Rule2022-12712
Final priority-State Personnel Development Grants
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
June 10, 2022
Effective
July 11, 2022
Issuing agencies
Education Department
Abstract
The Department of Education (Department) announces a priority under the State Personnel Development Grants (SPDG), Assistance Listing Number 84.323A. The Department may use the priority for competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2022 and later years. We take this action to focus attention on the need to improve results for children with disabilities and their families by supporting a comprehensive system of personnel development (CSPD) for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Part C Grants for Infants and Families program.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 87 Issue 112 (Friday, June 10, 2022)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 112 (Friday, June 10, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 35415-35419]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2022-12712]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Chapter III
[Docket ID ED-2021-OSERS-0018]
Final priority--State Personnel Development Grants
AGENCY: Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services
(OSERS), Department of Education.
ACTION: Final priority.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Education (Department) announces a priority
under the State Personnel Development Grants (SPDG), Assistance Listing
Number 84.323A. The Department may use the priority for competitions in
fiscal year (FY) 2022 and later years. We take this action to focus
attention on the need to improve results for children with disabilities
and their families by supporting a comprehensive system of personnel
development (CSPD) for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA) Part C Grants for Infants and Families program.
DATES: Effective July 11, 2022.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Coffey, U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 5134, Potomac Center Plaza,
Washington, DC 20202-5134. Telephone: (202) 245-6673. Email:
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#107a757e7e797675623e737f767675695075743e777f66"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="5e343b303037383b2c703d3138383b271e3b3a70393128">[email protected]</span></a>.
If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability and
wish to access telecommunications relay services, please dial 7-1-1.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Purpose of Program: The purpose of the SPDG program is to assist
State educational agencies (SEAs) in reforming and improving their
systems for personnel preparation and professional development in early
intervention, educational, and transition services to improve results
for children with disabilities.
Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1451-1455.
We published a notice of proposed priority (NPP) for this program
in the Federal Register on February 1, 2022 (87 FR 5432). That document
contained background information and our reasons for proposing the
priority.
[[Page 35416]]
There are some differences between the NPP and this notice of final
priority (NFP) as discussed in the Analysis of Comments and Changes
section of this document.
Public Comment: In response to our invitation in the NPP, 17
parties submitted comments on the proposed priority. Generally, we do
not address technical and other minor changes, or suggested changes the
law does not authorize us to make under the applicable statutory
authority. In addition, we do not address general comments that raised
concerns not directly related to the proposed priority.
Analysis of Comments and Changes: An analysis of the comments and
of any changes in the priority since publication of the NPP follows.
Comment: One commenter asked whether the Department determined
where funds should be used in a State. Other commenters recommended
making these funds available for recruitment of highly qualified early
intervention staff.
Discussion: While the Department agrees that the recruitment of
highly qualified early intervention staff is an appropriate use of
funds, we want to provide flexibility to SEAs (working in partnership
with State lead agencies (LAs)) (``applicants'' or ``SEA applicant'')
to determine how funds are used within the constraints of a notice
inviting applications (NIA). This flexibility allows these applicants
to choose the programming and sites they would like to support via
professional development and the CSPD.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter requested that the Department stipulate the
amount and percentage of SPDG funding to be used for activities or
personnel development for those working with infants, toddlers, and
their families.
Discussion: The Department does not want to stipulate the amount of
funding, because the Department wants to provide flexibility to SEA
applicants (working in partnership with State LAs) to determine the
amount of funding based on the proposed activities. Typically, an NIA
under the SPDG program provides a number of areas a State can choose
from to focus their efforts so that they best meet the needs of their
State.
However, as noted by the commenter, to achieve this priority, it
will be essential for the State to at least specify the percentage of
funding. As a result, we are clarifying in the priority language that a
State must indicate the amount and percentage of SPDG funding that will
support implementation of the CSPD over the project period and how
funding will complement current efforts and investments (Federal IDEA
Part C appropriations and State and local funds) to implement the CSPD.
Additionally, we are clarifying a State must describe the extent to
which funds will be used on activities to increase and train personnel
working with infants and toddlers and their families that have
historically been underserved by Part C.
Changes: We have replaced ``should'' with ``must,'' in the first
paragraph of the priority, ``Supporting an IDEA Part C Comprehensive
System of Personnel Development'' in the NIA to make clear that an
applicant must provide the amount and percentage of SPDG funding that
will support implementation of the CSPD over the project period and how
funding will complement current efforts and investments (Federal IDEA
Part C appropriations and State and local funds) to implement the CSPD.
We also replaced ``should'' with ``must,'' in the description of the
priority, ``Supporting an IDEA Part C Comprehensive System of Personnel
Development'' prior to the grant's ``Program Requirements'' section to
make clear that an applicant must also describe the extent to which
funds will be used on activities to increase and train personnel
working with infants and toddlers and their families that have
historically been underserved by Part C.
Comment: One commenter described how their State's CSPD has brought
together a diverse group of stakeholders and has provided a focus for
important workforce issues critical to the education of their youngest
learners.
Discussion: We agree that the CSPD can support collaborative,
ongoing efforts to develop a knowledgeable and skilled early childhood
workforce.
Changes: None.
Comment: Three commenters described how necessary this priority is
because there are insufficient resources and funding to support the use
of evidence-based early intervention services that improve outcomes for
children with disabilities. And three commenters supported the use of
the SPDG in supporting effective practices in early childhood services.
Discussion: The Department agrees that supporting evidence-based
practices for the youngest children can result in substantial impact.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested that it could be more time
efficient to have a national technical assistance (TA) provider work
with staff within States.
Discussion: While the Department agrees and notes that it does fund
a national TA center that supports the development of CSPDs in States--
the Early Childhood Personnel Center (<a href="https://ecpcta.org/">https://ecpcta.org/</a>)--additional
resources are needed under the SPDG program to build sustainable
systems within a State. Furthermore, the purpose of this priority is to
ensure that SEAs work collaboratively with LAs by developing a
partnership, and this funding would support such a partnership.
Changes: None.
Comment: Eleven commenters stated that this priority will assist
with the extreme shortage of early childhood personnel.
Discussion: We agree that there are early childhood personnel
shortages and this grant program can be used to support statewide
strategies to recruit and retain personnel.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter shared that early intervention personnel
need more support in implementing recommended early childhood
practices.
Discussion: We agree that early intervention personnel need support
in implementing recommended early childhood practices. This support can
be a focus of the SPDG activities.
Changes: None.
Comment: Four commenters shared that the CSPD is integral to an
effective system for Part C of the IDEA and that a comprehensive system
facilitates communication, collaboration, and implementation of
coordinated components of personnel standards; recruitment and
retention; pre-service and in-service training; and sustainability of a
qualified workforce, which includes a statewide workforce tracking
system.
Discussion: We agree with the commenters that a CSPD is integral to
an effective Part C system and that a comprehensive system includes
these elements.
Changes: None.
Comment: Three commenters asked that the Department require each of
the elements of the CSPD.
Discussion: This priority lists the components from the CSPD that
are required by section 635(a)(8) of the IDEA (34 CFR 303.118(a)). The
Department is cognizant that not all Part C programs under IDEA have
the infrastructure in place to carry out all aspects of the CSPD and
that SPDG funds are administered by SEAs under section 652 of the IDEA,
which is why
[[Page 35417]]
the priority requires SEAs (that are not LAs) to apply for SPDG funds
in partnership with LAs to support further development of these
components.
Changes: None.
Comment: Three commenters shared the opinion that this funding
would be the most helpful if used to provide updated mental health
training in local educational agencies (LEAs) and schools.
Discussion: Since this priority focuses on the Part C CSPD, it
cannot support training for LEAs and schools.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter was concerned that practices supported in a
CSPD be evidence-based, a good fit for the context, and evaluated
properly with data.
Discussion: We agree that practices supported in a CSPD must be
evidence-based, a good fit for the context, and evaluated properly with
data. The SPDG supports the use of evidence-based practices.
We also agree that the context in which the evidence-based
practices are implemented is a critical consideration and that data
must be used to evaluate the fidelity and effects of the practice.
Changes: None.
Comment: Two commenters shared that the needs of children vary
dramatically across rural and inner-city communities, and one commenter
recommended that the Department require States to provide what they
understand their specific, community-based needs are and how the grant
funding will directly support students who are most vulnerable.
Discussion: We agree that the context where children with
disabilities are being served should be considered when planning
services. Sections 651 through 655 of the IDEA, as amended by the Every
Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), requires projects to review the needs in
the State, including areas in need of improvement related to the
preparation, ongoing training, and professional development of
personnel who serve infants, toddlers, preschoolers, and children with
disabilities within the State, including different geographical needs
within the State. Each applicant is required to include a plan that
aligns with sections of the IDEA as specified earlier in this
paragraph.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended setting clear standards for the
qualifications of service providers.
Discussion: The Department agrees as this is consistent with the
law. Under section 632(4)(F) of the IDEA, the CSPD requires the State
to establish and maintain a system that results in qualified personnel.
Under 34 CFR 303.31, qualified personnel is defined as qualifications
that are consistent with State-approved or recognized certification,
licensing, registration, or other comparable requirements that apply to
the areas in which personnel are conducting evaluations or assessments
or providing early intervention services.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department support
apprenticeship programs for improved retention of disability service
providers and educators. According to this commenter, these
apprenticeships offer the opportunity for dedicated, passionate
individuals to pursue careers in paraprofessional services without the
financial burden of attending a traditional, full-time university.
Additionally, this commenter noted that these programs address the
paraprofessional staff shortages experienced by schools across the
Nation.
Discussion: The Department considers an apprenticeship program that
addresses the needs that the State has identified under its CSPD an
allowable use of funds.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended the Department clearly define
transition services and provide clearer standards as to what
constitutes effective services for infants and toddlers with
disabilities who are moving from an early intervention program to the
general education curriculum.
Discussion: Defining transition services is unnecessary because
Part C of the IDEA identifies the transition service requirements in
IDEA section 637(a)(9) and 34 CFR 303.209 \1\ and including personnel
training activities focused on transition services is an option for a
SPDG developing their CSPD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 34 CFR 303.209 identifies the transition requirements for
all toddlers with disabilities receiving services under Part C of
the IDEA before those toddlers turn three-years old. Transition
services are those services that assist toddlers with disabilities
and their families to experience a smooth and effective transition
from the early intervention program under Part C to the child's next
program or other appropriate services, including services that may
be identified for a child who is no longer eligible to receive Part
C or Part B services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter noted that more funding needs to be provided
to support early childhood programming. The commenter shared that many
States must use an in-service model to train providers, but that this
model can put substantial strain on the State's system if the costs of
training are not offset by other funding sources.
Discussion: This priority is intended to provide funding to SEAs
working with LAs to support the LA's Part C CSPD which the Department
believes will have a positive effect on early intervention services for
infants and toddlers.
Change: None.
Comment: One commenter voiced opposition to the proposed priority
stating that it would have the unintended consequence of giving a
competitive advantage to SEAs that are State LAs responsible for
administering Part C. The commenter was also concerned that the
priority might reduce the competitiveness of States whose SPDG focus is
not related to Part C.
Discussion: The Department is confident that State LAs interested
in this priority will successfully pursue a collaborative partnership
with the SEA applicant and that SEAs will see the benefits of the
collaborative partnership.
Change: None.
Comment: The same commenter shared concerns that this priority
would be a burden for SEAs by requiring them to partner with LAs,
oversee grant activities, and evaluate the LA's efforts. This commenter
was also concerned that the priority might cause an SEA to change its
focus to a Part C activity and disrupt an effort already underway that
could be funded by the SPDG.
Discussion: We thank the commenter for raising this concern. We
agree that some additional administrative responsibilities could fall
on an SEA that is not an LA to address this priority. The Department,
however, is confident that establishing a working partnership across
the SEA and LA for Part C will ultimately benefit infants and toddlers
with disabilities.
Change: None.
Comment: Two commenters supported a competitive preference
priority.
Discussion: The Department thanks these commenters and will
consider their suggestions. The specification of the type of priority,
however, belongs in the NIA, not the NFP, to enable the Department to
determine on a competition-by-competition basis, whether to make the
priority an absolute or competitive preference priority.
Change: None.
Comment: Two commenters supported the priority as a means to
encourage partnerships between the SEA and the State LA for Part C and
to integrate early intervention personnel preparation and professional
[[Page 35418]]
development needs into statewide planning.
Discussion: The Department appreciates the support for this
priority, which requires partnerships between the SEA and LA.
Changes: None.
FINAL PRIORITY:
Supporting an IDEA Part C Comprehensive System of Personnel
Development (CSPD).
The purpose of this priority is to fund projects designed to enable
the State to meet the CSPD requirements of section 635(a)(8) and (9) of
the IDEA. In order to be considered for a grant under this priority, if
the SEA is not the State LA for IDEA Part C, an SEA must establish a
partnership, consistent with IDEA section 652(b)(1)(B), with the State
LA responsible for administering IDEA Part C.
Consistent with IDEA section 635(a)(8) this priority will help
improve the capacity of States' IDEA Part C personnel development,
including the training of paraprofessionals and the training of primary
referral sources with respect to the basic components of early
intervention services available in the State. The CSPD must include,
consistent with 34 CFR 303.118(a): (1) Training personnel to implement
innovative strategies and activities for the recruitment and retention
of early education service providers; (2) Promoting the preparation of
early intervention providers who are fully and appropriately qualified
to provide early intervention services under this part; and (3)
Training personnel to coordinate transition services for infants and
toddlers with disabilities who are transitioning from an early
intervention service program under Part C of the Act to a preschool
program under section 619 of the Act, Head Start, Early Head Start, an
elementary school program under Part B of the Act, or another
appropriate program. The IDEA Part C CSPD may also include, consistent
with 34 CFR 303.118(b): (1) Training personnel to work in rural and
urban areas; (2) Training personnel in the social and emotional
development of young children; (3) Training personnel to support
families in participating fully in the development and implementation
of the child's Individualized Family Service Plan; and (4) Training
personnel who provide services under this part using standards that are
consistent with early learning personnel development standards funded
under the State Advisory Council on Early Childhood Education and Care
established under the Head Start Act, if applicable. The SEA must
include in its State plan how it will partner with the State LA, if the
SEA is not the State LA for IDEA Part C, to implement these aspects of
the CSPD. The description of the partnership must indicate the amount
and percentage of SPDG funding that will support implementation of the
CSPD over the project period and how funding will complement current
efforts and investments (Federal IDEA Part C appropriations and State
and local funds) to implement the CSPD. The description must also
describe the extent to which funds will be used on activities to
increase and train personnel working with infants and toddlers and
their families that have historically been underserved by Part C.
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 priority.
However, we do not give an application that meets the priority a
preference over other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)).
This document does not preclude us from proposing additional
priorities, requirements, definitions, or selection criteria, subject
to meeting applicable rulemaking requirements.
Note: This document does not solicit applications. In any year in
which we choose to use this priority, 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.
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
[[Page 35419]]
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 this final priority only on a reasoned determination
that its benefits justify the costs. In choosing among alternative
regulatory approaches, we selected the approach that maximizes net
benefits. Based on the analysis that follows, the Department believes
that this regulatory 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.
Summary of potential costs and benefits: The Department believes
that the costs associated with the final priority will be minimal,
while the potential 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 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
burdensome for eligible applicants, including small entities.
Regulatory Alternatives Considered
The Department believes that the priority is needed to administer
the program effectively.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
The final priority contains information collection requirements
that are approved by OMB under OMB control number 1820-0028; the final
priority does 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 Size Standards define ``small entities'' as
for-profit or nonprofit institutions with total annual revenue below
$7,000,000 or, if they are institutions controlled by small
governmental jurisdictions (that are comprised of cities, counties,
towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts),
with a population of less than 50,000.
Participation in the SPDG program is voluntary. In addition, the
only eligible entities for this program are SEAs, which do not meet the
definition of a small entity. For these reasons, the final priority
will not impose any additional burden on small entities.
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 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.
Katherine Neas,
Deputy Assistant Secretary. Delegated the authority to perform the
functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for the Office of
Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.
[FR Doc. 2022-12712 Filed 6-8-22; 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 June 10, 2022.
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.