Applications for New Awards; Educational Technology, Media, and Materials for Individuals With Disabilities-Stepping-up Technology Implementation, 31125-31134 [2018-14338]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 128 (Tuesday, July 3, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31125-31134]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-14338]


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

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) 2018 for Educational 
Technology, Media, and Materials for Individuals with Disabilities--
Stepping-up Technology Implementation, Catalog of Federal Domestic 
Assistance (CFDA) number 84.327S.

DATES: 
    Applications Available: July 3, 2018.
    Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: August 2, 2018.

ADDRESSES: For the addresses for obtaining and submitting an 
application, please refer to our Common Instructions for Applicants to 
Department of Education Discretionary Grant Programs, published in the

[[Page 31126]]

Federal Register on February 12, 2018 (83 FR 6003) and available at 
www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2018-02-12/pdf/2018-02558.pdf.

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 and local educational agencies 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), the absolute 
priority and the competitive preference priority within this priority 
are from allowable activities specified in 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 2018 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 mission of the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative 
Services (OSERS) is to improve early childhood, educational, and 
employment outcomes and raise expectations for all people with 
disabilities, their families, their communities, and the Nation.
    The purpose of this priority is to fund three cooperative 
agreements to: identify strategies needed to effectively implement 
evidence-based (as defined in this notice) technology tools \2\ that 
benefit students with disabilities and children or students with high 
needs,\3\ and develop and disseminate products \4\ that will help a 
broad range of sites to effectively implement these technology tools. 
This priority is consistent with Priority 5 of the Secretary's Final 
Supplemental Priorities and Definitions for Discretionary Grant 
Programs (Supplemental Priorities) \5\--Meeting the Unique Needs of 
Students and Children With Disabilities and/or Those With Unique Gifts 
and Talents; and Priority 2 of the Supplemental Priorities--Promoting 
Innovation and Efficiency, Streamlining Education With an Increased 
Focus on Improving Student Outcomes, and Providing Increased Value to 
Students and Taxpayers. Priority 5 emphasizes meeting the unique needs 
of students with disabilities, including their academic needs, by 
offering students the opportunity to meet challenging objectives and 
receive an educational program that is both meaningful and 
appropriately ambitious in light of each student's circumstances. 
Priority 2 emphasizes supporting innovative strategies or research that 
has the potential to lead to significant and wide-reaching improvements 
in the delivery of educational services or other significant and 
tangible educational benefits to students, educators, or other 
Department stakeholders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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, ``children or students 
with high needs'' means children or students at risk of educational 
failure or otherwise in need of special assistance or support, such 
as children and students who are living in poverty, who are English 
Learners, who are academically far below grade level, who have left 
school before receiving a regular high school diploma, who are at 
risk of not graduating with a regular high school diploma on time, 
who are homeless, who are in foster care, who have been 
incarcerated, or are children or students with disabilities.
    \4\ 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.
    \5\ The Secretary's Final Supplemental Priorities and 
Definitions for Discretionary Grant Programs was published in the 
Federal Register on March 2, 2018 (83 FR 9096) and can be found at 
www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2018-03-02/pdf/2018-04291.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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) of IDEA).
    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. 
However, having access alone does not translate to outcomes. Judge et 
al. (2004) argued that there is a rapid expansion in technology in 
early childhood settings, and teachers need support in understanding 
its usage and value to ensure quality learning experiences for young 
students. When teachers receive the necessary professional development 
supports to use technology effectively, technology integration in early 
childhood settings has been demonstrated to increase social awareness 
and collaborative behaviors, improve abstract reasoning and problem 
solving abilities, and enhance visual-motor coordination (McManis & 
Gunnewig, 2012).
    Technologies (e.g., online career-readiness tools, computer-based 
writing tools to support literacy, web-based curriculum to support 
21st-century learning) 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 Elementary and Secondary Education 
Act of 1965, as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), 
technologies can be used to support

[[Page 31127]]

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 more than half of teachers who did 
not use technology identified issues of implementation (e.g., 
necessity, applicability to lessons) rather than availability as 
reasons for their non-use (Grunwald & Associates, 2010). Additionally, 
``research indicates that technology must be used in ways that align 
with curricular and teacher goals, and offer students opportunities to 
use these tools in their learning'' (Center on Innovation and 
Improvement, 2011). 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 are not readily 
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 \6\ of instructional and assistive technology 
tools in early childhood programs or K-12 settings.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 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).
    \7\ For the purposes of this priority, ``settings'' include: 
General education classrooms; special education classrooms; high-
quality early childhood programs; private schools; home education; 
after school programs; juvenile justice facilities; and settings 
other than those listed above in which students may receive services 
under IDEA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Priority:
    The purpose of this priority is to fund three cooperative 
agreements to: (a) Identify strategies needed to readily implement 
existing evidence-based technology tools that benefit students with 
disabilities and children or students with high needs; 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 programs 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 that is evidence-based;
    (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 websites provide more information on logic 
models and conceptual frameworks: www.osepideasthatwork.org/logicModel; www.osepideasthatwork.org/resources-grantees/program-areas/ta-ta/tad-project-logic-model-and-conceptual-framework; 
www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/essa/guidanceuseseinvestment.pdf; and 
https://ies.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=REL2015057.

    (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 ensuring that the final products disseminated to 
help sites effectively implement technology tools will be both open 
educational resources (OER) \8\ and licensed through an open access 
licensing authority;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Open educational resources (OER) are teaching and learning 
materials that the public may freely use and reuse at no cost. 
Unlike fixed, copyrighted resources, OER have been authored or 
created by an individual or organization that chooses to retain few, 
if any, ownership rights. Retrieved from www.oercommons.org/about.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (f) Documentation that the technology tool used by the project is 
fully developed,\9\ evidence-based, and addresses, at a minimum, the 
following principles of universal design for learning:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ A technology that is ``fully developed'' is a completed, 
existing technology that is ready to be implemented. Any 
enhancements or additions to the existing technology should be minor 
and time-limited, and must be completed before the end of year two.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (1) Multiple means of presentation so that students can approach 
information in more than one way (e.g., specialized software and 
websites, 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); 
\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ For more information on the principles of universal design, 
see www.udlcenter.org/aboutudl/whatisudl/3principles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (g) A plan for how the project will sustain project activities 
after funding ends;
    (h) A plan, which includes appropriate consideration of sites other 
than traditional public elementary and secondary school settings, 
including private schools, after school programs, juvenile justice 
facilities, early childhood programs, and settings where students are 
supported under IDEA, for recruiting and selecting \11\ the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    (1) Three development sites. Development sites are the sites in 
which iterative development \12\ 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 site in year one of the project period and two additional 
development sites in year two;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ For the purposes of this priority, ``iterative 
development'' refers to a process of testing, systematically 
securing feedback, and then revising the educational intervention to 
increase the likelihood that it will be implemented with fidelity 
(Diamond & Powell, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) Four pilot sites. Pilot sites 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 sites during years 
three and four of the project period; and
    (3) Ten dissemination sites. Dissemination sites will be selected 
if

[[Page 31128]]

the project is extended for a fifth year. Dissemination sites will be 
used to (a) refine the products for use by teachers and (b) evaluate 
the performance of the tool. Dissemination sites will receive less 
technical assistance (TA) from the project than development or pilot 
sites. Also, at this stage (i.e., the fifth year), dissemination sites 
will extend the benefits of the technology tool to additional students. 
To be selected as a dissemination site, eligible sites must commit to 
working with the project to implement the evidence-based technology 
tool.

    Note: A site may not serve in more than one category (i.e., 
development, pilot, dissemination).


    Note: A minimum of two of the seven development and pilot sites 
must be in settings other than traditional public elementary and 
secondary schools. A minimum of three of the 10 dissemination sites 
must be in settings other than traditional public elementary and 
secondary schools. These non-traditional sites must otherwise meet 
the requirements of each category listed earlier.

    (i) School site information (e.g., elementary, middle, high school, 
or early childhood programs, high-quality early childhood programs, 
private schools, after school programs, juvenile justice facilities, 
and settings where students are supported under IDEA; schools 
identified for comprehensive or targeted support and improvement (in 
accordance with section 1111(c)(4)(C)(iii), (c)(4)(D), or (d)(2)(C)-(D) 
of the ESEA) about the development, pilot, and dissemination sites, 
including student demographics (e.g., race or ethnicity, percentage of 
students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch) and other pertinent 
data; and
    (j) 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 Office of Special Education 
Programs (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 annual two-day trips 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 sites and four pilot 
sites in accordance with the plan proposed under paragraphs (h) and (i) 
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 the implementation of the technology tool, create accessible 
learning opportunities for all children, including children with 
disabilities, and children or students with high needs and 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 sites, followed by 
a formative evaluation and refinement in the pilot sites. To support 
implementation of the technology tool the products and resources must, 
at a minimum, include:
    (1) An instrument or method for assessing--
    (i) 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;
    (ii) 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 surveys of teachers' interests; and
    (iii) Whether the technology tool has achieved its intended 
outcomes.
    (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, K-12, 
or college- and career-readiness.
    (e) Collect formative and summative data from the development and 
pilot sites to refine and evaluate the products.
    (f) If the project is extended to a fifth year--
    (1) Provide the products and the technology tool to no fewer than 
10 dissemination sites that are not the same used as development or 
pilot sites; and
    (2) Collect summative data about the success of the project's 
products and services in supporting implementation of the technology 
tool in the dissemination sites.
    (g) 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 sites to implement and sustain implementation of the 
technology tool;
    (2) Information on the technology implementation report, including 
data on how teachers used the technology, data on how technology 
impacted student outcomes, how technology was implemented with 
fidelity, and features of universal design for learning;
    (3) Information on how the technology tool contributed to changed 
practices and improved early childhood outcomes, academic achievement, 
or college- and career-readiness for children with disabilities, as 
well as children or students with high needs (e.g., data to assess how 
well the project addressed the goals of the project as described in the 
logic model); and
    (4) A plan for disseminating the technology tool and accompanying 
products beyond the sites 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 on 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 website provides more information about 
implementation research: https://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 sites if the grantee is achieving the intended 
outcomes of the project (as demonstrated by data gathered as part of 
the project evaluation) and making a positive contribution to the 
implementation of an evidence-based technology tool with fidelity in 
the development and pilot sites. Each applicant must include in its 
application a plan for the full 60-month period. In deciding whether to 
continue

[[Page 31129]]

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) 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 Priority: Within this absolute priority, we 
give competitive preference to applications that address the following 
priority. The competitive preference priority is from allowable 
activities in sections 674(c)(1)(D) and 681(d) of IDEA. Under 34 CFR 
75.105(c)(2)(i), we award an additional two points to an application 
that meets the competitive preference priority. Applicants should 
indicate in the abstract if the competitive preference priority is 
addressed and must address the priority in the narrative section.
    This competitive preference priority is:
    Projects that Support English Learners in Reading (Two Points).
    To meet this competitive preference priority, projects must 
implement an evidence-based technology tool designed to help teachers 
use culturally responsive teaching practices \13\ to meet the cultural 
and linguistic needs of English Learners (ELs) and improve their 
language acquisition, language development, and reading. To meet the 
competitive preference priority, a project must:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Culturally responsive teaching practices can be defined as 
``using the cultural knowledge, prior experiences, frames of 
reference, and performance styles of ethnically diverse students to 
make learning encounters more relevant to and effective for them'' 
(Gay, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (a) Implement a culturally responsive reading curriculum that 
provides learning opportunities through a variety of media; and
    (b) Develop and disseminate 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.
    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 www.centerononlinelearning.res.ku.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/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 
(FMHI Publication #231). 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 
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED536747.pdf.
Gay, G. (2010). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, 
and practice (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Grunwald & Associates. (2010). Educators, technology, and 21st 
century skills: Dispelling five myths. Minneapolis, MN: Walden 
University, Richard W. Riley College of Education. Retrieved from 
www.waldenu.edu/-/media/Walden/general-media/about-walden/colleges-and-schools/riley-college-of-education/educational-research/full-report-dispelling-five-myths.pdf?la=en.
Judge, S., Puckett, K., & Cabuck, B. (2004). Digital equity: New 
findings from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study. Journal of 
Research on Technology in Education, 36(4), 383-396.
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). Handbook on effective 
implementation of school improvement grants. Lincoln, IL: Center on 
Innovation and Improvement. 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: The following definitions are from 34 CFR 77.1:
    Demonstrates a rationale means a key project component included in 
the project's logic model is informed by research or evaluation 
findings that suggest the project component is likely to improve 
relevant outcomes.
    Evidence-based means the proposed project component is supported by 
one or more of strong evidence, moderate evidence, promising evidence, 
or evidence that demonstrates a rationale.
    Experimental study means a study that is designed to compare 
outcomes between two groups of individuals (such as students) that are 
otherwise equivalent except for their assignment to either a treatment 
group receiving a project component or a control group that does not. 
Randomized controlled trials, regression discontinuity design studies, 
and single-case design studies are the specific types of experimental 
studies that, depending on their design and implementation (e.g., 
sample attrition in randomized controlled trials and regression 
discontinuity design studies), can meet What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) 
standards without reservations as described in the WWC Handbook:
    (i) A randomized controlled trial employs random assignment of, for 
example, students, teachers, classrooms, or schools to receive the 
project component being evaluated (the treatment group) or not to 
receive the project component (the control group).
    (ii) A regression discontinuity design study assigns the project 
component being evaluated using a measured variable (e.g., assigning 
students reading below a cutoff score to tutoring or developmental 
education classes) and controls for that variable in the analysis of 
outcomes.
    (iii) A single-case design study uses observations of a single case 
(e.g., a student eligible for a behavioral intervention) over time in 
the absence and presence of a controlled treatment manipulation to 
determine whether the outcome is systematically related to the 
treatment.
    Logic model (also referred to as a theory of action) means a 
framework that identifies key project components of the proposed 
project (i.e., the active ``ingredients'' that are hypothesized to be 
critical to achieving the relevant outcomes) and describes the 
theoretical and operational relationships among the key project 
components and relevant outcomes.
    Moderate evidence means that there is evidence of effectiveness of 
a key project component in improving a relevant outcome for a sample 
that

[[Page 31130]]

overlaps with the populations or settings proposed to receive that 
component, based on a relevant finding from one of the following:
    (i) A practice guide prepared by the WWC using version 2.1 or 3.0 
of the WWC Handbook reporting a ``strong evidence base'' or ``moderate 
evidence base'' for the corresponding practice guide recommendation;
    (ii) An intervention report prepared by the WWC using version 2.1 
or 3.0 of the WWC Handbook reporting a ``positive effect'' or 
``potentially positive effect'' on a relevant outcome based on a 
``medium to large'' extent of evidence, with no reporting of a 
``negative effect'' or ``potentially negative effect'' on a relevant 
outcome; or
    (iii) A single experimental study or quasi-experimental design 
study reviewed and reported by the WWC using version 2.1 or 3.0 of the 
WWC Handbook, or otherwise assessed by the Department using version 3.0 
of the WWC Handbook, as appropriate, and that--
    (A) Meets WWC standards with or without reservations;
    (B) Includes at least one statistically significant and positive 
(i.e., favorable) effect on a relevant outcome;
    (C) Includes no overriding statistically significant and negative 
effects on relevant outcomes reported in the study or in a 
corresponding WWC intervention report prepared under version 2.1 or 3.0 
of the WWC Handbook; and
    (D) Is based on a sample from more than one site (e.g., State, 
county, city, school district, or postsecondary campus) and includes at 
least 350 students or other individuals across sites. Multiple studies 
of the same project component that each meet requirements in paragraphs 
(iii)(A), (B), and (C) of this definition may together satisfy this 
requirement.
    Project component means an activity, strategy, intervention, 
process, product, practice, or policy included in a project. Evidence 
may pertain to an individual project component or to a combination of 
project components (e.g., training teachers on instructional practices 
for English learners and follow-on coaching for these teachers).
    Promising evidence means that there is evidence of the 
effectiveness of a key project component in improving a relevant 
outcome, based on a relevant finding from one of the following:
    (i) A practice guide prepared by WWC reporting a ``strong evidence 
base'' or ``moderate evidence base'' for the corresponding practice 
guide recommendation;
    (ii) An intervention report prepared by the WWC reporting a 
``positive effect'' or ``potentially positive effect'' on a relevant 
outcome with no reporting of a ``negative effect'' or ``potentially 
negative effect'' on a relevant outcome; or
    (iii) A single study assessed by the Department, as appropriate, 
that--
    (A) Is an experimental study, a quasi-experimental design study, or 
a well-designed and well-implemented correlational study with 
statistical controls for selection bias (e.g., a study using regression 
methods to account for differences between a treatment group and a 
comparison group); and
    (B) Includes at least one statistically significant and positive 
(i.e., favorable) effect on a relevant outcome.
    Quasi-experimental design study means a study using a design that 
attempts to approximate an experimental study by identifying a 
comparison group that is similar to the treatment group in important 
respects. This type of study, depending on design and implementation 
(e.g., establishment of baseline equivalence of the groups being 
compared), can meet WWC standards with reservations, but cannot meet 
WWC standards without reservations, as described in the WWC Handbook.
    Relevant outcome means the student outcome(s) or other outcome(s) 
the key project component is designed to improve, consistent with the 
specific goals of the program.
    Strong evidence means that there is evidence of the effectiveness 
of a key project component in improving a relevant outcome for a sample 
that overlaps with the populations and settings proposed to receive 
that component, based on a relevant finding from one of the following:
    (i) A practice guide prepared by the WWC using version 2.1 or 3.0 
of the WWC Handbook reporting a ``strong evidence base'' for the 
corresponding practice guide recommendation;
    (ii) An intervention report prepared by the WWC using version 2.1 
or 3.0 of the WWC Handbook reporting a ``positive effect'' on a 
relevant outcome based on a ``medium to large'' extent of evidence, 
with no reporting of a ``negative effect'' or ``potentially negative 
effect'' on a relevant outcome; or
    (iii) A single experimental study reviewed and reported by the WWC 
using version 2.1 or 3.0 of the WWC Handbook, or otherwise assessed by 
the Department using version 3.0 of the WWC Handbook, as appropriate, 
and that--
    (A) Meets WWC standards without reservations;
    (B) Includes at least one statistically significant and positive 
(i.e., favorable) effect on a relevant outcome;
    (C) Includes no overriding statistically significant and negative 
effects on relevant outcomes reported in the study or in a 
corresponding WWC intervention report prepared under version 2.1 or 3.0 
of the WWC Handbook; and
    (D) Is based on a sample from more than one site (e.g., State, 
county, city, school district, or postsecondary campus) and includes at 
least 350 students or other individuals across sites. Multiple studies 
of the same project component that each meet requirements in paragraphs 
(iii)(A), (B), and (C) of this definition may together satisfy this 
requirement.
    What Works Clearinghouse Handbook (WWC Handbook) means the 
standards and procedures set forth in the WWC Procedures and Standards 
Handbook, Version 3.0 or Version 2.1 (incorporated by reference, see 34 
CFR 77.2). Study findings eligible for review under WWC standards can 
meet WWC standards without reservations, meet WWC standards with 
reservations, or not meet WWC standards. WWC practice guides and 
intervention reports include findings from systematic reviews of 
evidence as described in the Handbook documentation.
    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.

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



[[Page 31131]]


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

II. Award Information

    Type of Award: Cooperative agreements.
    Estimated Available Funds: $1,500,000.
    Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of 
applications, we may make additional awards in FY 2019 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: $475,000 per year.
    Maximum Award: We will not make an award exceeding $500,000 for a 
single budget period of 12 months.
    Estimated Number of Awards: 3.

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

    Project Period: Up to 48 months.

III. Eligibility Information

    1. Eligible Applicants: SEAs; LEAs, including public charter 
schools that operate as LEAs under State law; IHEs; other public 
agencies; private nonprofit organizations; freely associated States and 
outlying areas; Indian Tribes or Tribal organizations; and for-profit 
organizations.
    2. Cost Sharing or Matching: This program does not require cost 
sharing or matching.
    3. Subgrantees: Under 34 CFR 75.708(b) and (c) a grantee under this 
competition 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. The grantee may award 
subgrants to entities it has identified in an approved application.
    4. Other: (a) Recipients of funding under this competition must 
make positive efforts to employ and advance in employment qualified 
individuals with disabilities (see section 606 of IDEA).
    (b) 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. Application Submission Instructions: For information on how to 
submit an application please refer to our Common Instructions for 
Applicants to Department of Education Discretionary Grant Programs, 
published in the Federal Register on February 12, 2018 (83 FR 6003) and 
available at www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2018-02-12/pdf/2018-02558.pdf.
    2. Intergovernmental Review: This competition is subject to 
Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. However, 
under 34 CFR 79.8(a), we waive intergovernmental review in order to 
make awards by the end of FY 2018.
    3. Funding Restrictions: We reference regulations outlining funding 
restrictions in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice.
    4. Recommended Page Limit: The application narrative (Part III of 
the application) is where you, the applicant, address the selection 
criteria that reviewers use to evaluate your application. We recommend 
that you (1) limit the application narrative to no more than 50 pages 
and (2) use the following standards:
     A ``page'' is 8.5'' x 11'', on one side only, with 1'' 
margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.
     Double-space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) 
all text in the application narrative, including titles, headings, 
footnotes, quotations, reference citations, and captions, as well as 
all text in charts, tables, figures, graphs, and screen shots.
     Use a font that is 12 point or larger.
     Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, 
Courier New, or Arial.
    The recommended page limit does not apply to Part I, the cover 
sheet; Part II, the budget section, including the narrative budget 
justification; Part IV, the assurances and certifications; or the 
abstract (follow the guidance provided in the application package for 
completing the abstract), the table of contents, the list of priority 
requirements, the resumes, the reference list, the letters of support, 
or the appendices. However, the recommended page limit does apply to 
all of the application narrative, including all text in charts, tables, 
figures, graphs, and screen shots.

V. Application Review Information

    1. Selection Criteria: The selection criteria for this competition 
are from 34 CFR 75.210 and are as follows:
    (a) Significance (10 points).
    (1) The Secretary considers the significance of the proposed 
project.
    (2) In determining the significance of the proposed project, the 
Secretary considers the following factors:
    (i) The significance of the problem or issue to be addressed by the 
proposed project;
    (ii) The magnitude or severity of the problem to be addressed by 
the proposed project;
    (iii) The extent to which specific gaps or weaknesses in services, 
infrastructure, or opportunities have been identified and will be 
addressed by the proposed project, including the nature and magnitude 
of those gaps or weaknesses;
    (iv) The potential contribution of the proposed project to 
increased knowledge or understanding of educational problems, issues, 
or effective strategies; and
    (v) The potential replicability of the proposed project or 
strategies, including, as appropriate, the potential for implementation 
in a variety of settings.
    (b) Quality of project services (25 points).
    (1) The Secretary considers the quality of the services to be 
provided by the proposed project.
    (2) In determining the quality of the services to be provided by 
the proposed project, the Secretary considers the quality and 
sufficiency of strategies for ensuring equal access and treatment for 
eligible project participants who are members of groups that have 
traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national 
origin, gender, age or disability.
    (3) In addition, the Secretary considers the following factors:
    (i) The extent to which the services to be provided by the proposed 
project reflect up-to-date knowledge from research and effective 
practice;
    (ii) The extent to which the training or professional development 
services to be provided by the proposed project are of sufficient 
quality, intensity, and duration to lead to improvements in practice 
among the recipients of those services;
    (iii) The extent to which the services to be provided by the 
proposed project involve the collaboration of appropriate partners for 
maximizing the effectiveness of project services;
    (iv) The extent to which the services to be provided by the 
proposed project are appropriate to the needs of the intended 
recipients or beneficiaries of those services; and
    (v) The likely impact of the services to be provided by the 
proposed project

[[Page 31132]]

on the intended recipients of those services.
    (c) Quality of the project design (20 points).
    (1) The Secretary considers the quality of the design of the 
proposed project.
    (2) In determining the quality of the design of the proposed 
project, the Secretary considers the following factors:
    (i) The extent to which the goals, objectives, and outcomes to be 
achieved by the proposed project are clearly specified and measurable;
    (ii) The extent to which the design of the proposed project 
includes a thorough, high-quality review of the relevant literature, a 
high-quality plan for project implementation, and the use of 
appropriate methodological tools to ensure successful achievement of 
project objectives;
    (iii) The extent to which the design of the proposed project is 
appropriate to, and will successfully address, the needs of the target 
population or other identified needs;
    (iv) The extent to which the design for implementing and evaluating 
the proposed project will result in information to guide possible 
replication of project activities or strategies, including information 
about the effectiveness of the approach or strategies employed by the 
project; and
    (v) The extent to which there is a conceptual framework underlying 
the proposed research or demonstration activities and the quality of 
that framework.
    (d) Quality of the management plan (20 points).
    (1) The Secretary considers the quality of the management plan for 
the proposed project.
    (2) In determining the quality of the management plan for the 
proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:
    (i) The adequacy of the management plan to achieve the objectives 
of the proposed project on time and within budget, including clearly 
defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing 
project tasks;
    (ii) The extent to which the time commitments of the project 
director and principal investigator, and other key project personnel 
are appropriate and adequate to meet the objectives of the proposed 
project;
    (iii) The adequacy of mechanisms for ensuring high-quality products 
and services from the proposed project;
    (iv) How the applicant will ensure that a diversity of perspectives 
are brought to bear in the operation of the proposed project, including 
those of parents, teachers, the business community, a variety of 
disciplinary and professional fields, recipients or beneficiaries of 
services, or others, as appropriate; and
    (v) The adequacy of procedures for ensuring feedback and continuous 
improvement in the operation of the proposed project.
    (e) Adequacy of resources (10 points).
    (1) The Secretary considers the adequacy of resources for the 
proposed project.
    (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;
    (iii) The extent to which the budget is adequate to support the 
proposed project;
    (iv) The extent to which the costs are reasonable in relation to 
the objectives, design, and potential significance of the proposed 
project; and
    (v) The extent to which the costs are reasonable in relation to the 
number of persons to be served and to the anticipated results and 
benefits.
    (f) Quality of the project evaluation (15 points).
    (1) The Secretary considers the quality of the evaluation to be 
conducted of the proposed project.
    (2) In determining the quality of the evaluation, the Secretary 
considers the following factors:
    (i) The extent to which the methods of evaluation are thorough, 
feasible, and appropriate to the goals, objectives, and outcomes of the 
proposed project;
    (ii) The extent to which the methods of evaluation include the use 
of objective performance measures that are clearly related to the 
intended outcomes of the project and will produce quantitative and 
qualitative data to the extent possible;
    (iii) The extent to which the methods of evaluation provide for 
examining the effectiveness of project implementation strategies;
    (iv) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will provide 
performance feedback and permit periodic assessment of progress toward 
achieving intended outcomes; and
    (v) The extent to which the evaluation plan clearly articulates the 
key project components, mediators, and outcomes, as well as a 
measurable threshold for acceptable implementation.
    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 Specific Conditions: Consistent with 2 CFR 
200.205, before awarding grants under this competition the Department 
conducts a review of the risks posed by applicants. Under 2 CFR 
3474.10, the Secretary may impose specific conditions and, in 
appropriate circumstances, high-risk conditions on a grant if the 
applicant or grantee is not financially stable; has a history of 
unsatisfactory performance; has a financial or other management system 
that does not meet the standards in 2

[[Page 31133]]

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 the System for Award Management. You may 
review and comment on any information about yourself that a Federal 
agency previously entered and that is currently in FAPIIS.
    Please note that, if the total value of your currently active 
grants, cooperative agreements, and procurement contracts from the 
Federal Government exceeds $10,000,000, the reporting requirements in 2 
CFR part 200, Appendix XII, require you to report certain integrity 
information to FAPIIS semiannually. Please review the requirements in 2 
CFR part 200, Appendix XII, if this grant plus all the other Federal 
funds you receive exceed $10,000,000.

VI. Award Administration Information

    1. Award Notices: If your application is successful, we notify your 
U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators and send you a Grant Award 
Notification (GAN); or we may send you an email containing a link to 
access an electronic version of your GAN. We may notify you informally, 
also.
    If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, 
we notify you.
    2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements: We identify 
administrative and national policy requirements in the application 
package and reference these and other requirements in the Applicable 
Regulations section of this notice.
    We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of 
an award in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice and 
include these and other specific conditions in the GAN. The GAN also 
incorporates your approved application as part of your binding 
commitments under the grant.
    3. Open Licensing Requirements: Unless an exception applies, if you 
are awarded a grant under this competition, you will be required to 
openly license to the public grant deliverables created in whole, or in 
part, with Department grant funds. When the deliverable consists of 
modifications to pre-existing works, the license extends only to those 
modifications that can be separately identified and only to the extent 
that open licensing is permitted under the terms of any licenses or 
other legal restrictions on the use of pre-existing works. 
Additionally, a grantee or subgrantee that is awarded competitive grant 
funds must have a plan to disseminate these public grant deliverables. 
This dissemination plan can be developed and submitted after your 
application has been reviewed and selected for funding. For additional 
information on the open licensing requirements please refer to 2 CFR 
3474.20.
    4. Reporting: (a) If you apply for a grant under this competition, 
you must ensure that you have in place the necessary processes and 
systems to comply with the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 170 
should you receive funding under the competition. This does not apply 
if you have an exception under 2 CFR 170.110(b).
    (b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final 
performance report, including financial information, as directed by the 
Secretary. If you receive a multiyear award, you must submit an annual 
performance report that provides the most current performance and 
financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 
CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance 
reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, 
please go to www.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/appforms/appforms.html.
    (c) Under 34 CFR 75.250(b), the Secretary may provide a grantee 
with additional funding for data collection analysis and reporting. In 
this case the Secretary establishes a data collection period.
    5. Performance Measures: Under the Government Performance 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, as well as children with high-needs, 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).
    6. Continuation Awards: In making a continuation award under 34 CFR 
75.253, the Secretary considers, among other things: Whether a grantee 
has made substantial progress in achieving the goals and objectives of 
the project; whether the grantee has expended funds in a manner that is 
consistent with its approved application and budget; and, if the 
Secretary has established performance measurement requirements, the 
performance targets in the grantee's approved application.
    In making a continuation award, the Secretary also considers 
whether the grantee is operating in compliance with the assurances in 
its approved application, including those applicable to Federal civil 
rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities 
receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR 
100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).

VII. Other Information

    Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this 
document and a copy of the application package in an accessible format 
(e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) by contacting 
the Management Support Services Team, U.S. Department of Education, 400 
Maryland Avenue SW, Room 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. You may 
access the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of 
Federal Regulations 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 Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF you must have Adobe 
Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site.
    You may also access documents of the Department published in the 
Federal Register by using the article search feature at: 
www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search 
feature at this site, you can limit

[[Page 31134]]

your search to documents published by the Department.

    Dated: June 28, 2018.
Johnny W. Collett,
Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.
[FR Doc. 2018-14338 Filed 7-2-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4000-01-P