Applications for New Awards; Technical Assistance and Dissemination To Improve Services and Results for Children With Disabilities-Center on Dispute Resolution, 35247-35256 [2018-15932]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 143 (Wednesday, July 25, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35247-35256]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-15932]


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

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION


Applications for New Awards; Technical Assistance and 
Dissemination To Improve Services and Results for Children With 
Disabilities--Center on Dispute Resolution

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 Technical 
Assistance and Dissemination to Improve Services and Results for 
Children With Disabilities--Center on Dispute Resolution, Catalog of 
Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number 84.326X.

DATES: 
    Applications Available: July 25, 2018.
    Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: August 24, 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 
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: Tina Diamond, U.S. Department of 
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 5136, Potomac Center Plaza,

[[Page 35248]]

Washington, DC 20202-5108. Telephone: (202) 245-6674.
    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, supporting model demonstration projects, disseminating 
useful information, and implementing activities that are supported by 
scientifically based research.
    Priority: In accordance with 34 CFR 75.105(b)(2)(v), this priority 
is from allowable activities specified in the statute (see sections 663 
and 681(d) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA); 
20 U.S.C. 1463 and 1481(d)).
    Absolute Priority: For FY 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:
    Center on Dispute Resolution.
    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. This priority is consistent with Supplemental Priority 1 in the 
Secretary's Final Supplemental Priorities and Definitions for 
Discretionary Grant Programs, published in the Federal Register on 
March 2, 2018 (83 FR 9096) (Supplemental Priorities)--Empowering 
Families and Individuals To Choose a High-Quality Education That Meets 
Their Unique Needs; and Supplemental Priority 5--Meeting the Unique 
Needs of Students and Children With Disabilities and/or Those With 
Unique Gifts and Talents.
    IDEA includes procedural safeguards that are designed to protect 
the rights of children with disabilities and their parents and to 
provide parents with mechanisms for resolving, at the earliest point in 
time, disputes with those who provide services to children with 
disabilities (State educational agencies (SEAs), local educational 
agencies (LEAs), schools, Part C State lead agencies, and early 
intervention service (EIS) providers). The procedural safeguards 
include the opportunity to seek a timely resolution of disputes about 
establishing a child's eligibility under IDEA and providing a free 
appropriate public education (FAPE) to an eligible child or the 
appropriate EIS to infants and toddlers with disabilities. Thus, IDEA 
encourages constructive relationships between parents of children with 
disabilities and those who provide services to children with 
disabilities by facilitating open communication between the parents and 
these entities and encouraging early resolution of disputes so that 
disagreements do not escalate and become adversarial and result in a 
delay in identifying, and providing needed services to, eligible 
children. IDEA's dispute resolution procedures include provisions for 
State complaints, mediation, due process complaints, and resolution 
sessions, as described below.
    State Complaints. IDEA's State complaint procedures permit parents 
and other interested individuals or organizations to file a complaint 
with the SEA or Part C State lead agency to seek resolution of any 
alleged violations of IDEA. The goal of the State complaint procedures 
is to resolve disputes while avoiding costly or time-consuming due 
process hearings (34 CFR 300.151 through 300.153--Part B regulations; 
34 CFR 303.432 through 303.434--Part C regulations). The State 
complaint procedures provide an important means of ensuring that the 
educational or early intervention needs of children with disabilities 
are met (34 CFR 300.151 and 303.432).
    Mediation. In response to increasing numbers of due process 
complaints under Part B of IDEA, Congress amended IDEA in 1997 to 
require SEAs and Part C State lead agencies to make mediation 
available, at a minimum, whenever a due process complaint is filed. In 
2004, Congress further amended section 615(e) of IDEA to allow parties 
to use mediation to resolve disputes involving any matter under IDEA, 
not just those matters that are the subject of a due process complaint, 
thus making mediation available at any time and on any matter under 
IDEA. (This amendment also applies to Part C through section 639(a)(8) 
of IDEA.) In mediation, the goal is for a neutral third party to 
facilitate the resolution of disputes without the need for an 
adversarial hearing. Thus, mediation is more likely than due process 
hearings to foster positive relationships between families and 
educators and EIS providers (Government Accountability Office, 2003).
    Due Process Hearings. In due process hearings, IDEA requires that 
an impartial, knowledgeable decision-maker resolve disputes. While due 
process hearings are an important protection, they can be costly, time-
consuming, and contentious, and they may damage relationships between 
the parties involved in the dispute.
    Resolution Session. The 2004 amendments to IDEA added a requirement 
for a resolution session prior to a due process hearing. The resolution 
session requirement applies to all IDEA Part B due process complaints 
and to those IDEA Part C due process complaints filed in a State that 
has elected to adopt the Part B-type due process hearing procedures in 
34 CFR 303.440 through 303.449. Under section 615(f)(1)(B) of IDEA, the 
LEA (or in the case of IDEA Part C, under 34 CFR 303.442, the State 
lead agency) must convene a meeting with the parents and relevant 
members of the child's individualized education program (IEP) or 
individualized family service plan (IFSP) team who have specific 
knowledge of the facts identified in the complaint. This provides the 
parents and the agency responsible for providing service to a child 
with an opportunity to resolve the complaint and avoid a due process 
hearing.
    Early Resolution Practices. In addition to these methods of dispute 
resolution specifically required under IDEA, there are a variety of 
informal or ``early resolution'' practices that can be used to resolve 
disputes at the school or district level and avoid time-consuming and 
costly litigation.
    Each SEA and Part C State lead agency is responsible for annually 
reporting data on dispute resolution activity to the Office of Special 
Education Programs (OSEP) to help determine the extent to which States 
effectively implement dispute resolution practices. The data collected 
by OSEP include information on the timeliness of State complaint 
reports and due process hearing decisions, the percentage of due 
process complaints that were resolved through settlement agreements, 
and mediations resulting in agreements.
    An analysis of national data trends in dispute resolution conducted 
by the Center for Appropriate Dispute Resolution in Special Education 
(CADRE) shows declines in processes, such as written State complaints 
and due process complaints, and increases in the use of collaborative 
approaches,

[[Page 35249]]

such as mediation and IEP facilitation (CADRE, 2017). However, OSEP's 
most recent analysis of Annual Performance Reports (APRs) shows that 
States continue to fall short of their targets for agreement rates in 
resolution sessions. A survey of State officials indicated that a lack 
of public awareness about early resolution practices presents a 
challenge to expanding their use, which demonstrates a need for 
additional technical assistance (TA), dissemination of information, and 
coordination with parent organizations (Government Accountability 
Office, 2014). OSEP-funded parent TA providers have noted that this 
lack of awareness is prevalent among vulnerable populations due to 
language, informational, or economic barriers.
    Priority: The purpose of this priority is to fund a cooperative 
agreement to establish and operate a Center on Dispute Resolution 
(Center). This Center will provide TA to SEAs, Part C State lead 
agencies, and OSEP-funded parent centers to improve the implementation 
of all of the dispute resolution practices required under IDEA, along 
with any optional early resolution strategies that may be available. 
The Center must achieve, at a minimum, the following expected outcomes:
    (a) Increased capacity of SEAs and Part C State lead agencies to 
support local implementation of effective early resolution practices to 
resolve disputes and thereby decrease State complaints and due process 
complaints;
    (b) Increased capacity of SEAs and Part C State lead agencies to 
collect, report, and use high-quality dispute resolution data;
    (c) Increased body of knowledge on dispute prevention and exemplary 
dispute resolution practices to meet the dispute resolution needs of 
parents and families, including those from vulnerable populations who 
may be less likely to access dispute resolution due to language, 
informational, or economic barriers;
    (d) Improved access for hearing officers to information on emerging 
issues related to special education and early intervention dispute 
resolution;
    (e) Improved ability of SEAs and Part C State lead agencies to 
implement a range of dispute resolution options, including methods of 
dispute resolution required under IDEA and early resolution practices 
and to support SEAs and Part C State lead agencies in ensuring that 
dispute resolution options are not affected by administrative 
constraints (e.g., staffing or target agreement rates for mediation 
agreements and resolution sessions);
    (f) Improved capacity of OSEP-funded parent centers to provide TA 
on the range of effective dispute resolution options;
    (g) Increased knowledge of OSEP-funded parent centers, parents, and 
families about school choice as it relates to due process and 
procedural safeguards under IDEA; and
    (h) An annual analysis of State and national trends and other data 
about dispute resolution to determine the extent to which SEAs and Part 
C State lead agencies have--
    (i) Met the required timelines when resolving State complaints and 
issuing due process hearing decisions;
    (ii) Used resolution meetings and mediation to successfully resolve 
disputes between parents and LEAs or EIS providers; and
    (iii) Implemented effective methods of early dispute resolution.
    In addition to these programmatic requirements, to be considered 
for funding under this priority, applicants must meet the application 
and administrative requirements in this priority, which are:
    (a) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under 
``Significance of the Project,'' how the proposed project will--
    (1) Address gaps or weaknesses in State or local dispute resolution 
performance and compliance to meet the dispute resolution needs of SEA 
and Part C State lead agency personnel, as well as the needs of parents 
and families, including those from vulnerable populations who may be 
less likely to access dispute resolution due to language, 
informational, or economic barriers. To meet this requirement the 
applicant must--
    (i) Demonstrate knowledge of exemplary dispute resolution practices 
that will assist SEAs and Part C State lead agencies in improving 
dispute resolution, especially practices that will assist agencies in 
meeting compliance and performance targets and implementing effective 
early resolution practices;
    (ii) Present information about the current level of implementation 
of exemplary dispute resolution practices in SEAs and Part C State lead 
agencies, especially practices that will assist agencies in meeting 
compliance and performance targets and implementing effective early 
resolution practices; and
    (iii) Present national, State, or local data on the financial and 
administrative burden of involvement in dispute resolution and discuss 
strategies for minimizing these burdens for all parties involved.
    (2) Improve outcomes in dispute resolution compliance and 
performance for SEAs and Part C State lead agencies and increase the 
implementation of early resolution practices.
    (3) Improve communication between parents and families and 
education professionals to minimize conflict and increase the use of 
collaborative problem-solving and dispute resolution practices.
    (b) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under 
``Quality of the Project Services,'' how the proposed project will--
    (1) Ensure equal access and treatment for members of groups that 
have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national 
origin, gender, age, or disability. To meet this requirement, the 
applicant must describe how it will--
    (i) Identify the needs of the intended recipients for TA and 
information; and
    (ii) Ensure that services and products meet the needs of the 
intended recipients of the grant;
    (2) Achieve its goals, objectives, and intended outcomes. To meet 
this requirement, the applicant must provide--
    (i) Measurable intended project outcomes; and
    (ii) In Appendix A, the logic model (as defined in this notice) by 
which the proposed project will achieve its intended outcomes that 
depicts, at a minimum, the goals, activities, outputs, and intended 
outcomes of the proposed project;
    (3) Use a conceptual framework (and provide a copy in Appendix A) 
to develop project plans and activities, describing any underlying 
concepts, assumptions, expectations, beliefs, or theories, as well as 
the presumed relationships or linkages among these variables, and any 
empirical support for this framework;
    Note: The following websites provide more information on logic 
models and conceptual frameworks: www.osepideasthatwork.org/logicModel 
and www.osepideasthatwork.org/resources-grantees/program-areas/ta-ta/tad-project-logic-model-and-conceptual-framework.
    (4) Be based on current research on effective dispute resolution 
practices, provide services that assist SEAs and Part C State lead 
agencies to comply with IDEA requirements, and draw from the knowledge 
base of effective early resolution evidence-based (as defined in this 
notice) practices (EBPs). To meet this requirement, the applicant must 
describe--

[[Page 35250]]

    (i) The current research on effective dispute resolution practices, 
including early resolution EBPs;
    (ii) The current research about adult learning principles and 
implementation science that will inform the proposed TA; and
    (iii) How the proposed project will incorporate current research 
and EBPs in the development and delivery of its products and services;
    (5) Develop products and provide services that are of high quality 
and sufficient intensity and duration to achieve the intended outcomes 
of the proposed project. To address this requirement, the applicant 
must describe--
    (i) How it proposes to identify or develop the knowledge base in 
special education dispute resolution;
    (ii) Its proposed approach to universal, general TA,\1\ which must 
identify the intended recipients, including the type and number of 
recipients, that will receive the products and services, a description 
of the products and services that the Center proposes to make 
available, and the expected impact of those products and services under 
this approach;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ``Universal, general TA'' means TA and information provided 
to independent users through their own initiative, resulting in 
minimal interaction with TA center staff and including one-time, 
invited or offered conference presentations by TA center staff. This 
category of TA also includes information or products, such as 
newsletters, guidebooks, or research syntheses, downloaded from the 
TA center's website by independent users. Brief communications by TA 
center staff with recipients, either by telephone or email, are also 
considered universal, general TA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (iii) Its proposed approach to targeted, specialized TA,\2\ which 
must identify--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ ``Targeted, specialized TA'' means TA services based on 
needs common to multiple recipients and not extensively 
individualized. A relationship is established between the TA 
recipient and one or more TA center staff. This category of TA 
includes one-time, labor-intensive events, such as facilitating 
strategic planning or hosting regional or national conferences. It 
can also include episodic, less labor-intensive events that extend 
over a period of time, such as facilitating a series of conference 
calls on single or multiple topics that are designed around the 
needs of the recipients. Facilitating communities of practice can 
also be considered targeted, specialized TA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (A) The intended recipients, including the type and number of 
recipients, that will receive the products and services, a description 
of the products and services that the Center proposes to make 
available, and the expected impact of those products and services under 
this approach; and
    (B) Its proposed approach to measure the dispute resolution needs 
and readiness of potential TA recipients to work with the project, 
assessing, at a minimum, their current infrastructure, available 
resources, and ability to build capacity at the local level; and
    (iv) Its proposed approach to intensive, sustained TA,\3\ which 
must identify--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ``Intensive, sustained TA'' means TA services often provided 
on-site and requiring a stable, ongoing relationship between the TA 
center staff and the TA recipient. ``TA services'' are defined as 
negotiated series of activities designed to reach a valued outcome. 
This category of TA should result in changes to policy, program, 
practice, or operations that support increased recipient capacity or 
improved outcomes at one or more systems levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (A) The intended recipients, including the type and number of 
recipients, that will receive the products and services, a description 
of the products and services that the Center proposes to make 
available, and the expected impact of those products and services under 
this approach;
    (B) Its proposed approach to measure the dispute resolution needs 
and readiness of SEAs, Part C State lead agencies, and parent centers 
to work with the project, including their commitment to the initiative, 
alignment of the initiative to their needs, current infrastructure, 
available resources, and ability of the SEAs, Part C State lead 
agencies, and parent centers to build capacity at the local school 
district or program level;
    (C) Its proposed plan for assisting SEAs and Part C State lead 
agencies to build or enhance training systems related to special 
education dispute resolution that include professional development 
based on adult learning principles and coaching; and
    (D) Its proposed plan for working with appropriate levels of the 
education system (e.g., SEAs, Part C State lead agencies, regional TA 
providers, parents and families) to ensure that there is communication 
between each level and that there are systems in place to support the 
use of effective dispute resolution practices, including early 
resolution EBPs;
    (6) Develop products and implement services that are impartial and 
maximize efficiency. To address this requirement, the applicant must 
describe--
    (i) How the proposed project will use technology to achieve the 
intended project outcomes;
    (ii) With whom the proposed project will collaborate and the 
intended outcomes of this collaboration; and
    (iii) How the proposed project will use non-project resources to 
achieve the intended project outcomes.
    (c) In the narrative section of the application under ``Quality of 
the Evaluation Plan,'' include an evaluation plan for the project as 
described in the following paragraphs. The evaluation plan must 
describe: Measures of progress in implementation, including the 
criteria for determining the extent to which the project's products and 
services have met the goals for reaching its target population; 
measures of intended outcomes or results of the project's activities in 
order to evaluate those activities; and how well the goals or 
objectives of the proposed project, as described in its logic model, 
have been met.
    The applicant must provide an assurance that, in designing the 
evaluation plan, it will--
    (1) Designate, with the approval of the OSEP project officer, a 
project liaison staff person with sufficient dedicated time, experience 
in evaluation, and knowledge of the project to work in collaboration 
with the Center to Improve Program and Project Performance (CIP3),\4\ 
the project director, and the OSEP project officer on the following 
tasks:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The major tasks of CIP3 are to guide, coordinate, and 
oversee the design of formative evaluations for every large 
discretionary investment (i.e., those awarded $500,000 or more per 
year and required to participate in the 3+2 process) in OSEP's 
Technical Assistance and Dissemination; Personnel Development; 
Parent Training and Information Centers; and Educational Technology, 
Media, and Materials programs. The efforts of CIP3 are expected to 
enhance individual project evaluation plans by providing expert and 
unbiased TA in designing the evaluations with due consideration of 
the project's budget. CIP3 does not function as a third-party 
evaluator.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (i) Revise, as needed, the logic model submitted in the application 
to provide for a more comprehensive measurement of implementation and 
outcomes and to reflect any changes or clarifications to the model 
discussed at the kick-off meeting;
    (ii) Refine the evaluation design and instrumentation proposed in 
the application consistent with the logic model (e.g., prepare 
evaluation questions about significant program processes and outcomes; 
develop quantitative or qualitative data collections that permit both 
the collection of progress data, including fidelity of implementation, 
as appropriate, and the assessment of project outcomes; and identify 
analytic strategies); and
    (iii) Revise, as needed, the evaluation plan submitted in the 
application such that it clearly--
    (A) Specifies the measures and associated instruments or sources 
for data appropriate to the evaluation questions, suggests analytic 
strategies for those data, provides a timeline for conducting the 
evaluation, and includes staff assignments for completing the plan;

[[Page 35251]]

    (B) Delineates the data expected to be available by the end of the 
second project year for use during the project's evaluation (3+2 
review) for continued funding described under the heading Fourth and 
Fifth Years of the Project; and
    (C) Can be used to assist the project director and the OSEP project 
officer, with the assistance of CIP3, as needed, to specify the 
performance measures to be addressed in the project's Annual 
Performance Report;
    (2) Cooperate with CIP3 staff in order to accomplish the tasks 
described in paragraph (1) of this section; and
    (3) Dedicate sufficient funds in each budget year to cover the 
costs of carrying out the tasks described in paragraphs (1) and (2) of 
this section and implementing the evaluation plan.
    (d) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under 
``Adequacy of Project Resources,'' how--
    (1) The proposed project will encourage applications for employment 
from persons who are members of groups that have traditionally been 
underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or 
disability, as appropriate;
    (2) The proposed key project personnel, consultants, and 
subcontractors have the qualifications and experience to carry out the 
proposed activities and achieve the project's intended outcomes;
    (3) The applicant and any key partners have adequate resources to 
carry out the proposed activities; and
    (4) The proposed costs are reasonable in relation to the 
anticipated results and benefits.
    (e) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under 
``Quality of the Management Plan,'' how--
    (1) The proposed management plan will ensure that the project's 
intended outcomes will be achieved on time and within budget. To 
address this requirement, the applicant must describe--
    (i) Clearly defined responsibilities for key project personnel, 
consultants, and subcontractors, as applicable; and
    (ii) Timelines and milestones for accomplishing the project tasks;
    (2) Key project personnel and any consultants and subcontractors 
will be allocated and how these allocations are appropriate and 
adequate to achieve the project's intended outcomes;
    (3) The proposed management plan will ensure that the products and 
services provided are of high quality, relevant, and useful to 
recipients; and
    (4) The proposed project will benefit from a diversity of 
perspectives, including those of families, educators, TA providers, 
researchers, and policy makers, among others, in its development and 
operation.
    (f) Address the following application requirements. The applicant 
must--
    (1) Include, in Appendix A, personnel-loading charts and timelines, 
as applicable, to illustrate the management plan described in the 
narrative;
    (2) Include, in the budget, attendance at the following:
    (i) A one and one-half day kick-off meeting in Washington, DC, 
after receipt of the award, and an annual planning meeting, with the 
OSEP project officer and other relevant staff during each subsequent 
year of the project period.
    Note: Within 30 days of receipt of the award, a post-award 
teleconference must be held between the OSEP project officer and the 
grantee's project director or other authorized representative;
    (ii) A two and one-half day project directors' conference in 
Washington, DC, during each year of the project period;
    (iii) Two annual two-day trips to attend Department briefings, 
Department-sponsored conferences, and other meetings, as requested by 
OSEP; and
    (iv) A one-day intensive 3+2 review meeting during the last half of 
the second year of the project period;
    (3) Include, in the budget, a line item for an annual set-aside of 
five percent of the grant amount to support emerging needs that are 
consistent with the proposed project's intended outcomes, as those 
needs are identified in consultation with, and approved by, the OSEP 
project officer. With approval from the OSEP project officer, the 
project must reallocate any remaining funds from this annual set-aside 
no later than the end of the third quarter of each budget period;
    (4) Maintain a high-quality website, with an easy-to-navigate 
design, that meets government or industry-recognized standards for 
accessibility; and
    (5) Include, in Appendix A, an assurance to assist OSEP with the 
transfer of pertinent resources and products and to maintain the 
continuity of services to TA recipients during the transition to this 
new award period and at the end of this award period, as appropriate.
    Fourth and Fifth Years of the Project:
    In deciding whether to continue funding the project for the fourth 
and fifth years, the Secretary will consider the requirements of 34 CFR 
75.253(a), as well as--
    (a) The recommendation of a 3+2 review team consisting of experts 
selected by the Secretary. This review will be conducted during a one-
day intensive meeting that will be held during the last half of the 
second year of the project period;
    (b) The timeliness with which, and how well, the requirements of 
the negotiated cooperative agreement have been or are being met by the 
project; and
    (c) The quality, relevance, and usefulness of the project's 
products and services and the extent to which the project's products 
and services are aligned with the project's objectives and likely to 
result in the project achieving its intended outcomes.

References

Center for Appropriate Dispute Resolution in Special Education 
(CADRE). (2017). Trends in dispute resolution under the Individuals 
with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Eugene, OR: CADRE. Retrieved 
from www.cadreworks.org/sites/default/files/TrendsinDisputeResolution%20DEC17.pdf.
Government Accountability Office. (2003). Numbers of formal disputes 
are generally low and States are using mediation and other 
strategies to resolve conflicts (GAO Publication No. 03-897). 
Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
Government Accountability Office. (2014). Improved performance 
measures could enhance oversight of dispute resolution (GAO 
Publication No. 14-390). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

    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

[[Page 35252]]

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 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

[[Page 35253]]

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 and 
requirements. Section 681(d) of IDEA, however, makes the public comment 
requirements of the APA inapplicable to the priority in this notice.
    Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1463 and 1481.
    Applicable Regulations: (a) The Education Department General 
Administrative Regulations in 34 CFR parts 75, 77, 79, 81, 82, 84, 86, 
97, 98, and 99. (b) The Office of Management and Budget Guidelines to 
Agencies on Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement) in 
2 CFR part 180, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department 
in 2 CFR part 3485. (c) The Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost 
Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards in 2 CFR part 
200, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department in 2 CFR 
part 3474.
    Note: The regulations in 34 CFR part 79 apply to all applicants 
except federally recognized Indian Tribes.
    Note: The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 apply to institutions of 
higher education (IHEs) only.

II. Award Information

    Type of Award: Cooperative agreement.
    Estimated Available Funds: $750,000.
    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.
    Maximum Award: We will not make an award exceeding $750,000 for a 
single budget period of 12 months.
    Estimated Number of Awards: 1.
    Note: The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.
    Project Period: Up to 60 months.

III. Eligibility Information

    1. Eligible Applicants: SEAs; 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) Applicants for, and recipients of, funding must, with respect 
to the aspects of their proposed project relating to the absolute 
priority, involve individuals with disabilities, or parents of 
individuals with disabilities ages birth through 26, in planning, 
implementing, and evaluating the project (see section 682(a)(1)(A) of 
IDEA).

IV. Application and Submission Information

    1. Application Submission Instructions: 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 an award 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 70 pages 
and (2) use the following standards:
     A ``page'' is 8.5'' x 11'', on one side only, with 1'' 
margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.
     Double space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) 
all text in the application narrative, including titles, headings, 
footnotes, quotations, reference citations, and captions, as well as 
all text in charts, tables, figures, graphs, and screen shots.
     Use a font that is 12 point or larger.
     Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, 
Courier New, or Arial.
    The recommended page limit does not apply to Part I, the cover 
sheet; Part II, the budget section, including the narrative budget 
justification; Part IV, the assurances and certifications; or the 
abstract (follow the guidance provided in the application package for 
completing the abstract), the table of contents, the list of priority 
requirements, the resumes, the reference list, the letters of support, 
or the appendices. However, the recommended page limit does apply to 
all of the application narrative, including all text in charts, tables, 
figures, graphs, and screen shots.

V. Application Review Information

    1. Selection Criteria: The selection criteria for this competition 
are from 34 CFR 75.210 and are as follows:
    (a) Significance (10 points).
    (1) The Secretary considers the significance of the proposed 
project.
    (2) In determining the significance of the proposed project, the 
Secretary considers the following factors:
    (i) The extent to which specific gaps or weaknesses in services, 
infrastructure, or opportunities have been identified and will be 
addressed by the proposed project, including the nature and magnitude 
of those gaps or weaknesses.
    (ii) The importance or magnitude of the results or outcomes likely 
to be attained by the proposed project.
    (b) Quality of project services (35 points).
    (1) The Secretary considers the quality of the services to be 
provided by the proposed project.
    (2) In determining the quality of the services to be provided by 
the proposed project, the Secretary considers the quality and 
sufficiency of strategies for ensuring equal access and treatment for 
eligible project participants who are members of groups that have 
traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national 
origin, gender, age, or disability.
    (3) In addition, the Secretary considers the following factors:
    (i) The extent to which the goals, objectives, and outcomes to be 
achieved by the proposed project are clearly specified and measurable.
    (ii) The extent to which there is a conceptual framework underlying 
the proposed research or demonstration

[[Page 35254]]

activities and the quality of that framework.
    (iii) The extent to which the services to be provided by the 
proposed project reflect up-to-date knowledge from research and 
effective practice.
    (iv) The extent to which the training or professional development 
services to be provided by the proposed project are of sufficient 
quality, intensity, and duration to lead to improvements in practice 
among the recipients of those services.
    (v) The extent to which the technical assistance services to be 
provided by the proposed project involve the use of efficient 
strategies, including the use of technology, as appropriate, and the 
leveraging of non-project resources.
    (vi) The adequacy of mechanisms for ensuring high-quality products 
and services from the proposed project.
    (c) Quality of the project evaluation (20 points).
    (1) The Secretary considers the quality of the evaluation to be 
conducted of the proposed project.
    (2) In determining the quality of the evaluation, the Secretary 
considers the following factors:
    (i) The extent to which the methods of evaluation are thorough, 
feasible, and appropriate to the goals, objectives, and outcomes of the 
proposed project.
    (ii) The extent to which the methods of evaluation provide for 
examining the effectiveness of project implementation strategies.
    (iii) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will provide 
performance feedback and permit periodic assessment of progress toward 
achieving intended outcomes.
    (iv) The extent to which the methods of evaluation include the use 
of objective performance measures that are clearly related to the 
intended outcomes of the project and will produce quantitative and 
qualitative data to the extent possible.
    (d) Adequacy of resources and quality of project personnel (15 
points).
    (1) The Secretary considers the adequacy of resources for the 
proposed project and the quality of the personnel who will carry out 
the proposed project.
    (2) In determining the quality of project personnel, the Secretary 
considers the extent to which the applicant encourages applications for 
employment from persons who are members of groups that have 
traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national 
origin, gender, age, or disability.
    (3) In addition, the Secretary considers the following factors:
    (i) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience, 
of the project director or principal investigator.
    (ii) The qualifications, including relevant training and 
experience, of key project personnel.
    (iii) The qualifications, including relevant training and 
experience, of project consultants or subcontractors.
    (iv) The qualifications, including relevant training, experience, 
and independence, of the evaluator.
    (v) The adequacy of support, including facilities, equipment, 
supplies, and other resources, from the applicant organization or the 
lead applicant organization.
    (vi) The relevance and demonstrated commitment of each partner in 
the proposed project to the implementation and success of the project.
    (vii) The extent to which the budget is adequate to support the 
proposed project.
    (viii) The extent to which the costs are reasonable in relation to 
the objectives, design, and potential significance of the proposed 
project.
    (e) Quality of the management plan (20 points).
    (1) The Secretary considers the quality of the management plan for 
the proposed project.
    (2) In determining the quality of the management plan for the 
proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:
    (i) The adequacy of the management plan to achieve the objectives 
of the proposed project on time and within budget, including clearly 
defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing 
project tasks.
    (ii) The extent to which the time commitments of the project 
director and principal investigator and other key project personnel are 
appropriate and adequate to meet the objectives of the proposed 
project.
    (iii) The adequacy of mechanisms for ensuring high-quality products 
and services from the proposed project.
    (iv) How the applicant will ensure that a diversity of perspectives 
are brought to bear in the operation of the proposed project, including 
those of parents, teachers, the business community, a variety of 
disciplinary and professional fields, recipients or beneficiaries of 
services, or others, as appropriate.
    2. Review and Selection Process: We remind potential applicants 
that in reviewing applications in any discretionary grant competition, 
the Secretary may consider, under 34 CFR 75.217(d)(3), the past 
performance of the applicant in carrying out a previous award, such as 
the applicant's use of funds, achievement of project objectives, and 
compliance with grant conditions. The Secretary may also consider 
whether the applicant failed to submit a timely performance report or 
submitted a report of unacceptable quality.
    In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary 
requires various assurances, including those applicable to Federal 
civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or 
activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department 
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 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

[[Page 35255]]

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.
    5. Performance Measures: Under the Government Performance and 
Results Act of 1993, the Department has established a set of 
performance measures, including long-term measures, that are designed 
to yield information on various aspects of the effectiveness and 
quality of the Technical Assistance and Dissemination to Improve 
Services and Results for Children With Disabilities program. These 
measures are:
     Program Performance Measure #1: The percentage of 
Technical Assistance and Dissemination products and services deemed to 
be of high quality by an independent review panel of experts qualified 
to review the substantive content of the products and services.
     Program Performance Measure #2: The percentage of Special 
Education Technical Assistance and Dissemination products and services 
deemed by an independent review panel of qualified experts to be of 
high relevance to educational and early intervention policy or 
practice.
     Program Performance Measure #3: The percentage of all 
Special Education Technical Assistance and Dissemination products and 
services deemed by an independent review panel of qualified experts to 
be useful in improving educational or early intervention policy or 
practice.
     Program Performance Measure #4: The cost efficiency of the 
Technical Assistance and Dissemination Program includes the percentage 
of milestones achieved in the current annual performance report period 
and the percentage of funds spent during the current fiscal year.
     Long-term Program Performance Measure: The percentage of 
States receiving Special Education Technical Assistance and 
Dissemination services regarding scientifically or evidence-based 
practices for infants, toddlers, children, and youth with disabilities 
that successfully promote the implementation of those practices in 
school districts and service agencies.
    The measures apply to projects funded under this competition, and 
grantees are required to submit data on these measures as directed by 
OSEP.
    Grantees will be required to report information on their project's 
performance in annual and final performance reports to the Department 
(34 CFR 75.590).
    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

[[Page 35256]]

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 your search to documents published 
by the Department.

    Dated: July 19, 2018.
Johnny W. Collett,
Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.
[FR Doc. 2018-15932 Filed 7-24-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4000-01-P