Applications for New Awards; Technical Assistance and Dissemination To Improve Services and Results for Children With Disabilities-Model Demonstration Projects for Early Identification of Students With Dyslexia in Elementary School, 32152-32158 [2019-14270]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 129 (Friday, July 5, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32152-32158]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-14270]


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

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION


Applications for New Awards; Technical Assistance and 
Dissemination To Improve Services and Results for Children With 
Disabilities--Model Demonstration Projects for Early Identification of 
Students With Dyslexia in Elementary School

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

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: 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. As such, the Department of Education (Department) is issuing a 
notice inviting applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2019 
for Model Demonstration Projects for Early Identification of Students 
with Dyslexia in Elementary School, Catalog of Federal Domestic 
Assistance (CFDA) number 84.326M. These projects will provide support 
to professionals to collaborate with parents in establishing and 
meeting high expectations for each student with, or at risk for, 
dyslexia. This notice relates to the approved information collection 
under OMB control number 1820-0028.

DATES: Applications Available: July 5, 2019.
    Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: August 5, 2019.
    Pre-Application Webinar Information: No later than July 10, 2019, 
OSERS will post pre-recorded informational webinars designed to provide 
technical assistance to interested applicants. The webinars may be 
found at www2.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/osep/new-osep-grants.html.
    Pre-Application Q&A Blog: No later than July 10, 2019, OSERS will 
open a blog where interested applicants may post questions about the 
application requirements for this competition and where OSERS will post 
answers to the questions received. OSERS will not respond to questions 
unrelated to the application requirements for this competition. The 
blog may be found at www2.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/osep/new-osep-grants.html and will remain open until July 24, 2019. After the blog 
closes, applicants should direct questions to the person listed under 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

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 13, 2019 (84 FR 3768), and available at 
www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-02-13/pdf/2019-02206.pdf.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristen Rhoads, U.S. Department of 
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 5175, Potomac Center Plaza, 
Washington, DC 20202-5076.

[[Page 32153]]

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 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 or otherwise authorized in 
sections 663 and 681(d) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education 
Act (IDEA) (20 U.S.C. 1463, 1481(d)).
    Absolute Priority: For FY 2019 and any subsequent year in which we 
make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this 
competition, this priority is an absolute priority. Under 34 CFR 
75.105(c)(3), we consider only applications that meet this priority.
    This priority is:
    Model Demonstration Projects for Early Identification of Students 
with Dyslexia in Elementary School.
    Background: Model demonstrations to improve early intervention, 
educational, or transitional results for students with disabilities 
have been authorized under the IDEA since the law's inception. For the 
purposes of this priority, a model is a set of existing evidence-based 
practices, including interventions and implementation strategies (i.e., 
core model components), that research suggests will improve outcomes 
for children, teachers, instructional personnel, school or district 
leaders, or systems, when implemented with fidelity. Model 
demonstrations involve investigating the degree to which a given model 
can be implemented and sustained in typical settings, by staff employed 
in those settings, while achieving outcomes similar to those attained 
under research conditions.
    Patterns of reading development and potential achievement are 
established early and can be stable over time. Frequent screening and 
progress monitoring of reading skills are recommended for identifying 
students whose early pattern suggests that they need intensive reading 
intervention and prevention (Gersten et al., 2009). The screening 
supports meeting an individual child's needs by tailoring instructional 
activities and helping to identify students who may be at risk for 
dyslexia. These students may benefit from receiving intensive 
intervention in reading and potentially special education services, 
including evidence-based practices to address the individual needs of 
each student with dyslexia.
    Dyslexia is neurobiological in origin and is typically 
characterized by difficulties with phonological processing (i.e., the 
manipulation of sounds), spelling, and/or rapid visual-verbal 
responding (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2018). It is 
possible to identify students with dyslexia in early elementary school, 
and it is critical that schools implement intensive interventions 
tailored to the individual needs of these students in early elementary 
school and beyond (Petscher et al., 2019). Phonological processing 
problems associated with dyslexia can be identified reliably in 
kindergarten and first grade (D. Fuchs et al., 2012; Sittner Bridges & 
Catts, 2011). Research suggests that difficulties associated with 
dyslexia can be remediated with intensive intervention in early 
elementary school; however, remediation generally becomes less 
effective for students with dyslexia after second grade (Fletcher, 
2017).
    Over 40 States have adopted legislation, requirements, or 
initiatives related to identifying and educating students with 
dyslexia, with 21 States implementing universal screening for dyslexia 
(National Center on Improving Literacy, 2018). Recommended practices 
suggest that schools administer reading measures that screen and 
monitor student progress in learning foundational reading skills that 
reflect students' acquisition of literacy skills across grade levels 
(Petchser, et al., 2019). In general, measures of phonological 
processing, rapid letter naming, and alphabetic understanding or 
spelling are recommended in the early elementary grades. Recommended 
practices also suggest that administration of screening measures should 
not be a one-time event for students; rather, screening should happen 
at least three times per year at each grade level during elementary 
school, with the first administration happening as early as possible in 
the school year, with more frequent administrations for students who 
show moderate or high risk of having dyslexia.
    However, addressing dyslexia is a complex issue, and there are 
great variation and flexibility in how States and schools implement 
recommended practices related to screening for dyslexia. Often, schools 
use a one-stage universal screening process, which may result in 
incorrect over-identification of students in the early grades when 
students are first exposed to formal reading instruction (D. Fuchs, 
Compton, Fuchs, Bryant & Davis, 2008). Researchers have suggested other 
approaches, including using a two-stage screening approach or dynamic 
assessment approaches, to maximize the likelihood of providing 
intensive interventions in reading to students who need it most and to 
prevent schools from using costly interventions for students who may 
not have dyslexia or need additional or different types of support (Cho 
et al., 2017). In conjunction with the screening practices, schools 
often monitor student learning in response to high-quality reading 
instruction or intervention as indicators of progress or persistent 
learning problems related to having dyslexia.
    These model demonstration projects will highlight the importance of 
accurate identification of students with dyslexia, particularly in the 
early grades, and bring to bear the most recent research on frequent 
screening and progress monitoring and intervention for dyslexia.
    The projects must be operated in a manner consistent with 
nondiscrimination requirements contained in the U.S. Constitution and 
the Federal civil rights laws.

Priority

    The purpose of this priority is to fund three cooperative 
agreements to establish and operate model demonstration projects. The 
models will implement frequent screening and progress monitoring 
measures at all elementary grades, with a particular focus on 
kindergarten and first grade. The models will demonstrate methods for 
accurate and efficient identification of and evidence-based \1\ 
interventions for students with, or at risk for, dyslexia, as well as 
positive outcomes in reading achievement. The models will also address 
the infrastructure (i.e., professional development) needed to

[[Page 32154]]

foster the development, implementation, and evaluation of a schoolwide 
process for identifying students with, or at risk for, dyslexia. The 
model demonstration projects will assess how models can--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For purposes of this priority, ``evidence-based'' means the 
proposed project component is supported by promising evidence, which 
is evidence of the effectiveness of a key project component in 
improving a ``relevant outcome'' (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1), based 
on a relevant finding from one of the sources identified under 
``promising evidence'' in 34 CFR 77.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Improve the capacity of elementary schools to identify 
early, accurately, and efficiently students with, or at risk for, 
dyslexia;
     Improve the capacity of elementary schools to implement 
evidence-based screening and progress monitoring measures for students 
with, or at risk for, dyslexia;
     Improve the capacity of elementary schools to provide 
resources and evidence-based interventions that best meet the 
individual needs of students with, or at risk for, dyslexia and that 
lead to improved reading achievement of students with, or at risk for, 
dyslexia; and
     Improve the capacity of elementary school personnel to 
clearly communicate assessment results to parents and to collaborate 
with parents to establish and meet high expectations for each student 
with, or at risk for, dyslexia.
    Applicants must propose models that meet the following 
requirements:
    (a) The model's core intervention components must include--
    (1) Ongoing measures of student reading skills and progress, 
including frequent (e.g., weekly or every two weeks) measures of 
reading skills of students with, or at risk for, dyslexia;
    (2) Professional development to help ensure educators' appropriate 
and timely use of data to inform the need for additional diagnostic 
measures or assessments for students demonstrating risk of dyslexia and 
to improve reading instruction and make informed decisions about how to 
help students build literacy skills;
    (3) Evidence-based instructional practices tailored to individual 
needs of students, particularly to those with, or at risk for, 
dyslexia;
    (4) Valid and reliable measures of student-level, instructor-level, 
and system-level outcomes, using standardized measures when applicable;
    (5) Procedures to refine the model based on the ongoing measures of 
student-level, instructor-level, and system-level performance;
    (6) Procedures for schools to share data with families as well as 
engage families in meaningful discussions and decision-making related 
to reading instruction tailored to meeting their child's individual 
literacy needs; and
    (7) Measures of the model's social validity, i.e., measures of 
educators', parents', and students' \2\ satisfaction with the model 
components, processes, and outcomes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Applicants must ensure the confidentiality of individual 
student data, consistent with the Confidentiality of Information 
regulations under both part B and part C of IDEA, which incorporate 
requirements and exceptions under section 444 of the General 
Education Provisions Act (20 U.S.C. 1232g), commonly known as the 
``Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act'' (FERPA), but also 
include several provisions that are specifically related to children 
with disabilities receiving services under IDEA and provide 
protections beyond the FERPA regulations. Therefore, examining the 
IDEA requirements first is the most effective and efficient way to 
meet the requirements of both IDEA and FERPA for children with 
disabilities. Applicants should also be aware of State laws or 
regulations concerning the confidentiality of individual records. 
See https://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/ptac/pdf/idea-ferpa.pdf and 
https://studentprivacy.ed.gov/resources/ferpaidea-cross-walk. Final 
FERPA regulatory changes became effective January 3, 2012, and 
include requirements for data sharing. Applicants are encouraged to 
review the final FERPA regulations published on December 2, 2011 (76 
FR 75604). Questions can be directed to the Family Policy Compliance 
Office (www.ed.gov/fpco) at (202) 260-3887 or [email protected].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (b) The model's core implementation components must include--
    (1) Criteria and strategies for selecting \3\ and recruiting sites, 
including approaches to introducing the model to, and promoting the 
model among, site participants.\4\ Each project must include at least 
three elementary schools, at least one of which must be a school of 
choice such as a public magnet, public charter, or private school. 
Applicants are encouraged to choose sites from a variety of settings 
(e.g., urban, rural, suburban) and populations (e.g., type of school, 
concentration of students receiving free or reduced-price lunch, racial 
or ethnic groups);
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ For factors to consider when selecting model demonstration 
sites, the applicant should refer to Assessing Sites for Model 
Demonstration: Lessons Learned for OSEP Grantees at https://mdcc.sri.com/documents/MDCC_Site_Assessment_Brief_09-30-11.pdf. The 
document also contains a site assessment tool.
    \4\ For factors to consider while preparing for model 
demonstration implementation, the applicant should refer to 
Preparing for Model Demonstration Implementation at https://mdcc.sri.com/documents/MDCC_PreparationStage_Brief_Apr2013.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) A lag site implementation design, which allows for model 
development and refinement at the first site in year one of the project 
period, with sites two and three implementing a revised model based on 
data from the first site beginning in subsequent project years;
    (3) A professional development component that includes a coaching 
strategy, to enable site-based staff to implement the interventions 
with fidelity; and
    (4) Measures of the results of the professional development (e.g., 
improvements in teachers' or service providers' knowledge) required by 
paragraph (b)(3) of this section, including measures of the fidelity of 
implementation.
    (c) The core strategies for sustaining the model must include--
    (1) Documentation that permits current and future site-based staff 
to replicate or appropriately tailor and sustain the model at any site; 
\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ For a guide on documenting model demonstration sustainment 
and replication, the applicant should refer to Planning for 
Replication and Dissemination From the Start: Guidelines for Model 
Demonstration Projects (Revised) at https://mdcc.sri.com/documents/MDCC_ReplicationBrief_SEP2015.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) Strategies for the grantee to disseminate or promote the use of 
the model, such as developing easily accessible online training 
materials, coordinating with TA providers who might serve as future 
trainers, or providing technical support (e.g., webinars, training 
sessions, or workshops) for users who may want to learn about and 
implement the model and its components; and
    (3) Strategies for the grantee to assist State educational agencies 
(SEAs) and local educational agencies (LEAs) within the State to scale 
up a model and its components.
    To be considered for funding under this absolute priority, 
applicants must meet the application requirements contained in this 
priority. Each project funded under this absolute priority also must 
meet the programmatic and administrative requirements specified in the 
priority.

Application Requirements

    An applicant must include in its application--
    (a) A detailed review of the literature addressing the proposed 
model or its intervention and implementation components and processes 
to improve identification and instruction for students with, or at risk 
for, dyslexia in elementary school, with a particular focus on 
kindergarten and first grade;
    Note: The literature review must establish that the proposed model 
is evidence-based, as defined elsewhere in this notice.
    (b) A logic model \6\ that depicts, at a minimum, the goals, 
activities, outputs, and outcomes (described in paragraph

[[Page 32155]]

(a) under the heading Priority) of the proposed model demonstration 
project.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Note: The following websites provide resources for constructing 
logic models: www.osepideasthatwork.org/logicModel and 
www.osepideasthatwork.org/resources-grantees/program-areas/ta-ta/tad-project-logic-model-and-conceptual-framework;
    (c) A description of the activities and measures to be incorporated 
into the proposed model demonstration project (i.e., the project 
design) to improve identification of and instruction for students with, 
or at risk for, dyslexia, including a timeline of how and when the 
components are introduced within the model. A detailed and complete 
description must include the following:
    (1) Each of the intervention components, including, at a minimum, 
those listed under paragraph (a) under the heading Priority.
    (2) The existing and proposed child, teacher, service provider, or 
system outcome measures and social validity measures. The measures 
should be described as completely as possible, referenced as 
appropriate, and included, when available, in Appendix A.
    (3) Each of the implementation components, including, at a minimum, 
those listed under paragraph (b) under the heading Priority. The 
existing or proposed implementation fidelity measures, including those 
measuring the fidelity of the professional development strategy, should 
be described as completely as possible, referenced as appropriate, and 
included, when available, in Appendix A. In addition, this description 
should include--
    (i) Demographics, including, at a minimum, the number of grade 
levels, classrooms, and students participating at all implementation 
sites that have been identified and successfully recruited for the 
purposes of this application using the selection and recruitment 
strategies described in paragraph (b)(1) under the heading Priority;
    (ii) Whether the implementation sites are located in rural, urban, 
or suburban LEAs; and
    Note: Applicants are encouraged to identify, to the extent 
possible, the sites willing to participate in the applicant's model 
demonstration. Applicants are encouraged to choose sites from a variety 
of settings (e.g., urban, rural, suburban) and populations (e.g., type 
of school, concentration of students receiving free or reduced-price 
lunch, racial or ethnic groups). Final site selection will be 
determined in consultation with the OSEP project officer following the 
kick-off meeting described in paragraph (e)(1) of these application 
requirements, and will include at least one school of choice such as a 
public magnet, public charter, or private school.
    (iii) The lag site implementation design for implementation 
consistent with the requirements in paragraph (b)(2) under the heading 
Priority.
    (4) Each of the strategies to promote sustaining and replicating 
the model, including, at a minimum, those listed under paragraph (c) 
under the heading Priority.
    (d) A description of the evaluation activities and measures to be 
incorporated into the proposed model demonstration project. A detailed 
and complete description must include--
    (1) A formative evaluation plan, consistent with the project's 
logic model, that includes evaluation questions, source(s) of data, a 
timeline for data collection, and analysis plans. The plan must show 
how the outcome data (e.g., child, teacher, or systems measures, social 
validity) and implementation data (e.g., fidelity, effectiveness of 
professional development activities) will be used separately or in 
combination to improve the project during the performance period. These 
data will be reported in the annual performance report (APR). The plan 
also must outline how these data will be reviewed by project staff, 
when they will be reviewed, and how they will be used during the course 
of the project to adjust the model or its implementation to increase 
the model's usefulness, generalizability, and potential for 
sustainability; and
    (2) A summative evaluation plan, including a timeline, to collect 
and analyze data on changes to child, teacher, service provider, or 
system outcome measures over time or relative to comparison groups that 
can be reasonably attributable to project activities. The plan must 
show how the child, teacher, service provider, or system outcome and 
implementation data collected by the project will be used separately or 
in combination to demonstrate the promise of the model.
    (e) A budget for attendance at the following:
    (1) A one and one-half day kick-off meeting to be held in 
Washington, DC, after receipt of the award.
    (2) A three-day Project Directors' Conference in Washington, DC, 
occurring twice during the project performance period.
    (3) Four travel days spread across years two through four of the 
project period to attend planning meetings, Department briefings, 
Department-sponsored conferences, and other meetings, as requested by 
OSEP, to be held in Washington, DC.

Other Project Activities

    To meet the requirements of this priority, each project, at a 
minimum, must--
    (a) Communicate and collaborate on an ongoing basis with other 
Department-funded projects, including, at minimum, OSEP-funded TA 
centers that might disseminate information on the model or support the 
scale-up efforts of a model based on promising evidence;
    (b) Maintain ongoing telephone and email communication with the 
OSEP project officer and the other model demonstration projects funded 
under this priority;
    (c) If the project maintains a website, include relevant 
information about the model, the intervention, and the demonstration 
activities and ensure that the website meets government- or industry-
recognized standards for accessibility; and
    (d) Ensure that annual progress toward meeting project goals is 
posted on the project website or university website.

References

Cho, E., Compton, D.L., Gilbert, J.K., Steacy, L.M., Collins, A.A., 
& Lindstr[ouml]m, E.R. (2017). Development of first-graders' word 
reading skills: For whom can dynamic assessment tell us more? 
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 50(1), 95-112.
Fletcher, J. (2017, September). Understanding dyslexia: A scientific 
approach. Paper presented at the National Science Foundation 
Conference on STEM Education, Learning Disabilities, and the Science 
of Dyslexia, Arlington, VA.
Fuchs, D., Compton, D.L., Fuchs, L.S., Bryant, J., & Davis, G.N. 
(2008). Making ``secondary intervention'' work in a three-tier 
responsiveness-to-intervention model: Findings from the first-grade 
longitudinal reading study of the National Research Center on 
Learning Disabilities. Reading and Writing, 21(4), 413-436.
Fuchs, D., Compton, D.L., Fuchs, L.S., Bryant, V.J., Hamlett, C.L., 
& Lambert, W. (2012). First-grade cognitive abilities as long-term 
predictors of reading comprehension and disability status. Journal 
of Learning Disabilities, 45(3), 217-231.
Gersten, R., Compton, D., Connor, C.M., Dimino, J., Santoro, L., 
Linan-Thompson, S., and Tilly, W.D. (2009). Assisting students 
struggling with reading: Response to intervention and multi-tier 
intervention for reading in the primary grades. A practice guide. 
(NCEE 2009-4045). Washington, DC: National Center for Education 
Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, 
U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from https://ies.ed.gov/
ncee/

[[Page 32156]]

wwc/Docs/PracticeGuide/rti_reading_pg_021809.pdf.
National Center on Improving Literacy. (2018). State of Dyslexia. 
Retrieved from https://improvingliteracy.org/state-of-dyslexia.
Petscher, Y., Fien, H., Stanley, C., Gearin, B., Gaab, N., Fletcher, 
J.M., & Johnson, E. (2019). Screening for Dyslexia. Retrieved from 
https://improvingliteracy.org/sites/improvingliteracy1.uoregon.edu/files/whitepaper/screening-for-dyslexia.pdf.
Sittner Bridges, M., & Catts, H.W. (2011). The use of a dynamic 
screening of phonological awareness to predict risk for reading 
disabilities in kindergarten children. Journal of Learning 
Disabilities, 44(4), 330-338.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institute of 
Neurological Disorders and Stroke Dyslexia Information Page. (2018, 
June 12). Retrieved from www.ninds.nih.gov/Disorders/All-Disorders/Dyslexia-Information-Page.

    Waiver of Proposed Rulemaking: Under the Administrative Procedure 
Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553) the Department generally offers interested 
parties the opportunity to comment on proposed priorities and other 
requirements. Section 681(d) of IDEA, however, makes the public comment 
requirements of the APA inapplicable to the absolute priority and 
related definitions in this notice.
    Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1463 and 1481.
    Applicable Regulations: (a) The Education Department General 
Administrative Regulations 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 agreements.
    Estimated Available Funds: $1,200,000.
    Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of 
applications, we may make additional awards in FY 2020 from the list of 
unfunded applications from this competition.
    Estimated Range of Awards: $375,000 to $400,000 per year.
    Estimated Average Size of Awards: $400,000 per year.
    Maximum Award: We will not make an award exceeding $400,000 for a 
single budget period of 12 months.
    Estimated Number of Awards: 3.
    Note: The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.
    Project Period: Up to 48 months.

III. Eligibility Information

    1. Eligible Applicants: SEAs; LEAs, including charter schools that 
are considered LEAs under State law; IHEs; other public agencies; 
private nonprofit organizations; outlying areas; freely associated 
States; Indian Tribes or Tribal organizations; and for-profit 
organizations.
    2. Cost Sharing or Matching: This program does not require cost 
sharing or matching.
    3. Subgrantees: A grantee under this competition may not award 
subgrants to entities to directly carry out project activities 
described in its application. Under 34 CFR 75.708(e), a grantee may 
contract for supplies, equipment, and other services in accordance with 
2 CFR part 200.
    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: Applicants are required to 
follow the Common Instructions for Applicants to Department of 
Education Discretionary Grant Programs, published in the Federal 
Register on February 13, 2019 (84 FR 3768), and available at 
www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-02-13/pdf/2019-02206.pdf, which 
contain requirements and information on how to submit an application.
    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 2019.
    3. Funding Restrictions: We reference regulations outlining funding 
restrictions in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice.
    4. Recommended Page Limit: The application narrative (Part III of 
the application) is where you, the applicant, address the selection 
criteria that reviewers use to evaluate your application. We recommend 
that you (1) limit the application narrative to no more than 50 pages 
and (2) use the following standards:
     A ``page'' is 8.5'' x 11'', on one side only, with 1'' 
margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.
     Double-space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) 
all text in the application narrative, including titles, headings, 
footnotes, quotations, reference citations, and captions, as well as 
all text in charts, tables, figures, graphs, and screen shots.
     Use a font that is 12 point or larger.
     Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, 
Courier New, or Arial.
    The recommended page limit does not apply to Part I, the cover 
sheet; Part II, the budget section, including the narrative budget 
justification; Part IV, the assurances and certifications; or the 
abstract (follow the guidance provided in the application package for 
completing the abstract), the table of contents, the list of priority 
requirements, the r[eacute]sum[eacute]s, 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 (15 points).
    (1) The Secretary considers the significance of the proposed 
project.
    (2) In determining the significance of the proposed project, the 
Secretary considers the following factors:
    (i) The potential contribution of the proposed project to increased 
knowledge or understanding of educational problems, issues, or 
effective strategies;
    (ii) The extent to which the proposed project is likely to build 
local capacity to provide, improve, or expand services that address the 
needs of the target population;
    (iii) The importance or magnitude of the results or outcomes likely 
to be attained by the proposed project, especially improvements in 
teaching and student achievement; and

[[Page 32157]]

    (iv) The likely utility of the products (such as information, 
materials, processes, or techniques) that will result from the proposed 
project, including the potential for their being used effectively in a 
variety of other settings.
    (b) Quality of the project design (35 points).
    (1) The Secretary considers the quality of the design of the 
proposed project.
    (2) In determining the quality of the design of the proposed 
project, the Secretary considers the following factors:
    (i) The extent to which the goals, objectives, and outcomes to be 
achieved by the proposed project are clearly specified and measurable;
    (ii) The extent to which the design of the proposed project 
includes a thorough, high-quality review of the relevant literature, a 
high-quality plan for project implementation, and the use of 
appropriate methodological tools to ensure successful achievement of 
project objectives;
    (iii) The quality of the proposed demonstration design and 
procedures for documenting project activities and results;
    (iv) The extent to which the design for implementing and evaluating 
the proposed project will result in information to guide possible 
replication of project activities or strategies, including information 
about the effectiveness of the approach or strategies employed by the 
project; and
    (v) The extent to which performance feedback and continuous 
improvement are integral to the design of the proposed project.
    (c) Adequacy of resources and quality of the management plan (25 
points).
    (1) The Secretary considers the adequacy of resources and the 
quality of the management plan for the proposed project.
    (2) In determining the adequacy of resources and the quality of the 
management plan for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the 
following factors:
    (i) The adequacy of support, including facilities, equipment, 
supplies, and other resources, from the applicant organization or the 
lead applicant organization;
    (ii) The relevance and demonstrated commitment of each partner in 
the proposed project to the implementation and success of the project;
    (iii) The extent to which the 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;
    (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;
    (v) 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; and
    (vi) The adequacy of mechanisms for ensuring high-quality products 
and services from the proposed project.
    (d) Quality of the project evaluation (25 points).
    (1) The Secretary considers the quality of the evaluation to be 
conducted of the proposed project.
    (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 will provide 
performance feedback and permit periodic assessment of progress toward 
achieving intended outcomes;
    (iii) The extent to which the methods of evaluation provide for 
examining the effectiveness of project implementation strategies;
    (iv) The extent to which the evaluation will provide guidance about 
effective strategies suitable for replication or testing in other 
settings; and
    (v) 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.
    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 
(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 
$250,000), 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)),

[[Page 32158]]

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 that is awarded competitive grant funds must 
have a plan to disseminate these public grant deliverables. This 
dissemination plan can be developed and submitted after your 
application has been reviewed and selected for funding. For additional 
information on the open licensing requirements please refer to 2 CFR 
3474.20.
    4. Reporting: (a) If you apply for a grant under this competition, 
you must ensure that you have in place the necessary processes and 
systems to comply with the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 170 
should you receive funding under the competition. This does not apply 
if you have an exception under 2 CFR 170.110(b).
    (b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final 
performance report, including financial information, as directed by the 
Secretary. If you receive a multiyear award, you must submit an annual 
performance report that provides the most current performance and 
financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 
CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance 
reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, 
please go to www.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/appforms/appforms.html.
    (c) Under 34 CFR 75.250(b), the Secretary may provide a grantee 
with additional funding for data collection, analysis, and reporting. 
In this case the Secretary establishes a data collection period.
    5. Performance Measures: Under the Government Performance and 
Results Act of 1993, the Department has established a set of 
performance measures, including long-term measures, that are designed 
to yield information on various aspects of the effectiveness and 
quality of the Model Demonstration Projects to Identify Students with 
Dyslexia in Elementary School under the Technical Assistance and 
Dissemination to Improve Services and Results for Children With 
Disabilities program. These measures are:
     Current Program Performance Measure: The percentage of 
effective evidence-based program models developed by model 
demonstration projects that are promoted to States and their partners 
through the Technical Assistance and Dissemination Network.
     Pilot Program Performance Measure: The percentage of 
effective program models developed by model demonstration projects that 
are sustained beyond the life of the model demonstration project.
    The current program performance measure and the pilot program 
performance measure 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 5074A, 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 at www.govinfo.gov. 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.

Johnny W. Collett,
Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.
[FR Doc. 2019-14270 Filed 7-3-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4000-01-P