Rule2021-14865
Final Priority, Requirement, and Definitions-National Comprehensive Center on Improving Literacy for Students With Disabilities
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
July 13, 2021
Effective
August 12, 2021
Issuing agencies
Education Department
Abstract
The Department of Education (Department) announces a priority, requirement, and definitions for the National Comprehensive Center on Improving Literacy for Students with Disabilities program (Comprehensive Centers program), Assistance Listing Number 84.283D. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESEA), requires the Secretary to establish a comprehensive center for students at risk of not attaining full literacy skills due to a disability. The Department may use the priority, requirement, and definitions for competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2021 and later years. We will use the priority, requirement, and definitions to award a cooperative agreement for a comprehensive center designed to improve literacy skills for students at risk of not attaining full literacy skills due to a disability.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 86 Issue 131 (Tuesday, July 13, 2021)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 131 (Tuesday, July 13, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 36656-36664]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2021-14865]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Chapter III
[Docket ID ED-2020-OSERS-0179]
Final Priority, Requirement, and Definitions--National
Comprehensive Center on Improving Literacy for Students With
Disabilities
AGENCY: Offices of Elementary and Secondary Education and Special
Education and Rehabilitative Services, Department of Education.
ACTION: Final priority, requirement, and definitions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Education (Department) announces a priority,
requirement, and definitions for the National Comprehensive Center on
Improving Literacy for Students with Disabilities program
(Comprehensive Centers program), Assistance Listing Number 84.283D. The
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended by the Every
Student Succeeds Act (ESEA), requires the Secretary to establish a
comprehensive center for students at risk of not attaining full
literacy skills due to a disability. The Department may use the
priority, requirement, and definitions for competitions in fiscal year
(FY) 2021 and later years. We will use the priority, requirement, and
definitions to award a cooperative agreement for a comprehensive center
designed to improve literacy skills for students at risk of not
attaining full literacy skills due to a disability.
DATES: Effective August 12, 2021.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristen Rhoads, U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 5175, Potomac Center Plaza,
Washington, DC 20202-5076. Telephone: (202) 245-6715. Email:
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#743f061d0700111a5a261c1b1510073411105a131b02"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="064d746f7572636828546e6967627546636228616970">[email protected]</span></a>.
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:
Purpose of Program: The Comprehensive Centers program supports the
establishment of not fewer than 20 comprehensive centers to provide
capacity building services to State educational agencies (SEAs),
regional educational agencies (REAs), local educational agencies
(LEAs), and schools that improve educational outcomes for all students,
close achievement gaps, and improve the quality of instruction. The
purpose of the National Comprehensive Center on Improving Literacy for
Students with Disabilities (Center) is to identify or develop evidence-
based literacy assessment tools and professional development activities
and identify evidence-based instruction, strategies, and accommodations
for students at risk of not attaining full literacy skills due to a
disability, including dyslexia impacting reading or writing, or
developmental delay impacting reading, writing, language processing,
comprehension, or executive functioning. The Center will also
disseminate its products and information on evidence-based literacy to
families, SEAs, LEAs, REAs, and schools.
Program Authority: Section 203 of the Educational Technical
Assistance Act of 2002 (ETAA) (20 U.S.C. 9602) and section 2244 of the
ESEA (20 U.S.C. 6674).
We published a notice of proposed priority, requirement, and
definitions (NPP) for this program in the Federal Register on March 12,
2021 (86 FR 14048). The NPP contained background information and our
reasons for proposing the particular priority, requirement, and
definitions.
There are differences between the NPP and this notice of final
priority, requirement, and definitions (NFP) as discussed in the
Analysis of Comments and Changes section of this document. The
substantive changes include not establishing a limit on reimbursement
of indirect costs, adding a requirement related to features of
screening assessments, and expanding who the Center involves when
soliciting a diversity of perspectives in the development and
implementation of services.
Public Comment: In response to our invitation to comment in the
NPP, 27 parties submitted comments on the proposed priority,
requirement, and definitions.
Generally, we do not address technical and other minor changes. In
addition, we do not address comments that raised concerns not directly
related to the proposed priority, requirement, and definitions.
Analysis of Comments and Changes: An analysis of the comments and
changes in the priority, requirement, and definitions since publication
of the NPP follows.
The Department received 27 comments, which addressed several
specific topics, including limiting reimbursement of indirect costs,
supporting an external evaluator, meeting the needs of multiple
populations and settings, implementing project services, measuring
Center outcomes, and managing the Center and adequacy of resources.
Each topic is addressed below.
General Comments
Comment: All commenters expressed overall support for the proposed
Center. One commenter stressed the importance of this Center for
addressing the needs of students in early childhood programs through
12th grade. Another commenter noted that the Center could be important
for ensuring quality education and creating equitable learning
environments for students with disabilities in both charter and
traditional public schools.
Discussion: The Department appreciates the comments and agrees with
the commenters. The Center to be funded under this program will provide
necessary and valuable technical assistance (TA) related to improving
literacy outcomes for students at risk of not attaining full literacy
skills due to a disability.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested removing language related to
competing in the global economy. The reviewer thought that the phrase
adds undue stress for students with disabilities.
Discussion: The mission of the Department includes ``promoting
student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness.'' This
mission applies to all students, including students with disabilities
and we think it is a reasonable expectation to have a broad goal of
preparing all students for the global economy.
Changes: None.
[[Page 36657]]
Directed Question 1--Limiting Reimbursement of Indirect Costs
Comment: Commenters had differing opinions on whether the
Department should limit the reimbursement of indirect costs. Two
commenters were opposed to establishing a limit on reimbursement of
indirect costs or a cap. They stated that a limit would reduce the
number of qualified applicants, which would correspondingly reduce
competition. Specifically, the two commenters noted that a limit would
make it cost prohibitive for some organizations to compete for the
grant, as they may not be able to absorb any unrecovered indirect
costs. They also expressed concerns that the implementation of an
indirect cost rate limit would not impact each applicant equally or
result in equal savings to the government because categories of
indirect costs vary across organizations. Finally, the commenters noted
that indirect costs are established and audited through a lengthy and
rigorous process administered by the cognizant agency and that the
already negotiated rate should be appropriate for this program.
In contrast, three commenters supported establishing a cap on the
indirect cost rate. One commenter supported the range of 20 to 35
percent proposed by the Department. Another commenter recommended a
rate between 45 and 55 percent. The third commenter wanted to know the
percentage of current grantees that had indirect cost rates higher than
35 percent and recommended increasing the cap if that percentage was
high.
One commenter sought clarification on how the Department defined
administrative costs if the Department set a limit to indirect cost
reimbursement.
Discussion: The Department appreciates the stakeholder input it
received in response to the directed question on the Department's
considering potentially limiting indirect costs. We considered this
potential requirement based on 2 CFR 200.414(c)(1), which allows a
Federal awarding agency to use an indirect cost rate different from the
negotiated rate when required by Federal statute or regulation or when
approved by a Federal awarding agency head based on documented
justification when the Federal awarding agency implements, and makes
publicly available, the policies, procedures, and general decision
making criteria that their programs will follow to seek and justify
deviations from negotiated rates. Federal discretionary grantees have
often historically been reimbursed for indirect costs at the rate that
each grantee negotiates with its cognizant Federal agency. At this
time, given the mixed and limited public comments and upon further
reflection, the Department has decided not to impose a limit on the
indirect costs for this competition and relies instead on the
negotiated rate process with cognizant Federal agencies.
Changes: The final requirement does not include an indirect cost
rate cap.
Directed Question 2--Supporting an External or Third-Party Evaluator
Comment: Commenters had differing opinions on the value of an
external or third-party evaluator. Some commenters stated that an
external or third-party evaluator would result in a high-quality
impartial evaluation of the Center's success and improve the quality of
the Center services and products.
Other commenters did not think that an external or third-party
reviewer was necessary. One commenter noted that the role of the
evaluator and expectations for evaluation are more important than
whether the evaluator was internal or external to the Center. The
commenter noted that the currently funded projects in the Comprehensive
Centers Program Network successfully utilize a variety of evaluation
approaches involving external and internal evaluators.
Two commenters noted that an external evaluator would unnecessarily
divert funds from other Center activities. Both commenters noted that
providing crucial TA to teachers and educators should be prioritized
over evaluation activities. One commenter stated that an external
evaluator would also divert funds from conducting important formative
evaluation activities to determine the quality, relevance, and
usefulness of the Center's work and that the size of the award, in
general, was not sufficient for conducting a rigorous evaluation of
Center activities. One commenter pointed out that in a post-pandemic
climate, having more funds dedicated to services may be particularly
important given that students would likely have more academic needs
when they return to in-person instruction. This commenter recommended
exploring low-cost evaluation efforts such as the Department conducting
the evaluation.
Discussion: The Department agrees with the commenters who recommend
requiring a third-party or external evaluator. A third-party or
external evaluator will provide objectivity and credibility in
evaluating the Center's success; provide input to Center staff to
support mid-course corrections; bring additional technical expertise in
evaluation methodology, statistics, or related topics; and allow Center
staff to devote their attention to project implementation. Despite
potentially diverting funds from important TA services or products, a
third-party or external evaluator will be crucial for developing and
implementing a strong evaluation plan and ensuring the effectiveness of
those TA services and products that are provided and developed.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter asked whether the Center would be
independent from or integrated with the current Comprehensive Centers
Program Network. Specifically, the commenter wanted to know whether the
Center would be part of the evaluation of the Comprehensive Centers
program being conducted by the Department's Institute of Education
Sciences (IES) and required to utilize the network's evaluation-related
resources and data collection protocols and activities.
Discussion: The Department will encourage collaboration between the
Center and the network; however, the Center will have its own set of
requirements. It will not be part of the Comprehensive Centers program
evaluation conducted by IES. Similarly, the network's evaluation-
related resources and data collection protocols and activities will not
be required, though the Department encourages applicants to consider
adopting or adapting them as part of their evaluation work. The
resources will be shared with the Center when funded, and the
Department will work with the Center and its third-party evaluator in
aligning its evaluation plan.
Changes: None.
Meeting the Needs of Multiple Populations and Settings
Comment: One commenter recommended adopting a definition of the
term ``families'' that includes the variety of individuals who care for
and interact with students with disabilities in their home lives.
Discussion: The Department agrees that a variety of individuals
care for, interact with, and play important roles in the lives of
children and students with disabilities in their home lives. We decline
to define the term ``families'' because we understand that family
structures may vary and encompass individuals with different
relationships to each other.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter noted gender differences and potential
referral
[[Page 36658]]
bias in identification of reading disabilities with male students being
identified more often than female students. The commenter recommended
additional language be added to the notice to ensure that females
receive adequate testing, attention, and resources.
Discussion: The Department thanks the commenter for the comment and
recognizes that gender differences and referral bias in identification
of disabilities have been documented in the research literature. While
the Center will not be evaluating or identifying students as having a
disability, the priority requires the Center to ensure equal access and
treatment for members of groups that have traditionally been
underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, sex, age, or
disability. The grantee will ensure that products and services meet the
needs of these recipients.
Changes: None.
Comment: Two commenters observed that the priority specifically
named dyslexia and did not address other disability categories. One
commenter asked if other disability categories would be included or
excluded from Center activities. The second commenter recommended
expanding the focus of the Center to address the literacy needs of
students with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder and Autism
Spectrum Disorder. The commenter noted that children with these
disabilities also struggle with attaining full literacy skills and,
therefore, need to receive evidence-based literacy practices.
Discussion: The Department agrees that students from a variety of
disability groups do not attain full literacy skills due to their
disabilities and require evidence-based instructional and assessment
practices. Section 2244 of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 6674) requires that the
Center address the needs of students at risk of not attaining full
literacy skills due to a disability, including dyslexia impacting
reading or writing, or developmental delay impacting reading, writing,
language processing, comprehension, or executive functioning. In
meeting this requirement, an applicant could include students with
Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder, Autism Spectrum Disorder, or
other disabilities.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended defining the term ``dyslexia''
using the definition in the Formerly Incarcerated Reenter Society
Transformed Safely Transitioning Every Person Act (First Step Act). The
commenter noted that the definition in the First Step Act is the most
up-to-date definition of dyslexia and the only definition of dyslexia
in Federal statute.
Discussion: The Department thanks the commenter for the comment.
Neither ESEA nor the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)
includes a definition of dyslexia. Dyslexia is identified as an example
of a condition that could enable a student to be eligible under IDEA's
specific learning disability category. In addition, States have
developed their own definitions of dyslexia.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended adopting the definition of
``dyslexia screening program'' from the First Step Act noting that the
Center should provide TA and disseminate information on screeners that
are evidence-based, psychometrically valid, affordable to schools,
efficient to scale, and readily available to use as soon as possible.
Discussion: The Department agrees that screening assessments for
dyslexia and other literacy-related disabilities should have the
features that the reviewer described. Instead of adopting the
definition from the First Step Act, the Department has added a
requirement in the Quality of Project Services section of the priority.
The requirement states that applicants should address the current
research on screening assessments for dyslexia and other literacy-
related disabilities that are evidence-based, psychometrically valid,
free or low-cost, efficient to scale, and readily available for use.
Changes: The Department has added a requirement related to the
features of screening assessments in paragraph (b)(4)(ii) of the
Quality of Project Services section.
Comment: One commenter recommended that the Center have a greater
focus on meeting the needs of teachers and students who are
participating in remote learning environments due to the current novel
coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.
Discussion: The Department thanks the commenter for the comment and
recognizes the unique challenges that students, teachers, and schools
are experiencing due to COVID-19 as well as the critical role that
remote learning plays when regular classroom instruction is disrupted.
The priority is for improving the implementation of evidence-based
literacy practices in teacher classroom and remote learning
environments. The grantee will ensure that products and services meet
the needs of teachers and students in both types of environments.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter was concerned that the Center may not meet
the needs of charter schools noting that charter schools may differ
from traditional public schools and districts. The commenter
recommended requiring descriptions of plans to reach charter schools
and evaluating proposals for the quality of their charter school plan.
Discussion: The Department thanks the commenter for the comment and
agrees that appropriately serving students with disabilities is often
an issue for charter schools. The Center should address the needs of
all schools serving students with disabilities. As such, applicants
should propose to develop TA products and services that address the
needs of students in charter schools. Applicants could include a plan
in Appendix A of their application. However, we do not believe it is
necessary to require a plan to reach charter schools or evaluate
proposals based on the quality of this plan.
Changes: None.
Implementing Project Services
Comment: One commenter noted that institutions of higher education
pre-service training programs are not specified as recipients of
intensive, sustained TA. The commenter pointed out that pre-service
teachers need training in the science of reading and that State
governments are examining college preparation programs in this area.
The commenter noted that this Center could be a major catalyst in
supporting this work.
Discussion: Section 2244(b)(5) of ESEA requires the Center to
disseminate its products to regionally diverse SEAs, REAs, LEAs, and
schools, including, as appropriate, through partnerships with other
comprehensive centers established under section 203 of the Educational
Technical Assistance Act of 2002 (20 U.S.C. 9602), and regional
educational laboratories established under section 174 of the Education
Sciences Reform Act of 2002 (20 U.S.C. 9564). The products developed by
the Center could be disseminated to and used in pre-service training
programs.
Changes: None.
Comment: Three commenters noted the importance of collaboration and
outreach to other federally funded Centers as well as professional
organizations and associations with literacy expertise, who represent
disability groups, or who represent educators and service providers for
students with disabilities. One commenter recognized that in special
education, there is often a lack of collaboration between special
education
[[Page 36659]]
and other educators when sharing expertise and resources. Another
commenter noted that at least a dozen currently funded Regional
Comprehensive Centers include literacy as part of their intensive,
high-leverage capacity building TA and that well-planned collaboration
between those centers and this Center would benefit TA providers and TA
recipients. One commenter encouraged early outreach to related
professional organizations.
Discussion: The Department agrees that coordination between this
Center and other federally funded TA projects focused on literacy as
well as early outreach to related professional organizations would
benefit the Center and its TA recipients. The Department will work with
the Center to facilitate coordination and collaboration with similar
Department-funded projects and professional organizations focused on
improving literacy for students with disabilities.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended embedding implicit bias training
in Center activities, noting that implicit bias about individuals with
disabilities is pervasive in society.
Discussion: The Department thanks the commenter and agrees that
individuals with disabilities face implicit bias in school and life. As
part of addressing the needs of students at risk for not attaining full
literacy skills due to a disability, including dyslexia impacting
reading or writing, or developmental delay impacting reading, writing,
language processing, comprehension, or executive functioning, an
applicant could also include implicit bias training as part of its TA.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended requiring that the Center
conduct a review of States that have passed laws related to screening
and instruction for students with dyslexia and tailoring TA to aid
effective implementation of these laws.
Discussion: We do not believe that it is necessary to require this
activity. The priority requires the Center to address current and
emerging training and information needs of SEAs, REAs, LEAs, TA
centers, schools, and practitioners related to selecting and
implementing classroom and remote learning environment evidence-based
practices (EBPs) that will improve literacy outcomes for students with
disabilities, including students with dyslexia impacting reading or
writing, or developmental delay impacting reading, writing, language
processing, comprehension, or executive functioning. It is expected
that applicants will have knowledge of State laws related to screening
and instruction for dyslexia. In addition, the grantee will provide
targeted, specialized TA to a variety of recipients, including SEAs, as
part of its project services. This targeted, specialized TA could
include conducting a review of State laws and tailoring TA for SEAs
based on their needs.
Changes: None.
Measuring Center Outcomes
Comment: One commenter recommended requiring parent or family
perspectives or feedback as a Center outcome measure.
Discussion: The Center is required to provide TA to a variety of
recipients including parents or families, SEAs, REAs, LEAs, schools,
Head Start, and other early childhood programs and ensure that the
products and services meet the intended recipients. In meeting these
requirements, an applicant could include family or parent perspectives,
including perspectives from organizations such as the OSEP-funded
Parent Training and Information Centers, or feedback as a Center
outcome measure. However, we do not believe it is necessary that
perspectives or feedback from any of the recipients be required as a
Center outcome measure.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested requiring improvement in
noncognitive skills, such as effort, curiosity, inquisitiveness, as a
Center outcome.
Discussion: The Department recognizes the importance of
noncognitive skills for student achievement. While the Center is
required to address literacy outcomes, an applicant could also include
noncognitive skills as part of its project services and evaluation. We
do not believe that it is necessary to require noncognitive skills as a
Center outcome.
Changes: None.
Managing the Center and Adequacy of Resources
Comment: Two commenters addressed the requirement that the project
director should be, at minimum, 0.5 full-time equivalency (FTE)
throughout the project. One commenter asked whether it would be
permissible to split the 0.5 FTE for the project director and
distribute the FTE at the applicant's discretion to other Center
personnel or co-project directors. The second commenter noted that the
complexity of the scope of work requires a substantial involvement of
leadership and expertise in order to result in a successful Center.
This commenter recommended requiring a project director at a minimum of
0.75 FTE or two co-project directors at a minimum of 0.5 FTE each or a
project director at a minimum of 0.5 FTE and a deputy director at 0.75-
1.0 FTE.
Discussion: The Department believes that it is necessary to have a
single project director responsible for understanding and coordinating
Center's activities to ensure that they are conducted effectively and
efficiently. Accordingly, the Department agrees that the project
director should dedicate significant time to this Center. Based on the
Department's experience with this Center, having one project director
at a minimum of 0.5 FTE is necessary to oversee the Center's complex
and overlapping activities and produce high-quality, relevant products
and services that have strong scientific integrity. The Department also
agrees that any co-project directors or deputy directors should also
have a significant time investment in the project; however, the
applicant can distribute the FTE of other Center personnel at its
discretion.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter encouraged the Center to incorporate input
from a variety of educators, including general education teachers,
special education teachers, librarians, paraprofessionals, and
specialized instructional support personnel, who serve a broad
diversity of students in the Center activities. The commenter noted
that educators offer valuable perspectives on specific types of
literacy instruction to best address the differing populations of
students they serve.
Discussion: The Department thanks the commenter and agrees that
educators bring critical perspectives related to all Center services
and activities. The proposed priority required applicants to address
how the project will benefit from a diversity of perspectives,
including those of families, general and special education teachers, TA
providers, researchers, institutions of higher education, and policy
makers, among others, in its development and operation as part of the
Quality of the Management Plan requirements. We agree that expanding
those requirements to include paraprofessionals, principals, other
school leaders, and specialized instructional support personnel would
improve Center services and activities.
Changes: Paraprofessionals, principals, other school leaders, and
specialized instructional support personnel were added to paragraph
(e)(4) of the final Priority as groups to provide diverse perspectives
that will
[[Page 36660]]
benefit the development and operation of the Center.
Comment: One commenter asked if the notice inviting applications
would require cost sharing and, if not, would the Department provide
more detail about its expectations for or examples of how applicants
could use non-project resources in paragraph (b)(5)(iv)(D)(6)(iii) of
the final Priority to achieve the intended project outcomes.
Discussion: Cost sharing is not required in this program. Examples
of ways to use non-project resources include the following: Using in-
kind contributions of FTE from project staff, expert consultants, or
communications specialists; utilizing, adapting, and disseminating
previously developed high-quality resources, web-based products,
services, or questionnaires; and establishing partnerships with
professional organizations to assist with disseminating information to
a broader audience.
Changes: None.
Final Priority:
National Comprehensive Center on Improving Literacy for Students
with Disabilities.
Background:
Section 2244 of the ESEA requires the Secretary to establish a
comprehensive center on students at risk of not attaining full literacy
skills due to a disability. Comprehensive centers are typically
administered by the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education
(OESE). OESE is funding this Center; however, because of the Center's
subject matter, it will be administered jointly by OESE and OSEP in the
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS).
The project is designed to improve implementation of evidence-based
literacy practices in both teacher classroom and remote learning
environments. With respect to remote learning, the priority is intended
to ensure that teachers have the training and support they need to
implement evidence-based literacy practices during remote instruction
for students with disabilities, including students with dyslexia
impacting reading or writing, or developmental delay impacting reading,
writing, language processing, comprehension, or executive functioning.
Remote learning plays a critical role in regular instruction and can
serve as a crucial link allowing high-quality teaching and learning to
continue when regular instruction is disrupted.
Priority:
The purpose of this priority is to fund a cooperative agreement to
establish and operate a National Comprehensive Center on Improving
Literacy for Students with Disabilities (Center) for children in early
childhood education programs through high school. The Center must--
(a) Identify or develop free or low-cost evidence-based assessment
tools for identifying students at risk of not attaining full literacy
skills due to a disability, including dyslexia impacting reading or
writing, or developmental delay impacting reading, writing, language
processing, comprehension, or executive functioning;
(b) Identify evidence-based literacy instruction, strategies, and
accommodations, including assistive technology, designed to meet the
specific needs of such students;
(c) Provide families of such students with information to assist
such students;
(d) Identify or develop evidence-based professional development for
teachers, paraprofessionals, principals, other school leaders, and
specialized instructional support personnel to--
(1) Understand early indicators of students at risk of not
attaining full literacy skills due to a disability, including dyslexia
impacting reading or writing, or developmental delay impacting reading,
writing, language processing, comprehension, or executive functioning;
(2) Use evidence-based screening assessments for early
identification of such students beginning not later than kindergarten;
\1\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Applicants are encouraged to identify or develop
professional development for using evidence-based screening
assessments for early identification of children in early childhood
or prekindergarten programs as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(3) Implement evidence-based instruction designed to meet the
specific needs of such students; and
(e) Disseminate the products of the comprehensive center to
regionally diverse SEAs, REAs, LEAs, and schools, including, as
appropriate, through partnerships with other comprehensive centers
established under section 203 of the Educational Technical Assistance
Act of 2002 (20 U.S.C. 9602), and regional educational laboratories
established under section 174 of the Education Sciences Reform Act of
2002 (20 U.S.C. 9564).
In addition to these programmatic requirements, to be considered
for funding under this priority, applicants must meet the application
and administrative requirements in this priority, which are:
(a) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under
``Significance,'' how the proposed project will--
(1) Address current and emerging training and information needs of
SEAs, REAs, LEAs, TA centers, schools, and practitioners to select and
implement teacher classroom and remote learning environment evidence-
based practices (EBPs) that will improve literacy outcomes for students
with disabilities, including students with dyslexia impacting reading
or writing, or developmental delay impacting reading, writing, language
processing, comprehension, or executive functioning. To meet this
requirement, the applicant must--
(i) Demonstrate knowledge of current and emerging EBPs, which can
be used in reading and literacy-related teacher classroom and remote
learning environment instruction, screening, assessment, and
identification or diagnosis of students at risk for not attaining full
literacy skills due to a disability, including dyslexia impacting
reading or writing, or developmental delay impacting reading, writing,
language processing, comprehension, or executive functioning. This
includes demonstrating knowledge of current and emerging reading and
literacy-related EBPs for students who are English learners; students
from a variety of settings (e.g., rural, suburban, urban); students
from low-income families; and other educationally disadvantaged
students; or
(ii) Demonstrate knowledge of, previous experience with, and
results of using creative approaches and implementing in-person and
virtual TA strategies to provide capacity-building services and
disseminate teacher classroom and remote learning environment EBPs to a
variety of entities, including parents, SEAs, REAs, LEAs, schools, Head
Start, and other early childhood programs;
(2) Demonstrate a record of improving outcomes in literacy
achievement for students at risk for not attaining full literacy skills
due to a disability, including dyslexia impacting reading or writing,
or developmental delay impacting reading, writing, language processing,
comprehension, or executive functioning, in order to better prepare
them to compete in a global economy; and
(3) Demonstrate a record of improving the adoption, implementation,
and sustainment of teacher classroom and remote learning environment
EBPs in literacy instruction for students at risk for not attaining
full literacy skills due to a disability, including dyslexia impacting
reading or writing, or developmental delay impacting reading, writing,
language processing,
[[Page 36661]]
comprehension, or executive functioning.
(b) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under
``Quality of project services,'' how the proposed project will--
(1) Ensure equal access and treatment for members of groups that
have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national
origin, sex, age, or disability. To meet this requirement, the
applicant must describe how it will--
(i) Identify the needs of the intended recipients for TA and
information; and
(ii) Ensure that products and services meet the needs of the
intended recipients of the grant;
(2) Achieve its goals, objectives, and intended short-term,
intermediate, and long-term outcomes. To meet this requirement, the
applicant must provide--
(i) A five-year plan for the Center to identify current and
emerging training and information needs and to address the priority;
(ii) Measurable intended project outcomes; and
(iii) In Appendix A, the logic model (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1) by
which the proposed project will achieve its intended outcomes that
depicts, at a minimum, the goals, activities, outputs, and intended
short-term, intermediate, and long-term outcomes of the proposed
project;
(3) Use a conceptual framework (and provide a copy in Appendix A)
to develop project plans and activities, and describe any underlying
concepts, assumptions, expectations, or theories, as well as the
presumed relationships or linkages among these variables, and any
empirical support for this framework;
Note: The following websites provide more information on logic
models and conceptual frameworks: <a href="http://www.osepideasthatwork.org/logicModel">www.osepideasthatwork.org/logicModel</a>, <a href="http://www.osepideasthatwork.org/resources-grantees/program-areas/ta-ta/tad-project-logic-model-and-conceptual-framework">www.osepideasthatwork.org/resources-grantees/program-areas/ta-ta/tad-project-logic-model-and-conceptual-framework</a>, and
<a href="http://www.federalregister.gov/d/2019-06583">www.federalregister.gov/d/2019-06583</a>.
(4) Be based on current research and make use of EBPs in the
development and delivery of its products and services. To meet this
requirement, the applicant must describe--
(i) The current research on teacher classroom and remote learning
environment EBPs for literacy instruction for students at risk for not
attaining full literacy skills due to a disability, including dyslexia
impacting reading or writing, or developmental delay impacting reading,
writing, language processing, comprehension, or executive functioning;
(ii) The current research on teacher classroom and remote learning
environment EBPs for assessing students at risk for not attaining full
literacy skills due to a disability, including dyslexia impacting
reading or writing, or developmental delay impacting reading, writing,
language processing, comprehension, or executive functioning. This
should include the current research on screening assessments for
dyslexia and other literacy-related disabilities that are evidence-
based, psychometrically valid, free or low-cost, efficient to scale,
and readily available for use; and
(iii) The current research about adult learning principles in in-
person and virtual settings and implementation science that will inform
the proposed TA; and
(5) Develop products or refine or update publicly available
existing products and provide in-person and virtual services that are
of high quality and sufficient intensity and duration to achieve the
intended measurable outcomes of the proposed project. To address this
requirement, the applicant must describe--
(i) How it proposes to identify or develop the knowledge base in
teacher classroom and remote learning environment literacy instruction
for students at risk of not attaining full literacy skills due to a
disability;
(ii) Its proposed approach to universal, general TA, which must
identify the intended recipients, including the type and number of
recipients, that will receive the products and services under this
approach;
(iii) Its proposed approach to targeted, specialized TA, which must
identify--
(A) The intended recipients, including the type and number of
recipients, that will receive the products and services under this
approach, a description of new or existing publicly available products
that may be used and services that the Center proposes to make
available, and the expected impact of those products and services under
this approach; and
(B) Its proposed approach to measure the readiness of potential TA
recipients to work with the project, assessing, at a minimum, their
current infrastructure, available resources, and ability to build
capacity at the local level; and
(iv) Its proposed approach to intensive, sustained TA, which must
identify--
(A) The intended recipients, including the type and number of
recipients, that will receive the products and services, a description
of new or existing publicly available products that may be used and
services that the Center proposes to make available, and the expected
impact of those products and services under this approach;
(B) Its proposed approach to measure the readiness of the target
audiences to work with the project, including their commitment to the
initiative, alignment of the initiative to their needs, current
infrastructure, available resources, and ability to build capacity at
the SEA, REA, LEA, school, and early childhood education program
levels;
(C) Its proposed plan for assisting SEAs, REAs, and LEAs to build
or enhance in-person and virtual training systems that include
capacity-building services and professional development based on adult
learning principles and coaching; and
(D) Its proposed plan for working with appropriate levels of the
education system (e.g., SEAs, regional TA providers, districts,
schools, early childhood education programs, families) to ensure that
there is communication between each level and that there are systems in
place to support the use of teacher classroom and remote learning
environment EBPs for literacy instruction;
(6) Partner with the National Comprehensive Center and at least one
of the other federally funded comprehensive centers, regional
educational laboratories, equity assistance centers, OSEP- and other
related federally funded TA Centers, parent training and information
and community parent resource centers funded by the Department and OSEP
(e.g., Center for Parent Information and Resources and Parent Technical
Assistance Centers), and other related organizations to refine or
develop products and implement services that maximize efficiency. To
address this requirement, the applicant must describe--
(i) How the proposed project will use technology to achieve the
intended project outcomes;
(ii) With whom the proposed project will collaborate and the
intended outcomes of this collaboration; and
(iii) How the proposed project will use non-project resources to
achieve the intended project outcomes; and
(7) Develop a dissemination plan that describes how the applicant
will systematically distribute information, products, and services to
varied intended audiences, using a variety of in-person and virtual
dissemination strategies, to promote awareness and use of the Center's
products and services.
(c) In the narrative section of the application under ``Quality of
the project evaluation,'' include an evaluation plan for the project
[[Page 36662]]
developed in consultation with and implemented by a third-party
evaluator. The evaluation plan must--
(1) Articulate formative and summative evaluation questions,
including important process and outcome evaluation questions, that are
linked directly to the project's proposed logic model required in
paragraph (b)(2)(iii) of this notice;
(2) Describe how progress in and fidelity of implementation, as
well as project short-term, intermediate, and long-term outcomes, will
be measured to answer the evaluation questions. Specify the measures
and associated instruments or sources for data appropriate to the
evaluation questions. Include information regarding reliability and
validity of measures where appropriate;
(3) Describe strategies for analyzing data and how data collected
as part of this plan will be used to inform and improve service
delivery over the course of the project and to refine the proposed
logic model and evaluation plan, including subsequent data collection;
(4) Provide a timeline for conducting the evaluation and include
staff assignments for completing the plan. The timeline must indicate
that the data will be available annually for the annual performance
report (APR); and
(5) Dedicate sufficient funds in each budget year to cover the
costs of developing or refining the evaluation plan in collaboration
with a third-party evaluator and the costs associated with the
implementation of the evaluation plan by the third-party evaluator.
(d) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under
``Adequacy of resources and quality of project personnel,'' how--
(1) The proposed project will ensure equal access for employment
for all, including those who are members of groups that have
traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national
origin, sex, age, religion, or disability;
(2) The proposed key project personnel, consultants, and
subcontractors have the qualifications, subject-matter expertise, and
technical experience to carry out the proposed activities, achieve the
project's intended outcomes, and develop ongoing partnerships with
leading experts and organizations nationwide to inform project
activities;
(3) The applicant and any key partners have adequate resources to
carry out the proposed activities; and
(4) The proposed costs are reasonable in relation to the
anticipated results and benefits.
(e) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under
``Quality of the management plan,'' how--
(1) The proposed management plan will ensure that the project's
intended outcomes will be achieved on time and within budget. To
address this requirement, the applicant must describe--
(i) Clearly defined responsibilities for key project personnel,
consultants, and subcontractors, as applicable; and
(ii) Timelines and milestones for accomplishing the project tasks;
(2) Key project personnel and any consultants and subcontractors
will be allocated and how these allocations are appropriate and
adequate to achieve the project's intended outcomes. The identified
project director should be, at minimum, 0.5 full-time equivalency
throughout the project period;
(3) The proposed management plan will ensure that the products and
services provided are of high quality, relevant, and useful to
recipients; and
(4) The proposed project will benefit from a diversity of
perspectives, including those of families, general and special
education teachers, paraprofessionals, principals, other school
leaders, specialized instructional support personnel, TA providers,
researchers, institutions of higher education, and policy makers, among
others, in its development and operation.
(f) Address the following additional application requirements. The
applicant must--
(1) Include, in Appendix A, personnel-loading charts and timelines,
as applicable, to illustrate the management plan described in the
narrative;
(2) Include, in the budget, attendance at the following:
(i) A one and one-half day kick-off meeting in Washington, DC, or
virtually, after receipt of the award, and an annual planning meeting
in Washington, DC, or virtually, with the OSEP project officer, OESE
staff, and other relevant staff during each subsequent year of the
project period.
Note: Within 30 days of receipt of the award, a post-award
teleconference must be held between the OSEP project officer and the
grantee's project director or other authorized representative;
(ii) A two and one-half day project directors' conference in
Washington, DC, or a virtual conference, during each year of the
project period;
(iii) Two annual two-day trips to attend Department briefings,
Department-sponsored conferences, and other meetings, as requested by
OSEP; and
(iv) At least monthly, communicate and collaborate with other
Department-funded centers to achieve project objectives;
(3) Include, in the budget, a line item for an annual set-aside of
5 percent of the grant amount to support emerging needs that are
consistent with the proposed project's intended outcomes, as those
needs are identified in consultation with, and approved by, the OSEP
project officer. With approval from the OSEP project officer, the
project must reallocate any remaining funds from this annual set-aside
no later than the end of the third quarter of each budget period;
(4) Include a plan for maintaining a high-quality website, with an
easy-to-navigate design, that meets government or industry-recognized
standards for accessibility;
(5) Include a plan for ensuring that annual project progress toward
meeting project goals is posted on the project website;
(6) Include, in Appendix A, a letter of agreement from each
partnering organization or consultant. The letter of agreement should
clearly specify the role of the partnering organization or consultant
and the time needed to fulfill the commitment to the project; and
(7) Include, in Appendix A, an assurance to assist OSEP and OESE
with the transfer of pertinent resources and products and to maintain
the continuity of services to target audiences during the transition to
this new award period and at the end of this award period, as
appropriate.
Types of Priorities:
When inviting applications for a competition using one or more
priorities, we designate the type of each priority as absolute,
competitive preference, or invitational through a notice in the Federal
Register. The effect of each type of priority follows:
Absolute priority: Under an absolute priority, we consider only
applications that meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(3)).
Competitive preference priority: Under a competitive preference
priority, we give competitive preference to an application by (1)
awarding additional points, depending on the extent to which the
application meets the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2)
selecting an application that meets the priority over an application of
comparable merit that does not meet the priority (34 CFR
75.105(c)(2)(ii)).
Invitational priority: Under an invitational priority, we are
particularly interested in applications that meet the
[[Page 36663]]
priority. However, we do not give an application that meets the
priority a preference over other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)).
Final Definitions:
The Department establishes the following definitions for the
purposes of the National Comprehensive Center on Improving Literacy for
Students with Disabilities Program. We may apply one or more of these
definitions in any year in which this program is in effect. We include
the source of each definition in parentheses.
Capacity-building services means assistance that strengthens an
individual's or organization's ability to engage in continuous
improvement and achieve expected outcomes. (Final Priorities,
Requirements, Definitions, and Performance Measures; Comprehensive
Centers Program (84 FR 13122), April 4, 2019.)
Fidelity means the delivery of instruction in the way in which it
was designed to be delivered. (Final Priorities and Definitions; State
Personnel Development Grants (77 FR 45944), August 2, 2012.)
Intensive, sustained TA means TA services often provided on-site
and requiring a stable, ongoing relationship between the TA center
staff and the TA recipient. This category of TA should result in
changes to policy, program, practice, or operations that support
increased recipient capacity or improved outcomes at one or more
systems levels.
Regional educational agency, for the purposes of this program,
means ``Tribal Educational Agency'' as defined in ESEA section
6132(b)(3), as well as other educational agencies that serve regional
areas. (Final Priorities, Requirements, Definitions, and Performance
Measures; Comprehensive Centers Program (84 FR 13122), April 4, 2019).
TA services are defined as negotiated series of activities designed
to reach a valued outcome.
Targeted, specialized TA means TA services based on needs common to
multiple recipients and not extensively individualized. A relationship
is established between the TA recipient and one or more TA center
staff. This category of TA includes one-time, labor-intensive events,
such as facilitating strategic planning or hosting regional or national
conferences. It can also include episodic, less labor-intensive events
that extend over a period of time, such as facilitating a series of
conference calls on single or multiple topics that are designed around
the needs of the recipients. Facilitating communities of practice can
also be considered targeted, specialized TA.
Third-party evaluator is an independent and impartial program
evaluator who is contracted by the grantee to conduct an objective
evaluation of the project. This evaluator must not have participated in
the development or implementation of any project activities, except for
the evaluation activities, nor have any financial interest in the
outcome of the evaluation.
Universal, general TA means TA and information provided to
independent users through their own initiative, resulting in minimal
interaction with TA center staff and including one-time, invited or
offered conference presentations by TA center staff. This category of
TA also includes information or products, such as newsletters,
guidebooks, or research syntheses, downloaded from the TA center's
website by independent users. Brief communications by TA center staff
with recipients, either by telephone or email, are also considered
universal, general TA.
Note: This notice does not solicit applications. In any year in
which we choose to use this priority and these requirements and
definitions, we invite applications through a notice in the Federal
Register.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
Regulatory Impact Analysis
Under Executive Order 12866, the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) determines whether this regulatory action is ``significant'' and,
therefore, subject to the requirements of the Executive order and
subject to review by OMB. Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 defines
a ``significant regulatory action'' as an action likely to result in a
rule that may--
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more,
or adversely affect a sector of the economy, productivity, competition,
jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or
Tribal governments or communities in a material way (also referred to
as an ``economically significant'' rule);
(2) Create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles stated in the
Executive order.
This final regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action
subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs designated this rule as
not a ``major rule,'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
We have also reviewed this final regulatory action under Executive
Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles,
structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in
Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order
13563 requires that an agency--
(1) Propose or adopt regulations only upon a reasoned determination
that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits
and costs are difficult to quantify);
(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society,
consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into
account--among other things and to the extent practicable--the costs of
cumulative regulations;
(3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select
those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential
economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other
advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);
(4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather
than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must
adopt; and
(5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct
regulation, including economic incentives--such as user fees or
marketable permits--to encourage the desired behavior, or provide
information that enables the public to make choices.
Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency ``to use the best
available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future
benefits and costs as accurately as possible.'' The Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these
techniques may include ``identifying changing future compliance costs
that might result from technological innovation or anticipated
behavioral changes.''
We are issuing the final priority, requirement, and definitions
only on a reasoned determination that their benefits justify their
costs. In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, we selected
those approaches that maximize net benefits. Based on the analysis that
follows, the Department believes that this regulatory
[[Page 36664]]
action is consistent with the principles in Executive Order 13563.
We also have determined that this regulatory action does not unduly
interfere with State, local, and Tribal governments in the exercise of
their governmental functions.
In accordance with these Executive orders, the Department has
assessed the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and
qualitative, of this regulatory action. The potential costs are those
resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined as
necessary for administering the Department's programs and activities.
Discussion of Potential Costs and Benefits
The Department believes that the costs associated with this final
priority, requirement, and definitions will be minimal, while the
benefits are significant. The Department believes that this regulatory
action does not impose significant costs on eligible entities.
Participation in this program is voluntary, and the costs imposed on
applicants by this regulatory action will be limited to paperwork
burden related to preparing an application. The benefits of
implementing the program--improving literacy skills for students at
risk of not attaining full literacy skills due to a disability--will
outweigh the costs incurred by applicants, and the costs of carrying
out activities associated with the application will be paid for with
program funds. For these reasons, we have determined that the costs of
implementation will not be excessively burdensome for eligible
applicants, including small entities.
Regulatory Alternatives Considered
The Department believes that the priority, and requirement, and
definitions are needed to administer the program effectively.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
The final priority, requirement, and definitions contain
information collection requirements that are approved by OMB under
control number 1894-0006; the final priority, requirement, and
definitions do not affect the currently approved data collection.
Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification: The Secretary certifies
that this final regulatory action would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The U.S. Small
Business Administration (SBA) Size Standards define proprietary
institutions as small businesses if they are independently owned and
operated, are not dominant in their field of operation, and have total
annual revenue below $7,000,000. Nonprofit institutions are defined as
small entities if they are independently owned and operated and not
dominant in their field of operation. Public institutions are defined
as small organizations if they are operated by a government overseeing
a population below 50,000.
The small entities that this final regulatory action will affect
are SEAs; LEAs, including charter schools that operate as LEAs under
State law; institutions of higher education (IHEs); other public
agencies; private nonprofit organizations; freely associated States and
outlying areas; Indian Tribes or Tribal organizations; and for-profit
organizations. We believe that the costs imposed on an applicant by the
final priority, requirement, and definitions will be limited to
paperwork burden related to preparing an application and that the
benefits of this final priority, requirement, and definitions will
outweigh any costs incurred by the applicant.
Participation in the National Comprehensive Center on Improving
Literacy for Students with Disabilities program is voluntary. For this
reason, the final priority, requirement, and definitions will impose no
burden on small entities unless they applied for funding under the
program. We expect that in determining whether to apply for National
Comprehensive Center on Improving Literacy for Students with
Disabilities program funds, an eligible entity will evaluate the
requirements of preparing an application and any associated costs and
weigh them against the benefits likely to be achieved by receiving a
National Comprehensive Center on Improving Literacy for Students with
Disabilities program grant. An eligible entity will most likely apply
only if it determines that the likely benefits exceed the costs of
preparing an application.
We believe that the final priority, requirement, and definition
will not impose any additional burden on a small entity applying for a
grant than the entity would face in the absence of the final action.
That is, the length of the applications those entities would submit in
the absence of the final regulatory action and the time needed to
prepare an application will likely be the same.
This final regulatory action will not have a significant economic
impact on a small entity once it receives a grant because it would be
able to meet the costs of compliance using the funds provided under
this program.
Intergovernmental Review: This program is subject to Executive
Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of the
objectives of the Executive order is to foster an intergovernmental
partnership and a strengthened federalism. The Executive order relies
on processes developed by State and local governments for coordination
and review of proposed Federal financial assistance.
This document provides early notification of our specific plans and
actions for this program.
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 <a href="http://www.govinfo.gov">www.govinfo.gov</a>. 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
<a href="http://www.federalregister.gov">www.federalregister.gov</a>. Specifically, through the advanced search
feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published
by the Department.
David Cantrell,
Deputy Director, Office of Special Education Programs. Delegated the
authority to perform the functions and duties of the Assistant
Secretary for the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative
Services.
Ian Rosenblum,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Programs. Delegated the
authority to perform the functions and duties of the Assistant
Secretary, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education.
[FR Doc. 2021-14865 Filed 7-9-21; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on July 13, 2021.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.