Applications for New Awards; Technical Assistance and Dissemination To Improve Services and Results for Children With Disabilities-Technical Assistance and Dissemination Center for the Development and Implementation of High-Quality Instruction, Interventions, and Services for Children With Disabilities, 38606-38613 [2019-16809]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 152 (Wednesday, August 7, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38606-38613]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-16809]


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

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 for the 
Development and Implementation of High-Quality Instruction, 
Interventions, and Services for Children With Disabilities

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 a Technical Assistance and Dissemination Center for the Development 
and Implementation of High-Quality Instruction, Interventions, and 
Services for Children with Disabilities, Catalog of Federal Domestic 
Assistance (CFDA) number 84.326C. This Center will develop knowledge, 
curate resources, and disseminate information related to (1) enabling 
children with disabilities to make progress toward meeting challenging 
goals and objectives in light of each child's circumstances, and (2) 
supporting local educational agencies (LEAs), charter management 
organizations (CMOs), private school associations, and schools in 
developing and implementing high-quality individualized educational 
programming. This notice relates to the approved information collection 
under OMB control number 1820-0028.

DATES: 
    Applications Available: August 7, 2019.
    Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: September 6, 2019.
    Pre-Application Webinar Information: No later than August 12, 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 August 12, 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 August 26, 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: David E. Emenheiser, U.S. Department 
of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 5134, Potomac Center Plaza, 
Washington, DC 20202-5076. Telephone: (202) 245-7556. 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: This competition includes one absolute 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 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:
    Technical Assistance and Dissemination Center for the Development 
and Implementation of High-Quality Instruction, Interventions, and 
Services for Children with Disabilities (Center).
    Background:
    The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) entitles all 
eligible children with disabilities to a free appropriate public 
education (FAPE) that emphasizes special education and related services 
designed to meet their unique needs and prepare them for further 
education, employment, and independent living. (20 U.S.C. 
1400(d)(1)(A)). The individualized education program (IEP) is the 
primary vehicle through which FAPE is delivered to those eligible 
children and is the foundation for each

[[Page 38607]]

eligible child's special education programming.
    The 2017 U.S. Supreme Court's unanimous decision in Endrew F. v. 
Douglas County School District Re-1, 137 S. Ct. 988, stated that ``a 
school must offer an IEP reasonably calculated to enable a child to 
make progress appropriate in light of the child's circumstances,'' id. 
at 999, and that ``every child should have the chance to meet 
challenging objectives,'' id. at 1000. As the Supreme Court noted, 
``The adequacy of a given IEP turns on the unique circumstances of the 
child for whom it was created.'' Id. at 1001. The Court's opinion 
reiterated that an adequate special education program includes 
development of challenging objectives in the IEP designed to enable the 
child with disabilities to make progress. School personnel must ``be 
able to offer a cogent and responsive explanation for their decisions 
that shows the IEP is reasonably calculated to enable the child to make 
progress appropriate in light of his circumstances.'' \1\ Id. at 1002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ On December 7, 2017, the Department issued questions and 
answers (Q&A) that provided useful background on the Endrew F. 
decision and set out the Department's views on how schools may meet 
the standards the Court articulated. The Q&A are available at 
https://sites.ed.gov/idea/questions-and-answers-qa-on-u-s-supreme-court-case-decision-endrew-f-v-douglas-county-school-district-re-1/#.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After the Court's ruling, some LEAs and schools requested TA for 
setting and meeting these high standards. This Center will disseminate 
to the field knowledge and best practices developed through research 
and provide intensive TA to a group of LEAs, CMOs, and schools that are 
examining and testing the features, activities, and relationships that 
ensure that the broadest set of children with disabilities have access 
to high-quality IEPs and the provision of a FAPE consistent with the 
Endrew F. decision as articulated by the Court.\2\ This Center must be 
operated in a manner consistent with nondiscrimination requirements 
contained in the U.S. Constitution and Federal civil rights laws.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ It is the Court, of course, and not this Center that 
established the standard in the Endrew F. decision, and working with 
the Center does not mean that the TA recipient is in compliance with 
that standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Priority:
    The purpose of this priority is to fund a cooperative agreement to 
establish and operate a Technical Assistance and Dissemination Center 
for the Development and Implementation of High-Quality Instruction, 
Interventions, and Services for Children with Disabilities (Center). 
This Center will develop knowledge, disseminate strategies and 
products, and provide TA for LEAs, CMOs, private school associations, 
and schools to develop and implement high-quality special education 
programs that enable children with disabilities to make progress toward 
meeting challenging objectives in light of each child's circumstances.
    The Center must achieve, at a minimum, the following expected 
outcomes:
    (a) Design and refinement of a framework that incorporates 
theories, knowledge base, and effective policies, procedures, 
practices, and tools that can be used in a variety of settings \3\ to 
develop and implement high-quality IEPs and the provision of a FAPE 
consistent with the Endrew F. decision by showing positive impact on 
the achievement of challenging objectives by children with 
disabilities;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ For the purposes of this priority, ``settings'' include 
general education classrooms; special education classrooms; 
elementary, middle, and secondary schools; private schools, 
including faith-based schools; home education; after school 
programs; juvenile justice facilities; and settings other than those 
listed above in which students may receive services under IDEA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (b) Increased knowledge of the practices that support high 
expectations and the achievement of challenging goals and objectives 
tailored to children's individual circumstances;
    (c) Increased knowledge of how to improve students' access to 
appropriate, effective, and individualized instruction and services 
that enable appropriate developmental, social, academic, and functional 
progress and achievement; and
    (d) Increased use of evidence-based \4\ knowledge, tools, and 
products demonstrated to increase the capacity of LEAs, CMOs, and 
schools to develop and implement high-quality IEPs and the provision of 
a FAPE consistent with the Endrew F. decision and to have a positive 
impact on the progress toward meeting and the achievement of 
challenging objectives by children with disabilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ For the purposes of this priority, ``evidence-based'' means 
the proposed project component is supported, at a minimum, by 
evidence that demonstrates a rationale (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1), 
where 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to meeting the programmatic requirements in 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,'' how the proposed project will--
    (1) Identify and address the current and emerging needs of LEAs, 
CMOs, and school personnel to develop and implement high-quality IEPs 
reasonably calculated to enable children to make progress based on 
challenging goals and objectives and high expectations in light of each 
child's circumstances. To meet this requirement, the applicant must--
    (i) Present applicable national, State, regional, or local research 
demonstrating significant features, components, and practices of IEP 
development and implementation on student progress and achievement of 
challenging objectives;
    (ii) Demonstrate knowledge of current educational issues and policy 
initiatives, including disability policy initiatives, that identify and 
address the particular and ongoing capacity needs of LEA, CMO, and 
school personnel, and school personnel in a variety of settings, and 
how they are likely to change, translate, and expand the general and 
special education approach to programming and implementing instruction 
and related services for students with disabilities;
    (iii) Present information about how school leaders and 
practitioners access and utilize knowledge, tools, and products, which 
are developed based on evidence of their ability to impact progress and 
achievement of students with disabilities; and
    (2) Improve the knowledge and use of the features of IEP 
development and implementation that have been shown to be positively 
related to progress and achievement of challenging goals and objectives 
by children with disabilities in rural, suburban, and urban 
communities, as well as those living in poverty or attending a high-
need school,\5\ and indicate the likely

[[Page 38608]]

magnitude or importance of the improvements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ For the purposes of this priority, ``high-need school'' 
refers to a public elementary or secondary school that is: (1) An 
LEA (a) that serves not fewer than 10,000 children from families 
with incomes below the poverty line; or (b) for which not less than 
20 percent of the children are from families with incomes below the 
poverty line; (2) a school in which at least 50 percent of students 
are from low-income families as determined using one of the measures 
of poverty specified under section 1113(a)(5) of the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA); (3) a school 
identified for comprehensive support and improvement by a State 
under section 1111(c)(4)(D) of the ESEA that includes (a) not less 
than the lowest performing 5 percent of all schools in the State 
receiving funds under Title I, Part A of the ESEA; (b) all public 
high schools in the State failing to graduate one third or more of 
their students; and (c) public schools in the State described under 
section 1111(d)(3)(A)(i)(II) of the ESEA; or (4) a school identified 
for targeted support and improvement by a State that has developed 
and is implementing a school-level targeted support and improvement 
plan to improve student outcomes based on the indicators in the 
statewide accountability system as defined in section 1111(d)(2) of 
the ESEA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (b) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under 
``Quality of 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 \6\ by which the proposed 
project will achieve its intended outcomes that depicts, at a minimum, 
the goals and how they will be measured, activities, outputs, and 
intended outcomes of the proposed project;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    (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 research methods for determining the salient IEP 
development and implementation of EBPs that are most closely related to 
ensuring children with disabilities are offered IEPs that are 
reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in 
light of the child's circumstances, as outlined in the IDEA, the Endrew 
F. decision, and current practices in rural, suburban, and urban 
communities, as well as those living in poverty or attending a high-
need school;
    (ii) The current research about adult learning principles and 
implementation science that will inform the proposed TA; and
    (iii) How the proposed project will incorporate current research 
and practices in the development and delivery of its products and 
services;
    (5) Develop products and provide services that are of high quality 
and sufficient intensity and duration to achieve the intended outcomes 
of the proposed project. To address this requirement, the applicant 
must describe--
    (i) How it proposes to identify or develop the knowledge base of:
    (A) The relationships among IEP development, service delivery, 
parent engagement, and individual student outcomes; and
    (B) The ways in which improved implementation of instructional 
practices and related services guided by the IEPs lead to improved 
student outcomes;
    (ii) Its proposed approach to intensive, sustained TA,\7\ which 
must identify--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ ``Intensive, sustained TA'' means TA services often provided 
on-site and requiring a stable, ongoing relationship between the TA 
center staff and the TA recipient. ``TA services'' are defined as 
negotiated series of activities designed to reach a valued outcome. 
This category of TA should result in changes to policy, program, 
practice, or operations that support increased recipient capacity or 
improved outcomes at one or more systems levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (A) The intended recipients, including the type and number of 
recipients from a variety of settings and geographic distribution, that 
will receive the products and services designed to impact student 
progress and achievement based on the improved development and 
implementation of IEPs;
    (B) The proposed measures and instruments used to show fidelity of 
implementation of the identified salient IEP development and 
implementation features as well as the impact on student progress and 
achievement;
    (C) Its proposed approach to the selection of TA recipients, 
including how it will measure the readiness of potential TA recipients 
to work with the project, assessing, at a minimum, their need and 
interest, current infrastructure, available resources, and feasibility 
and likelihood of increasing capacity at the LEA, CMO, private school 
association, and school levels;
    (D) Its proposed plan for collaborating with the State educational 
agencies (SEAs) to work with and assist LEAs, CMOs, and schools in 
developing and enhancing sustainable systems, consistent with the 
Endrew F. decision, that include professional development based on 
adult learning principles and coaching;
    (E) Its proposed plan for working with appropriate levels of the 
education system (e.g., SEAs, LEAs, CMOs, schools, families) to ensure 
there is communication between each level and there are systems in 
place to support the use of EBPs; and
    (F) Its proposed plan for disseminating lessons learned from LEAs, 
CMOs, and schools receiving the intensive TA for universal TA 
recipients;
    (iii) Its proposed approach to universal, general TA,\8\ which must 
identify the intended recipients, including the educators, 
administrators, parents, and service providers, and how they will 
access and utilize:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ ``Universal, general TA'' means TA and information provided 
to independent users through their own initiative, resulting in 
minimal interaction with TA center staff and including one-time, 
invited or offered conference presentations by TA center staff. This 
category of TA also includes information or products, such as 
newsletters, guidebooks, or research syntheses, downloaded from the 
TA center's website by independent users. Brief communications by TA 
center staff with recipients, either by telephone or email, are also 
considered universal, general TA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (A) The knowledge developed through the research methods described 
in paragraph (b)(4)(i) of these application and administrative 
requirements;
    (B) The tools and products developed through the activities 
described in paragraph (b)(5)(i) of these application and 
administrative requirements; and
    (C) The lessons learned from the delivery of intensive TA on IEP 
development and implementation.
    (6) Develop products and implement services that are impartial and 
maximize efficiency. To address this requirement, the applicant must 
describe--
    (i) How the proposed project will ensure that its products and 
services are not designed to influence the enrollment or placement 
decisions of parents of children with disabilities and are designed to 
support services for children with disabilities equally, regardless of 
placement;
    (ii) How the proposed project will use technology to achieve the 
intended project outcomes;
    (iii) How the proposed project will collaborate with other 
organizations and Department-funded TA centers, including parent 
centers, and the intended outcomes of this collaboration; and

[[Page 38609]]

    (iv) 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 project evaluation,'' include an evaluation plan for the project as 
described in the following paragraphs. The evaluation plan must 
describe: Measures of progress in implementation, including the 
criteria for determining the extent to which the project's products and 
services have met the goals for reaching its target population; 
measures of intended outcomes or results of the project's activities in 
order to evaluate those activities; and how well the goals or 
objectives of the proposed project, as described in its logic model, 
have been met. Applicants must also include a proposed plan for 
collecting baseline, targeted, and outcome data for each intensive TA 
site.
    The applicant must provide an assurance that, in designing the 
evaluation plan, it will--
    (1) Designate, with the approval of the Office of Special Education 
Programs (OSEP) project officer, a project liaison staff person with 
sufficient dedicated time, experience in evaluation, and knowledge of 
the project to work in collaboration with the Center to Improve Program 
and Project Performance (CIP3),\9\ the project director, and the OSEP 
project officer on the following tasks:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The major tasks of CIP3 are to guide, coordinate, and 
oversee the design of formative evaluations for every large 
discretionary investment (i.e., those awarded $500,000 or more per 
year and required to participate in the 3+2 process) in OSEP's 
Technical Assistance and Dissemination; Personnel Development; 
Parent Training and Information Centers; and Educational Technology, 
Media, and Materials programs. The efforts of CIP3 are expected to 
enhance individual project evaluation plans by providing expert and 
unbiased TA in designing the evaluations with due consideration of 
the project's budget. CIP3 does not function as a third-party 
evaluator.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (i) Revise, as needed, the logic model submitted in the application 
to provide for a more comprehensive measurement of implementation and 
outcomes and to reflect any changes or clarifications to the model 
discussed at the kick-off meeting;
    (ii) Refine the evaluation design and instrumentation proposed in 
the application consistent with the logic model (e.g., prepare 
evaluation questions about significant program processes and outcomes; 
develop quantitative or qualitative data collections that permit both 
the collection of progress data, including fidelity of implementation, 
as appropriate, and the assessment of project outcomes; and identify 
analytic strategies); and
    (iii) Revise, as needed, the evaluation plan submitted in the 
application such that it clearly--
    (A) Specifies the measures and associated instruments or sources 
for data appropriate to the evaluation questions, suggests analytic 
strategies for those data, provides a timeline for conducting the 
evaluation, and includes staff assignments for completing the plan;
    (B) Delineates the data expected to be available by the end of the 
second project year for use during the project's evaluation (3+2 
review) for continued funding described under the heading Fourth and 
Fifth Years of the Project; and
    (C) Can be used to assist the project director and the OSEP project 
officer, with the assistance of CIP3, as needed, to specify the 
performance measures to be addressed in the project's annual 
performance report;
    (2) Cooperate with CIP3 staff in order to accomplish the tasks 
described in paragraph (c)(1) of this section; and
    (3) Dedicate sufficient funds in each budget year to cover the 
costs of carrying out the tasks described in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) 
of this section and implementing the evaluation plan.
    (d) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under 
``Adequacy of resources and quality of project personnel,'' 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) How key project personnel and any consultants and 
subcontractors will be allocated and how these allocations are 
appropriate and adequate to achieve the project's intended outcomes;
    (3) How the proposed management plan will ensure that the products 
and services provided are of high quality, relevant, and useful to 
recipients; and
    (4) How 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 two-day kick-off meeting in Washington, DC, after receipt of 
the award, and an annual planning meeting, with the OSEP project 
officer and other relevant staff during each subsequent year of the 
project period.

    Note:  Within 30 days of receipt of the award, a post-award 
teleconference must be held between the OSEP project officer and the 
grantee's project director or other authorized representative;

    (ii) A two-and-one-half day project directors' conference in 
Washington, DC, during each year of the project period;
    (iii) Three annual two-day trips to attend Department briefings, 
Department-sponsored conferences, and other meetings, as requested by 
OSEP; and
    (iv) A two-day intensive 3+2 review meeting during the second year 
of the project period;
    (3) Include, in the budget, a line item for an annual set-aside of 
10 percent of the grant amount to support emerging needs and future 
Department policy initiatives that are consistent with the proposed 
project's intended outcomes, as those needs and initiatives 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; and
    (4) Maintain a high-quality website, with an easy-to-navigate 
design, that

[[Page 38610]]

meets government or industry-recognized standards for accessibility;
    (5) Ensure that annual project progress toward meeting project 
goals is posted on the project website; and
    (6) 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 a new award 
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.
    Under 34 CFR 75.253, the Secretary may reduce continuation awards 
or discontinue awards in any year of the project period for excessive 
carryover balances or a failure to make substantial progress. The 
Department intends to closely monitor unobligated balances and 
substantial progress under this program and may reduce or discontinue 
funding accordingly.
    Waiver of Proposed Rulemaking: Under the Administrative Procedure 
Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553) the Department generally offers interested 
parties the opportunity to comment on proposed priorities. Section 
681(d) of IDEA, however, makes the public comment requirements of the 
APA inapplicable to the priority in this notice.
    Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 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: $2,000,000.
    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.
    Maximum Award: We will not make an award exceeding $2,000,000 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; LEAs, including public charter schools that are considered 
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: 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 70 pages 
and (2) use the following standards:
     A ``page'' is 8.5'' x 11'', on one side only, with 1Prime; 
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:

[[Page 38611]]

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

[[Page 38612]]

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)), 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.
    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).
    The Department will also closely monitor the extent to which the 
products and services provided by the Center meet needs identified by 
stakeholders and may require the Center

[[Page 38613]]

to report on such alignment in their annual and final performance 
reports.
    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 5081A, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 
20202-5076. 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. 2019-16809 Filed 8-6-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4000-01-P