Applications for New Awards; Technical Assistance and Dissemination To Improve Services and Results for Children With Disabilities and Technical Assistance on State Data Collection-National Assessment Center, 42806-42814 [2021-16855]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 148 (Thursday, August 5, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42806-42814]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-16855]


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

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION


Applications for New Awards; Technical Assistance and 
Dissemination To Improve Services and Results for Children With 
Disabilities and Technical Assistance on State Data Collection--
National Assessment Center

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

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Education (Department) is issuing a notice 
inviting applications for a new award for fiscal year (FY) 2021 for a 
National Assessment Center, Assistance Listing Number 84.326G. This 
notice relates to the approved information collection under OMB control 
number 1820-0028.

DATES: 
    Applications available: August 5, 2021.
    Deadline for transmittal of applications: September 7, 2021.
    Pre-application webinar information: No later than August 10, 2021, 
the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) will post a pre-
recorded informational webinar designed to provide technical assistance 
(TA) to interested applicants. The webinar may be found at www2.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/osep/new-osep-grants.html.

ADDRESSES: For the addresses for obtaining and submitting an 
application, please refer to our Common Instructions for Applicants to 
Department of Education Discretionary Grant Programs, published in the 
Federal Register on February 13, 2019 (84 FR 3768), and available at 
www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-02-13/pdf/2019-02206.pdf.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Egnor, U.S. Department of 
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 5163, Potomac Center Plaza, 
Washington, DC 20202-5076. Telephone: (202) 245-7334 or (202) 856-6409. 
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 Programs: 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. The purpose of the Technical Assistance on State Data 
Collection program is to improve the capacity of States to meet the 
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) data collection and 
reporting requirements.
    Priorities: This notice contains two absolute priorities. In 
accordance with 34 CFR 75.105(b)(2)(v), Absolute Priority 1 is from 
allowable activities specified or otherwise authorized in the IDEA (see 
sections 663 and 681(d) of the IDEA, 20 U.S.C. 1463 and 1481(d)). 
Absolute Priority 2 is from the notice of final priority (NFP) for the 
Technical Assistance on State Data Collection Program--Targeted and 
Intensive Technical Assistance to States on the Analysis and Use of 
Diagnostic, Interim, and Summative Assessment Data to Support 
Implementation of States' Identified Measurable Result(s) published 
elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.
    Absolute Priorities: For FY 2021 and any subsequent year in which 
we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this 
competition, these priorities are absolute priorities. Under 34 CFR 
75.105(c)(3), we consider only applications that meet both of these 
priorities.
    These priorities are:
    Priority 1: Technical Assistance and Dissemination to Improve 
Services and Results for Children with Disabilities--National 
Assessment Center.
    Background:
    Section 612(a)(16) of the IDEA requires that all students with 
disabilities are included in all general State and districtwide 
assessments, including assessments described under section 1111 of the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA), with 
appropriate accommodations and alternate assessments where necessary 
and as indicated in their respective individualized education programs 
(IEPs). In accordance with Federal law, there are several ways for 
students with disabilities to participate appropriately in State and 
districtwide assessments: General assessments (with or without 
accommodations), alternate assessments based on grade-level academic 
achievement standards, and alternate assessments based on alternate 
academic achievement standards for students with the most significant 
cognitive disabilities.
    Despite the progress State educational agencies (SEAs) and local 
educational agencies (LEAs) have made in including students with 
disabilities in assessments and accountability systems, SEAs and LEAs 
continue to face challenges, such as (1) integrating data from 
dissimilar tests (e.g., general without accommodations, general with 
accommodations, alternate) into a single accountability system; (2) 
developing consistent SEA and LEA policies on assessment accommodations 
that provide maximum accessibility while maintaining test reliability 
and validity; (3) analyzing and using diagnostic, interim,\1\ and 
summative assessment data to improve instruction, learning,

[[Page 42807]]

and accountability for students with disabilities; and (4) addressing 
test security, accessibility, technical support, and other challenges 
associated with transitioning from traditional paper-and-pencil 
assessments to digitally-based assessments (DBAs), including DBAs that 
can be administered via distance education and other remote service 
delivery models of instruction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For the purposes of this priority, the term ``interim 
assessments'' refer to assessments that are administered several 
times during a school year to measure progress. Another term that is 
sometimes used to describe these assessments is ``formative 
assessments.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, one of the most complex challenges faced by SEAs and 
LEAs is developing and administering English language proficiency (ELP) 
assessments to students with disabilities who are English learners 
(ELs). Properly identifying these students as disabled is also a 
significant challenge if their disabilities are masked by their limited 
English proficiency, or vice versa. Improper identification may lead to 
inappropriate instruction, assessments, and accommodations for these 
students. Linguistic and cultural biases may also affect the validity 
of assessments for ELs with disabilities.
    Finally, the Department notes that in many schools, there may be 
unnecessary testing or unclear purpose applied to the task of assessing 
students, including students with disabilities, that consumes too much 
instructional time and creates undue stress for educators and students. 
(For more information, see the Department's February 2, 2016, letter to 
Chief State School Officers available at www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/saa/16-0002signedcsso222016ltr.pdf.)
    These and other complex challenges will continue to arise as States 
continue to implement, revise, or adopt new challenging academic 
content standards and develop new, valid, more instructionally useful, 
and inclusive assessments aligned to these standards. Developing these 
new assessments has been and will continue to be challenging and time-
consuming, and States and LEAs need support in identifying and 
implementing effective practices for identifying and including children 
with disabilities in State and districtwide assessments. Moreover, 
methods for analyzing and effectively using State and districtwide 
assessment data to improve instruction, learning, and accountability 
for students with disabilities will continue to need further 
development, refinement, and technical support.
    Priority:
    The purpose of this priority is to fund a cooperative agreement to 
support the establishment and operation of a National Assessment Center 
(Center) to address national, State, and local assessment issues 
related to students with disabilities. The Center must achieve, at a 
minimum, the following expected outcomes to ensure the inclusion of 
students with disabilities in State and districtwide assessments and 
accountability systems:
    Knowledge Development Outcomes.
    (a) Increased body of knowledge on practices supported by evidence 
to collect, analyze, synthesize, and disseminate relevant information 
regarding State and districtwide assessments of students with 
disabilities, including on topics such as--
    (1) The inclusion of students with disabilities in accountability 
systems;
    (2) Assessment accommodations;
    (3) Alternate assessments;
    (4) Universal design of assessments;
    (5) Technology-based assessments, including DBAs;
    (6) Interim assessments;
    (7) Competency-based assessments;
    (8) Performance-based assessments;
    (9) The analysis and reporting of assessment data (including 
methods for addressing assessment data interoperability challenges);
    (10) Application of growth models in assessment programs;
    (11) Uses of diagnostic, interim, and summative assessment data to 
inform instructional programs for students with disabilities; and
    (12) Identifying and assessing ELs with disabilities, including 
ensuring that all ELs with disabilities receive appropriate 
accommodations, as needed, on ELP assessments, and that the results of 
ELP assessments for students with disabilities are validly used in 
making accountability determinations under the ESEA.
    (b) Increased capacity of SEA and LEA personnel to assess SEA and 
LEA needs, and track SEA and LEA activities and trends, related to 
including students with disabilities in State and districtwide 
assessments, including, as appropriate, improving the knowledge and 
skills of SEA and LEA personnel related to any of the topics listed in 
paragraph (a) of the Knowledge Development Outcomes section of the 
priority.
    (c) Increased capacity of parents of students with disabilities to 
understand the statutory and regulatory bases for including all 
students with disabilities in State and districtwide assessments, 
including general assessments with and without accommodations, 
alternate assessments based on grade-level academic achievement 
standards, and alternate assessments based on alternate academic 
achievement standards for students with the most significant cognitive 
disabilities.
    Technical Assistance and Dissemination Outcomes.
    (a) Increased capacity of SEA and LEA personnel to collect and 
analyze diagnostic, interim, and summative assessment data on the 
performance of students with disabilities, including ELs with 
disabilities.
    (b) Increased capacity of SEA and LEA personnel to use diagnostic, 
interim, and summative assessment data to develop, evaluate, and 
improve educational policies and increase accountability for students 
with disabilities, including ELs with disabilities.
    (c) Increased capacity of LEA personnel to use diagnostic, interim, 
and summative assessment results in instructional decision-making to 
improve teaching and learning for students with disabilities, including 
ELs with disabilities.
    (d) Increased capacity of parents of students with disabilities to 
understand how students with disabilities are included in, and benefit 
from, participation in State and districtwide assessments, including 
general assessments with and without accommodations, alternate 
assessments based on grade-level academic achievement standards, 
alternate assessments based on alternate academic achievement standards 
for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities, and 
other assessments listed in paragraphs (a)(5)-(8) of the Knowledge 
Development Outcomes section of the priority.
    (e) Increased awareness of national policymakers regarding how 
students with disabilities are included in and benefit from current and 
emerging approaches to State and districtwide assessment, including 
topics listed in paragraph (a) of the Knowledge Development Outcomes 
section of this priority.
    In addition to these programmatic requirements, to be considered 
for funding under this priority, applicants must meet the application 
and administrative requirements under Priority 2.
    Priority 2: Targeted and Intensive Technical Assistance to States 
on the Analysis and Use of Diagnostic, Interim, and Summative 
Assessment Data to Support Implementation of States' Identified 
Measurable Results.
    Background:
    The purpose of this priority is to (1) assist those States that 
have a State-Identified Measurable Result (SIMR) related to assessment 
in analyzing and using diagnostic, interim, and summative assessment 
data to better achieve the SIMR as described in their

[[Page 42808]]

IDEA Part B State-Systemic Improvement Plans (SSIPs); and (2) assist 
State efforts to provide TA to LEAs in the analyzing and using State 
and districtwide assessment data for those States that have a SIMR 
related to assessment, to better achieve the SIMR, as appropriate.
    As detailed in the background section for Priority 1, research 
indicates that SEAs and LEAs continue to face challenges in analyzing 
and using diagnostic, interim, and summative assessment data to improve 
instruction, learning, and accountability for students with 
disabilities. SEAs also need assistance analyzing State assessment data 
submitted as part of the SSIP and the SIMR in accordance with section 
616 of IDEA and the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) 
guidance. Beginning in the IDEA Part B Federal fiscal year (FFY) 2013 
State Performance Plan/Annual Performance Report (SPP/APR), States were 
required to provide, as part of Phase I of the SSIP, a statement of the 
result(s) the State intends to achieve through implementation of the 
SSIP, which is referred to as the SIMR for Children with Disabilities. 
States were required to establish ``measurable and rigorous'' targets 
for their SIMRs for each successive year of the SPP (FFYs 2014 through 
2019) and will be required to do so for each year of the next SPP (FFYs 
2020 through 2025) as part of their SPP/APR submissions. At least 36 
States have focused their SIMRs on improving academic achievement as 
measured by assessment results for children with disabilities. These 
States will need assistance in analyzing and using State and 
districtwide assessment data to promote academic achievement and to 
improve results for children with disabilities.
    Priority:
    The purpose of this priority is to (1) assist those States that 
have a SIMR related to assessment in analyzing and using diagnostic, 
interim, and summative assessment data to better achieve the SIMR as 
described in their IDEA Part B SSIPs; and (2) assist State efforts to 
provide TA to LEAs in analyzing and using State and districtwide 
assessment data, for those States that have a SIMR related to 
assessment, to better achieve the SIMR, as appropriate.
    The Center must achieve, at a minimum, the following expected 
outcomes:
    (a) Increased capacity of SEA personnel in States that have a SIMR 
related to assessment results to analyze and use diagnostic, interim, 
and summative assessment data to better achieve the SIMR as described 
in the IDEA Part B SSIP, including using diagnostic, interim, and 
summative assessment data to evaluate and improve educational policy, 
inform instructional programs, and improve instruction for students 
with disabilities;
    (b) Increased capacity of SEA personnel to provide TA to LEAs to 
analyze and use diagnostic, interim, and summative assessment data to 
improve instruction of students with disabilities and support the 
implementation of the SIMR; and
    (c) Increased capacity of parents of students with disabilities to 
understand how students with disabilities are included in, and benefit 
from, participation in diagnostic, interim and summative assessments to 
improve instruction of students with disabilities and support 
implementation of the SIMR.
    In addition to the programmatic requirements contained in both 
priorities, to be considered for funding applicants must meet the 
following application and administrative requirements,\2\ which are:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Paragraph (b)(5)(ii) applies only to Priority 1. Paragraph 
(b)(5)(iv) applies only to Priority 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (a) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under 
``Significance,'' how the proposed project will--
    (1) Address the needs of SEAs and LEAs to analyze and use 
diagnostic, interim, and summative assessment data in instructional 
decision-making to improve teaching and learning for students with 
disabilities. To meet this requirement the applicant must--
    (i) Present applicable national, State, and local data 
demonstrating the needs of SEAs and LEAs to analyze and use diagnostic, 
interim, and summative assessment data in instructional decision-making 
to improve teaching and learning for students with disabilities;
    (ii) Demonstrate knowledge of current educational issues and policy 
initiatives related to analyzing and using diagnostic, interim, and 
summative assessment data in instructional decision-making to improve 
teaching and learning for students with disabilities; and
    (iii) Describe the current level of implementation related to 
analyzing and using diagnostic, interim, and summative assessment data 
in instructional decision-making to improve teaching and learning for 
students with disabilities; and
    (2) Improve the analysis and use of diagnostic, interim, and 
summative assessment data to improve teaching and learning for students 
with disabilities.
    (b) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under 
``Quality of project services,'' how the proposed project will--
    (1) Ensure equal access and treatment for members of groups that 
have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national 
origin, gender, age, or disability. To meet this requirement, the 
applicant must describe how it will--
    (i) Identify the needs of the intended recipients for TA and 
information; and
    (ii) Ensure that products and services meet the needs of the 
intended recipients (e.g., by creating materials in formats and 
languages accessible to the stakeholders served by the intended 
recipients);
    (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 \3\ 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\ Logic model (also referred to as a theory of action) means a 
framework that identifies key project components of the proposed 
project (i.e., the active ``ingredients'' that are hypothesized to 
be critical to achieving the relevant outcomes) and describes the 
theoretical and operational relationships among the key project 
components and relevant outcomes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (3) Use a conceptual framework (and provide a copy in Appendix A) 
to develop project plans and activities, describing any underlying 
concepts, assumptions, expectations, beliefs, or theories, as well as 
the presumed relationships or linkages among these variables, and any 
empirical support for this framework;

    Note:  The following websites provide more information on logic 
models and conceptual frameworks: www.osepideasthatwork.org/logicModel and www.osepideasthatwork.org/resources-grantees/program-areas/ta-ta/tad-project-logic-model-and-conceptual-framework.

    (4) Be based on current research and make use of evidence-based \4\ 
practices (EBPs). To meet this requirement, the applicant must 
describe--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (i) The current research on the effectiveness of analyzing and 
using

[[Page 42809]]

diagnostic, interim, and summative assessment data in instructional 
decision-making to improve teaching and learning for students with 
disabilities; and
    (ii) How the proposed project will incorporate current 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 
analyzing and using diagnostic, interim, and summative assessment data 
in instructional decision-making to improve teaching and learning for 
students with disabilities;
    (ii) Its proposed approach to universal, general TA,\5\ which must 
identify the intended recipients, including the type and number of 
recipients, that will receive the products and services under this 
approach;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ ``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,\6\ which 
must identify--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ ``Targeted, specialized TA'' means TA service 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 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,\7\ which 
must identify--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    (A) The intended recipients, including the type and number of 
recipients, that will receive the products and services under this 
approach;
    (B) Its proposed approach to measure the readiness of SEA and LEA 
personnel to work with the project, including their commitment to the 
initiative, alignment of the initiative to their needs, current 
infrastructure, available resources, and ability to build capacity at 
the SEA and LEA levels;
    (C) Its proposed plan for assisting SEAs (and LEAs, in conjunction 
with SEAs) to build or enhance training systems that include 
professional development based on adult learning principles and 
coaching;
    (D) Its proposed plan for working with appropriate levels of the 
education system (e.g., SEAs, regional TA providers, LEAs, schools, and 
families) to ensure that there is communication between each level and 
that there are systems in place to support the collection, analysis, 
and use of diagnostic, interim, and summative assessment data in 
instructional decision-making to improve teaching and learning for 
students with disabilities; and
    (E) Its proposed plan for collaborating and coordinating with 
Department-funded TA investments, where appropriate, in order to align 
complementary work and jointly develop and implement products and 
services to meet the purposes of the priorities;
    (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; and
    (iii) How the proposed project will use non-project resources to 
achieve the intended project outcomes; and
    (7) Develop a dissemination plan that describes how the applicant 
will systematically distribute information, products, and services to 
varied intended audiences, using a variety of dissemination strategies, 
to promote awareness and use of the Center's products and services.
    (c) In the narrative section of the application under ``Quality of 
the project evaluation,'' include an evaluation plan for the project 
developed in consultation with and implemented by a third-party 
evaluator.\8\ The evaluation plan must--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ A ``third-party'' evaluator is an independent and impartial 
program evaluator who is contracted by the grantee to conduct an 
objective evaluation of the project. This evaluator must not have 
participated in the development or implementation of any project 
activities, except for the evaluation activities, nor have any 
financial interest in the outcome of the evaluation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 42810]]

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; \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ OSEP has found that a minimum of a three-quarter time 
equivalency (0.75 FTE) in the role of project director (or divided 
between a half-time equivalency in the role of the project director 
and a quarter-time equivalency in the role of a co-project director) 
is necessary to ensure effective implementation of the management 
plan and that products and services provided are of high quality, 
relevant, and useful to recipients.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) Include, in the budget, attendance at the following:
    (i) A one and one-half day kick-off meeting in Washington, DC, or 
virtually, after receipt of the award, and an annual planning meeting 
in Washington, DC, or virtually, 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, or virtually, during each year of the project period;
    (iii) Two annual two-day trips, or virtually, to attend Department 
briefings, Department-sponsored conferences, and other meetings, as 
requested by OSEP; and
    (iv) A one-day intensive 3+2 review meeting in Washington, DC, or 
virtually, during 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;
    (5) Ensure that annual project progress toward meeting project 
goals is posted on the project website; and
    (6) Include, in Appendix A, two assurances. The first assurance is 
to assist OSEP with the transfer of pertinent resources and products 
and to maintain the continuity of services to States during the 
transition to a new award at the end of this award period, as 
appropriate. The second assurance is to ensure the applicant will track 
and report IDEA section 663 funds separately from IDEA section 611(i) 
funds. Please refer to Part II Award Information of this notice for 
more information about preparing the budget.
    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), including--
    (a) The recommendations of a 3+2 review team consisting of experts 
who have experience and knowledge in providing technical assistance to 
SEA and LEA personnel in including students with disabilities in 
assessments and accountability systems. This review will be conducted 
during a one-day intensive meeting that will be held during the last 
half of the second year of the project period;
    (b) The timeliness with which, and how well, the requirements of 
the negotiated cooperative agreement have been or are being met by the 
project; and
    (c) The quality, relevance, and usefulness of the project's 
products and services and the extent to which the project's products 
and services are aligned with the project's objectives and likely to 
result in the project achieving its intended outcomes.
    Under 34 CFR 75.253, the Secretary may reduce continuation awards 
or discontinue awards in any year of the project period for excessive 
carryover balances or a failure to make substantial progress. The 
Department intends to closely monitor unobligated balances and 
substantial progress under this program and may reduce or discontinue 
funding accordingly.
    Waiver of Proposed Rulemaking: Under the Administrative Procedure 
Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553) the Department generally offers interested 
parties the opportunity to comment on proposed priorities and 
requirements. Section 681(d) of IDEA, however, makes the public comment 
requirements of the APA inapplicable to Absolute Priority 1 in this 
notice.
    Program Authority: For Absolute Priority 1, 20 U.S.C. 1463 and 
1481; for Absolute Priority 2, 20 U.S.C. 1411(c) and 1416(i).

    Note: Projects will be awarded and must be operated in a manner 
consistent with the nondiscrimination requirements contained in 
Federal civil rights laws.

    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 (Uniform 
Guidance) in 2 CFR part 200, as adopted and amended as regulations of 
the Department in 2 CFR part 3474. (d) The NFP.

    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: $1,750,000.
    Estimated Available Funds under IDEA section 663: $1,000,000.

[[Page 42811]]

    Estimated Available Funds under IDEA section 616(i): $750,000.

    Note: Applicants must submit a separate ED 524 form with a 
budget and budget narrative for Absolute Priority 1 only and a 
separate ED 524 form with a budget and budget narrative for Absolute 
Priority 2 only. The Secretary will reject any application that does 
not address all the elements of Absolute Priority 1 separately from 
the elements of Absolute Priority 2 and that does not include a 
separate budget and budget narrative for Absolute Priority 1, 
separate and distinct from a budget and budget narrative for 
Absolute Priority 2.

    Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of 
applications, we may make additional awards in FY 2022 from the list of 
unfunded applicants from this competition.
    Maximum Award: We will reject and not review any application that 
proposes a budget for Absolute Priority 1 that exceeds $1,000,000 or 
Absolute Priority 2 that exceeds $750,000 for a single budget period of 
12 months, and we will reject and not review any application that 
proposes a total budget that exceeds $1,750,000 for a single budget 
period of 12 months. The Department may change the maximum amount 
through a notice published in the Federal Register.
    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 are considered LEAs under State law; IHEs; other public 
agencies; private nonprofit organizations; outlying areas; Indian 
Tribes or Tribal organizations; and for-profit organizations.
    2. a. Cost Sharing or Matching: This competition does not require 
cost sharing or matching.
    b. Indirect Cost Rate Information: This program uses an 
unrestricted indirect cost rate. For more information regarding 
indirect costs, or to obtain a negotiated indirect cost rate, please 
see www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocfo/intro.html.
    c. Administrative Cost Limitation: This program does not include 
any program-specific limitation on administrative expenses. All 
administrative expenses must be reasonable and necessary and conform to 
the Cost Principles described in 2 CFR part 200 subpart E of the 
Uniform Guidance.
    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.

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. 
Information about Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs under 
Executive Order 12372 is in the application package for this 
competition. However, under 34 CFR 79.8(a), we waive intergovernmental 
review in order to make an award by the end of FY 2021.
    3. Funding Restrictions: We reference regulations outlining funding 
restrictions in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice.
    4. Recommended Page Limit: The application narrative 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 the cover sheet; the 
budget section, including the narrative budget justification; 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; and
    (ii) The importance or magnitude of the results or outcomes likely 
to be attained by the proposed project.
    (b) Quality of project services (35 points).
    (1) The Secretary considers the quality of the services to be 
provided by the proposed project.
    (2) In determining the quality of the services to be provided by 
the proposed project, the Secretary considers the quality and 
sufficiency of strategies for ensuring equal access and treatment for 
eligible project participants who are members of groups that have 
traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national 
origin, gender, age, or disability.
    (3) In addition, the Secretary considers the following factors:
    (i) The extent to which the goals, objectives, and outcomes to be 
achieved by the proposed project are clearly specified and measurable;
    (ii) The extent to which there is a conceptual framework underlying 
the proposed research or demonstration activities and the quality of 
that framework;
    (iii) The extent to which the services to be provided by the 
proposed project reflect up-to-date knowledge from research and 
effective practice;
    (iv) The extent to which the services to be provided by the 
proposed project are appropriate to the needs of the intended 
recipients or beneficiaries of those services; and
    (v) The extent to which the TA services to be provided by the 
proposed project involve the use of efficient strategies, including the 
use of technology, as appropriate, and the leveraging of non-project 
resources.
    (c) Quality of the project evaluation (20 points).
    (1) The Secretary considers the quality of the evaluation to be 
conducted of the proposed project.

[[Page 42812]]

    (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; and
    (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 adequacy of support, including facilities, equipment, 
supplies, and other resources, from the applicant organization or the 
lead applicant organization;
    (iv) The extent to which the costs are reasonable in relation to 
the objectives, design, and potential significance of the proposed 
project.
    (e) Quality of the management plan (20 points).
    (1) The Secretary considers the quality of the management plan for 
the proposed project.
    (2) In determining the quality of the management plan for the 
proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:
    (i) The adequacy of the management plan to achieve the objectives 
of the proposed project on time and within budget, including clearly 
defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing 
project tasks;
    (ii) The extent to which the time commitments of the project 
director and principal investigator and other key project personnel are 
appropriate and adequate to meet the objectives of the proposed 
project;
    (iii) The adequacy of mechanisms for ensuring high-quality products 
and services from the proposed project; and
    (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. 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 
200.206, before awarding grants under this competition the Department 
conducts a review of the risks posed by applicants. Under 2 CFR 
200.208, the Secretary may impose specific conditions, and under 2 CFR 
3474.10, 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 200.206(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.
    6. In General: In accordance with the Office of Management and 
Budget's guidance located at 2 CFR part 200, all applicable Federal 
laws, and relevant Executive guidance, the Department will review and 
consider applications for funding pursuant to this notice inviting 
applications in accordance with--
    (a) Selecting recipients most likely to be successful in delivering 
results based on the program objectives through an objective process of 
evaluating Federal award applications (2 CFR 200.205);
    (b) Prohibiting the purchase of certain telecommunication and video 
surveillance services or equipment in

[[Page 42813]]

alignment with section 889 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 
2019 (Pub. L. 115-232) (2 CFR 200.216);
    (c) Providing a preference, to the extent permitted by law, to 
maximize use of goods, products, and materials produced in the United 
States (2 CFR 200.322); and
    (d) Terminating agreements in whole or in part to the greatest 
extent authorized by law if an award no longer effectuates the program 
goals or agency priorities (2 CFR 200.340).

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: For the purposes of the Government 
Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) and reporting under 34 CFR 
75.110, we have established a set of performance measures, including 
long-term measures, that are designed to yield information on various 
aspects of the effectiveness and quality of the Technical Assistance 
and Dissemination to Improve Services and Results for Children with 
Disabilities program. These measures are:
     Program Performance Measure 1: The percentage of technical 
assistance and dissemination products and services deemed to be of high 
quality by an independent review panel of experts qualified to review 
the substantive content of the products and services.
     Program Performance Measure 2: The percentage of special 
education technical assistance and dissemination products and services 
deemed by an independent review panel of qualified experts to be of 
high relevance to educational and early intervention policy or 
practice.
     Program Performance Measure 3: The percentage of all 
special education technical assistance and dissemination products and 
services deemed by an independent review panel of qualified experts to 
be useful in improving educational or early intervention policy or 
practice.
     Program Performance Measure 4: The cost efficiency of the 
Technical Assistance and Dissemination to Improve Services and Results 
for Children with Disabilities 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.

    Note: These measures apply only to activities funded under the 
Technical Assistance and Dissemination to Improve Services and 
Results for Children with Disabilities program (i.e., Absolute 
Priority 1), 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, whether 
the grantee has made substantial progress in achieving 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: On request to the program contact person listed 
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, individuals with disabilities 
can obtain this document and a copy of the application package in an 
accessible format. The Department will provide the requestor with an 
accessible format that may include Rich Text Format (RTF) or text 
format (txt), a thumb drive, an MP3 file, braille, large print, 
audiotape, or compact disc, or other accessible format.
    Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this 
document is the document published in the Federal Register. You may 
access the official

[[Page 42814]]

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.

Katherine Neas,
Acting Assistant Secretary for the Office of Special Education and 
Rehabilitative Services.
[FR Doc. 2021-16855 Filed 8-3-21; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P