Applications for New Awards; Technical Assistance and Dissemination To Improve Services and Results for Children With Disabilities-Model Demonstration Projects To Improve Algebraic Reasoning for Students With Disabilities in Middle and High School, 22975-22984 [2017-10249]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 96 (Friday, May 19, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22975-22984]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-10249]


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

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION


Applications for New Awards; Technical Assistance and 
Dissemination To Improve Services and Results for Children With 
Disabilities--Model Demonstration Projects To Improve Algebraic 
Reasoning for Students With Disabilities in Middle and High School

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 a new award for fiscal year (FY) 2017 for Technical 
Assistance and Dissemination to Improve Services and Results for 
Children with Disabilities--Model Demonstration Projects to Improve 
Algebraic Reasoning for Students with Disabilities in Middle and High 
School.
    Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number 84.326M.[fnp]

DATES: 
    Applications Available: May 19, 2017.
    Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: July 3, 2017.
    Deadline for Intergovernmental Review: September 1, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paula Maccini, U.S. Department of 
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 5142, Potomac Center Plaza, 
Washington, DC 20202-5108. Telephone: (202) 245-8012.
    If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text 
telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-
800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Full Text of Announcement

I. Funding Opportunity Description

    Purpose of Program: The purpose of the Technical Assistance and 
Dissemination to Improve Services and Results for Children with 
Disabilities program is to promote academic achievement and to improve 
results for children with disabilities by providing technical 
assistance (TA), supporting model demonstration projects, disseminating 
useful information, and implementing activities that are supported by 
scientifically based research.
    Priorities: This competition has one absolute priority. In 
accordance with 34 CFR 75.105(b)(2)(v), the absolute priority is from 
allowable activities specified in the statute or otherwise authorized 
in the statute (see sections 663 and 681(d) of the Individuals with 
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. 1463, 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:

Model Demonstration Projects To Improve Algebraic Reasoning for 
Students With Disabilities in Middle and High School.

Background

    Model demonstrations to improve early intervention, educational, or 
transitional results for students with disabilities have been 
authorized under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) 
since the mid-1970s. For the purposes of this priority, a model is a 
set of existing interventions supported by evidence and implementation 
strategies (i.e., core model components) that research suggests will 
improve child, teacher, or system outcomes when implemented with 
fidelity (Hughes, Powell, Lembke, & Riley-Tillman, 2016). Model 
demonstrations involve investigating the degree to which a model can be 
implemented, and sustained in typical settings, by staff employed in 
those settings, while achieving outcomes similar to those attained 
under research conditions.
    The purpose of this priority is to fund three cooperative 
agreements to establish and operate model demonstration projects that 
will assess how models can: (a) improve algebraic reasoning for 
students with disabilities in middle and high schools; and (b) be 
implemented and sustained by educators in general and special education 
settings. These proposed models will be the first to focus on 
mathematics for adolescents with disabilities, a critical area of need.
    Algebraic reasoning (as defined in this notice) is a critical 
component of success in mathematics and is applied to topics within 
number operations, number systems, measurement and data, geometry, 
rational numbers, ratios and proportional relationships, expressions 
and equations, and functions (Van De Walle, Karp, & Bay-Williams, 
2013). Algebra is a gateway to advanced coursework, graduation, and 
future earnings (National Mathematics Advisory Panel (NMAP), 2008); 
therefore, it is imperative to address the achievement gap in 
mathematics that exists between students with disabilities (SWD) and 
students without disabilities.
    The most recent National Assessment of Educational Progress report 
(NAEP; 2015) indicates that more than 70 percent of 8th grade SWD, 
excluding those with a 504 plan, performed below the basic level on the 
mathematics assessment compared to 24 percent of students without 
disabilities (U.S. Department of Education, 2015). For 12th graders, 
the disparity is greater, as 81 percent of SWD scored below basic level 
on the math assessment compared with 34 percent of students without 
disabilities (U.S. Department of Education, 2015).
    The average algebra scaled score for 8th graders with disabilities 
was 247 in a range of 0-500 points, compared to 293 for 8th graders 
without disabilities. For 12th graders with disabilities, the average 
scaled score was 117 in a range of 0-300 points, compared to 157 for 
12th graders without disabilities. The discrepancies in algebra scores 
between SWD and those without disabilities in both 8th and 12th grade 
are statistically significant (NAEP; 2015).
    There is a need to focus on meeting the specific needs of SWD in 
algebra (Witzel, 2016; Hughes, Witzel, Riccomini, Fries, & Kanyongo, 
2014). Certain learner characteristics of SWD may impede their 
performance in algebra (Allsopp, van Igen, Simsek, & Haley, 2016). 
Difficulties SWD experience in algebra include understanding algebraic 
representations,

[[Page 22976]]

which may be due to difficulties with cognitive processing; recalling 
multi-step procedures because of memory difficulties; and problem 
solving strategies due to metacognitive difficulties. These 
difficulties may cumulatively affect students in algebra and their 
subsequent performance in mathematics (Allsopp et al., 2016).
    Students with mathematical learning disabilities (MLD) \1\ comprise 
about seven percent of school-age learners (Geary, 2011). Students with 
MLD may exhibit difficulties with language-based tasks and struggle to 
conceptualize abstract algebraic concepts and solve problems involving 
algebraic reasoning. To address these difficulties, and to ensure that 
students with MLD receive appropriate services and supports as 
guaranteed in IDEA, educators must be trained in using practices 
supported by evidence in teaching mathematics and algebraic reasoning. 
This competition aims to fund model demonstration projects that will 
investigate ways to train educators to successfully implement these 
practices. These three proposed model demonstration projects must be 
based on current research and make use of practices supported by 
evidence.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Participants must have math goals on their Individualized 
Education Programs (IEPs) and can be classified under any of the 
IDEA disability categories.
    \2\ The What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) identifies a number of 
practices supported by evidence in the following two practice 
guides: Assisting Students Struggling with Mathematics: Response to 
Intervention (RtI) for Elementary and Middle Schools (Gersten et 
al., 2009); and Teaching Strategies for Improving Algebra Knowledge 
in Middle and High School (Star et al., 2015). Each practice guide 
was developed by a panel of researchers and practitioners with 
expertise in various dimensions of math and special education. We 
mention the guides for information only; use of the practices 
contained in them is permitted, but not required, in this 
competition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Priority

    The purpose of this priority is to fund three cooperative 
agreements to establish and operate model demonstration projects that 
will assess how models can: (a) Improve algebraic reasoning for SWD in 
middle and high schools and (b) be implemented and sustained by 
educators in general and special education settings. Applicants must 
propose models that meet the following requirements:
    (a) The model's core intervention components (e.g., services, 
assessments, processes, data collection instruments) must include:
    (1) A framework that includes, at a minimum, universal screening, 
progress monitoring, and core instructional practices supported by 
evidence and based on current research;
    (2) Core instructional practices for improving algebraic reasoning 
supported by evidence and based on current research that meet the needs 
of students with disabilities in middle and high school;
    (3) Standardized measures of students' algebraic reasoning, 
individual instructor (e.g., teacher, paraprofessional, specialist), 
and system-level outcomes, when appropriate;
    (4) Procedures to refine the model based on the ongoing assessment 
of students' performance on algebraic reasoning; and
    (5) Measures of the model's social validity, i.e., measures of 
educators', parents', and students' \3\ satisfaction with the model 
components, processes, and outcomes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Applicants must ensure the confidentiality of individual 
data, consistent with the requirements of section 444 of the General 
Education Provisions Act (20 U.S.C. 1232g), commonly known as the 
``Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act'' (FERPA), and State 
laws or regulations concerning the confidentiality of individual 
records. Final FERPA regulatory changes became effective January 3, 
2012, and include requirements for data sharing. Applicants are 
encouraged to review the final FERPA regulations published on 
December 2, 2011 (76 FR 75604). Questions can be sent to the Family 
Policy Compliance Office (www.ed.gov/fpco) at (202) 260-3887 or 
FERPA@ed.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (b) The model's core implementation components must include:
    (1) Criteria and strategies for selecting \4\ and recruiting sites, 
including approaches to introducing the model to, and promoting the 
model among, site participants,\5\ with consideration given to the 
following criteria:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ For factors to consider when selecting model demonstration 
sites, the applicant should refer to Assessing Sites for Model 
Demonstration: Lessons Learned for OSEP Grantees at https://mdcc.sri.com/documents/MDCC_Site_Assessment_Brief_09-30-11.pdf. The 
document also contains a site assessment tool.
    \5\ For factors to consider while preparing for model 
demonstration implementation, the applicant should refer to 
Preparing for Model Demonstration Implementation at https://mdcc.sri.com/documents/MDCC_PreparationStage_Brief_Apr2013.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (i) Each project must include at least three middle or at least 
three high schools.
    (ii) In each of the schools, all of the identified SWD in middle 
and high school participating in the model demonstration projects must 
have math goals on their Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) and 
can be classified under any of the IDEA disability categories.
    (2) A lag site implementation design, which allows for model 
development and refinement at the first site in year one of the project 
period, with sites two and three implementing a revised model based on 
data from the first site beginning in year two;
    (3) A professional development component that includes a coaching 
strategy supported by evidence to enable staff (e.g., teacher, 
paraprofessional, specialist) to implement the interventions with 
fidelity; and
    (4) Measures of the results of the professional development (e.g., 
improvements in teachers'/service providers' instructional delivery and 
knowledge) required by paragraph (b)(3) of this section, including 
measures of the fidelity of implementation.
    (c) The core strategies for sustaining the model must include:
    (1) Documentation that permits current and future practitioners to 
replicate and tailor the model at other sites; \6\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ For a guide on documenting model demonstration sustainment 
and replication, the applicant should refer to Planning for 
Replication and Dissemination From the Start: Guidelines for Model 
Demonstration Projects at https://mdcc.sri.com/documents/MDCC_ReplicationBrief_SEP2013.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) A dissemination plan that includes strategies and measurable 
goals for the grantee to disseminate or sustain the model, such as 
developing easily accessible training materials or coordinating with TA 
providers who might serve as future trainers.
    To be considered for funding under this absolute priority, 
applicants must meet the application requirements contained in this 
priority. Each project funded under this absolute priority also must 
meet the programmatic and administrative requirements specified in the 
priority.

Application Requirements

    An applicant must include in its application--
    (a) A detailed review of the literature indicating that the 
proposed model is supported by evidence meeting at least the conditions 
set out in the definition of strong theory (as defined in this notice) 
and that supports the promise of the proposed model, its components, 
and processes to improve algebraic reasoning for SWD in middle and high 
school;
    (b) A logic model that depicts, at a minimum, the goals, 
activities, outputs, and outcomes of the proposed model demonstration 
project. A logic model used in connection with this priority 
communicates how a project will achieve its outcomes and provides a 
framework for both the formative and summative evaluations of the 
project;

[[Page 22977]]

    (c) Include, in Appendix A, a logic model, a conceptual framework 
for the project, and person-loading charts and timelines, as 
applicable, to illustrate the management plan described in the 
narrative.

    Note:  The following Web sites provide examples for constructing 
logic models: www.osepideasthatwork.org/resources-grantees/program-areas/ta-ta/tad-project-logic-model-and-conceptual-framework and 
www.osepideasthatwork.org/logicModel.

    (d) A description of the activities and measures to be incorporated 
into the proposed model demonstration project to improve algebraic 
reasoning for SWD, including a timeline of how and when the components 
are introduced within the model. A detailed and complete description 
must include the following:
    (1) All the intervention components, including, at a minimum, those 
components listed in paragraph (a) under the heading Priority.
    (2) The existing and proposed child, teacher, and system outcome 
measures and social validity measures. The measures should be described 
as completely as possible, referenced as appropriate, and included, 
when available, in Appendix A.
    (3) All the implementation components, including, at a minimum, 
those listed in paragraph (b) under the heading Priority. The existing 
or proposed implementation fidelity measures, including those measuring 
the fidelity of the professional development strategy, should be 
described as completely as possible, referenced as appropriate, and 
included, when available, in Appendix A. In addition, this description 
should include:
    (i) Demographics, including, at a minimum, ethnicity, gender, grade 
level, and age for all SWD at all implementation sites that have been 
identified and successfully recruited for the purposes of this 
application using the selection and recruitment strategies described in 
paragraph (b)(1) under the heading Priority;
    (ii) Whether the implementation sites are high-need,\7\ high-
poverty,\8\ low-performing,\9\ rural, urban, or suburban local 
education agencies (LEAs) or schools; and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ For the purposes of this priority, the term ``high-need 
school'' refers to a public elementary or secondary school that is a 
``high-poverty'' or ``low-performing'' school as defined in 
footnotes 8 and 9, respectively.
    \8\ For the purposes of this priority, the term ``high-poverty 
school'' means a school that is in the highest two quartiles of 
schools served by a local educational agency, based on the 
percentage of enrolled students from low-income families as defined 
in section 1113(a)(5) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
of 1965, as amended (ESEA).
    \9\ For the purpose of this priority, the term ``low-performing 
school'' means a school receiving assistance through Title I of the 
ESEA that, at the time of submission of an application under this 
competition, is (1) identified as a school in need of corrective 
action or restructuring under section 1116 of the ESEA, as amended 
by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB); or (2) identified as 
a priority or focus school in a State that implemented ESEA 
flexibility. The inclusion of these schools as ``low-performing 
schools'' reflects the fact that the 2016-2017 school year is a year 
of transition between requirements of the ESEA as amended by NCLB 
and the ESEA as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act.

    Note:  Applicants are encouraged to identify, to the extent 
possible, the sites willing to participate in the applicant's model 
demonstration. Final site selection will be determined in 
consultation with the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) 
project officer following the kick-off meeting described in 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
paragraph (e)(1) of these application requirements.

    (iii) The lag design for implementation consistent with the 
requirements in paragraph (b)(2) under the heading Priority.
    (4) All the strategies to promote sustaining and replicating the 
model, including, at a minimum, those listed in paragraph (c) under the 
heading Priority.
    (e) A description of the evaluation activities and measures to be 
incorporated into the proposed model demonstration project. A detailed 
and complete description must include:
    (1) A formative evaluation plan, consistent with the project's 
logic model, that includes evaluation questions, source(s) of data, a 
timeline for data collection, and analysis plans. The plan must show 
how the outcome (e.g., child measures, social validity) and 
implementation data (e.g., fidelity) will be used separately or in 
combination to improve the project during the performance period. The 
plan also must outline how these data will be reviewed by project 
staff, when they will be reviewed, and how they will be used during the 
course of the project to adjust the model or its implementation to 
increase the model's usefulness, generalizability, and potential for 
sustainability; and
    (2) A summative evaluation plan, including a timeline, to collect 
and analyze data on changes to child, teacher, and systems outcome 
measures over time or relative to comparison groups that can be 
reasonably attributable to project activities. The plan must show how 
the child or system outcome and implementation data collected by the 
project will be used separately or in combination to demonstrate the 
promise of the model.
    (f) A budget for attendance at the following:
    (1) A one and one half-day kick-off meeting to be held in 
Washington, DC, after receipt of the award;
    (2) A three-day Project Directors' Conference in Washington, DC, 
occurring each year during the project performance period; and
    (3) Four travel days spread across years two through four of the 
project period to attend planning meetings, Department briefings, 
Department-sponsored conferences, and other meetings, as requested by 
OSEP, to be held in Washington, DC, with the OSEP project officer.

Other Project Activities

    To meet the requirements of this priority, each project, at a 
minimum, must:
    (a) Communicate and collaborate on an ongoing basis with other 
relevant Department-funded projects, including, at minimum, OSEP-funded 
TA centers (see www.osepideasthatwork.org/find-center-or-grant/find-a-center) that might disseminate information on the model or support the 
scale-up efforts of a promising model;
    (b) Maintain ongoing telephone and email communication with the 
OSEP project officer and the other model demonstration projects funded 
under this priority; and
    (c) If the project maintains a Web site, include relevant 
information about the model, the intervention, and the demonstration 
activities that meets government- or industry-recognized standards for 
accessibility.

Competitive Preference Priority

    Within this absolute priority, we give competitive preference to 
applications that address the following priority. Under 34 CFR 
75.105(c)(2)(i), we award an additional two points to an application 
that meets this priority.
    The priority is:
    Evidence of Promise Supporting the Proposed Model (Two Points).
    Projects that are supported by evidence that meets the conditions 
set out in the definition of ``evidence of promise'' (as defined in 
this notice). The proposed project must include:
    A literature review, as required under paragraph (a) under the 
heading Application Requirements, that includes research that meets at 
least the evidence of promise standard supporting the promise of the 
proposed model, its components, and processes to improve algebraic 
reasoning in middle and high schools.

    Note:  An applicant addressing this competitive preference 
priority must identify up to two study citations that meet this 
standard and clearly mark them in the reference list of the 
proposal.


[[Page 22978]]



References

Allsopp, D.H., van Ingen, S., Simsek, O., & Haley, K.C. (2016). 
Building to algebra: Big ideas, barriers, and effective practices. 
In B.S. Witzel (Ed.), Bridging the gap between arithmetic & algebra 
(pp.21-50). Arlington, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.
Geary, D.C. (2011). Consequences, characteristics, and causes of 
mathematical learning disabilities and persistent low achievement in 
mathematics. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 
32(3), 250-263.
Gersten, R., Beckmann, S., Clarke, B., Foegen, A., Marsh, L., Star, 
J.R., & Witzel, B. (2009). Assisting students struggling with 
mathematics: Response to intervention (RtI) for elementary and 
middle schools (NCEE 2009-4060). Washington, DC: National Center for 
Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education 
Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications/practiceguide/.
Hughes, E.M., Powell, S.R., Lembke, E.S., & Riley-Tillman, T.C. 
(2016). Taking the guesswork out of locating evidence-based 
mathematics practices for diverse learners. Learning Disabilities 
Research & Practice, 31(3), 130-141.
Hughes, E.M., Witzel, B.S., Riccomini, P.J., Fries, K.M., & 
Kanyongo, G.Y. (2014). A meta-analysis of algebra interventions for 
learners with disabilities and struggling learning. The Journal of 
the International Association of Special Education, 15(1), 36-47.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, 
Public Law 108-446. (2004). 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq.
National Mathematics Advisory Panel (NMAP). (2008). Foundations for 
success: The final report of the national advisory panel. 
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). 
(2013). PISA 2012 Assessment and Analytical Framework: Mathematics, 
Reading, Science, Problem Solving and Financial Literacy. Paris: 
OECD Publishing.
Star, J.R., Caronongan, P., Foegen, A., Furgeson, J., Keating, B., 
Larson, M.R., & Zbiek, R.M. (2015). Teaching strategies for 
improving algebra knowledge in middle and high school students (NCEE 
2014-4333). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation 
and Regional Assistance (NCEE), Institute of Education Sciences, 
U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from the NCEE Web site: 
https://whatworks.ed.gov.
U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, 
National Center for Education Statistics. (2015). National 
Assessment of Educational Progress Reading and Mathematics 
Assessments (NAEP), 2015, 2013, Mathematics Assessments. Accessed 
through the NAEP Data Explorer at https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/naepdata/.
Van De Walle, J.A., Karp, K.S., & Bay-Williams, J.M. (2013). 
Elementary and middle school mathematics: Teaching developmentally. 
Boston, MA: Pearson.
Witzel, B. (2016). Students with math difficulties and the 
arithmetic to algebra gap. In B.S. Witzel (Ed.), Bridging the gap 
between arithmetic & algebra (pp.7-20). Arlington, VA: Council for 
Exceptional Children.

Definitions

    The following definitions apply to the priority:

    Algebraic reasoning means ``forming generalizations from 
experiences with number and computation, formalizing these ideas 
with the use of a meaningful symbol system, and exploring the 
concepts of pattern and function'' (Van De Walle, Karp, & Bay-
Williams, 2013, p. 258).
    The definitions of the following terms are from 34 CFR 77.1: 
``evidence of promise,'' ``logic model,'' ``quasi-experimental 
design study,'' ``randomized controlled trial'', ``relevant 
outcome,'' ``strong theory,'' and ``What Works Clearinghouse 
evidence standards.''
    Evidence of promise means there is empirical research 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.
    Mathematical literacy refers to, ``an individual's capacity to 
formulate, employ, and interpret mathematics in a variety of 
contexts. It includes reasoning mathematically and using 
mathematical concepts, procedures, facts and tools to describe, 
explain and predict phenomena. It assists individuals to recognize 
the role that mathematics plays in the world and to make the well-
founded judgments and decisions needed by constructive, engaged and 
reflective citizens'' (Organization for Economic Cooperation and 
Development, 2013, p. 25).
    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: https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/DocumentSum.aspx?sid=19.

    Waiver of Proposed Rulemaking: Under the Administrative Procedure 
Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553) the Department generally offers interested 
parties the opportunity to comment on proposed priorities and other 
requirements. Section 681(d) of IDEA, however, makes the public comment 
requirements of the APA inapplicable to the absolute priority and 
related definitions in this notice.
    Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1463 and 1481.
    Applicable Regulations: (a) The Education Department General 
Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) 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.


[[Page 22979]]


    Note: The regulations in 34 CFR part 79 apply to all applicants 
except federally recognized Indian Tribes.


    Note:  The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 apply to institutions 
of higher education (IHEs) only.

II. Award Information

    Type of Award: Cooperative agreements.
    Estimated Available Funds: The Further Continuing and Security 
Assistance Appropriations Act, 2017, would provide $54,345,000 for the 
Technical Assistance and Dissemination To Improve Services and Results 
for Children With Disabilities program for FY 2017, of which we intend 
to use an estimated $1,200,000 for this competition (per year divided 
between the three new projects). 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: $375,000 to $400,000 per year.
    Estimated Average Size of Awards: $400,000 per year.
    Maximum Award: We will reject any application that proposes a 
budget exceeding $400,000 for a single budget period of 12 months.
    Estimated Number of Awards: 3.

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

    Project Period: Up to 48 months.
    Evaluation Period: In August 2013, the Department amended the 
Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) to 
authorize the awarding of an evaluation period after the end of the 
approved project period. Under 34 CFR 75.250(b) the Secretary has the 
authority to make data collection/analysis awards. By the terms of that 
section, the awards can only go to current grantees, may only be used 
for data collection, analysis and reporting and do not have to go 
through a formal competitive process.

III. Eligibility Information

    1. Eligible Applicants: State educational agencies (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.
    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: IHEs 
and private nonprofit organizations suitable to carry out the 
activities proposed in the application.
    (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 their proposed project relating to the 
absolute priority, involve individuals with disabilities, or parents of 
individuals with disabilities ages birth through 26, in planning, 
implementing, and evaluating the project (see section 682(a)(1)(A) of 
IDEA).

IV. Application and Submission Information

    1. 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/. 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 84.326M.
    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 your application. We recommend that you--(1) 
limit Part III to no more than 50 pages, and (2) use the following 
standards:
     A ``page'' is 8.5'' x 11'', on one side only, with 1'' 
margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.
     Double-space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) 
all text in the application narrative, including titles, headings, 
footnotes, quotations, reference citations, and captions, as well as 
all text in charts, tables, figures, graphs, and screen shots.
     Use a font that is 12 point or larger.
     Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, 
Courier New, or Arial.
    The recommended page limit does not apply to Part I, the cover 
sheet; Part II, the budget section, including the narrative budget 
justification; Part IV, the assurances and certifications; or the 
abstract (follow the guidance provided in the application package for 
completing the abstract), the table of contents, the list of priority 
requirements, the resumes, the reference list, the letters of support, 
or the appendices. However, the recommended page limit does apply to 
all of Part III, the application narrative, including all text in 
charts, tables, figures, graphs, and screen shots.
    3. Submission Dates and Times:
    Applications Available: May 19, 2017.
    Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: July 3, 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

[[Page 22980]]

requirements and limitations in this notice.
    Deadline for Intergovernmental Review: September 1, 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: https://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 Model Demonstration Projects to 
Improve Algebraic Reasoning for Students with Disabilities in Middle 
and High School competition, CFDA number 84.326M, 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 Model 
Demonstration Projects to Improve Algebraic Reasoning for Students with 
Disabilities in Middle and High School 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 84.326, not 84.326M).
    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.

[[Page 22981]]

     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.
     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 
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: Paula Maccini, U.S. 
Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 5142, Potomac 
Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-5108. 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 84.326M), 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.


[[Page 22982]]


    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 84.326M), 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 selection criteria for this competition 
are listed in the application package.
    (a) Significance (15 points).
    (1) The Secretary considers the significance of the proposed 
project.
    (2) In determining the significance of the proposed project, the 
Secretary considers the following factors:
    (i) The extent to which the proposed project involves a high-
quality review of the relevant literature and the demonstration of 
promising strategies that build on, or are alternatives to, existing 
strategies that address the needs of the target population.
    (ii) The potential contribution of the proposed project to increase 
knowledge or understanding of problems, issues, or effective strategies 
in improving results for children with disabilities.
    (iii) The extent to which the proposed project is likely to build 
local capacity to provide, improve, or expand and sustain services that 
address the needs of the target population.

    Note:  Under the ``Significance'' criterion, reviewers are 
looking for a thorough review of the literature that (a) 
substantiates the inclusion of existing interventions supported by 
evidence and implementation strategies (i.e., core model components) 
that research suggests will improve child, teacher, or system 
outcomes when implemented with fidelity; and (b) the efficacy of 
this model to address the issue or problem identified as a need in 
the priority. Reviewers will also be considering the breadth and 
adequacy of the applicant's proposed approaches to site staff 
training and strategies for sustainment of the model as part of this 
criterion.

    (b) Quality of the project design (35 points).
    (1) The Secretary considers the quality of the design of the 
proposed project.
    (2) In determining the quality of the design of the proposed 
project, the Secretary considers the following factors:
    (i) The extent to which a coherent model that includes site 
selection, practices supported by evidence, implementation and 
sustainment components is clearly articulated.
    (ii) The extent to which the goals, activities, outputs, and 
outcomes to be achieved by the proposed project are clearly specified 
and measurable, as depicted in a logic model.
    (iii) The extent to which the design of the proposed project 
includes a thorough, high-quality plan for project implementation, and 
the use of appropriate methodological tools to ensure successful 
achievement of project outcomes.
    (iv) The extent to which the training or professional development 
to be provided by the proposed project are of sufficient quality, 
intensity, and duration to lead to improvements in practice among the 
recipients of those services.
    (v) The quality of the proposed project design and procedures for 
documenting project activities, implementation, and outcomes (e.g., a 
manual).
    (vi) The likelihood that the proposed project will result in system 
change or improvement through articulated strategies to sustain 
implementation, and detailed documentation that would allow replication 
in other locations as well as ambitious goals for disseminating the 
information to relevant stakeholders.

    Note:  Under the ``Quality of Project Design'' criterion, the 
reviewers are looking for: (a) A description of model site selection 
and preparation, to include the criteria for site selection and how 
the model will be introduced to major stakeholders at the site(s); 
(b) a clear and thorough description of the core intervention 
components of the model, to include the child, teacher, and system 
outcomes to be measured, along with proposed measures of social 
validity; (c) a clear and thorough description of the implementation 
components of the model, to include at minimum how and when site 
staff training will occur and the content of the training, how 
trainer remediation is addressed, staff coaching strategies, and how 
implementation fidelity will be measured; (d) a logic model that 
depicts, at a minimum, the goals, activities, outputs, and outcomes 
of the model; and (e) a clear and thorough description of the 
applicant's proposed sustainment strategies, to include how the 
information contained in the manual for the model will be compiled. 
In order to put these components in context, the reviewers also will 
be looking for a general timeline or flow of activities for the 
project that illustrates when these components are introduced in 
each site (i.e., lag design) and how and when the measures are taken 
and analyzed in support of the project evaluation activities.

    (c) Adequacy of project resources and management plan (25 points).
    (1) The Secretary considers the adequacy of resources for the 
proposed project and the quality of its management plan.
    (2) In determining the adequacy of resources and the management 
plan, the Secretary considers the extent to which the applicant 
encourages applications for employment from persons who are members of 
groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, 
color, national origin, gender, age, or disability.
    (3) In addition, the Secretary considers the following factors:
    (i) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience, 
of key project personnel (i.e., project director, project staff, and 
project consultants or subcontractors).
    (ii) The adequacy of support, including the time commitments of the 
project director, project staff, and project consultants or 
subcontractors and the type and quality of facilities, equipment, 
supplies, and other resources from the applicant organization and key 
partners.
    (iii) The extent to which the costs are reasonable in relation to 
the number of persons to be served and to the anticipated outcomes and 
benefits.
    (iv) The adequacy of the management plan to achieve the objectives 
of the proposed model on time and within budget, including clearly 
defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing 
project tasks.
    (v) The adequacy of mechanisms for ensuring high-quality products 
and services from the proposed project.
    (d) Quality of the project evaluation (25 points).
    (1) The Secretary considers the quality of the evaluation to be 
conducted of the proposed project.

[[Page 22983]]

    (2) In determining the quality of the evaluation, the Secretary 
considers the following factors:
    (i) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will provide 
performance feedback and permit periodic assessment of progress toward 
effective implementation of the proposed project and achieving intended 
child and system outcomes.
    (ii) The extent to which the methods of evaluation provide for 
examining the effectiveness of model intervention, implementation, and 
sustainment strategies.
    (iii) The extent to which the methods of evaluation are thorough, 
feasible, and appropriate to the goals, activities, and outcomes of the 
proposed model.
    (iv) The extent to which the evaluation will provide guidance about 
effective strategies suitable for replication or testing in other 
settings.

    Note:  Under the ``Quality of the Project Evaluation'' 
criterion, the reviewers are looking for: (a) A clear description of 
each of the proposed measures (it is recommended that the applicant 
attach the actual measures proposed; a description of the actual or 
proposed measures; or an example of a measure that closely 
approximates the proposed measure in an appendix); and (b) a clear 
indication of when these measures will be applied and how they will 
be analyzed and used for formative evaluation purposes (i.e., for 
making improvements to the model during the grant period) and for 
summative evaluation purposes (i.e., for determining the 
effectiveness and acceptability of the processes and outcomes 
attributable to the model).

    2. Review and Selection Process: We remind potential applicants 
that in reviewing applications in any discretionary grant competition, 
the Secretary may consider, under 34 CFR 75.217(d)(3), the past 
performance of the applicant in carrying out a previous award, such as 
the applicant's use of funds, achievement of project objectives, and 
compliance with grant conditions. The Secretary may also consider 
whether the applicant failed to submit a timely performance report or 
submitted a report of unacceptable quality.
    In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary 
requires various assurances, including those applicable to Federal 
civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or 
activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department 
of Education (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
    3. Additional Review and Selection Process Factors: In the past, 
the Department has had difficulty finding peer reviewers for certain 
competitions because so many individuals who are eligible to serve as 
peer reviewers have conflicts of interest. The standing panel 
requirements under section 682(b) of IDEA also have placed additional 
constraints on the availability of reviewers. Therefore, the Department 
has determined that for some discretionary grant competitions, 
applications may be separated into two or more groups and ranked and 
selected for funding within specific groups. This procedure will make 
it easier for the Department to find peer reviewers by ensuring that 
greater numbers of individuals who are eligible to serve as reviewers 
for any particular group of applicants will not have conflicts of 
interest. It also will increase the quality, independence, and fairness 
of the review process, while permitting panel members to review 
applications under discretionary grant competitions for which they also 
have submitted applications.
    4. Risk Assessment and 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.
    4. Performance Measures: Under the Government Performance and 
Results Act of 1993 (GPRA), the Department has established a set of 
performance measures, including long-term measures, that are designed 
to yield information on various aspects of the effectiveness and 
quality of the Technical Assistance and Dissemination to Improve 
Services and Results for Children With Disabilities program. We

[[Page 22984]]

will use these measures to evaluate the extent to which projects 
provide high-quality products and services, the relevance of project 
products and services to educational and early intervention policy and 
practice, and the use of products and services to improve educational 
and early intervention policy and practice.
    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 and final performance reports to the Department 
(34 CFR 75.590).
    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 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: May 16, 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. 2017-10249 Filed 5-18-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4000-01-P