Applications for New Awards; Technical Assistance and Dissemination To Improve Services and Results for Children With Disabilities-Model Demonstration Projects to Develop Equitable Family Engagement With Underserved Families of Children With Disabilities, 11257-11266 [2024-02973]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 31 (Wednesday, February 14, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11257-11266]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-02973]


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

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION


Applications for New Awards; Technical Assistance and 
Dissemination To Improve Services and Results for Children With 
Disabilities--Model Demonstration Projects to Develop Equitable Family 
Engagement With Underserved Families of Children With Disabilities

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

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Education (Department) is issuing a notice 
inviting applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2024 for 
Model Demonstration Projects to Develop Equitable Family Engagement 
with Underserved Families

[[Page 11258]]

of Children with Disabilities, Assistance Listing Number 84.326M. This 
notice relates to the approved information collection under OMB control 
number 1820-0028.

DATES: 
    Applications Available: February 14, 2024.
    Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: April 24, 2024.
    Deadline for Intergovernmental Review: June 24, 2024.

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 December 7, 2022 (87 FR 75045), and available at 
www.federalregister.gov/d/2022-26554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carmen Sanchez, U.S. Department of 
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 4A10, Washington, DC 20202. 
Telephone: (202) 987-0117. Email: [email protected].
    If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability and 
wish to access telecommunications relay services, please dial 7-1-1.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Full Text of Announcement

I. Funding Opportunity Description

    Purpose of Program: The purpose of the Technical Assistance and 
Dissemination to Improve Services and Results for Children with 
Disabilities program is to promote academic achievement and to improve 
results for children with disabilities by providing technical 
assistance (TA), supporting model demonstration projects, disseminating 
useful information, and implementing activities that are supported by 
scientifically based research.
    Priorities: This competition includes one absolute priority and, 
within that absolute priority, one competitive preference priority. In 
accordance with 34 CFR 75.105(b)(2)(v), the absolute priority is from 
allowable activities specified in or otherwise authorized in sections 
663 and 681(d) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 
(IDEA) (20 U.S.C. 1463 and 1481(d)).
    Absolute Priority: For FY 2024 and any subsequent year in which we 
make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this 
competition, this priority is an absolute priority. Under 34 CFR 
75.105(c)(3), we consider only applications that meet this priority.
    This priority is:
    Model Demonstration Projects to Develop Equitable Family Engagement 
with Underserved Families of Children with Disabilities.

Background

    Model demonstrations to improve early intervention, educational, or 
transitional results for children with disabilities and their families 
have been authorized under the IDEA since the law's inception. For the 
purposes of this priority, a model is a set of existing evidence-based 
practices, including interventions and implementation strategies (i.e., 
core model components), that research suggests will improve outcomes 
for children, families, personnel, administrators, or systems, when 
implemented with fidelity. Model demonstrations involve investigating 
the degree to which a given model can be implemented and sustained in 
real-world settings, by staff employed in those settings, while 
achieving outcomes similar to those attained under research conditions.
    The work of the proposed models is consistent with the Secretary's 
Supplemental Priorities, published in the Federal Register on December 
10, 2021 (86 FR 70612), as well as ``Raise the Bar: Lead the 
World'',\1\ through its focus on promoting equity in student access to 
educational resources and opportunities; meeting student social, 
emotional, and academic needs; and strengthening cross-agency 
coordination and community engagement to advance systemic change. 
Proposed models may also address a competitive preference priority that 
builds on the absolute priority by being responsive to the focus in the 
First Lady's Joining Forces initiative \2\ whose mission is to support 
military families, including families of service members and veterans, 
caregivers, and survivors. The initiative includes a focus on military 
child education, and specifically advancing programming to support 
military-connected children in their classrooms and help ease the 
burdens created by the highly mobile military lifestyle. For military-
connected children with disabilities this includes simplifying and 
streamlining the onboarding process into a new school system, 
facilitating the transfer of individualized education programs (IEPs) 
from students' previous schools into their new schools, and providing 
required services to children and families without disruptions in 
educational programming when there is a change in duty station. This 
focus is aligned with the Department's focus on supporting military-
connected and other highly mobile children with disabilities outlined 
in a February 2022 Letter to State Directors of Special Education on 
Ensuring a High-Quality Education for Highly Mobile Children, which 
provided resources and guidance for States, school districts, school 
staff, parents, families, and others on ensuring that highly mobile 
children with disabilities receive required special education and 
related services designed to meet their unique needs in a timely 
manner.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ www.ed.gov/raisethebar/.
    \2\ www.whitehouse.gov/joiningforces/.
    \3\ See https://sites.ed.gov/idea/idea-files/letter-to-state-directos-of-special-education-on-ensuring-a-high-quality-education-for-highly-mobile-children-november-10-2022/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Decades of research have shown the positive relationship between 
family engagement and improved outcomes for children (Fan & Chen, 2001; 
Henderson & Mapp, 2002; Hill & Tyson, 2009; Jeynes, 2005, 2007, 2012; 
Kim & Hill, 2015). The growing evidence base indicates that children 
with disabilities benefit when their families are systemically engaged 
in their education in ways that are responsive to the families' 
strengths, needs, cultures, and experiences. While not independently 
explored in the research, it stands to reason that systematic and 
responsive family engagement is particularly important when supporting 
military families with their unique strengths, needs, cultures, and 
experiences.
    IDEA, through its emphasis on empowering parents to understand 
their rights and responsibilities under the law and by placing families 
at the center of the individualized education program process, has 
emphasized the importance of engaging families of children with 
disabilities. Furthermore, IDEA places families as vital partners with 
schools, districts, and States in creating systemic change through the 
development and implementation of comprehensive strategies to improve 
outcomes for children with disabilities (section 650(2) of IDEA; 20 
U.S.C. 1450(c)).
    Schools often have difficulty effectively supporting family 
engagement practices and instead focus on narrow ideas of family 
participation (e.g., participating in back-to-school nights or parent 
teacher organization fundraisers) that disengage many families, and 
particularly disempower and exclude underserved families of children 
with disabilities (Baquedano-Lopez et al., 2013; Doucet, 2011; Dyrness, 
2009; Lareau & Horvat, 1999; Olivos, 2006; Xu, 2020). Family 
disempowerment and inequity, created when schools do not account for 
the lived realities of underserved families

[[Page 11259]]

within their communities, mirrors the deep educational inequities in 
their children's experiences, (Buren et al., 2020) and can increase the 
disproportionate representation of underserved children in some 
disability categories, disproportionate discipline, and placement in 
more restrictive and segregated settings (Kramarczuk Voulgarides et 
al., 2017).
    To support the engagement of underserved families, research points 
to the need to create ongoing, dynamic, and equitable collaborations 
that reorganize power structures, develop sustainable relationships 
(Ishimaru, 2020), and are culturally and linguistically responsive and 
trauma informed. Equitable collaborations between schools, underserved 
families, and their communities show promise in creating sustainable 
structural changes that improve educational outcomes for underserved 
children, including children with disabilities (Ishimaru, 2020).
    To improve outcomes for children with disabilities, including 
military-connected children with disabilities, the Department is 
funding school-based models of equitable family engagement that 
systemically involve underserved families of children with disabilities 
as partners and leaders in creating more equitable and inclusive 
schools that are responsive to the families' priorities, strengths, and 
needs.

Priority

    The purpose of this priority is to fund four cooperative agreements 
to establish and operate evidence-based \4\ model demonstration 
projects. The models must implement sustainable, schoolwide policies, 
practices, and strategies that systemically engage underserved families 
\5\ of children with disabilities as partners and leaders in creating 
more equitable and inclusive schools that lead to improved outcomes for 
children with disabilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ For purposes of this priority, ``evidence-based'' means the 
proposed project component is supported by promising evidence, which 
is evidence of the effectiveness of a key project component in 
improving a ``relevant outcome'' (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1), based 
on a relevant finding from one of the sources identified under 
``promising evidence'' in 34 CFR 77.1.
    \5\ For the purposes of this priority, ``underserved families'' 
refers to foster, kinship, migrant, technologically unconnected, and 
military- or veteran-connected families; and families of color, 
living in poverty, without documentation of immigration status, 
experiencing homelessness or housing insecurity, or impacted by the 
justice system, including the juvenile justice system. Underserved 
families also refers to families that include: members of a 
federally or State recognized Indian Tribe; English learners; adults 
who experience a disability; members who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, 
transgender, queer or questioning, or intersex (LGBTQI+); adults in 
need of improving their basic skills or with limited literacy; and 
disconnected adults.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The models must address the infrastructure (e.g., implementation 
teams, data systems) and ongoing supports needed to foster the 
development, implementation, and evaluation of sustainable, schoolwide 
family engagement \6\ policies, practices, and strategies that 
systemically involve underserved families of children with disabilities 
to create more equitable and inclusive schools that are responsive to 
the priorities, strengths and needs of underserved families of children 
with disabilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ For the purposes of this priority, ``family engagement'' 
refers to the systematic inclusion of families in activities and 
programs that promote children's development, learning, and 
wellness, including in the planning, development, and evaluation of 
such activities, programs, and systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The models must demonstrate methods for identifying evidence-based 
strategies that build the capacity of school personnel and underserved 
families of children with disabilities to jointly develop and implement 
sustainable, equitable, and inclusive systemic change.
    The models must capture information about challenges to 
implementation and determine what system supports may assist in meeting 
those challenges. Additionally, the models must use data to provide 
information about how the models affect family engagement policies, 
strategies, and practices within schools; school personnel's capacity 
to engage with underserved families of children with disabilities and 
their communities; underserved families' engagement and leadership in 
school activities; and systemic change that leads to more equitable and 
inclusive schools that improve outcomes for underserved children with 
disabilities.
    The model demonstration projects must assess how models can--
    (a) Increase the sustainable implementation of school policies, 
strategies, and practices that support the engagement of underserved 
families of children with disabilities;
    (b) Increase the capacity of school personnel, underserved families 
of children with disabilities and their communities to build trusting 
relationships that support children with disabilities' learning and 
achievement;
    (c) Increase the capacity of underserved families of children with 
disabilities to be leaders in partnership with school personnel in 
setting policy, making decisions, and implementing practices;
    (d) Increase the engagement of underserved families of children 
with disabilities and their children with disabilities in school and 
extracurricular activities; and
    (e) Improve the academic, social, emotional, and behavioral 
development and outcomes for underserved children with disabilities; 
increase access for underserved children with disabilities to general 
education and extracurricular activities with their peers without 
disabilities; and decrease disproportionality in the identification, 
placement, and discipline of underserved children with disabilities.
    Applicants must propose models that meet the following 
requirements:
    (a) The model's core intervention components must include--
    (1) Family engagement practices based on evidence;
    (2) Practices to build the capacity of underserved families of 
children with disabilities to engage with school personnel and act as 
leaders in systemic change;
    (3) Practices to build the capacity of school personnel to engage 
with underserved families of children with disabilities and their 
communities;
    (4) Practices that enable school personnel, underserved families of 
children with disabilities and their communities to jointly develop and 
implement systemic changes reflective of families' priorities, 
strengths, and needs;
    (5) Methods for implementing capacity building activities for 
school personnel and underserved families of children with disabilities 
and their communities;
    (6) Methods for measuring the impact of the model, including 
fidelity measures on the implementation of the practices, and data on 
increased equitable engagement between school personnel and underserved 
families of children with disabilities; decreased disproportionate 
application of practices in identification, placement, and discipline 
for underserved children with disabilities; and improved outcomes of 
children with disabilities;
    (7) Measures of the model's social validity, i.e., measures of 
school personnel's and underserved families', satisfaction with the 
model components, processes, and outcomes; and
    (8) Procedures to refine the model based on data from the ongoing 
fidelity measures on the implementation of the practices, and the data 
collected on improved outcomes and increased capacity.
    (b) The model's core implementation components must include--

[[Page 11260]]

    (1) Criteria and strategies used to select \7\ and recruit a 
minimum of three sites, which include demographic information, 
community context, and school initiatives, including approaches to 
introducing the model to, and promoting the model among, site 
participants.\8\ Applicants are encouraged to choose sites in a variety 
of communities (e.g., urban, rural, suburban). The sites must include 
various families and underserved families, whether defined by race, 
ethnicity, socioeconomic status, religious affiliation, family 
composition, or military connection among others; and have the need to 
improve equity and inclusion as demonstrated by disproportionality in 
the identification, placement, discipline, or outcomes of underserved 
children with disabilities. The selected sites can include any 
combination of grades from Pre-K through high school.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ For factors to consider when selecting model demonstration 
sites, the applicant should refer to Assessing Sites for Model 
Demonstration: Lessons Learned for OSEP Grantees at mdcc.sri.com/documents/MDCC_Site_Assessment_Brief_09-30-11.pdf. The document also 
contains a site assessment tool.
    \8\ For factors to consider when preparing for model 
demonstration implementation, the applicant should refer to 
Preparing for Model Demonstration Implementation at mdcc.sri.com/documents/MDCC_PreparationStage_Brief_Apr2013.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) A staggered implementation design, which allows for model 
development and refinement at the first site in year one of the project 
period, with sites two and three implementing a revised model based on 
data from the first site beginning in subsequent project years;
    (3) A professional development component that includes a strategy 
to work with school personnel and underserved families of children with 
disabilities, to enable sites to implement, with fidelity, models of 
schoolwide equitable family engagement that systemically involve 
underserved families of children with disabilities as partners and 
leaders; and
    (4) Measures of the results of the professional development 
required by paragraph (b)(3) of this section.
    (c) The core strategies for sustaining the model must include--
    (1) Procedures and materials that permit current and future site-
based staff to replicate or appropriately tailor and sustain the model 
at any site;
    (2) Guidelines and procedures to--
    (i) Provide professional development activities to build school 
personnel's capacity to systematically and equitably engage with 
underserved families of children with disabilities, and build 
underserved families' leadership capacity;
    (ii) Implement system changes to improve equitable engagement and 
shared leadership between school personnel and underserved families of 
children with disabilities;
    (iii) Administer activities that allow underserved families of 
children with disabilities to take on leadership roles within schools;
    (iv) Identify and establish collaborations with the communities to 
which the underserved families belong;
    (v) Identify the strengths, needs, and priorities of underserved 
families of children with disabilities through the collaborative 
collection and analysis of data by school personnel and underserved 
families of children with disabilities and their communities;
    (vi) Create and implement sustainable, equitable, and inclusive 
systemic changes that reflect the strengths, needs, and priorities of 
underserved families of children with disabilities; and
    (vii) Collect, analyze, and use data regarding the engagement of 
underserved children with disabilities in schools and the impact of 
that engagement on--
    (A) Academic, social, emotional, and behavioral development and 
outcomes for underserved children with disabilities;
    (B) Increased access for underserved children with disabilities to 
general education and extracurricular activities with their peers 
without disabilities; and
    (C) Decreased disproportionality in the identification, placement, 
and discipline of underserved children with disabilities;
    (3) Strategies for the grantee to develop a manual, toolkit and 
other user-friendly and widely accessible resources for disseminating 
information on the final version of the model by the end of the grant 
period, such as developing easily accessible online products that 
specify model core components critical for improving outcomes, 
professional development materials, fidelity measures, key outcomes 
from the model (e.g. increases in the equity of referrals), and 
implementation procedures for disseminating the model and its 
components; and
    (4) Strategies for the grantee to assist schools and school 
districts to scale up a model and its components.
    To be considered for funding under this absolute priority, 
applicants must meet the requirements contained in this priority.

Application Requirements

    An applicant must include in its application--
    (a) A detailed review of the literature addressing the proposed 
evidence-based model or its implementation components and the proposed 
processes to develop equitable and schoolwide family engagement with 
underserved families of children with disabilities that systemically 
involve them as partners and leaders;
    (b) A logic model \9\ that depicts, at a minimum, the goals, 
activities, outputs, and outcomes (described in the requirements in 
paragraph (a) under the heading Priority) of the proposed model 
demonstration project.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ As defined in 34 CFR 77.1, ``logic model'' (also referred to 
as a theory of action) means a framework that identifies key project 
components of the proposed project (i.e., the active ``ingredients'' 
that are hypothesized to be critical to achieving the relevant 
outcomes) and describes the theoretical and operational 
relationships among the key project components and relevant 
outcomes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Note: The following websites provide resources for constructing 
logic models: https://osepideasthatwork.org/sites/default/files/2021-12/ConceptualFramework_Updated.pdf and www.osepideasthatwork.org/resources-grantees/program-areas/ta-ta/tad-project-logic-model-and-conceptual-framework;
    (c) A description of the activities and measures to be incorporated 
into the proposed model demonstration project (i.e., the project 
design) to develop equitable and schoolwide family engagement with 
underserved families of children with disabilities that systemically 
involve them as partners and leaders. A detailed and complete 
description must include the following:
    (1) Each of the capacity building, collaboration, and data 
gathering components;
    (2) The existing and proposed measures of fidelity of the 
implementation of equitable and schoolwide family engagement and 
capacity building activities as well as social validity measures. The 
measures must be described as completely as possible, referenced as 
appropriate, and included, when available, in Appendix A;
    (3) Each of the implementation components, including, at a minimum, 
those listed under requirements paragraph (b) under the heading 
Priority. The existing or proposed implementation fidelity measures 
must be described as completely as possible, referenced as appropriate, 
and included, when available, in Appendix A. In addition, this 
description must include--

[[Page 11261]]

    (i) Demographics of the sites that have been identified and 
successfully recruited as implementation sites for the purposes of 
completing an application using the selection and recruitment 
strategies described in requirements paragraph (b)(1) under the heading 
Priority. The demographic data should include the race and ethnicity, 
socioeconomic status, military connectedness, and primary home language 
of all families; the number of families of children with disabilities 
in the schools' catchment area, and the larger school community; and 
indicators of the extent to which schools are equitable and inclusive, 
including identification rates for special education, placement data, 
discipline data, and outcomes of underserved children with 
disabilities;
    Note: Applicants are encouraged to identify, to the extent 
possible, the sites willing to participate in the applicant's model 
demonstration. Final site selection will be determined in consultation 
with the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) project officer 
following the kick-off meeting described in paragraph (f)(1) of these 
application requirements; and
    (ii) The staggered implementation design for implementation 
consistent with the requirements in paragraph (b)(2) under the heading 
Priority;
    (4) Each of the strategies to promote sustaining and replicating 
the model, including, at a minimum, those listed under requirements 
paragraph (c) under the heading Priority; and
    (5) The cost of the fully developed model and its implementation, 
including the resources used by the model as well as their actual or 
estimated costs; \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See the IES Cost Analysis Starter Kit at https://ies.ed.gov/seer/cost_analysis.asp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (d) A description of the evaluation activities and measures to be 
incorporated into the proposed model demonstration project. A detailed 
and complete description must include--
    (1) A formative evaluation plan, consistent with the project's 
logic model, that includes evaluation questions, sources of data, a 
timeline for data collection, and analysis plans. The plan must show 
how the outcome data (e.g., engagement, capacity, and social validity 
measures) and implementation data (e.g., fidelity, effectiveness of 
school personnel professional development and capacity building 
activities, effectiveness of family capacity building, and 
effectiveness of activities that result in systemic changes) will be 
used separately or in combination to improve the project during the 
project period. These data will be reported in the annual performance 
report (APR). The plan also must outline how these data will be 
reviewed by project staff, when they will be reviewed, and how they 
will be used during the course of the project to adjust the model or 
its implementation to increase the model's usefulness, 
generalizability, and potential for sustainability; and
    (2) A summative evaluation plan, including a timeline, to collect 
and analyze data on changes in the engagement of underserved families 
of children with disabilities, student outcomes, and systems 
improvements over time that can be reasonably attributable to project 
activities. The plan must show how the family, student, or system 
outcome and implementation data collected by the project will be used 
separately or in combination to demonstrate the promise of the model;
    (e) A plan to disseminate the results of the project, including the 
findings that show the model had a beneficial effect on outcomes, the 
final version of the implemented model, and its associated products 
(such as curricula, professional development materials, implementation 
procedures, measures and assessments, guides, and toolkits). The 
dissemination plan must include the audiences who would most likely 
benefit from implementing the model and detailed strategies for 
reaching these audiences.
    (1) In disseminating the results of the project, grantees must, at 
a minimum, conduct at least four of the following six activities:
    (i) Promote the model to potential users through the grant's 
website or social media;
    (ii) Promote the model to potential users through presentations at 
national meetings or conferences or publishing journal articles;
    (iii) Promote the model in personnel preparation programs at 
institutions of higher education;
    (iv) Promote the model to Department-funded dissemination networks 
(e.g., OSEP TA Centers, Regional Education Labs, Comprehensive 
Centers);
    (v) Provide training on model implementation to State educational 
agencies (SEAs), local educational agencies (LEAs), schools, early 
childhood programs or other new sites; and
    (vi) Apply for additional funding to continue model dissemination 
and scale up to new sites.
    (2) To facilitate implementation of the model in new sites, 
grantees may also consider collaborating with OSEP-funded TA centers, 
personnel preparation programs, and OSEP-funded State Personnel 
Development Grant projects; providing webinars, training sessions, or 
workshops to State and local agencies; and engaging with other 
federally funded TA centers, research networks, or Regional Educational 
Laboratories; and
    (f) A budget for attendance at the following:
    (1) A one and one-half day virtual kickoff meeting, after receipt 
of the award;
    (2) A three-day project directors' conference in Washington, DC, 
during each year of the project period. The project must reallocate 
funds for travel to the project directors' conference no later than the 
end of the third quarter of each budget period if the conference is 
conducted virtually; and
    (3) Four travel days spread across years two through four of the 
project period to attend planning meetings, Department briefings, 
Department-sponsored conferences, and other meetings, as requested by 
OSEP.

Other Project Activities

    To meet the requirements of this priority, each project, at a 
minimum, must--
    (a) Communicate and collaborate on an ongoing basis with other 
Department-funded projects, consistent with paragraph (e) under the 
heading Application Requirements;
    (b) Maintain ongoing telephone and email communication with the 
OSEP project officer and the other model demonstration projects funded 
under this priority;
    (c) Provide information annually using a template that captures 
descriptive data on project site selection and the process of 
implementing the model in the sites.
    Note: The following website provides more information about 
implementation research: https://implementation.fpg.unc.edu/.
    (d) If the project maintains a website, include relevant 
information about the model, the intervention, and the demonstration 
activities and ensure that the website meets or exceeds government- or 
industry-recognized standards for accessibility; and
    (e) Ensure that annual progress toward meeting project goals is 
posted on a public website.

Fifth Year of Project

    The Secretary may extend a project one year beyond the initial 48 
months to disseminate the results of the project if the grantee is 
achieving the intended

[[Page 11262]]

outcomes of the project (as demonstrated by data gathered as part of 
the project evaluation) and making a positive contribution to 
identifying the system supports needed to implement the model. Each 
applicant must include in its application a plan for the full 60-month 
period. The fifth year should be budgeted at $100,000. In deciding 
whether to continue funding the project for the fifth year, the 
Secretary will consider the requirements of 34 CFR 75.253(a), 
including--
    (a) The recommendations of a review team consisting of the OSEP 
project officer and other experts who have experience and knowledge in 
family engagement and children with disabilities. This review will be 
held during the first half of the fourth year of the project period;
    (b) The success and timeliness with which the requirements of the 
negotiated cooperative agreement have been or are being met by the 
project; and
    (c) The degree to which the project's activities have contributed 
to changed practices and improved outcomes for children with 
disabilities.
    Competitive Preference Priority: Within this absolute priority, we 
give competitive preference to applications that address the following 
priority. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i), we award up to an additional 9 
points to an application that meets the competitive preference 
priority. Applicants should indicate in the abstract whether the 
competitive preference priority is addressed.
    The competitive preference priority is:
    Models in Schools with High Percentages of Military-Connected 
Students (0, 5, 7, or 9 points).
    (a) Under this priority, applicants will receive five points if 
they propose to locate one site for the model in a school with a high 
percentage of military-connected \11\ students, seven points if they 
propose to locate two sites for the model in schools with a high 
percentage of military-connected students, and nine points if they 
propose to locate three or more sites for the model in schools with a 
high percentage of military-connected students. Applicants must include 
a letter of commitment from the proposed sites describing how the 
unique needs of military-connected families--including simplifying and 
streamlining the onboarding process into the new school system, 
facilitating the transfer of IEPs without a major disruption in service 
delivery, and providing required services to children without 
disruptions in educational programming--will be addressed in the 
implementation of the model.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ A military-connected student is defined as a student whose 
parent or guardian is on active duty, in the National Guard, or in 
the Reserve components of the United States military services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (b) For the purpose of this priority, a high percentage of 
military-connected students is 20 percent or higher of the school 
population.

References

Baquedano-Lopez, P., Alexander, R.A., & Hernandez, S.J. (2013). Equity 
issues in parental and community involvement in schools: What teacher 
educators need to know. Review of Research in Education, 37, 149-182. 
www.jstor.org/stable/24641960.
Buren, M., Maggin, D., & Brown, C. (2020). Meta-synthesis on the 
experiences of families from nondominant communities and special 
education collaboration. Exceptionality, 28(4), 259-278. https://doi.org/10.1080/09362835.2018.1480953.
Doucet, F. (2011). (Re)Constructing home and school: Immigrant parents, 
agency, and the (un)desirability of bridging multiple worlds. Teachers 
College Record, 113(12), 2705-2738. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811111301201.
Dyrness, A. (2009). Cultural exclusion and critique in the era of good 
intentions: Using participatory research to transform parent roles in 
urban school reform. Social Justice, 36(4)(118), 36-53. www.jstor.org/stable/29768560.
Fan, X., & Chen, M. (2001). Parental involvement and students' academic 
achievement: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 13(1), 1-
22. www.jstor.org/stable/23358867.
Henderson, A.T., & Mapp, K.L. (2002). A new wave of evidence: The 
impact of school, family, and community connections on student 
achievement. National Center for Family and Community Connections with 
Schools, Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED536946.
Hill, N.E., & Tyson, D.F. (2009). Parental involvement in middle 
school: A meta-analytic assessment of the strategies that promote 
achievement. Development Psychology, 45(3), 740-763. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015362.
Ishimaru, A.M. (2020). Just schools: Building equitable collaborations 
with families and communities. Teachers College Press.
Jeynes, W.H. (2005). A meta-analysis of the relation of parental 
involvement to urban elementary school student academic achievement. 
Urban Education, 40(3), 237-269. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085905274540.
Jeynes, W.H. (2007). The relationship between parental involvement and 
urban secondary school student academic achievement: A meta-analysis. 
Urban Education, 42(1), 82-110. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085906293818.
Jeynes, W.H. (2012). A meta-analysis of the efficacy of different types 
of parental involvement programs for urban students. Urban Education, 
47(4), 706-742. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085912445643.
Kim, S.W., & Hill, N.E. (2015). Including fathers in the picture: A 
meta-analysis of parental involvement and students' academic 
achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107(4), 919-934. 
https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000023.
Kramarczuk Voulgarides, C., Fergus, E., & King Thorius, K.A. (2017). 
Pursuing equity: Disproportionality in special education and the 
reframing of technical solutions to address systemic inequities. Review 
of Research in Education, 41(1), 61-87. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X16686947.
Lareau, A., & Horvat, E.M. (1999). Moments of social inclusion and 
exclusion race, class, and cultural capital in family-school 
relationships. Sociology of Education, 72(1), 37-53. https://doi.org/10.2307/2673185.
Olivos, E.M. (2006). The power of parents: A critical perspective of 
bicultural parent involvement in public schools. Peter Lang New York.
Xu, Y. (2020). Engaging families of young children with disabilities 
through family-school-community partnerships. Early Child Development 
and Care, 190(12), 1959-1968. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2018.1552950.
    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 priorities in this notice.
    Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1463 and 1481.
    Note: Projects will be awarded and must be operated in a manner 
consistent

[[Page 11263]]

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 in 2 CFR part 
200, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department in 2 CFR 
part 3474.
    Note: The regulations in 34 CFR part 79 apply to all applicants 
except federally recognized Indian Tribes.
    Note: The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 apply to institutions of 
higher education (IHEs) only.

II. Award Information

    Type of Award: Cooperative agreements.
    Estimated Available Funds: The Administration has requested 
$55,345,000 for the Technical Assistance and Dissemination to Improve 
Services and Results for Children with Disabilities program for FY 
2024, of which we intend to use an estimated $1,600,000 for this 
competition. The actual level of funding, if any, depends on final 
congressional action. However, we are inviting applications to allow 
enough time to complete the grant process if Congress appropriates 
funds for this program.
    Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of 
applications, we may make additional awards in FY 2025 from the list of 
unfunded applications from this competition.
    Estimated Range of Awards: $300,000 to $400,000.
    Estimated Average Size of Awards: $350,000.
    Maximum Award: We will not make an award exceeding $1,600,000 per 
project 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. The fifth-
year budget period should be budgeted at $100,000.
    Estimated Number of Awards: 4.
    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 charter schools that 
are considered LEAs under State law; IHEs; other public agencies; 
private nonprofit organizations; outlying areas; freely associated 
States; Indian Tribes or Tribal organizations; and for-profit 
organizations.
    Note: If you are a nonprofit organization, under 34 CFR 75.51, you 
may demonstrate your nonprofit status by providing: (1) proof that the 
Internal Revenue Service currently recognizes the applicant as an 
organization to which contributions are tax deductible under section 
501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code; (2) a statement from a State 
taxing body or the State attorney general certifying that the 
organization is a nonprofit organization operating within the State and 
that no part of its net earnings may lawfully benefit any private 
shareholder or individual; (3) a certified copy of the applicant's 
certificate of incorporation or similar document if it clearly 
establishes the nonprofit status of the applicant; or (4) any item 
described above if that item applies to a State or national parent 
organization, together with a statement by the State or parent 
organization that the applicant is a local nonprofit affiliate.
    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 
Cost Principles described in 2 CFR part 200 subpart E of the Uniform 
Guidance.
    3. Subgrantees: Under 34 CFR 75.708(b) and (c), a grantee under 
this competition may award subgrants--to directly carry out project 
activities described in its application--to the following types of 
entities: IHEs, nonprofit organizations suitable to carry out the 
activities proposed in the application, and other public agencies. The 
grantee may award subgrants to entities it has identified in an 
approved application or that it selects through a competition under 
procedures established by the grantee, consistent with 34 CFR 
75.708(b)(2).
    4. Other General Requirements:
    a. Recipients of funding under this competition must make positive 
efforts to employ and advance in employment qualified individuals with 
disabilities (see section 606 of IDEA).
    b. Applicants for, and recipients of, funding must, with respect to 
the aspects of their proposed project relating to the absolute 
priority, involve individuals with disabilities, or parents of 
individuals with disabilities ages birth through 26, in planning, 
implementing, and evaluating the project (see section 682(a)(1)(A) of 
IDEA).

IV. Application and Submission Information

    1. Application Submission Instructions: Applicants are required to 
follow the Common Instructions for Applicants to Department of 
Education Discretionary Grant Programs, published in the Federal 
Register on December 7, 2022 (87 FR 75045), and available at 
www.federalregister.gov/d/2022-26554, 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.
    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 50 pages and (2) use the 
following standards:
     A ``page'' is 8.5 x 11, on one side 
only, with 1 margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.
     Double-space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) 
all text in the application narrative, including titles, headings, 
footnotes, quotations, reference citations, and captions, as well as 
all text in charts, tables, figures, graphs, and screen shots.
     Use a font that is 12 point or larger.
     Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, 
Courier New, or Arial.
    The recommended page limit does not apply to the cover sheet; the 
budget section, including the narrative budget justification; the 
assurances and certifications; or the abstract (follow the

[[Page 11264]]

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 (15 points).
    (1) The Secretary considers the significance of the proposed 
project.
    (2) In determining the significance of the proposed project, the 
Secretary considers the following factors:
    (i) The potential contribution of the proposed project to increased 
knowledge or understanding of educational problems, issues, or 
effective strategies;
    (ii) The extent to which the proposed project is likely to build 
local capacity to provide, improve, or expand services that address the 
needs of the target population;
    (iii) The importance or magnitude of the results or outcomes likely 
to be attained by the proposed project, especially improvements in 
teaching and student achievement; and
    (iv) The likely utility of the products (such as information, 
materials, processes, or techniques) that will result from the proposed 
project, including the potential for their being used effectively in a 
variety of other settings.
    (b) Quality of the project design (35 points).
    (1) The Secretary considers the quality of the design of the 
proposed project.
    (2) In determining the quality of the design of the proposed 
project, the Secretary considers the following factors:
    (i) The extent to which the goals, objectives, and outcomes to be 
achieved by the proposed project are clearly specified and measurable;
    (ii) The extent to which the design of the proposed project 
includes a thorough, high-quality review of the relevant literature, a 
high-quality plan for project implementation, and the use of 
appropriate methodological tools to ensure successful achievement of 
project objectives;
    (iii) The quality of the proposed demonstration design and 
procedures for documenting project activities and results;
    (iv) The extent to which the design for implementing and evaluating 
the proposed project will result in information to guide possible 
replication of project activities or strategies, including information 
about the effectiveness of the approach or strategies employed by the 
project; and
    (v) The extent to which performance feedback and continuous 
improvement are integral to the design of the proposed project.
    (c) Adequacy of resources and quality of the management plan (25 
points).
    (1) The Secretary considers the adequacy of resources and the 
quality of the management plan for the proposed project.
    (2) In determining the adequacy of resources and the quality of the 
management plan for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the 
following factors:
    (i) The adequacy of support, including facilities, equipment, 
supplies, and other resources, from the applicant organization or the 
lead applicant organization;
    (ii) The relevance and demonstrated commitment of each partner in 
the proposed project to the implementation and success of the project;
    (iii) The extent to which the time commitments of the project 
director and principal investigator and other key project personnel are 
appropriate and adequate to meet the objectives of the proposed 
project;
    (iv) How the applicant will ensure that a diversity of perspectives 
are brought to bear in the operation of the proposed project, including 
those of parents, teachers, the business community, a variety of 
disciplinary and professional fields, recipients or beneficiaries of 
services, or others, as appropriate; and
    (v) The adequacy of the management plan to achieve the objectives 
of the proposed project on time and within budget, including clearly 
defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing 
project tasks.
    (d) Quality of the project evaluation (25 points).
    (1) The Secretary considers the quality of the evaluation to be 
conducted of the proposed project.
    (2) In determining the quality of the evaluation, the Secretary 
considers the following factors:
    (i) The extent to which the methods of evaluation are thorough, 
feasible, and appropriate to the goals, objectives, and outcomes of the 
proposed project;
    (ii) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will provide 
performance feedback and permit periodic assessment of progress toward 
achieving intended outcomes;
    (iii) The extent to which the methods of evaluation provide for 
examining the effectiveness of project implementation strategies;
    (iv) The extent to which the evaluation will provide guidance about 
effective strategies suitable for replication or testing in other 
settings; and
    (v) The extent to which the methods of evaluation include the use 
of objective performance measures that are clearly related to the 
intended outcomes of the project and will produce quantitative and 
qualitative data to the extent possible.
    2. Review and Selection Process: We remind potential applicants 
that in reviewing applications in any discretionary grant competition, 
the Secretary may consider, under 34 CFR 75.217(d)(3), the past 
performance of the applicant in carrying out a previous award, such as 
the applicant's use of funds, achievement of project objectives, and 
compliance with grant conditions. The Secretary may also consider 
whether the applicant failed to submit a timely performance report or 
submitted a report of unacceptable quality.
    In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary 
requires various assurances, including those applicable to Federal 
civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or 
activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department 
(34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
    3. Additional Review and Selection Process Factors: In the past, 
the Department has had difficulty finding peer reviewers for certain 
competitions because so many individuals who are eligible to serve as 
peer reviewers have conflicts of interest. The standing panel 
requirements under section 682(b) of IDEA also have placed additional 
constraints on the availability of reviewers. Therefore, the Department 
has determined that for some discretionary grant competitions, 
applications may be separated into two or more groups and ranked and 
selected for funding within specific groups. This procedure will make 
it easier for the Department to find peer reviewers by ensuring that 
greater numbers of individuals who are eligible to serve as reviewers 
for any particular group of applicants will not have conflicts of 
interest. It also will increase the quality, independence, and fairness 
of the review process, while permitting panel members to review 
applications under discretionary grant competitions for which they also 
have submitted applications.

[[Page 11265]]

    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 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 APR 
that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure 
information as directed by the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118. The 
Secretary may also require more frequent performance reports under 34 
CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, please go to 
www.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/appforms/appforms.html.
    (c) Under 34 CFR 75.250(b), the Secretary may provide a grantee 
with additional funding for data collection, analysis, and reporting. 
In this case the Secretary establishes a data collection period.
    5. Performance Measures: For the purposes of Department reporting 
under 34 CFR 75.110, the Department has established a set of 
performance measures, including long-term measures, that are designed 
to yield information on various aspects of the effectiveness and 
quality of the Model Demonstration Projects to Improve Services and 
Results for Infants, Toddlers, and Children with Disabilities under the 
Technical Assistance and Dissemination to Improve Services and Results 
for Children With Disabilities program. These measures are:
     Current Program Performance Measure: The percentage of 
effective evidence-based program models developed by model 
demonstration projects that are promoted to States and their partners 
through the Technical Assistance and Dissemination Network;
     Pilot Program Performance Measure: The percentage of 
effective program models developed by Model Demonstration Grants that 
are sustained beyond the life of the model demonstration project and 
promoted to other potential users.
    The current program performance measure and the pilot program 
performance measure apply to projects funded under this competition, 
and grantees are required to submit data on these measures as directed 
by OSEP.
    Grantees will be required to report information on their project's 
performance in annual and final performance reports to the Department 
(34 CFR 75.590).
    6. Continuation Awards: In making a continuation award under 34 CFR 
75.253, the Secretary considers, among other things: whether a grantee 
has

[[Page 11266]]

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 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.

Dant[eacute] Allen,
Commissioner, Rehabilitation Services Administration, Office of Special 
Education and Rehabilitative Services.
[FR Doc. 2024-02973 Filed 2-13-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P