Notice2021-16855
Applications for New Awards; Technical Assistance and Dissemination To Improve Services and Results for Children With Disabilities and Technical Assistance on State Data Collection-National Assessment Center
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
August 5, 2021
Issuing agencies
Education Department
Abstract
The Department of Education (Department) is issuing a notice inviting applications for a new award for fiscal year (FY) 2021 for a National Assessment Center, Assistance Listing Number 84.326G. This notice relates to the approved information collection under OMB control number 1820-0028.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 86 Issue 148 (Thursday, August 5, 2021)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 148 (Thursday, August 5, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42806-42814]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2021-16855]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Applications for New Awards; Technical Assistance and
Dissemination To Improve Services and Results for Children With
Disabilities and Technical Assistance on State Data Collection--
National Assessment Center
AGENCY: Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services,
Department of Education.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Education (Department) is issuing a notice
inviting applications for a new award for fiscal year (FY) 2021 for a
National Assessment Center, Assistance Listing Number 84.326G. This
notice relates to the approved information collection under OMB control
number 1820-0028.
DATES:
Applications available: August 5, 2021.
Deadline for transmittal of applications: September 7, 2021.
Pre-application webinar information: No later than August 10, 2021,
the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) will post a pre-
recorded informational webinar designed to provide technical assistance
(TA) to interested applicants. The webinar may be found at <a href="http://www2.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/osep/new-osep-grants.html">www2.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/osep/new-osep-grants.html</a>.
ADDRESSES: For the addresses for obtaining and submitting an
application, please refer to our Common Instructions for Applicants to
Department of Education Discretionary Grant Programs, published in the
Federal Register on February 13, 2019 (84 FR 3768), and available at
<a href="http://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-02-13/pdf/2019-02206.pdf">www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-02-13/pdf/2019-02206.pdf</a>.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Egnor, U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 5163, Potomac Center Plaza,
Washington, DC 20202-5076. Telephone: (202) 245-7334 or (202) 856-6409.
Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#266247504f4208634148495466434208414950"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d99db8afb0bdf79cbeb7b6ab99bcbdf7beb6af">[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:
Full Text of Announcement
I. Funding Opportunity Description
Purpose of Programs: The purpose of the Technical Assistance and
Dissemination to Improve Services and Results for Children with
Disabilities program is to promote academic achievement and to improve
results for children with disabilities by providing TA, supporting
model demonstration projects, disseminating useful information, and
implementing activities that are supported by scientifically based
research. The purpose of the Technical Assistance on State Data
Collection program is to improve the capacity of States to meet the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) data collection and
reporting requirements.
Priorities: This notice contains two absolute priorities. In
accordance with 34 CFR 75.105(b)(2)(v), Absolute Priority 1 is from
allowable activities specified or otherwise authorized in the IDEA (see
sections 663 and 681(d) of the IDEA, 20 U.S.C. 1463 and 1481(d)).
Absolute Priority 2 is from the notice of final priority (NFP) for the
Technical Assistance on State Data Collection Program--Targeted and
Intensive Technical Assistance to States on the Analysis and Use of
Diagnostic, Interim, and Summative Assessment Data to Support
Implementation of States' Identified Measurable Result(s) published
elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.
Absolute Priorities: For FY 2021 and any subsequent year in which
we make awards from the list of unfunded applications from this
competition, these priorities are absolute priorities. Under 34 CFR
75.105(c)(3), we consider only applications that meet both of these
priorities.
These priorities are:
Priority 1: Technical Assistance and Dissemination to Improve
Services and Results for Children with Disabilities--National
Assessment Center.
Background:
Section 612(a)(16) of the IDEA requires that all students with
disabilities are included in all general State and districtwide
assessments, including assessments described under section 1111 of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA), with
appropriate accommodations and alternate assessments where necessary
and as indicated in their respective individualized education programs
(IEPs). In accordance with Federal law, there are several ways for
students with disabilities to participate appropriately in State and
districtwide assessments: General assessments (with or without
accommodations), alternate assessments based on grade-level academic
achievement standards, and alternate assessments based on alternate
academic achievement standards for students with the most significant
cognitive disabilities.
Despite the progress State educational agencies (SEAs) and local
educational agencies (LEAs) have made in including students with
disabilities in assessments and accountability systems, SEAs and LEAs
continue to face challenges, such as (1) integrating data from
dissimilar tests (e.g., general without accommodations, general with
accommodations, alternate) into a single accountability system; (2)
developing consistent SEA and LEA policies on assessment accommodations
that provide maximum accessibility while maintaining test reliability
and validity; (3) analyzing and using diagnostic, interim,\1\ and
summative assessment data to improve instruction, learning,
[[Page 42807]]
and accountability for students with disabilities; and (4) addressing
test security, accessibility, technical support, and other challenges
associated with transitioning from traditional paper-and-pencil
assessments to digitally-based assessments (DBAs), including DBAs that
can be administered via distance education and other remote service
delivery models of instruction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For the purposes of this priority, the term ``interim
assessments'' refer to assessments that are administered several
times during a school year to measure progress. Another term that is
sometimes used to describe these assessments is ``formative
assessments.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, one of the most complex challenges faced by SEAs and
LEAs is developing and administering English language proficiency (ELP)
assessments to students with disabilities who are English learners
(ELs). Properly identifying these students as disabled is also a
significant challenge if their disabilities are masked by their limited
English proficiency, or vice versa. Improper identification may lead to
inappropriate instruction, assessments, and accommodations for these
students. Linguistic and cultural biases may also affect the validity
of assessments for ELs with disabilities.
Finally, the Department notes that in many schools, there may be
unnecessary testing or unclear purpose applied to the task of assessing
students, including students with disabilities, that consumes too much
instructional time and creates undue stress for educators and students.
(For more information, see the Department's February 2, 2016, letter to
Chief State School Officers available at <a href="http://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/saa/16-0002signedcsso222016ltr.pdf">www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/saa/16-0002signedcsso222016ltr.pdf</a>.)
These and other complex challenges will continue to arise as States
continue to implement, revise, or adopt new challenging academic
content standards and develop new, valid, more instructionally useful,
and inclusive assessments aligned to these standards. Developing these
new assessments has been and will continue to be challenging and time-
consuming, and States and LEAs need support in identifying and
implementing effective practices for identifying and including children
with disabilities in State and districtwide assessments. Moreover,
methods for analyzing and effectively using State and districtwide
assessment data to improve instruction, learning, and accountability
for students with disabilities will continue to need further
development, refinement, and technical support.
Priority:
The purpose of this priority is to fund a cooperative agreement to
support the establishment and operation of a National Assessment Center
(Center) to address national, State, and local assessment issues
related to students with disabilities. The Center must achieve, at a
minimum, the following expected outcomes to ensure the inclusion of
students with disabilities in State and districtwide assessments and
accountability systems:
Knowledge Development Outcomes.
(a) Increased body of knowledge on practices supported by evidence
to collect, analyze, synthesize, and disseminate relevant information
regarding State and districtwide assessments of students with
disabilities, including on topics such as--
(1) The inclusion of students with disabilities in accountability
systems;
(2) Assessment accommodations;
(3) Alternate assessments;
(4) Universal design of assessments;
(5) Technology-based assessments, including DBAs;
(6) Interim assessments;
(7) Competency-based assessments;
(8) Performance-based assessments;
(9) The analysis and reporting of assessment data (including
methods for addressing assessment data interoperability challenges);
(10) Application of growth models in assessment programs;
(11) Uses of diagnostic, interim, and summative assessment data to
inform instructional programs for students with disabilities; and
(12) Identifying and assessing ELs with disabilities, including
ensuring that all ELs with disabilities receive appropriate
accommodations, as needed, on ELP assessments, and that the results of
ELP assessments for students with disabilities are validly used in
making accountability determinations under the ESEA.
(b) Increased capacity of SEA and LEA personnel to assess SEA and
LEA needs, and track SEA and LEA activities and trends, related to
including students with disabilities in State and districtwide
assessments, including, as appropriate, improving the knowledge and
skills of SEA and LEA personnel related to any of the topics listed in
paragraph (a) of the Knowledge Development Outcomes section of the
priority.
(c) Increased capacity of parents of students with disabilities to
understand the statutory and regulatory bases for including all
students with disabilities in State and districtwide assessments,
including general assessments with and without accommodations,
alternate assessments based on grade-level academic achievement
standards, and alternate assessments based on alternate academic
achievement standards for students with the most significant cognitive
disabilities.
Technical Assistance and Dissemination Outcomes.
(a) Increased capacity of SEA and LEA personnel to collect and
analyze diagnostic, interim, and summative assessment data on the
performance of students with disabilities, including ELs with
disabilities.
(b) Increased capacity of SEA and LEA personnel to use diagnostic,
interim, and summative assessment data to develop, evaluate, and
improve educational policies and increase accountability for students
with disabilities, including ELs with disabilities.
(c) Increased capacity of LEA personnel to use diagnostic, interim,
and summative assessment results in instructional decision-making to
improve teaching and learning for students with disabilities, including
ELs with disabilities.
(d) Increased capacity of parents of students with disabilities to
understand how students with disabilities are included in, and benefit
from, participation in State and districtwide assessments, including
general assessments with and without accommodations, alternate
assessments based on grade-level academic achievement standards,
alternate assessments based on alternate academic achievement standards
for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities, and
other assessments listed in paragraphs (a)(5)-(8) of the Knowledge
Development Outcomes section of the priority.
(e) Increased awareness of national policymakers regarding how
students with disabilities are included in and benefit from current and
emerging approaches to State and districtwide assessment, including
topics listed in paragraph (a) of the Knowledge Development Outcomes
section of this priority.
In addition to these programmatic requirements, to be considered
for funding under this priority, applicants must meet the application
and administrative requirements under Priority 2.
Priority 2: Targeted and Intensive Technical Assistance to States
on the Analysis and Use of Diagnostic, Interim, and Summative
Assessment Data to Support Implementation of States' Identified
Measurable Results.
Background:
The purpose of this priority is to (1) assist those States that
have a State-Identified Measurable Result (SIMR) related to assessment
in analyzing and using diagnostic, interim, and summative assessment
data to better achieve the SIMR as described in their
[[Page 42808]]
IDEA Part B State-Systemic Improvement Plans (SSIPs); and (2) assist
State efforts to provide TA to LEAs in the analyzing and using State
and districtwide assessment data for those States that have a SIMR
related to assessment, to better achieve the SIMR, as appropriate.
As detailed in the background section for Priority 1, research
indicates that SEAs and LEAs continue to face challenges in analyzing
and using diagnostic, interim, and summative assessment data to improve
instruction, learning, and accountability for students with
disabilities. SEAs also need assistance analyzing State assessment data
submitted as part of the SSIP and the SIMR in accordance with section
616 of IDEA and the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP)
guidance. Beginning in the IDEA Part B Federal fiscal year (FFY) 2013
State Performance Plan/Annual Performance Report (SPP/APR), States were
required to provide, as part of Phase I of the SSIP, a statement of the
result(s) the State intends to achieve through implementation of the
SSIP, which is referred to as the SIMR for Children with Disabilities.
States were required to establish ``measurable and rigorous'' targets
for their SIMRs for each successive year of the SPP (FFYs 2014 through
2019) and will be required to do so for each year of the next SPP (FFYs
2020 through 2025) as part of their SPP/APR submissions. At least 36
States have focused their SIMRs on improving academic achievement as
measured by assessment results for children with disabilities. These
States will need assistance in analyzing and using State and
districtwide assessment data to promote academic achievement and to
improve results for children with disabilities.
Priority:
The purpose of this priority is to (1) assist those States that
have a SIMR related to assessment in analyzing and using diagnostic,
interim, and summative assessment data to better achieve the SIMR as
described in their IDEA Part B SSIPs; and (2) assist State efforts to
provide TA to LEAs in analyzing and using State and districtwide
assessment data, for those States that have a SIMR related to
assessment, to better achieve the SIMR, as appropriate.
The Center must achieve, at a minimum, the following expected
outcomes:
(a) Increased capacity of SEA personnel in States that have a SIMR
related to assessment results to analyze and use diagnostic, interim,
and summative assessment data to better achieve the SIMR as described
in the IDEA Part B SSIP, including using diagnostic, interim, and
summative assessment data to evaluate and improve educational policy,
inform instructional programs, and improve instruction for students
with disabilities;
(b) Increased capacity of SEA personnel to provide TA to LEAs to
analyze and use diagnostic, interim, and summative assessment data to
improve instruction of students with disabilities and support the
implementation of the SIMR; and
(c) Increased capacity of parents of students with disabilities to
understand how students with disabilities are included in, and benefit
from, participation in diagnostic, interim and summative assessments to
improve instruction of students with disabilities and support
implementation of the SIMR.
In addition to the programmatic requirements contained in both
priorities, to be considered for funding applicants must meet the
following application and administrative requirements,\2\ which are:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Paragraph (b)(5)(ii) applies only to Priority 1. Paragraph
(b)(5)(iv) applies only to Priority 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under
``Significance,'' how the proposed project will--
(1) Address the needs of SEAs and LEAs to analyze and use
diagnostic, interim, and summative assessment data in instructional
decision-making to improve teaching and learning for students with
disabilities. To meet this requirement the applicant must--
(i) Present applicable national, State, and local data
demonstrating the needs of SEAs and LEAs to analyze and use diagnostic,
interim, and summative assessment data in instructional decision-making
to improve teaching and learning for students with disabilities;
(ii) Demonstrate knowledge of current educational issues and policy
initiatives related to analyzing and using diagnostic, interim, and
summative assessment data in instructional decision-making to improve
teaching and learning for students with disabilities; and
(iii) Describe the current level of implementation related to
analyzing and using diagnostic, interim, and summative assessment data
in instructional decision-making to improve teaching and learning for
students with disabilities; and
(2) Improve the analysis and use of diagnostic, interim, and
summative assessment data to improve teaching and learning for students
with disabilities.
(b) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under
``Quality of project services,'' how the proposed project will--
(1) Ensure equal access and treatment for members of groups that
have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national
origin, gender, age, or disability. To meet this requirement, the
applicant must describe how it will--
(i) Identify the needs of the intended recipients for TA and
information; and
(ii) Ensure that products and services meet the needs of the
intended recipients (e.g., by creating materials in formats and
languages accessible to the stakeholders served by the intended
recipients);
(2) Achieve its goals, objectives, and intended outcomes. To meet
this requirement, the applicant must provide--
(i) Measurable intended project outcomes; and
(ii) In Appendix A, the logic model \3\ by which the proposed
project will achieve its intended outcomes that depicts, at a minimum,
the goals, activities, outputs, and intended outcomes of the proposed
project;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Logic model (also referred to as a theory of action) means a
framework that identifies key project components of the proposed
project (i.e., the active ``ingredients'' that are hypothesized to
be critical to achieving the relevant outcomes) and describes the
theoretical and operational relationships among the key project
components and relevant outcomes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(3) Use a conceptual framework (and provide a copy in Appendix A)
to develop project plans and activities, describing any underlying
concepts, assumptions, expectations, beliefs, or theories, as well as
the presumed relationships or linkages among these variables, and any
empirical support for this framework;
Note: The following websites provide more information on logic
models and conceptual frameworks: <a href="http://www.osepideasthatwork.org/logicModel">www.osepideasthatwork.org/logicModel</a> and <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>.
(4) Be based on current research and make use of evidence-based \4\
practices (EBPs). To meet this requirement, the applicant must
describe--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ For the purposes of this priority, ``evidence-based'' means,
at a minimum, evidence that demonstrates a rationale (as defined in
34 CFR 77.1), where a key project component included in the
project's logic model is informed by research or evaluation findings
that suggest the project component is likely to improve relevant
outcomes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) The current research on the effectiveness of analyzing and
using
[[Page 42809]]
diagnostic, interim, and summative assessment data in instructional
decision-making to improve teaching and learning for students with
disabilities; and
(ii) How the proposed project will incorporate current EBPs in the
development and delivery of its products and services;
(5) Develop products and provide services that are of high quality
and sufficient intensity and duration to achieve the intended outcomes
of the proposed project. To address this requirement, the applicant
must describe--
(i) How it proposes to identify or develop the knowledge base on
analyzing and using diagnostic, interim, and summative assessment data
in instructional decision-making to improve teaching and learning for
students with disabilities;
(ii) Its proposed approach to universal, general TA,\5\ which must
identify the intended recipients, including the type and number of
recipients, that will receive the products and services under this
approach;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ ``Universal, general TA'' means TA and information provided
to independent users through their own initiative, resulting in
minimal interaction with TA center staff and including one-time,
invited or offered conference presentations by TA center staff. This
category of TA also includes information or products, such as
newsletters, guidebooks, or research syntheses, downloaded from the
TA center's website by independent users. Brief communications by TA
center staff with recipients, either by telephone or email, are also
considered universal, general TA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(iii) Its proposed approach to targeted, specialized TA,\6\ which
must identify--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ ``Targeted, specialized TA'' means TA service based on needs
common to multiple recipients and not extensively individualized. A
relationship is established between the TA recipient and one or more
TA center staff. This category of TA includes one-time, labor-
intensive events, such as facilitating strategic planning or hosting
regional or national conferences. It can also include episodic, less
labor-intensive events that extend over a period of time, such as
facilitating a series of conference calls on single or multiple
topics that are designed around the needs of the recipients.
Facilitating communities of practice can also be considered
targeted, specialized TA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A) The intended recipients, including the type and number of
recipients, that will receive the products and services under this
approach; and
(B) Its proposed approach to measure the readiness of potential TA
recipients to work with the project, assessing, at a minimum, their
current infrastructure, available resources, and ability to build
capacity at the local level; and
(iv) Its proposed approach to intensive, sustained TA,\7\ which
must identify--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ ``Intensive, sustained TA'' means TA services often provided
on-site and requiring a stable, ongoing relationship between the TA
center staff and the TA recipient. ``TA services'' are defined as
negotiated series of activities designed to reach a valued outcome.
This category of TA should result in changes to policy, program,
practice, or operations that support increased recipient capacity or
improved outcomes at one or more systems levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A) The intended recipients, including the type and number of
recipients, that will receive the products and services under this
approach;
(B) Its proposed approach to measure the readiness of SEA and LEA
personnel to work with the project, including their commitment to the
initiative, alignment of the initiative to their needs, current
infrastructure, available resources, and ability to build capacity at
the SEA and LEA levels;
(C) Its proposed plan for assisting SEAs (and LEAs, in conjunction
with SEAs) to build or enhance training systems that include
professional development based on adult learning principles and
coaching;
(D) Its proposed plan for working with appropriate levels of the
education system (e.g., SEAs, regional TA providers, LEAs, schools, and
families) to ensure that there is communication between each level and
that there are systems in place to support the collection, analysis,
and use of diagnostic, interim, and summative assessment data in
instructional decision-making to improve teaching and learning for
students with disabilities; and
(E) Its proposed plan for collaborating and coordinating with
Department-funded TA investments, where appropriate, in order to align
complementary work and jointly develop and implement products and
services to meet the purposes of the priorities;
(6) Develop products and implement services that maximize
efficiency. To address this requirement, the applicant must describe--
(i) How the proposed project will use technology to achieve the
intended project outcomes;
(ii) With whom the proposed project will collaborate and the
intended outcomes of this collaboration; and
(iii) How the proposed project will use non-project resources to
achieve the intended project outcomes; and
(7) Develop a dissemination plan that describes how the applicant
will systematically distribute information, products, and services to
varied intended audiences, using a variety of dissemination strategies,
to promote awareness and use of the Center's products and services.
(c) In the narrative section of the application under ``Quality of
the project evaluation,'' include an evaluation plan for the project
developed in consultation with and implemented by a third-party
evaluator.\8\ The evaluation plan must--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ A ``third-party'' evaluator is an independent and impartial
program evaluator who is contracted by the grantee to conduct an
objective evaluation of the project. This evaluator must not have
participated in the development or implementation of any project
activities, except for the evaluation activities, nor have any
financial interest in the outcome of the evaluation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Articulate formative and summative evaluation questions,
including important process and outcome evaluation questions. These
questions should be related to the project's proposed logic model
required in paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of these requirements;
(2) Describe how progress in and fidelity of implementation, as
well as project outcomes, will be measured to answer the evaluation
questions. Specify the measures and associated instruments or sources
for data appropriate to the evaluation questions. Include information
regarding reliability and validity of measures where appropriate;
(3) Describe strategies for analyzing data and how data collected
as part of this plan will be used to inform and improve service
delivery over the course of the project and to refine the proposed
logic model and evaluation plan, including subsequent data collection;
(4) Provide a timeline for conducting the evaluation, and include
staff assignments for completing the plan. The timeline must indicate
that the data will be available annually for the annual performance
report (APR) and at the end of Year 2 for the review process described
under the heading, Fourth and Fifth Years of the Project; and
(5) Dedicate sufficient funds in each budget year to cover the
costs of developing or refining the evaluation plan in consultation
with a ``third-party'' evaluator, as well as the costs associated with
the implementation of the evaluation plan by the third-party evaluator.
(d) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under
``Adequacy of resources and quality of project personnel,'' how--
(1) The proposed project will encourage applications for employment
from persons who are members of groups that have traditionally been
underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or
disability, as appropriate;
(2) The proposed key project personnel, consultants, and
subcontractors have the qualifications
[[Page 42810]]
and experience to carry out the proposed activities and achieve the
project's intended outcomes;
(3) The applicant and any key partners have adequate resources to
carry out the proposed activities; and
(4) The proposed costs are reasonable in relation to the
anticipated results and benefits.
(e) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under
``Quality of the management plan,'' how--
(1) The proposed management plan will ensure that the project's
intended outcomes will be achieved on time and within budget. To
address this requirement, the applicant must describe--
(i) Clearly defined responsibilities for key project personnel,
consultants, and subcontractors, as applicable; and
(ii) Timelines and milestones for accomplishing the project tasks;
(2) Key project personnel and any consultants and subcontractors
will be allocated and how these allocations are appropriate and
adequate to achieve the project's intended outcomes;
(3) The proposed management plan will ensure that the products and
services provided are of high quality, relevant, and useful to
recipients; and
(4) The proposed project will benefit from a diversity of
perspectives, including those of families, educators, TA providers,
researchers, and policy makers, among others, in its development and
operation.
(f) Address the following application requirements. The applicant
must--
(1) Include, in Appendix A, personnel-loading charts and timelines,
as applicable, to illustrate the management plan described in the
narrative; \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ OSEP has found that a minimum of a three-quarter time
equivalency (0.75 FTE) in the role of project director (or divided
between a half-time equivalency in the role of the project director
and a quarter-time equivalency in the role of a co-project director)
is necessary to ensure effective implementation of the management
plan and that products and services provided are of high quality,
relevant, and useful to recipients.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) Include, in the budget, attendance at the following:
(i) A one and one-half day kick-off meeting in Washington, DC, or
virtually, after receipt of the award, and an annual planning meeting
in Washington, DC, or virtually, with the OSEP project officer and
other relevant staff during each subsequent year of the project period.
Note: Within 30 days of receipt of the award, a post-award
teleconference must be held between the OSEP project officer and the
grantee's project director or other authorized representative;
(ii) A two and one-half day project directors' conference in
Washington, DC, or virtually, during each year of the project period;
(iii) Two annual two-day trips, or virtually, to attend Department
briefings, Department-sponsored conferences, and other meetings, as
requested by OSEP; and
(iv) A one-day intensive 3+2 review meeting in Washington, DC, or
virtually, during the second year of the project period;
(3) Include, in the budget, a line item for an annual set-aside of
five percent of the grant amount to support emerging needs that are
consistent with the proposed project's intended outcomes, as those
needs are identified in consultation with, and approved by, the OSEP
project officer. With approval from the OSEP project officer, the
project must reallocate any remaining funds from this annual set-aside
no later than the end of the third quarter of each budget period;
(4) Maintain a high-quality website, with an easy-to-navigate
design, that meets government or industry- recognized standards for
accessibility;
(5) Ensure that annual project progress toward meeting project
goals is posted on the project website; and
(6) Include, in Appendix A, two assurances. The first assurance is
to assist OSEP with the transfer of pertinent resources and products
and to maintain the continuity of services to States during the
transition to a new award at the end of this award period, as
appropriate. The second assurance is to ensure the applicant will track
and report IDEA section 663 funds separately from IDEA section 611(i)
funds. Please refer to Part II Award Information of this notice for
more information about preparing the budget.
Fourth and Fifth Years of the Project:
In deciding whether to continue funding the project for the fourth
and fifth years, the Secretary will consider the requirements of 34 CFR
75.253(a), including--
(a) The recommendations of a 3+2 review team consisting of experts
who have experience and knowledge in providing technical assistance to
SEA and LEA personnel in including students with disabilities in
assessments and accountability systems. This review will be conducted
during a one-day intensive meeting that will be held during the last
half of the second year of the project period;
(b) The timeliness with which, and how well, the requirements of
the negotiated cooperative agreement have been or are being met by the
project; and
(c) The quality, relevance, and usefulness of the project's
products and services and the extent to which the project's products
and services are aligned with the project's objectives and likely to
result in the project achieving its intended outcomes.
Under 34 CFR 75.253, the Secretary may reduce continuation awards
or discontinue awards in any year of the project period for excessive
carryover balances or a failure to make substantial progress. The
Department intends to closely monitor unobligated balances and
substantial progress under this program and may reduce or discontinue
funding accordingly.
Waiver of Proposed Rulemaking: Under the Administrative Procedure
Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553) the Department generally offers interested
parties the opportunity to comment on proposed priorities and
requirements. Section 681(d) of IDEA, however, makes the public comment
requirements of the APA inapplicable to Absolute Priority 1 in this
notice.
Program Authority: For Absolute Priority 1, 20 U.S.C. 1463 and
1481; for Absolute Priority 2, 20 U.S.C. 1411(c) and 1416(i).
Note: Projects will be awarded and must be operated in a manner
consistent with the nondiscrimination requirements contained in
Federal civil rights laws.
Applicable Regulations: (a) The Education Department General
Administrative Regulations in 34 CFR parts 75, 77, 79, 81, 82, 84, 86,
97, 98, and 99. (b) The Office of Management and Budget Guidelines to
Agencies on Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement) in
2 CFR part 180, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department
in 2 CFR part 3485. (c) The Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost
Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) in 2 CFR part 200, as adopted and amended as regulations of
the Department in 2 CFR part 3474. (d) The NFP.
Note: The regulations in 34 CFR part 79 apply to all applicants
except federally recognized Indian Tribes.
Note: The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 apply to institutions of
higher education (IHEs) only.
II. Award Information
Type of Award: Cooperative agreement.
Estimated Available Funds: $1,750,000.
Estimated Available Funds under IDEA section 663: $1,000,000.
[[Page 42811]]
Estimated Available Funds under IDEA section 616(i): $750,000.
Note: Applicants must submit a separate ED 524 form with a
budget and budget narrative for Absolute Priority 1 only and a
separate ED 524 form with a budget and budget narrative for Absolute
Priority 2 only. The Secretary will reject any application that does
not address all the elements of Absolute Priority 1 separately from
the elements of Absolute Priority 2 and that does not include a
separate budget and budget narrative for Absolute Priority 1,
separate and distinct from a budget and budget narrative for
Absolute Priority 2.
Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of
applications, we may make additional awards in FY 2022 from the list of
unfunded applicants from this competition.
Maximum Award: We will reject and not review any application that
proposes a budget for Absolute Priority 1 that exceeds $1,000,000 or
Absolute Priority 2 that exceeds $750,000 for a single budget period of
12 months, and we will reject and not review any application that
proposes a total budget that exceeds $1,750,000 for a single budget
period of 12 months. The Department may change the maximum amount
through a notice published in the Federal Register.
Estimated Number of Awards: 1.
Note: The Department is not bound by any estimates in this
notice.
Project Period: Up to 60 months.
III. Eligibility Information
1. Eligible Applicants: SEAs; LEAs, including public charter
schools that are considered LEAs under State law; IHEs; other public
agencies; private nonprofit organizations; outlying areas; Indian
Tribes or Tribal organizations; and for-profit organizations.
2. a. Cost Sharing or Matching: This competition does not require
cost sharing or matching.
b. Indirect Cost Rate Information: This program uses an
unrestricted indirect cost rate. For more information regarding
indirect costs, or to obtain a negotiated indirect cost rate, please
see <a href="http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocfo/intro.html">www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocfo/intro.html</a>.
c. Administrative Cost Limitation: This program does not include
any program-specific limitation on administrative expenses. All
administrative expenses must be reasonable and necessary and conform to
the Cost Principles described in 2 CFR part 200 subpart E of the
Uniform Guidance.
3. Subgrantees: A grantee under this competition may not award
subgrants to entities to directly carry out project activities
described in its application. Under 34 CFR 75.708(e), a grantee may
contract for supplies, equipment, and other services in accordance with
2 CFR part 200.
IV. Application and Submission Information
1. Application Submission Instructions: Applicants are required to
follow the Common Instructions for Applicants to Department of
Education Discretionary Grant Programs, published in the Federal
Register on February 13, 2019 (84 FR 3768), and available at
<a href="http://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-02-13/pdf/2019-02206.pdf">www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-02-13/pdf/2019-02206.pdf</a>, which
contain requirements and information on how to submit an application.
2. Intergovernmental Review: This competition is subject to
Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79.
Information about Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs under
Executive Order 12372 is in the application package for this
competition. However, under 34 CFR 79.8(a), we waive intergovernmental
review in order to make an award by the end of FY 2021.
3. Funding Restrictions: We reference regulations outlining funding
restrictions in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice.
4. Recommended Page Limit: The application narrative is where you,
the applicant, address the selection criteria that reviewers use to
evaluate your application. We recommend that you (1) limit the
application narrative to no more than 70 pages and (2) use the
following standards:
<bullet> A ``page'' is 8.5'' x 11'', on one side only, with 1''
margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.
<bullet> 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.
<bullet> Use a font that is 12 point or larger.
<bullet> Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier,
Courier New, or Arial.
The recommended page limit does not apply to the cover sheet; the
budget section, including the narrative budget justification; the
assurances and certifications; or the abstract (follow the guidance
provided in the application package for completing the abstract), the
table of contents, the list of priority requirements, the resumes, the
reference list, the letters of support, or the appendices. However, the
recommended page limit does apply to all of the application narrative,
including all text in charts, tables, figures, graphs, and screen
shots.
V. Application Review Information
1. Selection Criteria: The selection criteria for this competition
are from 34 CFR 75.210 and are as follows:
(a) Significance (10 points).
(1) The Secretary considers the significance of the proposed
project.
(2) In determining the significance of the proposed project, the
Secretary considers the following factors:
(i) The extent to which specific gaps or weaknesses in services,
infrastructure, or opportunities have been identified and will be
addressed by the proposed project, including the nature and magnitude
of those gaps or weaknesses; and
(ii) The importance or magnitude of the results or outcomes likely
to be attained by the proposed project.
(b) Quality of project services (35 points).
(1) The Secretary considers the quality of the services to be
provided by the proposed project.
(2) In determining the quality of the services to be provided by
the proposed project, the Secretary considers the quality and
sufficiency of strategies for ensuring equal access and treatment for
eligible project participants who are members of groups that have
traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national
origin, gender, age, or disability.
(3) In addition, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(i) The extent to which the goals, objectives, and outcomes to be
achieved by the proposed project are clearly specified and measurable;
(ii) The extent to which there is a conceptual framework underlying
the proposed research or demonstration activities and the quality of
that framework;
(iii) The extent to which the services to be provided by the
proposed project reflect up-to-date knowledge from research and
effective practice;
(iv) The extent to which the services to be provided by the
proposed project are appropriate to the needs of the intended
recipients or beneficiaries of those services; and
(v) The extent to which the TA services to be provided by the
proposed project involve the use of efficient strategies, including the
use of technology, as appropriate, and the leveraging of non-project
resources.
(c) Quality of the project evaluation (20 points).
(1) The Secretary considers the quality of the evaluation to be
conducted of the proposed project.
[[Page 42812]]
(2) In determining the quality of the evaluation, the Secretary
considers the following factors:
(i) The extent to which the methods of evaluation are thorough,
feasible, and appropriate to the goals, objectives, and outcomes of the
proposed project;
(ii) The extent to which the methods of evaluation provide for
examining the effectiveness of project implementation strategies;
(iii) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will provide
performance feedback and permit periodic assessment of progress toward
achieving intended outcomes; and
(iv) The extent to which the methods of evaluation include the use
of objective performance measures that are clearly related to the
intended outcomes of the project and will produce quantitative and
qualitative data to the extent possible.
(d) Adequacy of resources and quality of project personnel (15
points).
(1) The Secretary considers the adequacy of resources for the
proposed project and the quality of the personnel who will carry out
the proposed project.
(2) In determining the quality of project personnel, the Secretary
considers the extent to which the applicant encourages applications for
employment from persons who are members of groups that have
traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national
origin, gender, age, or disability.
(3) In addition, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(i) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience,
of the project director or principal investigator;
(ii) The qualifications, including relevant training and
experience, of key project personnel;
(iii) The adequacy of support, including facilities, equipment,
supplies, and other resources, from the applicant organization or the
lead applicant organization;
(iv) The extent to which the costs are reasonable in relation to
the objectives, design, and potential significance of the proposed
project.
(e) Quality of the management plan (20 points).
(1) The Secretary considers the quality of the management plan for
the proposed project.
(2) In determining the quality of the management plan for the
proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(i) The adequacy of the management plan to achieve the objectives
of the proposed project on time and within budget, including clearly
defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing
project tasks;
(ii) The extent to which the time commitments of the project
director and principal investigator and other key project personnel are
appropriate and adequate to meet the objectives of the proposed
project;
(iii) The adequacy of mechanisms for ensuring high-quality products
and services from the proposed project; and
(iv) How the applicant will ensure that a diversity of perspectives
are brought to bear in the operation of the proposed project, including
those of parents, teachers, the business community, a variety of
disciplinary and professional fields, recipients or beneficiaries of
services, or others, as appropriate.
2. Review and Selection Process: We remind potential applicants
that in reviewing applications in any discretionary grant competition,
the Secretary may consider, under 34 CFR 75.217(d)(3), the past
performance of the applicant in carrying out a previous award, such as
the applicant's use of funds, achievement of project objectives, and
compliance with grant conditions. The Secretary may also consider
whether the applicant failed to submit a timely performance report or
submitted a report of unacceptable quality.
In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary
requires various assurances, including those applicable to Federal
civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or
activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department
(34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
3. Additional Review and Selection Process Factors: In the past,
the Department has had difficulty finding peer reviewers for certain
competitions because so many individuals who are eligible to serve as
peer reviewers have conflicts of interest. Therefore, the Department
has determined that for some discretionary grant competitions,
applications may be separated into two or more groups and ranked and
selected for funding within specific groups. This procedure will make
it easier for the Department to find peer reviewers by ensuring that
greater numbers of individuals who are eligible to serve as reviewers
for any particular group of applicants will not have conflicts of
interest. It also will increase the quality, independence, and fairness
of the review process, while permitting panel members to review
applications under discretionary grant competitions for which they also
have submitted applications.
4. Risk Assessment and Specific Conditions: Consistent with 2 CFR
200.206, before awarding grants under this competition the Department
conducts a review of the risks posed by applicants. Under 2 CFR
200.208, the Secretary may impose specific conditions, and under 2 CFR
3474.10, in appropriate circumstances, high-risk conditions on a grant
if the applicant or grantee is not financially stable; has a history of
unsatisfactory performance; has a financial or other management system
that does not meet the standards in 2 CFR part 200, subpart D; has not
fulfilled the conditions of a prior grant; or is otherwise not
responsible.
5. Integrity and Performance System: If you are selected under this
competition to receive an award that over the course of the project
period may exceed the simplified acquisition threshold (currently
$250,000), under 2 CFR 200.206(a)(2) we must make a judgment about your
integrity, business ethics, and record of performance under Federal
awards--that is, the risk posed by you as an applicant--before we make
an award. In doing so, we must consider any information about you that
is in the integrity and performance system (currently referred to as
the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System
(FAPIIS)), accessible through the System for Award Management. You may
review and comment on any information about yourself that a Federal
agency previously entered and that is currently in FAPIIS.
Please note that, if the total value of your currently active
grants, cooperative agreements, and procurement contracts from the
Federal Government exceeds $10,000,000, the reporting requirements in 2
CFR part 200, Appendix XII, require you to report certain integrity
information to FAPIIS semiannually. Please review the requirements in 2
CFR part 200, Appendix XII, if this grant plus all the other Federal
funds you receive exceed $10,000,000.
6. In General: In accordance with the Office of Management and
Budget's guidance located at 2 CFR part 200, all applicable Federal
laws, and relevant Executive guidance, the Department will review and
consider applications for funding pursuant to this notice inviting
applications in accordance with--
(a) Selecting recipients most likely to be successful in delivering
results based on the program objectives through an objective process of
evaluating Federal award applications (2 CFR 200.205);
(b) Prohibiting the purchase of certain telecommunication and video
surveillance services or equipment in
[[Page 42813]]
alignment with section 889 of the National Defense Authorization Act of
2019 (Pub. L. 115-232) (2 CFR 200.216);
(c) Providing a preference, to the extent permitted by law, to
maximize use of goods, products, and materials produced in the United
States (2 CFR 200.322); and
(d) Terminating agreements in whole or in part to the greatest
extent authorized by law if an award no longer effectuates the program
goals or agency priorities (2 CFR 200.340).
VI. Award Administration Information
1. Award Notices: If your application is successful, we notify your
U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators and send you a Grant Award
Notification (GAN); or we may send you an email containing a link to
access an electronic version of your GAN. We may notify you informally,
also.
If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding,
we notify you.
2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements: We identify
administrative and national policy requirements in the application
package and reference these and other requirements in the Applicable
Regulations section of this notice.
We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of
an award in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice and
include these and other specific conditions in the GAN. The GAN also
incorporates your approved application as part of your binding
commitments under the grant.
3. Open Licensing Requirements: Unless an exception applies, if you
are awarded a grant under this competition, you will be required to
openly license to the public grant deliverables created in whole, or in
part, with Department grant funds. When the deliverable consists of
modifications to pre-existing works, the license extends only to those
modifications that can be separately identified and only to the extent
that open licensing is permitted under the terms of any licenses or
other legal restrictions on the use of pre-existing works.
Additionally, a grantee that is awarded competitive grant funds must
have a plan to disseminate these public grant deliverables. This
dissemination plan can be developed and submitted after your
application has been reviewed and selected for funding. For additional
information on the open licensing requirements please refer to 2 CFR
3474.20.
4. Reporting: (a) If you apply for a grant under this competition,
you must ensure that you have in place the necessary processes and
systems to comply with the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 170
should you receive funding under the competition. This does not apply
if you have an exception under 2 CFR 170.110(b).
(b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final
performance report, including financial information, as directed by the
Secretary. If you receive a multiyear award, you must submit an annual
performance report that provides the most current performance and
financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34
CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance
reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting,
please go to <a href="http://www.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/appforms/appforms.html">www.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/appforms/appforms.html</a>.
5. Performance Measures: For the purposes of the Government
Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) and reporting under 34 CFR
75.110, we have established a set of performance measures, including
long-term measures, that are designed to yield information on various
aspects of the effectiveness and quality of the Technical Assistance
and Dissemination to Improve Services and Results for Children with
Disabilities program. These measures are:
<bullet> Program Performance Measure 1: The percentage of technical
assistance and dissemination products and services deemed to be of high
quality by an independent review panel of experts qualified to review
the substantive content of the products and services.
<bullet> Program Performance Measure 2: The percentage of special
education technical assistance and dissemination products and services
deemed by an independent review panel of qualified experts to be of
high relevance to educational and early intervention policy or
practice.
<bullet> Program Performance Measure 3: The percentage of all
special education technical assistance and dissemination products and
services deemed by an independent review panel of qualified experts to
be useful in improving educational or early intervention policy or
practice.
<bullet> Program Performance Measure 4: The cost efficiency of the
Technical Assistance and Dissemination to Improve Services and Results
for Children with Disabilities program includes the percentage of
milestones achieved in the current annual performance report period and
the percentage of funds spent during the current fiscal year.
<bullet> Long-term Program Performance Measure: The percentage of
States receiving special education technical assistance and
dissemination services regarding scientifically or evidence-based
practices for infants, toddlers, children, and youth with disabilities
that successfully promote the implementation of those practices in
school districts and service agencies.
Note: These measures apply only to activities funded under the
Technical Assistance and Dissemination to Improve Services and
Results for Children with Disabilities program (i.e., Absolute
Priority 1), and grantees are required to submit data on these
measures as directed by OSEP.
Grantees will be required to report information on their project's
performance in annual and final performance reports to the Department
(34 CFR 75.590).
The Department will also closely monitor the extent to which the
products and services provided by the Center meet needs identified by
stakeholders and may require the Center to report on such alignment in
their annual and final performance reports.
6. Continuation Awards: In making a continuation award under 34 CFR
75.253, the Secretary considers, among other things: Whether a grantee
has made substantial progress in achieving the goals and objectives of
the project; whether the grantee has expended funds in a manner that is
consistent with its approved application and budget; and, if the
Secretary has established performance measurement requirements, whether
the grantee has made substantial progress in achieving the performance
targets in the grantee's approved application.
In making a continuation award, the Secretary also considers
whether the grantee is operating in compliance with the assurances in
its approved application, including those applicable to Federal civil
rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities
receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR
100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
VII. Other Information
Accessible Format: On request to the program contact person listed
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, individuals with disabilities
can obtain this document and a copy of the application package in an
accessible format. The Department will provide the requestor with an
accessible format that may include Rich Text Format (RTF) or text
format (txt), a thumb drive, an MP3 file, braille, large print,
audiotape, or compact disc, or other accessible format.
Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this
document is the document published in the Federal Register. You may
access the official
[[Page 42814]]
edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations at
<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.
Katherine Neas,
Acting Assistant Secretary for the Office of Special Education and
Rehabilitative Services.
[FR Doc. 2021-16855 Filed 8-3-21; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on August 5, 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.