Applications for New Awards; Technical Assistance and Dissemination To Improve Services and Results for Children With Disabilities-National Technical Assistance Center for Systemic Improvement, 38950-38958 [2019-17059]
Download as PDF
38950
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 153 / Thursday, August 8, 2019 / Notices
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with NOTICES
Department’s information collection
requirements and provide the requested
data in the desired format. ED is
soliciting comments on the proposed
information collection request (ICR) that
is described below. The Department of
Education is especially interested in
public comment addressing the
following issues: (1) Is this collection
necessary to the proper functions of the
Department; (2) will this information be
processed and used in a timely manner;
(3) is the estimate of burden accurate;
(4) how might the Department enhance
the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and (5) how
might the Department minimize the
burden of this collection on the
respondents, including through the use
of information technology. Please note
that written comments received in
response to this notice will be
considered public records.
Title of Collection: Federal Perkins
Loan Program Regulations.
OMB Control Number: 1845–0023.
Type of Review: An extension of an
existing information collection.
Respondents/Affected Public:
Individuals or Households; State, Local,
and Tribal Governments; Private Sector.
Total Estimated Number of Annual
Responses: 8,217,172.
Total Estimated Number of Annual
Burden Hours: 149,369.
Abstract: Institutions of higher
education made Federal Perkins loans.
This information is necessary to monitor
a school’s due diligence in its contact
with the borrower regarding repayment,
billing and collections, reimbursement
to its Perkins loan revolving fund,
rehabilitation of defaulted loans as well
as institutions use of third party
collections. There has been no change to
the regulations this is a request for an
extension of the currently approved
reporting and record-keeping
requirements contained in the
regulations related to the administrative
requirements of the Perkins Loan
Program.
Dated: August 5, 2019.
Kate Mullan,
PRA Coordinator, Information Collection
Clearance Program, Information Management
Branch, Office of the Chief Information
Officer.
[FR Doc. 2019–17012 Filed 8–7–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000–01–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Aug 07, 2019
Jkt 247001
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Applications for New Awards;
Technical Assistance and
Dissemination To Improve Services
and Results for Children With
Disabilities—National Technical
Assistance Center for Systemic
Improvement
Office of Special Education and
Rehabilitative Services, Department of
Education.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
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 National Technical
Assistance Center for Systemic
Improvement, Catalog of Federal
Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number
84.326R. This Center will provide
differentiated support to States to help
them best use their general supervision
and professional development (PD)
systems to establish and meet high
expectations for each child with a
disability. This notice relates to the
approved information collection under
OMB control number 1820–0028.
DATES:
Applications Available: August 8,
2019.
Deadline for Transmittal of
Applications: September 9, 2019.
Pre-Application Webinar Information:
No later than August 13, 2019, OSERS
will post pre-recorded informational
webinars designed to provide technical
assistance (TA) 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 13, 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 27, 2019. After the
blog closes, applicants should direct
questions to the person listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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-201902-13/pdf/2019-02206.pdf.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Perry Williams, U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW,
Room 5131, Potomac Center Plaza,
Washington, DC 20202–5076.
Telephone: (202) 245–7575. Email:
Perry.Williams@ed.gov.
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:
ADDRESSES:
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:
National Technical Assistance and
Dissemination Center for Systemic
Improvement (Center).
Background:
The Department has worked
extensively with States to ensure
meaningful access to special education
and related services for children with
disabilities (CWD) and has noted
significant improvements in compliance
with the IDEA requirements over the
last decade. However, educational
outcomes in reading and math, as well
E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM
08AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 153 / Thursday, August 8, 2019 / Notices
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with NOTICES
as graduation rates, for CWD continue to
lag those of children without
disabilities. Results of the 2017 National
Assessment of Educational Progress
(NAEP) in reading and mathematics
show the performance of students with
disabilities, excluding those with a 504
plan, to be significantly lower than the
performance of students without
disabilities. In fact, since 2009,
performance of students with
disabilities, excluding those with a 504
plan, has decreased in 4th and 8th grade
mathematics and 4th grade reading.
Even where performance improved on
the 8th grade reading assessment, the
gap between students with disabilities,
excluding those with a 504 plan, and
those without disabilities increased
from 2009 to 2017. Recent data from
2016 to 2017 show that high school
graduation rates for all children was 85
percent while the graduation rate for
CWD was 66 percent (National Center
for Education Statistics, 2019).
States have an important role to play
in increasing equal opportunity and
improving educational outcomes for
CWD, and in reducing the persistent
gaps in performance between children
with and without disabilities
(Tomasello & Brand, 2018). The
Elementary and Secondary Education
Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended by the
Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015
(ESSA), and the IDEA, reauthorized in
2004, provide States the opportunity to
align State plans, priorities, support to
local educational agencies (LEAs), and
multiple existing efforts across general
and special education programs to help
close achievement gaps and improve
educational outcomes for all children,
including CWD.
ESSA contains several key provisions
that align with IDEA. States can align
ESSA and IDEA implementation efforts
to ensure that they—
(1) Effectively support children with
the most significant cognitive
disabilities to increase access to the
general education curriculum;
(2) Maintain inclusion of all CWD in
accountability systems;
(3) Promote the use of evidencebased 1 practices (EBPs) to provide
intervention and support to LEAs in
need of improvement; and
(4) Include meaningful and authentic
stakeholder engagement in all aspects of
the planning and implementation
1 For the purposes of this priority, ‘‘evidencebased’’ means, at a minimum, 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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Aug 07, 2019
Jkt 247001
process (National Council on Disability,
2018).
Additionally, ESSA and IDEA
underscore the importance of a shared,
integrated, and systemic approach to
supporting LEAs and schools, and they
provide States with a framework to
design their accountability systems to
improve outcomes for all children. In
2012, OSEP shifted its accountability
framework from a predominant focus on
compliance with Federal regulations
toward an approach of monitoring and
supporting States’ implementation of
both the results and compliance
provisions of IDEA, termed ResultsDriven Accountability (RDA).2
RDA has provided States with an
increased opportunity to rethink,
reshape, and refocus the components of
their general supervision system 3 by
incorporating and using child-level
results data to inform decisions related
to monitoring, local determinations, and
other accountability efforts. One of the
major components of RDA within the
State Performance Plan (SPP)/Annual
Performance Report (APR) that has
garnered support and interest from
States is the State Systemic
Improvement Plan (SSIP). Each State
was required to submit an SSIP as part
of its SPP/APR beginning in Federal
Fiscal Year 2013. Each State identified
a State Identified Measurable Result
(SIMR) under Part B of IDEA. The SSIP
contains three phases: (1) Analysis of
data and other information to provide a
foundation for the SSIP; (2)
development of the plan to improve
results; and (3) implementation and
evaluation of the plan. States are using
the SSIP, a comprehensive, multiyear
plan that is focused on improving a
SIMR, to leverage resources and
enhance their infrastructure and better
implement IDEA with an emphasis on
improving outcomes for CWD in Stateselected areas such as reading,
mathematics, or graduation. Each phase
of the SSIP requires stakeholder
engagement for decision-making and
prioritizing outcomes.
All States have developed their SSIPs
and are now heavily engaged in
capacity-building efforts to implement
2 Results-Driven Accountability includes three
components: (1) The State Performance Plan (SPP)/
Annual Performance Report (APR); (2) annual State
determinations; and (3) differentiated monitoring
and support.
3 ‘‘General supervision system’’ refers to a State’s
system for ensuring compliance and improving
results and includes the SPP; policies, procedures,
and effective implementation; integrated
monitoring activities; fiscal management; data on
processes and results; improvement, correction,
incentives, and sanctions; effective dispute
resolution; and targeted TA and professional
development.
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
38951
and evaluate improvement efforts and
report progress under four main
elements of the SSIP Phase III report,
which are: (1) Data collection, analysis,
and use to inform decision-making; (2)
development of infrastructure
improvement strategies necessary to
support, sustain, and scale-up system
improvement efforts; (3) selection and
use of EBPs that are implemented with
fidelity; and (4) engagement of diverse
stakeholders to implement key
improvement strategies and inform
decision-making within the State
system. These elements also align with
key capacity-building components of
ESSA implementation.
OSEP’s review of States’ submitted
SSIPs in 2018 and a National Center for
Learning Disabilities (NCLD) report,
Assessing ESSA: Missed Opportunities
for Children with Disabilities, indicate
there are still multiple challenges that
affect States’ abilities to successfully
align and implement their ESSA State
plans and establish strong
comprehensive accountability systems
to support schools that struggle to
improve results for CWD (NCLD, 2018).
Specifically, those challenges include
tracking implementation of EBPs and
determining whether they have been
implemented with fidelity, high
turnover rates of staff at various levels
across the State educational agency
(SEA) and in LEAs, effective systems
alignment with general education
efforts, supporting LEAs in selecting
and implementing EBPs to meet the
needs of children with increasingly high
intensity and complex needs (e.g.,
exposure to opioids), establishing multitiered systems of support (MTSS) to
provide differentiated TA to LEAs,
evaluation of their SSIPs’ infrastructure
improvement strategies, leveraging
fiscal systems to achieve desired
outcomes, designing and implementing
professional development that meets the
individual needs of teachers, and
revising general supervision systems to
include results as an integral
component.
The Center will engage in
collaborative TA activities with other
Department-funded TA centers, and it
will broaden, deepen, and facilitate
systems alignment within State
programs and engagement with existing
State TA and PD systems. In addition,
the Center will assist SEAs with
ensuring stakeholder engagement and
support to meet shared goals and
identify and remove barriers for
improving results for CWD. The Center
must be operated in a manner consistent
with nondiscrimination requirements
contained in the U.S. Constitution and
Federal civil rights laws.
E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM
08AUN1
38952
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 153 / Thursday, August 8, 2019 / Notices
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with NOTICES
Further, we acknowledge that States
are in the best position to determine
implementation of their programs, and
as such, the Center will be required to
customize its TA to meet each State’s
specific identified needs and leverage
their resources to meet those needs.
Priority:
The purpose of this priority is to fund
a cooperative agreement to establish and
operate a National Technical Assistance
Center for Systemic Improvement
(Center). The Center must achieve, at a
minimum, the following expected
outcomes:
(a) Increased capacity of SEAs to align
with broader general education
initiatives to ensure ESSA and IDEA
implementation best supports the needs
of CWD;
(b) Increased capacity of SEAs to
effectively implement their general
supervision systems that serve to
improve results for CWD, while
maintaining compliance with the IDEA;
(c) Increased capacity of SEAs to
effectively implement, evaluate, and
revise (as necessary) their SSIPs and
ensure progress toward meeting their
SIMR;
(d) Increased effectiveness of SEAs in
meaningfully and authentically
engaging diverse State (including Statelevel partnerships) 4 and local
stakeholders in ways that will support
the effective implementation of ESSA
and IDEA;
(e) Increased capacity of SEAs to
support LEAs in selecting and
implementing EBPs within frameworks
(e.g., MTSS such as positive behavioral
interventions and supports (PBIS),
response to intervention (RTI), and
others);
(f) Increased capacity of SEAs to fully
engage families, including partnerships
with OSEP-funded parent centers and
the Office of Elementary and Secondary
Education (OESE) Statewide Family
Engagement Centers in the
implementation of systemic
improvement efforts;
(g) Increased capacity of SEAs to
deliver effective TA to LEAs using an
aligned TA model grounded in
implementation and improvement
sciences through collaboration with
OSEP-funded TA centers; and
(h) Improved access to objective
information for families and youth with
disabilities on the range of quality
educational options 5 and supports.
4 For the purposes of this priority, ‘‘State-level
partnerships’’ refers to State affiliates of nationally
recognized professional and family networks that
form an infrastructure for policy development,
dissemination of information, interaction, and
learning.
5 For the purpose of this priority, ‘‘educational
options’’ means the opportunity for a child or
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Aug 07, 2019
Jkt 247001
Note: The OSEP-funded TA related to
young children (ages birth through five)
with disabilities, and the IDEA Part C
and Part B section 619 programs, will
primarily be provided by the centers
funded under CFDA numbers 84.325B,
84.326B, 84.326P, and 84.373Z. This
Center will focus on providing TA to
SEAs to implement Part B of the IDEA,
which serves children ages 3 through
21, and will develop products or
provide TA to SEAs on issues that
impact the entire Part B system, such as
general supervision or SSIP
implementation. Consequently, this
Center generally will respond to a State
request for products or TA on issues
solely associated with CWD ages birth
through 5, such as preschool least
restrictive environments, early
childhood outcomes, and early
childhood transition, by referring the
State to one or more other OSEP-funded
centers that focus on such issues.
In addition to these programmatic
requirements, to be considered for
funding under this priority, applicants
must meet the application and
administrative requirements in this
priority, which are:
(a) Demonstrate, in the narrative
section of the application under
‘‘Significance,’’ how the proposed
project will—
(1) Address the current and emerging
needs of SEAs to meet ESSA and IDEA
requirements by aligning structures and
improving processes within and across
levels of the system to support the
implementation and evaluation of their
State plans; appropriately apply
coherent improvement strategies, based
student (or a family member on their behalf) to
create a high-quality personalized path for learning
that is consistent with applicable Federal, State,
and local laws; is in an educational setting that best
meets the child’s or student’s needs; and, where
possible, incorporates evidence-based activities,
strategies, or interventions. Opportunities made
available to a child or student through a grant
program are those that supplement what is
provided by a child’s or student’s geographically
assigned school or the institution in which he or
she is currently enrolled and may include one or
more of the following options: (1) Public
educational programs or courses, including those
offered by traditional public schools, public charter
schools, public magnet schools, public online
education providers, or other public education
providers; (2) Private or home-based educational
programs or courses, including those offered by
private schools, private online providers, private
tutoring providers, community or faith-based
organizations, or other private education providers;
(3) Part-time coursework or career preparation,
offered by a public or private provider in person or
through the internet or another form of distance
learning, that serves as a supplement to full-time
enrollment at an educational institution, as a standalone program leading to a credential, or as a
supplement to education received in a homeschool
setting; and (4) Other educational services,
including credit-recovery, accelerated learning, or
tutoring.
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
on thorough data analyses, that are
aligned to current efforts to improve
outcomes for all CWD; provide effective
TA on how to implement EBPs with
fidelity; meaningfully and authentically
engage diverse stakeholders (including
State-level partnerships); assist States in
evaluating their implementation efforts
and their impact; and ensure the
effective implementation of their
results-based general supervision
systems to support effective
implementation of the IDEA.
To meet this requirement the
applicant must—
(i) Demonstrate knowledge of current
educational issues and policy initiatives
relating to ongoing challenges with
implementing ESSA and IDEA
alignment efforts by SEAs to target and
support LEA improvement efforts;
(ii) Present information and data
about the current capacity of SEAs to
support systemic change, and how the
Center will address this challenge to
enhance SEA capacity to support LEAs
to implement, scale-up, and sustain
EBPs with fidelity;
(iii) Demonstrate knowledge of
current educational issues and policy
initiatives and the range of quality
educational options that may be
available in States to families of CWD
and how the Center will provide TA and
information dissemination to SEAs that
increase opportunities and outcomes for
CWD and their families;
(iv) Describe how the Center will
engage diverse stakeholders (including
State-level partnerships), local
stakeholders, and Department-funded
parent and statewide family engagement
centers in the SEAs’ decision-making
processes to ensure effective
implementation and evaluation of the
SSIP and other State initiatives that
establish high expectations and
improved outcomes for CWD; and
(v) Identify and engage with existing
State TA and dissemination systems to
assist the Center with supporting
statewide systemic improvement efforts.
(2) Improve SEA infrastructure (e.g.,
governance, fiscal systems, quality
standards, PD, data sharing and
analysis, TA, and accountability/
monitoring) so SEAs can effectively
implement the IDEA and their SSIPs.
Applicants must indicate the likely
magnitude or importance of the
improvements.
(3) Collaborate and engage with other
Department and OSEP-funded TA
Centers (e.g., PBIS Center; Collaboration
for Effective Educator Development,
Accountability, and Reform (CEEDAR)
Center; and the State Implementation
and Scaling-up of Evidence-based
Practices (SISEP) Center) to incorporate
E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM
08AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 153 / Thursday, August 8, 2019 / Notices
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with NOTICES
a problem-solving logic and multi-tiered
approach in the TA provided to SEAs to
address equity issues and effectively
and efficiently support the
implementation of SSIPs and improve
States’ general supervision systems.
(b) Demonstrate, in the narrative
section of the application under
‘‘Quality of the project services,’’ how
the proposed project will—
(1) Ensure equal access and treatment
for members of groups that have
traditionally been underrepresented
based on race, color, national origin,
gender, age, or disability. To meet this
requirement, the applicant must
describe how it will—
(i) Identify the needs of the intended
recipients for TA and information; and
(ii) Ensure that services and products
meet the needs of the intended
recipients of the grant;
(2) Achieve its goals, objectives, and
intended outcomes. To meet this
requirement, the applicant must
provide—
(i) Measurable intended project
outcomes; and
(ii) In Appendix A, the logic model 6
by which the proposed project will
achieve its intended outcomes that
depicts, at a minimum, the goals,
activities, outputs, and intended
outcomes of the proposed project;
(3) Use a conceptual framework (and
provide a copy in Appendix A) to
develop project plans and activities,
describing any underlying concepts,
assumptions, expectations, beliefs, or
theories, as well as the presumed
relationships or linkages among these
variables, and any empirical support for
this framework;
Note: The following websites provide
more information on logic models and
conceptual frameworks:
www.osepideasthatwork.org/logicModel
and www.osepideasthatwork.org/
resources-grantees/program-areas/ta-ta/
tad-project-logic-model-and-conceptualframework.
(4) Be based on current research and
make use of EBPs. To meet this
requirement, the applicant must
describe—
(i) The current research on the
assessment of infrastructure
development that builds capacity in
SEAs and LEAs to implement, scale-up,
and sustain the use of EBPs;
(ii) The current research about adult
learning principles, as well as
6 Logic model (as defined in 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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Aug 07, 2019
Jkt 247001
implementation and improvement
science, that will inform the proposed
TA; and
(iii) How the proposed project will
incorporate current research and EBPs
in the development and delivery of its
products and services;
(5) Develop products and provide
services that are of high quality and
sufficient intensity and duration to
achieve the intended outcomes of the
proposed project. To address this
requirement, the applicant must
describe—
(i) How it proposes to identify or
develop the knowledge base on how to
implement components of a
comprehensive SSIP and effective
general supervision and PD systems;
(ii) Its proposed approach to
universal, general TA,7 which must
identify the intended recipients,
including the type and number of
recipients, that will receive the products
and services, a description of the
products and services that the Center
proposes to make available, and the
expected impact of those products and
services under this approach;
(iii) Its proposed approach to targeted,
specialized TA,8 which must identify—
(A) The intended recipients,
including the type and number of
recipients, that will receive the products
and services, a description of the
products and services that the Center
proposes to make available, and the
expected impact of those products and
services under this approach; and
(B) Its proposed approach to measure
the readiness of potential TA recipients
to work with the project, assessing, at a
minimum, their current infrastructure,
available resources, and ability to build
capacity at the local level; and
7 ‘‘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 onetime, 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.
8 ‘‘Targeted, specialized TA’’ means TA services
based on needs common to multiple recipients and
not extensively individualized. A relationship is
established between the TA recipient and one or
more TA center staff. This category of TA includes
one-time, labor-intensive events, such as facilitating
strategic planning or hosting regional or national
conferences. It can also include episodic, less laborintensive events that extend over a period of time,
such as facilitating a series of conference calls on
single or multiple topics that are designed around
the needs of the recipients. Facilitating
communities of practice can also be considered
targeted, specialized TA.
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
38953
(iv) Its proposed approach to
intensive, sustained TA,9 which must
identify—
(A) The intended recipients,
including the type and number of
recipients, that will receive the products
and services, a description of the
products and services that the Center
proposes to make available, and the
expected impact of those products and
services under this approach;
(B) Its proposed approach to measure
the readiness of SEAs to work with the
project, including their commitment to
the initiative, alignment of the initiative
to their needs, current infrastructure,
available resources, and ability of the
SEAs to build capacity at the local level;
(C) Its proposed plan to prioritize TA
recipients whose most recent annual
determination by the Secretary was that
the State needs intervention under
section 616(d)(2)(A)(iii) of IDEA or
needs substantial intervention under
section 616(d)(2)(A)(iv) of IDEA in
implementing the requirements of Part
B of IDEA.
(C) Its proposed plan for assisting
SEAs to build or enhance PD systems
based on adult learning principles and
that include sustained coaching; and
(D) Its proposed plan for working with
appropriate levels of the education
system (e.g., SEAs, educational service
agencies (ESAs), LEAs, other TA
providers, parents and families) to
ensure that there is communication
between each level and that there are
systems in place to support
implementation of EBPs;
(6) Develop products and implement
services that maximize efficiency. To
address this requirement, the applicant
must describe—
(i) How the proposed project will use
technology to achieve the intended
project outcomes;
(ii) With whom the proposed project
will collaborate and the intended
outcomes of this collaboration, which
must include—
(A) How the proposed project will
collaborate with other Department and
OSEP-funded TA centers working with
SEAs to effectively support the
implementation of SSIPs and improve
States’ general supervision; and
(B) How the proposed project will
collaborate with OSEP-funded TA
centers working in early childhood
9 ‘‘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.
E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM
08AUN1
38954
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 153 / Thursday, August 8, 2019 / Notices
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with NOTICES
systems to align TA on infrastructure
development and system improvement
efforts between early childhood
agencies and the SEA; and
(iii) How the proposed project will
use non-project resources to achieve the
intended project outcomes.
In the narrative section of the
application under ‘‘Quality of the
evaluation plan,’’ include an evaluation
plan for the project as described in the
following paragraphs.
The evaluation plan must describe:
Measures of progress in
implementation, including the criteria
for determining the extent to which the
project’s products and services have met
the goals for reaching its target
population; measures of intended
outcomes or results of the project’s
activities in order to evaluate those
activities; and how well the goals or
objectives of the proposed project, as
described in its logic model, have been
met.
The applicant must provide an
assurance that, in designing the
evaluation plan, it will—
(1) Designate, with the approval of the
OSEP project officer, a project liaison
staff person with sufficient dedicated
time, experience in evaluation, and
knowledge of the project to work in
collaboration with the Center to
Improve Program and Project
Performance (CIP3),10 the project
director, and the OSEP project officer on
the following tasks:
(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
10 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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Aug 07, 2019
Jkt 247001
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 (1) of this section; and
(3) Dedicate sufficient funds in each
budget year to cover the costs of
carrying out the tasks described in
paragraphs (1) and (2) of this section
and implementing the evaluation plan.
(d) Demonstrate, in the narrative
section of the application under
‘‘Adequacy of 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—
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
(i) Clearly defined responsibilities for
key project personnel, consultants, and
subcontractors, as applicable; and
(ii) Timelines and milestones for
accomplishing the project tasks;
(2) Key project personnel and any
consultants and subcontractors will be
allocated and how these allocations are
appropriate and adequate to achieve the
project’s intended outcomes;
(3) The proposed management plan
will ensure that the products and
services provided are of high quality,
relevant, and useful to recipients; and
(4) The proposed project will benefit
from a diversity of perspectives,
including those of families, educators,
TA providers, researchers, and policy
makers, among others, in its
development and operation.
(f) Address the following application
requirements. The applicant must—
(1) Include, in Appendix A,
personnel-loading charts and timelines,
as applicable, to illustrate the
management plan described in the
narrative;
(2) Include, in the budget, attendance
at the following:
(i) A one and one-half day kick-off
meeting in Washington, DC, after receipt
of the award, and an annual planning
meeting, with the OSEP project officer
and other relevant staff during each
subsequent year of the project period.
Note: Within 30 days of receipt of the
award, a post-award teleconference
must be held between the OSEP project
officer and the grantee’s project director
or other authorized representative;
(ii) A two and one-half day project
directors’ conference in Washington,
DC, during each year of the project
period;
(iii) Two annual trips to attend
Department briefings, Departmentsponsored conferences, and other
meetings, as requested by OSEP; and
(iv) A one-day intensive 3+2 review
meeting during the last half of the
second year of the project period;
(3) Include, in the budget, a line item
for an annual set-aside of five percent of
the grant amount to support emerging
needs that are consistent with the
proposed project’s intended outcomes,
as those needs are identified in
consultation with, and approved by, the
OSEP project officer. With approval
from the OSEP project officer, the
project must reallocate any remaining
funds from this annual set-aside no later
than the end of the third quarter of each
budget period;
(4) Maintain a high-quality website,
with an easy-to-navigate design, that
meets government or industryrecognized standards for accessibility;
E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM
08AUN1
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 153 / Thursday, August 8, 2019 / Notices
(5) Ensure that annual 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 TA recipients during the
transition to this new award period and
at the end of this award period, as
appropriate.
Fourth and Fifth Years of the Project:
In deciding whether to continue
funding the project for the fourth and
fifth years, the Secretary will consider
the requirements of 34 CFR 75.253(a), as
well as—
(a) The recommendation of a 3+2
review team consisting of experts
selected by the Secretary. This review
will be conducted during a one-day
intensive meeting that will be held
during the last half of the second year
of the project period;
(b) The timeliness with which, and
how well, the requirements of the
negotiated cooperative agreement have
been or are being met by the project; and
(c) The quality, relevance, and
usefulness of the project’s products and
services and the extent to which the
project’s products and services are
aligned with the project’s objectives and
likely to result in the project achieving
its intended outcomes.
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.
References:
National Center for Learning Disabilities
(NCLD). (2018). Accessing ESSA:
Missed opportunities for children
with disabilities. Retrieved from
www.ncld.org/archives/actioncenter/what-we-ve-done/newreport-assessing-essa-missedopportunities-for-children-withdisabilities.
National Council on Disabilities (NCD).
(2018). (IDEA series) Every Student
Succeeds Act and students with
disabilities. Retrieved from https://
ncd.gov/sites/default/files/NCD_
ESSA-SWD_Accessible.pdf.
Snyder, T.D., de Brey, C., & Dillow, S.A.
(2019). Digest of Education
Statistics 2017 (NCES 2018–070).
National Center for Education
Statistics, Institute of Education
Sciences, U.S. Department of
Education. Washington, DC.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Aug 07, 2019
Jkt 247001
Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/
pubs2018/2018070.pdf.
Tomasello, J., & Brand, B. (2018).
American Youth Policy Forum
(AYPF). How ESSA and IDEA can
support college and career
readiness for children with
disabilities: Considerations for
States. Retrieved from
www.aypf.org/resource/publicationessa-idea-ccr-2018/. U.S.
Department of Education, Institute
of Education Sciences, National
Center for Education Statistics.
(2017). National Assessment of
Educational Progress (NAEP)
reading assessments. Accessed
through the NAEP Data Explorer at
https://nces.ed.gov/
nationsreportcard/naepdata/.
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:
$6,250,000.
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 $31,250,000 for a
project period of 60 months.
Note: Applicants must describe, in
their applications, the amount of
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
38955
funding being requested for each 12month budget period.
Estimated Number of Awards: 1.
Note: The Department is not bound by
any estimates in this notice.
Project Period: Up to 60 months.
III. Eligibility Information
1. Eligible Applicants: SEAs; LEAs,
including public charter schools that
operate as LEAs under State law; IHEs;
other public agencies; private nonprofit
organizations; freely associated States
and outlying areas; Indian Tribes or
Tribal organizations; and for-profit
organizations.
2. Cost Sharing or Matching: This
program does not require cost sharing or
matching.
3. Subgrantees: 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: (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.
E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM
08AUN1
38956
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 153 / Thursday, August 8, 2019 / Notices
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with NOTICES
4. Recommended Page Limit: The
application narrative (Part III of the
application) is where you, the applicant,
address the selection criteria that
reviewers use to evaluate your
application. We recommend that you (1)
limit the application narrative to no
more than 70 pages and (2) use the
following standards:
• A ‘‘page’’ is 8.5″ x 11″, on one side
only, with 1″ margins at the top, bottom,
and both sides.
• Double space (no more than three
lines per vertical inch) all text in the
application narrative, including titles,
headings, footnotes, quotations,
reference citations, and captions, as well
as all text in charts, tables, figures,
graphs, and screen shots.
• Use a font that is 12 point or larger.
• Use one of the following fonts:
Times New Roman, Courier, Courier
New, or Arial.
The recommended page limit does not
apply to Part I, the cover sheet; Part II,
the budget section, including the
narrative budget justification; Part IV,
the assurances and certifications; or the
abstract (follow the guidance provided
in the application package for
completing the abstract), the table of
contents, the list of priority
requirements, the resumes, the reference
list, the letters of support, or the
appendices. However, the
recommended page limit does apply to
all of the application narrative,
including all text in charts, tables,
figures, graphs, and screen shots.
V. Application Review Information
1. Selection Criteria: The selection
criteria for this competition are from 34
CFR 75.210 and are as follows:
(a) Significance (10 points).
(1) The Secretary considers the
significance of the proposed project.
(2) In determining the significance of
the proposed project, the Secretary
considers the following factors:
(i) The extent to which specific gaps
or weaknesses in services,
infrastructure, or opportunities have
been identified and will be addressed by
the proposed project, including the
nature and magnitude of those gaps or
weaknesses.
(ii) The importance or magnitude of
the results or outcomes likely to be
attained by the proposed project.
(iii) The extent to which the proposed
project is supported by promising
evidence (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1(c)).
(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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Aug 07, 2019
Jkt 247001
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.
(vi) The adequacy of mechanisms for
ensuring high-quality products and
services from the proposed project.
(c) Quality of the project evaluation
(15 points).
(1) The Secretary considers the
quality of the evaluation to be
conducted of the proposed project.
(2) In determining the quality of the
evaluation, the Secretary considers the
following factors:
(i) The extent to which the methods
of evaluation are thorough, feasible, and
appropriate to the goals, objectives, and
outcomes of the proposed project.
(ii) The extent to which the methods
of evaluation 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).
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
(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
(25 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.
E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM
08AUN1
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 153 / Thursday, August 8, 2019 / Notices
(iv) How the applicant will ensure
that a diversity of perspectives are
brought to bear in the operation of the
proposed project, including those of
parents, teachers, the business
community, a variety of disciplinary
and professional fields, recipients or
beneficiaries of services, or others, as
appropriate.
2. Review and Selection Process: We
remind potential applicants that in
reviewing applications in any
discretionary grant competition, the
Secretary may consider, under 34 CFR
75.217(d)(3), the past performance of the
applicant in carrying out a previous
award, such as the applicant’s use of
funds, achievement of project
objectives, and compliance with grant
conditions. The Secretary may also
consider whether the applicant failed to
submit a timely performance report or
submitted a report of unacceptable
quality.
In addition, in making a competitive
grant award, the Secretary requires
various assurances, including those
applicable to Federal civil rights laws
that prohibit discrimination in programs
or activities receiving Federal financial
assistance from the Department (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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Aug 07, 2019
Jkt 247001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
38957
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
E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM
08AUN1
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with NOTICES
38958
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 153 / Thursday, August 8, 2019 / Notices
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 evidencebased 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
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:51 Aug 07, 2019
Jkt 247001
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.
Dated: August 6, 2019.
Laurie VanderPloeg,
Director, Office of Special Education
Programs.
[FR Doc. 2019–17059 Filed 8–6–19; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4000–01–P
Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory
Committee
Office of Science, Department
of Energy.
ACTION: Notice of renewal.
AGENCY:
Pursuant to the Federal
Advisory Committee Act, and in
accordance with Title 41 of the Code of
Federal Regulations, and following
consultation with the Committee
Management Secretariat, General
Services Administration, notice is
hereby given that the Fusion Energy
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Signed in Washington, DC on August 2,
2019.
Rachael J. Beitler,
Acting Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 2019–16990 Filed 8–7–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Notice of Request for Information (RFI)
on Planning and Operation Models and
Data Analytics for Solar Grid
Integration
Solar Energy Technologies
Office, Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Request for information.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Department of
Energy Solar Energy Technologies
Office (SETO) is issuing this request for
information (RFI) to solicit feedback
from industry, academia, research
laboratories, government agencies, and
other stakeholders. This RFI will inform
SETO’s strategic planning on research
related to the integration of distributed
solar energy resources. Specifically, this
RFI will inform strategies relating to the
modeling, monitoring, predicting, and
controlling of solar photovoltaic (PV)
systems. As the penetration of solar PV
on the grid grows, these strategies will
become more important as grid
operators consider how solar adoption
SUMMARY:
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
SUMMARY:
Sciences Advisory Committee has been
renewed for a two-year period.
The Committee will provide advice to
the Office of Science (DOE), on longrange plans, priorities, and strategies for
advancing plasma science, fusion
science and fusion technology—the
knowledge base needed for an
economically and environmentally
attractive fusion energy source. The
Secretary of Energy has determined that
the renewal of the Fusion Energy
Sciences Advisory Committee is
essential to the conduct of the
Department’s business and in the public
interest in connection with the
performance of duties imposed upon the
Department of Energy by law. The
Committee will continue to operate in
accordance with the provisions of the
Federal Advisory Committee Act, the
Department of Energy Organization Act
(Pub. L. 95–91), the General Services
Administration Final Rule on Federal
Advisory Committee Management, and
other directives and instruction issued
in the implementation of those Acts.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Samuel J. Barish at (301) 903–2917 or
email: sam.barish@science.doe.gov.
E:\FR\FM\08AUN1.SGM
08AUN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 153 (Thursday, August 8, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38950-38958]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-17059]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Applications for New Awards; Technical Assistance and
Dissemination To Improve Services and Results for Children With
Disabilities--National Technical Assistance Center for Systemic
Improvement
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 National Technical Assistance Center for Systemic Improvement,
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number 84.326R. This
Center will provide differentiated support to States to help them best
use their general supervision and professional development (PD) systems
to establish and meet high expectations for each child with a
disability. This notice relates to the approved information collection
under OMB control number 1820-0028.
DATES:
Applications Available: August 8, 2019.
Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: September 9, 2019.
Pre-Application Webinar Information: No later than August 13, 2019,
OSERS will post pre-recorded informational webinars designed to provide
technical assistance (TA) 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 13, 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 27, 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: Perry Williams, U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 5131, Potomac Center Plaza,
Washington, DC 20202-5076. Telephone: (202) 245-7575. 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:
National Technical Assistance and Dissemination Center for Systemic
Improvement (Center).
Background:
The Department has worked extensively with States to ensure
meaningful access to special education and related services for
children with disabilities (CWD) and has noted significant improvements
in compliance with the IDEA requirements over the last decade. However,
educational outcomes in reading and math, as well
[[Page 38951]]
as graduation rates, for CWD continue to lag those of children without
disabilities. Results of the 2017 National Assessment of Educational
Progress (NAEP) in reading and mathematics show the performance of
students with disabilities, excluding those with a 504 plan, to be
significantly lower than the performance of students without
disabilities. In fact, since 2009, performance of students with
disabilities, excluding those with a 504 plan, has decreased in 4th and
8th grade mathematics and 4th grade reading. Even where performance
improved on the 8th grade reading assessment, the gap between students
with disabilities, excluding those with a 504 plan, and those without
disabilities increased from 2009 to 2017. Recent data from 2016 to 2017
show that high school graduation rates for all children was 85 percent
while the graduation rate for CWD was 66 percent (National Center for
Education Statistics, 2019).
States have an important role to play in increasing equal
opportunity and improving educational outcomes for CWD, and in reducing
the persistent gaps in performance between children with and without
disabilities (Tomasello & Brand, 2018). The Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended by the Every Student Succeeds
Act of 2015 (ESSA), and the IDEA, reauthorized in 2004, provide States
the opportunity to align State plans, priorities, support to local
educational agencies (LEAs), and multiple existing efforts across
general and special education programs to help close achievement gaps
and improve educational outcomes for all children, including CWD.
ESSA contains several key provisions that align with IDEA. States
can align ESSA and IDEA implementation efforts to ensure that they--
(1) Effectively support children with the most significant
cognitive disabilities to increase access to the general education
curriculum;
(2) Maintain inclusion of all CWD in accountability systems;
(3) Promote the use of evidence-based \1\ practices (EBPs) to
provide intervention and support to LEAs in need of improvement; and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For the purposes of this priority, ``evidence-based'' means,
at a minimum, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(4) Include meaningful and authentic stakeholder engagement in all
aspects of the planning and implementation process (National Council on
Disability, 2018).
Additionally, ESSA and IDEA underscore the importance of a shared,
integrated, and systemic approach to supporting LEAs and schools, and
they provide States with a framework to design their accountability
systems to improve outcomes for all children. In 2012, OSEP shifted its
accountability framework from a predominant focus on compliance with
Federal regulations toward an approach of monitoring and supporting
States' implementation of both the results and compliance provisions of
IDEA, termed Results-Driven Accountability (RDA).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Results-Driven Accountability includes three components: (1)
The State Performance Plan (SPP)/Annual Performance Report (APR);
(2) annual State determinations; and (3) differentiated monitoring
and support.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
RDA has provided States with an increased opportunity to rethink,
reshape, and refocus the components of their general supervision system
\3\ by incorporating and using child-level results data to inform
decisions related to monitoring, local determinations, and other
accountability efforts. One of the major components of RDA within the
State Performance Plan (SPP)/Annual Performance Report (APR) that has
garnered support and interest from States is the State Systemic
Improvement Plan (SSIP). Each State was required to submit an SSIP as
part of its SPP/APR beginning in Federal Fiscal Year 2013. Each State
identified a State Identified Measurable Result (SIMR) under Part B of
IDEA. The SSIP contains three phases: (1) Analysis of data and other
information to provide a foundation for the SSIP; (2) development of
the plan to improve results; and (3) implementation and evaluation of
the plan. States are using the SSIP, a comprehensive, multiyear plan
that is focused on improving a SIMR, to leverage resources and enhance
their infrastructure and better implement IDEA with an emphasis on
improving outcomes for CWD in State-selected areas such as reading,
mathematics, or graduation. Each phase of the SSIP requires stakeholder
engagement for decision-making and prioritizing outcomes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ ``General supervision system'' refers to a State's system
for ensuring compliance and improving results and includes the SPP;
policies, procedures, and effective implementation; integrated
monitoring activities; fiscal management; data on processes and
results; improvement, correction, incentives, and sanctions;
effective dispute resolution; and targeted TA and professional
development.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
All States have developed their SSIPs and are now heavily engaged
in capacity-building efforts to implement and evaluate improvement
efforts and report progress under four main elements of the SSIP Phase
III report, which are: (1) Data collection, analysis, and use to inform
decision-making; (2) development of infrastructure improvement
strategies necessary to support, sustain, and scale-up system
improvement efforts; (3) selection and use of EBPs that are implemented
with fidelity; and (4) engagement of diverse stakeholders to implement
key improvement strategies and inform decision-making within the State
system. These elements also align with key capacity-building components
of ESSA implementation.
OSEP's review of States' submitted SSIPs in 2018 and a National
Center for Learning Disabilities (NCLD) report, Assessing ESSA: Missed
Opportunities for Children with Disabilities, indicate there are still
multiple challenges that affect States' abilities to successfully align
and implement their ESSA State plans and establish strong comprehensive
accountability systems to support schools that struggle to improve
results for CWD (NCLD, 2018).
Specifically, those challenges include tracking implementation of
EBPs and determining whether they have been implemented with fidelity,
high turnover rates of staff at various levels across the State
educational agency (SEA) and in LEAs, effective systems alignment with
general education efforts, supporting LEAs in selecting and
implementing EBPs to meet the needs of children with increasingly high
intensity and complex needs (e.g., exposure to opioids), establishing
multi-tiered systems of support (MTSS) to provide differentiated TA to
LEAs, evaluation of their SSIPs' infrastructure improvement strategies,
leveraging fiscal systems to achieve desired outcomes, designing and
implementing professional development that meets the individual needs
of teachers, and revising general supervision systems to include
results as an integral component.
The Center will engage in collaborative TA activities with other
Department-funded TA centers, and it will broaden, deepen, and
facilitate systems alignment within State programs and engagement with
existing State TA and PD systems. In addition, the Center will assist
SEAs with ensuring stakeholder engagement and support to meet shared
goals and identify and remove barriers for improving results for CWD.
The Center must be operated in a manner consistent with
nondiscrimination requirements contained in the U.S. Constitution and
Federal civil rights laws.
[[Page 38952]]
Further, we acknowledge that States are in the best position to
determine implementation of their programs, and as such, the Center
will be required to customize its TA to meet each State's specific
identified needs and leverage their resources to meet those needs.
Priority:
The purpose of this priority is to fund a cooperative agreement to
establish and operate a National Technical Assistance Center for
Systemic Improvement (Center). The Center must achieve, at a minimum,
the following expected outcomes:
(a) Increased capacity of SEAs to align with broader general
education initiatives to ensure ESSA and IDEA implementation best
supports the needs of CWD;
(b) Increased capacity of SEAs to effectively implement their
general supervision systems that serve to improve results for CWD,
while maintaining compliance with the IDEA;
(c) Increased capacity of SEAs to effectively implement, evaluate,
and revise (as necessary) their SSIPs and ensure progress toward
meeting their SIMR;
(d) Increased effectiveness of SEAs in meaningfully and
authentically engaging diverse State (including State-level
partnerships) \4\ and local stakeholders in ways that will support the
effective implementation of ESSA and IDEA;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ For the purposes of this priority, ``State-level
partnerships'' refers to State affiliates of nationally recognized
professional and family networks that form an infrastructure for
policy development, dissemination of information, interaction, and
learning.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(e) Increased capacity of SEAs to support LEAs in selecting and
implementing EBPs within frameworks (e.g., MTSS such as positive
behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS), response to intervention
(RTI), and others);
(f) Increased capacity of SEAs to fully engage families, including
partnerships with OSEP-funded parent centers and the Office of
Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE) Statewide Family Engagement
Centers in the implementation of systemic improvement efforts;
(g) Increased capacity of SEAs to deliver effective TA to LEAs
using an aligned TA model grounded in implementation and improvement
sciences through collaboration with OSEP-funded TA centers; and
(h) Improved access to objective information for families and youth
with disabilities on the range of quality educational options \5\ and
supports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ For the purpose of this priority, ``educational options''
means the opportunity for a child or student (or a family member on
their behalf) to create a high-quality personalized path for
learning that is consistent with applicable Federal, State, and
local laws; is in an educational setting that best meets the child's
or student's needs; and, where possible, incorporates evidence-based
activities, strategies, or interventions. Opportunities made
available to a child or student through a grant program are those
that supplement what is provided by a child's or student's
geographically assigned school or the institution in which he or she
is currently enrolled and may include one or more of the following
options: (1) Public educational programs or courses, including those
offered by traditional public schools, public charter schools,
public magnet schools, public online education providers, or other
public education providers; (2) Private or home-based educational
programs or courses, including those offered by private schools,
private online providers, private tutoring providers, community or
faith-based organizations, or other private education providers; (3)
Part-time coursework or career preparation, offered by a public or
private provider in person or through the internet or another form
of distance learning, that serves as a supplement to full-time
enrollment at an educational institution, as a stand-alone program
leading to a credential, or as a supplement to education received in
a homeschool setting; and (4) Other educational services, including
credit-recovery, accelerated learning, or tutoring.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The OSEP-funded TA related to young children (ages birth
through five) with disabilities, and the IDEA Part C and Part B section
619 programs, will primarily be provided by the centers funded under
CFDA numbers 84.325B, 84.326B, 84.326P, and 84.373Z. This Center will
focus on providing TA to SEAs to implement Part B of the IDEA, which
serves children ages 3 through 21, and will develop products or provide
TA to SEAs on issues that impact the entire Part B system, such as
general supervision or SSIP implementation. Consequently, this Center
generally will respond to a State request for products or TA on issues
solely associated with CWD ages birth through 5, such as preschool
least restrictive environments, early childhood outcomes, and early
childhood transition, by referring the State to one or more other OSEP-
funded centers that focus on such issues.
In addition to these programmatic requirements, to be considered
for funding under this priority, applicants must meet the application
and administrative requirements in this priority, which are:
(a) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under
``Significance,'' how the proposed project will--
(1) Address the current and emerging needs of SEAs to meet ESSA and
IDEA requirements by aligning structures and improving processes within
and across levels of the system to support the implementation and
evaluation of their State plans; appropriately apply coherent
improvement strategies, based on thorough data analyses, that are
aligned to current efforts to improve outcomes for all CWD; provide
effective TA on how to implement EBPs with fidelity; meaningfully and
authentically engage diverse stakeholders (including State-level
partnerships); assist States in evaluating their implementation efforts
and their impact; and ensure the effective implementation of their
results-based general supervision systems to support effective
implementation of the IDEA.
To meet this requirement the applicant must--
(i) Demonstrate knowledge of current educational issues and policy
initiatives relating to ongoing challenges with implementing ESSA and
IDEA alignment efforts by SEAs to target and support LEA improvement
efforts;
(ii) Present information and data about the current capacity of
SEAs to support systemic change, and how the Center will address this
challenge to enhance SEA capacity to support LEAs to implement, scale-
up, and sustain EBPs with fidelity;
(iii) Demonstrate knowledge of current educational issues and
policy initiatives and the range of quality educational options that
may be available in States to families of CWD and how the Center will
provide TA and information dissemination to SEAs that increase
opportunities and outcomes for CWD and their families;
(iv) Describe how the Center will engage diverse stakeholders
(including State-level partnerships), local stakeholders, and
Department-funded parent and statewide family engagement centers in the
SEAs' decision-making processes to ensure effective implementation and
evaluation of the SSIP and other State initiatives that establish high
expectations and improved outcomes for CWD; and
(v) Identify and engage with existing State TA and dissemination
systems to assist the Center with supporting statewide systemic
improvement efforts.
(2) Improve SEA infrastructure (e.g., governance, fiscal systems,
quality standards, PD, data sharing and analysis, TA, and
accountability/monitoring) so SEAs can effectively implement the IDEA
and their SSIPs. Applicants must indicate the likely magnitude or
importance of the improvements.
(3) Collaborate and engage with other Department and OSEP-funded TA
Centers (e.g., PBIS Center; Collaboration for Effective Educator
Development, Accountability, and Reform (CEEDAR) Center; and the State
Implementation and Scaling-up of Evidence-based Practices (SISEP)
Center) to incorporate
[[Page 38953]]
a problem-solving logic and multi-tiered approach in the TA provided to
SEAs to address equity issues and effectively and efficiently support
the implementation of SSIPs and improve States' general supervision
systems.
(b) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under
``Quality of the project services,'' how the proposed project will--
(1) Ensure equal access and treatment for members of groups that
have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national
origin, gender, age, or disability. To meet this requirement, the
applicant must describe how it will--
(i) Identify the needs of the intended recipients for TA and
information; and
(ii) Ensure that services and products meet the needs of the
intended recipients of the grant;
(2) Achieve its goals, objectives, and intended outcomes. To meet
this requirement, the applicant must provide--
(i) Measurable intended project outcomes; and
(ii) In Appendix A, the logic model \6\ by which the proposed
project will achieve its intended outcomes that depicts, at a minimum,
the goals, activities, outputs, and intended outcomes of the proposed
project;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Logic model (as defined in 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 EBPs. To meet this
requirement, the applicant must describe--
(i) The current research on the assessment of infrastructure
development that builds capacity in SEAs and LEAs to implement, scale-
up, and sustain the use of EBPs;
(ii) The current research about adult learning principles, as well
as implementation and improvement science, that will inform the
proposed TA; and
(iii) How the proposed project will incorporate current research
and EBPs in the development and delivery of its products and services;
(5) Develop products and provide services that are of high quality
and sufficient intensity and duration to achieve the intended outcomes
of the proposed project. To address this requirement, the applicant
must describe--
(i) How it proposes to identify or develop the knowledge base on
how to implement components of a comprehensive SSIP and effective
general supervision and PD systems;
(ii) Its proposed approach to universal, general TA,\7\ which must
identify the intended recipients, including the type and number of
recipients, that will receive the products and services, a description
of the products and services that the Center proposes to make
available, and the expected impact of those products and services under
this approach;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ ``Universal, general TA'' means TA and information provided
to independent users through their own initiative, resulting in
minimal interaction with TA center staff and including one-time,
invited or offered conference presentations by TA center staff. This
category of TA also includes information or products, such as
newsletters, guidebooks, or research syntheses, downloaded from the
TA center's website by independent users. Brief communications by TA
center staff with recipients, either by telephone or email, are also
considered universal, general TA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(iii) Its proposed approach to targeted, specialized TA,\8\ which
must identify--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ ``Targeted, specialized TA'' means TA services based on
needs common to multiple recipients and not extensively
individualized. A relationship is established between the TA
recipient and one or more TA center staff. This category of TA
includes one-time, labor-intensive events, such as facilitating
strategic planning or hosting regional or national conferences. It
can also include episodic, less labor-intensive events that extend
over a period of time, such as facilitating a series of conference
calls on single or multiple topics that are designed around the
needs of the recipients. Facilitating communities of practice can
also be considered targeted, specialized TA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A) The intended recipients, including the type and number of
recipients, that will receive the products and services, a description
of the products and services that the Center proposes to make
available, and the expected impact of those products and services under
this approach; and
(B) Its proposed approach to measure the readiness of potential TA
recipients to work with the project, assessing, at a minimum, their
current infrastructure, available resources, and ability to build
capacity at the local level; and
(iv) Its proposed approach to intensive, sustained TA,\9\ which
must identify--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ ``Intensive, sustained TA'' means TA services often provided
on-site and requiring a stable, ongoing relationship between the TA
center staff and the TA recipient. ``TA services'' are defined as
negotiated series of activities designed to reach a valued outcome.
This category of TA should result in changes to policy, program,
practice, or operations that support increased recipient capacity or
improved outcomes at one or more systems levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A) The intended recipients, including the type and number of
recipients, that will receive the products and services, a description
of the products and services that the Center proposes to make
available, and the expected impact of those products and services under
this approach;
(B) Its proposed approach to measure the readiness of SEAs to work
with the project, including their commitment to the initiative,
alignment of the initiative to their needs, current infrastructure,
available resources, and ability of the SEAs to build capacity at the
local level;
(C) Its proposed plan to prioritize TA recipients whose most recent
annual determination by the Secretary was that the State needs
intervention under section 616(d)(2)(A)(iii) of IDEA or needs
substantial intervention under section 616(d)(2)(A)(iv) of IDEA in
implementing the requirements of Part B of IDEA.
(C) Its proposed plan for assisting SEAs to build or enhance PD
systems based on adult learning principles and that include sustained
coaching; and
(D) Its proposed plan for working with appropriate levels of the
education system (e.g., SEAs, educational service agencies (ESAs),
LEAs, other TA providers, parents and families) to ensure that there is
communication between each level and that there are systems in place to
support implementation of EBPs;
(6) Develop products and implement services that maximize
efficiency. To address this requirement, the applicant must describe--
(i) How the proposed project will use technology to achieve the
intended project outcomes;
(ii) With whom the proposed project will collaborate and the
intended outcomes of this collaboration, which must include--
(A) How the proposed project will collaborate with other Department
and OSEP-funded TA centers working with SEAs to effectively support the
implementation of SSIPs and improve States' general supervision; and
(B) How the proposed project will collaborate with OSEP-funded TA
centers working in early childhood
[[Page 38954]]
systems to align TA on infrastructure development and system
improvement efforts between early childhood agencies and the SEA; and
(iii) How the proposed project will use non-project resources to
achieve the intended project outcomes.
In the narrative section of the application under ``Quality of the
evaluation plan,'' include an evaluation plan for the project as
described in the following paragraphs.
The evaluation plan must describe: Measures of progress in
implementation, including the criteria for determining the extent to
which the project's products and services have met the goals for
reaching its target population; measures of intended outcomes or
results of the project's activities in order to evaluate those
activities; and how well the goals or objectives of the proposed
project, as described in its logic model, have been met.
The applicant must provide an assurance that, in designing the
evaluation plan, it will--
(1) Designate, with the approval of the OSEP project officer, a
project liaison staff person with sufficient dedicated time, experience
in evaluation, and knowledge of the project to work in collaboration
with the Center to Improve Program and Project Performance (CIP3),\10\
the project director, and the OSEP project officer on the following
tasks:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ 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 (1) of this section; and
(3) Dedicate sufficient funds in each budget year to cover the
costs of carrying out the tasks described in paragraphs (1) and (2) of
this section and implementing the evaluation plan.
(d) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under
``Adequacy of 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) Key project personnel and any consultants and subcontractors
will be allocated and how these allocations are appropriate and
adequate to achieve the project's intended outcomes;
(3) The proposed management plan will ensure that the products and
services provided are of high quality, relevant, and useful to
recipients; and
(4) The proposed project will benefit from a diversity of
perspectives, including those of families, educators, TA providers,
researchers, and policy makers, among others, in its development and
operation.
(f) Address the following application requirements. The applicant
must--
(1) Include, in Appendix A, personnel-loading charts and timelines,
as applicable, to illustrate the management plan described in the
narrative;
(2) Include, in the budget, attendance at the following:
(i) A one and one-half day kick-off meeting in Washington, DC,
after receipt of the award, and an annual planning meeting, with the
OSEP project officer and other relevant staff during each subsequent
year of the project period.
Note: Within 30 days of receipt of the award, a post-award
teleconference must be held between the OSEP project officer and the
grantee's project director or other authorized representative;
(ii) A two and one-half day project directors' conference in
Washington, DC, during each year of the project period;
(iii) Two annual trips to attend Department briefings, Department-
sponsored conferences, and other meetings, as requested by OSEP; and
(iv) A one-day intensive 3+2 review meeting during the last half of
the second year of the project period;
(3) Include, in the budget, a line item for an annual set-aside of
five percent of the grant amount to support emerging needs that are
consistent with the proposed project's intended outcomes, as those
needs are identified in consultation with, and approved by, the OSEP
project officer. With approval from the OSEP project officer, the
project must reallocate any remaining funds from this annual set-aside
no later than the end of the third quarter of each budget period;
(4) Maintain a high-quality website, with an easy-to-navigate
design, that meets government or industry-recognized standards for
accessibility;
[[Page 38955]]
(5) Ensure that annual 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 TA recipients during the transition to this
new award period and at the end of this award period, as appropriate.
Fourth and Fifth Years of the Project:
In deciding whether to continue funding the project for the fourth
and fifth years, the Secretary will consider the requirements of 34 CFR
75.253(a), as well as--
(a) The recommendation of a 3+2 review team consisting of experts
selected by the Secretary. This review will be conducted during a one-
day intensive meeting that will be held during the last half of the
second year of the project period;
(b) The timeliness with which, and how well, the requirements of
the negotiated cooperative agreement have been or are being met by the
project; and
(c) The quality, relevance, and usefulness of the project's
products and services and the extent to which the project's products
and services are aligned with the project's objectives and likely to
result in the project achieving its intended outcomes.
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.
References:
National Center for Learning Disabilities (NCLD). (2018). Accessing
ESSA: Missed opportunities for children with disabilities. Retrieved
from www.ncld.org/archives/action-center/what-we-ve-done/new-report-assessing-essa-missed-opportunities-for-children-with-disabilities.
National Council on Disabilities (NCD). (2018). (IDEA series) Every
Student Succeeds Act and students with disabilities. Retrieved from
https://ncd.gov/sites/default/files/NCD_ESSA-SWD_Accessible.pdf.
Snyder, T.D., de Brey, C., & Dillow, S.A. (2019). Digest of Education
Statistics 2017 (NCES 2018-070). National Center for Education
Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of
Education. Washington, DC. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2018/2018070.pdf.
Tomasello, J., & Brand, B. (2018). American Youth Policy Forum (AYPF).
How ESSA and IDEA can support college and career readiness for children
with disabilities: Considerations for States. Retrieved from
www.aypf.org/resource/publication-essa-idea-ccr-2018/. U.S. Department
of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for
Education Statistics. (2017). National Assessment of Educational
Progress (NAEP) reading assessments. Accessed through the NAEP Data
Explorer at https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/naepdata/.
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: $6,250,000.
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 $31,250,000 for
a project period of 60 months.
Note: Applicants must describe, in their applications, the amount
of funding being requested for each 12-month budget period.
Estimated Number of Awards: 1.
Note: The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.
Project Period: Up to 60 months.
III. Eligibility Information
1. Eligible Applicants: SEAs; LEAs, including public charter
schools that operate as LEAs under State law; IHEs; other public
agencies; private nonprofit organizations; freely associated States and
outlying areas; Indian Tribes or Tribal organizations; and for-profit
organizations.
2. Cost Sharing or Matching: This program does not require cost
sharing or matching.
3. Subgrantees: 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: (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.
[[Page 38956]]
4. Recommended Page Limit: The application narrative (Part III of
the application) is where you, the applicant, address the selection
criteria that reviewers use to evaluate your application. We recommend
that you (1) limit the application narrative to no more than 70 pages
and (2) use the following standards:
A ``page'' is 8.5 x 11, on one side
only, with 1 margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.
Double space (no more than three lines per vertical inch)
all text in the application narrative, including titles, headings,
footnotes, quotations, reference citations, and captions, as well as
all text in charts, tables, figures, graphs, and screen shots.
Use a font that is 12 point or larger.
Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier,
Courier New, or Arial.
The recommended page limit does not apply to Part I, the cover
sheet; Part II, the budget section, including the narrative budget
justification; Part IV, the assurances and certifications; or the
abstract (follow the guidance provided in the application package for
completing the abstract), the table of contents, the list of priority
requirements, the resumes, the reference list, the letters of support,
or the appendices. However, the recommended page limit does apply to
all of the application narrative, including all text in charts, tables,
figures, graphs, and screen shots.
V. Application Review Information
1. Selection Criteria: The selection criteria for this competition
are from 34 CFR 75.210 and are as follows:
(a) Significance (10 points).
(1) The Secretary considers the significance of the proposed
project.
(2) In determining the significance of the proposed project, the
Secretary considers the following factors:
(i) The extent to which specific gaps or weaknesses in services,
infrastructure, or opportunities have been identified and will be
addressed by the proposed project, including the nature and magnitude
of those gaps or weaknesses.
(ii) The importance or magnitude of the results or outcomes likely
to be attained by the proposed project.
(iii) The extent to which the proposed project is supported by
promising evidence (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1(c)).
(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.
(vi) The adequacy of mechanisms for ensuring high-quality products
and services from the proposed project.
(c) Quality of the project evaluation (15 points).
(1) The Secretary considers the quality of the evaluation to be
conducted of the proposed project.
(2) In determining the quality of the evaluation, the Secretary
considers the following factors:
(i) The extent to which the methods of evaluation are thorough,
feasible, and appropriate to the goals, objectives, and outcomes of the
proposed project.
(ii) The extent to which the methods of evaluation 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 (25 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.
[[Page 38957]]
(iv) How the applicant will ensure that a diversity of perspectives
are brought to bear in the operation of the proposed project, including
those of parents, teachers, the business community, a variety of
disciplinary and professional fields, recipients or beneficiaries of
services, or others, as appropriate.
2. Review and Selection Process: We remind potential applicants
that in reviewing applications in any discretionary grant competition,
the Secretary may consider, under 34 CFR 75.217(d)(3), the past
performance of the applicant in carrying out a previous award, such as
the applicant's use of funds, achievement of project objectives, and
compliance with grant conditions. The Secretary may also consider
whether the applicant failed to submit a timely performance report or
submitted a report of unacceptable quality.
In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary
requires various assurances, including those applicable to Federal
civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or
activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department
(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)), 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
[[Page 38958]]
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 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.
Dated: August 6, 2019.
Laurie VanderPloeg,
Director, Office of Special Education Programs.
[FR Doc. 2019-17059 Filed 8-6-19; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P