to make 
any changes. However, please make certain that the TIN associated with 
your DUNS number is correct. Also note that you will need to update 
your registration annually. This may take three or more business days.
    Information about SAM is available at www.SAM.gov. To further 
assist you with obtaining and registering your DUNS number and TIN in 
SAM or updating your existing SAM account, we have prepared a SAM.gov 
Tip Sheet, which you can find at: www2.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/sam-faqs.html.
    In addition, if you are submitting your application via Grants.gov, 
you must (1) be designated by your organization as an Authorized 
Organization Representative (AOR); and (2) register yourself with 
Grants.gov as an AOR. Details on these steps are outlined at the 
following Grants.gov Web page: www.grants.gov/web/grants/register.html.
    7. Other Submission Requirements: Applications for grants under 
this competition must be submitted electronically unless you qualify 
for an exception to this requirement in accordance with the 
instructions in this section.
    a. Electronic Submission of Applications.
    Applications for grants under the Educational Technology, Media, 
and Materials for Individuals with Disabilities--Stepping-up Technology 
Implementation competition, CFDA number 84.327S, must be submitted 
electronically using the Governmentwide Grants.gov Apply site at 
www.Grants.gov. Through this site, you will be able to download a copy 
of the application package, complete it offline, and then upload and 
submit your application. You may not email an electronic copy of a 
grant application to us.
    We will reject your application if you submit it in paper format 
unless, as described elsewhere in this section, you qualify for one of 
the exceptions to the electronic submission requirement and submit, no 
later than two weeks before the application deadline date, a written 
statement to the Department that you qualify for one of these 
exceptions. Further information regarding calculation of the date that 
is two weeks before the application deadline date is provided later in 
this section under Exception to Electronic Submission Requirement.
    You may access the electronic grant application for the Educational

[[Page 18754]]

Technology, Media, and Materials for Individuals with Disabilities--
Stepping-up Technology Implementation competition at www.Grants.gov. 
You must search for the downloadable application package for this 
competition by the CFDA number. Do not include the CFDA number's alpha 
suffix in your search (e.g., search for 84.327, not 84.327S).
    Please note the following:
     When you enter the Grants.gov site, you will find 
information about submitting an application electronically through the 
site, as well as the hours of operation.
     Applications received by Grants.gov are date and time 
stamped. Your application must be fully uploaded and submitted and must 
be date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system no later than 4:30:00 
p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. Except as 
otherwise noted in this section, we will not accept your application if 
it is received--that is, date and time stamped by the Grants.gov 
system--after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application 
deadline date. We do not consider an application that does not comply 
with the deadline requirements. When we retrieve your application from 
Grants.gov, we will notify you if we are rejecting your application 
because it was date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system after 
4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date.
     The amount of time it can take to upload an application 
will vary depending on a variety of factors, including the size of the 
application and the speed of your internet connection. Therefore, we 
strongly recommend that you do not wait until the application deadline 
date to begin the submission process through Grants.gov.
     You should review and follow the Education Submission 
Procedures for submitting an application through Grants.gov that are 
included in the application package for this competition to ensure that 
you submit your application in a timely manner to the Grants.gov 
system. You can also find the Education Submission Procedures 
pertaining to Grants.gov under News and Events on the Department's G5 
system home page at www.G5.gov. In addition, for specific guidance and 
procedures for submitting an application through Grants.gov, please 
refer to the Grants.gov Web site at: www.grants.gov/web/grants/applicants/apply-for-grants.html.
     You will not receive additional point value because you 
submit your application in electronic format, nor will we penalize you 
if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission 
requirement, as described elsewhere in this section, and submit your 
application in paper format.
     You must submit all documents electronically, including 
all information you typically provide on the following forms: the 
Application for Federal Assistance (SF 424), the Department of 
Education Supplemental Information for SF 424, Budget Information--Non-
Construction Programs (ED 524), and all necessary assurances and 
certifications.
     You must upload any narrative sections and all other 
attachments to your application as files in a read-only Portable 
Document Format (PDF). Do not upload an interactive or fillable PDF 
file. If you upload a file type other than a read-only PDF (e.g., Word, 
Excel, WordPerfect, etc.) or submit a password-protected file, we will 
not review that material. Please note that this could result in your 
application not being considered for funding because the material in 
question--for example, the application narrative--is critical to a 
meaningful review of your proposal. For that reason it is important to 
allow yourself adequate time to upload all material as PDF files. The 
Department will not convert material from other formats to PDF. 
Additional, detailed information on how to attach files is in the 
application instructions.
     Your electronic application must comply with any page-
limit requirements described in this notice.
     After you electronically submit your application, you will 
receive from Grants.gov an automatic notification of receipt that 
contains a Grants.gov tracking number. This notification indicates 
receipt by Grants.gov only, not receipt by the Department. Grants.gov 
will also notify you automatically by email if your application met all 
the Grants.gov validation requirements or if there were any errors 
(such as submission of your application by someone other than a 
registered Authorized Organization Representative, or inclusion of an 
attachment with a file name that contains special characters). You will 
be given an opportunity to correct any errors and resubmit, but you 
must still meet the deadline for submission of applications.
    Once your application is successfully validated by Grants.gov, the 
Department will retrieve your application from Grants.gov and send you 
an email with a unique PR/Award number for your application.
    These emails do not mean that your application is without any 
disqualifying errors. While your application may have been successfully 
validated by Grants.gov, it must also meet the Department's application 
requirements as specified in this notice and in the application 
instructions. Disqualifying errors could include, for instance, failure 
to upload attachments in a read-only PDF; failure to submit a required 
part of the application; or failure to meet applicant eligibility 
requirements. It is your responsibility to ensure that your submitted 
application has met all of the Department's requirements.
     We may request that you provide us original signatures on 
forms at a later date.
    Application Deadline Date Extension in Case of Technical Issues 
with the Grants.gov System: If you are experiencing problems submitting 
your application through Grants.gov, please contact the Grants.gov 
Support Desk, toll free, at 1-800-518-4726. You must obtain a 
Grants.gov Support Desk Case Number and must keep a record of it.
    If you are prevented from electronically submitting your 
application on the application deadline date because of technical 
problems with the Grants.gov system, we will grant you an extension 
until 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, the following business day to 
enable you to transmit your application electronically or by hand 
delivery. You also may mail your application by following the mailing 
instructions described elsewhere in this notice.
    If you submit an application after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC 
time, on the application deadline date, please contact the person 
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT and provide an explanation 
of the technical problem you experienced with Grants.gov, along with 
the Grants.gov Support Desk Case Number. We will accept your 
application if we can confirm that a technical problem occurred with 
the Grants.gov system and that the problem affected your ability to 
submit your application by 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the 
application deadline date. We will contact you after we determine 
whether your application will be accepted.

    Note: The extensions to which we refer in this section apply 
only to the unavailability of, or technical problems with, the 
Grants.gov system. We will not grant you an extension if you failed 
to fully register to submit your application to Grants.gov before 
the application deadline date and time or if the technical problem 
you experienced is unrelated to the Grants.gov system.

    Exception to Electronic Submission Requirement: You qualify for an 
exception to the electronic submission requirement, and may submit your

[[Page 18755]]

application in paper format, if you are unable to submit an application 
through the Grants.gov system because--
     You do not have access to the internet; or
     You do not have the capacity to upload large documents to 
the Grants.gov system;
    and
     No later than two weeks before the application deadline 
date (14 calendar days or, if the fourteenth calendar day before the 
application deadline date falls on a Federal holiday, the next business 
day following the Federal holiday), you mail or fax a written statement 
to the Department, explaining which of the two grounds for an exception 
prevents you from using the internet to submit your application.
    If you mail your written statement to the Department, it must be 
postmarked no later than two weeks before the application deadline 
date. If you fax your written statement to the Department, we must 
receive the faxed statement no later than two weeks before the 
application deadline date.
    Address and mail or fax your statement to: Terry Jackson, U.S. 
Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 5158, Potomac 
Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-5076. FAX: (202) 245-7590.
    Your paper application must be submitted in accordance with the 
mail or hand-delivery instructions described in this notice.
    b. Submission of Paper Applications by Mail.
    If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission 
requirement, you may mail (through the U.S. Postal Service or a 
commercial carrier) your application to the Department. You must mail 
the original and two copies of your application, on or before the 
application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: 
U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: 
(CFDA Number 84.327S), LBJ Basement Level 1, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., 
Washington, DC 20202-4260.
    You must show proof of mailing consisting of one of the following:
    (1) A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark.
    (2) A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the 
U.S. Postal Service.
    (3) A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial 
carrier.
    (4) Any other proof of mailing acceptable to the Secretary of the 
U.S. Department of Education.
    If you mail your application through the U.S. Postal Service, we do 
not accept either of the following as proof of mailing:
    (1) A private metered postmark.
    (2) A mail receipt that is not dated by the U.S. Postal Service.

    Note: The U.S. Postal Service does not uniformly provide a dated 
postmark. Before relying on this method, you should check with your 
local post office.
    We will not consider applications postmarked after the 
application deadline date.

    c. Submission of Paper Applications by Hand Delivery.
    If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission 
requirement, you (or a courier service) may deliver your paper 
application to the Department by hand. You must deliver the original 
and two copies of your application by hand, on or before the 
application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: 
U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: 
(CFDA Number 84.327S), 550 12th Street SW., Room 7039, Potomac Center 
Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-4260.
    The Application Control Center accepts hand deliveries daily 
between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, except 
Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays.
    Note for Mail or Hand Delivery of Paper Applications: If you mail 
or hand deliver your application to the Department--
    (1) You must indicate on the envelope and--if not provided by the 
Department--in Item 11 of the SF 424 the CFDA number, including suffix 
letter, if any, of the competition under which you are submitting your 
application; and
    (2) The Application Control Center will mail to you a notification 
of receipt of your grant application. If you do not receive this 
notification within 15 business days from the application deadline 
date, you should call the U.S. Department of Education Application 
Control Center at (202) 245-6288.

V. Application Review Information

    1. Selection Criteria: The maximum score for all of the selection 
criteria is 100 points. The application narrative should include the 
following sections in this order:
    (a) Significance (10 points).
    The Secretary considers the significance of the proposed project.
    (1) In determining the significance of the proposed project, the 
Secretary considers the following factors:
    (i) The significance of the problem or issue to be addressed, and 
the magnitude of the need for the services to be provided or carried 
out by the proposed project;
    (ii) The extent to which specific gaps or weaknesses in services, 
infrastructure, or opportunities have been identified and how the 
specific gaps or weaknesses will be addressed by the proposed project;
    (iii) The potential contribution of the proposed project to 
increase knowledge or understanding of educational problems, issues, or 
effective strategies and the development and advancement of theory, 
knowledge, and practices in the field of study; and
    (iv) The extent to which the proposed project will focus on serving 
or otherwise addressing the needs of children with disabilities.
    (b) Quality of project services (20 points).
    The Secretary considers the quality of the products and/or services 
to be provided by the proposed project.
    (1) In determining the quality of the products and/or 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.
    (2) In addition, the Secretary considers the following factors:
    (i) The extent to which the products and/or services to be provided 
by the proposed project reflect current knowledge from research and 
effective practice;
    (ii) The extent to which the products and/or services are of 
sufficient quality, intensity, and duration to lead to outcomes as 
intended by the proposed project;
    (iii) The extent to which the products and/or services to be 
provided by the proposed, project, involve the collaboration of 
appropriate partners for maximizing the effectiveness of project 
services;
    (iv) The likely utility of the products and/or services that will 
result from the proposed project, including the potential for their 
being used effectively in a variety of other settings; and
    (v) The extent to which the products and resources developed by the 
proposed project include accessible accessibility features, supporting 
the sustained implementation of the technology tool or strategy.
    (c) Quality of the project design (20 points).
    The Secretary considers the quality of the design of the proposed 
project.
    (1) In determining the quality of the design of the proposed 
project, the Secretary considers the following factors:

[[Page 18756]]

    (i) The extent to which the goals, objectives, and outcomes to be 
achieved by the proposed project are clearly specified and measurable;
    (ii) The extent to which the proposed logic model or conceptual 
framework depicts at a minimum, the goals, activities, outputs, and 
outcomes of the proposed project.
    (iii) The extent to which the design of the proposed project 
includes a thorough, high-quality review of the relevant literature, 
reflects current knowledge from research and effective practice; 
supported by strong theory; a high-quality plan for project 
implementation, and the use of appropriate methodological tools to 
ensure successful achievement of project objectives.
    (iv) The extent to which the proposed technology tool or strategy 
is fully-developed, evidence-based (as defined in this notice) and that 
can be implemented to improve early childhood outcomes, academic 
achievement, or college and career readiness; and
    (v) The extent to which the proposed technology tool or strategy 
addresses the following principles of universal design: (a) Multiple 
means of representation so students can approach information in more 
than one way; (b) multiple means of expression so that all students can 
demonstrate and express what they know; and (c) multiple means of 
engagement to stimulate interest in and motivation for learning.
    (d) Quality of the management plan (25 points).
    The Secretary considers the quality of the management plan for the 
proposed project.
    (1) 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 implement the activities 
described in the Project Activities section and 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 and qualifications of 
the project director and principal investigator, including relevant 
training and experience of key project personnel, project consultants 
or subcontractors are appropriate and adequate to meet the objectives 
of the proposed project.
    (iii) The adequacy of the plan for recruiting and selecting:
    (a) The three development schools (the sites in which iterative 
development of the implementation of technology tools and products will 
occur. The project must start implementing the technology tool with at 
least one development school in year one of the project period and two 
additional development schools in year two;
    (b) Four pilot schools (the sites in which try-out, formative 
evaluation, and refinement of technology tools and products will occur. 
The project must work with the four pilot schools during years three 
and four of the project period; and
    (c) Ten dissemination schools. The dissemination schools will be 
selected if the project is extended for a fifth year. Dissemination 
schools will be used to conduct the final test of the effectiveness of 
the products and the final opportunity for the project to refine the 
products for use by teachers, but will receive less technical 
assistance (TA) from the project than the development and pilot 
schools;
    (iv) The adequacy of the information (e.g., early childhood 
setting; elementary, middle, or high school; persistently lowest-
achieving school; priority school) about the development, pilot, and 
students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch); and other pertinent 
data;
    (v) The adequacy of the plan to which the results and accompanying 
products of the proposed project will be disseminated in ways that will 
enable others to use the information or strategies; and
    (vi) The adequacy of the plan to sustain the technology after 
funding ends.
    (e) Adequacy of resources (10 points).
    The Secretary considers the adequacy of resources for the proposed 
project.
    (1) 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.
    (2) In determining the adequacy of resources for the proposed 
project, the Secretary considers the following factors:
    (i) The adequacy of support, including facilities, equipment, 
supplies, and other resources, from the applicant organization or the 
lead applicant organization;
    (ii) The relevance and demonstrated commitment of each partner in 
the proposed project to the implementation and success of the project; 
and
    (iii) The extent to which the budget is adequate to support the 
proposed project; and the costs are reasonable in relation to the 
objectives, design, and potential significance of the proposed project.
    (f) Quality of the project evaluation (15 points).
    The Secretary considers the quality of the evaluation to be 
conducted of the proposed project.
    (1) 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 context within which the project 
operates, and 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;
    (ii) The extent to which the methods of evaluation provide for the 
examination of the effectiveness of project implementation strategies;
    (iii) The extent to which the methods of evaluation is linked to 
the proposed project's logic model is appropriate for the formative 
evaluation, describing how performance objectives in plan will ensure 
continuous performance feedback and improvement and assessment of 
progress toward achieving intended outcomes in the operation of the 
proposed project's activities.
    2. Review and Selection Process: We remind potential applicants 
that in reviewing applications in any discretionary grant competition, 
the Secretary may consider, under 34 CFR 75.217(d)(3), the past 
performance of the applicant in carrying out a previous award, such as 
the applicant's use of funds, achievement of project objectives, and 
compliance with grant conditions. The Secretary may also consider 
whether the applicant failed to submit a timely performance report or 
submitted a report of unacceptable quality.
    In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary 
requires various assurances, including those applicable to Federal 
civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or 
activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department 
of Education (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
    3. Additional Review and Selection Process Factors: In the past, 
the Department has had difficulty finding peer reviewers for certain 
competitions because so many individuals who are eligible to serve as 
peer reviewers have conflicts of interest. The standing panel 
requirements under section 682(b) of

[[Page 18757]]

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 Special 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 special conditions and, in 
appropriate circumstances, high-risk conditions on a grant if the 
applicant or grantee is not financially stable; has a history of 
unsatisfactory performance; has a financial or other management system 
that does not meet the standards in 2 CFR part 200, subpart D; has not 
fulfilled the conditions of a prior grant; or is otherwise not 
responsible.
    5. Integrity and Performance System: If you are selected under this 
competition to receive an award that over the course of the project 
period may exceed the simplified acquisition threshold (currently 
$150,000), under 2 CFR 200.205(a)(2), we must make a judgment about 
your integrity, business ethics, and record of performance under 
Federal awards--that is, the risk posed by you as an applicant--before 
we make an award. In doing so, we must consider any information about 
you that is in the integrity and performance system (currently referred 
to as the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System 
(FAPIIS)), accessible through SAM. 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. Reporting: (a) If you apply for a grant under this competition, 
you must ensure that you have in place the necessary processes and 
systems to comply with the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 170 
should you receive funding under the competition. This does not apply 
if you have an exception under 2 CFR 170.110(b).
    (b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final 
performance report, including financial information, as directed by the 
Secretary. If you receive a multiyear award, you must submit an annual 
performance report that provides the most current performance and 
financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 
CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance 
reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, 
please go to www.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/appforms/appforms.html.
    (c) Under 34 CFR 75.250(b), the Secretary may provide a grantee 
with additional funding for data collection analysis and reporting. In 
this case the Secretary establishes a data collection period.
    4. 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 Educational Technology, Media, and Materials for 
Individuals with Disabilities Program. These measures are included in 
the application package and focus on the extent to which projects are 
of high quality, are relevant to improving outcomes of children with 
disabilities, contribute to improving outcomes for children with 
disabilities, and generate evidence of validity and availability to 
appropriate populations. Projects funded under this competition 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 performance reports and additional performance 
data to the Department (34 CFR 75.590 and 75.591).
    5. Continuation Awards: In making a continuation award under 34 CFR 
75.253, the Secretary considers, among other things: Whether a grantee 
has made substantial progress in achieving the goals and objectives of 
the project; whether the grantee has expended funds in a manner that is 
consistent with its approved application and budget; and, if the 
Secretary has established performance measurement requirements, the 
performance targets in the grantee's approved application.
    In making a continuation award, the Secretary also considers 
whether the grantee is operating in compliance with the assurances in 
its approved application, including those applicable to Federal civil 
rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities 
receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR 
100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).

VII. Other Information

    Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this 
document and a copy of the application package in an accessible format 
(e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) by contacting 
the Management Support Services Team, U.S. Department of Education, 400 
Maryland Avenue SW., Room 5113, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 
20202-2500. Telephone: (202) 245-7363. If you use a TDD or a TTY, call 
the FRS, toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
    Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this 
document is the document published in the Federal Register. Free 
internet access to the official edition of the Federal Register and the 
Code of Federal Regulations is available via the Federal Digital System 
at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site you can view this document, as well 
as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal 
Register, in

[[Page 18758]]

text or 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: April 18, 2017.
Ruth E. Ryder,
Deputy Director, Office of Special Education Programs, delegated the 
duties of the Assistant Secretary for Special Education and 
Rehabilitative Services.
[FR Doc. 2017-08119 Filed 4-20-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4000-01-P