[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 135 (Friday, July 13, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32651-32659]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-15054]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Applications for New Awards; Technical Assistance and
Dissemination To Improve Services and Results for Children With
Disabilities--Model Demonstration Projects To Improve Academic Outcomes
of Students With Intellectual Disabilities in Elementary and Middle
School
AGENCY: Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services,
Department of Education.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Education is issuing a notice inviting
applications for a new award for fiscal year (FY) 2018 for Technical
Assistance and Dissemination to Improve Services and Results for
Children with Disabilities--Model Demonstration Projects to Improve
Academic Outcomes of Students with Intellectual Disabilities in
Elementary and Middle School, Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
(CFDA) number 84.326M.
DATES:
Applications Available: July 13, 2018.
Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: August 13, 2018.
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 12, 2018 (83 FR 6003) and available at
www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2018-02-12/pdf/2018-02558.pdf.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristen Rhoads, U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 5142, Potomac Center Plaza,
Washington, DC 20202-5108. Telephone: (202) 245-6715. Email:
[email protected].
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text
telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-
800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Full Text of Announcement
I. Funding Opportunity Description
Purpose of Program: The purpose of the Technical Assistance and
Dissemination to Improve Services and Results for Children with
Disabilities program is to promote academic achievement and to improve
results for children with disabilities by providing technical
assistance (TA), supporting model demonstration projects, disseminating
useful information, and implementing activities that are supported by
scientifically based research.
Priorities: This notice includes one absolute priority. In
accordance with 34 CFR 75.105(b)(2)(v), the absolute priority, and the
competitive preference priority within this absolute priority, are from
allowable activities specified in the statute or otherwise authorized
in the statute (see sections 663 and 681(d) of the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA); 20 U.S.C. 1463, 1481(d)).
Absolute Priority: For FY 2018 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 Improve Academic Outcomes of
Students with Intellectual Disabilities in Elementary and Middle
School.
Background: The mission of the Office of Special Education and
Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) is to improve early childhood,
educational,
[[Page 32652]]
and employment outcomes and raise expectations for all people with
disabilities, their families, their communities, and the Nation.
Model demonstrations to improve early intervention, educational, or
transitional results for students with disabilities have been
authorized under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)
since the law's inception. For the purposes of this priority, a model
is a set of existing evidence-based (as defined in this notice)
interventions and implementation strategies (i.e., core model
components) that research suggests will improve outcomes for children,
teachers, instructional personnel, school or district leaders, or
systems, when implemented with fidelity. Model demonstrations involve
investigating the degree to which a given model can be implemented and
sustained in typical settings, by staff employed in those settings,
while achieving outcomes similar to those attained under research
conditions.
The purpose of this priority is to fund three cooperative
agreements to establish and operate model demonstration projects that
will assess how models can:
(a) Improve outcomes in English Language Arts, including literacy,
and other academic subjects for students with intellectual disabilities
\1\ in elementary or middle schools;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For this competition, having an IEP with intellectual
disability as a primary or secondary disability category is not
required to be a student with an intellectual disability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) Align instruction to grade-level, State-adopted content
standards and provide access to the general education curriculum;
(c) Provide students with intellectual disabilities the opportunity
to meet challenging objectives and receive an individualized education
program (IEP) that is both meaningful and appropriately ambitious in
light of each student's circumstances; and
(d) Be implemented and sustained by educators in both general and
special education settings.
On March 22, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court (the Court) issued a
unanimous opinion in Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District Re-1,
137 S. Ct. 988 (2017). The Court interpreted the scope of the free
appropriate public education (FAPE) requirements in IDEA and overturned
the Tenth Circuit's decision that Endrew, a child with autism, was
entitled to an educational benefit that was guaranteed to provide only
``merely more than de minimis'' progress. The Court determined that,
``[t]o meet its substantive obligation under the IDEA, a school must
offer an IEP reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress
appropriate in light of the child's circumstances.'' The Court
additionally emphasized the requirement that ``every child should have
the chance to meet challenging objectives.'' This decision underlines
the importance of exploring models focused on improving academic
outcomes for students with intellectual disabilities, a population
frequently subject to low expectations and held to low standards.
A growing research base indicates that students with intellectual
disabilities demonstrate gains in reading at the same rate as their
peers despite demonstrating significantly lower levels of overall
performance (Schulte, Stevens, Elliott, Tindal, & Nese, 2016).
Promising strategies, practices (e.g., embedded trial instruction with
time delay, peer tutoring, direct instruction, systematic prompting
with feedback, and more), and curricula exist that support academic
instruction and improve student outcomes in literacy and other academic
content areas (Browder, Mims, Spooner, & Ahlgrim-Delzell, & Lee, 2008;
Butler, Miller, Lee, & Pierce, 2001; Jimenez, Browder, Spooner, &
DiBiase, 2012; Hudson, Browder, & Wood, 2013; Lemons, Allor, Al Otaiba,
& LeJune, 2016).
Instruction of students with intellectual disabilities, however,
has not typically provided them with the chance to meet challenging
objectives. Instead of teaching grade-level content that meets State
standards, instruction for students with intellectual disabilities has
been typically limited to non-academic functional life skills. For
example, literacy instruction for students with intellectual
disabilities has historically focused on only one component of literacy
development--recognition of sight words considered important for daily
living (Browder, Wakeman, Spooner, Ahlgrim-Delzell, & Algozzine, 2006).
Further, teachers have reported difficulties in aligning
instruction to grade-level academic content standards for students with
intellectual disabilities (Jimenez & Henderson, 2011). This is due, in
part, to the reality that, when compared to their peers, these students
may have greatly divergent levels of functional and academic skill
attainment, may require significant modifications and individualization
of the curriculum, need differing modes of access to content and
instruction, or need additional time for learning (Allor, Mathes,
Roberts, Cheatham, & Champlin, 2010).
To overcome this history and these challenges, to ensure that
students with intellectual disabilities in elementary and middle
schools receive appropriate access to challenging objectives and grade-
level academic standards, and to ensure that these students progress in
the general education curriculum, with accompanying services and
supports as required under IDEA, educators must have access to
evidence-based practices on instruction in academic subjects,
particularly English Language Arts, including literacy. This
competition, therefore, aims to fund model demonstration projects that
will demonstrate and refine methods of professional development that
result in educators successfully implementing appropriate, evidence-
based practices in English Language Arts, including literacy, and other
academic subjects. The model demonstration projects proposed under this
priority must make use of evidence-based practices.
This priority is consistent with two priorities from the
Supplemental Priorities and Definitions for Discretionary Grant
Programs, published in the Federal Register on March 2, 2018 (83 FR
9096) (Supplemental Priorities): Priority 5--Meeting the Unique Needs
of Students and Children With Disabilities and/or Those With Unique
Gifts and Talents; and Supplemental Priority 8--Promoting Effective
Instruction in Classrooms and Schools. In particular, priority 5 from
the Supplemental Priorities emphasizes meeting the unique needs of
students with disabilities, including their academic needs, through
offering the opportunity to meet challenging objectives and receive an
educational program that is both meaningful and appropriately ambitious
in light of each student's circumstances. Priority 8 from the
Supplemental Priorities emphasizes promoting innovative strategies to
increase the number of students who have access to effective educators
and principals or other school leaders.
Priority: The purpose of this priority is to fund three cooperative
agreements to establish and operate model demonstration projects. The
proposed model demonstration projects must address instruction that
improves outcomes in English Language Arts, including literacy, for
students with intellectual disabilities, and may include instruction in
other academic subjects. The model demonstration projects will assess
how models can:
(a) Improve outcomes in English Language Arts, including literacy,
and other academic subjects for students
[[Page 32653]]
with intellectual disabilities in elementary or middle schools;
(b) Align instruction to grade-level, State-adopted content
standards and provide access to the general education curriculum;
(c) Provide students with intellectual disabilities the opportunity
to meet challenging objectives and receive an IEP that is both
meaningful and appropriately ambitious in light of each student's
circumstances; and
(d) Be implemented and sustained by educators in both general and
special education settings. Applicants must propose models that meet
the following requirements:
(a) The model's core intervention components must include:
(1) A framework that includes, at a minimum, assessment,
incorporating approaches for measuring student progress, and the
application of evidence-based core instructional practices;
(2) Evidence-based instructional practices for improving outcomes
in English Language Arts, including literacy, or other academic
subjects, as appropriate, for students with intellectual disabilities
in elementary or middle school that are designed to--
(i) Help students meet challenging objectives; and
(ii) Support comprehensive, standards-aligned instruction in grade-
level content.
(3) Valid and reliable measures of student-level, instructor-level,
and system-level outcomes, using standardized measures when applicable;
(4) Procedures to refine the model based on the ongoing assessment
of student-level, instructor-level, and system-level performance; and
(5) Measures of the model's social validity, i.e., measures of
educators', parents', and students' \2\ satisfaction with the model
components, processes, and outcomes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Applicants must ensure the confidentiality of individual
student data, consistent with the Confidentiality of Information
regulations under both Part B and Part C of IDEA, which incorporate
requirements and exceptions under section 444 of the General
Education Provisions Act (20 U.S.C. 1232g), commonly known as the
``Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act'' (FERPA), but also
include several provisions that are specifically related to children
with disabilities receiving services under IDEA and provide
protections beyond the FERPA regulations. Therefore, examining the
IDEA requirements first is the most effective and efficient way to
meet the requirements of both IDEA and FERPA for children with
disabilities. Applicants should also be aware of State laws or
regulations concerning the confidentiality of individual records.
See https://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/ptac/pdf/idea-ferpa.pdf and
https://studentprivacy.ed.gov/resources/ferpaidea-cross-walk. Final
FERPA regulatory changes became effective January 3, 2012, and
include requirements for data sharing. Applicants are encouraged to
review the final FERPA regulations published on December 2, 2011 (76
FR 75604). Questions can be sent to the Family Policy Compliance
Office (www.ed.gov/fpco) at (202) 260-3887 or [email protected].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) The model's core implementation components must include:
(1) Criteria and strategies for selecting \3\ and recruiting sites,
including approaches to introducing the model to, and promoting the
model among, site participants,\4\ with consideration given to the
following criteria:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ For factors to consider when selecting model demonstration
sites, the applicant should refer to Assessing Sites for Model
Demonstration: Lessons Learned for OSEP Grantees at http://mdcc.sri.com/documents/MDCC_Site_Assessment_Brief_09-30-11.pdf. The
document also contains a site assessment tool.
\4\ For factors to consider while preparing for model
demonstration implementation, the applicant should refer to
Preparing for Model Demonstration Implementation at http://mdcc.sri.com/documents/MDCC_PreparationStage_Brief_Apr2013.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) Each project must include at least three elementary or at least
three middle schools; and
(ii) In each of the schools, all of the students participating in
the model demonstration project must have an intellectual disability,
as defined in this notice. Across all implementation sites, the project
must serve no fewer than 50 students with intellectual disabilities;
(2) A lag site implementation design, which allows for model
development and refinement at the first site in year one of the project
period, with sites two and three implementing a revised model based on
data from the first site beginning in subsequent project years.
Note: When designing the project, applicants should consider
project period length as well as relevant research indicating that
learning may take longer for students with intellectual disabilities
(Allor et al., 2010) and provide strong justification for timing of
implementation for sites two and three.
(3) A professional development component that includes an evidence-
based coaching strategy, to enable site-based staff to implement the
interventions with fidelity; and
(4) Measures of the results of the professional development (e.g.,
improvements in teachers'/service providers' knowledge) required by
paragraph (b)(3) of this section, including measures of the fidelity of
implementation.
(c) The core strategies for sustaining the model must include:
(1) Documentation that permits current and future site-based staff
to replicate or appropriately tailor and sustain the model at any site;
\5\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ For a guide on documenting model demonstration sustainment
and replication, the applicant should refer to Planning for
Replication and Dissemination From the Start: Guidelines for Model
Demonstration Projects Revised at http://mdcc.sri.com/documents/MDCC_ReplicationBrief_SEP2015.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) Strategies for the grantee to disseminate or promote the use of
the model, such as developing easily accessible online training
materials, coordinating with TA providers who might serve as future
trainers, or providing technical support (e.g., webinars, training
sessions, or workshops) for users who may want to learn about and
implement the model and its components.
To be considered for funding under this absolute priority,
applicants must meet the application requirements contained in this
priority. Each project funded under this absolute priority also must
meet the programmatic and administrative requirements specified in the
priority.
Application Requirements
An applicant must include in its application--
(a) A detailed review of the literature addressing the proposed
model or its intervention or implementation components and processes to
improve access to challenging objectives and grade-level content, and
improve outcomes, in English Language Arts, including literacy, and
other academic subjects, as appropriate, for students with intellectual
disabilities in elementary or middle school;
(b) A logic model (as defined in this notice) that depicts, at a
minimum, the goals, activities, outputs, and outcomes (described in
paragraph (a) under the heading Priority) of the proposed model
demonstration project.
Note: The following websites provide resources for constructing
logic models: www.osepideasthatwork.org/logicModel and
www.osepideasthatwork.org/resources-grantees/program-areas/ta-ta/tad-project-logic-model-and-conceptual-framework.
(c) A description of the activities and measures to be incorporated
into the proposed model demonstration project (i.e., the project
design) to improve access to grade-level content and improve outcomes
in English Language Arts, including literacy, and other academic
subjects, as appropriate, for students with intellectual disabilities,
including a timeline of how and when the components are introduced
within the model. A detailed and complete description must include the
following:
[[Page 32654]]
(1) All the intervention components, including, at a minimum, those
listed under paragraph (a) under the heading Priority.
(2) The existing and proposed child, teacher, service provider, or
system outcome measures and social validity measures. The measures
should be described as completely as possible, referenced as
appropriate, and included, when available, in Appendix A.
(3) All the implementation components, including, at a minimum,
those listed under paragraph (b) under the heading Priority. The
existing or proposed implementation fidelity measures, including those
measuring the fidelity of the professional development strategy, should
be described as completely as possible, referenced as appropriate, and
included, when available, in Appendix A. In addition, this description
should include:
(i) Demographics, including, at a minimum, the number of students
with intellectual disabilities, their ages, and their grade levels
(while ensuring confidentiality of individual data), at all
implementation sites that have been identified and successfully
recruited for the purposes of this application using the selection and
recruitment strategies described in paragraph (b)(1) under the heading
Priority;
(ii) Whether the implementation sites are located in rural, urban,
or suburban local educational agencies (LEAs) or are schools identified
for comprehensive support and improvement \6\ or schools implementing
targeted support and improvement plans \7\ under title I of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended by
the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA); and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ For the purposes of this priority, ``schools identified for
comprehensive support and improvement'' means a statewide identified
category of schools that includes (a) not less than the lowest-
performing five percent of all schools receiving funds under this
part in the State; (b) all public high schools in the State failing
to graduate one-third or more of their students; (c) public schools
in the State described under subsection 1111(d)(3)(A)(i)(II) of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended by the
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESEA); and (d) at the discretion of the
State, additional statewide categories of schools, as defined in
section 1111(c)(4)(D)(i) of the ESEA.
\7\ For the purposes of this priority, ``schools implementing
targeted support and improvement plans'' means a school that has
developed and is implementing a school-level targeted support and
improvement plan to improve student outcomes based on the indicators
in the statewide accountability system as defined in section
1111(d)(2) of the ESEA.
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 (e)(1) of these application requirements.
(iii) The lag site implementation design for implementation
consistent with the requirements in paragraph (b)(2) under the heading
Priority.
(4) All the strategies to promote sustaining and replicating the
model, including, at a minimum, those listed under paragraph (c) under
the heading Priority.
(d) A description of the evaluation activities and measures to be
incorporated into the proposed model demonstration project. A detailed
and complete description must include:
(1) A formative evaluation plan, consistent with the project's
logic model, that includes evaluation questions, source(s) of data, a
timeline for data collection, and analysis plans. The plan must show
how the outcome data (e.g., child, teacher, or systems measures, social
validity) and implementation data (e.g., fidelity, effectiveness of
professional development activities) will be used separately or in
combination to improve the project during the performance period. These
data will be reported in the Annual Performance Report (APR). The plan
also must outline how these data will be reviewed by project staff,
when they will be reviewed, and how they will be used during the course
of the project to adjust the model or its implementation to increase
the model's usefulness, generalizability, and potential for
sustainability; and
(2) A summative evaluation plan, including a timeline, to collect
and analyze data on positive changes to child, teacher, service
provider, or system outcome measures over time or relative to
comparison groups that can be reasonably attributable to project
activities. The plan must show how the child, teacher, service
provider, or system outcome and implementation data collected by the
project will be used separately or in combination to demonstrate the
promise of the model.
(e) A budget for attendance at the following:
(1) A one and one half-day kick-off meeting to be held in
Washington, DC, after receipt of the award;
(2) A three-day Project Directors' Conference in Washington, DC,
occurring twice during the project performance period; 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, to be held in Washington, DC.
Other Project Activities: To meet the requirements of this
priority, each project, at a minimum, must:
(a) Communicate and collaborate on an ongoing basis with other
Department-funded projects, including, at minimum, OSEP-funded TA
centers that might disseminate information on the model or support the
scale-up efforts of a promising model;
(b) Maintain ongoing telephone and email communication with the
OSEP project officer and the other model demonstration projects funded
under this priority; and
(c) If the project maintains a website, include relevant
information about the model, the intervention, and the demonstration
activities that meets government- or industry-recognized standards for
accessibility.
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 an additional two
points to an application that meets this priority.
The priority is:
Promising Evidence Supporting the Proposed Model (Two Points).
Projects that are supported by evidence that meets the conditions
set out in the definition of ``promising evidence'' (as defined in this
notice). The application must include:
A literature review, as required under paragraph (a) under the
heading Application Requirements, that includes research that meets at
least the promising evidence standard supporting the proposed model,
its components, and processes to improve academic grade-level content,
particularly English Language Arts, and academic outcomes for students
with intellectual disabilities in elementary or middle school.
Note: An applicant addressing this competitive preference
priority must identify at least one, but no more than two, study
citations that meet this standard and must clearly mark them in the
reference list of the proposal.
References
Allor, J.H., Mathes, P.G., Roberts, J.K., Cheatham, J.P., &
Champlin, T.M. (2010). Comprehensive reading instruction for
students with intellectual disabilities: Findings from the first
three years of a longitudinal study. Psychology in the Schools,
47(5), 445-466.
Browder, D.M., Mims, P.J., Spooner, F., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., & Lee,
A. (2008). Teaching elementary students with multiple disabilities
to participate in shared stories. Research and Practice for
[[Page 32655]]
Persons with Severe Disabilities, 33(1-2), 3-12.
Browder, D.M., Wakeman, S.Y., Spooner, F., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., &
Algozzine, B. (2006). Research on reading instruction for
individuals with significant cognitive disabilities. Exceptional
Children, 72(4), 392-408.
Butler, F.M., Miller, S.P., Lee, K.H., & Pierce, T. (2001). Teaching
mathematics to students with mild-to-moderate mental retardation: A
review of the literature. Mental Retardation, 39(1), 20-31.
Hudson, M.E., Browder, D.M., & Wood, L.A. (2013). Review of
experimental research on academic learning by students with moderate
and severe intellectual disability in general education. Research
and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 38(1), 17-29.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004,
Public Law 108-446. (2004). 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq.
Jimenez, B.A., Browder, D.M., Spooner, F., & DiBiase, W. (2012).
Inclusive inquiry science using peer-mediated embedded instruction
for students with moderate intellectual disability. Exceptional
Children, 78(3), 301-317.
Jimenez, B. & Henderson, K. (2011). Math education: Students with
significant cognitive disabilities--A PowerPoint presentation for
professional development. Modules Addressing Special Education and
Teacher Education (MAST). Greenville, NC: East Carolina University.
Lemons, C.J., Allor, J.H., Al Otaiba, S., & LeJeune, L.M. (2016). 10
Research-Based Tips for Enhancing Literacy Instruction for Students
With Intellectual Disability. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 49(1),
18-30.
Schulte, A.C., Stevens, J.J., Elliott, S.N., Tindal, G., & Nese,
J.F. (2016). Achievement gaps for students with disabilities:
Stable, widening, or narrowing on a statewide reading comprehension
test? Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(7), 925-942.
Definitions
The following definitions are from 34 CFR 77.1 or 34 CFR
300.8(c)(6):
Demonstrates a rationale means 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.
Evidence-based means the proposed project component is supported by
one or more of strong evidence, moderate evidence, promising evidence,
or evidence that demonstrates a rationale.
Experimental study means a study that is designed to compare
outcomes between two groups of individuals (such as students) that are
otherwise equivalent except for their assignment to either a treatment
group receiving a project component or a control group that does not.
Randomized controlled trials, regression discontinuity design studies,
and single-case design studies are the specific types of experimental
studies that, depending on their design and implementation (e.g.,
sample attrition in randomized controlled trials and regression
discontinuity design studies), can meet What Works Clearinghouse (WWC)
standards without reservations as described in the WWC Handbook:
(i) A randomized controlled trial employs random assignment of, for
example, students, teachers, classrooms, or schools to receive the
project component being evaluated (the treatment group) or not to
receive the project component (the control group).
(ii) A regression discontinuity design study assigns the project
component being evaluated using a measured variable (e.g., assigning
students reading below a cutoff score to tutoring or developmental
education classes) and controls for that variable in the analysis of
outcomes.
(iii) A single-case design study uses observations of a single case
(e.g., a student eligible for a behavioral intervention) over time in
the absence and presence of a controlled treatment manipulation to
determine whether the outcome is systematically related to the
treatment.
Intellectual disability means significantly subaverage general
intellectual functioning, existing concurrently with deficits in
adaptive behavior and manifested during the developmental period, that
adversely affects a child's educational performance.
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.
Moderate evidence means that there is evidence of effectiveness of
a key project component in improving a relevant outcome for a sample
that overlaps with the populations or settings proposed to receive that
component, based on a relevant finding from one of the following:
(i) A practice guide prepared by the WWC using version 2.1 or 3.0
of the WWC Handbook reporting a ``strong evidence base'' or ``moderate
evidence base'' for the corresponding practice guide recommendation;
(ii) An intervention report prepared by the WWC using version 2.1
or 3.0 of the WWC Handbook reporting a ``positive effect'' or
``potentially positive effect'' on a relevant outcome based on a
``medium to large'' extent of evidence, with no reporting of a
``negative effect'' or ``potentially negative effect'' on a relevant
outcome; or
(iii) A single experimental study or quasi-experimental design
study reviewed and reported by the WWC using version 2.1 or 3.0 of the
WWC Handbook, or otherwise assessed by the Department using version 3.0
of the WWC Handbook, as appropriate, and that--
(A) Meets WWC standards with or without reservations;
(B) Includes at least one statistically significant and positive
(i.e., favorable) effect on a relevant outcome;
(C) Includes no overriding statistically significant and negative
effects on relevant outcomes reported in the study or in a
corresponding WWC intervention report prepared under version 2.1 or 3.0
of the WWC Handbook; and
(D) Is based on a sample from more than one site (e.g., State,
county, city, school district, or postsecondary campus) and includes at
least 350 students or other individuals across sites. Multiple studies
of the same project component that each meet requirements in paragraphs
(iii)(A), (B), and (C) of this definition may together satisfy this
requirement.
Project component means an activity, strategy, intervention,
process, product, practice, or policy included in a project. Evidence
may pertain to an individual project component or to a combination of
project components (e.g., training teachers on instructional practices
for English learners and follow-on coaching for these teachers).
Promising evidence means that there is evidence of the
effectiveness of a key project component in improving a relevant
outcome, based on a relevant finding from one of the following:
(i) A practice guide prepared by WWC reporting a ``strong evidence
base'' or ``moderate evidence base'' for the corresponding practice
guide recommendation;
(ii) An intervention report prepared by the WWC reporting a
``positive effect'' or ``potentially positive effect'' on a relevant
outcome with no reporting of a ``negative effect'' or ``potentially
negative effect'' on a relevant outcome; or
(iii) A single study assessed by the Department, as appropriate,
that--
(A) Is an experimental study, a quasi-experimental design study, or
a well-designed and well-implemented correlational study with
statistical controls for selection bias (e.g., a study
[[Page 32656]]
using regression methods to account for differences between a treatment
group and a comparison group); and
(B) Includes at least one statistically significant and positive
(i.e., favorable) effect on a relevant outcome.
Quasi-experimental design study means a study using a design that
attempts to approximate an experimental study by identifying a
comparison group that is similar to the treatment group in important
respects. This type of study, depending on design and implementation
(e.g., establishment of baseline equivalence of the groups being
compared), can meet WWC standards with reservations, but cannot meet
WWC standards without reservations, as described in the WWC Handbook.
Relevant outcome means the student outcome(s) or other outcome(s)
the key project component is designed to improve, consistent with the
specific goals of the program.
Strong evidence means that there is evidence of the effectiveness
of a key project component in improving a relevant outcome for a sample
that overlaps with the populations and settings proposed to receive
that component, based on a relevant finding from one of the following:
(i) A practice guide prepared by the WWC using version 2.1 or 3.0
of the WWC Handbook reporting a ``strong evidence base'' for the
corresponding practice guide recommendation;
(ii) An intervention report prepared by the WWC using version 2.1
or 3.0 of the WWC Handbook reporting a ``positive effect'' on a
relevant outcome based on a ``medium to large'' extent of evidence,
with no reporting of a ``negative effect'' or ``potentially negative
effect'' on a relevant outcome; or
(iii) A single experimental study reviewed and reported by the WWC
using version 2.1 or 3.0 of the WWC Handbook, or otherwise assessed by
the Department using version 3.0 of the WWC Handbook, as appropriate,
and that--
(A) Meets WWC standards without reservations;
(B) Includes at least one statistically significant and positive
(i.e., favorable) effect on a relevant outcome;
(C) Includes no overriding statistically significant and negative
effects on relevant outcomes reported in the study or in a
corresponding WWC intervention report prepared under version 2.1 or 3.0
of the WWC Handbook; and
(D) Is based on a sample from more than one site (e.g., State,
county, city, school district, or postsecondary campus) and includes at
least 350 students or other individuals across sites. Multiple studies
of the same project component that each meet requirements in paragraphs
(iii)(A), (B), and (C) of this definition may together satisfy this
requirement.
What Works Clearinghouse Handbook (WWC Handbook) means the
standards and procedures set forth in the WWC Procedures and Standards
Handbook, Version 3.0 or Version 2.1 (incorporated by reference, see 34
CFR 77.2). Study findings eligible for review under WWC standards can
meet WWC standards without reservations, meet WWC standards with
reservations, or not meet WWC standards. WWC practice guides and
intervention reports include findings from systematic reviews of
evidence as described in the Handbook documentation.
Waiver of Proposed Rulemaking: Under the Administrative Procedure
Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553) the Department generally offers interested
parties the opportunity to comment on proposed priorities and other
requirements. Section 681(d) of IDEA, however, makes the public comment
requirements of the APA inapplicable to the absolute priority and
related definitions in this notice.
Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1463 and 1481.
Applicable Regulations: (a) The Education Department General
Administrative Regulations in 34 CFR parts 75, 77, 79, 81, 82, 84, 86,
97, 98, and 99. (b) The Office of Management and Budget Guidelines to
Agencies on Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement) in
2 CFR part 180, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department
in 2 CFR part 3485. (c) The Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost
Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards in 2 CFR part
200, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department in 2 CFR
part 3474.
Note: The regulations in 34 CFR part 79 apply to all applicants
except federally recognized Indian Tribes.
Note: The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 apply to institutions
of higher education (IHEs) only.
II. Award Information
Type of Award: Cooperative agreements.
Estimated Available Funds: $1,200,000.
Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of
applications, we may make additional awards in FY 2019 from the list of
unfunded applications from this competition.
Estimated Range of Awards: $375,000 to $400,000 per year.
Estimated Average Size of Awards: $400,000 per year.
Maximum Award: We will not make an award exceeding $400,000 for a
single budget period of 12 months.
Estimated Number of Awards: 3.
Note: The Department is not bound by any estimates in this
notice.
Project Period: Up to 48 months.
III. Eligibility Information
1. Eligible Applicants: State educational agencies (SEAs); LEAs,
including charter schools that are considered LEAs under State law;
IHEs; other public agencies; private nonprofit organizations; outlying
areas; freely associated States; Indian Tribes or Tribal organizations;
and for-profit organizations.
2. Cost Sharing or Matching: This program does not require cost
sharing or matching.
3. Subgrantees: 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 and private nonprofit organizations suitable to carry
out the activities proposed in the application. The grantee may award
subgrants to entities it has identified in an approved application.
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: For information on how to
submit an application please refer to our Common Instructions for
Applicants to Department of Education Discretionary Grant Programs,
published in the Federal Register on February 12, 2018 (83 FR 6003) and
available at www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2018-02-12/pdf/2018-02558.pdf.
2. Intergovernmental Review: This competition is subject to
Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34
[[Page 32657]]
CFR part 79. However, under 34 CFR 79.8(a), we waive intergovernmental
review in order to make awards by the end of FY 2018.
3. Funding Restrictions: We reference regulations outlining funding
restrictions in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice.
4. Recommended Page Limit: The application narrative (Part III of
the application) is where you, the applicant, address the selection
criteria that reviewers use to evaluate your application. We recommend
that you (1) limit the application narrative to no more than 50 pages
and (2) use the following standards:
A ``page'' is 8.5'' x 11'', on one side only, with 1''
margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.
Double-space (no more than three lines per vertical inch)
all text in the application narrative, including titles, headings,
footnotes, quotations, reference citations, and captions, as well as
all text in charts, tables, figures, graphs, and screen shots.
Use a font that is 12 point or larger.
Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier,
Courier New, or Arial.
The recommended page limit does not apply to Part I, the cover
sheet; Part II, the budget section, including the narrative budget
justification; Part IV, the assurances and certifications; or the
abstract (follow the guidance provided in the application package for
completing the abstract), the table of contents, the list of priority
requirements, the 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.
(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.
(v) The extent to which performance feedback and continuous
improvement are integral to the design of the proposed project.
(c) Adequacy of resources and quality of the management plan (25
points).
(1) The Secretary considers the adequacy of resources and the
quality of the management plan for the proposed project.
(2) In determining the adequacy of resources and the quality of the
management plan for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the
following factors:
(i) The adequacy of support, including facilities, equipment,
supplies, and other resources, from the applicant organization or the
lead applicant organization.
(ii) The relevance and demonstrated commitment of each partner in
the proposed project to the implementation and success of the project.
(iii) The extent to which the time commitments of the project
director and principal investigator and other key project personnel are
appropriate and adequate to meet the objectives of the proposed
project.
(iv) How the applicant will ensure that a diversity of perspectives
are brought to bear in the operation of the proposed project, including
those of parents, teachers, the business community, a variety of
disciplinary and professional fields, recipients or beneficiaries of
services, or others, as appropriate.
(v) The adequacy of the management plan to achieve the objectives
of the proposed project on time and within budget, including clearly
defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing
project tasks.
(vi) The adequacy of mechanisms for ensuring high-quality products
and services from the proposed project.
(d) Quality of the project evaluation (25 points).
(1) The Secretary considers the quality of the evaluation to be
conducted of the proposed project.
(2) In determining the quality of the evaluation, the Secretary
considers the following factors:
(i) The extent to which the methods of evaluation are thorough,
feasible, and appropriate to the goals, objectives, and outcomes of the
proposed project.
(ii) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will provide
performance feedback and permit periodic assessment of progress toward
achieving intended outcomes.
(iii) The extent to which the methods of evaluation provide for
examining the effectiveness of project implementation strategies.
(iv) The extent to which the evaluation will provide guidance about
effective strategies suitable for replication or testing in other
settings.
(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
[[Page 32658]]
submit a timely performance report or submitted a report of
unacceptable quality.
In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary
requires various assurances, including those applicable to Federal
civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or
activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department
(34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
3. Additional Review and Selection Process Factors: In the past,
the Department has had difficulty finding peer reviewers for certain
competitions because so many individuals who are eligible to serve as
peer reviewers have conflicts of interest. The standing panel
requirements under section 682(b) of IDEA also have placed additional
constraints on the availability of reviewers. Therefore, the Department
has determined that for some discretionary grant competitions,
applications may be separated into two or more groups and ranked and
selected for funding within specific groups. This procedure will make
it easier for the Department to find peer reviewers by ensuring that
greater numbers of individuals who are eligible to serve as reviewers
for any particular group of applicants will not have conflicts of
interest. It also will increase the quality, independence, and fairness
of the review process, while permitting panel members to review
applications under discretionary grant competitions for which they also
have submitted applications.
4. Risk Assessment and Specific Conditions: Consistent with 2 CFR
200.205, before awarding grants under this competition the Department
conducts a review of the risks posed by applicants. Under 2 CFR
3474.10, the Secretary may impose specific conditions and, in
appropriate circumstances, high-risk conditions on a grant if the
applicant or grantee is not financially stable; has a history of
unsatisfactory performance; has a financial or other management system
that does not meet the standards in 2 CFR part 200, subpart D; has not
fulfilled the conditions of a prior grant; or is otherwise not
responsible.
5. Integrity and Performance System: If you are selected under this
competition to receive an award that over the course of the project
period may exceed the simplified acquisition threshold (currently
$150,000), under 2 CFR 200.205(a)(2) we must make a judgment about your
integrity, business ethics, and record of performance under Federal
awards--that is, the risk posed by you as an applicant--before we make
an award. In doing so, we must consider any information about you that
is in the integrity and performance system (currently referred to as
the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System
(FAPIIS)), accessible through the System for Award Management. You may
review and comment on any information about yourself that a Federal
agency previously entered and that is currently in FAPIIS.
Please note that, if the total value of your currently active
grants, cooperative agreements, and procurement contracts from the
Federal Government exceeds $10,000,000, the reporting requirements in 2
CFR part 200, Appendix XII, require you to report certain integrity
information to FAPIIS semiannually. Please review the requirements in 2
CFR part 200, Appendix XII, if this grant plus all the other Federal
funds you receive exceed $10,000,000.
VI. Award Administration Information
1. Award Notices: If your application is successful, we notify your
U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators and send you a Grant Award
Notification (GAN); or we may send you an email containing a link to
access an electronic version of your GAN. We may notify you informally,
also.
If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding,
we notify you.
2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements: We identify
administrative and national policy requirements in the application
package and reference these and other requirements in the Applicable
Regulations section of this notice.
We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of
an award in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice and
include these and other specific conditions in the GAN. The GAN also
incorporates your approved application as part of your binding
commitments under the grant.
3. Open Licensing Requirements: Unless an exception applies, if you
are awarded a grant under this competition, you will be required to
openly license to the public grant deliverables created in whole, or in
part, with Department grant funds. When the deliverable consists of
modifications to pre-existing works, the license extends only to those
modifications that can be separately identified and only to the extent
that open licensing is permitted under the terms of any licenses or
other legal restrictions on the use of pre-existing works.
Additionally, a grantee or subgrantee that is awarded competitive grant
funds must have a plan to disseminate these public grant deliverables.
This dissemination plan can be developed and submitted after your
application has been reviewed and selected for funding. For additional
information on the open licensing requirements please refer to 2 CFR
3474.20.
4. Reporting: (a) If you apply for a grant under this competition,
you must ensure that you have in place the necessary processes and
systems to comply with the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 170
should you receive funding under the competition. This does not apply
if you have an exception under 2 CFR 170.110(b).
(b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final
performance report, including financial information, as directed by the
Secretary. If you receive a multiyear award, you must submit an annual
performance report that provides the most current performance and
financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34
CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance
reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting,
please go to www.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/appforms/appforms.html.
(c) Under 34 CFR 75.250(b), the Secretary may provide a grantee
with additional funding for data collection analysis and reporting. In
this case the Secretary establishes a data collection period.
5. Performance Measures: Under the Government Performance and
Results Act of 1993, the Department has established a set of
performance measures, including long-term measures, that are designed
to yield information on various aspects of the effectiveness and
quality of the Model Demonstration Projects to Improve Academic
Outcomes of Students with Intellectual Disabilities in Elementary and
Middle School under the Technical Assistance and Dissemination to
Improve Services and Results for Children With Disabilities program.
These measures are:
Current Program Performance Measure: The percentage of
effective evidence-based program models developed by model
demonstration projects that are promoted to States and their partners
through the Technical Assistance and Dissemination Network.
Pilot Program Performance Measure: The percentage of
effective program models developed by model demonstration projects that
are sustained beyond the life of the model demonstration project.
The current program performance measure and the pilot program
performance measure apply to projects
[[Page 32659]]
funded under this competition, and grantees are required to submit data
on these measures as directed by OSEP.
Grantees will be required to report information on their project's
performance in annual and final performance reports to the Department
(34 CFR 75.590).
6. Continuation Awards: In making a continuation award under 34 CFR
75.253, the Secretary considers, among other things: Whether a grantee
has made substantial progress in achieving the goals and objectives of
the project; whether the grantee has expended funds in a manner that is
consistent with its approved application and budget; and, if the
Secretary has established performance measurement requirements, the
performance targets in the grantee's approved application.
In making a continuation award, the Secretary also considers
whether the grantee is operating in compliance with the assurances in
its approved application, including those applicable to Federal civil
rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities
receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR
100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
VII. Other Information
Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this
document and a copy of the application package in an accessible format
(e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) by contacting
the Management Support Services Team, U.S. Department of Education, 400
Maryland Avenue SW, Room 5113, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC
20202-2500. Telephone: (202) 245-7363. If you use a TDD or a TTY, call
the FRS, toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this
document is the document published in the Federal Register. You may
access the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of
Federal Regulations via the Federal Digital System at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site you can view this document, as well as all other
documents of this Department published in the Federal Register, in text
or Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF you must have Adobe
Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Federal Register by using the article search feature at:
www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search
feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published
by the Department.
Dated: July 10, 2018.
Johnny W. Collett,
Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.
[FR Doc. 2018-15054 Filed 7-12-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P