Applications for New Awards; Technical Assistance and Dissemination To Improve Services and Results for Children With Disabilities-Technical Assistance and Dissemination Center on Improving Literacy Through Supporting Elementary School Leaders, 36915-36924 [2018-16382]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 147 (Tuesday, July 31, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36915-36924]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-16382]


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

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION


Applications for New Awards; Technical Assistance and 
Dissemination To Improve Services and Results for Children With 
Disabilities--Technical Assistance and Dissemination Center on 
Improving Literacy Through Supporting Elementary School Leaders

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

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Education (Department) 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--Technical Assistance and Dissemination 
Center on Improving Literacy through Supporting Elementary School 
Leaders, Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number 84.326L.

DATES: 
    Applications Available: July 31, 2018.
    Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: August 30, 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: Kristen Rhoads, U.S. Department of 
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 5142, Potomac Center Plaza, 
Washington, DC 20202-5108.

[[Page 36916]]

Telephone: (202) 245-6715. Email: [email protected].
    If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text 
telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-
800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Full Text of Announcement

I. Funding Opportunity Description

    Purpose of Program: The purpose of the Technical Assistance and 
Dissemination to Improve Services and Results for Children with 
Disabilities program is to promote academic achievement and to improve 
results for children with disabilities by providing technical 
assistance (TA), 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:
    Technical Assistance and Dissemination Center on Improving Literacy 
through Supporting Elementary School Leaders.
    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 National Reading Panel report (2000) and RAND report Reading 
for Understanding (Snow, 2001) have influenced reading instruction in 
the United States for the last two decades (Connor & Al Otaiba, 2015). 
During this time, reading instruction in the primary grades has 
improved by targeting important literacy skills highlighted in the 
reports and becoming more systematic in how these skills are taught (S. 
Baker, Fien, & Baker, 2010).
    Despite noted improvements in reading instruction, the gap between 
students with disabilities and their peers on the National Assessment 
of Educational Progress (NAEP) has increased in both fourth and eighth 
grades since 2009 (U.S. Department of Education, 2017). In addition, 
less than 50 percent of teachers surveyed report that they adhere to 
their core reading curricula, and more than 60 percent of teachers 
report that they continue to use an ``eclectic approach'' combining 
different instructional methods for teaching reading (Kretlow & Helf, 
2013). Kretlow and Helf also reported that most of the curricula 
teachers used had not been evaluated for impact on student learning. 
Also, according to the Schools and Staffing Survey (Rotermund, DeRoche, 
& Ottem, 2017), 43 percent of teachers reported receiving no 
professional development on reading instruction in the last 12 months. 
Further, in a separate survey, two-thirds of teachers reported 
receiving fewer than eight hours of professional development on reading 
instruction during the last year, an intensity unlikely to improve the 
quality of reading instruction that they provide or result in improved 
student outcomes (Wei, Darling-Hammond, & Adamson, 2010; Yoon, Duncan, 
Lee, Scarloss, & Shapley, 2007).
    School leaders (as defined in this notice) have the ability to 
affect these trends, and research has clearly demonstrated the effects 
that they can have on the academic performance of their schools (Herman 
et al., 2017; Horng, Kalogrides, & Loeb, 2009; Leithwood, Seashore-
Louis, Anderson, & Wahlstrom, 2004). The Professional Standards for 
Educational Leaders,\1\ developed by the National Policy Board for 
Educational Administration (2015), illustrate the variety of activities 
under the purview of school leaders. School leaders' responsibilities 
include managing school operations and resources, including managing 
budgets, resources, and hiring personnel; overseeing curriculum, 
instruction, and assessment; striving for equity in educational 
opportunity for each student; developing the professional capacity and 
practice of school personnel; and engaging in internal and external 
relations including fostering a professional community of school 
personnel and engaging families and the community (Horng, Klasik, & 
Loeb, 2010; National Policy Board for Educational Administration, 
2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For more information about the Professional Standards for 
Educational Leaders, please see https://npbea.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/PSEL-WebinarPowerPointSlides.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    School leaders' organizational management activities, such as 
managing budget and resources and hiring staff, make the school 
organization work and provide support for teaching and learning 
(Grissom & Loeb, 2011). These types of activities, as well as school 
leaders spending more time on them, have shown consistent associations 
with positive student academic outcomes (Grissom & Loeb, 2011).
    There have been mixed findings regarding the extent to which school 
leaders' instruction-related activities, such as overseeing the 
curriculum and providing professional development for staff, are 
associated with improved student outcomes (Horng et al., 2010; 
Robinson, Lloyd, & Rowe, 2008). A number of possible explanations for 
this variation exist, including potential variation in the quantity of 
time spent on instructional management, the specific types of 
instruction-related activities school leaders engage in (Grissom, Loeb, 
& Master, 2013), and the quality of instructional management training 
received by school leaders. In particular, some researchers have argued 
that current training on instruction-related activities may be too 
narrow and may not include training in the organizational management 
skills that help school leaders target resources effectively in 
addressing the instructional needs of their students (Grissom & Loeb, 
2011).
    The Center on Improving Literacy through Supporting Elementary 
School Leaders (the Center) will provide TA for school leaders on 
instructional content and leadership skills to improve teacher 
implementation of evidence-based (as defined in this notice) literacy 
practices and literacy skills of students with, or at risk for, 
literacy-related disabilities. Specifically, the Center will provide TA 
for LEAs and their school leaders on a variety of topics, namely: 
Providing professional development, including coaching, to their 
teachers and other instructional personnel on literacy; developing 
education programming related to literacy; allocating resources 
efficiently and effectively so that students with, or at risk for, 
literacy-related disabilities have access to literacy instruction and 
interventions that meet their individual needs; and improving teacher 
implementation of evidence-based literacy instruction in their schools 
and, ultimately, literacy outcomes for their students with, or at risk 
for, literacy-related disabilities. The Center may build upon the work 
of, and collaborate with, other Department TA centers including the 
National Center on Improving Literacy, the National Center on Intensive 
Intervention, and the Center on Great Teachers and Leaders. The work of 
this Center will not duplicate work being conducted by

[[Page 36917]]

other Department TA Centers. This priority is consistent with 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): Supplemental 
Priority 5--Meeting the Unique Needs of Students and Children With 
Disabilities and/or Those With Unique Gifts and Talents; Supplemental 
Priority 7--Promoting Literacy; and Supplemental Priority 8--Promoting 
Effective Instruction in Classrooms and Schools.
    Priority:
    The purpose of this priority is to fund a cooperative agreement to 
establish and operate a Center on Improving Literacy through Supporting 
Elementary School Leaders (Literacy through Leaders). The Center will 
provide targeted TA to school leaders on literacy skills and concepts 
(e.g., phonemic awareness, comprehension) and leadership skills (e.g., 
coaching, instructional management and programming, organizational 
management) related to improving teachers' implementation of evidence-
based literacy practices and literacy outcomes for their students with, 
or at risk for, literacy-related disabilities. The Center will support 
school leaders in recognizing evidence-based literacy practices for 
students with, or at risk for, literacy-related disabilities and 
facilitating the implementation of these practices through developing 
education programming and professional development efforts, including 
coaching teachers. The Center must achieve, at a minimum, the following 
expected outcomes:
    (a) Improved literacy achievement and skills of students with, or 
at risk for, literacy-related disabilities;
    (b) Improved capacity of school leaders for identifying and 
supporting the implementation of evidence-based literacy practices, 
including assessments, that improve teachers' practices as well as 
literacy achievement and skills of students with, or at risk for, 
literacy-related disabilities;
    (c) Improved capacity of teachers and other instructional personnel 
to implement with fidelity evidence-based literacy practices, including 
assessments, that improve literacy achievement and skills of students 
with, or at risk for, literacy-related disabilities;
    (d) Improved quality of literacy instruction throughout the school; 
and
    (e) Reduction in the number of students inappropriately referred 
for special education and related services.
    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 current and emerging needs of elementary school leaders 
to improve teacher implementation of evidence-based literacy practices 
and outcomes of their students with, or at risk for, literacy-related 
disabilities. To meet this requirement the applicant must--
    (i) Present applicable national, State, regional, or local data 
demonstrating the need to address elementary school leaders' knowledge 
of evidence-based literacy practices and leadership skills with the 
goal of improving teacher implementation of evidence-based literacy 
practices and, ultimately, the literacy outcomes of their students 
with, or at risk for, literacy-related disabilities;
    (ii) Demonstrate knowledge of current educational issues and policy 
initiatives relating to implementing and sustaining professional 
learning practices and activities for elementary school leaders that 
have evidence for producing positive effects on teacher implementation 
of evidence-based literacy practices in their schools, students' 
literacy achievement, or reducing the numbers of students 
inappropriately referred for needing special education and related 
services; and
    (iii) Present information about the current level of implementation 
of:
    (A) Practices and activities focused on improving leadership skills 
of elementary school leaders, including developing educational 
programming, allocating resources for instruction and intervention 
effectively and efficiently, and providing professional development to 
teachers in their schools; and
    (B) Evidence-based literacy instruction, intervention, and 
assessment for students with, or at risk for, literacy-related 
disabilities in elementary schools;
    (2) Improve elementary school leaders' literacy-related knowledge 
and leadership skills; their schools' literacy-related core 
instruction, supplemental intervention, and assessment; and literacy-
related outcomes for students with, or at risk for, disabilities and 
indicate the likely magnitude or importance of the improvements.
    (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 and make use of evidence-based 
practices (EBPs). To meet this requirement, the applicant must 
describe--
    (i) The current research on professional learning practices for 
school leaders, particularly elementary school leaders, and school 
leader behaviors or characteristics that are associated with improved 
classroom teaching practices and positive student literacy-related 
outcomes and on related EBPs that will inform the proposed TA;
    (ii) The current research about adult learning principles and 
implementation science that will inform the proposed TA;
    (iii) How the proposed project will incorporate current research 
and EBPs in the development and delivery of its products and services; 
and
    (5) Develop products and provide services that are of high quality 
and sufficient intensity and duration to achieve the intended outcomes 
of the

[[Page 36918]]

proposed project. To address this requirement, the applicant must 
describe--
    (i) How it proposes to identify or develop the knowledge base on 
effective practices for improving literacy knowledge and instructional 
and organizational management capacity of elementary school leaders;
    (ii) Its proposed approaches to providing varying levels of 
intensity of TA (i.e., universal,\2\ targeted,\3\ intensive \4\) based 
on the needs of the field and available resources. The applicant must 
identify the intended recipients (e.g., local educational agencies 
(LEAs) and school leaders in sites other than traditional public 
elementary school settings where students are supported under IDEA, 
including private schools), including the type and number of 
recipients, that will receive the products and services through each 
approach and how they plan to reach a variety of settings and 
populations (e.g., urban, rural, suburban); and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ ``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, fact sheets, issues briefs, massive open 
online courses (MOOCs), 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.
    \3\ ``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.
    \4\ ``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) For implementing targeted, specialized TA, its proposed 
approach to measure the readiness of potential TA recipients (e.g., 
LEAs) to work with the project, assessing, at a minimum, their current 
infrastructure, available resources, and ability to build capacity at 
the local level; and
    (B) For implementing intensive, sustained TA, its proposed approach 
to measure the readiness of the LEAs and elementary school leaders to 
work with the project, including their commitment to the initiative, 
alignment of the initiative to their needs, current infrastructure, 
available resources, and ability to build capacity at the local 
district and school level; and its proposed plan for working with 
appropriate levels of the education system (e.g., State education 
agencies (SEAs), regional TA providers, districts, schools, families) 
to ensure that there is communication between each level and that there 
are systems in place to support the use of evidence-based literacy 
practices;
    (6) Develop products and implement services that maximize 
efficiency. To address this requirement, the applicant must describe--
    (i) How the proposed project will use technology to achieve the 
intended project outcomes;
    (ii) With whom the proposed project will collaborate and not 
duplicate (e.g., The National Center on Improving Literacy, National 
Center on Intensive Intervention, State Implementation and Scaling-up 
of Evidence-based Practices Center, and related professional 
organizations, including those that offer training programs targeting 
school leaders) 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 
developed in consultation with and implemented by a third-party 
evaluator.\5\ The evaluation plan must--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ A ``third-party'' evaluator is an independent and impartial 
program evaluator who is contracted by the grantee to conduct an 
objective evaluation of the project. This evaluator must not have 
participated in the development or implementation of any project 
activities, except for the evaluation activities, nor have any 
financial interest in the outcome of the evaluation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (1) Articulate formative and summative evaluation questions, 
including important process and outcome evaluation questions. These 
questions should be related to the project's proposed logic model 
required in paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this notice;
    (2) Describe how progress in and fidelity of implementation, as 
well as project outcomes, including how successfully materials are 
disseminated to, and used by, relevant stakeholder groups and 
professional organizations, will be measured to answer the evaluation 
questions. Specify the measures and associated instruments or sources 
for data appropriate to the evaluation questions. Include information 
regarding reliability and validity of measures where appropriate;
    (3) Describe strategies for analyzing data and how data collected 
as part of this plan will be used to inform and improve service 
delivery over the course of the project and to refine the proposed 
logic model and evaluation plan, including subsequent data collection;
    (4) Provide a timeline for conducting the evaluation, and include 
staff assignments for completing the plan. The timeline must indicate 
that the data will be available annually for the Annual Performance 
Report (APR) and at the end of Year 2 for the review process described 
under the heading, Fourth and Fifth Years of the Project;
    (5) Dedicate sufficient funds in each budget year to cover the 
costs of developing or refining the evaluation plan in consultation 
with a ``third-party'' evaluator, as well as the costs associated with 
the implementation of the evaluation plan by the third-party evaluator.
    (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

[[Page 36919]]

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 in 
Washington, DC, with the OSEP project officer and other relevant staff 
during each subsequent year of the project period.
    Note: Within 30 days of receipt of the award, a post-award 
teleconference must be held between the OSEP project officer and the 
grantee's project director or other authorized representative;
    (ii) A two and one-half day project directors' conference in 
Washington, DC, during each year of the project period;
    (iii) One annual trip to attend Department briefings, Department-
sponsored conferences, and other meetings, as requested by OSEP; and
    (iv) A one-day intensive 3+2 review meeting in Washington, DC, 
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 States 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
Baker, S.K., Fien, H., & Baker, D.L. (2010). Robust reading 
instruction in the early grades: Conceptual and practical issues in 
the integration and evaluation of tier 1 and tier 2 instructional 
supports. Focus on Exceptional Children, 42(9), 1-20.
Connor, C.M., & Al Otaiba, S. (2015). Primary grade reading 
instruction in the United States. In A. Pollatsek & R. Treiman 
(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of reading (pp. 415-430). New York: 
Oxford University Press.
Grissom, J.A., & Loeb, S. (2011). Triangulating principal 
effectiveness: How perspectives of parents, teachers, and assistant 
principals identify the central importance of managerial skills. 
American Educational Research Journal, 48(5), 1091-1123.
Grissom, J.A., Loeb, S., & Master, B. (2013). Effective 
instructional time use for school leaders: Longitudinal evidence 
from observations of principals. Educational Researcher, 42(8), 433-
444.
Herman, R., Gates, S.M., Arifkhanova, A., Bega, A., Chavez-
Herrerias, E.R., Han, E., . . . & Wrabel, S. (2017). School 
leadership interventions under the Every Student Succeeds Act: 
Evidence review. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
Horng, E.L., Kalogrides, D., & Loeb, S. (2009). Principal 
preferences and the uneven distribution of principals across 
schools. School Leadership Research Report No. 09-2. Stanford, CA: 
Stanford University Institute for Research on Education Policy and 
Practice.
Horng, E.L., Klasik, D., & Loeb, S. (2010). Principal's time use and 
school effectiveness. American Journal of Education, 116(4), 491-
523.
Kretlow, A.G., & Helf, S.S. (2013). Teacher implementation of 
evidence-based practices in tier 1: A national survey. Teacher 
Education and Special Education, 36(3), 167-185.
Leithwood, K., Seashore-Louis, K., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. 
(2004). How leadership influences student learning. New York, NY: 
The Wallace Foundation. Retrieved from https://conservancy.umn.edu/bitstream/handle/11299/2035/CAREI%20ReviewofResearch%20How%20Leadership%20Influences.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y.
National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An 
evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on 
reading and its implications for reading instruction. Washington, 
DC: National Institutes of Health.
Robinson, V.M., Lloyd, C.A., & Rowe, K.J. (2008). The impact of 
leadership on student outcomes: An analysis of the differential 
effects of leadership types. Educational Administration Quarterly, 
44(5), 635-674.
Rotermund, S., DeRoche, J., & Ottem, R. (2017). Teacher Professional 
Development By Selected Teacher and School Characteristics: 2011-
2012. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, 
Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
Snow, C.E. (2001). Reading for understanding. Santa Monica, CA: RAND 
Education and the Science and Technology Policy Institute.
U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, 
National Center for Education Statistics. (2015). National 
Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) Reading Assessments. 
Accessed through the NAEP Data Explorer at https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/naepdata/.
Wei, R.C., Darling-Hammond, L., & Adamson, F. (2010). Professional 
development in the United States: Trends and challenges (Vol. 28). 
Dallas, TX: National Staff Development Council.
    Yoon, K.S., Duncan, T., Lee, S.W.Y., Scarloss, B., & Shapley, 
K.L. (2007). Reviewing the Evidence on How Teacher Professional 
Development Affects Student Achievement. Issues & Answers. REL 2007-
No. 033. Regional Educational Laboratory Southwest (NJ1).

    Definitions: The following definitions are from 34 CFR 77.1 and 
section 8101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as amended 
by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESEA), as marked.
    Demonstrates a rationale (34 CFR 77.1) 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 (34 CFR 77.1) means the proposed project component 
is supported by one or more of strong evidence, moderate evidence, 
promising evidence, or evidence that demonstrates a rationale.

[[Page 36920]]

    Experimental study (34 CFR 77.1) 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 (34 CFR 77.1) (also referred to as a theory of action) 
means a framework that identifies key project components of the 
proposed project (i.e., the active ``ingredients'' that are 
hypothesized to be critical to achieving the relevant outcomes) and 
describes the theoretical and operational relationships among the key 
project components and relevant outcomes.
    Moderate evidence (34 CFR 77.1) 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 (34 CFR 77.1) 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 (34 CFR 77.1) 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 (34 CFR 77.1) 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 (34 CFR 77.1) 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.
    School leader (section 8101 of the ESEA) means a principal, 
assistant principal, or other individual who is--
    (a) An employee or officer of an elementary school or secondary 
school, local educational agency, or other entity operating an 
elementary school or secondary school; and
    (b) Responsible for the daily instructional leadership and 
managerial operations in the elementary school or secondary school 
building.
    Strong evidence (34 CFR 77.1) 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

[[Page 36921]]

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) (34 CFR 77.1) 
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 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; State lead agencies under Part C of 
the IDEA; local educational agencies (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 General Requirements: (a) Recipients of funding under this 
competition must make positive efforts to employ and advance in 
employment qualified individuals with disabilities (see section 606 of 
IDEA).
    (b) 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 listed below:
    (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:

[[Page 36922]]

    (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 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.
    (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

[[Page 36923]]

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 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,

[[Page 36924]]

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 your search to documents published 
by the Department.

    Dated: July 26, 2018.
Johnny W. Collett,
Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.
[FR Doc. 2018-16382 Filed 7-30-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4000-01-P